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 God’s 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.
This is all news to me. I’ve seen nothing on the official schedule about any of this. Where can I find this on the website? How will pilgrims know about the mass? How do they get there and back? And how difficult would it have been to have one day with a TLM in a prime area? This is how you poke the bear. Trads could have been the greatest friend of this Eucharistic Congress, and now are made—again—to feel like refugees in our own Church.
I'm pretty sure I saw it some time ago listed with different Mass options and their locations being offered but the schedule is quite full with many layers so it may be difficult to come across.
I found the website very difficult to navigate, so that might have been it. But many Trad articles and videos have come out saying there was no TLM, which only reinforced what I was not finding. Were they tucking it away somewhere?
You have to scroll down to the "Afternoon Liturgies" Section. You'll see a couple of Byzantine ones and the TLMs.
Weird because Indianapolis is actually a very liturgically diverse place; there are masses in French at St. Monica's on the NW side, and a Syro-Malabar Liturgy at St. Pius X; but neither of these made it on to the schedule. (And a Dominican Rite in Bloomington once a month). (And an Ordinariate Parish; St. Cuthbert's).
Would have been really nice to just see mass in every approved formulation to get across the breath and depth of devotion to the Eucharist across Christendom.
This is the first I've heard of *anything* TLM happening at the Congress. But if nondenominational Protestant pop-style music aka ~*~praise&worship~*~ with its emphasis on having an overly emotional experience is welcome, then traditional Catholicism bringing some solemnity should also be there as a striking counterpoint.
Altman's coup at the Coalition for Canceled Priests which included kicking Fr. Lovell out of his home shows the man's colors. That anyone is still associating with him shows the worst tendencies in the Catholic far-right towards a general hatred of unity. Fr. Altman is essentially a protestant in a cassock who started his own Church when he found the real Church not to his liking.
I mean the possibilities are endless...perhaps the work culture was nasty at that parish, or they left because they were fed up with mismanagement, or maybe they were simply a bad employee. We just don't know.
I'm not sure what rhetoric of those opposed to TLM should do. The pope spoke, most people who follow that aren't burning effigies of TLM people to celebrate. those that aren't in love with TLM (like me) mainly just shrug and say "ok"
I'm curious, is the Congress also hosting other uses and rites? Like, is there a POCSP Mass, any Eastern Catholic liturgies etc? I'm wondering because it would show a serious commitment to legitimate liturgical diversity, where the TLM is one of many options beyond the Ordinary Form.
And that’s part of the problem. We should have been on the schedule from the beginning (not this obvious desperation addition), and in the prime area (not in the boondocks). They really botched this.
I’ve been monitoring the schedule online for weeks. They have had listed liturgies up for awhile. The addition of this new TLM is only in the past few days.
I’ve been regularly checking, scouring the website for this very thing, for weeks. It’s not the best designed website in the world, but I can’t imagine I missed it when I was meticulously going through each day’s schedules every couple of weeks, looking especially for this.
I get it. my question is this: were the other "afternoon liturgies" listed, but not the TLMs. or were all the "afternoon liturgies" not yet lsited. My understanding is the latter, but if it's the former, I'll look into it.
Maybe they were deliberately trying to hide it until the Congress started... to avoid them getting cancelled via Cardinal Roche's "Thou shalt not put the TLM in bulletins or other announcements."
Holy Rosary is a really pretty church, but not the best venue in the diocese for this type of thing. When the National Catholic Youth Conference was there (I think in 2019) and did the Latin Mass, it was at St. John the Evangelist, which is kitty corner to Lucas Oil and is a remarkably large and beautiful church (it's the proto-cathedral of the diocese), and would be a much better location. Another option could have been St. Joan of Arc, but that would not have been walking distance like Holy Rosary is (which is about a mile from the conference). It's a real shame that +Perry won't be saying the TLM--I saw him do Christmas Vigil at St. John Cantius in Chicago and he is remarkable.
"Eucharistic pilgrimages preceding the Congress — which have drawn many more Catholics than were initially predicted"---do you have those numbers? How many are actually going to events on the pilgrimages or walking part of the way?
Not only! And the first Eucharistic procession I witnessed was in Munich, in 1978.
There are great priests who have been hosting parish Eucharistic processions in our Archdiocese (Baltimore) for at least the last 10-12 years. Maybe it is better to not generalize because we are all on the same team.
The public Eucharistic procession (as opposed to all the ones that didn't leave parish grounds) in my area was spearheaded by the local FSSPs, served by the FSSP parish altar boys, and largely populated by the FSSP parishioners. But it began from a NO diocesan parish and the next most active priest involved was another (very traditional) NO diocesan priest.
Growing up Novus Ordo, I had only read about such things in books.
There are many videos of the pilgrimages on Instagram, ewtn etc. there were lots of people joining in while going through our diocese. Jeffrey Bruno has some great coverage on his Instagram account.
Our diocese had tremendous turnout and were incredibly blessed with multiple stops across a week. There were several hundred walkers the day my family and I participated.
"But it’s also possible that some, especially those traditionalist Catholics who’ve suggested the Eucharistic Congress won’t support them, might raise their own objections — arguing that scheduling the TLM in a relatively small church was unrealistic, or didn’t sufficiently appreciate the number of Catholics who would show up, or was even done deliberately, with an eye on downplaying the usus antiquior at the Congress."
Unfortunately, this will be the response of some if not most traditionalist Catholics. What they and others do not understand, however, is that the space, location, and other issues regarding the Congress TLM are par for the course in general. The national revival and the Congress have been a case of building a plane while flying it.
A fair question is why weren’t we included from the beginning, as many other rites and forms were? Had we been, the Trad critiques of the Congress would have been greatly muted.
I'm willing to bet that part of the answer is that other rites belong to autocephalous churches with their own bishops who are also members of the USCCB. Traditional Catholics as a group do not constitute an autocephalous church and are not headed by a particular bishop.
In the end though, the planning of the revival and the Congress have been horribly frustrating and I think this is one of a great many things that has gotten caught up in that sloppiness. Even what has been included from the beginning is being confronted with a lot of challenges due to poor communication, planning, etc. For crying out loud, these people couldn't even get their anticipated number correct for what the capacity of the venue actually holds. *shaking me head*
I see in this the fruit of Vatican II which is most often overlooked: that laypeople have opinions about liturgy and are vocal about these opinions exactly as though we should have a say in it.
Agreed. But I think many clerics weren't (and still aren't) ready for this development. They opened up the Church to more lay opinions and were shocked to find the laity... have opinions. And it seems like the Vox Populi is a stronger force than anticipated. Like any ecumenical council, it will probably take generations for the Church to really integrate VII into the life of the Church.
I understand why Fr. Altman is considered offensive by so many, so in the interest of keeping the Congress from devolving into something unseemly, I propose the following compromise: no official role for Fr. Altman, and no official role for Cdl. Cupich. Tah-dah!
I think it’s lovely that TLM and multiple rites will be offered. I think it’s terrible there is some sort of “alternative” event. That is a deliberate act of divisiveness while claiming the sacrament that is the eternal mark of unity. Practically speaking, it’s also probably a remarkably efficient way for the aggrieved to get even less of what is purported to be lacking.
Pope Francis and +Roche have made this the current issue that it is.
I am so grateful that (multiple!) TLMs will be offered and officially “on the books” at the Congress - instead of just privately organized as a separate private thing entirely unrecognized by the main tent (like what happens with TLMs organized at WYD). I inly worry about attendees exceeding capacity!
What I don’t understand is how this is still perceived as a huge contentious polemical issue. After almost 15 years of pastors implementing liturgical “reform of the reform” incrementally, here’s the state of the populace: all the die-hard Boomers are dead or aged out of being important, all the GenXers still in the pews in 2024 are now catechized and seem open to tradition in liturgy, and literally everyone who’s a Young Adult (36 or younger) is *at least* cool with the TLM even if they don’t attend. All the Catholic Influencers™️ online love it. Only the most die-hard leftist activist Catholics still oppose the TLM. Everyone knows about it, even the brand new converts this year at my parish knew about the TLM before they even became official candidates in RCIA.
Why, why, *why* in the world is this still considered a divisive “hot-button issue” in 2024?!
The American Catholics have spoken; they want tradition, they want the TLM.
I want ad orientem Mass in mostly the vernacular with Latin chant and incense, in a beautiful church that was built to face the traditional direction, but I am also aware that without the TLM around as a cultural backdrop to stake out the tradward territory this appears too extreme to consider rather than a reasonable compromise. What is being done to raise a new generation of architects (and the donors to fund them)?
Funny enough, ecclesial and residential construction are the biggest markets right now for traditional arhitecture and design; the demand for commercial architecture is still almost non-existent. All the money is in churches and homes, and there's a growing number of architects and firms around the country that focus on this in particular. As for funding, targeted capital campaigns are producing the crowd-generated funds for renovations/restorations/new construction, each project funded mainly from the ground up with maybe local angel donor. What would be super cool is if billionaire CEOs could go back to funding things like civil buildings/churches/fountains/monuments instead of space tourism or deep-sea implodable submarines. Bring back the "Carnegie Libraries"!
Same, Bridget. I’m 40 and I want tradition and beauty but not necessarily the TLM. But I’m lucky because we have several parishes that do this in our diocese.
I started going to the TLM with the idea of dealing with the Latin and enjoying the beauty of the music and liturgical solemnity and incense.
Not that I don't still want that beauty, but now I want the Propers. I literally rejected the idea that they would have much effect on me when I started, since I had a good catechesis, and now I'd rather miss out on the music and incense. They've helped heal my heart so much.
Holy Rosary, where the TLM masses for the congress are, had one of those a few weeks ago for one of the sons of the parish's first mass. My wife went to one in Texas where they had torn the altar rails out years ago, so they just kept the first few pews empty and the priest distributed communion there.
Fully agree. I believe the reforms of Vatican II were necessary, and the EF by its very nature does not reflect those reforms. I would much rather put all of this EF energy towards solidifying the OF in all the ways you have mentioned.
Yes, there are compelling reasons to have incense at only some Masses or perhaps in only some church buildings. If we all pray a lot for vocations then we can have several Masses of varied solemnity; my parish does, in this decade, but I don't know for how long we can keep that up (we are already borrowing priests in order to do it). Right now I know which Mass times have no incense vs some incense, and which ones are longer or shorter than usual, and which ones most of the babies are at, and so on.
One of the benefits of living near the University of Notre Dame is that there are a lot of priests studying there who can serve as assistant pastors in the local parishes. Our current pastor lists which Masses will have incense on solemnities. Our former pastor was allergic to incense also, which took care of that problem.
Our last assistant left in December to teach at his diocese's seminary. We will have a new one by fall.
The discussion about exceeding capacity reminds me of one of the famous shrines I once visited in Poland (https://www.polonia.travel/es/monumentos/the-santuary-of-our-lady-of-calvary-in-kalwaria-zebrzydowska). Inside, there wasn’t enough room in the main area of the church, so people were lined up in the hallways listening to the Mass. They also broadcast the Mass on speakers outside of the church. I wonder if something like this might happen at the TLM at the Congress.
A couple of years ago, when praying about the sorrowful divisions in our church, I felt God telling me, “Go, pray with everyone.”
Since then, I estimate that I have participated in liturgies or devotions in well over 200 Catholic churches, religious communities, and shrines, in more than a half dozen languages (including Latin) and several rites. It’s been a very rich experience. Sometimes I have felt uncomfortable and unwelcome. Sometimes I have witnessed great charity and faithfulness. Jesus is there, either way.
One thing I have never run into in all that exploring, though, is a person who has “aged out of being important.”
When I read that phrase, I picture my godmother, now in her late 80s, from whom I have learned a great deal about living a faith-filled life. She is an example of the many, many pro-life, conservative, rosary-praying, obedient Catholics who view the resurgence of the pre-Vatican II liturgy with confusion and sadness. The postures, music, and decor of the church with which she has worshipped for decades have been dismissed as inadequately reverent, even by her own young pastor. And yet she still participates and contributes.
She is still important. And when the young, outspoken Catholics of today reach her age—and perhaps look around them bewildered by some new hot-button issue—they will remain important too.
I'm clearly referring to the already-waned influence of Baby Boomers as a demographic group over the past 15 years. A pastor's classic refrain of "well, I don't think that would go over well with some of the... older parishioners" regarding parish liturgy matters a lot less when that demographic has shrunk significantly and every Baby Boomer is now retirement age. Their influence is gone in these discussions.
There's almost nobody left who can legitimately claim that they "knew what it was like in the old days [before Vatican 2]"
I really hope anyone on either side of preference for or opposition to the TLM could just put aside the petty bickering and decide that maybe we could just try to have one nice thing focused on the Eucharistic Lord without turning it into a fight. It sounds like the organizers are trying their best to include everyone, which is commendable.
Here is the thing: I was reading about the funeral of a very veteran pastor (50 years in one parish) and the newspaper article from 1952 said there were a thousand people standing outside the church during his requiem Mass.
One of the key features of the "Traditional Latin Mass" is that if you are an average layperson, you would be standing outside as Mass is celebrated. That is part of the tradition.
The idea that you should be able to sit in a pew in church is completely a "novus ordo" innovation.
Back home we built a church which could hold all the parishioners 4 times over, at least. However, during the summer there were tourists standing outside and in the aisles. We parishioners knew when we had to get there early to find a seat, so we did. And we knew the summer sermons would all begin by the priest asking all us regular parishioners to raise their hands followed by a sermon about how the parish church was built for the tourists and they should contribute to its upkeep. But we all thought we should have a right to sit in a pew in church
I’m unsure of your comment “ the set of American bishops most critical of the Congress already, ”
What is the controversy, have you written about it? I’m not sure I understand bishops of the Catholic Church at their National Eucharistic Revival? Is there really disunity that is obvious? “One holy, catholic and apostolic” must not mean anything then.
We have been writing about controversy over the Congress for a couple of years. There are bishops who think it is a good idea, and bishops who have suggested it is an expensive boondoggle, insufficiently attentive to the poor, or otherwise not their preference.
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 God’s 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.
This is all news to me. I’ve seen nothing on the official schedule about any of this. Where can I find this on the website? How will pilgrims know about the mass? How do they get there and back? And how difficult would it have been to have one day with a TLM in a prime area? This is how you poke the bear. Trads could have been the greatest friend of this Eucharistic Congress, and now are made—again—to feel like refugees in our own Church.
All of the available Masses and their times and locations are on the schedule. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
I’ve been scouring the website for weeks. I never saw these before
I'm pretty sure I saw it some time ago listed with different Mass options and their locations being offered but the schedule is quite full with many layers so it may be difficult to come across.
I found the website very difficult to navigate, so that might have been it. But many Trad articles and videos have come out saying there was no TLM, which only reinforced what I was not finding. Were they tucking it away somewhere?
You have to scroll down to the "Afternoon Liturgies" Section. You'll see a couple of Byzantine ones and the TLMs.
Weird because Indianapolis is actually a very liturgically diverse place; there are masses in French at St. Monica's on the NW side, and a Syro-Malabar Liturgy at St. Pius X; but neither of these made it on to the schedule. (And a Dominican Rite in Bloomington once a month). (And an Ordinariate Parish; St. Cuthbert's).
Would have been really nice to just see mass in every approved formulation to get across the breath and depth of devotion to the Eucharist across Christendom.
This is the first I've heard of *anything* TLM happening at the Congress. But if nondenominational Protestant pop-style music aka ~*~praise&worship~*~ with its emphasis on having an overly emotional experience is welcome, then traditional Catholicism bringing some solemnity should also be there as a striking counterpoint.
Father Altman does use strong rhetoric but is the rhetoric of those opposed to the TLM doing anything to calm the situation down? I think not.
Altman's coup at the Coalition for Canceled Priests which included kicking Fr. Lovell out of his home shows the man's colors. That anyone is still associating with him shows the worst tendencies in the Catholic far-right towards a general hatred of unity. Fr. Altman is essentially a protestant in a cassock who started his own Church when he found the real Church not to his liking.
Speaking of Altman's character, I'll just leave this here. No smoking gun, but it raises questions about him...
https://www.waow.com/news/former-cemetery-employee-thinks-money-problems-led-to-poor-upkeep/article_01928da2-85d5-5228-a562-d3f37b830048.html
N.B. this article is from 2018, well before Altman became a national figure in 2020.
I wonder why this person making the accusation is a former employee? If there was no follow up, then it could have been a disgruntled employee.
I mean the possibilities are endless...perhaps the work culture was nasty at that parish, or they left because they were fed up with mismanagement, or maybe they were simply a bad employee. We just don't know.
I'm not sure what rhetoric of those opposed to TLM should do. The pope spoke, most people who follow that aren't burning effigies of TLM people to celebrate. those that aren't in love with TLM (like me) mainly just shrug and say "ok"
It's a sword that swings both ways, yeah.
I'm curious, is the Congress also hosting other uses and rites? Like, is there a POCSP Mass, any Eastern Catholic liturgies etc? I'm wondering because it would show a serious commitment to legitimate liturgical diversity, where the TLM is one of many options beyond the Ordinary Form.
Eastern liturgies yes, including Holy Qurbana in the stadium itself.
And that’s part of the problem. We should have been on the schedule from the beginning (not this obvious desperation addition), and in the prime area (not in the boondocks). They really botched this.
Ryan, as soon as the liturgy schedule was made available and published online (this week, insofar as I know) the TLM has been on it.
Location is a different question, and a fair point for discussion, but I don't think it's accurate that the liturgies were tacked on.
I’ve been monitoring the schedule online for weeks. They have had listed liturgies up for awhile. The addition of this new TLM is only in the past few days.
including the "afternoon liturgies?" Or did they only have the stadium liturgies up?
If it's including the "afternoon liturgies," I'll reach out to the Congress to ask them.
I’ve been regularly checking, scouring the website for this very thing, for weeks. It’s not the best designed website in the world, but I can’t imagine I missed it when I was meticulously going through each day’s schedules every couple of weeks, looking especially for this.
I get it. my question is this: were the other "afternoon liturgies" listed, but not the TLMs. or were all the "afternoon liturgies" not yet lsited. My understanding is the latter, but if it's the former, I'll look into it.
I suppose I can ask them that either way. We'll see what they say.
Maybe they were deliberately trying to hide it until the Congress started... to avoid them getting cancelled via Cardinal Roche's "Thou shalt not put the TLM in bulletins or other announcements."
The Pillar has outed them and now all is lost...
https://web.archive.org/web/20240413153831/https://www.eucharisticcongress.org/schedule
You can see that it was on the schedule already in April if you click on day 2 or 3.
Excellent thinking to check the “Wayback Machine.”
Holy Rosary is a really pretty church, but not the best venue in the diocese for this type of thing. When the National Catholic Youth Conference was there (I think in 2019) and did the Latin Mass, it was at St. John the Evangelist, which is kitty corner to Lucas Oil and is a remarkably large and beautiful church (it's the proto-cathedral of the diocese), and would be a much better location. Another option could have been St. Joan of Arc, but that would not have been walking distance like Holy Rosary is (which is about a mile from the conference). It's a real shame that +Perry won't be saying the TLM--I saw him do Christmas Vigil at St. John Cantius in Chicago and he is remarkable.
I dropped in at St. Joan for a morning Mass when I was in Indy recently for a workshop. Magnificent.
"Eucharistic pilgrimages preceding the Congress — which have drawn many more Catholics than were initially predicted"---do you have those numbers? How many are actually going to events on the pilgrimages or walking part of the way?
fair question. I don't have those numbers, I should have clarified that this is anecdotal. thank you.
It’s also worth noting that for many decades, the only Catholics doing Eucharistic processions were Trads.
Not only! And the first Eucharistic procession I witnessed was in Munich, in 1978.
There are great priests who have been hosting parish Eucharistic processions in our Archdiocese (Baltimore) for at least the last 10-12 years. Maybe it is better to not generalize because we are all on the same team.
I recall they had a very fine Archbishop in Munich in 1978, what was his name again?
I love that man. I was only 12 and I don’t remember him of course but it was amazing- it left a lasting impression. God is good!
The public Eucharistic procession (as opposed to all the ones that didn't leave parish grounds) in my area was spearheaded by the local FSSPs, served by the FSSP parish altar boys, and largely populated by the FSSP parishioners. But it began from a NO diocesan parish and the next most active priest involved was another (very traditional) NO diocesan priest.
Growing up Novus Ordo, I had only read about such things in books.
There are many videos of the pilgrimages on Instagram, ewtn etc. there were lots of people joining in while going through our diocese. Jeffrey Bruno has some great coverage on his Instagram account.
Our diocese had tremendous turnout and were incredibly blessed with multiple stops across a week. There were several hundred walkers the day my family and I participated.
"But it’s also possible that some, especially those traditionalist Catholics who’ve suggested the Eucharistic Congress won’t support them, might raise their own objections — arguing that scheduling the TLM in a relatively small church was unrealistic, or didn’t sufficiently appreciate the number of Catholics who would show up, or was even done deliberately, with an eye on downplaying the usus antiquior at the Congress."
Unfortunately, this will be the response of some if not most traditionalist Catholics. What they and others do not understand, however, is that the space, location, and other issues regarding the Congress TLM are par for the course in general. The national revival and the Congress have been a case of building a plane while flying it.
A fair question is why weren’t we included from the beginning, as many other rites and forms were? Had we been, the Trad critiques of the Congress would have been greatly muted.
I'm willing to bet that part of the answer is that other rites belong to autocephalous churches with their own bishops who are also members of the USCCB. Traditional Catholics as a group do not constitute an autocephalous church and are not headed by a particular bishop.
In the end though, the planning of the revival and the Congress have been horribly frustrating and I think this is one of a great many things that has gotten caught up in that sloppiness. Even what has been included from the beginning is being confronted with a lot of challenges due to poor communication, planning, etc. For crying out loud, these people couldn't even get their anticipated number correct for what the capacity of the venue actually holds. *shaking me head*
"The national revival and the Congress have been a case of building a plane while flying it."
Good one!
I see in this the fruit of Vatican II which is most often overlooked: that laypeople have opinions about liturgy and are vocal about these opinions exactly as though we should have a say in it.
Agreed. But I think many clerics weren't (and still aren't) ready for this development. They opened up the Church to more lay opinions and were shocked to find the laity... have opinions. And it seems like the Vox Populi is a stronger force than anticipated. Like any ecumenical council, it will probably take generations for the Church to really integrate VII into the life of the Church.
I understand why Fr. Altman is considered offensive by so many, so in the interest of keeping the Congress from devolving into something unseemly, I propose the following compromise: no official role for Fr. Altman, and no official role for Cdl. Cupich. Tah-dah!
Sounds fair and equal to me.
I think it’s lovely that TLM and multiple rites will be offered. I think it’s terrible there is some sort of “alternative” event. That is a deliberate act of divisiveness while claiming the sacrament that is the eternal mark of unity. Practically speaking, it’s also probably a remarkably efficient way for the aggrieved to get even less of what is purported to be lacking.
Pope Francis and +Roche have made this the current issue that it is.
I am so grateful that (multiple!) TLMs will be offered and officially “on the books” at the Congress - instead of just privately organized as a separate private thing entirely unrecognized by the main tent (like what happens with TLMs organized at WYD). I inly worry about attendees exceeding capacity!
What I don’t understand is how this is still perceived as a huge contentious polemical issue. After almost 15 years of pastors implementing liturgical “reform of the reform” incrementally, here’s the state of the populace: all the die-hard Boomers are dead or aged out of being important, all the GenXers still in the pews in 2024 are now catechized and seem open to tradition in liturgy, and literally everyone who’s a Young Adult (36 or younger) is *at least* cool with the TLM even if they don’t attend. All the Catholic Influencers™️ online love it. Only the most die-hard leftist activist Catholics still oppose the TLM. Everyone knows about it, even the brand new converts this year at my parish knew about the TLM before they even became official candidates in RCIA.
Why, why, *why* in the world is this still considered a divisive “hot-button issue” in 2024?!
The American Catholics have spoken; they want tradition, they want the TLM.
> they want tradition, they want the TLM.
I want ad orientem Mass in mostly the vernacular with Latin chant and incense, in a beautiful church that was built to face the traditional direction, but I am also aware that without the TLM around as a cultural backdrop to stake out the tradward territory this appears too extreme to consider rather than a reasonable compromise. What is being done to raise a new generation of architects (and the donors to fund them)?
Funny enough, ecclesial and residential construction are the biggest markets right now for traditional arhitecture and design; the demand for commercial architecture is still almost non-existent. All the money is in churches and homes, and there's a growing number of architects and firms around the country that focus on this in particular. As for funding, targeted capital campaigns are producing the crowd-generated funds for renovations/restorations/new construction, each project funded mainly from the ground up with maybe local angel donor. What would be super cool is if billionaire CEOs could go back to funding things like civil buildings/churches/fountains/monuments instead of space tourism or deep-sea implodable submarines. Bring back the "Carnegie Libraries"!
Same, Bridget. I’m 40 and I want tradition and beauty but not necessarily the TLM. But I’m lucky because we have several parishes that do this in our diocese.
I started going to the TLM with the idea of dealing with the Latin and enjoying the beauty of the music and liturgical solemnity and incense.
Not that I don't still want that beauty, but now I want the Propers. I literally rejected the idea that they would have much effect on me when I started, since I had a good catechesis, and now I'd rather miss out on the music and incense. They've helped heal my heart so much.
Holy Rosary, where the TLM masses for the congress are, had one of those a few weeks ago for one of the sons of the parish's first mass. My wife went to one in Texas where they had torn the altar rails out years ago, so they just kept the first few pews empty and the priest distributed communion there.
Totally. I am pretty devoted to the TLM, but I could let go of it if I could have what you describe (including communion kneeling at the altar rail).
Fully agree. I believe the reforms of Vatican II were necessary, and the EF by its very nature does not reflect those reforms. I would much rather put all of this EF energy towards solidifying the OF in all the ways you have mentioned.
As someone allergic to incense...
Yes, there are compelling reasons to have incense at only some Masses or perhaps in only some church buildings. If we all pray a lot for vocations then we can have several Masses of varied solemnity; my parish does, in this decade, but I don't know for how long we can keep that up (we are already borrowing priests in order to do it). Right now I know which Mass times have no incense vs some incense, and which ones are longer or shorter than usual, and which ones most of the babies are at, and so on.
One of the benefits of living near the University of Notre Dame is that there are a lot of priests studying there who can serve as assistant pastors in the local parishes. Our current pastor lists which Masses will have incense on solemnities. Our former pastor was allergic to incense also, which took care of that problem.
Our last assistant left in December to teach at his diocese's seminary. We will have a new one by fall.
The discussion about exceeding capacity reminds me of one of the famous shrines I once visited in Poland (https://www.polonia.travel/es/monumentos/the-santuary-of-our-lady-of-calvary-in-kalwaria-zebrzydowska). Inside, there wasn’t enough room in the main area of the church, so people were lined up in the hallways listening to the Mass. They also broadcast the Mass on speakers outside of the church. I wonder if something like this might happen at the TLM at the Congress.
A couple of years ago, when praying about the sorrowful divisions in our church, I felt God telling me, “Go, pray with everyone.”
Since then, I estimate that I have participated in liturgies or devotions in well over 200 Catholic churches, religious communities, and shrines, in more than a half dozen languages (including Latin) and several rites. It’s been a very rich experience. Sometimes I have felt uncomfortable and unwelcome. Sometimes I have witnessed great charity and faithfulness. Jesus is there, either way.
One thing I have never run into in all that exploring, though, is a person who has “aged out of being important.”
When I read that phrase, I picture my godmother, now in her late 80s, from whom I have learned a great deal about living a faith-filled life. She is an example of the many, many pro-life, conservative, rosary-praying, obedient Catholics who view the resurgence of the pre-Vatican II liturgy with confusion and sadness. The postures, music, and decor of the church with which she has worshipped for decades have been dismissed as inadequately reverent, even by her own young pastor. And yet she still participates and contributes.
She is still important. And when the young, outspoken Catholics of today reach her age—and perhaps look around them bewildered by some new hot-button issue—they will remain important too.
I'm clearly referring to the already-waned influence of Baby Boomers as a demographic group over the past 15 years. A pastor's classic refrain of "well, I don't think that would go over well with some of the... older parishioners" regarding parish liturgy matters a lot less when that demographic has shrunk significantly and every Baby Boomer is now retirement age. Their influence is gone in these discussions.
There's almost nobody left who can legitimately claim that they "knew what it was like in the old days [before Vatican 2]"
Speak for yourself. Some of us love the NO provided it is said by the book rather than extemporaneously.
“Provided it is said by the book”
Sounds like you’re already fundamentally at odds with the liturgical reformers of 70s-80s.
The idea that you “say the black, do the red” is a traditional liturgical paradigm.
I also love the NO, attend a “NO parish” and don’t attend the TLM regularly.
I really hope anyone on either side of preference for or opposition to the TLM could just put aside the petty bickering and decide that maybe we could just try to have one nice thing focused on the Eucharistic Lord without turning it into a fight. It sounds like the organizers are trying their best to include everyone, which is commendable.
Are we sure the secret special guest isn’t Harrison Butker?
That would be awesome!
Here is the thing: I was reading about the funeral of a very veteran pastor (50 years in one parish) and the newspaper article from 1952 said there were a thousand people standing outside the church during his requiem Mass.
One of the key features of the "Traditional Latin Mass" is that if you are an average layperson, you would be standing outside as Mass is celebrated. That is part of the tradition.
The idea that you should be able to sit in a pew in church is completely a "novus ordo" innovation.
Back home we built a church which could hold all the parishioners 4 times over, at least. However, during the summer there were tourists standing outside and in the aisles. We parishioners knew when we had to get there early to find a seat, so we did. And we knew the summer sermons would all begin by the priest asking all us regular parishioners to raise their hands followed by a sermon about how the parish church was built for the tourists and they should contribute to its upkeep. But we all thought we should have a right to sit in a pew in church
I’m unsure of your comment “ the set of American bishops most critical of the Congress already, ”
What is the controversy, have you written about it? I’m not sure I understand bishops of the Catholic Church at their National Eucharistic Revival? Is there really disunity that is obvious? “One holy, catholic and apostolic” must not mean anything then.
We have been writing about controversy over the Congress for a couple of years. There are bishops who think it is a good idea, and bishops who have suggested it is an expensive boondoggle, insufficiently attentive to the poor, or otherwise not their preference.
Check out some of the pieces on America's website.