Thank you, Kevin. You're exactly right. Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum was a peace trearty that ushered in a pacific era on this issue. Sure, there were hardliners on both sides that balked at the concept of "ordinary"/"extraordinary" forms, but in the pews, in the lion's share of parishes and dioceses, the motu proprio worked just fine. And yet a small coterie of malcontents prevailed on Pope Francis to shred the treaty, reopen the war and cast his lot with their side. They relied on the conceit that Summorum Pontificum had been an albatross around the necks of the world's episcopacy, and that grateful bishops would welcome Traditionis Custodes as their liberator. When >90% of bishops ignored T.C. and/or dragged their feet on implementatiom, it became obvious to one and all that T.C. was a "solution" for a problem that didn't exist outside the imaginations of a few Italian theology professors and their clerical allies.
Absolutely. This interview with Professor Andrea Grillo, an influential advisor an liturgy in today's curia, demonstrates this attitude in spades. Quite obvious is not just Grillo's disdain for the mass celebrated by Catholics for centuries but for the people who love it and for the two previous popes. What I don't understand at all is his disdain directed at Pope JPII, when he wasn't accommodating to Catholics who love the vetus ordo.
Are we going to say that because a diocesean priest celebrated a TLM, that every bad thing he says is suddenly a problem to all priests and the faithful having access to the TLM?
Are we going to apply this to Eastern Rites or the Novus Ordo? Far better to trust Benedict's wisdom here, which most bishops did:
"It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the 'usus antiquior,' will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal."
We need to move away from the position that the sacraments and ceremonies of the Church are rewards for good behavior, and collective punishment for bad behavior, when Altman also celebrated the Novus Ordo regularly!
So which is it, Mr. Becker? Is the liturgical form celebrated by Fr. Altman responsible for his behavior and needing corrective action, or not?
No idea. I was just pointing out the fact that Father Altman was removed as pastor before Traditionis was issued. I am making no judgments on why he was removed.
But given that he also celebrated the Novus Ordo at the time of his removal, why isn't his behavior the fault of the novus ordo? Why we feel the need to adopt standards we would never do if we applied them to ourselves i do not understand, especially when there's far better ways to handle it, and still remain within the bounds of Chrisitan charity.
It absolutely was an issue, it was just far less public and mean-spirited.
Maybe you have experienced the EF in a perfectly happy, perfectly in communion parish, and that would be great! But long before 2021, I had interacted with plenty of EF people who walked a fine line between lauding the EF and denying the legitimacy of the OF. And plenty more that flat-out rejected the crux of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which is fully active and conscious participation by the laity in the action of the Mass.
Summorum Pontificum was intended to heal divisions with the Lefebvrists, which it failed to do. Instead, it resulted in a massive expansion of parallel parishes that think of themselves as outside normal diocesan life, and an abandonment of the necessary reform of the OF. BXVI called for a mutual enrichment of both Masses, but instead people just jump ship to the EF, and adopt the attitude of waiting for all the OF parishes to die.
I'll grant this may have been less the case in areas where the same priest offered the OF and the EF at the same parish, and in that sense TC did make the problem worse by exacerbating the parallel churches problem I've mentioned above.
Can you believe we are arguing about the Mass? What happened to Peace I leave you? Do this in remembrance of me? NOT start arguing about who or how this is done.
"In some regions, however, not a few of the faithful continued to be attached with such love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms which had deeply shaped their culture and spirit, that in 1984 Pope John Paul II, concerned for their pastoral care, through the special Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty of using the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII. Again in 1988, John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, exhorted bishops to make broad and generous use of this faculty on behalf of all the faithful who sought it.
Given the continued requests of these members of the faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and having listened to the views expressed by the Cardinals present at the Consistory of 23 March 2006, upon mature consideration, having invoked the Holy Spirit and with trust in GodтАЩs help, by this Apostolic Letter we decree the following:"
And yes, I agree, treating TLMers like they are not part of normal diocesan life does in fact have a tendency to get them acting like they are not part of normal diocesan life. I think most US bishops do not like TC for that exact reason. Having the TLM at the Eucharistic Congress is a way of fighting the division. The wounds in many TLMers were being healed, and the younger crowd have never been wounded in quite the way the older ones were.
The OF parishes are not going to all die. But the ones that survive will be the ones that embrace enrichment from tradition. That's not something EF folks can force on them, it has to be the parish's choice. There's a fair number that are making it. We can only inform by living it out and talking about it, like the earthen vessels we are.
Reminder that before Traditionis, none of this crap was actually an issue.
This is all 100% the fault of Pope Francis.
Thank you, Kevin. You're exactly right. Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum was a peace trearty that ushered in a pacific era on this issue. Sure, there were hardliners on both sides that balked at the concept of "ordinary"/"extraordinary" forms, but in the pews, in the lion's share of parishes and dioceses, the motu proprio worked just fine. And yet a small coterie of malcontents prevailed on Pope Francis to shred the treaty, reopen the war and cast his lot with their side. They relied on the conceit that Summorum Pontificum had been an albatross around the necks of the world's episcopacy, and that grateful bishops would welcome Traditionis Custodes as their liberator. When >90% of bishops ignored T.C. and/or dragged their feet on implementatiom, it became obvious to one and all that T.C. was a "solution" for a problem that didn't exist outside the imaginations of a few Italian theology professors and their clerical allies.
Absolutely. This interview with Professor Andrea Grillo, an influential advisor an liturgy in today's curia, demonstrates this attitude in spades. Quite obvious is not just Grillo's disdain for the mass celebrated by Catholics for centuries but for the people who love it and for the two previous popes. What I don't understand at all is his disdain directed at Pope JPII, when he wasn't accommodating to Catholics who love the vetus ordo.
https://blog.messainlatino.it/2024/06/interview-with-prof-andrea-grillo-on.html
Thank-you for posting that link. I have to say, my disagreement with him is visceral.
Traditionis was issued on July 16, 2021. Father Altman was asked to resign as pastor from his parish on or before May 23, 2021. I would argue that at least some "of this crap" was already an issue. https://www.ncregister.com/news/controversial-la-crosse-priest-father-altman-to-challenge-bishops-request-to-resign
Are we going to say that because a diocesean priest celebrated a TLM, that every bad thing he says is suddenly a problem to all priests and the faithful having access to the TLM?
Are we going to apply this to Eastern Rites or the Novus Ordo? Far better to trust Benedict's wisdom here, which most bishops did:
"It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the 'usus antiquior,' will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal."
We need to move away from the position that the sacraments and ceremonies of the Church are rewards for good behavior, and collective punishment for bad behavior, when Altman also celebrated the Novus Ordo regularly!
So which is it, Mr. Becker? Is the liturgical form celebrated by Fr. Altman responsible for his behavior and needing corrective action, or not?
No idea. I was just pointing out the fact that Father Altman was removed as pastor before Traditionis was issued. I am making no judgments on why he was removed.
But given that he also celebrated the Novus Ordo at the time of his removal, why isn't his behavior the fault of the novus ordo? Why we feel the need to adopt standards we would never do if we applied them to ourselves i do not understand, especially when there's far better ways to handle it, and still remain within the bounds of Chrisitan charity.
It absolutely was an issue, it was just far less public and mean-spirited.
Maybe you have experienced the EF in a perfectly happy, perfectly in communion parish, and that would be great! But long before 2021, I had interacted with plenty of EF people who walked a fine line between lauding the EF and denying the legitimacy of the OF. And plenty more that flat-out rejected the crux of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which is fully active and conscious participation by the laity in the action of the Mass.
Summorum Pontificum was intended to heal divisions with the Lefebvrists, which it failed to do. Instead, it resulted in a massive expansion of parallel parishes that think of themselves as outside normal diocesan life, and an abandonment of the necessary reform of the OF. BXVI called for a mutual enrichment of both Masses, but instead people just jump ship to the EF, and adopt the attitude of waiting for all the OF parishes to die.
I'll grant this may have been less the case in areas where the same priest offered the OF and the EF at the same parish, and in that sense TC did make the problem worse by exacerbating the parallel churches problem I've mentioned above.
Can you believe we are arguing about the Mass? What happened to Peace I leave you? Do this in remembrance of me? NOT start arguing about who or how this is done.
That is not what SP says is its intended use:
"In some regions, however, not a few of the faithful continued to be attached with such love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms which had deeply shaped their culture and spirit, that in 1984 Pope John Paul II, concerned for their pastoral care, through the special Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty of using the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII. Again in 1988, John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, exhorted bishops to make broad and generous use of this faculty on behalf of all the faithful who sought it.
Given the continued requests of these members of the faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and having listened to the views expressed by the Cardinals present at the Consistory of 23 March 2006, upon mature consideration, having invoked the Holy Spirit and with trust in GodтАЩs help, by this Apostolic Letter we decree the following:"
And yes, I agree, treating TLMers like they are not part of normal diocesan life does in fact have a tendency to get them acting like they are not part of normal diocesan life. I think most US bishops do not like TC for that exact reason. Having the TLM at the Eucharistic Congress is a way of fighting the division. The wounds in many TLMers were being healed, and the younger crowd have never been wounded in quite the way the older ones were.
The OF parishes are not going to all die. But the ones that survive will be the ones that embrace enrichment from tradition. That's not something EF folks can force on them, it has to be the parish's choice. There's a fair number that are making it. We can only inform by living it out and talking about it, like the earthen vessels we are.