I watched the St Sabine's Christmas Eve 'Mass' online with a mixture of shock and horror. I do hope it is officially addressed by the Church when the Christmas season is over.
Ironically, it would have been a wonderful show had it been a Christmas concert that was held *after* Mass. African and African American culture is so wonderfully enthusiastic and contagious. It just didn't fit with Mass to have the concert theme.
Agree. I don't particularly blame the parishioners - they have been led astray by the cult of personality of Father Pfleger - which the Archdiocese let grow over the years - should have nipped it in the bud a long time ago. He's been doing this "show" for years.
It is great that Pope Francis is concerned about the ecclesiology and doctrinal orthodoxy within various groups of the laity. But I'm not convinced that the most fervent supporters of Fr. Pfleger, or those of likeminded liturgical innovators are less deviant visavis the teachings of Vatican II or the previous ecumenical councils than the attendees of Extraordinary Form mass.
Only thing to point out yet again, although one could say St. John Cantius and the Canons of St. John Cantius are the standard bearer for the EF in Chicago, it is crucial to inform the reader that they have also always (every Sunday! Every weekday!) celebrated the Ordinary Form. Unlike FSSP. Unlike ICKSP. Will they be subject to "bination" restrictions (absurd in their case). Prohibition of Ad Orientem ?(absurd in their case as it obviously was never weaponized against OF or V2). I believe it was for these reasons, as noted in their letter, the Cardinal has "encouraged" them to ask for "permissions".
It's not clear that the people most against the TLM have a problem with NO abuses. The NO was probably meant to be a transitional form by those who wrote it, leading to more innovative forms later, and since these haven't come about (yet), innovators have carried on with the trajectory unofficially.
"It's not clear that the people most against the TLM have a problem with NO abuses." Oh indeed; the Pauline Rite has suffered a myriad of abuses since its invention and imposition upon the Latin Church, myriad upon myriad of abuses. Where were the most excellent lord bishops in 1970, 1971, 1972... 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and now? This prelatial jabbering about 'abuses' is a verbal tic that happens when, embarrassed, bishops are cornered into admitting that what are often called 'abuses' in the Pauline Rite are <i>design features</i>, not flaws. Individual prelates excepted, of course.
I think this is a really strange take by the Pillar.
Ostensibly, based on what we are told, the problem with the Old Mass is that the people who offer it think they are a church unto themselves. But Fr. Pfleger and his congregation exemplify this mentality. If Traditiones Custodes is really about ecclesiastical unity then Fr. Pfleger and his congregation should be on the top of the list for correction, regardless of how difficult they make the life of the bishop. Cupich doesn’t seem to mind when traditionalists make a fuss about his policies.
I appreciate that the Pillar is trying to put a charitable reading onto Traditiones Custodes, but I don’t think such a reading exists. The document is the work of a collection of bitter ideologues trying to prop-up a failed life project. Sorry.
I think Ed is trying to explain why Pfleger's parish is not on the top of the list -- in his read, it's because, to a large extent, "of how difficult they make the life of the bishop." His point is that traditionalists have not causes the same headache.
That's less an effort to read TC in any particular way, and more an effort to understand the state of play in Chicago.
I appreciate the response. But I have to disagree. The article does serve as a kind of apologia for TC, or at least its implementation, whether Ed intended it to or not. And maybe it is nothing more than a devil’s advocate style reading. I am perfectly alright with that. I think we should examine the issue from all sides. But unfortunately it doesn’t land.
The reasons for TC and its implementation are ideological, not practical. Cardinal Cupich has historically suspended, removed, and denied faculties to priests on the more conservative end of things. A fuss was raised to defend such priests, it caused him problems, he simply ignored the problems until they “went away”. Cupich could easily have just let the Fr. Pfleger situation fizzle out with time like the outrage associated with the treatment of conservative priests has and will fizzle out over time. He didn’t. The reason is that, ideologically, he cares more about one than the other. TC and it consequences are ideologically not pastorally or practically driven. Pfleger is not on the top of the list because Cupich doesn’t care as much about those abuses as he does about getting rid of traditional expressions of Catholicism.
I know there are a lot of people who are trying to avoid the conclusion that TC is really the result of a small clique of influential people who have both the ear of the pope and an ax to grind, but that’s the reality. Cupich is one of those people, so the state of play in Chicago is indistinguishable from the ideology that drives TC.
I disagree that TC is the result of a small clique. The trend of denouncing the legitimacy of Vatican II either overtly as AB Vigano and SSPX do or by consistent criticism of the Mass of VII and the themes of the documents of VII, is growing worldwide.
Let's assume that what you have said is true, which I don't actually think that it is (and even if it were, it wouldn't really be a problem as VII is, by the account of the bishops themselves, a purely pastoral council which could easily be rescinded should the pastoral situation it was oriented toward cease to exist). But let's a assume that it is true, TC could still be the result of a very small group of people acting on their own initiative. By no accounts was there a major call for TC among the general population of clergy and laity. You might like that TC has happened, but it still doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the result of a small group of individuals.
I would also point out that Vigano did not get to where he is now via the Latin Mass. He never said the Latin Mass until well after he started whatever internet “apostolate” he has now. Now he says the Latin Mass, but that was very much a later development.
The same is true of the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre started his work for doctrinal reasons, particularly indifferentism, which he felt were prevalent. He rejected the new liturgy because he saw it as a vehicle for those doctrinal problems. He accepted the 1962 Missal because it is the last Missal to have Quo Primum printed at the beginning, meaning it was still in line with the Church that came before. There is a documentary of his life that explains his thought process (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9oy7wDkms). It is produced by the SSPX, so it is predictably sympathetic to his decisions. Nevertheless, you get a sense for why he did what he did.
The concern about conceding to those wanting to retain the Old Mass such as Lefebvre desired was there from the beginning. This article cites "Massimo Faggioli, True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012), 150."
"When the philosopher Jean Guitton asked Pope Paul why he did not grant the use of the preconciliar Mass to SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers, the pope replied:
Never. This Mass . . . becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council. I will not accept, under any circumstances, the condemnation of the council through a symbol. Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken. And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken."
Pope Benedict XVI took the chance to lift restrictions on the Mass in 2007 with the condition that it be subject to a survey of all the local bishops in 3 years to assess the fruits. That survey didn't happen until the last couple of years. We know by the networks of social communication today that the spirit of anti Vatican II does permeate the TLM in varying degrees. We would have our head in the sand not to admit to that.
We seem to be straying a little bit from the point, which was the people involved in generating TC.
I will say this about the diversion. You, and many others I might add (including it would appear Paul VI), seem to think that the works of ecumenical councils cannot be repudiated. That to do so would somehow be uncatholic or cut at the authority of the Church. But this is incorrect. The Church has already repudiated aspects of past councils. The classic example is that of the Council of Constance (recognized as a valid ecumenical council). It issued, among others, two decrees: Frequens and Haec Sancta. Frequens decreed that an ecumenical council was to be convened every ten years. That didn’t happen. Haec Sancta decreed that an ecumenical council was superior to a pope. That was repudiated by later Popes. Both documents form no part of the life of the Church today.
The same could be done with any of the documents of Vatican II. It hasn’t been done, maybe you think it shouldn’t be done. But the point is that it could be done (and like things have already been done in the past). Thus, being anti-VII is not itself a bad thing or a problem, any more than being anti-Frequens or anti-Haec Sancta are bad things of themselves or problems. If pastoral provisions are harmful to the life of the Church or even heretical (as was Haec Sancta), then we should be against them. Not all ideas are good ideas, even from churchmen assembled in council.
"We seem to be straying a little bit from the point, which was the people involved in generating TC."
It was a niche issue from the start though don't you think? How many were involved in generating Summorum Pontificum? Likely "a very small group of people acting on their own initiative."
Full disclosure... I'm very much a traditional "think with the Church" Catholic of old. Discerning which teachings are immutable and which are disposable is way above my paygrade. But I do feel strongly about defending the authority of the Magisterium and the Pope.
Yes, I think that I would have to grant that Summorum was also the work of a small group of people. It would be foolish for me to do otherwise!
As to the other point about “thinking with the Church”, this is exactly what this whole argument/discussion (generally, not just between us) is about. This is an issue that the Church has struggled with for some 200 years. And it is no coincidence that she has struggled with it now, in modernity, and not previously.
In the Middle Ages, you could say all sorts of pious things about how I just do what the Pope tells me because you didn’t actually know what the Pope thought about really anything. Even Papal decrees may never have reached you due to poor communications. And even when they did, they would only have been sent to the bishops, and the bishops sometimes rendered them moot by simply ignoring them. Once you have the telegraph and a global news corps things become more complicated, and the question arises how much of what this guy says do I really need to do? Bishops as well as laity must ask this question. Vatican I attempted to deal with this by sketching out some levels of assent and what different levels of obedience were attached to what different kinds of statements a Pope made. But, just like with Vatican II, the implementation of Vatican I was botched pretty badly. The popular belief and practice became that the Pope was some kind of oracle who himself possessed moral virtues and whose every whim was to be followed, even contrary to natural law. This notwithstanding that Pastor Aeternus (the decree articulating Papal infallibility) said nothing even remotely close to that. The Pope-as-oracle opinion, sometimes also called “Papal Positivism”, is an error, and error of Vatican I we could say, or at least an error in the implementation of Vatican I. In fact, Vatican II was called partly and rightfully to deal with this error. My opinion is that Vatican II was not successful in this area as we are still having lots of conversations about how much of the Pope’s words and actions we need to obey.
I have appreciated this exchange. We live in unfortunate times. We all have to make hard decisions. Hopefully God will have mercy on us trying to do our best.
I agree in hoping that God looks well on us all trying to do our best.
As for the issue of Papal infallibility, I'm not a fan using the term as it was never one I grew up with hearing. Obedience was emphasised as a virtue that wrought abundant graces and I continue to promote that as a virtue. In Pope StJPII's apostolic letter Tertio Millennio Advenienti forshadowing the 3rd millenium which he called the millenium of the laity... he strongly advocates for both synodality and ecclesial obedience.
"47. The reflection of the faithful in the second year of preparation ought to focus particularly on the value of unity within the Church, to which the various gifts and charisms bestowed upon her by the Spirit are directed. In this regard, it will be opportune to promote a deeper understanding of the ecclesiological doctrine of the Second Vatican Council as contained primarily in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. This important document has expressly emphasized that the unity of the Body of Christ is founded on the activity of the Spirit, guaranteed by the Apostolic Ministry and sustained by mutual love (cf. 1 Cor 13:1-8). This catechetical enrichment of the faith cannot fail to bring the members of the People of God to a more mature awareness of their own responsibilities, as well as to a more lively sense of the importance of ecclesial obedience."
We need to trust in the power of unity and of obedience to the Church.
Yes, but I think you are missing the point. The whole question is, "what does it mean to be obedient to the Church." We cannot just keep repeating I'm obedient, I'm obedient, if we don't actually have a good idea of what that means.
If that is Ed's take, then he is basically saying that TC is built on a lie that traditionalists are the problem children of the diocese. If that is the case, then the whole reason for the TC restrictions is moot.
"But while there might be reasonable grounds to ask if liturgical discipline only applies in one direction..."
MIGHT??? Why equivocate? What additional proof or grounds do you need? Is there any--ANY--evidence whatsoever of Cupich or any of his minions taking anyone to task over this abomination?
'A rather freewheeling Eucharistic prayer during the Christmas Eve Mass'-- oh indeed. This attitude ('oh, people being a tad exuberant') is one of the significant reasons so many of us are adamantly opposed to recognising that the Pauline Rite, valid though it be etc etc, is the 'sole expression of the Roman Rite': people who live in the Pauline ethos have no idea that the great Canon of the Mass was (give or take-- I'm trying not to be a pedant) unchanging and unchangeable for 1500 years and that there are good reasons for that.
Fr. Farley, I think you are missing the point. One group is being suppressed. They can't celebrate mass on Christmas and the Easter Triduum according to the mass that was in use for a thousand years, but Pfleger can make up his own liturgy and he gets away with it. Cupich ignores people like Pfleger and comes down like a hammer on traditional communities. He's partisan hack: the Democrat Party at Prayer. Communion for Biden. Communion for Lori Lightfoot. Ignore liturgical abuses all over the diocese, but people who want to worship reverently according to the vetus ordo get treated like garbage. Wester in Santa Fe is the same way. He treats traditional priests like trash. I'm a novus ordo man myself and always have been, but I've had people in the diocese, including a priest, tell my sons to avoid the priesthood for now. It takes a special kind of person to hold up under such abuse by the bishop, and most that have such a personality are weeded out in the selection process (which is why our seminary numbers are in the toilet). There are several gay friendly parishes in our diocese, but the Latin Mass community has to worship in a parish hall and can't even use a the sanctuary of the ghetto church that they've been relegated to.
I spent this year's Christmas in New Orleans, and was quite edified to discover a parish culture very different from my own. I attended Mass at a gorgeous one-time proto-cathedral that offered both High Mass and "Ordinary Form (English Language)"; the latter was a refreshingly reverent presentation that seemed very much to flow from the Vatican II council fathers' intentions for reformation of the liturgy. (They had also offered Midnight Mass for Christmas with the music of Haydn, but alas, I could not attend). It was the first time I had encountered such a Mass, and I was pleased to see that yes, this "middle road" actually can happen, and be done well. My mother observed that the priests, parishioners, and parish culture all seemed to be "very chill", which was a nice Christmas gift for her.
Another parish, only a few miles away, offered what they termed a "Jazz Mass" - a "wonderful worshipful experience" featuring a gospel/jazz choir. This parish was a historically African-American parish, founded by free people of color, so I presume this mass is an authentic expression of their unique cultural, historical background - or if you prefer, the unique "liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony, culture, and circumstances of history of a distinct people...", to borrow from the Other Blessed Code of Canon Law. I did not get a chance to attend this Mass myself, but by all accounts it is a reverent, joyful celebration of the Liturgy. Much as liturgical dancing finds a beautiful expression in Masses in African cultures, it seems that jazz music finds a home amidst the Masses of New Orleans.
All of this is to say that I am very curious about the ways in which the same types of "prominent instances of novelties or abuses" can crop up in one context and be very obviously a liturgical abuse, and yet be present in another context as a completely organic, authentic expression of reverence and worship. What exactly is it that differentiates these two contexts? Is it just "I know it when I see it"?
And by the same token, what exactly is it that differentiates the celebration of the Extraditionary Form in a reverent, worshipful context from one that is "extra-communion" or contrary to "full acceptance of the liturgical books"?
I was just reading a Letter that JPII sent to the American Bishops in 1998 identifying some of the aspects that constitute 'abuse'. The need for the subconscious experience of quiet before the Real Presence can tend to be lost in some expressions of the Ordinary Form.
Bad Latin. It's really embarrassing when canon lawyers, the ones who really (supposedly) work with Latin, make blunders like "Traditiones Custodes." Get with it, guys. Especially if you're trying to impress the Latin Mass crowd.
I watched the St Sabine's Christmas Eve 'Mass' online with a mixture of shock and horror. I do hope it is officially addressed by the Church when the Christmas season is over.
Yes, if that is not "unbearable distortions", I don't know what is.
Ironically, it would have been a wonderful show had it been a Christmas concert that was held *after* Mass. African and African American culture is so wonderfully enthusiastic and contagious. It just didn't fit with Mass to have the concert theme.
Agree. I don't particularly blame the parishioners - they have been led astray by the cult of personality of Father Pfleger - which the Archdiocese let grow over the years - should have nipped it in the bud a long time ago. He's been doing this "show" for years.
It is great that Pope Francis is concerned about the ecclesiology and doctrinal orthodoxy within various groups of the laity. But I'm not convinced that the most fervent supporters of Fr. Pfleger, or those of likeminded liturgical innovators are less deviant visavis the teachings of Vatican II or the previous ecumenical councils than the attendees of Extraordinary Form mass.
Bullies only bully those who don't hit back?
Boy is that true. It sure show in our hierarchy.
Wonderful article. I read The Pillar for such insight and fortitude to tell the truth. I haven't renewed my subscription lately. How do I do so?
Only thing to point out yet again, although one could say St. John Cantius and the Canons of St. John Cantius are the standard bearer for the EF in Chicago, it is crucial to inform the reader that they have also always (every Sunday! Every weekday!) celebrated the Ordinary Form. Unlike FSSP. Unlike ICKSP. Will they be subject to "bination" restrictions (absurd in their case). Prohibition of Ad Orientem ?(absurd in their case as it obviously was never weaponized against OF or V2). I believe it was for these reasons, as noted in their letter, the Cardinal has "encouraged" them to ask for "permissions".
It's not clear that the people most against the TLM have a problem with NO abuses. The NO was probably meant to be a transitional form by those who wrote it, leading to more innovative forms later, and since these haven't come about (yet), innovators have carried on with the trajectory unofficially.
"It's not clear that the people most against the TLM have a problem with NO abuses." Oh indeed; the Pauline Rite has suffered a myriad of abuses since its invention and imposition upon the Latin Church, myriad upon myriad of abuses. Where were the most excellent lord bishops in 1970, 1971, 1972... 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and now? This prelatial jabbering about 'abuses' is a verbal tic that happens when, embarrassed, bishops are cornered into admitting that what are often called 'abuses' in the Pauline Rite are <i>design features</i>, not flaws. Individual prelates excepted, of course.
I am eternally grateful that Robert Barron was elevated to the episcopacy sand out from under the wretched Cardinal Cupich.
I think this is a really strange take by the Pillar.
Ostensibly, based on what we are told, the problem with the Old Mass is that the people who offer it think they are a church unto themselves. But Fr. Pfleger and his congregation exemplify this mentality. If Traditiones Custodes is really about ecclesiastical unity then Fr. Pfleger and his congregation should be on the top of the list for correction, regardless of how difficult they make the life of the bishop. Cupich doesn’t seem to mind when traditionalists make a fuss about his policies.
I appreciate that the Pillar is trying to put a charitable reading onto Traditiones Custodes, but I don’t think such a reading exists. The document is the work of a collection of bitter ideologues trying to prop-up a failed life project. Sorry.
I think Ed is trying to explain why Pfleger's parish is not on the top of the list -- in his read, it's because, to a large extent, "of how difficult they make the life of the bishop." His point is that traditionalists have not causes the same headache.
That's less an effort to read TC in any particular way, and more an effort to understand the state of play in Chicago.
For whatever it's worth.
I appreciate the response. But I have to disagree. The article does serve as a kind of apologia for TC, or at least its implementation, whether Ed intended it to or not. And maybe it is nothing more than a devil’s advocate style reading. I am perfectly alright with that. I think we should examine the issue from all sides. But unfortunately it doesn’t land.
The reasons for TC and its implementation are ideological, not practical. Cardinal Cupich has historically suspended, removed, and denied faculties to priests on the more conservative end of things. A fuss was raised to defend such priests, it caused him problems, he simply ignored the problems until they “went away”. Cupich could easily have just let the Fr. Pfleger situation fizzle out with time like the outrage associated with the treatment of conservative priests has and will fizzle out over time. He didn’t. The reason is that, ideologically, he cares more about one than the other. TC and it consequences are ideologically not pastorally or practically driven. Pfleger is not on the top of the list because Cupich doesn’t care as much about those abuses as he does about getting rid of traditional expressions of Catholicism.
I know there are a lot of people who are trying to avoid the conclusion that TC is really the result of a small clique of influential people who have both the ear of the pope and an ax to grind, but that’s the reality. Cupich is one of those people, so the state of play in Chicago is indistinguishable from the ideology that drives TC.
I disagree that TC is the result of a small clique. The trend of denouncing the legitimacy of Vatican II either overtly as AB Vigano and SSPX do or by consistent criticism of the Mass of VII and the themes of the documents of VII, is growing worldwide.
Let's assume that what you have said is true, which I don't actually think that it is (and even if it were, it wouldn't really be a problem as VII is, by the account of the bishops themselves, a purely pastoral council which could easily be rescinded should the pastoral situation it was oriented toward cease to exist). But let's a assume that it is true, TC could still be the result of a very small group of people acting on their own initiative. By no accounts was there a major call for TC among the general population of clergy and laity. You might like that TC has happened, but it still doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the result of a small group of individuals.
I would also point out that Vigano did not get to where he is now via the Latin Mass. He never said the Latin Mass until well after he started whatever internet “apostolate” he has now. Now he says the Latin Mass, but that was very much a later development.
The same is true of the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre started his work for doctrinal reasons, particularly indifferentism, which he felt were prevalent. He rejected the new liturgy because he saw it as a vehicle for those doctrinal problems. He accepted the 1962 Missal because it is the last Missal to have Quo Primum printed at the beginning, meaning it was still in line with the Church that came before. There is a documentary of his life that explains his thought process (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9oy7wDkms). It is produced by the SSPX, so it is predictably sympathetic to his decisions. Nevertheless, you get a sense for why he did what he did.
The concern about conceding to those wanting to retain the Old Mass such as Lefebvre desired was there from the beginning. This article cites "Massimo Faggioli, True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012), 150."
"When the philosopher Jean Guitton asked Pope Paul why he did not grant the use of the preconciliar Mass to SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers, the pope replied:
Never. This Mass . . . becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council. I will not accept, under any circumstances, the condemnation of the council through a symbol. Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken. And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken."
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/traditionis-custodes-was-never-merely-about-the-liturgy/#_ftnref10
Pope Benedict XVI took the chance to lift restrictions on the Mass in 2007 with the condition that it be subject to a survey of all the local bishops in 3 years to assess the fruits. That survey didn't happen until the last couple of years. We know by the networks of social communication today that the spirit of anti Vatican II does permeate the TLM in varying degrees. We would have our head in the sand not to admit to that.
We seem to be straying a little bit from the point, which was the people involved in generating TC.
I will say this about the diversion. You, and many others I might add (including it would appear Paul VI), seem to think that the works of ecumenical councils cannot be repudiated. That to do so would somehow be uncatholic or cut at the authority of the Church. But this is incorrect. The Church has already repudiated aspects of past councils. The classic example is that of the Council of Constance (recognized as a valid ecumenical council). It issued, among others, two decrees: Frequens and Haec Sancta. Frequens decreed that an ecumenical council was to be convened every ten years. That didn’t happen. Haec Sancta decreed that an ecumenical council was superior to a pope. That was repudiated by later Popes. Both documents form no part of the life of the Church today.
The same could be done with any of the documents of Vatican II. It hasn’t been done, maybe you think it shouldn’t be done. But the point is that it could be done (and like things have already been done in the past). Thus, being anti-VII is not itself a bad thing or a problem, any more than being anti-Frequens or anti-Haec Sancta are bad things of themselves or problems. If pastoral provisions are harmful to the life of the Church or even heretical (as was Haec Sancta), then we should be against them. Not all ideas are good ideas, even from churchmen assembled in council.
"We seem to be straying a little bit from the point, which was the people involved in generating TC."
It was a niche issue from the start though don't you think? How many were involved in generating Summorum Pontificum? Likely "a very small group of people acting on their own initiative."
Full disclosure... I'm very much a traditional "think with the Church" Catholic of old. Discerning which teachings are immutable and which are disposable is way above my paygrade. But I do feel strongly about defending the authority of the Magisterium and the Pope.
Yes, I think that I would have to grant that Summorum was also the work of a small group of people. It would be foolish for me to do otherwise!
As to the other point about “thinking with the Church”, this is exactly what this whole argument/discussion (generally, not just between us) is about. This is an issue that the Church has struggled with for some 200 years. And it is no coincidence that she has struggled with it now, in modernity, and not previously.
In the Middle Ages, you could say all sorts of pious things about how I just do what the Pope tells me because you didn’t actually know what the Pope thought about really anything. Even Papal decrees may never have reached you due to poor communications. And even when they did, they would only have been sent to the bishops, and the bishops sometimes rendered them moot by simply ignoring them. Once you have the telegraph and a global news corps things become more complicated, and the question arises how much of what this guy says do I really need to do? Bishops as well as laity must ask this question. Vatican I attempted to deal with this by sketching out some levels of assent and what different levels of obedience were attached to what different kinds of statements a Pope made. But, just like with Vatican II, the implementation of Vatican I was botched pretty badly. The popular belief and practice became that the Pope was some kind of oracle who himself possessed moral virtues and whose every whim was to be followed, even contrary to natural law. This notwithstanding that Pastor Aeternus (the decree articulating Papal infallibility) said nothing even remotely close to that. The Pope-as-oracle opinion, sometimes also called “Papal Positivism”, is an error, and error of Vatican I we could say, or at least an error in the implementation of Vatican I. In fact, Vatican II was called partly and rightfully to deal with this error. My opinion is that Vatican II was not successful in this area as we are still having lots of conversations about how much of the Pope’s words and actions we need to obey.
I have appreciated this exchange. We live in unfortunate times. We all have to make hard decisions. Hopefully God will have mercy on us trying to do our best.
I agree in hoping that God looks well on us all trying to do our best.
As for the issue of Papal infallibility, I'm not a fan using the term as it was never one I grew up with hearing. Obedience was emphasised as a virtue that wrought abundant graces and I continue to promote that as a virtue. In Pope StJPII's apostolic letter Tertio Millennio Advenienti forshadowing the 3rd millenium which he called the millenium of the laity... he strongly advocates for both synodality and ecclesial obedience.
"47. The reflection of the faithful in the second year of preparation ought to focus particularly on the value of unity within the Church, to which the various gifts and charisms bestowed upon her by the Spirit are directed. In this regard, it will be opportune to promote a deeper understanding of the ecclesiological doctrine of the Second Vatican Council as contained primarily in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. This important document has expressly emphasized that the unity of the Body of Christ is founded on the activity of the Spirit, guaranteed by the Apostolic Ministry and sustained by mutual love (cf. 1 Cor 13:1-8). This catechetical enrichment of the faith cannot fail to bring the members of the People of God to a more mature awareness of their own responsibilities, as well as to a more lively sense of the importance of ecclesial obedience."
We need to trust in the power of unity and of obedience to the Church.
Yes, but I think you are missing the point. The whole question is, "what does it mean to be obedient to the Church." We cannot just keep repeating I'm obedient, I'm obedient, if we don't actually have a good idea of what that means.
If that is Ed's take, then he is basically saying that TC is built on a lie that traditionalists are the problem children of the diocese. If that is the case, then the whole reason for the TC restrictions is moot.
"But while there might be reasonable grounds to ask if liturgical discipline only applies in one direction..."
MIGHT??? Why equivocate? What additional proof or grounds do you need? Is there any--ANY--evidence whatsoever of Cupich or any of his minions taking anyone to task over this abomination?
My friend, you have fallen victim to the particularly English habit of emphasis-by-understatement.
'A rather freewheeling Eucharistic prayer during the Christmas Eve Mass'-- oh indeed. This attitude ('oh, people being a tad exuberant') is one of the significant reasons so many of us are adamantly opposed to recognising that the Pauline Rite, valid though it be etc etc, is the 'sole expression of the Roman Rite': people who live in the Pauline ethos have no idea that the great Canon of the Mass was (give or take-- I'm trying not to be a pedant) unchanging and unchangeable for 1500 years and that there are good reasons for that.
300 parish churches in Chicago, and 1 is held out as an example of all that is unhinged.
Fr. Farley, I think you are missing the point. One group is being suppressed. They can't celebrate mass on Christmas and the Easter Triduum according to the mass that was in use for a thousand years, but Pfleger can make up his own liturgy and he gets away with it. Cupich ignores people like Pfleger and comes down like a hammer on traditional communities. He's partisan hack: the Democrat Party at Prayer. Communion for Biden. Communion for Lori Lightfoot. Ignore liturgical abuses all over the diocese, but people who want to worship reverently according to the vetus ordo get treated like garbage. Wester in Santa Fe is the same way. He treats traditional priests like trash. I'm a novus ordo man myself and always have been, but I've had people in the diocese, including a priest, tell my sons to avoid the priesthood for now. It takes a special kind of person to hold up under such abuse by the bishop, and most that have such a personality are weeded out in the selection process (which is why our seminary numbers are in the toilet). There are several gay friendly parishes in our diocese, but the Latin Mass community has to worship in a parish hall and can't even use a the sanctuary of the ghetto church that they've been relegated to.
I spent this year's Christmas in New Orleans, and was quite edified to discover a parish culture very different from my own. I attended Mass at a gorgeous one-time proto-cathedral that offered both High Mass and "Ordinary Form (English Language)"; the latter was a refreshingly reverent presentation that seemed very much to flow from the Vatican II council fathers' intentions for reformation of the liturgy. (They had also offered Midnight Mass for Christmas with the music of Haydn, but alas, I could not attend). It was the first time I had encountered such a Mass, and I was pleased to see that yes, this "middle road" actually can happen, and be done well. My mother observed that the priests, parishioners, and parish culture all seemed to be "very chill", which was a nice Christmas gift for her.
Another parish, only a few miles away, offered what they termed a "Jazz Mass" - a "wonderful worshipful experience" featuring a gospel/jazz choir. This parish was a historically African-American parish, founded by free people of color, so I presume this mass is an authentic expression of their unique cultural, historical background - or if you prefer, the unique "liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony, culture, and circumstances of history of a distinct people...", to borrow from the Other Blessed Code of Canon Law. I did not get a chance to attend this Mass myself, but by all accounts it is a reverent, joyful celebration of the Liturgy. Much as liturgical dancing finds a beautiful expression in Masses in African cultures, it seems that jazz music finds a home amidst the Masses of New Orleans.
All of this is to say that I am very curious about the ways in which the same types of "prominent instances of novelties or abuses" can crop up in one context and be very obviously a liturgical abuse, and yet be present in another context as a completely organic, authentic expression of reverence and worship. What exactly is it that differentiates these two contexts? Is it just "I know it when I see it"?
And by the same token, what exactly is it that differentiates the celebration of the Extraditionary Form in a reverent, worshipful context from one that is "extra-communion" or contrary to "full acceptance of the liturgical books"?
I was just reading a Letter that JPII sent to the American Bishops in 1998 identifying some of the aspects that constitute 'abuse'. The need for the subconscious experience of quiet before the Real Presence can tend to be lost in some expressions of the Ordinary Form.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pope-john-paul-corrects-liturgical-abuses-7948
Bad Latin. It's really embarrassing when canon lawyers, the ones who really (supposedly) work with Latin, make blunders like "Traditiones Custodes." Get with it, guys. Especially if you're trying to impress the Latin Mass crowd.
Thanks!