The good news is, as with TC, it’s not morally binding as unjust laws have no binding authority. The question is whether priests have the humility and moral fortitude to ignore this garbage from the Vatican. And there’s always the SSPX.
I would offer the reminder that the only comment policy at The Pillar is Christian charity and mutual respect. To express our ideas and viewpoints in the context of this Christian community, with an abundance of love for our interlocutors.
But how is it trolling to need clarity on the meaning of 'humility' and 'moral fortitude'? You stated something which goes against all that my faith formation has taught in the last 60 years I've been practicing the faith.
Canon 218 provides for legitimate reservations you may have about TC. "Those engaged in the sacred disciplines have a just freedom of inquiry and of expressing their opinion prudently on those matters in which they possess expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church."... but not for a flat out stance of non serviam.
I am a lay Catholic of 60 years old and have always practiced the faith and engaged in much of the study and development in the parishes and diocese I've lived in over that time. Thomas à Kempis in his book The Imitation of Christ writes this of humility..."Do not think yourself better than others lest, perhaps, you be accounted worse before God Who knows what is in man. Do not take pride in your good deeds, for God’s judgments differ from those of men and what pleases them often displeases Him. If there is good in you, see more good in others, so that you may remain humble. It does no harm to esteem yourself less than anyone else, but it is very harmful to think yourself better than even one. The humble live in continuous peace, while in the hearts of the proud are envy and frequent anger."
On the basis that I am a priest who has the educational background to make statements. If you choose to refute them do so, but do not presume to correct anyone if you don’t have the credentials to do so.
None of the Priests or Bishops in our diocese or as far as I know, in all Australia, have ever expressed anything like this regarding TC... "The question is whether priests have the humility and moral fortitude to ignore this garbage from the Vatican."
Is your assertion that these Priests are too proud and morally bankrupt to ignore TC?
In fairness, aren't you presuming your interlocutor lacks the credentials? I know more lay people without advanced degrees advanced in holiness than priests of the same.
And if the criteria for right to speak is academic pedigree, then is it safe to say you've never commented on the Constitutionality of abortion (assuming you're not a barred attorney), rationality of vaccine mandates (assuming your background is not public health), or merits of a professional sporting game (assuming you are not a pro ___ baller)? If you have, then check yourself.
I'm gonna need some bona fides before I believe you're a priest considering there's literally zero evidence available online that a Redemptorist priest by the name Scott Bailey exists
Ya gotta have more confidence in the Holy Spirit than that. The Lord himself promised that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the rock of the Church. It's a mess, yes--but cracking, no.
The Church has the authority to regulate the sacraments, no? I agree that this is a disastrous decision pastorally and practically, and seems certainly to be based on a drastic and uncharitable misunderstanding of (many or most of) those Catholics who prefer the EF. However, considering the Vatican has the authority to regulate the Mass and has not actually prevented anyone from having access to the sacraments, I don't see how it could be considered an unjust law to the point of not requiring obedience.
I will concur and add that it is ironic in that it reaffirms the CDW's concerns that too many of those who prefer the 1962 Missal are flirtatious with denying the legitimacy of V2 and the JP2 Missal (an SSPX position).
For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
I have no doubt that the priests, religious, and faithful currently enduring this monstrous injustice will reap spiritual benefits from their fidelity to the Sacred Tradition of Holy Church, just as the martyrs reaped copious fruits from their sufferings.
One still shudders to contemplate the eternal fate of those who were responsible for inflicting suffering upon the martyrs. "How long, Lord?"
I'm not a tradiotinalist Catholic, but I utterly don't understand the restrictions imposed on the Extraordinary Form, given the Holy Father's desire to "accompany" others who are more "at the margins" than traditionalist Catholics.
"To my friends, everything. To my enemies, not even justice." Thus was a favorite saying of Juan Peron. Pastoral accompaniment is for friends. For enemies, a strong kick in the teeth is de rigueur. Though many of conservatives/traditionalists would bristle at their status as papal "enemies," it's a fact that most of them, in word and deed, are and have been on the "wrong" side of this papacy's efforts to de-emphasize the Church's teachings on marriage, family, sexuality, LGBT that the powers that be believe are alienating the western world in the 21st century.
What should be of grave concern for any Catholic is that these "reforms" are being justified with blatant deception. TC and this document are built on the premise that the previous norms that granted greater freedom to the vetus ordo were begrudging concessions to placate a few old trads so they could live out there last few years in peace. Yet, this is blatantly false. The whole premise of Summorum pontificum was that, "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful." The Pope Emeritus has clarified this point on several occasions, yet that is the narrative that is put forward by Pope Francis and the CDW. We must redouble our prayers for the Church!
My understanding of the need for TC is something that many Catholics have noticed gathering force and that is the growing rejection of Vatican II and the movement to return the Church to the pre VII times. It used to be a subtle goal but with the missives of Archbishop Vigano on the subject, it's become an openly public goal and that worries many Catholics who believe in the eschatological need for and value of Vatican II.
Let's look at the what has been said. From the letter attached to TC: "Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre." The Pope Emeritus has strictly denied that as his reason for making the traditional rites more available. He has gone as far to say he would have done the same if the SSPX did not exist. So, is it deliberate misrepresentation or just ignorance? I pray it's the latter.
I have no need or desire to defend Vigano or those that use the traditional mass as a political tool. But that does not necessitate the current action.
I'm just reading Pope Em. BXVI's letter accompanying his 2007 Summorum Pontificum which says...
"We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question."
That seems to confirm that Pope StJPII was primarily interested in reconciliation with the SSPX in his actions.
It also notes the fears that Bishops had that the TLM would undermine the VII Council, which has unfortunately manifested in the intervening years.
Yes that's fine and all. I have no doubts that JPII was directly responding to the SSPX and groups related. However, if you read my comment I was speaking of Pope Emeritus Benedict. The fact remains that he wished for church to begin to reconcile with the rupture of the 70s. He envisioned the traditional mass as part of that.
In response to the idea that Sumorrum is just a concession to the SSPX from: Last Testament: In His Own Words (p 202)
“That is absolutely false! For me, what is important is the unity of the Church with itself, in its interior, with its past; that that which was holy for her before should not be in any way an evil now.”
'deliberate misrepresentation'? I see it as a simple lie. It calls into question as to whether there are other lies in the Motu Propio or the covering letter e.g. did the answers, to the questionnaire about the use of the traditional, were as stated? And then there is the claim that those who attend the TLM are Vatican II deniers in general. What evidence is there for that? I frequently hear that the Novus Ordo is not in accordance with what was suggested in the relevant Vatican II documents. Those who say that are surely not denying Vatican II.
Of course one can find Vatican II deniers and sedevacantists on the internet but what percentage of TLM supporters do they represent? Many people are very annoyed and upset by TC and consequently they allow their anger to make intemperate remarks but these should be seen for what they are.
However if those who are saying that the Ordinary Form "is not in accordance with what was suggested in the VII documents" were promoting their interpretation of those documents, there would be some credibility. But they are ditching the VII Mass reform altogether.
'Some credibility'? I would say a lot! As to saying they are ditching the VII Mass reform altogether I do not think there is much real evidence for that other than from some vocal people on the internet. As somebody living in England of English/Irish descent I see the dynamics behind TC rather differently from our American friends. I would need to write a book to explain this. Very briefly I believe there is a hidden heresy in the Church which denies the existence of the soul for which see Ratzinger's 1977 book on Eschatology. How else can one explain "Et cum spiritu tuo" being translated as "And with you"? Mercifully corrected as a part of what I would like to see as a continuing reform of the reform. Then there is English/Irish dimension. The faith in England was preserved largely by the English aristocracy. The forty martyrs died for saying the TLM. Latterly the clergy and particularly the hierachy have become largely Irish and unfortunately some of them harbour, understandably in the view of history, a resentment against the English which comes out strongly at times - think Roche. Think of all those chapels in the houses of the old Catholic families which remain untouched by Vatican II as described in the Christmas edition of the "Catholic Herald". Think of the very traditional, orthodox and English Ordinariate which many of our Bishops did not welcome. I could go on!
However my prediction and hope for 2022 is that this silly initiative of TC will be quietly ignored and Archbishop Roche will eventually be promoted to being the doorkeeper in some remote monastery in the former Yugoslavia.
If I remember the results from the Pillar's survey (I don't have time at the moment to pull them up), weekly Mass goers generally believed in the Real Presence. It's those who don't attend Mass regularly who don't believe in transubstantiation.
Looking at the generational breakdown (and from experience as a 37 year old, lifelong Catholic who used to attend the TLM), I think the issue is that we, as an institution, don't pass along the faith clearly. We need clear teaching to accompany good liturgy (fwiw I'm grateful that TC called out the abuses in the NO- something that has gotten lost in all the discussions of the document).
Also from the Pillar's survey, only about 3% of the respondents said they regularly attended the TLM. They noted they had a hard time drawing substantial conclusions because of the small number. However:
"We compared the answers given by those who say they attend a TLM regularly to other weekly Mass attenders on some of the more doctrinal questions in the survey, such as “I believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ” but found that rates of agreement were the virtually the same for both groups"
I don't know of any other study that incorporated TLM goers aside from what can be gleaned out of the Pillar's work. But JD did say on the last podcast they're planning an in depth survey next year.
Your comment implies that the NO is responsible for the lack of faith in the Eucharist among a large number of Catholics. It discounts cultural, educational, and social factors that also have contributed. I don't deny that some of the elements that creeped into the NO (against the intent of the Council) in some parishes didn't help, but there were factors other than the liturgy that contributed to the collapse in beliefs.
No, I imply that folks who reject the very reason for the Mass’s existence attend the NO. I grew up with the TLM, memorized all the prays as an altar server. However, I prefer a reverential NO Mass. That said, I’ve attended some NO Mass and cringed at the theatrics and abuses, which I NEVER see at TLM. But I don’t blame NO for anything; I love both the NO and TLM. Whatever abuses among the tiny number of TLM attendees may exist, if any, it could easily be handled charitably.
Nonetheless, to your assumption that everyone at a 1962 Missal mass is on the same page wrt the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, that seems unfounded.
The years I spent going to the TLM were important to my spiritual growth. I've seen beautiful Masses. I've been to TLMs in which the priest acted like he really didn't want to be there. I've seen reverence and abuses in the NO.
I agree with the other poster- your assumption about NO attendees is unfound.
I don't think it does much good to go through these comparisons (although the idea that traditionalists reject the Eucharist is more than a bit silly).
What I do think is important is that there was a reason for the liturgical reforms. The reason was the reinvigoration of the liturgy and to make people actively present and aware of what's going on. Sacrosanctum Concilium itself said that no changes should be made unless they are absolutely necessary. In that light it's a fair question to ask if the reforms achieved their goals since obviously gigantic changes were made.
I don't think its silly at all to suggest there's dissention among Catholics who participate in either form of the Mass. Remember, many segregationists and many of the early champions of legal abortion in the US were regular Mass goers in the 50s and early 60s (to be fair, many of the latter group probably also championed "the spirit of Vatican II"). Neither Mass has some magical power to prevent dissent from Church teaching. The Mass is worship of the Divine. The Mass unites us to Christ in the Eucharist and gives us grace. But someone can go to Mass every day of their life, but if they don't exercise their free will to cooperate with God's grace, they won't become holy.
I agree with you that some level reform was necessary by the 1960s (I was born in '84, so I speak from study and not experience). I found some lectures I've attended by bi-ritual priests to be helpful in forming that opinion.
I think your question of the reforms being successful isn't an entirely fair question since so much happened that went beyond Sacrosanctum Concillium. In parishes where that document and the GIRM are respected, there is fruit. Where those documents aren't followed, there is less fruit. Therein lies a big problem- there is a disparity on how the Vatican II reforms were implemented.
This continues to break my heart and is completely confusing to me why Pope Francis instituted this and is allowing it to continue. May God's Holy and Perfect Will be done.
What a joke. And a week before Christmas.
The good news is, as with TC, it’s not morally binding as unjust laws have no binding authority. The question is whether priests have the humility and moral fortitude to ignore this garbage from the Vatican. And there’s always the SSPX.
The signs of humility and moral fortitude are normally manifest in obedience and submission to the Rock upon which Jesus built His Church.
On what basis do you call my post 'ignorant'? It's what both the Church and scripture teaches us.
I would offer the reminder that the only comment policy at The Pillar is Christian charity and mutual respect. To express our ideas and viewpoints in the context of this Christian community, with an abundance of love for our interlocutors.
That's right. Like that Pseudo Dionysius guy. He should never have been allowed to publish!
But how is it trolling to need clarity on the meaning of 'humility' and 'moral fortitude'? You stated something which goes against all that my faith formation has taught in the last 60 years I've been practicing the faith.
Canon 218 provides for legitimate reservations you may have about TC. "Those engaged in the sacred disciplines have a just freedom of inquiry and of expressing their opinion prudently on those matters in which they possess expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church."... but not for a flat out stance of non serviam.
I am a lay Catholic of 60 years old and have always practiced the faith and engaged in much of the study and development in the parishes and diocese I've lived in over that time. Thomas à Kempis in his book The Imitation of Christ writes this of humility..."Do not think yourself better than others lest, perhaps, you be accounted worse before God Who knows what is in man. Do not take pride in your good deeds, for God’s judgments differ from those of men and what pleases them often displeases Him. If there is good in you, see more good in others, so that you may remain humble. It does no harm to esteem yourself less than anyone else, but it is very harmful to think yourself better than even one. The humble live in continuous peace, while in the hearts of the proud are envy and frequent anger."
On the basis that I am a priest who has the educational background to make statements. If you choose to refute them do so, but do not presume to correct anyone if you don’t have the credentials to do so.
None of the Priests or Bishops in our diocese or as far as I know, in all Australia, have ever expressed anything like this regarding TC... "The question is whether priests have the humility and moral fortitude to ignore this garbage from the Vatican."
Is your assertion that these Priests are too proud and morally bankrupt to ignore TC?
In fairness, aren't you presuming your interlocutor lacks the credentials? I know more lay people without advanced degrees advanced in holiness than priests of the same.
And if the criteria for right to speak is academic pedigree, then is it safe to say you've never commented on the Constitutionality of abortion (assuming you're not a barred attorney), rationality of vaccine mandates (assuming your background is not public health), or merits of a professional sporting game (assuming you are not a pro ___ baller)? If you have, then check yourself.
I'm gonna need some bona fides before I believe you're a priest considering there's literally zero evidence available online that a Redemptorist priest by the name Scott Bailey exists
The rock is cracking and it's not our Lord's fault.
Ya gotta have more confidence in the Holy Spirit than that. The Lord himself promised that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the rock of the Church. It's a mess, yes--but cracking, no.
Sorry, I was referring to the current successor of St Peter, not the Church. Yes, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.
The Church has the authority to regulate the sacraments, no? I agree that this is a disastrous decision pastorally and practically, and seems certainly to be based on a drastic and uncharitable misunderstanding of (many or most of) those Catholics who prefer the EF. However, considering the Vatican has the authority to regulate the Mass and has not actually prevented anyone from having access to the sacraments, I don't see how it could be considered an unjust law to the point of not requiring obedience.
I don't know about the SSPX. Yet if the humility and moral fortitude is there in the clergy and the people non reception of TC could work.
Father, I am concerned by your sentence "And there's always the SSPX". As a layperson I'm not sure what you intended to convey with it.
Since I use my real name I assume you'll take this concern seriously.
Cordially,
Bridget Spitznagel
I will concur and add that it is ironic in that it reaffirms the CDW's concerns that too many of those who prefer the 1962 Missal are flirtatious with denying the legitimacy of V2 and the JP2 Missal (an SSPX position).
I'm really struggling to see His Holiness's pastoral accompaniment of those who worship the Lord through the Extraordinary Form.
For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
A wonderful verse, but off topic & irrelevant to my comment.
I have no doubt that the priests, religious, and faithful currently enduring this monstrous injustice will reap spiritual benefits from their fidelity to the Sacred Tradition of Holy Church, just as the martyrs reaped copious fruits from their sufferings.
One still shudders to contemplate the eternal fate of those who were responsible for inflicting suffering upon the martyrs. "How long, Lord?"
I'm not a tradiotinalist Catholic, but I utterly don't understand the restrictions imposed on the Extraordinary Form, given the Holy Father's desire to "accompany" others who are more "at the margins" than traditionalist Catholics.
That's because it isn't there.
"To my friends, everything. To my enemies, not even justice." Thus was a favorite saying of Juan Peron. Pastoral accompaniment is for friends. For enemies, a strong kick in the teeth is de rigueur. Though many of conservatives/traditionalists would bristle at their status as papal "enemies," it's a fact that most of them, in word and deed, are and have been on the "wrong" side of this papacy's efforts to de-emphasize the Church's teachings on marriage, family, sexuality, LGBT that the powers that be believe are alienating the western world in the 21st century.
What should be of grave concern for any Catholic is that these "reforms" are being justified with blatant deception. TC and this document are built on the premise that the previous norms that granted greater freedom to the vetus ordo were begrudging concessions to placate a few old trads so they could live out there last few years in peace. Yet, this is blatantly false. The whole premise of Summorum pontificum was that, "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful." The Pope Emeritus has clarified this point on several occasions, yet that is the narrative that is put forward by Pope Francis and the CDW. We must redouble our prayers for the Church!
My understanding of the need for TC is something that many Catholics have noticed gathering force and that is the growing rejection of Vatican II and the movement to return the Church to the pre VII times. It used to be a subtle goal but with the missives of Archbishop Vigano on the subject, it's become an openly public goal and that worries many Catholics who believe in the eschatological need for and value of Vatican II.
Let's look at the what has been said. From the letter attached to TC: "Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre." The Pope Emeritus has strictly denied that as his reason for making the traditional rites more available. He has gone as far to say he would have done the same if the SSPX did not exist. So, is it deliberate misrepresentation or just ignorance? I pray it's the latter.
I have no need or desire to defend Vigano or those that use the traditional mass as a political tool. But that does not necessitate the current action.
I'm just reading Pope Em. BXVI's letter accompanying his 2007 Summorum Pontificum which says...
"We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question."
That seems to confirm that Pope StJPII was primarily interested in reconciliation with the SSPX in his actions.
It also notes the fears that Bishops had that the TLM would undermine the VII Council, which has unfortunately manifested in the intervening years.
Yes that's fine and all. I have no doubts that JPII was directly responding to the SSPX and groups related. However, if you read my comment I was speaking of Pope Emeritus Benedict. The fact remains that he wished for church to begin to reconcile with the rupture of the 70s. He envisioned the traditional mass as part of that.
Source?
In response to the idea that Sumorrum is just a concession to the SSPX from: Last Testament: In His Own Words (p 202)
“That is absolutely false! For me, what is important is the unity of the Church with itself, in its interior, with its past; that that which was holy for her before should not be in any way an evil now.”
'deliberate misrepresentation'? I see it as a simple lie. It calls into question as to whether there are other lies in the Motu Propio or the covering letter e.g. did the answers, to the questionnaire about the use of the traditional, were as stated? And then there is the claim that those who attend the TLM are Vatican II deniers in general. What evidence is there for that? I frequently hear that the Novus Ordo is not in accordance with what was suggested in the relevant Vatican II documents. Those who say that are surely not denying Vatican II.
Of course one can find Vatican II deniers and sedevacantists on the internet but what percentage of TLM supporters do they represent? Many people are very annoyed and upset by TC and consequently they allow their anger to make intemperate remarks but these should be seen for what they are.
However if those who are saying that the Ordinary Form "is not in accordance with what was suggested in the VII documents" were promoting their interpretation of those documents, there would be some credibility. But they are ditching the VII Mass reform altogether.
'Some credibility'? I would say a lot! As to saying they are ditching the VII Mass reform altogether I do not think there is much real evidence for that other than from some vocal people on the internet. As somebody living in England of English/Irish descent I see the dynamics behind TC rather differently from our American friends. I would need to write a book to explain this. Very briefly I believe there is a hidden heresy in the Church which denies the existence of the soul for which see Ratzinger's 1977 book on Eschatology. How else can one explain "Et cum spiritu tuo" being translated as "And with you"? Mercifully corrected as a part of what I would like to see as a continuing reform of the reform. Then there is English/Irish dimension. The faith in England was preserved largely by the English aristocracy. The forty martyrs died for saying the TLM. Latterly the clergy and particularly the hierachy have become largely Irish and unfortunately some of them harbour, understandably in the view of history, a resentment against the English which comes out strongly at times - think Roche. Think of all those chapels in the houses of the old Catholic families which remain untouched by Vatican II as described in the Christmas edition of the "Catholic Herald". Think of the very traditional, orthodox and English Ordinariate which many of our Bishops did not welcome. I could go on!
However my prediction and hope for 2022 is that this silly initiative of TC will be quietly ignored and Archbishop Roche will eventually be promoted to being the doorkeeper in some remote monastery in the former Yugoslavia.
A recent Pew report found 2/3 of Catholics reject Transubstantiation. How many of those 2/3s attend a TLM?
How many of those 2/3 attend any Mass weekly?
If I remember the results from the Pillar's survey (I don't have time at the moment to pull them up), weekly Mass goers generally believed in the Real Presence. It's those who don't attend Mass regularly who don't believe in transubstantiation.
Here's the survey, and my memory is not as good as I thought. Belief in transubstantiation is about 50% for regular Mass goers: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/special-report-the-pillar-survey
Looking at the generational breakdown (and from experience as a 37 year old, lifelong Catholic who used to attend the TLM), I think the issue is that we, as an institution, don't pass along the faith clearly. We need clear teaching to accompany good liturgy (fwiw I'm grateful that TC called out the abuses in the NO- something that has gotten lost in all the discussions of the document).
How many of your 50% who reject Transubstantiation regularly attend TLM is my question? I say zero.
Also from the Pillar's survey, only about 3% of the respondents said they regularly attended the TLM. They noted they had a hard time drawing substantial conclusions because of the small number. However:
"We compared the answers given by those who say they attend a TLM regularly to other weekly Mass attenders on some of the more doctrinal questions in the survey, such as “I believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ” but found that rates of agreement were the virtually the same for both groups"
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/special-report-the-catholic-hot-buttons
I don't know of any other study that incorporated TLM goers aside from what can be gleaned out of the Pillar's work. But JD did say on the last podcast they're planning an in depth survey next year.
Your comment implies that the NO is responsible for the lack of faith in the Eucharist among a large number of Catholics. It discounts cultural, educational, and social factors that also have contributed. I don't deny that some of the elements that creeped into the NO (against the intent of the Council) in some parishes didn't help, but there were factors other than the liturgy that contributed to the collapse in beliefs.
No, I imply that folks who reject the very reason for the Mass’s existence attend the NO. I grew up with the TLM, memorized all the prays as an altar server. However, I prefer a reverential NO Mass. That said, I’ve attended some NO Mass and cringed at the theatrics and abuses, which I NEVER see at TLM. But I don’t blame NO for anything; I love both the NO and TLM. Whatever abuses among the tiny number of TLM attendees may exist, if any, it could easily be handled charitably.
Nonetheless, to your assumption that everyone at a 1962 Missal mass is on the same page wrt the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, that seems unfounded.
The years I spent going to the TLM were important to my spiritual growth. I've seen beautiful Masses. I've been to TLMs in which the priest acted like he really didn't want to be there. I've seen reverence and abuses in the NO.
I agree with the other poster- your assumption about NO attendees is unfound.
I don't think it does much good to go through these comparisons (although the idea that traditionalists reject the Eucharist is more than a bit silly).
What I do think is important is that there was a reason for the liturgical reforms. The reason was the reinvigoration of the liturgy and to make people actively present and aware of what's going on. Sacrosanctum Concilium itself said that no changes should be made unless they are absolutely necessary. In that light it's a fair question to ask if the reforms achieved their goals since obviously gigantic changes were made.
To ask the question is to answer it.
I don't think its silly at all to suggest there's dissention among Catholics who participate in either form of the Mass. Remember, many segregationists and many of the early champions of legal abortion in the US were regular Mass goers in the 50s and early 60s (to be fair, many of the latter group probably also championed "the spirit of Vatican II"). Neither Mass has some magical power to prevent dissent from Church teaching. The Mass is worship of the Divine. The Mass unites us to Christ in the Eucharist and gives us grace. But someone can go to Mass every day of their life, but if they don't exercise their free will to cooperate with God's grace, they won't become holy.
I agree with you that some level reform was necessary by the 1960s (I was born in '84, so I speak from study and not experience). I found some lectures I've attended by bi-ritual priests to be helpful in forming that opinion.
I think your question of the reforms being successful isn't an entirely fair question since so much happened that went beyond Sacrosanctum Concillium. In parishes where that document and the GIRM are respected, there is fruit. Where those documents aren't followed, there is less fruit. Therein lies a big problem- there is a disparity on how the Vatican II reforms were implemented.
Woof!
This continues to break my heart and is completely confusing to me why Pope Francis instituted this and is allowing it to continue. May God's Holy and Perfect Will be done.
As always, thank you for your clear reporting and educated commentary.