If it meant we could get "Ah! The Spiderman!" from the pope then I'm on board with not including titles in the letter. But on the bright side, Tom Holland has been a fun "popular historian" for me so I'm glad he's associated with this.
His podcast "The Rest Is History" with Dominic Sandbrook has many amusing episodes and often reflects his profound appreciation for the impact of Christianity on world affairs. While they certainly have gaps in their understanding of Catholic teachings the podcast appears mostly unencumbered by the politically correct revisionism that's rampant elsewhere.
The Agatha Christie Indult was also a realization by Paul VI that his attempt to entirely suppress the Latin Mass on the sly (only allowing elderly and infirm priests to say it privately) had failed in getting the Church to "move on". They accepted the reforms, but even then, they were never really embraced.
Once that Indult was signed, the survival of the Latin Mass was functionally inevitable.
It is said that Pope Francis is the spiritual successor not of JPII and Benedict, but Paul VI and his generation. Time will tell if he learnd the same lesson Paul did.
FWIW, I think Francis and his court WANT to ban the Latin Mass, but they can't figure out how to get there, and they are also aware that Fiducia supplicans changed everything. Its no longer a given directives from Rome will be implemented, and bishops no longer treat it a given that Rome will stick by its original decrees.
Just now read it. It's not just he "Backed down". He folded. Gave them what they wanted, and it was the obvious solution back when this mess started becoming hot agian.
I think what they wanted was for the uniform liturgy to not be a thing anymore. What they got was for it to be something the laity can easily avoid.
It was one obvious solution. I can think of variants, like requiring each parish (not priest) to celebrate at least one Mass per week entirely ad orientem and at least one per week entirely ad populum and the rest as they please and forget the uniform liturgy entirely. The idea of just excommunicating everyone over it didn't occur to me.
I am somewhat amused that they began with 2 different ways of offering Divine Liturgy, decided there ought to be only one, came up with a compromise way, and now they have 3... https://xkcd.com/927/
I really appreciate these British luminaries coming out in support of the Latin Mass. God bless them all. Ms. Jagger's ex-husband famously sang, "You can't always get what you want." But I certainly hope and pray that these good folks get what they want this time.
It would help if the people signing this also specifically affirmed Vatican II. It would generate good will and reassure people like me that proponents of the Latin Mass truly hold it dear for the aesthetic elements that are elaborated in this letter, and not because they want to force the church back in time to the early 20th century.
As pointed out, most of these are non-catholic, who view the suppression of the TLM as cultural vandalism.
I also gotta ask this with all sincerity: why should Catholics have to dance for you? We don't ask all Catholics to assent to Vatican II before they enter into Church, even though its clear a lot of people in the Novus ordo also reject it, and arguably even more reject Vatican I and Trent, at least in the strict sense.
Because such strict scrutiny is silly. So let's hear exactly what people need to assent to from Vatican II, why there's good evidence they don't, and how this helps promote unity
Why are loyalty oaths demanded only of people who like or appreciate Latin Mass? A large group of Catholic and non-Catholic comedians were recently feted at the Vatican. Did anyone ask Whoopi Goldberg and Julia Louis-Dreyfus to affirm their support of the Magisterium?
I don't understand what you (or others) mean by the phrase "specifically affirm Vatican II." Aside from fringe groups, who has "specifically rejected Vatican II"? It seems to me that the accusations that anyone who enjoys or supports permitting the TLM somehow “opposes Vatican II” is a strange, vague, and unhelpful charge. It seems to be routinely and carelessly lobbed as if the truth of it is unassailable. I think it is a slur and would like to know:
1) Who, specifically, is rejecting Vatican II?
2) What do they reject? Is it one of four Apostolic Constitutions, nine decrees, and three declarations? All of the above? Some of it?
3) How does the "Spirit of Vatican II" differ from the actual documents?
4) Can a faithful Catholic legitimately criticize or even reject the implementation of Vatican II documents?
5) How does the celebration of the TLM by a small group "force the church back in time to the early 20th Century"?
6) Will banning the TLM make them change their minds?
I'll only address Item 3 above. There is no difference between the true spirit and the documents of Vatican II. The "spirit ," often cited is an artifice created by a relatively few theologians and clergy to enable them to change Church teachings, nearly always to liberalize and justify sexual behaviors that are contrary to Church teachings. Tragically, not a few of the faithful have fallen for these lies. I'm always stunned that such people--the theologians and clergy--have not read Ezekiel and heeded the message to false shepherds. By the way, I agree with your other points.
Yes! I was born in 1965 and will admit that, until a few years ago, I had not actually read the documents. Once I did, I realized several things:
1) The documents are orthodox and, when read with the "hermeneutic of continuity," there are no impediments for ordinary Catholics. Yes, some theologians, clergy and overly pedantic laymen can quibble over details, but the documents are not the rupture some claim.
2) The "Spirit of Vatican II" is almost always a cover for smuggling heterodox ideas, some explicitly rejected by the Council, and usually those meant to conform the Church to the world rather than the other way around.
3) Those who cry most loudly about others "rejecting Vatican II" are usually conflating the actual documents with the imagined outcome represented by "the Spirit of Vatican II" and projecting.
"Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied."
I'm so tired of all this TLM stuff. If you're Catholic, then you need to follow what the Pope says. That's it. I wish there was as much outrage about criminalizing homelessness.
I totally agree with you. The exhausting part of the TLM discussion is that too often, it's not a discussion at all. It's endless arguments about being right.
And your calls to "move on" sound more like you are angry you aren't winning that argument over who is "right", or what you perceive to be that argument.
You don't have to participate in the discussion. Let those who care deeply about it have that discussion.
I don't care one way or the other about TLM. I obey the directives of Pope Francis. Things change, and we need to move along. There's lots of issues I don't agree with in the Church, but I have a decision to make if I want to remain in communion with Her, and I do choose to remain with Her even though I struggle.
- I agree. There is a growing movement in the Church to move away from the "Spirit of Vatican II" developments of the 70's and 80's and back toward a more (little T) traditional way of worship. In this case, who are the people refusing to "move along"?
There is a large disconnect between the faithful laity and many of those in the curia. This is why it is such a contentious and frequent subject. I'm am sure that you are saying this charitably in hopes that people would refrain from becoming schismatics, sedes, or crypto-sedes, but telling those who desire a more reverent style of worship that they "need to follow what the Pope says" and that you "obey the directives of Pope Francis" rings as condescending.
It implies that those who have reasonable objections that faithful Catholics should be forced to only participate in "Spirit of Vatican II" Novus Ordo masses reject the authority of the Pope. It unjustly declares the faithful to be schismatics.
"I wish there was as much outrage about criminalizing homelessness."
- This is a Straw man fallacy. It assumes that those who care about the TLM have no concern for the homeless, poor, or other other individuals that Catholic Social Teaching tells us to minister to, but it is a baseless accusation. Please don't do this.
This gets brought up because the lay faithful have the RIGHT to do so. It is spiritually important to them.
Canon 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
I understand. You are more than free to work on your own spiritual needs. Please do so. It is something vitally important to the Catholic life and should be done by everyone.
Please see my section above about Canon 212. This need is why it is coming up so often and why people are fighting desperately to save something that they find spiritually nourishing.
"I wish it said something about the way to do it, as in privately and politely."
- I'll answer this here so we don't split comments too much. The nature of the opposition is through the curia on the Church as a whole. This necessitates a public conversation with those outside our personal sphere of influence AS WELL AS private conversations with the priests and bishops within that sphere.
I fully agree on politeness. Charity in all things. Those who fail to do so are failing to be "attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons." (Can. 212 §3). It is a failing of human nature after the fall that is so difficult to maintain civility when being repeatedly slapped by those whom we are called to love and obey.
"There is a growing movement in the Church to move away from the "Spirit of Vatican II" developments of the 70's and 80's and back toward a more (little T) traditional way of worship. In this case, who are the people refusing to "move along"?"
I don't think that is true. We are half a century away from the Council. I tend to agree with the late Cardinal George of Chicago that "Catholic liberalism is an exhausted project." When asked (by Peggy Steinfels) to explain himself, he said what he meant was that while Catholic liberalism made great contributions to the Church, it has exhausted its contributions to the Church.
It is time to neither return to practices we abandoned because we found them wanting, nor to try to squeeze more toothpaste out of a tube that has given its all.
I find with young Catholics, many are moving in a third way. A new and different direction. Pillar is going to have to give me a guest column to fully explain it, but both sides of the "Spirit of Vatican II" debate are empty vessels.
But the Pope hasn't issued a directive banning the Latin Mass, with canonical penalties for Bishops and priests who refuse to implement it.
Church law is not based on an imaginary will that can't be known. Laws are interpreted according to the mind of the Pope, but he must make that mind known.
Barring that, everyone is free to point out that something he has a plan to do is a very bad idea, and will end up harming the Church. Yours is the kind of thinking that produced the abuse scandals, and led to the Pope immolating his credibility during Fiudcia supplicans.
We should not be in the business of attaching conditions for remaining in communion with the Church that pointlessly alienate otherwise faithful catholics. And the hierarchy that does this will answer to God for it. It is the job of the laity to perpetually remind them of that fact.
> the kind of thinking that produced the abuse scandals
This is a good point. Multiple Popes contributed to the abuse scandals by having bad ideas and by trusting people who were rotten.
As another example I would also add that the tide has turned multiple times with regard to financial reform (I was reminded of this when reading Cardinal Pell's prison journal). There are pragmatic matters on which we can rightly say that the Pope's previous support for something was more prudent than that same Pope's temporary lapse in support for that same thing, and in that case we can certainly pray that he will return to his previous support of the thing; a Catholic could also decide "following the financial scandals at the Vatican is harming my prayer life" and in that case the best thing to do would be to not read those articles or those comments in the first place, and pray for "God's will to be done" with the understanding that some people (well, Ed at least) are still going to care a lot about right and wrong and write a lot about it and that they (along with everyone else's actions) are somehow encompassed in God's providential will.
Some of us think Ed's coverage of Church scandals encourages those who might be inclined to act scandalously to consider whether they would want him to shine a light on their actions. If not, it might cause them to cease and desist. The Church needs to act like Christ's spotless bride.
I have no particular attachment to the TLM. But I find the Vatican's fulminations about it to be quite absurd. They act like it's the biggest threat to the Church's unity of all time, when we've got Germany on the brink of schism, confusion about the Church's teachings rampant, and actual heresy not getting rebuked. It's majoring in minors, and betrays a weird obsession.
Well, people like what they like, and no pope can do our liking for us. Besides, the authority of the 250+ popes who approved of Latin Mass is at least as valid as that of the 1 or 2 who didn't or don't.
When Paul opposed Peter to his face (Galatians 2:11), was he doing the wrong thing? Respectfully, I think that no Pope is the source and summit of Christian life. If the current Pope isn't himself following what was handed on to him by his predecessors we should oppose him, to his face if possible.
This is my problem. It is harmful to my faith to have TLM attacked, not because I attend TLM regularly, but because how can the pre-vatican II mass be wrong? Why is the spiritual ground of the Church not solid? It shakes me a lot. It is not good.
If I am honest, I do sense spite in the current Pope. I am not rejecting him, but the decisions he makes are unlike those of the Popes before him. Ultimately I submit, as we all must. But that doesn't mean this is a comfortable experience, or that there is not (needless?) spiritual damage occurring.
Your comment would seem to suggest that these things are opposed and I'm not sure that they are. Many of the most charitable people I know, who spend countless hours ministering to the needy including the homeless, are also TLM attendees. They're probably not keyboard warriors of any stripe, though, and there's probably a lesson to be learned there (certainly for me!)
I get that people don't care about their fellow Catholics and whether they can worship in peace and pass on the faith to their kids. That's pretty common and most bishops seem to fall in that category (else they would have taken pedo priests more seriously). It is also why the TLM attracts so many young people.
If you don't care about their families, they will seek out spiritual succor from those who do.
I fully expect that, if a future HF were to ban social activism regarding, say, homelessness, or opposition to criminalizing same, you wouldn't be happy to read about people "tired of all this homelessness stuff." Furthermore, because the preservation of the TLM pertains directly to the salvation of souls, you should actually care far more about the TLM than homelessness. The church has literally one mission, and it isn't soup kitchens or shelters.
You are right to be tired of it, because anxiety is not from Christ; it is from the devil. We ought to be tired of seeing people tormented by rumor and speculation, and we ought to be sympathetic to them and give them compassionate and positively-framed advice that will help them to resist temptation and to grow in faith in God the Father who cares for every individual sparrow and to whom we are each worth many sparrows. The best way to do this is to think back to a time "when was I anxious about the future? when did I have difficulty in trusting God?" and feel your way back into your own emotion/thought cycle and how you were eventually able to break out of it; e.g., did you go for a walk in sunlight? did you go to adoration? did you read some particular passage in scripture? did you raid the refrigerator and then regret it later (as a hobbit I have been down this road a few times & do not recommend)? is there a particular go-to prayer that helps you (I find the closing prayer in the Divine Mercy chaplet helpful even though usually I have begun praying the chaplet for some other intention)? But we ought to start even earlier and describe "how did I begin to identify (each time it happens, perhaps a little earlier each time before I get into a tailspin) that I am being attacked by the enemy with a temptation to be anxious about the future", or, how were my eyes opened "a little" as St Ignatius of Loyola says in his autobiography.
I've always found it shocking that the cries of normal, everyday Catholics for the old rites back in the 70s was totally ignored (and worse, such people were accused of schism and heresy in extreme and nasty ways which seem shocking to the modern person) - and yet the voice of celebrity non-Catholics was listened to and acted upon.
I guess if lay Catholics have to rely on celebrities to support our rights against oppression by the clergy, then so be it.
In Sept 2015 I went on an Agatha Christie walk round her hometown of Wallingford, 15 miles south of Oxford. The walk guides and the other walkers were fascinated when I explained her small role in Catholic history.
Looking at the musicians among the 2024 signatories....it is a reminder of the bigger names like Beethoven, Bruckner, Mozart, Hadyn, etc who wrote for the Latin Mass. There is stacks of Latin worship music out in concert halls and YouTube, just waiting to move back where it belongs.
And even Lutheran J.S. Bach wrote for the Latin Mass... with Kyrie-Gloria parts usable by buth Catholics and Lutherans, but his Mass for the Dresden court including parts only usable in Catholic Mass.
I have been to Mass in the beautiful Catholic cathedral in Dresden. Sadly, it was mostly empty. Dresden's population was mostly Lutheran when this cathedral was built, but its rulers were Catholic.
And modern non Catholic composers like Aarvo Paart cannot resist the Latin either.
Thanks Luke and The Pillar for this article! If I were the typical Vatican official behind this supposed plan of further restricting the TLM, why would I prefer to drive traditional Catholics to pockets instead of integrating them in their dioceses? I would be worried about strengthening these groups because, let's face it, they would very likely continue to grow. I live in a country where the TLM is completely suppressed, yet thanks to the World Wide Web, I have been able to find Latin Masses in other countries when I travel. There's documentaries in YouTube, documents online, The Pillar articles like this one. It seems counter intuitive to push further restrictions, wouldn't it be more convenient even for the sake of "control" to keep them closer to local bishops?
I agree, if the goal is to draw as many Catholics as possible as close to the local bishop as possible, this makes no sense whatsoever and will be counterproductive.
If the goal is to end all celebration of the TLM, then they must be willing to push the people who love it out of the Church. Since they can't directly excommunicate people for attending the TLM, they have to drive them out to the margins and wound and anger and spiritually weaken them to get them to start doing things that do remove them from the Church.
I used to hear a few traditionalist commentators say things like: the worse the NO is, the bigger the contrast between it and the TLM, the more people will come to the TLM, the better things are. I haven't heard it said in a many years, which is good, because it's false. Thoroughly counterproductive. Liturgy forms you, for the better, or for the worse. I think the more ordered the liturgy is toward God, the more the people who assist at it will order themselves toward God, the closer they will draw to Tradition, truth, beauty, and goodness - and each other. In the same way, you cannot draw people closer to the true V2 and their bishops via injustice, insults, rigidity, and heavy burdens. God can mend things in spite of that, but there'll be no advantage to those who did them.
That cardinal what's-his-name in DC said something a while ago, which I think we could take to be the thinking of others as well: I don't recall his exact words but he sort of accused priests of "making" people want the TLM (by exposing them to it) and his position was that it was the priests' fault and they are causing a mess and now people are sad. (This is a stupid position which an intelligent man like himself could probably see if he talked to enough of the people that he is making assumptions about, but that is neither here nor there.) Therefore, according to this position, making the TLM hard to get to and rare (driving it into pockets) will prevent people from being exposed to it and therefore prevent them from catching this "disease" of wanting the TLM. (Gregory... Cardinal Gregory, that's his name... https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256228/washington-archbishop-addresses-decision-to-limit-traditional-latin-mass irony should make it easier for me to remember next time.)
The response of the campus ministry team to being told tradition needed to "die a slow, bloody death" was to begin offering reverent Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in Latin on Sunday mornings. Given that the good Cardinal's response was provoked by a student asking why his and his fellows' spiritual needs were being unmet, this seems an appropriately _pastoral_ accompaniment.
I believe it is a Sarum Rite Mass (or at least a descendant), translated into English and convoluted a bit by Anglicanism, then deconvaluted a bit by Catholicism. The Sarum Rite is the Rite that was celebrated in England, pre-Reformation.
EF is the Tridentine Rite, which Catholics in England celebrated after Henry VIII, because during the persecution all of their priests either came from mainland Europe, or were Englishmen who went there to train. By the time the persecutions stopped, generations later, Catholics associated the Sarum Rite with Anglicanism, and wanted the Tridentine Rite they remembered offering in hiding, even though the Vatican explicitly allowed and encouraged them to have the Sarum Rite back again. Something I find rather sad.
They aren't the same thing, even though they both existed at the same time in the pre-Reformation Catholic Church, and are both Latin Rites (Latin Church has a lot of different Rites).
I heard there was a group that delved into liturgical books, trained, got permission, and actually celebrated a Sarum Rite Mass (Pre-Reformation, ergo, in Latin), and posted it on youtube. If I get curious enough, maybe I'll look up an AO Mass and do a side-by-side comparison.
I have heard that before. I don't think the position passes muster even if you never meet any of the people who attend the Gregorian Rite, since they all had decades of exposure to the NO before ever seeing it - you'd think that would give it quite the handicap.
My TLM resistance is based on the beauty of it and on the cultural poverty of the new normal. The urge to ban the TLM feels to me of a piece with the "modern" urge to shut the door firmly on the "bad" past and everything in it.
Perhaps the "Vatican functionaries" could benefit from a study of the literature of the Russian Old Believers. They seem to be bent on "rhyming" that bit of history...
In my own diocese, the priest in charge of the former Mass order has said himself that interest in it has plateaued and it has become a "boutique" form of the Mass. In another diocese, the priest who celebrated it only considered it proper for highly educated white collar Catholics.
So I get the point that the cultural elite in the UK see it as something interesting and even something that speaks to their milieu.
Ouch. Only highly educated office job Catholics are smart enough to worship at an EF mass ?!?
I’m a Team OF 4evr girl (real OF by the GIRM with alllll the Latin etc) and that is …. Not a good look on a comment. The idea that most people are too stupid for literally any mass is pretty terrible
I'm just reporting what the actual priests leading the celebrations of the old Mass order said. Don't shoot the messenger. Now if their point is aesthetics that appeal to a certain milieu or intelligence, I'll let them speak for themselves.
Is anyone else disappointed that it's Tom Holland the historian, and not Tom Holland the Spiderman?
The historian seems like a pretty decent guy though.
If it meant we could get "Ah! The Spiderman!" from the pope then I'm on board with not including titles in the letter. But on the bright side, Tom Holland has been a fun "popular historian" for me so I'm glad he's associated with this.
His podcast "The Rest Is History" with Dominic Sandbrook has many amusing episodes and often reflects his profound appreciation for the impact of Christianity on world affairs. While they certainly have gaps in their understanding of Catholic teachings the podcast appears mostly unencumbered by the politically correct revisionism that's rampant elsewhere.
I'd never heard of him, and now I'm thinking of listening to the podcast.
You should- it’s fun!
No. Of course it is the historian author of Pax and Dominion et al. What is 'the Spiderman'?
What is the Spider- Man? What, indeed!
In the chill of night
At the scene of a crime
Like a streak of light
He arrives just in time.
To my knowledge, no one has seen them both in the same room.
This seems highly suspicious.
We need a laugh option on this site!
Surprised and glad to read this!
God bless the good people of the UK!
I was just reading about the Agatha Christie letter in the Tolkien spiritual biography.
And Pope Paul VI sighed: "Ah! Agatha Christie..."
And Pope Francis scoffed: "Hmmph! Codgers..."
The Agatha Christie Indult was also a realization by Paul VI that his attempt to entirely suppress the Latin Mass on the sly (only allowing elderly and infirm priests to say it privately) had failed in getting the Church to "move on". They accepted the reforms, but even then, they were never really embraced.
Once that Indult was signed, the survival of the Latin Mass was functionally inevitable.
It is said that Pope Francis is the spiritual successor not of JPII and Benedict, but Paul VI and his generation. Time will tell if he learnd the same lesson Paul did.
FWIW, I think Francis and his court WANT to ban the Latin Mass, but they can't figure out how to get there, and they are also aware that Fiducia supplicans changed everything. Its no longer a given directives from Rome will be implemented, and bishops no longer treat it a given that Rome will stick by its original decrees.
The complete absence of excommunications of Syro-Malabar priests today might be further support for the non-implementation of Roman directives.
Something new happen?
Something explicitly threatened in writing didn't happen. The Metropolitan? backed down. It's on the Pillar.
Just now read it. It's not just he "Backed down". He folded. Gave them what they wanted, and it was the obvious solution back when this mess started becoming hot agian.
I think what they wanted was for the uniform liturgy to not be a thing anymore. What they got was for it to be something the laity can easily avoid.
It was one obvious solution. I can think of variants, like requiring each parish (not priest) to celebrate at least one Mass per week entirely ad orientem and at least one per week entirely ad populum and the rest as they please and forget the uniform liturgy entirely. The idea of just excommunicating everyone over it didn't occur to me.
I am somewhat amused that they began with 2 different ways of offering Divine Liturgy, decided there ought to be only one, came up with a compromise way, and now they have 3... https://xkcd.com/927/
Sort of what happened at the Council of Pisa with Popes.
The only correct response is for all to fall to their knees and belt out "Hail, Poetry, thou heav’n-born maid!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FjXzRcnuXc
https://gsarchive.net/pirates/web_op/pirates14.html
No comparison between the Vatican and a crew of compassionately incompetent singing pirates is intended
(edit to add: although maybe it should be)
I am the very model of a modern Catholic cardinal...
*happy English noises*
And, for once, Scottish. Sir James Macmillan is one of the truly great composers of the 21st Century, and a thoroughly brilliant Catholic.
I really appreciate these British luminaries coming out in support of the Latin Mass. God bless them all. Ms. Jagger's ex-husband famously sang, "You can't always get what you want." But I certainly hope and pray that these good folks get what they want this time.
It would help if the people signing this also specifically affirmed Vatican II. It would generate good will and reassure people like me that proponents of the Latin Mass truly hold it dear for the aesthetic elements that are elaborated in this letter, and not because they want to force the church back in time to the early 20th century.
Non-Catholics are not going to assent to Vatican 2.
As pointed out, most of these are non-catholic, who view the suppression of the TLM as cultural vandalism.
I also gotta ask this with all sincerity: why should Catholics have to dance for you? We don't ask all Catholics to assent to Vatican II before they enter into Church, even though its clear a lot of people in the Novus ordo also reject it, and arguably even more reject Vatican I and Trent, at least in the strict sense.
Because such strict scrutiny is silly. So let's hear exactly what people need to assent to from Vatican II, why there's good evidence they don't, and how this helps promote unity
Why are loyalty oaths demanded only of people who like or appreciate Latin Mass? A large group of Catholic and non-Catholic comedians were recently feted at the Vatican. Did anyone ask Whoopi Goldberg and Julia Louis-Dreyfus to affirm their support of the Magisterium?
> Did anyone ask Whoopi Goldberg and Julia Louis-Dreyfus to affirm their support of the Magisterium?
I would (and I say this as a person who gave up contributing to Peter's Pence a while ago) pay good money to see that.
I don't understand what you (or others) mean by the phrase "specifically affirm Vatican II." Aside from fringe groups, who has "specifically rejected Vatican II"? It seems to me that the accusations that anyone who enjoys or supports permitting the TLM somehow “opposes Vatican II” is a strange, vague, and unhelpful charge. It seems to be routinely and carelessly lobbed as if the truth of it is unassailable. I think it is a slur and would like to know:
1) Who, specifically, is rejecting Vatican II?
2) What do they reject? Is it one of four Apostolic Constitutions, nine decrees, and three declarations? All of the above? Some of it?
3) How does the "Spirit of Vatican II" differ from the actual documents?
4) Can a faithful Catholic legitimately criticize or even reject the implementation of Vatican II documents?
5) How does the celebration of the TLM by a small group "force the church back in time to the early 20th Century"?
6) Will banning the TLM make them change their minds?
Those who deny the right of bishops to decide how best to implement things in their own dioceses reject Vatican II. Who would do such a thing?
*mic drop*
I'll only address Item 3 above. There is no difference between the true spirit and the documents of Vatican II. The "spirit ," often cited is an artifice created by a relatively few theologians and clergy to enable them to change Church teachings, nearly always to liberalize and justify sexual behaviors that are contrary to Church teachings. Tragically, not a few of the faithful have fallen for these lies. I'm always stunned that such people--the theologians and clergy--have not read Ezekiel and heeded the message to false shepherds. By the way, I agree with your other points.
Yes! I was born in 1965 and will admit that, until a few years ago, I had not actually read the documents. Once I did, I realized several things:
1) The documents are orthodox and, when read with the "hermeneutic of continuity," there are no impediments for ordinary Catholics. Yes, some theologians, clergy and overly pedantic laymen can quibble over details, but the documents are not the rupture some claim.
2) The "Spirit of Vatican II" is almost always a cover for smuggling heterodox ideas, some explicitly rejected by the Council, and usually those meant to conform the Church to the world rather than the other way around.
3) Those who cry most loudly about others "rejecting Vatican II" are usually conflating the actual documents with the imagined outcome represented by "the Spirit of Vatican II" and projecting.
"Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied."
> and reassure people like me that proponents of the Latin Mass truly hold it dear for the aesthetic elements
Why on earth would you be *reassured* by that? Come, let us read St. John of the Cross together.
I'm so tired of all this TLM stuff. If you're Catholic, then you need to follow what the Pope says. That's it. I wish there was as much outrage about criminalizing homelessness.
I totally agree with you. The exhausting part of the TLM discussion is that too often, it's not a discussion at all. It's endless arguments about being right.
And your calls to "move on" sound more like you are angry you aren't winning that argument over who is "right", or what you perceive to be that argument.
You don't have to participate in the discussion. Let those who care deeply about it have that discussion.
Thank you for this advice. I'm done.
I'm grateful for Sherri's voice here.
Wouldn't the logical thing to be stop trying to criminalie the TLM, and start focus on what you think is bad instead?
I don't care one way or the other about TLM. I obey the directives of Pope Francis. Things change, and we need to move along. There's lots of issues I don't agree with in the Church, but I have a decision to make if I want to remain in communion with Her, and I do choose to remain with Her even though I struggle.
"Things change, and we need to move along."
- I agree. There is a growing movement in the Church to move away from the "Spirit of Vatican II" developments of the 70's and 80's and back toward a more (little T) traditional way of worship. In this case, who are the people refusing to "move along"?
There is a large disconnect between the faithful laity and many of those in the curia. This is why it is such a contentious and frequent subject. I'm am sure that you are saying this charitably in hopes that people would refrain from becoming schismatics, sedes, or crypto-sedes, but telling those who desire a more reverent style of worship that they "need to follow what the Pope says" and that you "obey the directives of Pope Francis" rings as condescending.
It implies that those who have reasonable objections that faithful Catholics should be forced to only participate in "Spirit of Vatican II" Novus Ordo masses reject the authority of the Pope. It unjustly declares the faithful to be schismatics.
"I wish there was as much outrage about criminalizing homelessness."
- This is a Straw man fallacy. It assumes that those who care about the TLM have no concern for the homeless, poor, or other other individuals that Catholic Social Teaching tells us to minister to, but it is a baseless accusation. Please don't do this.
In addendum:
This gets brought up because the lay faithful have the RIGHT to do so. It is spiritually important to them.
Canon 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
I wish it said something about the way to do it, as in privately and politely.
I'll repeat myself: I don't care one way or the other about TLM. My point is that a lot of energy seems to be focused on it.
I understand. You are more than free to work on your own spiritual needs. Please do so. It is something vitally important to the Catholic life and should be done by everyone.
Please see my section above about Canon 212. This need is why it is coming up so often and why people are fighting desperately to save something that they find spiritually nourishing.
"I wish it said something about the way to do it, as in privately and politely."
- I'll answer this here so we don't split comments too much. The nature of the opposition is through the curia on the Church as a whole. This necessitates a public conversation with those outside our personal sphere of influence AS WELL AS private conversations with the priests and bishops within that sphere.
I fully agree on politeness. Charity in all things. Those who fail to do so are failing to be "attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons." (Can. 212 §3). It is a failing of human nature after the fall that is so difficult to maintain civility when being repeatedly slapped by those whom we are called to love and obey.
There's a large difference between polite and deferential.
Amen!
"There is a growing movement in the Church to move away from the "Spirit of Vatican II" developments of the 70's and 80's and back toward a more (little T) traditional way of worship. In this case, who are the people refusing to "move along"?"
I don't think that is true. We are half a century away from the Council. I tend to agree with the late Cardinal George of Chicago that "Catholic liberalism is an exhausted project." When asked (by Peggy Steinfels) to explain himself, he said what he meant was that while Catholic liberalism made great contributions to the Church, it has exhausted its contributions to the Church.
It is time to neither return to practices we abandoned because we found them wanting, nor to try to squeeze more toothpaste out of a tube that has given its all.
I find with young Catholics, many are moving in a third way. A new and different direction. Pillar is going to have to give me a guest column to fully explain it, but both sides of the "Spirit of Vatican II" debate are empty vessels.
But the Pope hasn't issued a directive banning the Latin Mass, with canonical penalties for Bishops and priests who refuse to implement it.
Church law is not based on an imaginary will that can't be known. Laws are interpreted according to the mind of the Pope, but he must make that mind known.
Barring that, everyone is free to point out that something he has a plan to do is a very bad idea, and will end up harming the Church. Yours is the kind of thinking that produced the abuse scandals, and led to the Pope immolating his credibility during Fiudcia supplicans.
We should not be in the business of attaching conditions for remaining in communion with the Church that pointlessly alienate otherwise faithful catholics. And the hierarchy that does this will answer to God for it. It is the job of the laity to perpetually remind them of that fact.
> the kind of thinking that produced the abuse scandals
This is a good point. Multiple Popes contributed to the abuse scandals by having bad ideas and by trusting people who were rotten.
As another example I would also add that the tide has turned multiple times with regard to financial reform (I was reminded of this when reading Cardinal Pell's prison journal). There are pragmatic matters on which we can rightly say that the Pope's previous support for something was more prudent than that same Pope's temporary lapse in support for that same thing, and in that case we can certainly pray that he will return to his previous support of the thing; a Catholic could also decide "following the financial scandals at the Vatican is harming my prayer life" and in that case the best thing to do would be to not read those articles or those comments in the first place, and pray for "God's will to be done" with the understanding that some people (well, Ed at least) are still going to care a lot about right and wrong and write a lot about it and that they (along with everyone else's actions) are somehow encompassed in God's providential will.
Some of us think Ed's coverage of Church scandals encourages those who might be inclined to act scandalously to consider whether they would want him to shine a light on their actions. If not, it might cause them to cease and desist. The Church needs to act like Christ's spotless bride.
I have no particular attachment to the TLM. But I find the Vatican's fulminations about it to be quite absurd. They act like it's the biggest threat to the Church's unity of all time, when we've got Germany on the brink of schism, confusion about the Church's teachings rampant, and actual heresy not getting rebuked. It's majoring in minors, and betrays a weird obsession.
The weird obsession may betoken an open dislike of American traditionalists.
Well, people like what they like, and no pope can do our liking for us. Besides, the authority of the 250+ popes who approved of Latin Mass is at least as valid as that of the 1 or 2 who didn't or don't.
Which Pope should we follow? Benedict XVI said that what is holy remains holy forever. I agree with him, and I wish Francis paid him more respect.
We should follow the current Pope.
Why?
When Paul opposed Peter to his face (Galatians 2:11), was he doing the wrong thing? Respectfully, I think that no Pope is the source and summit of Christian life. If the current Pope isn't himself following what was handed on to him by his predecessors we should oppose him, to his face if possible.
This is my problem. It is harmful to my faith to have TLM attacked, not because I attend TLM regularly, but because how can the pre-vatican II mass be wrong? Why is the spiritual ground of the Church not solid? It shakes me a lot. It is not good.
If I am honest, I do sense spite in the current Pope. I am not rejecting him, but the decisions he makes are unlike those of the Popes before him. Ultimately I submit, as we all must. But that doesn't mean this is a comfortable experience, or that there is not (needless?) spiritual damage occurring.
Your comment would seem to suggest that these things are opposed and I'm not sure that they are. Many of the most charitable people I know, who spend countless hours ministering to the needy including the homeless, are also TLM attendees. They're probably not keyboard warriors of any stripe, though, and there's probably a lesson to be learned there (certainly for me!)
I get that people don't care about their fellow Catholics and whether they can worship in peace and pass on the faith to their kids. That's pretty common and most bishops seem to fall in that category (else they would have taken pedo priests more seriously). It is also why the TLM attracts so many young people.
If you don't care about their families, they will seek out spiritual succor from those who do.
I fully expect that, if a future HF were to ban social activism regarding, say, homelessness, or opposition to criminalizing same, you wouldn't be happy to read about people "tired of all this homelessness stuff." Furthermore, because the preservation of the TLM pertains directly to the salvation of souls, you should actually care far more about the TLM than homelessness. The church has literally one mission, and it isn't soup kitchens or shelters.
> I'm so tired of all this TLM stuff.
You are right to be tired of it, because anxiety is not from Christ; it is from the devil. We ought to be tired of seeing people tormented by rumor and speculation, and we ought to be sympathetic to them and give them compassionate and positively-framed advice that will help them to resist temptation and to grow in faith in God the Father who cares for every individual sparrow and to whom we are each worth many sparrows. The best way to do this is to think back to a time "when was I anxious about the future? when did I have difficulty in trusting God?" and feel your way back into your own emotion/thought cycle and how you were eventually able to break out of it; e.g., did you go for a walk in sunlight? did you go to adoration? did you read some particular passage in scripture? did you raid the refrigerator and then regret it later (as a hobbit I have been down this road a few times & do not recommend)? is there a particular go-to prayer that helps you (I find the closing prayer in the Divine Mercy chaplet helpful even though usually I have begun praying the chaplet for some other intention)? But we ought to start even earlier and describe "how did I begin to identify (each time it happens, perhaps a little earlier each time before I get into a tailspin) that I am being attacked by the enemy with a temptation to be anxious about the future", or, how were my eyes opened "a little" as St Ignatius of Loyola says in his autobiography.
By having the Lord ask me to give up asking Him about the future for Lent.
I've always found it shocking that the cries of normal, everyday Catholics for the old rites back in the 70s was totally ignored (and worse, such people were accused of schism and heresy in extreme and nasty ways which seem shocking to the modern person) - and yet the voice of celebrity non-Catholics was listened to and acted upon.
I guess if lay Catholics have to rely on celebrities to support our rights against oppression by the clergy, then so be it.
In Sept 2015 I went on an Agatha Christie walk round her hometown of Wallingford, 15 miles south of Oxford. The walk guides and the other walkers were fascinated when I explained her small role in Catholic history.
Looking at the musicians among the 2024 signatories....it is a reminder of the bigger names like Beethoven, Bruckner, Mozart, Hadyn, etc who wrote for the Latin Mass. There is stacks of Latin worship music out in concert halls and YouTube, just waiting to move back where it belongs.
And even Lutheran J.S. Bach wrote for the Latin Mass... with Kyrie-Gloria parts usable by buth Catholics and Lutherans, but his Mass for the Dresden court including parts only usable in Catholic Mass.
I have been to Mass in the beautiful Catholic cathedral in Dresden. Sadly, it was mostly empty. Dresden's population was mostly Lutheran when this cathedral was built, but its rulers were Catholic.
And modern non Catholic composers like Aarvo Paart cannot resist the Latin either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Cathedral
"several curial officials told The Pillar"
- How many wigs does Ed own? :)
(meta comment is meta)
Thanks Luke and The Pillar for this article! If I were the typical Vatican official behind this supposed plan of further restricting the TLM, why would I prefer to drive traditional Catholics to pockets instead of integrating them in their dioceses? I would be worried about strengthening these groups because, let's face it, they would very likely continue to grow. I live in a country where the TLM is completely suppressed, yet thanks to the World Wide Web, I have been able to find Latin Masses in other countries when I travel. There's documentaries in YouTube, documents online, The Pillar articles like this one. It seems counter intuitive to push further restrictions, wouldn't it be more convenient even for the sake of "control" to keep them closer to local bishops?
I agree, if the goal is to draw as many Catholics as possible as close to the local bishop as possible, this makes no sense whatsoever and will be counterproductive.
If the goal is to end all celebration of the TLM, then they must be willing to push the people who love it out of the Church. Since they can't directly excommunicate people for attending the TLM, they have to drive them out to the margins and wound and anger and spiritually weaken them to get them to start doing things that do remove them from the Church.
I used to hear a few traditionalist commentators say things like: the worse the NO is, the bigger the contrast between it and the TLM, the more people will come to the TLM, the better things are. I haven't heard it said in a many years, which is good, because it's false. Thoroughly counterproductive. Liturgy forms you, for the better, or for the worse. I think the more ordered the liturgy is toward God, the more the people who assist at it will order themselves toward God, the closer they will draw to Tradition, truth, beauty, and goodness - and each other. In the same way, you cannot draw people closer to the true V2 and their bishops via injustice, insults, rigidity, and heavy burdens. God can mend things in spite of that, but there'll be no advantage to those who did them.
That cardinal what's-his-name in DC said something a while ago, which I think we could take to be the thinking of others as well: I don't recall his exact words but he sort of accused priests of "making" people want the TLM (by exposing them to it) and his position was that it was the priests' fault and they are causing a mess and now people are sad. (This is a stupid position which an intelligent man like himself could probably see if he talked to enough of the people that he is making assumptions about, but that is neither here nor there.) Therefore, according to this position, making the TLM hard to get to and rare (driving it into pockets) will prevent people from being exposed to it and therefore prevent them from catching this "disease" of wanting the TLM. (Gregory... Cardinal Gregory, that's his name... https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256228/washington-archbishop-addresses-decision-to-limit-traditional-latin-mass irony should make it easier for me to remember next time.)
The response of the campus ministry team to being told tradition needed to "die a slow, bloody death" was to begin offering reverent Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in Latin on Sunday mornings. Given that the good Cardinal's response was provoked by a student asking why his and his fellows' spiritual needs were being unmet, this seems an appropriately _pastoral_ accompaniment.
It was certainly kind and thoughtful, and I expect the best they could do under the circumstances.
Personally, I would rather assist at a TLM in a good English translation (if only that were licit) then the NO in Latin.
ALT from what I understand the Anglican Ordinariate IS an EF mass in an English translation (albeit older English ) 😆
Tbf I have not attended AO mass but have attended EF mass so if I confirm this I will let you know 😉🤣
I believe it is a Sarum Rite Mass (or at least a descendant), translated into English and convoluted a bit by Anglicanism, then deconvaluted a bit by Catholicism. The Sarum Rite is the Rite that was celebrated in England, pre-Reformation.
EF is the Tridentine Rite, which Catholics in England celebrated after Henry VIII, because during the persecution all of their priests either came from mainland Europe, or were Englishmen who went there to train. By the time the persecutions stopped, generations later, Catholics associated the Sarum Rite with Anglicanism, and wanted the Tridentine Rite they remembered offering in hiding, even though the Vatican explicitly allowed and encouraged them to have the Sarum Rite back again. Something I find rather sad.
They aren't the same thing, even though they both existed at the same time in the pre-Reformation Catholic Church, and are both Latin Rites (Latin Church has a lot of different Rites).
I heard there was a group that delved into liturgical books, trained, got permission, and actually celebrated a Sarum Rite Mass (Pre-Reformation, ergo, in Latin), and posted it on youtube. If I get curious enough, maybe I'll look up an AO Mass and do a side-by-side comparison.
I have heard that before. I don't think the position passes muster even if you never meet any of the people who attend the Gregorian Rite, since they all had decades of exposure to the NO before ever seeing it - you'd think that would give it quite the handicap.
Cardinal Wilton Gregory. Sigh. This is my diocese.
Sigh 😔😑
That presumes one of the goals is not to weaken the power of local bishops given to them by Vatican II.
My TLM resistance is based on the beauty of it and on the cultural poverty of the new normal. The urge to ban the TLM feels to me of a piece with the "modern" urge to shut the door firmly on the "bad" past and everything in it.
Perhaps the "Vatican functionaries" could benefit from a study of the literature of the Russian Old Believers. They seem to be bent on "rhyming" that bit of history...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avvakum
In my own diocese, the priest in charge of the former Mass order has said himself that interest in it has plateaued and it has become a "boutique" form of the Mass. In another diocese, the priest who celebrated it only considered it proper for highly educated white collar Catholics.
So I get the point that the cultural elite in the UK see it as something interesting and even something that speaks to their milieu.
Ouch. Only highly educated office job Catholics are smart enough to worship at an EF mass ?!?
I’m a Team OF 4evr girl (real OF by the GIRM with alllll the Latin etc) and that is …. Not a good look on a comment. The idea that most people are too stupid for literally any mass is pretty terrible
I'm just reporting what the actual priests leading the celebrations of the old Mass order said. Don't shoot the messenger. Now if their point is aesthetics that appeal to a certain milieu or intelligence, I'll let them speak for themselves.