One of my professors in college, a historian of the Church in the U.S., used to liken receiving a mitre to receiving a frontal lobotomy! Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but funny nonetheless…
There seems to be an underlying Rousseaun philosophical assumption by Cardinal Gregory that is a reflection of Pope Francis. The "PEOPLE" are naturally good but are ruined when the (young, orthodox) priests get involved. Are the priests not to guide the people? God forbid that priests take what they've learned in seminary and their own personal studies to guide their people in worship, holiness, and service. I hear from priests who are involved in the process of the selection of bishops that in the US the rate of those who decline are now 40%. It is only going to get worse. It is because the next generation has no desire to be a part of a group like this.
But of course Pope Francis is correct in his liturgical instincts! He has a living and active gift! His every thought is an expression of the Holy Spirit! Being Church means walking together, and walking together means following the direction set by the Holy Father! Isn't that what Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 said?
When bishops like Cdl Gregory or Pope Francis say “walking together” the image in my mind is less a stroll than a military march. Lock step, in a straight line, and in a direction dictated by the “shepherd”.
I don't think Cardinal Gregory really thinks "the people" are ruined by young priests. He hates traditional Catholics as much, if not more, than young priests. he just knows he can't say so publicly, so this is his way of condemning them and letting them know how he feels. He wants such people scattered and shepherd-less, so they eventually grow discouraged and just leave for SSPX or some other schismatic group where he can condemn them (rightly) of having broken communion with their local bishop and Rome.
If Gregory's hypocrisy and hatred wasn't so blatant, talking about "bloody" suppression in the name of diversity, he might have been able to conduct his suppressions without even staining his name. Most Catholic media seem intent on ignoring or even supporting the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass and pretending Benedict XVI didn't exist and doesn't matter in this roiling debate.
For which we thank you. Seeing a man who has just joyfully renounced all for the kingdom of heaven and seeing a priest who made his vows to God and the Church long ago and still loves to fulfill them are both huge consolations.
The models of Catholicism from Gregory and Francis seem to be Principal Skinner blaming the children being all wrong, and Grandpa Simpson yelling at clouds.
I know that in time these predictions will come to fruition. Unfortunately it won't happen in our lifetimes, which is the sad part. We are stuck in this liturgical rut.
Right away, within one paragraph, Cardinal Gregory becomes a hypocrite. The priests are not imposing preferences on the people; imposition is coming from Rome down. How are they so blind to what they are doing? Are they blind?
Total elimination of the Tridentine (and repression of that class of Catholic adhering to tradition) is necessary before the full revolution can be imposed. Only then can men like Gregory begin ordaining female deacons, performing same-sex “weddings”, etc. First destroy the people’s spiritual foundation, then anything is possible.
Sounds like Gregory & Co. need to become a more listening church, more accompanying of their wayward priests and laypeople. If only there were a term, some sort of buzzword for that kind of listening and accompanying and accommodating...
I thought this was a great article but I too wondered about this(oops I meant to respond to the point about how much the extent of the gap was limited to the United States). Especially when the data from the CUA was referenced which I understand to be limited to the United States. Nevertheless the blindness of the Bishop stood out. Also a certain lack of logic. In a real practical sense, every Priest imposes his liturgical preferences on the congregation - especially in the option rich Novus Ordo.
How much of this is just a US thing? I don't read about these debates happening much Latin America, Africa or in Asia. But that could possibly be an artifact of me living in the US and reading mostly US based Catholic journalism
I have a vague impression that the debates in Latin America are part of why Pope Francis leans toward hitting anything traditional-leaning with a flyswatter.
The Pillar just ran an article this past week about a trad priest being disciplined in Brazil. It sounds like that priest has gone off the reservation a little, but I don’t know enough about it to say either way... but there are pockets where traditionalism is very strong in Latin America. Campos, Brazil still has large numbers of TLM parishes. That diocese is the only place in the world where there is “a personal apostolic administration” specifically for Traditional Catholic. They have their own bishop. I wish I could explain what that term means, but I can’t... I just know they have one there and it’s catered to the TLM. Perhaps @edcondon or @jdflynn can!
And the SSPX has long had strong presence in Latin America.
I think it’s largely a product of we mainly focus on the church in the US and Western Europe. And church in Latin America in particular has its own set of issues and challenges that drown out anything we might hear about liturgy wars.
I think you're on to something. I've long felt that Pope Francis - not being an English speaker - is fighting battles that are an issue in the Spanish speaking Church, rather than in the Anglosphere. But you can't just scale up like that.
Oddly, Pope Francis actually had a very good relationship with the SSPX as Archbishop of Buenos Aires- he helped them gain recognition as a Catholic group from the Argentine Government. He has praised the work of SSPX among the poor in Buenos Aires and by all accounts has a good relationship with Bishop Gallerata (the Argentine bishop consecrated by Lefebvre).
Many have speculated that this is the reason why Pope Francis has been so generous with the SSPX during his pontificate, yet so harsh with Traditionalists in general (and ones in full communion!).
So I don’t really know... like so many things of this pontificate, I’m left puzzled.
Well, there was a brief moment of suspense about what kind of bishop Gregory would be, but he has *long since* declared himself the Mammon-worshipping kind. So it's really no surprise he should have the pastoral acumen of Tony Soprano.
I genuinely don’t understand why the Tridentine Rite cannot be available widely, and understand totally that this decision has hurt a lot of excellent Catholics. I used to go regularly and found it quite beautiful, meaningful, and contemplative. Now, on the flip side…I work with A LOT of former and lapsed Catholics in Cardinal Gregory’s archdiocese and the one just across the river. The Latin Mass has a lot of potential to be an evangelizing mechanism beyond what it was for the last five years. BUT we have a big culture problem. The point of theology is not to discipline people into shape… a genuine conversion takes years. We need to get better at allowing people to freely try out a parish + to be a non-judgmental friend. Jesus Christ manifests himself in the Eucharist so that we are not left on this earth in our misery alone. He is very comfortable with the messiness in our lives. Unfortunately, there are so parishes where we’ve allowed ourselves to stomp a lot of Catholics out of the Church. If you genuinely feel the love of God in the Traditional Latin Mass, I want you to be there every day and never end up being ministered to by me (working largely with former Catholics). If someone comes to you with a widely different idea of how to be Catholic, for heavens sake please be patient.
It's funny how "synodality"—being a "listening Church"—is so selectively, yet consistently applied. If a bishop from Luxembourg blesses same-sex unions, he's made a cardinal & even appointed to the C9. But priests who try to accommodate the demands of their parishioners? Those troublemakers need to be "dealt with."
A contagious desire to attend Mass was not on my bingo card and it must be stopped!
vs.
A second pentecost with Gentiles [Acts 10] was not on my bingo card and we had better catch up to what the Holy Spirit is doing!
It will all work out in the end (church historians will write about what the Holy Spirit was doing, sometime after we are buried, and they will probably get it wrong but we won't mind) and in the meantime I recommend that we all maintain a childlike sense of humor (actually when I was a child I think this mostly involved whoopie cushions....... no, I will stick with this recommendation.)
As a card carrying member of the Millennial generation, I don’t trust that my cohort truly knows what good liturgy is. I perceive that the youths’ love for the TLM is reactionary, and idealistic. It is a reaction to “Boomer” Masses. It is like a Marxist wish to belong to the oppressed class. TLM lovers appear to bide their time till a liturgical revolt. This is too blunt of a response, which is equal and opposite to the out-of-touch Boomer Bishops clamping down on the TLM. A subtle and historically grounded Liturgical Reform is needed. I believe the 1964 missal holds the key to a Eucharistic and liturgical renaissance.
I think you are correct, but I see in the desire for the TLM a perfectly valid desire for something solid that they can rely on. Once you have something solid you can build on it, and the conciliar Church has left young Catholics so little to build on. The TLM won't fix your problems, Jesus will fix your problems, but I am convinced that the way to a fruitful liturgical reform is through the TLM, not over it.
My fellow trads have strong opinions on the 64 missal, but I think it is the best alternative to the TLM. Ironically, a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, Msgr. Pope wrote excellent blog about the 64 missal. It was my first exposure to the immediate post-V2 liturgy, and I’ve come strongly believe that missal embodies the true vision of liturgical reform that the council father’s envisioned.
Sure! Here it is. After I read this I ended up purchasing on old 65 missal. Quite interesting to read through and see the slight changes from the 62 missal. I remember thinking, “I wish I could find an indult mass for this just to see it in person.”
Msgr. Pope also admitted that the interest in the former Mass order had peaked and had become, in his words, "boutique" Catholicism. People make assertions about interest in the old Mass, but it had been static for some time in DC.
I think in part you are correct. One additional appeal that matters to a lot of practicing millenials is that at a TLM parish now, you know that everyone there actually cares and many of them are making substantial sacrifices to show up. That doesn't make them right about everything, but when the mainstream culture is so ridiculously toxic and you're trying to raise your kids (or find a spouse, or a real friend) it's a relief to be with a group of like minded people, and unfortunately not everyone can guarantee that at your local parish.
Some years ago I attended a "young adult listening session" for my diocese. Many people there asked about not just TLM but lots of traditional devotions and practices and attracting people with a distinctive Catholic identity that we weren't ashamed of. After I guess one too many questions about this, the (yes, Boomer-aged) permanent deacon who clearly didn't want to be there talking to us whippersnappers went on a rant about how awesome drums are at Mass, but if that wasn't good enough for us, there's the one permitted TLM in the diocese. Since then it's at least tripled in regular attendance. (We were regulars for a while too.)
They're tone deaf and apparently getting deafer. Or just more afraid of what happens after they're gone.
It’s funny how these Boomers call young adult listening sessions together, and then are shocked to learn that they themselves are no longer young adults.
I suppose it's within your prerogative to be cynical about the hearts of TLM loving youth, but it's always so offensive when people say these kinds of things.
I love the TLM, and I love my wife, and I do so as positive actions. I'm moved by their beauty and other merits. They have a lot to offer. It's not the alienation of boomer Masses that causes me to love the TLM anymore than it's the fear of being alone that makes me love my wife. There's a lot to love. If you can't see it, that's okay, but I really suggest that unless you're willing to tell a friend of yours, whose wife is not particularly interesting to you, that he probably only thinks he loves her because he "doesn't know what a good woman is", that his affection is just a reaction to the fear of dying alone, you should probably refrain from making such speculations about your cohorts who love the TLM.
I hoped to critique both extremes of liturgical views, unfortunately, with a few words and not much nuance; forgive me for crassness.
The TLM ought to be loved on its own merits, but so also the Ordinary Form. I believe it is toxic to love to TLM and distain the OF, and to take on a sectarian attitude. I am suspicious of those who uncritically look down on the OF and with haughtiness exalt the TLM, and I base this judgment from real encounters with people, not mere virtual encounters. I am weary of young adults, whose parents only knew the OF, who take on strong liturgical opinions without discerning reflection, nor knowing history, and have a resentment for being deprived of the TLM.
The apparent discontinuity ought to be reconciled in the hearts and minds of Catholics. I have found benefit from a strong Hermeneutic of Continuity, understanding Church history, sacramental theology, and ecclesiology. As mentioned above, I agree that a Reform of the OF comes through the TLM, not around it. This is why I love both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite.
Crassness forgiven, I appreciate you understanding what I'm saying too. It irritated me when Pope Francis said similar things about attachment to the TLM, and it persists as an annoying thing to hear whenever it's repeated.
I agree with your other statements. TC seems to have only furthered the divide and fostered a growing "remnant" mentality in the short term. In the long run, we'll see what happens, but the continued existence(and growth?) of sedevacantism should serve as a sign that such a heavy handed approach won't produce the supposed intended effects.
There are young adults (and older ones) who resent being deprived of the TLM, who need to learn about forgiveness and circumspection.
But I don't think looking down on the 2002 missale romanum is nearly as big an abuse of the NO, as the people who minister at it (whether priest or lay) without regard for the rubrics or texts. To reform the NO, start cleaving to what it is, and liberally applying Sacrosanctum Concilium. No reference to the TLM required thus far.
I've heard this objection before, and it feels a bit like someone who routinely and badly abuses a close family member, becoming furious when an out-of-state cousin is rude to that family member.
I would respectfully recommend you attend mass at a place like Old Saint Mary's in Cincinnati Ohio. I've never been in a more participatory mass where the faithful sing the hymns with conviction and gusto. 18 sisters worshiped in the first few rows. Several young priests were available for mass. The whole place was crawling with children, yet there was silence and reverence for the consecration. After mass, people hung around for an hour to visit and eat together. The parish has its own crisis pregnancy center. I was just visiting on a trip for my grad school advisers retirement, but as a Novus Ordo attender I was blown away. Show me any mass in America that has such signs of life. I've heard St. John Cantius in Chicago is similar. Where I'm from, the TLM community is harshly persecuted, and even good Novus Ordo priests like mine live in fear of their bishop.
I think a priest rolling into a new parish and imposing his liturgical preferences (especially quickly) is a real problem that doesn't deserve to be dismissed lightly (certainly not the only problem). One dynamic that is hard to track is the flow of people from one parish to another. In places where parishes are closer together, there's often a considerable flow from less popular priests (for whatever reason) to more popular priests. To some extent, this is probably inevitable. If a priest promotes his hot take on "good liturgy," what happens next depends a lot on these dynamics. Does he make the case for his hot take and draw his existing community in deeper, and perhaps even drawing back fallen-away Catholics or converts? Or does he alienate the existing group and pick up people from nearby communities. Most of the time it's not just one... but real growth will necessarily involve something other than just redistributing people according to preferences. Ironically, I think priests desirous of more reverence and beauty in the liturgy (I aspire to live in this category myself) can often fall into some of the same mistakes that were (reportedly) made during the 1970s, especially hasty changes without a real effort to build trust and understanding and buy-in.
I don't know if you priests always understand just how much of your belief shows in the way you say Mass, and just how much of a disparity there can be between your beliefs. A priest who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ (you can say "has a minimalist Christology" if my original wording is too harsh sounding) is not going to do anything the same way as a priest who does. You can't replace one with the other and not expect a mass exodus. It's not realistic, and it wouldn't be healthy for the laity not to care what the faith is of their spiritual father.
Trying not to be too sudden is great, but sometimes the new priest is doomed to look like whiplash the moment the assignment is made.
Most priests I’ve come to know agree that in a “Our Lady of the Suburbs” parish like you describe, the key is to plot out a plan over five years or so. Every Advent, Lent, and Easter, introduce something new. Start with the Kyrie, then the Sanctus, then the Agnus Dei. Come up with some backwards logic as to why it’s happening that particular liturgical season. Boil the frog slowly. In five years time, you will have a reform of the reform on your hands. From there, start to introduce a TLM.
the reform of the reform is not sustainable. its only real use is a bridge to a TLM. it's one visiting priest away from not being there on any given sunday, for one thing. It's one new pastor or bishop away from going away entirely. and the thing that makes it attractive is that it's a subset of the TLM, so why not just do that once the ROTR is fully there?
"the Kyrie, the the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei", and of course the Gloria, are in the hands of the choir director (subject to the speed at which the parishioners will tolerate an increase in solemnity), as I understand it, so you would need turnover in both the pastor and the choir director (otherwise your point stands that the situation is unstable until a generation passes away.)
Solution: Hire someone under the age of 40 who knows chant to direct the choir. Points if you make it a special youth choir alongside the regular choir.
2. It's actually really hard to make good solid change in situations where a parish is used to garbage. Nothing can be done permanently by one priest because people know to wait for his successor. It takes a good run of consistent direction before people get the hint that the Good Times may possibly be stopping Rolling and they should try to accept orthodoxy. And that in its turn requires the bishop to care about the parish's spiritual welfare enough to assign tonally consistent priests.
I'm not sure how we got from choir directors and bishops/pastors to saintly old ladies who probably prayed the younger priests' vocations into existence (if only so that they themselves could be assured of the possibility of last rites and a proper Mass of Christian Burial - everyone remember to tell one's heirs "if you cremate me and put me on the mantlepiece I *will* haunt you") but I, at least, would definitely like nice ziti dinners when I am old.
There are two things meant by the ROTR. I’m referring to choosing the most traditional option within the Novus Ordo rubrics. You’re referring to the older definition, a full rewrite of the Novus Ordo along traditional lines. That’s unlikely in the next 100 years, but it’s a great academic and ad experimentum concept between now and then. One day, there will be a unified Roman Rite and no one will fight about it.
Agree with JD and I also take your point. I was lucky that I was part of a Dominican parish with a stable community of young friars from which the Pastor of the parish is chosen. You just aren’t going to sweep away the music and liturgical norms of the parish in that situation . Yes RoR will actually need to take place at the global level. In the meantime, under TC, your plan to introduce TLM to a parish is a non starter
Introducing the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Gloria, Credo, and Pater Noster (at least sometimes) is explicitly called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium. So if you think that’s not enough, your problem is with the Council itself. And that’s the opinion that liturgical liberals use to tar and feather the rest of us.
The Council, in fact, called for the 1962 missal (with a richer fare of readings) in total, with some possible exceptions for the vernacular here and there, with Latin and Gregorian Chant taking pride of place.
I agree that it is not stable, and I wish it were--and I would like to see some day a solution that reunites the rites (or at least the calendars!!!) or, at minimum, defines the Novus Ordo better.
Having said that, I've been near to TLM communities in Virginia (about three, if memory serves), Florida (two), California (two), and St. Louis (also two). So I've seen kind of a swath of what the U.S. has for TLMs, and both liturgically and community-wise, I have serious questions about how TLM communities often play out.
Liturgically, while many of the communities say they want active participation, only one of them made any serious effort to help the congregation do that--and I think participation is important. I don't mean that the congregation needs to hear every word of the Mass or say every response--I'm with Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy" on this, more or less--but most often what I've seen in TLMs is that the congregation chants and prays NOTHING. I've even gotten dirty looks for chanting/saying the Latin responses with the choir or altar boys, which is just ... weird. I know there are places where it ain't so--in another part of this thread someone mention's a certain St. Mary's--I've just had the bad luck never to find a TLM that welcomed participation, or even made it easy to follow the reading and Gospel (!).
On the community side, I've seen a lot of TLM parishioners and priests who are rigid. That word gets thrown around a lot--but what I mean, for example, are things like the following (examples deliberately taken from different communities): (a) one priest who told a congregation full of mothers that doing laundry on Sunday might not be a mortal sin (maybe he was attempting understatement? but it did not come off that way), (b) another priest who told his congregation that they were better than people who go to the Novus Ordo, (c) parishioners who become scrupulous enough about modesty such that they will not let their daughters wear jeans, etc., (d) intelligent parishioners who are borderline Feeneyites without realizing it because that's the way everyone around them talks, and they don't socialize with anyone outside their community.
Traditiones Custodes is not helping with these sorts of issues, IMHO.
To be clear, I don't say these sorts of flaws are everywhere in the TLM, or are necessarily worse than what can be found in the Novus Ordo--but given my own spiritual state and personal history, the flaws typical of the TLMs near me are more damaging to me--and, I might add, to some other Catholics that I know--than the flaws typical of the NOs around me.
One final point on the stability thing: while it is true that a bad new pastor or a visiting priest might spoil a good Novus Ordo, most (not all!) of the NO priests I know who are progressive are less progressive zealots and more squishy middle types. They want to please. And so when they come into a parish that is already in love with Latin chant (say) they generally try to oblige. The trouble, of course, is when they come into a divided congregation ... I will readily admit that creates problems. As for visiting priests, my experience is that generally pastors choose priests who are sympatico to substitute for them (and even if that does not always happen, that's a one-Sunday risk I'd be willing to take).
I hope this doesn't come off as too opinionated. I grew up with a Latin Novus Ordo (in a Virginia Diocese) that was very in tune with Sacro Sanctum Concilium and I really miss it. This is probably at least in part my homesickness for that Mass speaking. It got replaced a lot with the TLM, which actually drove good Novus Ordos towards extinction in that diocese for a while--which to my mind was a real shame.
I celebrated my first TLM in February 2007 because people kept asking me too. They were so respectful and patient. That first TLM taught me why they loved it so much. And now I do.
Good heavens, how clueless can these bishops be?
Every time I think we have reached max cluelessness they exceed it.
Some are clueless. A select and talented few are adept at disguising neuralgia as cluelessness.
Shingles? I must be thinking of the wrong word.
Some, pretty clueless, and heaven has nothing to do with it.
Very...
One of my professors in college, a historian of the Church in the U.S., used to liken receiving a mitre to receiving a frontal lobotomy! Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but funny nonetheless…
There seems to be an underlying Rousseaun philosophical assumption by Cardinal Gregory that is a reflection of Pope Francis. The "PEOPLE" are naturally good but are ruined when the (young, orthodox) priests get involved. Are the priests not to guide the people? God forbid that priests take what they've learned in seminary and their own personal studies to guide their people in worship, holiness, and service. I hear from priests who are involved in the process of the selection of bishops that in the US the rate of those who decline are now 40%. It is only going to get worse. It is because the next generation has no desire to be a part of a group like this.
But of course Pope Francis is correct in his liturgical instincts! He has a living and active gift! His every thought is an expression of the Holy Spirit! Being Church means walking together, and walking together means following the direction set by the Holy Father! Isn't that what Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 said?
Oh... it isn't?
Oh, yeah, that's right. My bad.
When bishops like Cdl Gregory or Pope Francis say “walking together” the image in my mind is less a stroll than a military march. Lock step, in a straight line, and in a direction dictated by the “shepherd”.
Isn't that...
CLERICALISM?
Many in the Church believe that is exactly what Vatican 1 said.
I don't think Cardinal Gregory really thinks "the people" are ruined by young priests. He hates traditional Catholics as much, if not more, than young priests. he just knows he can't say so publicly, so this is his way of condemning them and letting them know how he feels. He wants such people scattered and shepherd-less, so they eventually grow discouraged and just leave for SSPX or some other schismatic group where he can condemn them (rightly) of having broken communion with their local bishop and Rome.
If Gregory's hypocrisy and hatred wasn't so blatant, talking about "bloody" suppression in the name of diversity, he might have been able to conduct his suppressions without even staining his name. Most Catholic media seem intent on ignoring or even supporting the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass and pretending Benedict XVI didn't exist and doesn't matter in this roiling debate.
KiDs ThEsE dAyS.
And don't forget there are a few of us oldsters that act like kids.
For which we thank you. Seeing a man who has just joyfully renounced all for the kingdom of heaven and seeing a priest who made his vows to God and the Church long ago and still loves to fulfill them are both huge consolations.
👍
The models of Catholicism from Gregory and Francis seem to be Principal Skinner blaming the children being all wrong, and Grandpa Simpson yelling at clouds.
I'm sure this will work out fine in the future!
I actually made that meme earlier today in response to a tweet:
https://x.com/jdubesesq/status/1733517873136439611?s=46
Also distressingly like the end of every Scooby Doo episode when they pull the masks off. Only this time it's always the priests underneath.
This article is why I’m a paid subscriber to the Pillar (and will continue to be).
I know that in time these predictions will come to fruition. Unfortunately it won't happen in our lifetimes, which is the sad part. We are stuck in this liturgical rut.
Right away, within one paragraph, Cardinal Gregory becomes a hypocrite. The priests are not imposing preferences on the people; imposition is coming from Rome down. How are they so blind to what they are doing? Are they blind?
Total elimination of the Tridentine (and repression of that class of Catholic adhering to tradition) is necessary before the full revolution can be imposed. Only then can men like Gregory begin ordaining female deacons, performing same-sex “weddings”, etc. First destroy the people’s spiritual foundation, then anything is possible.
Yes, A simple "yes"" will do.
Sounds like Gregory & Co. need to become a more listening church, more accompanying of their wayward priests and laypeople. If only there were a term, some sort of buzzword for that kind of listening and accompanying and accommodating...
I thought this was a great article but I too wondered about this(oops I meant to respond to the point about how much the extent of the gap was limited to the United States). Especially when the data from the CUA was referenced which I understand to be limited to the United States. Nevertheless the blindness of the Bishop stood out. Also a certain lack of logic. In a real practical sense, every Priest imposes his liturgical preferences on the congregation - especially in the option rich Novus Ordo.
Yeah... not like every Mass begins with a vote on which options to use, or which songs to sing...
We didn't even get a vote on whether to have Mass for a few months in there.
Amen.
You should be named a "Master of Theology" in the Order.
Heaven forbid! I'm just an altogether ordinary Lay Dominican with an eye for ecclesiastic irony and the hypocrisy of "our betters" in the Church.
IMPOSES sounds true torment for me. We need to have fewer imposters!
How much of this is just a US thing? I don't read about these debates happening much Latin America, Africa or in Asia. But that could possibly be an artifact of me living in the US and reading mostly US based Catholic journalism
I have a vague impression that the debates in Latin America are part of why Pope Francis leans toward hitting anything traditional-leaning with a flyswatter.
The Pillar just ran an article this past week about a trad priest being disciplined in Brazil. It sounds like that priest has gone off the reservation a little, but I don’t know enough about it to say either way... but there are pockets where traditionalism is very strong in Latin America. Campos, Brazil still has large numbers of TLM parishes. That diocese is the only place in the world where there is “a personal apostolic administration” specifically for Traditional Catholic. They have their own bishop. I wish I could explain what that term means, but I can’t... I just know they have one there and it’s catered to the TLM. Perhaps @edcondon or @jdflynn can!
And the SSPX has long had strong presence in Latin America.
I think it’s largely a product of we mainly focus on the church in the US and Western Europe. And church in Latin America in particular has its own set of issues and challenges that drown out anything we might hear about liturgy wars.
I think you're on to something. I've long felt that Pope Francis - not being an English speaker - is fighting battles that are an issue in the Spanish speaking Church, rather than in the Anglosphere. But you can't just scale up like that.
Oddly, Pope Francis actually had a very good relationship with the SSPX as Archbishop of Buenos Aires- he helped them gain recognition as a Catholic group from the Argentine Government. He has praised the work of SSPX among the poor in Buenos Aires and by all accounts has a good relationship with Bishop Gallerata (the Argentine bishop consecrated by Lefebvre).
Many have speculated that this is the reason why Pope Francis has been so generous with the SSPX during his pontificate, yet so harsh with Traditionalists in general (and ones in full communion!).
So I don’t really know... like so many things of this pontificate, I’m left puzzled.
There are strong pockets (at least) of it in Europe. For example: in England and Wales, the Latin Mass Society was founded in 1965 (lms.org.uk); in France there is also evidence of popular traditionalism. That's at least part of what was going on in the stories about the Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon (e.g., https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/end-of-ordination-ban-in-sight-as) and the Chartres Pilgrimage (in French: https://www.nd-chretiente.com/chartres-2023-discours-du-president-a-courlis-le-28-mai-2023/ ; in English: https://www.ncregister.com/blog/2023-traditional-chartres-pilgrimage-reaches-capacity) had to turn away pilgrims this year.
Well, there was a brief moment of suspense about what kind of bishop Gregory would be, but he has *long since* declared himself the Mammon-worshipping kind. So it's really no surprise he should have the pastoral acumen of Tony Soprano.
I genuinely don’t understand why the Tridentine Rite cannot be available widely, and understand totally that this decision has hurt a lot of excellent Catholics. I used to go regularly and found it quite beautiful, meaningful, and contemplative. Now, on the flip side…I work with A LOT of former and lapsed Catholics in Cardinal Gregory’s archdiocese and the one just across the river. The Latin Mass has a lot of potential to be an evangelizing mechanism beyond what it was for the last five years. BUT we have a big culture problem. The point of theology is not to discipline people into shape… a genuine conversion takes years. We need to get better at allowing people to freely try out a parish + to be a non-judgmental friend. Jesus Christ manifests himself in the Eucharist so that we are not left on this earth in our misery alone. He is very comfortable with the messiness in our lives. Unfortunately, there are so parishes where we’ve allowed ourselves to stomp a lot of Catholics out of the Church. If you genuinely feel the love of God in the Traditional Latin Mass, I want you to be there every day and never end up being ministered to by me (working largely with former Catholics). If someone comes to you with a widely different idea of how to be Catholic, for heavens sake please be patient.
It's funny how "synodality"—being a "listening Church"—is so selectively, yet consistently applied. If a bishop from Luxembourg blesses same-sex unions, he's made a cardinal & even appointed to the C9. But priests who try to accommodate the demands of their parishioners? Those troublemakers need to be "dealt with."
A contagious desire to attend Mass was not on my bingo card and it must be stopped!
vs.
A second pentecost with Gentiles [Acts 10] was not on my bingo card and we had better catch up to what the Holy Spirit is doing!
It will all work out in the end (church historians will write about what the Holy Spirit was doing, sometime after we are buried, and they will probably get it wrong but we won't mind) and in the meantime I recommend that we all maintain a childlike sense of humor (actually when I was a child I think this mostly involved whoopie cushions....... no, I will stick with this recommendation.)
As a card carrying member of the Millennial generation, I don’t trust that my cohort truly knows what good liturgy is. I perceive that the youths’ love for the TLM is reactionary, and idealistic. It is a reaction to “Boomer” Masses. It is like a Marxist wish to belong to the oppressed class. TLM lovers appear to bide their time till a liturgical revolt. This is too blunt of a response, which is equal and opposite to the out-of-touch Boomer Bishops clamping down on the TLM. A subtle and historically grounded Liturgical Reform is needed. I believe the 1964 missal holds the key to a Eucharistic and liturgical renaissance.
I think you are correct, but I see in the desire for the TLM a perfectly valid desire for something solid that they can rely on. Once you have something solid you can build on it, and the conciliar Church has left young Catholics so little to build on. The TLM won't fix your problems, Jesus will fix your problems, but I am convinced that the way to a fruitful liturgical reform is through the TLM, not over it.
My fellow trads have strong opinions on the 64 missal, but I think it is the best alternative to the TLM. Ironically, a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, Msgr. Pope wrote excellent blog about the 64 missal. It was my first exposure to the immediate post-V2 liturgy, and I’ve come strongly believe that missal embodies the true vision of liturgical reform that the council father’s envisioned.
Would you please provide a link to Msgr. Pope's article?
Sure! Here it is. After I read this I ended up purchasing on old 65 missal. Quite interesting to read through and see the slight changes from the 62 missal. I remember thinking, “I wish I could find an indult mass for this just to see it in person.”
https://blog.adw.org/2015/01/a-look-at-the-actual-mass-of-vatican-ii-the-1965-missal/
Msgr. Pope also admitted that the interest in the former Mass order had peaked and had become, in his words, "boutique" Catholicism. People make assertions about interest in the old Mass, but it had been static for some time in DC.
Agreed
I think in part you are correct. One additional appeal that matters to a lot of practicing millenials is that at a TLM parish now, you know that everyone there actually cares and many of them are making substantial sacrifices to show up. That doesn't make them right about everything, but when the mainstream culture is so ridiculously toxic and you're trying to raise your kids (or find a spouse, or a real friend) it's a relief to be with a group of like minded people, and unfortunately not everyone can guarantee that at your local parish.
Some years ago I attended a "young adult listening session" for my diocese. Many people there asked about not just TLM but lots of traditional devotions and practices and attracting people with a distinctive Catholic identity that we weren't ashamed of. After I guess one too many questions about this, the (yes, Boomer-aged) permanent deacon who clearly didn't want to be there talking to us whippersnappers went on a rant about how awesome drums are at Mass, but if that wasn't good enough for us, there's the one permitted TLM in the diocese. Since then it's at least tripled in regular attendance. (We were regulars for a while too.)
They're tone deaf and apparently getting deafer. Or just more afraid of what happens after they're gone.
It’s funny how these Boomers call young adult listening sessions together, and then are shocked to learn that they themselves are no longer young adults.
Yes to everything above.
Yet that is not the case in the Archdiocese of Washington.
I suppose it's within your prerogative to be cynical about the hearts of TLM loving youth, but it's always so offensive when people say these kinds of things.
I love the TLM, and I love my wife, and I do so as positive actions. I'm moved by their beauty and other merits. They have a lot to offer. It's not the alienation of boomer Masses that causes me to love the TLM anymore than it's the fear of being alone that makes me love my wife. There's a lot to love. If you can't see it, that's okay, but I really suggest that unless you're willing to tell a friend of yours, whose wife is not particularly interesting to you, that he probably only thinks he loves her because he "doesn't know what a good woman is", that his affection is just a reaction to the fear of dying alone, you should probably refrain from making such speculations about your cohorts who love the TLM.
I hoped to critique both extremes of liturgical views, unfortunately, with a few words and not much nuance; forgive me for crassness.
The TLM ought to be loved on its own merits, but so also the Ordinary Form. I believe it is toxic to love to TLM and distain the OF, and to take on a sectarian attitude. I am suspicious of those who uncritically look down on the OF and with haughtiness exalt the TLM, and I base this judgment from real encounters with people, not mere virtual encounters. I am weary of young adults, whose parents only knew the OF, who take on strong liturgical opinions without discerning reflection, nor knowing history, and have a resentment for being deprived of the TLM.
The apparent discontinuity ought to be reconciled in the hearts and minds of Catholics. I have found benefit from a strong Hermeneutic of Continuity, understanding Church history, sacramental theology, and ecclesiology. As mentioned above, I agree that a Reform of the OF comes through the TLM, not around it. This is why I love both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite.
Crassness forgiven, I appreciate you understanding what I'm saying too. It irritated me when Pope Francis said similar things about attachment to the TLM, and it persists as an annoying thing to hear whenever it's repeated.
I agree with your other statements. TC seems to have only furthered the divide and fostered a growing "remnant" mentality in the short term. In the long run, we'll see what happens, but the continued existence(and growth?) of sedevacantism should serve as a sign that such a heavy handed approach won't produce the supposed intended effects.
There are young adults (and older ones) who resent being deprived of the TLM, who need to learn about forgiveness and circumspection.
But I don't think looking down on the 2002 missale romanum is nearly as big an abuse of the NO, as the people who minister at it (whether priest or lay) without regard for the rubrics or texts. To reform the NO, start cleaving to what it is, and liberally applying Sacrosanctum Concilium. No reference to the TLM required thus far.
I've heard this objection before, and it feels a bit like someone who routinely and badly abuses a close family member, becoming furious when an out-of-state cousin is rude to that family member.
I would respectfully recommend you attend mass at a place like Old Saint Mary's in Cincinnati Ohio. I've never been in a more participatory mass where the faithful sing the hymns with conviction and gusto. 18 sisters worshiped in the first few rows. Several young priests were available for mass. The whole place was crawling with children, yet there was silence and reverence for the consecration. After mass, people hung around for an hour to visit and eat together. The parish has its own crisis pregnancy center. I was just visiting on a trip for my grad school advisers retirement, but as a Novus Ordo attender I was blown away. Show me any mass in America that has such signs of life. I've heard St. John Cantius in Chicago is similar. Where I'm from, the TLM community is harshly persecuted, and even good Novus Ordo priests like mine live in fear of their bishop.
I think a priest rolling into a new parish and imposing his liturgical preferences (especially quickly) is a real problem that doesn't deserve to be dismissed lightly (certainly not the only problem). One dynamic that is hard to track is the flow of people from one parish to another. In places where parishes are closer together, there's often a considerable flow from less popular priests (for whatever reason) to more popular priests. To some extent, this is probably inevitable. If a priest promotes his hot take on "good liturgy," what happens next depends a lot on these dynamics. Does he make the case for his hot take and draw his existing community in deeper, and perhaps even drawing back fallen-away Catholics or converts? Or does he alienate the existing group and pick up people from nearby communities. Most of the time it's not just one... but real growth will necessarily involve something other than just redistributing people according to preferences. Ironically, I think priests desirous of more reverence and beauty in the liturgy (I aspire to live in this category myself) can often fall into some of the same mistakes that were (reportedly) made during the 1970s, especially hasty changes without a real effort to build trust and understanding and buy-in.
I don't know if you priests always understand just how much of your belief shows in the way you say Mass, and just how much of a disparity there can be between your beliefs. A priest who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ (you can say "has a minimalist Christology" if my original wording is too harsh sounding) is not going to do anything the same way as a priest who does. You can't replace one with the other and not expect a mass exodus. It's not realistic, and it wouldn't be healthy for the laity not to care what the faith is of their spiritual father.
Trying not to be too sudden is great, but sometimes the new priest is doomed to look like whiplash the moment the assignment is made.
Most priests I’ve come to know agree that in a “Our Lady of the Suburbs” parish like you describe, the key is to plot out a plan over five years or so. Every Advent, Lent, and Easter, introduce something new. Start with the Kyrie, then the Sanctus, then the Agnus Dei. Come up with some backwards logic as to why it’s happening that particular liturgical season. Boil the frog slowly. In five years time, you will have a reform of the reform on your hands. From there, start to introduce a TLM.
Or stick with reform of the reform once accomplished
the reform of the reform is not sustainable. its only real use is a bridge to a TLM. it's one visiting priest away from not being there on any given sunday, for one thing. It's one new pastor or bishop away from going away entirely. and the thing that makes it attractive is that it's a subset of the TLM, so why not just do that once the ROTR is fully there?
"the Kyrie, the the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei", and of course the Gloria, are in the hands of the choir director (subject to the speed at which the parishioners will tolerate an increase in solemnity), as I understand it, so you would need turnover in both the pastor and the choir director (otherwise your point stands that the situation is unstable until a generation passes away.)
Solution: Hire someone under the age of 40 who knows chant to direct the choir. Points if you make it a special youth choir alongside the regular choir.
1. Doesn't have to be under 40.
2. It's actually really hard to make good solid change in situations where a parish is used to garbage. Nothing can be done permanently by one priest because people know to wait for his successor. It takes a good run of consistent direction before people get the hint that the Good Times may possibly be stopping Rolling and they should try to accept orthodoxy. And that in its turn requires the bishop to care about the parish's spiritual welfare enough to assign tonally consistent priests.
Yes. These younger pastors have to get more comfortable shuffling these blue haired old ladies off with a nice ziti dinner in the parish hall.
I'm not sure how we got from choir directors and bishops/pastors to saintly old ladies who probably prayed the younger priests' vocations into existence (if only so that they themselves could be assured of the possibility of last rites and a proper Mass of Christian Burial - everyone remember to tell one's heirs "if you cremate me and put me on the mantlepiece I *will* haunt you") but I, at least, would definitely like nice ziti dinners when I am old.
That was my point about the prospect of revising the GIRM. Ultimately, sustainable ROTR would seem to require that.
There are two things meant by the ROTR. I’m referring to choosing the most traditional option within the Novus Ordo rubrics. You’re referring to the older definition, a full rewrite of the Novus Ordo along traditional lines. That’s unlikely in the next 100 years, but it’s a great academic and ad experimentum concept between now and then. One day, there will be a unified Roman Rite and no one will fight about it.
Agree with JD and I also take your point. I was lucky that I was part of a Dominican parish with a stable community of young friars from which the Pastor of the parish is chosen. You just aren’t going to sweep away the music and liturgical norms of the parish in that situation . Yes RoR will actually need to take place at the global level. In the meantime, under TC, your plan to introduce TLM to a parish is a non starter
Introducing the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Gloria, Credo, and Pater Noster (at least sometimes) is explicitly called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium. So if you think that’s not enough, your problem is with the Council itself. And that’s the opinion that liturgical liberals use to tar and feather the rest of us.
The Council, in fact, called for the 1962 missal (with a richer fare of readings) in total, with some possible exceptions for the vernacular here and there, with Latin and Gregorian Chant taking pride of place.
"the reform of the reform is not sustainable. its only real use is a bridge to a TLM"
I profoundly but respectfully disagree.
What happens in August when you have a visiting pastor? What happens when you get a new pastor who isn’t on board? It’s not stable.
I agree that it is not stable, and I wish it were--and I would like to see some day a solution that reunites the rites (or at least the calendars!!!) or, at minimum, defines the Novus Ordo better.
Having said that, I've been near to TLM communities in Virginia (about three, if memory serves), Florida (two), California (two), and St. Louis (also two). So I've seen kind of a swath of what the U.S. has for TLMs, and both liturgically and community-wise, I have serious questions about how TLM communities often play out.
Liturgically, while many of the communities say they want active participation, only one of them made any serious effort to help the congregation do that--and I think participation is important. I don't mean that the congregation needs to hear every word of the Mass or say every response--I'm with Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy" on this, more or less--but most often what I've seen in TLMs is that the congregation chants and prays NOTHING. I've even gotten dirty looks for chanting/saying the Latin responses with the choir or altar boys, which is just ... weird. I know there are places where it ain't so--in another part of this thread someone mention's a certain St. Mary's--I've just had the bad luck never to find a TLM that welcomed participation, or even made it easy to follow the reading and Gospel (!).
On the community side, I've seen a lot of TLM parishioners and priests who are rigid. That word gets thrown around a lot--but what I mean, for example, are things like the following (examples deliberately taken from different communities): (a) one priest who told a congregation full of mothers that doing laundry on Sunday might not be a mortal sin (maybe he was attempting understatement? but it did not come off that way), (b) another priest who told his congregation that they were better than people who go to the Novus Ordo, (c) parishioners who become scrupulous enough about modesty such that they will not let their daughters wear jeans, etc., (d) intelligent parishioners who are borderline Feeneyites without realizing it because that's the way everyone around them talks, and they don't socialize with anyone outside their community.
Traditiones Custodes is not helping with these sorts of issues, IMHO.
To be clear, I don't say these sorts of flaws are everywhere in the TLM, or are necessarily worse than what can be found in the Novus Ordo--but given my own spiritual state and personal history, the flaws typical of the TLMs near me are more damaging to me--and, I might add, to some other Catholics that I know--than the flaws typical of the NOs around me.
One final point on the stability thing: while it is true that a bad new pastor or a visiting priest might spoil a good Novus Ordo, most (not all!) of the NO priests I know who are progressive are less progressive zealots and more squishy middle types. They want to please. And so when they come into a parish that is already in love with Latin chant (say) they generally try to oblige. The trouble, of course, is when they come into a divided congregation ... I will readily admit that creates problems. As for visiting priests, my experience is that generally pastors choose priests who are sympatico to substitute for them (and even if that does not always happen, that's a one-Sunday risk I'd be willing to take).
I hope this doesn't come off as too opinionated. I grew up with a Latin Novus Ordo (in a Virginia Diocese) that was very in tune with Sacro Sanctum Concilium and I really miss it. This is probably at least in part my homesickness for that Mass speaking. It got replaced a lot with the TLM, which actually drove good Novus Ordos towards extinction in that diocese for a while--which to my mind was a real shame.
I celebrated my first TLM in February 2007 because people kept asking me too. They were so respectful and patient. That first TLM taught me why they loved it so much. And now I do.