By now you've read Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis' Motu Proprio restricting the Traditional Latin Mass and essentially rescinding Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, allowing and affirming it.
And you've read the letter to the bishops accompanying it. declaring "the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present motu proprio."
I just wanted to round up some of the best of what I've read so far on the topic. If you can only read a few things, here is what I recommend, basically in the order posted:
First, for an overview, a news story from my husband's site. An important point made in this story is the real possibility of harming ecumenical relations with the Orthodox.
One may measure Pope Francis’ will to return to unity the deplored so-called “traditionalists” (i.e., those opposed to the Missal of Paul VI) against the degree of his determination to put an end to the innumerable “progressivist” abuses of the liturgy (renewed in accordance with Vatican II) that are tantamount to blasphemy. The paganization of the Catholic liturgy – which is in its essence nothing other than the worship of the One and Triune God – through the mythologization of nature, the idolatry of environment and climate, as well as the Pachamama spectacle, were rather counterproductive for the restoration and renewal of a dignified and orthodox liturgy reflective of the fulness of the Catholic faith.
Reflections on Pope Francis’s Motu Proprio “Traditionis Custodes” by Sebastian Morello. This is an important essay with a perspective that gets lost. The Church is a society (a word used by Pius XI, not only by political philosophers) and as such must be governed. If the primary mode of governance becomes revolution, disorder isn't limited to the structure of the institution, and in the case of the Church, it endangers souls.
Some questions, by John A. Monaco.
Similarly, Cardinal Burke asks questions and points to contradictions. (By the way, some mock Cardinal Burke, but he is a foremost expert on Canon law.)
Benedict XVI wished to overcome a schism with traditionalists, Francis will recreate it, by giving as a pretext, of course -- a Jesuit once, a Jesuit always -- that he intends in this way to reunite what he is separating. Vocations collapse with Vatican II. But the religious who preserve the Latin rite are not familiar with loss of interest, instead they fill up their seminaries. Pope Francis prefers churches that are empty with his ideas than full with those of Benedict XVI.
A reflection on the loss of tradition in general from Leila Miller.
A long video with Peter Kwasniewski, going through the letter line by line.
There are many more. The internet exploded with reasoned, spirited responses to this disastrous Motu Proprio. For a comprehensive round-up, see this article in the New Liturgical Movement, and this follow-up one.
UPDATE:
I did want to add this one from Cardinal Zen, former archbishop of Hong Kong. I am just pasting the English here:
Why do they see a problem where there is none and close their eyes to the problem, for which they are also responsible?
The concerns about a breezy document " against " the Tridentine Mass (see my blog June 12, 2021) have come true, and the blow was no less severe because it was foreseen, many tendentious generalizations in the documents hurt the hearts of many good people more than expected , which never gave the slightest cause for being suspected of not accepting the liturgical reform of the Council, much less not accepting the Council " Tout court ". They also remain active members in their parishes.
Personally, it was a bitter surprise that the “widespread” consultation did not reach me, a cardinal and already a member of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. During the years 2007-2009, then, I was bishop of Hong Kong and therefore responsible for the execution of the "Summorum Pontificum", and so far, a notorious supporter of the group.
Having known neither the questionnaire nor the questionnaire responses, I cannot judge, but only suspect that there was a lot of misunderstanding (or perhaps even manipulation) in the process.
From how I read the two documents I note (1) an incredible ease (or tendentiousness) in linking the desire to use the vetus ritus to the non-acceptance of the ritus novus and (2) in associating the non-acceptance of the liturgical reform (which often concerns the way in which it was carried out with its many grave abuses) with a total and profound rejection of the Council itself (for the proponents of this rejection the diversity of the rite of the Mass is only a small corollary, so much so that the concession regarding the rite did not reverse the schism).
The Vatican authorities should ask themselves (and perhaps even make a detailed investigation) about the reason for the persistence and perhaps (recent) aggravation of the second phenomenon.
The problem is not "which rite do people prefer?", But it is "why don't they go to Mass anymore?". From certain surveys it appears that half of the Christian people in Europe no longer believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, they no longer believe in eternal life! Certainly we do not blame the liturgical reform, but it only means that the problem is much deeper, the question cannot be avoided: "Wasn't the formation of the faith missing?" "Wasn't the great work of the Council wasted?" Isn't the root of evil perhaps that attitude of believing that everything can now be changed? Is it not that attitude of believing that this Council cancels all precedents and that the Council of Trent is like the dirt accumulated on the fresco in the Sistine Chapel (as a "liturgist" in our diocese said)?
The Document obviously not only sees disturbances in the execution of the Summorun Pontificum, but considers the very existence of a parallel rite to be an evil. Paragraphs § 5 and § 6 of art 3, art. 4 and 5 do not clearly wish the death of the groups? But, even with this, cannot the anti-Ratzinger gentlemen of the Vatican be patient for the Tridentine Mass to die together with the death of Benedict XVI instead of humiliating the venerable Pope Emeritus in this way?
The progressive mind inverts truth: up becomes down, violence becomes love, speech becomes violence, and, of course, unity in Christ becomes unity in the Pope. This was, among so many stunning statements of his, one of Francis’s most offensive and (yet again, to my mind) heretical—- that HE is the source of unity (whatever that means) instead of Christ!!
ReplyDeleteBtw—- I was familiar with Cardinal Mueller’s statement and really felt it was amazing, erudite and helpful—- I gained a new admiration for this man. But Cardinal Zen! Wow. My husband dryly observed, “I guess once you have experienced watching your flock be martyred for the faith and the placing of the Chinese Catholic Church into the hands of the Communist party and being personally rebuffed by the Pope (remember when Cardinal Zen traveled all the way to Italy, but the Pope refused to see him?)—— well, then, I guess you can feel free to speak your mind!”
ReplyDeleteOh, and let’s not forget, destruction of tradition becomes “guarding the tradition.”
ReplyDeleteMignon
What a disturbing week of news! Thank you for the links this week.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I keep adding more comments here! But, I am not on FB anymore…….. So, I just wanted to add one more thing, namely, that as a Byzantine Catholic, one of the things that has struck me is that—- at some point in time, and honestly, I don’t know when since I haven’t researched this, our church went back to saying the creed without the Filio Que, the reason being that, according to the Church, the Holy See, Vatican II, who knows? the idea was that 1. we should return to our authentic tradition and 2. it it not illicit to say the creed without the filio que since, for the first thousand years of the church’s history, people said the creed without the filio que (the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, as opposed to “from the Father and the Son”).
ReplyDeleteSo: I ask, WHY is it the case that such a significant DOCTRINAL point (as opposed to an issue of praxis concerning liturgy) can be considered a parallel and legitimate way to say the creed within the Catholic Church, but a 500 year old liturgy cannot co-exist with a 40 year old liturgy? The Creed quarrel played a significant part in creating the first schism within the Church. The decision to affirm the original creed, which probably had something to do with ecumenism and the hope of moving the Orthodox Church closer toward returning to Rome and embracing the authority of the Pope (which, I have to say, given this man currently holding the office, is not even a remote possibility)—- this decision to affirm the legitimacy of the original thousand year creed is a much bigger deal, to my mind, than a liturgy. As a Byzantine Catholic, for me to be in communion with Rome means that I must assent to the Roman Catholic assertion that adding the filio que is a doctrinally valid way of expressing the nature of the Holy Trinity, even though the Church, for one thousand years, did not express it that way. Obviously, I do, or I would be Orthodox. Likewise, those who go to the old mass assent to the sacramental legitimacy of the Norvus Ordo, and if they don’t, they join with the SSPX people. Isn’t that obvious? I suppose it is obvious to everyone except the Bergoglio and his cohort of mischief makers intent on offending and dividing the Church. I suspect, though, that it actually IS obvious to him, and that he is only pretending that this is his cause (“Unity”) when the real cause is spite and hubris.
A favorite analysis of mine, personally, with an eye toward those who sympathize with progressive aspects and have trouble seeing what the big deal is:
ReplyDeletehttp://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/07/pope-franciss-scarlet-letter.html
I wanted to look up the numbers and was a little surprised to see that the Latin Mass attendees matched (nearly) the amount of Byzantine Ruthenian rite Carholics (~100,000) I don't know why this surprised me. I just thought there were more. Probably because I run in the two circles (we are Byzantine and have lots soft friends who go to the TLM; there are two.) It has been a rough week reading everything. I was very disheartened. I am only starting to feel more peace about. Partly because I am re-reading Scott Hahn's book "The Lamb's Supper" which deals with the Mass and it's relationship to Revelation. It's such a solid and comforting read. Like an old friend, it is centering me, reminding me of some eternal truths about the Eucharist - and the reasons I joined the Catholic church in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAnyway,this comment is a little disjointed but I thought it was interesting about the numbers. My source is this blog post:
https://liturgyguy.com/2019/02/24/national-survey-results-what-we-learned-about-latin-mass-attendees/?fbclid=IwAR3u9tQDjUtp4zYZnv9GKE4Bmsa5Bdb-fZ8_INYlxj2b346_QdvSOM_2iBc