Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin, Texas, will be announced as the next Archbishop of Galveston-Houston this week, sources close to the process have confirmed to The Pillar.
That list at the end, boy are we in for some turnover. Not mentioned in the article but a new archbishop of Milwaukee has also just recently been installed.
Bishop Vazquez has allowed the TLM to continue to be celebrated in the diocese, but it is not true that he continues to allow it in the Austin Cathedral. He ended that as of March 19, 2024. Now they celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin, which in my opinion is basically pointless. I'd rather have the TLM form in English than the Novus Ordo in Latin. https://www.austinlatinmass.org/
I have said for years that the real “reform of the reform” should be translating the TLM into English (etc) and making some updates to the lectionary, tweaking a few rubrics, and so on. The Novus Ordo in Latin is absolutely the worst of both liturgies, IMHO (and I used to attend a Latin NO mass with some regularity).
For some reason every time I say this to anyone across the ecclesiastical spectrum I get the most awful pushback. I thought I was the only one who felt this way! Glad there are two of us.
I was being a little facetious, I only meant to suggest a really uncommon overlap of liturgical practices. People who want the mass in Latin mostly want the Tridentine mass, while people who (affirmatively, in a way more than just preferring the default) want the Novus Ordo are usually very committed to mass in the vernacular. Ergo it's not too clear whom a Latin Novus Ordo is for.
I've never been fortunate enough to belong to a (edit to add- non TLM) parish that has and uses an altar rail, so my experience has been that those who kneel to receive universally want to receive on the tongue and those who receive on the hand want to receive standing. Certainly no criticism of the practice, I just thought it was something that didn't ever happen.
Now that I think about it, at my previous parish, everyone would kneel at the altar rail and the priest would distribute down the line, and I imagine maybe 1 in 8 would receive the Lord in the hand. I'm going to be thinking about this a lot now!
And while I'm at it, it's for the same reasons I detailed that I agree with Seth that the Tridentine Mass translated into the vernacular would do much more to quiet our liturgy wars than the Latin Novus Ordo. It would give each 'side' the thing they find most essential.
Based on all of the comments I've read over the last year or two, 99% of all created things are "horrible liberal" according to his operating definition.
The only solution is prayer. I suggest 15 minutes of silent prayer upon rising before doing anything else in the day - one sets one's alarm clock a little earlier to make the time for this and then it will be possible to retire a little earlier in the evening to compensate. I rely on you to do your part in this, as it is a game changer if taken seriously.
I get that people got mad at Vasquez because he was the guy who got handed Tyler when Strickland was deposed (a hot potato I'm sure he didn't ask for) but this assessment of him doesn't seem justified at all.
So far, Pope Francis has not yet remade the American hierarchy to the extent that JP2 did during his pontificate who had himself had inherited a liberal episcopate and the priests were largely of liberal ilk. Yes, there has been a shift, but not to the same extent.
I suspect that this is because Francis’ ideal episcopate as a whole is not that much further to the left than JP2. Also Cardinals Pierre and Wuerl almost certainly have been moderating voices against Cupich and McElroy.
This theory will be tested however during the coming year or two. If we start seeing more Cupiches, Stowes, and McElroys showing up (may be not in the larger sees, but in smaller sees opening up due to transfers) then we could begin to see a seismic shift in the USCCB.
I agree with all of this. Not a significant shift and I would also use your key word--"yet". In my view, +Henning, +Grob, and +Vasquez could well have been JP2/B16 choices. What's striking to me, and this may be my own ignorance, is that I don't think +Cupich has a lot of options to remake the hierarchy. Who's out there? +Weisenberger, +Biegler, +Etienne, +Stowe and who else?
Other than +Stowe, that group is already in their mid-60s. B16 almost always named guys who were age 60 or a year or two younger (tougher situations, like Philly and DC, were notable exceptions). Think of +Gomez, +Dolan, +Lucas, +Schnurr, +Aymond, +Wenski, +Jackels, etc. JP2 also took a long view with his archepiscopal appointments--+Law then +O'Malley, +Bernadin then +George, +Mahony, +Keeler, +Chaput, +Levada, +Naumann, etc.
So far with Francis, +McElroy will turn 71 in a couple weeks, +Grob will turn 64 in a couple months, and +Vasquez 68 this summer. Even prior to this, +Cupich, +Tobin, +Coyne, and +Wester were already in their mid-60s when appointed, as well. +Henning and +Perez are the aberrations at 60, and +Thompson even more so at 56. And those three wouldn't be confused for being on the +Cupich wing.
+Quinn, +Hunthausen, +Weakland each got 15+ years to make their mark and the first two would've gotten more had they not been retired early. Looking at the 34 ordinaries (plus a co-adjutor) who are 60 or younger, how many options are there for a "liberal" to be promoted to archbishop? Granted, ten years--and likely closer to 15 for +Cupich and +Tobin if health and energy permit--is a lot of time, but is it enough time to be transformative? I'm not enough of a church watcher to know the answer to that, but I have my doubts.
Like you said, we'll get to test all of this in the coming year or two.
That's my assumption, but...it wouldn't be absurd to think he'd be named +Cupich's co-adjutor. Learn the ropes of Chicago for a year or two before his patron retires. This depends, of course, on just how much influence +Cupich has with His Holiness to get his way (if that is, in fact, who he would want as a successor). The Pillar's reporting made clear Pope Francis was over his lobbying for DC.
I suppose that's possible, though following up one total outsider to the Chicago archdiocese with another might be a little much. Biegler in Denver might even be good for the place.
One interesting aspect of this appointment, and many others, is the age of the newly appointed (arch)bishops. Archbishop Vasquez is in his late 60s, Cardinal DiNardo was appointed to the same archdiocese at the age of 55. Cardinal McElroy is in his early 70s. How much bandwith does anyone have at that age?
What are we to make of this? I think it comes down to the fact that we are living in a gerontocracy. Those who choose bishops do not trust anyone younger for these assignments.
This is a blessing. P Francis has not been able to return the US episcopacy to the 1980s vision that many assume he desires. It also means that many of his appointments will not have long-term consequences.
My argument is not a reflection of Archbishop Vasquez. He seems like a good and holy bishop. So while many are happy that these appointments are not going to have a long-term or a long-lasting impact, we should be very concerned. For what the Church in the US needs is a vigorous leadership that can provide a unified vision that will regenerize all Catholics.
Who's likely to replace Bishop Vasquez in Austin?
Wow!
I'm surprised +Flores didn't get the nod. I wonder if he may be a contender for New York.
That list at the end, boy are we in for some turnover. Not mentioned in the article but a new archbishop of Milwaukee has also just recently been installed.
I hope Cardinal Pierre is allowed to work until he turns 80 next year to shape many of these new appointments.
Another horrible liberal appointment by our horrible liberal pope.
Bishop Vazquez has allowed the TLM to continue to be celebrated in the diocese, but it is not true that he continues to allow it in the Austin Cathedral. He ended that as of March 19, 2024. Now they celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin, which in my opinion is basically pointless. I'd rather have the TLM form in English than the Novus Ordo in Latin. https://www.austinlatinmass.org/
I have said for years that the real “reform of the reform” should be translating the TLM into English (etc) and making some updates to the lectionary, tweaking a few rubrics, and so on. The Novus Ordo in Latin is absolutely the worst of both liturgies, IMHO (and I used to attend a Latin NO mass with some regularity).
For some reason every time I say this to anyone across the ecclesiastical spectrum I get the most awful pushback. I thought I was the only one who felt this way! Glad there are two of us.
I also feel this way. Novus Ordo in Latin is like kneeling to take communion on the hand
I have seen people do that
TIL that people sometimes kneel and take communion on the hand. No criticism intended.
Ooof. I'm a kneeler--when there's a communion rail--and taker in the hand. No good?
I was being a little facetious, I only meant to suggest a really uncommon overlap of liturgical practices. People who want the mass in Latin mostly want the Tridentine mass, while people who (affirmatively, in a way more than just preferring the default) want the Novus Ordo are usually very committed to mass in the vernacular. Ergo it's not too clear whom a Latin Novus Ordo is for.
I've never been fortunate enough to belong to a (edit to add- non TLM) parish that has and uses an altar rail, so my experience has been that those who kneel to receive universally want to receive on the tongue and those who receive on the hand want to receive standing. Certainly no criticism of the practice, I just thought it was something that didn't ever happen.
Now that I think about it, at my previous parish, everyone would kneel at the altar rail and the priest would distribute down the line, and I imagine maybe 1 in 8 would receive the Lord in the hand. I'm going to be thinking about this a lot now!
And while I'm at it, it's for the same reasons I detailed that I agree with Seth that the Tridentine Mass translated into the vernacular would do much more to quiet our liturgy wars than the Latin Novus Ordo. It would give each 'side' the thing they find most essential.
How do you define liberal? I wouldn't call +Vasquez anything near that realm.
Based on all of the comments I've read over the last year or two, 99% of all created things are "horrible liberal" according to his operating definition.
Vasquez seems like a reasonable and solid choice to me. He's hardly a McElroy.
I’ve sung a lot of traditional music at liturgies for Bishop Joe, and he’s never had anything but praise for it.
The only solution is prayer. I suggest 15 minutes of silent prayer upon rising before doing anything else in the day - one sets one's alarm clock a little earlier to make the time for this and then it will be possible to retire a little earlier in the evening to compensate. I rely on you to do your part in this, as it is a game changer if taken seriously.
I get that people got mad at Vasquez because he was the guy who got handed Tyler when Strickland was deposed (a hot potato I'm sure he didn't ask for) but this assessment of him doesn't seem justified at all.
So far, Pope Francis has not yet remade the American hierarchy to the extent that JP2 did during his pontificate who had himself had inherited a liberal episcopate and the priests were largely of liberal ilk. Yes, there has been a shift, but not to the same extent.
I suspect that this is because Francis’ ideal episcopate as a whole is not that much further to the left than JP2. Also Cardinals Pierre and Wuerl almost certainly have been moderating voices against Cupich and McElroy.
This theory will be tested however during the coming year or two. If we start seeing more Cupiches, Stowes, and McElroys showing up (may be not in the larger sees, but in smaller sees opening up due to transfers) then we could begin to see a seismic shift in the USCCB.
I agree with all of this. Not a significant shift and I would also use your key word--"yet". In my view, +Henning, +Grob, and +Vasquez could well have been JP2/B16 choices. What's striking to me, and this may be my own ignorance, is that I don't think +Cupich has a lot of options to remake the hierarchy. Who's out there? +Weisenberger, +Biegler, +Etienne, +Stowe and who else?
Other than +Stowe, that group is already in their mid-60s. B16 almost always named guys who were age 60 or a year or two younger (tougher situations, like Philly and DC, were notable exceptions). Think of +Gomez, +Dolan, +Lucas, +Schnurr, +Aymond, +Wenski, +Jackels, etc. JP2 also took a long view with his archepiscopal appointments--+Law then +O'Malley, +Bernadin then +George, +Mahony, +Keeler, +Chaput, +Levada, +Naumann, etc.
So far with Francis, +McElroy will turn 71 in a couple weeks, +Grob will turn 64 in a couple months, and +Vasquez 68 this summer. Even prior to this, +Cupich, +Tobin, +Coyne, and +Wester were already in their mid-60s when appointed, as well. +Henning and +Perez are the aberrations at 60, and +Thompson even more so at 56. And those three wouldn't be confused for being on the +Cupich wing.
+Quinn, +Hunthausen, +Weakland each got 15+ years to make their mark and the first two would've gotten more had they not been retired early. Looking at the 34 ordinaries (plus a co-adjutor) who are 60 or younger, how many options are there for a "liberal" to be promoted to archbishop? Granted, ten years--and likely closer to 15 for +Cupich and +Tobin if health and energy permit--is a lot of time, but is it enough time to be transformative? I'm not enough of a church watcher to know the answer to that, but I have my doubts.
Like you said, we'll get to test all of this in the coming year or two.
Biegler has got to be going to Denver right?
That's my assumption, but...it wouldn't be absurd to think he'd be named +Cupich's co-adjutor. Learn the ropes of Chicago for a year or two before his patron retires. This depends, of course, on just how much influence +Cupich has with His Holiness to get his way (if that is, in fact, who he would want as a successor). The Pillar's reporting made clear Pope Francis was over his lobbying for DC.
I suppose that's possible, though following up one total outsider to the Chicago archdiocese with another might be a little much. Biegler in Denver might even be good for the place.
When does +Dolan get named Bishop of Mar-a-Lago?
One interesting aspect of this appointment, and many others, is the age of the newly appointed (arch)bishops. Archbishop Vasquez is in his late 60s, Cardinal DiNardo was appointed to the same archdiocese at the age of 55. Cardinal McElroy is in his early 70s. How much bandwith does anyone have at that age?
What are we to make of this? I think it comes down to the fact that we are living in a gerontocracy. Those who choose bishops do not trust anyone younger for these assignments.
This is a blessing. P Francis has not been able to return the US episcopacy to the 1980s vision that many assume he desires. It also means that many of his appointments will not have long-term consequences.
My argument is not a reflection of Archbishop Vasquez. He seems like a good and holy bishop. So while many are happy that these appointments are not going to have a long-term or a long-lasting impact, we should be very concerned. For what the Church in the US needs is a vigorous leadership that can provide a unified vision that will regenerize all Catholics.
Good and Holy unless your a trad!
God help us at the diocesan Latin Mass in Houston. Vasquez cut both the Austin and the Tyler cathedral TLM’s.