mostly based, I still think it's weird to require permission for ad orientem with the current liturgical books when this is not something Pope Francis or the DDW ever mentioned. nor is it a concrete manifestation of acceptance of Vatican II, since Vatican II did not make the decision to introduce versus populum. no one should think that versus populum is heretical or evil considering its almost universal acceptance in the Church, but the liturgical books do not require it or even consider it preferable.
I think that ad orientem is KIND OF like communion on the tongue. Salty episcopoi can think they have the authority to outlaw it when they actually don’t.
I think they actually probably do have the authority to ban both of those things (the latter being confirmed by Rome during the pandemic). It's just wrong to do it for bad reasons.
Agreed, as the pandemic has shown us, Rome fully backs Bishops exercising their authority as moderators of the liturgy even up to reception the manner in which one communicates
True, and this has interesting implications for the pendulum-swing backlash that I expect to occur sometime after I am no longer around to care. Since they will not be around either, I assume that setting precedents is not a thing that keeps them up at night.
Lets not be too constrained by form as opposed to substance regarding Pope Francis never "mentioning it". Yes not in TC or as part of TC but he was loud and clear when Cardinal Sarah "exhorted" (not mandated) Priests to start using it a few years ago. A public smackdown of Cardinal Sarah followed in about a New York minute. Cardinal Cupich and Cardinal Gregory got the message even if you didn't.
it would be very odd for Pope Francis' message to be "ban ad orientem" when he has celebrated ad orientem himself on a not insignificant number of occasions. leaving aside those celebrations in St Peter's and elsewhere which are simultaneously ad orientem and versus populum, he has not demonstrated himself to be against the practice. in light of that I don't understand the "incident" with Cardinal Sarah in the same way that you do. Francis isn't theologically committed to viewing ad orientem as preferable in the way Pope Emeritus Benedict is, but neither is he theologically committed to opposing it. and even Benedict thought that it was not pastorally feasible to widely reintroduce ad orientem, but instead emphasized the crucifix on the altar so that the celebration is focused on Christ; something that Francis has not reversed.
Perhaps not. But the swiftness and the vehemence with which the Holy See refuted Cardinal Sarah - who again did not Mandate but only exhorted - was perceived by many as a hostility of this pontificate towards that practice as manifesting an a unacceptable “reform of the reform “ mindset . And Pope Francis did explicitly reject the idea of “reform of the reform”. So It may only be a perception of Pope Francis’ view rather than the reality of his view . But it is a perception that I believe both Cardinals Cupich and Gregory have. That thesis has explanatory power for their actions that , as you admit, leave you puzzled. And their perception will be reinforced if , as I am very sure, their general restriction on Ad Orientem will bring no response from the Holy See over the next year . it is probable that this hostility is attributable to Grillo and Pope Francis was advised and deferred to him in the Sarah affair despite PF’s own less hostile view if you are correct .
To also add Cardinal Cupich and Gregory are specifically tasked by Pope Francis to reform the American episcopate, and coordinate to such an extent that Gregory simply lifted a paragraph from Cupich's restrictions on the Latin Mass. The thesis Pope Francis wants to discourage ad orientem worship is more probable than not.
One more comment Joseph. The Syro Malabar liturgy controversy has made it clear to me that Pope Francis and his liturgical advisors don’t oppose Ad Orientem per se. Rather whatever is the majority orientation since V2 is what they appear to favor within a Rite as a general rule and only subject to very special exceptions . And they appear to be somewhat immovable in this “principle”. That appears to be the only principle that can explain both situations . Although if they want to keep pursuing and expanding inculturation exceptions like the Zaire exception within the Latin rite (one could also look to the personal ordinariate as an exception), the exception will start to swallow this rule and one wonders why the micro cultures of Ernakulam in India and the TLM communities in the Latin Rite wouldn’t “count” upon that development
“As we begin to implement Traditionis custodes and these norms, please be assured of my constant prayers for the faithful who share a deep devotion to the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal,”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. His prayers and a dollar might just get you a cup of coffee.
How many parishes are affected? What are the locations where the ancient usage can be offered? Do they have enough room for those that were attending the TLM?
Almost certainly not. Answer: Arlington parishes that may be as close of a drive as any of the generous 3 locations. Also if there are FSSP within Cardinal Gregory's archdiocese they would apparently be unaffected. I myself am a OF/NO attendee so its not like my distaste for some of these decisions comes from a dedication to the EF/TLM. I am someone who doesn't think the FSSP (or any other group) should have ever been allowed to be EF only- the model should have been like the Canons of St. John Cantius who always celebrated both very reverently. But given the original acceptance of the FSSP charism of TLM "only-ism" (at least de facto if not literally de jure), I hardly think it is fair to pull the rug on them - so makes sense to me that Pope Francis gave them an exception.
The whole point of the FFSP as approved by JPII was the conservation of the ancient form of the sacraments by a congregation of priests who are in full unimpeded communion with Rome (they were a break-off from the SSPX)
Understood . My point is preserving the ancient forms by regular celebration in your FSSP a personal parish doesn’t logically preclude one from also celebrating the reformed form of mass as well. As demonstrated by the canons regular of St John Cantius. And especially the Chrism masses celebrated once a year by your bishop where they request priests to concelebrate with them. I am sympathetic to the Bishops on that score (about the only one where I am).
How can Cardinal Gregory possibly show pastoral concern to faithful Catholics while he has a gun on the table? "I love you, but you can't baptise your children with the rite your Grandfather received" is so two faced nobody could possible believe him.
"It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite."
so you can have your children baptized in the same rite as your grandfather received, and indeed the same rite passed down in Rome from the time of Gregory I, just according to the newer edition of the liturgical books.
Baptism is not part of the Roman missal, but whatever. I reject utterly the idea that there can be a single expression of a rite in the Latin church. I got married according to the Sarum rite, in full communion with the bishops of Westminster and Rome. The fruits of that rite have been plentiful.
You're correct in saying that the rite of baptism isn't part of the Roman Missal. It is part of the Roman rite, however, which is more than the liturgical books used for Mass.
I also reject the idea that there must be only one expression of the liturgy in the Latin Church. There are still several, and in the future there will probably be more variation based on locality according to the permission of Vatican II. I do think that all expressions of the liturgy in the Latin Church should be ordered and reformed according to the liturgical principles of Vatican II, however.
As for the Sarum rite, I assume you might be talking about the liturgical books used by the Anglican ordinariates? They are not properly the Sarum rite- it is more accurate to describe them as a usage of the modern Roman rite, with many elements taken from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, as well as some things from the ancient Sarum usage. Since those liturgical books do take into account the recent liturgical reform and are much closer to the current books than those that predate the reform, I have no issues with their continued use.
It would be an odd thing indeed to describe the Ordinariate Mass as the Sarum Mass. There are a few elements taken such as the collect for purity, but 99% sure he's talking about the actual Sarum Mass. Pretty cool story to receive the sacrament of matrimony in the context of the Sarum Mass.
For what it's worth, the Ordinariate Mass is technically a "form" of the NO, but takes many of its elements from the TLM. The NO elements are celebrated in the TLM manner. It also has three prayers from the Anglican patrimony along with it's distinctive traditional English idiom. All this mixes together to give the feel of what many describe as the TLM in English (although that's not technically true).
That’s very gracious of you to have no issues with my wedding, which was in a diocesan RC Church, not an Ordinariate. During the wonderful days of the Benedict pontificate we understood that different expressions of the Roman Rite enriched each other. The current megalomaniacs in Rome and their slavish branch managers seem to have forgotten this.
The limitation on ad orientem worship is particularly offensive, as it was obviously not even mentioned in TC. Some friends of mine have already gone SSPX over this stuff.
In light of these restrictions on the TLM in my Archdiocese, we must do penance, pray, and become holier people. May the fire of our personal sanctity grow and spread to all those around us.
I wonder if the parishioners at Old St Mary's and St Francis de Sales will be more united to the Church after this, or if the average parishioner at other parishes will now be able to breathe a big sigh of relief now that those wicked trads finally got what's coming to them. I have my doubts.
Two rather different thoughts: 1. I went to an Anglican Rite parish in Maryland this weekend (Baltimore Arch though) and am curious whether the eventual push for "unity" may bring this (beautiful) Rite under scrutiny as well. 2. One of the things I keep thinking over is what would be a better way to approach the same goal? In other words, if the Pope decides to ultimately eliminate the Old Mass, is there a pastoral way to do this? I'm sure many would say that there isn't if that is what he is trying to do, but I keep looking for the other half of these mandates. For example "We are reducing the number of Latin Masses AND we are working with Novus Ordo parishes to be more reverent" or similar...
mostly based, I still think it's weird to require permission for ad orientem with the current liturgical books when this is not something Pope Francis or the DDW ever mentioned. nor is it a concrete manifestation of acceptance of Vatican II, since Vatican II did not make the decision to introduce versus populum. no one should think that versus populum is heretical or evil considering its almost universal acceptance in the Church, but the liturgical books do not require it or even consider it preferable.
I think that ad orientem is KIND OF like communion on the tongue. Salty episcopoi can think they have the authority to outlaw it when they actually don’t.
I think they actually probably do have the authority to ban both of those things (the latter being confirmed by Rome during the pandemic). It's just wrong to do it for bad reasons.
Agreed, as the pandemic has shown us, Rome fully backs Bishops exercising their authority as moderators of the liturgy even up to reception the manner in which one communicates
True, and this has interesting implications for the pendulum-swing backlash that I expect to occur sometime after I am no longer around to care. Since they will not be around either, I assume that setting precedents is not a thing that keeps them up at night.
Lets not be too constrained by form as opposed to substance regarding Pope Francis never "mentioning it". Yes not in TC or as part of TC but he was loud and clear when Cardinal Sarah "exhorted" (not mandated) Priests to start using it a few years ago. A public smackdown of Cardinal Sarah followed in about a New York minute. Cardinal Cupich and Cardinal Gregory got the message even if you didn't.
it would be very odd for Pope Francis' message to be "ban ad orientem" when he has celebrated ad orientem himself on a not insignificant number of occasions. leaving aside those celebrations in St Peter's and elsewhere which are simultaneously ad orientem and versus populum, he has not demonstrated himself to be against the practice. in light of that I don't understand the "incident" with Cardinal Sarah in the same way that you do. Francis isn't theologically committed to viewing ad orientem as preferable in the way Pope Emeritus Benedict is, but neither is he theologically committed to opposing it. and even Benedict thought that it was not pastorally feasible to widely reintroduce ad orientem, but instead emphasized the crucifix on the altar so that the celebration is focused on Christ; something that Francis has not reversed.
Perhaps not. But the swiftness and the vehemence with which the Holy See refuted Cardinal Sarah - who again did not Mandate but only exhorted - was perceived by many as a hostility of this pontificate towards that practice as manifesting an a unacceptable “reform of the reform “ mindset . And Pope Francis did explicitly reject the idea of “reform of the reform”. So It may only be a perception of Pope Francis’ view rather than the reality of his view . But it is a perception that I believe both Cardinals Cupich and Gregory have. That thesis has explanatory power for their actions that , as you admit, leave you puzzled. And their perception will be reinforced if , as I am very sure, their general restriction on Ad Orientem will bring no response from the Holy See over the next year . it is probable that this hostility is attributable to Grillo and Pope Francis was advised and deferred to him in the Sarah affair despite PF’s own less hostile view if you are correct .
To also add Cardinal Cupich and Gregory are specifically tasked by Pope Francis to reform the American episcopate, and coordinate to such an extent that Gregory simply lifted a paragraph from Cupich's restrictions on the Latin Mass. The thesis Pope Francis wants to discourage ad orientem worship is more probable than not.
One more comment Joseph. The Syro Malabar liturgy controversy has made it clear to me that Pope Francis and his liturgical advisors don’t oppose Ad Orientem per se. Rather whatever is the majority orientation since V2 is what they appear to favor within a Rite as a general rule and only subject to very special exceptions . And they appear to be somewhat immovable in this “principle”. That appears to be the only principle that can explain both situations . Although if they want to keep pursuing and expanding inculturation exceptions like the Zaire exception within the Latin rite (one could also look to the personal ordinariate as an exception), the exception will start to swallow this rule and one wonders why the micro cultures of Ernakulam in India and the TLM communities in the Latin Rite wouldn’t “count” upon that development
“As we begin to implement Traditionis custodes and these norms, please be assured of my constant prayers for the faithful who share a deep devotion to the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal,”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. His prayers and a dollar might just get you a cup of coffee.
Agree - zero credibility on that score.
How many parishes are affected? What are the locations where the ancient usage can be offered? Do they have enough room for those that were attending the TLM?
Almost certainly not. Answer: Arlington parishes that may be as close of a drive as any of the generous 3 locations. Also if there are FSSP within Cardinal Gregory's archdiocese they would apparently be unaffected. I myself am a OF/NO attendee so its not like my distaste for some of these decisions comes from a dedication to the EF/TLM. I am someone who doesn't think the FSSP (or any other group) should have ever been allowed to be EF only- the model should have been like the Canons of St. John Cantius who always celebrated both very reverently. But given the original acceptance of the FSSP charism of TLM "only-ism" (at least de facto if not literally de jure), I hardly think it is fair to pull the rug on them - so makes sense to me that Pope Francis gave them an exception.
The whole point of the FFSP as approved by JPII was the conservation of the ancient form of the sacraments by a congregation of priests who are in full unimpeded communion with Rome (they were a break-off from the SSPX)
Understood . My point is preserving the ancient forms by regular celebration in your FSSP a personal parish doesn’t logically preclude one from also celebrating the reformed form of mass as well. As demonstrated by the canons regular of St John Cantius. And especially the Chrism masses celebrated once a year by your bishop where they request priests to concelebrate with them. I am sympathetic to the Bishops on that score (about the only one where I am).
How can Cardinal Gregory possibly show pastoral concern to faithful Catholics while he has a gun on the table? "I love you, but you can't baptise your children with the rite your Grandfather received" is so two faced nobody could possible believe him.
"It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite."
so you can have your children baptized in the same rite as your grandfather received, and indeed the same rite passed down in Rome from the time of Gregory I, just according to the newer edition of the liturgical books.
Baptism is not part of the Roman missal, but whatever. I reject utterly the idea that there can be a single expression of a rite in the Latin church. I got married according to the Sarum rite, in full communion with the bishops of Westminster and Rome. The fruits of that rite have been plentiful.
You're correct in saying that the rite of baptism isn't part of the Roman Missal. It is part of the Roman rite, however, which is more than the liturgical books used for Mass.
I also reject the idea that there must be only one expression of the liturgy in the Latin Church. There are still several, and in the future there will probably be more variation based on locality according to the permission of Vatican II. I do think that all expressions of the liturgy in the Latin Church should be ordered and reformed according to the liturgical principles of Vatican II, however.
As for the Sarum rite, I assume you might be talking about the liturgical books used by the Anglican ordinariates? They are not properly the Sarum rite- it is more accurate to describe them as a usage of the modern Roman rite, with many elements taken from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, as well as some things from the ancient Sarum usage. Since those liturgical books do take into account the recent liturgical reform and are much closer to the current books than those that predate the reform, I have no issues with their continued use.
It would be an odd thing indeed to describe the Ordinariate Mass as the Sarum Mass. There are a few elements taken such as the collect for purity, but 99% sure he's talking about the actual Sarum Mass. Pretty cool story to receive the sacrament of matrimony in the context of the Sarum Mass.
For what it's worth, the Ordinariate Mass is technically a "form" of the NO, but takes many of its elements from the TLM. The NO elements are celebrated in the TLM manner. It also has three prayers from the Anglican patrimony along with it's distinctive traditional English idiom. All this mixes together to give the feel of what many describe as the TLM in English (although that's not technically true).
That’s very gracious of you to have no issues with my wedding, which was in a diocesan RC Church, not an Ordinariate. During the wonderful days of the Benedict pontificate we understood that different expressions of the Roman Rite enriched each other. The current megalomaniacs in Rome and their slavish branch managers seem to have forgotten this.
Wow. Cardinal Gregory killed Old St. Mary's. That is a huge deal.
It’ll be unfortunately interesting to see how the affected parishes are able to hold up financially without the TLM communities there.
Gotta restrict those trads with their piety and reverence, especially if you're going to profane the Holy Eucharist by communicating abortionists.
The limitation on ad orientem worship is particularly offensive, as it was obviously not even mentioned in TC. Some friends of mine have already gone SSPX over this stuff.
In light of these restrictions on the TLM in my Archdiocese, we must do penance, pray, and become holier people. May the fire of our personal sanctity grow and spread to all those around us.
-----
"I need Thy mercy for my sin
But more than this I need
Thy mercy's likeness in my soul
For others' sins to bleed."
-Frederick Faber
I wonder if the parishioners at Old St Mary's and St Francis de Sales will be more united to the Church after this, or if the average parishioner at other parishes will now be able to breathe a big sigh of relief now that those wicked trads finally got what's coming to them. I have my doubts.
Archdiocese of Washington:
Permission to vote for abortion - Yes
Permission to celebrate ad orientum - No
Two rather different thoughts: 1. I went to an Anglican Rite parish in Maryland this weekend (Baltimore Arch though) and am curious whether the eventual push for "unity" may bring this (beautiful) Rite under scrutiny as well. 2. One of the things I keep thinking over is what would be a better way to approach the same goal? In other words, if the Pope decides to ultimately eliminate the Old Mass, is there a pastoral way to do this? I'm sure many would say that there isn't if that is what he is trying to do, but I keep looking for the other half of these mandates. For example "We are reducing the number of Latin Masses AND we are working with Novus Ordo parishes to be more reverent" or similar...