On July 15th, an open letter to Pope Francis was released which asked him not to allow any further restrictions on the traditional Latin Mass (TLM). Titled “An Open Letter from the Americas to Pope Francis”, it appeared a few weeks after a similar letter was made public in the UK, spearheaded by the Scottish composer Sir James MacMillan.
I was asked to sign the Letter from the Americas and, after some careful consideration, decided to do so. Since its release, many people have written to me asking why I would sign such a letter, which, according to some of my critics, is an act of disrespect to the Pope. I would like to offer a short response to those concerns.
I was at first reluctant to sign the letter for two reasons.
First, it appears at a cursory glance as something purely reactive—and this reaction was founded upon unsubstantiated rumors that a new document from the Vatican was about to be released, allegedly going to nuke the TLM once and for all. If I have learned anything in my life (sadly, usually after the fact), it is not to trust rumors coming out of the Vatican. Therefore, I was reluctant to sign a letter based upon a foundation as flimsy as the latest gossip from curial magpies.
However, reputable reporters I trust and admire seemed confident in their sources—sources who assured them such a document did indeed exist and was merely waiting upon papal approval for its public release. Furthermore, the claim had a certain prima facie plausibility given the fact Traditionis Custodes had already established that the current Vatican has a jeweler’s eye for even the smallest pieces of evidence the TLM had spawned communities harboring a festering discontent toward Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and every papal sneeze during this pontificate.
Therefore, I signed the letter despite my reservations about curial gossip, owing to the trust I have in certain reporters (a trust which remains) and the fact that the dicastery for Divine Worship under the leadership of Archbishop Arthur Roche has been, to say the least, no friend of the TLM. My gut tells me such a document does (or did?) exist but that once this information was leaked, the negative reaction caused the Vatican to draw back lest it have a new Fiducia Supplicans fiasco on its hands. If that is true, then perhaps open letters like the one I signed may have actually had some effect.
The second source of my initial reluctance to sign the letter is more serious: my desire not to be identified as a supporter of the traditionalist movement. Because I am not a supporter of that movement—even if I can sympathize with its consternation over the current re-empowering of the flower child, felt banner Catholicism of my youth, now made even more annoying with the addition of rainbow sprinkles on the gelato of the “Church on the move”.
My reluctance to show public support for the TLM lest I be identified as a closet traditionalist is grounded in a justified reaction to the many negative elements therein. I hasten to add that I reject the mischaracterizations of “most trads” as an angry and irrational mob of heresy-hunting dragoons. The vast majority are just orthodox Catholics looking for a haven from our pornified culture and our rudderless Church—a Church more interested, it seems, in the “peripheries” of sexual minorities than with the peripheries of our beleaguered families. And if those families prefer the TLM, I think they should be allowed to have access to it.
Nevertheless, whatever their actual numbers, there is a pervasive and significant presence in the traditionalist movement of folks who do indeed reject Vatican II tout court as a word salad of modernist heresies and who refuse to attend a Novus Ordo Mass on the pretext that such a Mass is invalid, heretical, and the product of Freemasonry. Such folks often express to me that they would attend an SSPX parish before a Novus Ordo one, and so I know they exist and do so in larger numbers than some traditionalists want to admit.
Fortunately, I actually know many traditionalists, I read their most popular publications, and I follow them on social media. I know that I am not inventing a straw man and so I am always amused when traditionalists write to me bitterly complaining about my horrible stereotyping, only to have them confirm the thing they are denying in the invective that follows.
There is also a not-so-veiled practical sede vacantism running like a vein of lead through the bedrock of the movement. Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and especially John Paul II, are vilified as modernist purveyors of false ecumenism, religious relativism, religious freedom (the theological bête noire of most traditionalists), and liturgical chicanery. This element in the movement is a dark blight on its soul that cannot be ignored. It is the product of a failure of theological intelligence and imagination insofar as it is largely a coping mechanism devoid of theological content that attempts to deal with the cognitive dissonance of a modern Church in conflict with itself. And, in true reductive style, the answer they give to the dissonance is to imagine an idyllic time before it existed. Except that it did not, which seems lost on them.
I simply have no desire to be associated with any movement that views John Paul II as a dangerous modernist heretic. There is simply something deeply amiss with a movement, to cite another example, that views Bishop Robert Barron as a squishy liberal. Bishop Barron is a liberal? Really? Somebody needs to tell that to Michael Sean Winters and Massimo Faggioli. Such claims are just high silliness and they alienate potential allies to their cause (folks like me) with the sheer nastiness and superficiality of their various fulminations.
So, given all of that, why did I sign the letter? For four main reasons.
First, I think the TLM is a beautiful liturgy with a truly ancient provenance that is spiritually fruitful and aesthetically uplifting when done well. It was the Church’s liturgy for centuries and has spawned works of artistic genius in music, architecture, and the visual arts. For example, would the architectural grandeur of gothic churches have ever been invented for today’s horizontalist liturgical emphasis? I think not. And the beauty of the spiritual and artistic progeny of the old Mass belongs to the entire Church and her patrimony and it should never have been suppressed, even as the legitimate liturgical reform moved forward—a reform movement I think was necessary.
Therefore, ironically, I reject the suppression of the old Mass and its banishment to a few backwaters as a move almost guaranteed to remove that liturgy from the Church’s treasury and memory and to place it instead into the hands of those who would weaponize it against the Church. The more broadly it is available, the less will it become a talisman of a faux recusant resistance to the contemporary magisterium.
Second, although I support the Novus Ordo as the expression of the liturgical reform and I in no way reject its legitimacy (and even affirm the unique beauty of its “noble simplicity”), I think it has been a mistake to treat the liturgical reforms as a “one and done” kind of deal where any future tweaking of that liturgy is disallowed. After all, the liturgical changes were sweeping, swift, and rather radical, so why should it just be assumed they got everything correct right out of the gate? Why the defensiveness where every question about the reform is treated as an act of disobedience to the Pope? And how does one make the claim the Novus Ordo is now set in stone when its very existence is proof that no liturgy is set in stone?
Therefore, I think Pope Benedict XVI, in issuing Summorum Pontificum, got it right. He was correct to hope for a gradual cross-fertilization of the two liturgies. And the fact that after only a few short years such a process had not yet happened should not be an indication the attempt was flawed in principle and a failure in practice. I am a firm believer in the so-called “reform of the reform” of the liturgy and there are some hopeful signs emerging in the work of people like Adam Bartlett with his “Source and Summit” resources that should not be casually dismissed or ignored. I think that this process of reform requires an “all hands on deck” approach (Todos! Todos!) where all voices are heard and all constructive input is welcomed no matter the source.
Perhaps, instead of a synod on synods, we should have a synod on the liturgy where all such voices are heard. Indeed, a good case could be made that the heart and soul of any true synodality is the fact that the whole Church is present in the Eucharistic celebration of the local Church. Therefore, a healthy synodality requires a healthy liturgy.
Third, I signed the letter because I am a firm believer in ad orientem worship and I support the cross-fertilization of this element of the old Mass into the new. And the reason why I support it has nothing to do with aesthetics. I support it because I think worship where the priest faces the people fosters clericalism. I know many priests who primarily celebrate the Novus Ordo who, when celebrating the TLM, speak of its liberating effects wherein the priest ceases to be the focus of attention, where he does not have to be “on”, and where he can lose himself in the liturgical action wherein “He must increase and I must decrease”. The priest faces East, along with the people, and carries them on his back.
But all too often the priest in many parishes becomes a “show” and even takes it upon himself to alter the words of the liturgy (especially with “gendered” words). This can obviously happen as well even in ad orientem worship and so it is no guarantee against liturgical clericalism. But I would wager that it is far less frequent since it is, in its essence, less clericalistic.
Finally, I support wide access to the TLM because I think it is the pastorally sensitive thing to do. I mentioned earlier my critique of elements within the traditionalist movement. But I also acknowledge that those people are Catholics too and worthy of pastoral accompaniment. I do not think it wise, therefore, to further the radicalization by trying to stomp it out with acts of raw authority in which the true root causes of the malaise are never addressed. Does this Pope not speak all the time of the need to accompany those on the peripheries? Is that not why he turns a blind eye to the proliferation of “Pride” Masses? So we can “build a bridge” to those sexual peripheries in highly questionable ways, but we must burn the bridge to the traditionalist periphery? The former is deemed to be “wounded sheep in need of a shepherd”. The latter is just dismissed as “indietrists” who require a quick slap across the face.
Therefore, I consider Traditionis Custodes to be a failure of pastoral governance. A draconian overreaction that blinds the Church to the fact that there are devout and devoted Catholics who want a different “experience” of liturgy from that which is available in most parishes. Even though I am not a traditionalist, I share their liturgical dissatisfaction with the banality of so many parish liturgies.
And so I signed the letter and I am glad that I did. I do not think it is an act of disobedience. Instead, I view it as an act of ecclesial solidarity with a wounded periphery in the Church and an affirmation of a profound treasure that should not be lost.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Modernism under the guise of Post-Conciliarism is to the Catholic Church, what Marxism under the guise of Stalinisme is to Russia: the source of the history of misery, not the solution.
And there it is… The very reason it is restricted
It is restricted Thomas because the USA allows freedom of speech, or because the darkness of Modernism cannot tolerate the light of Sacred Tradition?
With all due respect to the author, the EF was suppressed because praying the wrong way is the most pressing problem facing the Church according to the personal magisterium of Pope Francis. What choice did he have but to undo the judgement of all previous pontificates? The EF is spreading like a cancer among the young who breed. It has to be isolated and then eliminated. Consider only that the long periods of silence during the EF is an offense to Synodaling!
Sometimes even artistic masterpieces have to be destroyed so as not to offend.
I am now 76 years old. I had my indoctrination in Church liturgy firmly ensconced in the Extraordinary Form. I was in the parish mens/boys choir led by a now-deceased choir master of renown George Fiore (Google him). We sang Gregorian Chant and knew what we were singing as lads of 8, 9, or 10 year olds. It was worshipful and uplifting. Yet, after the novus ordo was imposed on the people and since, I would guess that I attended no more than five Masses prayed in the Extraordinary Form as termed by Benedict XVI.
I, however, am not in favor of suppressing the EP not because: a) it expresses my disagreement with the Pope’s papacy; b) not because I reject the documents of Vatican II (because I don’t); not because I wish to belong to a small enclave of separatists in the Church (I find that alien to what it means to be a Catholic); not because I reject Church hierarchical authority (I willingly placed my hands into those of the bishop at my ordination and promised obedience to him and his successors).
I support the EF because: a) In my experience, the liturgical changes were never anything the average Church-going Catholic were clamoring for; b) the liturgical changes were almost immediately abused and every time one attended Mass, the liturgy was continually changing according to the whims of the celebrant – something that created disunity in the Body; c) The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass became a celebration of the cult of personality of the celebrant and Christ was treated as an intrusion; d) the Mystery of the Mass was replaced with a cult of the prosaic.
Lastly, while I firmly believe that authority in the Church is ESSENTIAL to the Catholic faith, I just as firmly abhor the seemingly arbitary and non-pastoral exercise of authority especially when it appears to be borne from vindictiveness. No one can convince me that a total excising of the EF of worship would be done for the good of God’s people and unity of the Church. I personally look at those Catholics who attend the EF as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
My question is: If they were planning this change way back in the day under the table. After having millions of humans fulfilling their sacraments in the TLM which is what we were taught and vowed to follow. Make it easy and leave behind what TLM was built on. Leave the Vatican that is the TLM Catholic home. TAKE ALL your followers and start another religion. Oh yes leave the riches of the Vatican behind. That’s what Lutheran’s, Protestants, etc. did. The day you completely try to shut it down God will send the turbulence,lightening,and the tears of God will rain from above. Please God spare those that don’t agree with Frances the fake Pope
My father, a non-Catholic, worked with many Catholics who ended up leaving the faith after the changes of Vatican II. I am guessing those men (he worked with mostly men) felt a bit frauded or something.
.
An local Episcopal priest (the one who was pastor at my parent’s church), used to go to the Catholic mass when he could, but once they replaced the Tridentine Rite (the TLM) with the Novus Ordo, he stopped going, as “there was not point to going” anymore.
.
These are second hand anecdotes, but they seem to go along with your post.
No point in going anymore because the Freemasons had moved into town there too…
Thanks for the witness Mrs Hess.
And there it is again…
Thank you, Deacon Edward. As an 81-year-old I agree with what you say
“Even though I am not a traditionalist, I share their liturgical dissatisfaction with the [sheer] banality of so many parish liturgies”.
In a nutshell, the reason for the rediscovery, appreciation and growth of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Why ban something that is good and beautiful
What exactly is good and beautiful? Does the author and the general public realize, that during the “good old days” people prayed that despicable Good Friday liturgy for the JEWS, begging God to remove the blindness of their hearts and accept Christ as Lord? All Jews were branded as Christ Killers and looked upon as people cursed by God. No priest ever mentions that Christ freely offered himself as the supreme sacrifice for our sins and in His infinite mercy forgave us. Instead the priest exhorts the congregation to loudly proclaim, “Let his blood be upon us and upon our children.” and “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
People are in the dark, because they are unaware there is a major problem with the Gospel according to John that is usually read on Palm Sunday and Good Friday. He openly blames the “JEWS” instead of the Jewish Authorities. Unlike John, the evangelist Luke, in his gospel, chapter 23, clearly states that, after the trial of Jesus at the Sanhedrin, in the middle of the night and found guilty, the whole Sanhedrin and other Jewish leaders brought Jesus before Pilate, the next morning. They were assembled in the small courtyard outside the pretorium where they stated their case. When Pilate, to their utter surprise, said he found no cause in that just man, it was the JEWISH ELDERS and not the Jewish people who called for his crucifixion.
It must be further remembered those who attended the traditional Latin Mass, prayed the sacred liturgy and sang the sacred music, gathered in the millions in Nuremberg, Munich and Vienna, and with the traditional Nazi salute and shouts of adulation greeted the Fuerer with “HEIL HITLER! and “SIEG HEIL!
This perspective is pick and choose history, commonly taught in our schools today. Pick and choose history doesn’t commence with reason and evidence, it starts with a conclusion and then drives hard toward it
What history or reason justifies screaming your head off, “Crucify him! Crucify him!?”
For goodness sakes. Now TLM Mass attendees are Nazis ?
It always seems to end up with either Trump or Nazis in the comments….
🙄
Wow. Hysterical much??? The Gospel accounts used on Good Friday at TLM and even NOW, are most certainly NOT “despicable”. A people and their leaders very often ARE of one mind and it is a farce to pretend otherwise. It’s exceedingly dubious that the crucifixion took place at the behest of half a dozen “Jewish Authorities”. There was a lot more pressure on Pilate than that, as the Gospel accounts take note of the CROWDS demanding Jesus’s death. And lets not forget those who taunted Jesus while he was on the cross, and those described as spitting on him as he was arrested. Were they the Jewish leaders? I dont think so.
Yes I am sure the conversion of the Jews was considered a goal in the old days, as was the conversion of ANYONE who was not a believer. That was the norm until attempts at such conversion became socially unpopular in recent decades. Since when has evangelization become a crime?
As for Hitler and those who supported him, who says such supporters were actually “christians” in the real sense of the word? That is quite a broad and inaccurate statement and I have heard it before . You must forget that not only Jews were killed in the camps. Priests and nuns were murdered as well. If Nazis were “Christians” I hardly think that persecution would have happened to the degree that it did. You may not like the Gospel of John, but that does not make it any less valid.
No one said the Gospel of John is despicable. It is just not properly understood. There is a huge problem when John uses the word “Jews. It is taken for granted it means the Jewish people and not the Jewish elders. I was compelled to write my comments because of the FACT, that the last Good Friday, saw our priest priest, in his homily, screaming his head off, “Crucify him! Crucify him.” He concluded the throngs of Jewish people who hailed Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem, were the same ones, a few days later, yelling for his crucifixion! Will someone please tell me, if an ordained priest who spent years studying in a seminary and a lot more years as a parish priest, could get it wrong, imagine the folly of the laity who joined him in screaming for his death!
There are some commentators who jumped to the conclusion I am Nazi! How can that possibly be, when I speaking up for the Jews! Just what is it, they do not understand!
And one commentator thinks there were only half a dozen of the Jewish Elders who sought the death of Christ. The Gospel of Luke in (Chapter 23:verse 1) clearly states the following day, thee entire assembly led him before Pilate and stated their case. The Sanhedrin, a Greek term for “Council” was the Supreme Council of Jews. They were the final authority on decisions that affected the religious and political life of the Jews. It was composed of 71 members, including the High Priest and 70 other general members that included the Sadducees, Scribes and Pharisees. It had the power in passing a death sentence, but that power was greatly curtailed by the Roman Empire and it was the Romans who retained the right to accept or reject their verdicts and to CARRY OUT the penalties. This is clearly stated in the Bible when Pilate asked the Elders why couldn’t they take Christ and carry out the execution, they replied, “We may not put anyone to death” (John 18: 31-32.)
I rest my case.
Your cluelessness about the Gospel of John is perfectly matched by your hysterical nastiness. Not a good look.
I guess in the coming Palm Sundays and Good Fridays, you will be screaming your head off, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”” And then you will do the Stations of the cross, falling on your knees and praying to a false image, depicting JEWS nailing Christ to the cross.
Uh, no. That’s not how we do it in the Byzantine rite. And we don’t have Stations of the Cross in the Eastern churches, so…
As far as I know, the 10th Station usually portrays Romans crucifying Christ.
Your angry, scorched-earth approach here is both off-putting and unhelpful. To put it nicely.
CARL,
It is an established fact that when someone has nothing intelligent to say, that person resorts to insults.
Yes. You’ve proven that many times over here. Congrats.
We still have a prayer for the Jewish people at the G Friday service; where they pray for different people and causes and we kneel and stand
That is because Vatican II in 1965, eliminated that despicable prayer for the Jews and instituted the new one.
Where once we prayed for the conversion of the perfidis Judaeis may we all now pray for the conversion of the perfidis Leslie.
“It must be further remembered those who attended the traditional Latin Mass, prayed the sacred liturgy and sang the sacred music, gathered in the millions in Nuremberg, Munich and Vienna, and with the traditional Nazi salute and shouts of adulation greeted the Fuerer with “HEIL HITLER! and “SIEG HEIL!”
I seldom chuckle at things that ordinarily make my blood boil, but if you would actually learn some history instead of adopting conventional anti-Catholic bigotry, you might learn that the Catholics the Nazis regarded as possessing the same level of threat to the purity of their regime and its security and therefore suitable for extermination were those who were the most devout, which they demonstrated in their refusals of devotion to Hitler.
LM: “It must be further remembered those who attended the traditional Latin Mass, prayed the sacred liturgy and sang the sacred music, gathered in the millions in Nuremberg, Munich and Vienna, and with the traditional Nazi salute and shouts of adulation greeted the Fuerer with “HEIL HITLER! and “SIEG HEIL!”
Meiron: Those who speak or worship God in any language, who speak or worship God now or then, in Germany or anywhere else in the world AS WELL AS THOSE WHO DO NOT WORSHIP or CANNOT THINK must remember or must LEARN that the just war principles of Judeo-Christian belief brought the Third Reich to its knees, Hitler to suicide, and the Jews and other innocents of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, Belzec, Chelmno, Treblinka and the like to liberation. Cease your silly stupid stereotype! Sume caput ex illo foramine! Then breathe the breath of peace that God would love to give if only you would let Him.
Nice to see Godwin’s Law still operates in public discourse.
It never fails. You just have to wait long enough for Hitler to show up in the comments. 🙄
I am sad for you.
Weep not for for me but for yourself and your children for there will come a time when you will stand before God and you have to explain why you were screaming your head off, yelling “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
Leslie:
Your comment is way overblown and out-of-bounds.
We all know or ought to know that worshipping in the Mass before “The New Order of the Roman Rite,” likewise was done by millions of Catholic people inside and outside of Germany who opposed and ultimately fought against the Nazi cult.
And likewise it is certain that the large majority of Nazi members and sympathizers were not Catholic people, but Protestants, secularists, agnostics and atheists.
And John’s Gospel is not as you assert a “Jew-hatred” text. We all know that Jesus and John and virtually all of the first Christians were Jews. As even-tempered scripture scholars point out, and Jesus prophesied, and Luke and Paul and other New Testament authors all point out, there was a life-and-death persecution by the Saduccees and Pharisees against the Christians of Jerusalem and the Holy Land, and the conflict is simply testifying to that fact.
And conversely, no one today asserts that anti-semitism by Catholics is caused by reading the same Passion Narratives in the Novus Ordo Mass.
“begging God to remove the blindness of their hearts and accept Christ as Lord? ”
Leaving aside the rest of your post: You think it’s a bad thing to pray that Jews will accept Christ as Lord? You must have major issues with Jesus, Who called Jews to Him; and with the Apostles who labored toward that end.
It is wrong to single out just the Jews. Have you, or Catholics like you, ever prayed in public and with just gusto, for the Nazis, for the Fascists from Catholic Italy or for the Japanese who committed such atrocities during the Rape of Nanking or for the horrific and unspeakable crimes they committed in the quest for supremacy in germ and biological warfare where they used human beings as guinea pigs? Those atrocities were committed in UNIT 731 and it is now referred to as the “Auschwitz of the East”
John’s Gospel first refers to the Jewish ‘chief priests and officers’ as those present at his sentencing at verse 6, Chap. 19: Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Later in the same chapter, John simply refers to the Jews.
When we write, our first reference to a person is by more complete identification; later we shorten names and more complete ID to pronouns. It is reasonable to assume that John referred to the “chief priests and officers” as “the Jews” when speaking later of the same group.
Since it was the day of Preparation, it is reasonable to question how many Jews (in addition to the leaders) would have been motivated and/or free to mill about Pilate’s Praetorium when they had work to do. The law of Moses required they prepare for Sabbath, and Passover as a special type of sabbath required more work–the choosing of the perfect lamb, cooking according to strict instructions, and cleaning the house of leaven. (Exodus 12)
Finally, the reading of John’s passion on Good Friday, Passion or Palm Sunday is sometimes read aloud by different persons or groups of persons at NO Masses. The congregation as a whole typically reads the part of the chief priests and the crowd which says, “Crucify Him!” NOTE: The CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN congregation says this. When the Catholic Christian congregation says this, we identify with the people who first said this. Why? OUR SINS (those of Christians as well as those of the Jews) are the reason Jesus died. We look to the log in our own eye not the speck in our Jewish neighbor. We are blessed that Jesus chose to die for us. No greater love hath any man, as Jesus Himself said.
In essence, Jesus chose to be crucified so that we would be forgiven our sins and granted access to heaven.
Isaiah 5:35: But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.” His blood is surely on us Catholic Christians, and we are glad since His body and His blood save us. His blood is able to save the entire world if the world wants Him to do that.
So what say you, Leslie Michael?
Not this again…
Look, I’m a Catholic academic of very broad experience, and never once in my life, having talked with countless Catholics all over the nation and the world, have I met one who expressed anything resembling hostility to Jews as “Christ killers.” In fact, my encounters with this kind of talk is limited virtually exclusively to those who raise it in order to (unfairly) attack the traditional liturgy. It’s not church teaching, I was never taught it, I don’t teach it, and I’ve never heard anyone express it as a belief. Jewish friends I’ve discussed it with aren’t offended by it, either. The way they see it is, as they’ve told it to me, is: if you believe your faith is true, why wouldn’t you pray for me to share it?
Pius XII affirmed long before Vatican II that the word “perfidus” means only “unbelieving” or “not having the faith.” That is, indeed, the meaning of the word. English “perfidious” has a secondary, later meaning that sometimes confuses people. St. John XXIII rewrote the prayer for the Jews anyway, prior to Vatican II. Pope Benedict XVI rewrote it yet again in 2007 when he allowed freedom to use the 1962 missal again. So (even though it wasn’t an issue to begin with), you’re condemning the Extraordinary Form of the mass as celebrated today (the subject of the article we’re commenting on here) for something it doesn’t even contain.
Note also that the people did not read any part of the gospel aloud at the time – it was recited in Latin by the clergy from the sanctuary.
You’re loading the cart with a whole lot of weight that it just won’t sustain, historically or theologically.
I attend a parish that prays the mass in English, and in the Easter season as the gospel is read while we all stand, the congregation says some of the parts, and one of our parts is “crucify him, crucify him”. Are you saying the gospel should not say what it does in fact say? A little theological reflection gives me a way to make sense of this, because Jesus died for our sins (my sins and yours), so when I sin I am in a sense in the same relation to Jesus as the crowd. My sins are crucifying him. It is appropriate that I realise that I am like that crowd.
Then, Leslie, one has to wonder why, in light of your assertions, there have been so many Jewish converts to the faith, such as Edith Stein, Jean Marie Cardinal Lustiger, Msrg. John Osterricher, Fr.Arthur Klyber, etc., etc.? Somehow, they seem not to have been in the least put off by your depiction of the Good Friday readings, since they all converted back in the day, prior to the VII reform of the liturgy. I suggest that you consult the convert Rosalie Levy’s 1924 book, “Why Jews Become Catholics,” for a perspective very different from the one you’ve set out in your comment.
The proper solution to this widespread problem is to improve celebrations of the postconciliar liturgy, not to take refuge in a form of the Mass that the bishops of Vatican II nearly unanimously decreed should be reformed and replaced.
Traditionis Custodes, which I support, is one prong of a two-pronged approach to celebrating the postconciliar liturgy properly and well. The other prong is Desiderio Desideravi, which seems to me to have been totally ignored.
Most TLMs are banal as well, as a matter of fact. The TLM parish in my diocese has fewer than 40 families that attend it. There is no strong desire for the TLM.
The notion that there is a groundswell of desire for the TLM is false. Larry Chapp himself has said that the TLM’s appeal is for a tiny niche of Catholics; it does not and will never again have widespread appeal.
Thus the need to take measures to improve celebrations of the postconciliar Mass in the typical parish around the country.
The TLM is not the answer to poorly celebrated Novus Ordo Masses, as if the Novus Ordo Mass is inherently defective. Better ars celebrandi in the Novus Ordo Mass is the answer. But most bishops couldn’t care less about the quality of Mass in their dioceses, as evidenced by their near total lack of leadership and effort to improve things liturgical.
” …it does not and will never again have widespread appeal” says Helen Smith.
I beg to differ: beauty has lasting appeal.
That is be because Vatican II, in 1965, eliminated that and instituted a new one. If it weren’t perfidious, why was it removed? It looks like someone who lives in a glass house is throwing stones. If beauty has such lasting appeal, why is it that the vast majority of people praying the Traditional Latin Mass are white?
You are a racist?
Can you cite the document from Vatican II that eliminated the Mass and called for a new one?
And let’s not forget this, from Sacrosanctum Concilium: “36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”
Leslie:
Here are responses, and answers to your rhetorical questions:
1. Vatican II “eliminated” the traditional Roman Rite of The Mass: No, that’s not true. (You are contradicting SC of Vatican II.)
2. If it wasn’t perfidious, why was it removed?
As candid observers know, it wasn’t removed by anything, nor ever “abrogated,” as testified by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), who actually participated in Vatican II, (unlike most all of us, including the Pontiff Francis and Eminence Roche, etc). Your pretentious question can instead be answered by noting that many people who market the “spirit of Vatican II ideology” want the text of the traditional Roman Rite outlawed, because they instead disbelieve in some of the sacred truths testified in the prayers of the traditional Roman Rite (for example, the Last Judgment will result in “final damnation” for many people, or that Jesus died in our place to make reparation for the sins we have committed, or Jesus’ resurrection bodily, or that the Eucharist is his “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity,” or that Jesus’ incarnation-passion-death-resurrection “did more wondrously make us anew.” Those are all things that are either present in the traditional Rite text and erased in the NO (“did more wondrously make us anew”), or have been instead been denied by many “Catholic” people, including Bishops and Cardinals.
3. Your 3rd sentence indicates instead that you should consider moving to a new house.
4. Your 4th sentence sounds like a self-declaration that you are a racist. I think that like other Church teachings, Vatican II doesn’t endorse racism.
Overall, your words do not indicate “the mind of Christ.” We must all have the mind of Christ.
Vatican II did not change the prayer. Pope St. John XXIII had “perfidis” removed in 1963 but the rest of the prayer remained the same (until the 1970 missal came out), including the language about veil and blindness. John XXIII obviously didn’t see a problem with it beyond deciding “perfidis,” in vernacular use at least, having shifted in meaning over the centuries, might cause confusion.
The vast majority of attendees are white? And how would you know this? To what continents or nations do you refer? Funny, when I’ve attended it both in the U.S. and internationally, I’ve noticed quite a number of people with various ancestries, including African (and that includes celebrants) present. Masses in Africa (see Nigeria, Cameroon) commonly use Latin at mass, as well – and it’s growing. Doesn’t that seem an odd comment to make? What does the ancestry of attendees have to do with anything?
Leslie Michael: No reply button on your challenge of whether the subjects of your sanctimonious presumption ever prayed for the souls of those committing all manner of human iniquity: As dumb as the question is, the answer is nonetheless, “obviously, of course.” And praying for redemption from all manner of sin, has been a part of Catholic liturgy both pre and post VII. We even pray for the iniquity in your soul that would resist such knowledge.
If there’s no groundswell of desire and it’s just a niche thing, why not allow as much of it as people want and let it die out naturally? No need for Traditionis Custodes or any restrictions if hardly anyone would want to go there anyway.
If the TLM will never be popular why are all the aging clerics in the Church trying to stomp it out?
“Most TLM’s are banal”.
Have you been to most TLM’s? I have assisted at hundreds, and never once was it banal.
Contrary to your “tiny niche”, most Catholics know nothing of the Latin Mass. I have talked to priests (supposedly orthodox) who do not even know what it is. One thought it was simply saying the Novus Ordo in Latin.
Do you support sacrosanctum concilium’s teachings? All the propers in Latin, Gregorian Chant, say the black, do the red…?
If it is such a tiny little minority, why do you care?
Ave Maria!!
How does one say most TLM Masses are “banal”? That’s rather a broad critique. Ive only been to Latin Masses in two dioceses but that certainly hasn’t been my experience. And I’m puzzled about what might
make a TLM banal in the first place?
We have 2 parishes in our diocese that
celebrate the TLM weekdays and Sundays. When I visit the TLM closest to me the pews are absolutely packed full of young families and lots and lots of small children and infants.
If you consider the average age of TLM attendees and the number of children per family, it doesn’t appear it will die out any time soon.
And the VAST majority of them are white.
Complexion shades signify to worship? How so?
How many have you attended? How could you know?
I suggest that you visit the Shrine of the Holy Innocents on West 37th Street in NYC. The TLM is celebrated there everyday, and the majority of those attending are decidedly NOT “white.” And unlike your comment, they seem wholly unconcerned wit race – they’re all simply Catholics, which is a colorless attribute, eh?
Are you aware that the creation of caricatures is a grievous trashing of the Eighth Commandment? And if you are so quick to warn others of how they’ll stand at their final accounting, shouldn’t you spend some time thinking about your own?
I agree. Well put.
Helena,
Where exactly in the documents of VCII do the Council Fathers state that the TLM must be “replaced.”
Look again. Keep looking. Have you not found it yet? How long, Lord, how long, must we suffer prejudice, bias, and downright midwittedness??
If you read Sacrosanctum Concilium, it is clear that the reform of the liturgy did not include continuing to celebrate the unreformed liturgy. There was no expectation that a new liturgy would be created to be celebrated alongside the old one. The Roman Rite has only one Mass, which is currently the Missal of Paul VI.
Mr. Walker:
Having read SC repeatedly, what is clear beyond anything else is that the creation and implementation of “The New Order of The Roman Rite” violates SC.
And of course it is a plain fact that you are mistaken that “The New Order of the Roman Rite” is the sole form of the Mass in the Roman Rite. The Roman Rite before NO of the Roman Rite remains in use, and it does so for the reason stated by Pope Benedict XVI: “What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or considered harmful.” (January 28, 2014)
That’s just mere Catholic common sense, justice and charity.
The intention of VCII Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium was to reform the liturgy, never to refabricate or replace it. The Council Fathers may not have anticipated the creation of a new liturgy to be celebrated in addition to that according to the 1962 Roman Missal, but truly that is what has come to be. Do you deny that both exist, or do you claim that only one is valid?
Mr. Walker: You might consider a course in remedial reading comprehension.
“The TLM parish in my diocese has fewer than 40 families that attend it.”
Well, Miss Kael, nobody you knew voted for Nixon, either.
God would have stayed the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah for far less than that. Surely a form of worship can get as much consideration from the Bishop of Rome.
Off course anything favored by that many families would be better than anything favored by harridans.
But I must compliment you on a post that reminds us of the wisdom of 1 Timothy 2:12.
Thanks for this. I do get the feeling that in the States there is more of a traditionalist “movement” whereas in the UK (where I live) it’s more a case of regular orthodox Catholics who just seek out the TLM on a Sunday. The bad eggs in that movement do seem to be perilously close to spoiling it for everyone.
Sadly true, there seems to be too many bad eggs with big mouths and egos as well! 🥵
As compared to whose big mouth?
Attempting to compete with the Protestants was a mistake.
Perfectly said, and elegantly argued.
Dominus vobiscum
The title of the document is misleading; I am one of the American people and I was not asked about it. Whether the letter is appropriate or not, the writers are presumptuous. As Uncle Alex says in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, “I’m one of the people too.”
this witnesses it best:
Finally, I support wide access to the TLM because I think it is the pastorally sensitive thing to do. I mentioned earlier my critique of elements within the traditionalist movement. But I also acknowledge that those people are Catholics too and worthy of pastoral accompaniment. I do not think it wise, therefore, to further the radicalization by trying to stomp it out with acts of raw authority in which the true root causes of the malaise are never addressed. Does this Pope not speak all the time of the need to accompany those on the peripheries? Is that not why he turns a blind eye to the proliferation of “Pride” Masses? So we can “build a bridge” to those sexual peripheries in highly questionable ways, but we must burn the bridge to the traditionalist periphery? The former is deemed to be “wounded sheep in need of a shepherd”. The latter is just dismissed as “indietrists” who require a quick slap across the face.
Therefore, I consider Traditionis Custodes to be a failure of pastoral governance. A draconian overreaction that blinds the Church to the fact that there are devout and devoted Catholics who want a different “experience” of liturgy from that which is available in most parishes. Even though I am not a traditionalist, I share their liturgical dissatisfaction with the banality of so many parish liturgies.
And so I signed the letter and I am glad that I did. I do not think it is an act of disobedience. Instead, I view it as an act of ecclesial solidarity with a wounded periphery in the Church and an affirmation of a profound treasure that should not be lost.
And there it is again
This is thoughtful and reasonable (of course I agree with almost everything in it). I really appreciate the lack of invective. Thanks.
I am a convert to Catholicism. It was because I studied history that I came to the Catholic faith. The motivations for support of the Tridentine Mass are, for me, irrelevant. What is absolutely crucial is my firm belief in the overwhelming importance and value of authority. The Church’s 2,000-year history is infinitely more important than the whims of more recent popes. Truth does not change to meet the desires of the modern day. The first principle of faith is to submit to God’s will; to forfeit my life in exchange of the life and will of Jesus the Christ.
There are no questions about the validity of the Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo. Any attempt to stifle either one – or any of a number of all the others practiced – is inappropriate and offensive.
Good letter! Thank you! Often I have issues with some of Dr. Larry Chapp’s commentary, but this one is spot-on. When something is “forbidden”, it becomes more desirable. Any good parent knows that the best way to assure that children will play with something is to FORBID them from playing with it! Anyone on a diet knows that they’ve never wanted to binge on chocolate-dipped coconut macarons–until they are on the list of forbidden foods! I think that banning the TLM will merely make it even more attractive and appealing than it already is, and many Catholics will make the decision to disobey the Holy Father and attend a “forbidden” Latin Mass. Just let the TLM be. Make the EF Mass available for those who love it and continue to work on making the OF Mass reverent, liturgically correct, and edifying to modern-day Catholics like me (former Evangelical Protestant raised in the 1960s and 70s!) who really don’t “get” the appeal of a foreign language Mass and Gregorian chant (chant, to me, sounds like something out of a 1970s horror movie–I prefer hymns from a hymnal sung in all four parts by the congregation and a choir with organ AND piano accompaniment–JMO because I’m still lost in the 1970s!).
Horror movies get it right sometimes Mrs.Sharon.
😁
Seriously, when you see the Mass portrayed in horror films they try to make it as traditional as possible. Ditto for nuns habits and Catholic devotions. It gives more visual contrast between good and evil.
I can’t remember where I read it, but someone pointed out that in the movies when there are demons to be battled, nodody every yells, “Quick! Somebody find a nondenominational faith leader!”
The foreign language generally isn’t the appeal. It’s everything said in the foreign language.
Tradition is that which was handed on to our fathers by their fathers, going back through Saints and Bishops to the Apostles. Much of that is contained in the Mass, both Ordinary and Propers (only about a third of which made it into the NO without alteration). The Tradition handed on through the Mass is for everyone, just as the Tradition handed on in the writings of the Fathers and Saints, or in the paintings and sculptures and architecture of the artists, is for everyone.
You don’t have to go to the TLM to get all of it either, you can look up the English translation of the TLM missal online and read.
It is not forbidden. You are free to worship in that form. Just not in our Cathedrals or parish churches
Well perhaps you meant to say “my cathedrals and parishes?”
Imagine disparaging Jonah because after all his hype about a coming chastisement, nothing happened. We pray and sacrifice (and sign petitions) in good faith, but some things we just cannot know.
Thank you so much for this, Larry. I couldn’t be a more whole-hearted Communio supporter, one who believes that the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI were among the greatest, one who is emphatically not a sedevacantist, and one who attends both the TLM and the Novus Ordo. I love the latter when it is faithfully done, and truly love the former. The TLM, even the low mass without the astonishing music, has a worshipful, structural beauty that is surely the summit of what humanity (with God!) has created (its loss would be worse than even the loss of Dante, Michelangelo, Raphael…). The different TLM churches I attend are full of joyful families and young people (so much for “nostalgia” for the mass of their youth!), and the evil bogeyman of certain circles in the Vatican are nowhere to be found. (I do know, though only from the internet, that the kind of “rad trad” who wants to freeze the Church forever in amber exists, but as a fringe).
(As an aside, I appreciate all your columns. I know that our beloved St. Thomas Aquinas had to deal with Aristotle in the same way that our theologians today must deal with, say, Heidegger, and that those theologians do not reject Thomas or the past but open it up, and that the early and medieval Church had heresies to overcome, but did not have the wholesale rejection of reality we have to do).
Thank you, well done!
So agree. Nice. Thank you.
I appreciate a well-reasoned perspective because they are so rare these days.
We read: “And how does one make the claim the Novus Ordo is now set in stone when its very existence is proof that no liturgy is set in stone?”
Well, FIRST of all, and yes, the Novus Ordo isn’t set in stone. More likely, it’s set in reinforced concrete, or maybe assembled from standardized composition board produced on an assembly line, and occasionally enlivened with the sale of Christmas cards manufactured in China.
But, SECOND—and thinking outside the box—what if the real controversy isn’t even between two forms (extraordinary TLM and the ordinary) of the one Latin Rite? Instead, what if history will discern a camouflaged conflict between the esthetics of permanence (!) and the ideology (!) of fluid historicism?
The revealing parallel might be between the liturgical blessing of genuine marriage and the spontaneous crypto-blessing of “irregular” situations and even of alphabetical sexual tribalism—one “couple” at a time? For some, is the legitimate and valid Novus Ordo more of a provisional experience, like a trial marriage? That is, not permanent or set in stone like a real diamond? Esthetically, which form of the Mass is more ambulatory and in step with the ambiguity: “time is greater than space”?
THIRD, if well balanced, the suggested “synod on the liturgy” could esthetically rescue the permanence of the Real Presence from overly-democratic drift and overly-clericalist fiat, both. While most TLM traditionalists do not actually reject Vatican II, perhaps some—and equally (!) the rest of us pew sitters—could begin to seriously study the four Constitutions of the Catholic Church: the Liturgy, but also Divine Revelation, the Church, and the Church in the Modern World.
Not a bad start after sixty years since the Council! The past two generations are enough of two divergent Barques of Peter passing in the night.
The traditional Latin Mass is a spiritual masterpiece. It is not in need of reform.
And there it is..in a nutshell.
The Novus Ordo was touted as the vehicle that would bring the Mass back to the supper table and would empower the people’s role. As originally written it does. That Mass still exists to an extent in the weekday services.. The peoples responses are all there. Unfortunately, Musical directors have commandeered the mass, if you observe your Sunday neighbors, they’re still bored waiting for an off key opera singer to finish the 3rd verse from the Gather songbook. All the peoples responses have been captured by the musical director.The Mass has devolved to an inept reader mumbling into a second rate sound system, and we stand as a JR High musical is performing songs that have the spiritual impact of “little bunny flu flu hopping through the forest”. We travel and attend 100 or so different churches a year. The vast majority I have described here. The minority we cherish as a memory. So why even go? Because I believe in the Eucharist. Yes, I wear ear plugs in church, but I follow in my Daily Missal, and I respond as a congregant to every passage. I contemplate what God’s plan could be for The church I see today. I cherish the church I remember, from pre-1960, to Saint John Paul, and Pope Benedict. This article emphasizes the changes by using Trad as a noun..
Excellent post, Ragnar Bergendahl. Exactly how I feel about the NO and the TLM, but I could not have written it the way you did. Thank you very much, and God bless you.
To wear ear plugs; what a good idea! The music ministry is surely one where the Novus Ordo has failed dismally! How dare we accompany the Mass with the most banal of hymns, guitars and piano! How can we fail our children by not exposing our children to our beautiful old hymns! How can the leaders in our Church not do something about the Music Ministry!
Don’t forget the drums! The LifeTeen Mass is incomplete without them. Remember to clap and cheer at the end, perhaps add a whistle or too and occasionally shout a Bravo.
Surely then we may all convince one other of our full, complete, and active participation. The authorities may then proclaim the realization of the Council Fathers’ profound aspirations for the Catholic people: the laity, the unlearned, the non-theologians, and for the many, for they are Catholic too! Praise and glory to the Catholic people who have successfully accomplished the will of the Fathers seeking reform. Now is the time to throw the Trads a bone.
I can’t even hear myself think let alone talk to Jesus with the rock and roll noise blasting during the Eucharist. And no time to meditate afterwards with stupid announcements for some parish party occurring just one minute after the last host has been distributed. Not surprising most N.O. enthusiasts reject the Real Presence.
I appreciate the candor and thoughtfulness in your writings. Considering your explanations , I think your signing the document was the right thing to do. Perhaps some moderation and tolerance will come from it. While the Church is not a democracy I feel that the needs and opinions of the faithful should be taken into consideration. God bless.
Increasingly apparent is the healthy drift of TLM devotees away from outright condemnation of V II, to rejection of the illegitimate interpretations of those V II documents by the current pontificate. This trend became recognizable during the Archbishop Viganò drama, and the criticism of the Archbishop’s distancing himself from the Chair of Peter. Most seem to distinguish between the authenticity of the Chair and the viability of its occupant. Thankfully most expressed solid commitment to stand fast.
Dr Chapp, highly sensitive to the issue of obedience, yes obedience a virtue hardly mentioned these days, to Christ Church and its appointed authority, the Roman pontiff. While he has been critical those views were duly measured in context of evidence rather than hearsay, as he maintains here. Although in this essay Chapp makes his observation of unjustifiable suppression of the TLM on the basis of alleged reliable sources. However, the sources are tertiary, from direct knowledge to reliable sources to reporters. For Chapp to assume the risk he likely is encouraged to believe they’re true based on the pope’s remarks and behavior, which seem to many of us a monument of circumstantial evidence. Preponderance of circumstantial evidence can convict.
Chapp offers rationale for signing the said critical letter as support not for radical Trads, rather for the spiritually wounded faithful. And indeed there are many. Furthermore, I’m prejudiced. That’s because Chapp accepts the Novus Ordo, as I do in offering all my Masses, yet he recognizes the immense value of Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum. As I do.
What a bunch of hubris, flapdoodle, and royal nonsuch! To wit, you have a lot of worldly work to do, I do the Lord’s work as directed, it hurts like heck, and you royal buffoons argue about the words! Wastrels of ability-Get a Life!!
From what I have read, the group who were writing the new liturgy in the late 1960s included Protestants, and was slated to be comfortable for Protestants to join in, including the emphasis on a community meal and downplaying or eliminating the Sacrificial purpose of the Mass. The large number of available Eucharistic Prayers for a priest to choose from (originally 4, then more added) makes each Novus Ordo mass different from the other. Which language will the priest use? This is disturbing. The Traditional Latin Mass is always the same, the only variant is the propers for the day, whether sung or not, if the ordinary parts (Kyrie, Gloria…) are chanted, which setting.
Here’s something to consider. Maybe they want to kill the TLM precisely because they fear it may have an impact on the Novus Ordo? They cannot stomach the possibility that there could be a “reform of the reform” that actually recovers traditional elements of the mass that were jettisoned. The prospect of including more Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem posture, communion on the tongue while kneeling at a rail, etc. makes them apoplectic. They had to erase Summorum Pontificum precisely because they feared it was beginning to have its intended effect of “mutual enrichment.” Remember when PF publicly shamed the holy Cardinal Sarah for pushing the use of ad orientem posture in Novus Ordo masses? And simultaneously said we can never again speak of a reform of the reform? I think that’s a big part of what this is about.
Maybe we do need more restrictions… after reading this comment.
Yes, restrictions of the implicit anti-Catholicism of your comment.
Thank you, Mr. Chapp.
I have attended the TLM once but it is not my favored form of liturgy. However, I know faithful Catholics who are very dedicated to it. To curtail this form of liturgy at a time of overall declining mass attendance is just bad shepherding in my opinion.
Like Mr. Chapp’s critics, that opinion may strike some as disrespect for the Pope. But saints like Catherine of Sienna and Hildegard directed far more forceful criticisms at past popes because it was necessary at the time.
TLM or NOS?
Traditional Latin Mass or Novos Ordo Seculorum ?
Catholicism or Masonic Rule?
Sacred Tradition or Cancel-Culture ?
Surely it would be an act of disrespect to Christ to not sign the letter.
Indeed ND.
Whilst Novos Ordo Seculorum CAN be celebrated with dignity, Traditional Latin Mass CANNOT be celebrated with indignity.
God merits guaranteed dignity.
On disrespect to Christ ND:
The Novos Ordo CAN be celebrated respectfully. The TLM CAN NEVER be offered disrespectfully.
What does Christ Merit? The guaranteed respectful Mass of the Ages, offered always with dignity, or the Novos Ordo “hit and miss?”
Why not bring back The Altar Rails?🙏💕🌹
I agree with Dr Larry, the arrangement of Benedict xvl was the right way but that the TLM is now seen as the haunt of sedevacantists and whackjobs insults the many loyal Catholics That I saw at Chartes cathedral kissing the ring of the papal envoy and willing to do so. The question has to be asked: why are the churches where the TLM was and sadly now limited is bursting with young families and one can’t help tripping over prams etc. what about their needs? Indeed why tamper with something that didn’t need fixing in the first place???
An excellent article, but more simply, is this tension between tradition and Vatican II more about our positions as Catholics when participating in the Mass and Liturgy? As we squabble like siblings in the rec room over who decides what game to play, the real impetus is lost: Who is in “control”? If we falsely empower ourselves, chances are worship will suffer, regardless of form. I engage in Latin Masses rarely, but they are beautifully focussed on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Novus Ordo with Latin draws me in and reminds me of the universality of that language. Novus Ordo with music–especially drums and guitars–can produce mixed responses, candidly. I recently attempted to focus after Communion, but the intermittent beat of a bongo drum honestly distracted me. I have also heard parishioners insist “We run the Church,” and perceive any Pastor as a temporary “presider.” All of this can be distilled to the simple principle of authority, requiring humility and obedience. This includes up to the Papacy. However, demanding that the TLM be “banned” is not likely to resolve these ongoing, underlying concerns.
As an octogenarian I grew up with the Latin Mass (and studied three years of Latin in my Catholic high school). In my opinion the best thing that took place in the Church during my long lifetime is the change to the Mass in the vernacular. I now attend Mass and can actually understand what is being said by the priest. I no longer have a “problem with communication.”
Wow, you studied Latin for three years and yet were unable to look at the facing page in the Missal and read the English translation? Impressive!
Agreed, Leslie. I will attend either Mass, but I prefer the TLM. I never studied Latin, I just read along in my missal and watched the gestures the priest was making to determine where he was (because everything is explained in the missal), all as I was scanning both the Latin and the English. After a couple of years, I found myself reading the Latin side more often than the English. And the priests have mics, so it is not silent. Following in the missal avoids distraction.
Oh, and huh! many of the prayers in the TLM are the same prayers said in the NO. I think, perhaps, some people would rather just listen in the vernacular. That’s the participation. Listening and not having to read along with what the celebrant is actually saying.
What is Innocence? Are we Holy? Obedience to God is Obedience to God in all ways in every station within the Church Triumphant. First a thank you to the Author for his words within this article as you have a gift for words and I pray you do many great and Wonderful things for the church and for God.
We are all called to be children of the most high God Almighty through Jesus Christ the Son of Mary ever Virgin, Most Immaculate Blessed Mother of the Most Holy Trinity. We get to that place we want to be when we Reveal who it is we truly are. We are all called as Catholics to Obedience in every aspect of our lives. We are all called to be Obedient children of Our Holy father and thus Love God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit with our Humility in all things. My apologies if any Saints participated in the “Open Letter from the Americas to the Pope”, if a Saint did participate than simple stop reading here. If somehow this disproportionately ineffectual letter that holds no Divinity and Honor towards the Blessed Trinity was not met with the participation of one Saint than let us call to mind what the True problem is here. Where is the honor to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit within those traitorous lines? Perhaps we have something designed by invisible evil hands that did not involve the participation of One single Saint, I know nothing as I am simply a child of God. Let us take a look further, If we are not Honoring God in all ways than we must look within ourselves to fix the True Problem here; which is Sin. The lack of Reverie we as Mankind have today towards Piety in all ways, shows us the reason we have the leaders we have, the world we live in is shaped quite simply by the lack of Trust in Gods Holy Will. How did we forget that it is between man and God in Everything? The enemy of souls loves to destroy Unity, for this is a tactic that thief uses to drag souls to hell. What does it truly mean to be Holy and Pure in every thought, every word and every deed? Are we choosing to be God here by the support of a letter that was written to quite simply serve to create Discord, Dishonor to the Communities world wide and thus bring forth a spirit of Disobedience through a willful act of Usurpation towards the Lord of all Jesus by the lack of Piety towards the Church, towards the Pope. How does Mankind find its way out of the ashes? Where does mankind go to find itself before it is too late? When will souls stop choosing to be little puppets strung along by little demons led by a Terrified Immortal Enemy of Mankind, that ancient serpent is besought with his immortal state of depravity and despairing lack of Gods infInitely Beautiful, Tender Pure and Holy Glory. The enemy of Mankind knows what Unity does to its kingdom in Hell. For Unity of the Church triumphant is the catalyst to that great snatcher of souls utter destruction. The Enemy of Souls seeks to ruin what he lost by destroying souls lack of Piety, Purity, Innocence and Unity for all. Mankind is Prudent to see that every little Sin we all commit is like the Oxygen for mankind’s immortal enemy, the snatcher of souls. Let us stop giving life to the great thief, that Indignus evil one who is Unworthy to say the least of any thing to a child of God! That infernal Tyrant knows not how to ruin the church except by breaking us apart from each other through Disobedience! That liar who creates Hell for anyone who seeks not their own Divinity by living lives of Holiness and Goodness, seeks the eternal ruin of every sinner who seeks not the journey of Looking at ourselves and fixing ourselves First so we then can fix the world. Let mankind save itself before we loose our seat at the Heavenly banquet forever. Stop looking at what the world says and listen to what God says through his Laws given to us by Moses. Are we honoring the sacred Blood here that was shed for all mankind by working on ourselves first and foremost so we can help others along the way? Are we seeking God in all things? Are we honoring God in all ways? Are we seeking prayer first and action second? Are we forgetting our baptism by choosing to Sin and thus Offend a Pure, Innocent, Perfect, Humble, Tender heart of God with the tiniest Venial Sin?! Let mankind stop committing Sins of Impurity, Impiety and Pride and Start again on that path of Active Participation in God’s Mysterious Plan of Redemption through Honoring the Ultimate Sacrifice that God purchased for Mankind’s Salvation through the Friday of all Fridays, The Holiest Sigh of all Sighs; the Blood of all blood, the sacrifice of all sacrifice; the Trust of all Trust, the Holy Love of God for all his children through the sacrifice of God’s only begotten Son Jesus Christ gave us all a chance to be United in Gods Infinite Glory. Be Nothing so that God can work his wonders in you. Be little in all ways so God can work through you and we all can save souls as God Desires the Redemption of All of his Children. God bless all you all today and always. May Peace find its way back to us all.
We read: “Stop looking at what the world says and listen to what God says through his Laws given to us by Moses.” Yes, and even more, as you also affirm between the lines:
“…the Old Testament is described, not by the word ‘communion,’ but by the word covenant (berith). This terminology guarantees that God, who alone can establish the relation of his creature to himself, remains exalted; this term includes the distance that is maintained in the relationship. Some exegetes, on account of this, hold it to be wrong to translate berith with ‘covenant,’ because this word presupposes a certain equality between the partners in the ‘covenant’ that can never be, according to the Old Testament view, in the relationship between God and man [….] the Old Testament knows nothing of any ‘communion’ (chaburah) between God and man; the New Testament is this communion, in and through the person of the incarnate Jesus Christ” (Ratzinger, “Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith,” San Francisco, 2005, p. 74.)
How about some basic structure and paragraph breaks here? 🙄
Yep. There it is. The response it is now restricted.
Hello Tom,
Do you have something to contribute? Bitter Tommy-piling does not help your cause.
Why not make some reasoned arguments?
Here, I’ll throw you a bone… Why do so many Novus Ordo attendees spend so much time worried about the TLM if our numbers are so small? Why are we a threat to you?
Ave Maria!
Considering there is one Christ, one Truth, one Church now 2000 years, I checked into the TLM. I was shocked to the bone. All the lies and falsehood, and the on going militant push to condemn the Church, the Vat II and all the popes of the last century recognizing only Pius X. They claim to be the only holy remnant, (lie), they claim to be the only holy Church and condemn the true Church of the ages. All in the name of beauty and tradition, golden vestments and sopranos singing. I do not need to be entertained; I go to the mass and I am full of joy awaiting the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ who has made Himself the eternal sacrifice for His souls. Did Jesus pray to the East and His back to the disciples? God bless all whose hearts are inspired by the old mass. Abp Lefebvre called the new mass Poison, yes, he called mass and the sacrifice on the altar POISON wishing all to go to hell and only follow him. At the present time the talk is only about celebrating in Latin but you buy the whole package. There is not the Holy Spirit, no truth and no charity. Wishing to celebrate in the Latin rite is different then joining the trad movement. No, you can receive on the hand (“I desired to rest in your hands, not only in your heart.” Jesus to St Faustina (diary 160). “Heart takes precedence over reason, love over knowledge.” We have some militants in our parish they offer all day prayers a hundred fold and blame all the woes of the present time to the wrath of God to the NO; they are in disunity and schism but despise the true Church. Never mind Pope Francis; this has been going on for 60 years. Unity in the Church is necessary. “Because outside the Church is the devil, whereas within the Church there is Christ. …to discover the fullness of love which alone is eternity and which alone sustains the world.” (BXVI, Behold the pierced One, p.95). I stated the Church is the mystical Body of Christ and this man talks about the decapitalized head. It can’t get any worse! “The triumph of Christ’s kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil.” (CCC680). “Love never fails!”
We get it. Trads are icky. They dare criticize the unassailable decisions of John Paul II. They hold unfashionable opinions about the sanctity of Vatican II. And yet you stooped for a few minutes to associate yourself with their cause. I’m sure the Trads are grateful.
Re art which Francis traveled to see:
“Pope Francis [became]…the first pope to visit the prestigious Venice Biennale art exhibition when he travel[ed] to the “city of canals” this spring.
The theme of this year’s 60th International Art Exhibition — one of the most important contemporary art events in the world — is on foreigners and marginalized people. It has also generated headlines this year because of what event organizers have described as a special emphasis on “queer” artists, though the Holy Father’s visit will focus primarily on the Vatican’s exhibition on human rights. (CNA, April 2024)
From Vatican News – “The Holy See Pavilion at the 60th International Art Exhibition – La Biennale di Venezia continues its displays, workshops and visits in the in city’s Giudecca Women’s Prison with more events running until 24 November.
Entitled “With My Own Eyes” the Pavilion is dedicated to the theme of human rights and people living on the margins of society, and seeks to draw the world’s attention to those people who are largely ignored while fostering a culture of encounter. The unique context allows artistic experiences to be intertwined with the daily lives of the inmates, offering a space for expression and dialogue through internal workshops and guided tours open to the public.”
See some images at http://www.floornature.com/holy-see-pavilion-biennale-di-venezia-13997/
If you were a priest, do chapels like these invite you in to say Mass? If you were a priest favoring the TLM, would any of these chapels call to your sacred sixth sense of love? My abhorrent favorite is the black-rocked climbing wall, gravel floor, slanted pew seats, and green blobbed window coverings. No crucifix? Perhaps the triangulated wooden support beams do double duty.
I pray for them everyday and I love them but they are misled on many things, it is the leadership that practices division and animosity. The Church invincible because the Church is Christ
“This is rupture”
Pope Francis
Mr cracked nut, I didn’t get into pope Francis but I complained for many years. He seems threatened and doesn’t allow critics. I am stressing UNITY among all of us in the church. Let us focus on praying for a holy pope to restore and proclaim the truth of Christ.
Edith, we are united in prayer for a great Shepherd.
God bless
Perhaps this Pope should have focused on NO Masses that are being modified for political reasons, eg. rainbow Masses, rather than targeting the traditional practices. If his goal is to make the NO Masses universal, then it should be perfected, not modified.
One has to question why he is doing this, given his numerous questionable contradictions and unorthodox positions on so many aspects of the Catholic Church and Catholicism. It has to do with his judgement.
After professing fairmindedness towards “traditionalists,” Chapp then goes ahead and maligns “the bad ones” with baseless claims that they are guilty of baseless claims such as the influence of freemasonry on the N.O. Mass, disrespect for VII era popes, and wholesale rejection of VII.
It is not baseless for “trads” to note that the prime mover of the N.O. Mass, Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason. His name is on the Italian registry of freemasonry. His serial no. 1365-75. His initiation date was April 23, 1963.
And many “trads” who note overt, content destroying contradictions of secular humanist language in the actual documents of VII, while recognizing that the vast majority of content is orthodox, have concerns about how the humanistic content has provided the very logical pretext to justify the 59 years of radical dissent and corruptions of the faith, that even the prelates gathered at the Synod of 1985 were starting to recognize, which is one of the reasons they called for the Catechism.
Despite mostly good content in the documents, One very good orthodox theologian working alone, could have done a better job than those thousands gathered in the sixties, where those worshiping their pride more than Jesus had such an unchecked feast inserting a plan for a new religion. Would honest souls have laughed at Cardinal Ottaviani when he expressed his heartfelt worries at the start of the Council, and laughed especially hard when they cut off his microphone?
I can’t begin to chronicle all the indisputably modernist theologians Bishop Barron has been willing to praise, including some of the worst actors at VII, but despite his consistent orthodox beliefs and conclusions, his lukewarmness in faulting bad modernist actors in the modern history of the Church has had the effect of validating them.
And how can any Catholic not be upset at the lack of disciplinary action by all post VII popes towards the hundreds of bad theologians dominating Catholic academia cranking out hundreds of thousands of young Catholics over half a century, excepting a Kung or Curran here and there. However much personal holiness existed in a figure like JPII, he expressed confidence that not taking action would appeal to the better nature of the dissidents, and they would come around in time. In the meantime, many young minds were corrupted. How did that work out? How could JPII “The Great” not figure out that the souls of the many were more important than the egos of the few?
Thank you, Edward, for your straight-forward reasoning and hard-hitting facts.
Chapp evinces that trads are ‘wounded.’ Trads are not victims in Christ’s Church. By such a statement, Chapp implies that a doctor of theology knows tout court all who hurt and need healing. The obverse (or the inverse?) would hold. Such a doctor would recognize those in good health. He need not claim that NO’ers are vim and vigorous when he claims that trads are wounded.
The truth is that Trads are not victims in Christ’s Church. Neither do they require bones from the likes of modernist sympathizers. Trads have the flesh and blood of Christ, their sacrificial lamb, in their tabernacles against the wall.
People who choose to remain deaf, dumb, and/or blind while seeking cures from each other are the really sick and the truly wounded. They are the progressive materialists, the lovers of tawd and cheap belief in the fabricated liturgy blessed by the spirit of VCII.
Thank you for understanding.
Not to mention JP II’s long string of exceedingly bad episcopal appointments, including the likes of McCarrick, Bernardin, Mahoney, May, Pilarczyk, Law, Martini, Kasper, Daneels, etc. etc., as well as a certain Argentine prelate, Jorge Bergoglio. Quite a roster, and of course many others not named here.
Textbook illustration of Chapp’s observation that denials of sedevacantism tend to prove the accusation and dig the hole deeper. A defendant acting as his own attorney has a fool for a client.
How so?
I posted a question lacking specifics previously. I ask how do those denying sedevacantism prove the accusation in the process?
Sharing the article below in case many who are unhappy about the topic at hand have missed it – to see how much care and effort was on the side of the Holy Father on the decision – https://wherepeteris.com/french-bishops-on-tlm-two-worlds-that-do-not-meet/
SpiritDaily site headed today with a post from Exorcism site – how one of the torments of hell is the accusing spirits – to recognise how such can afflict families and systems and nations and all too as well as the spirit of rebellion that says no to God ..https://www.catholicexorcism.org/post/exorcist-diary-301-the-second-suffering-of-hell
Our times when many might be feeling the worthlessness that can come when life has been filled with worthless idols that do not bring what persons are truly searching for – the holiness and its fruit of trust in His Love ..that can be poured in through the Sacraments of The Church …One side denying same – could there be far reaching undercurrents from same in the spiritual battles of our times …a nation that has many immigrants, minorities who could be carrying the hidden wound of being told in varied ways – not worthy …not holy… Holy Mass as the supreme occasion to find healing for those wounds, accepting from the richness of the holiness of The Father …The compassionate heart of the Holy Father would have sensed such a dynamic that is not very healthy for either side …
May His Holy Divine Will bring speedy remedy for all in the hands of the Mother !
FIAT !
The first link in your response centers on detailed findings in the rigorous survey report from France (TLM second in size to the U.S.). Earlier in the link is a discussion of the patchy overall response worldwide to the survey. The comment is made that no one knows what share of the world’s bishops actually responded…
As one who very rarely attends TLM, yours truly still refers here to an earlier article, somewhere, concluding that 80% of bishops did not respond or even notice the survey, and that the responding 20% were indecisive. Maybe half detected problems with TLM and the other half did not or even supported it.
The basic flaw of this letter is that it addresses none of the concerns of the Holy Father nor that of the bishops. The signers simply make the usual insinuations of incomprehensible ill will on the part of Rome. One of the things that is very disturbing is the widespread refusal of Extraordinary Form priests to concelebrate annual chrism masses .Where is the common communion there? if there is need to improve the beauty of the Novus Ordo then there should be some constructive input towards that but bishops never see it. Many bishops have complained of no common activities at diocesan level despite efforts to have them. It seems to me that if the rumors about a crackdown come true then TLM crowd has worked hard fulfill their own predictions and will have no one else too one else to blame but them selves.
One of the things that is very disturbing is the widespread refusal of many bishops and
the pope to allow diocesan priests to celebrate Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962. Where is the common communion there?
Including diocesan ordinaries such as Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio and Bishop Arthur Roche who, even after Benedict removed the local bishop’s veto in Summorum Pontificum, continued to disallow the celebration of the TLM.
Do you know why they refuse to con-celebrate?
A discussion about the theology of the new Mass is what is needed. In addition, we need to discuss the general moral collapse of Christendom. These topics are forever intertwined in any liturgical dissection. The concomitant moral theology of the new Mass is what most glad trads are concerned about.
When the EF priests are permitted to celebrate TLM by a bishop it is under the understanding that they are in union with Rome. If indeed they are they should have no objection to concelebration. The bishops who welcome EF groups are the very ones who think that they have much to offer the rest of their diocese in the way of enhancing the beauty of the liturgy and Catholic culture while promoting understanding and acceptance. It is no wonder that these bishops begin to wonder they are really interested on the lofty goals they say they aspire to. The bishops also cannot help but doubt their honesty and simple Christian charity. Their feedback to Rome is understandable.
“If indeed they are they should have no objection to concelebration.”
Why, exactly?
I’m pretty sure there’s more behind it than this, but here’s a few thoughts:
Priests who are TLM-only, such as the FSSP and ICKSP and others, can’t celebrate the NO according to the charism of their society. And you can’t licitly concelebrate in the TLM, there’s no Rite for it.
To be a priest offering the Mass is to stand in persona Christi: one priest offering one sacrifice imaging the One High Priest offering Himself. You can’t really maintain that imagery with 6 men (or 60). While the Last Supper clearly had a bunch of bishops together, only Christ was doing the offering at that point.
Canon law does not allow any priest to be required to concelebrate. It’s not a loyalty test.
There isn’t any ill will? When Francis, to cite just one example, instructs young altar servers for the TLM asking his advice to just rip out pages from the lectionary, giggle giggle, they’ll never know the difference. Yes, that’s ill will.
Bishops are complaining about the lack of common diocesan activities, and it’s not the 154 NO parishes that are causing this problem, it’s the 2 TLM parishes. Right. Of course it is.
Just finished Hanby’s FT “The Church of the Secular West.” His thesis is not the TLM; Hanby’s uses Gaudium et Spes as his hinge.
His argument: De-Christianization and dehumanization characterize our times. [The Olympian “Last Supper” unquestionably exemplifies that.] The Church herself has lost her sight and requires profound conversion. “The Church will not be able to heal her own wounds, much less the wounds of the secular world, until Catholics come to terms with the breadth and depth of our anonymous atheism.”
So it seems strange to see Chapp worry that the TLM may be used as a weapon against the Church. Church ecclesiocrats have squandered authority in favor of power. They surely need not worry about Trads wielding the TLM as weapon against the Church. Ecclesiocrats are skilled in the use of their own unique weapon systems. “The[ir] Day Is Now Far Spent.”
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2024/08/the-future-of-the-catholic-church
It is fervently hoped, you will find the truth and it will set you free from hurling, half read, half heard and half understood scraps and bits of information.
Thank you for this article. As a new Catholic, the arguments between the traditionalists and the more “liberal” (for lack of a better word, the vocab of which I’m still learning) can be a bit befuddling. Your perspective grounds me. Thank you.
Thank you, Larry, for this thoughtful and reasoned account. You are right to draw attention to the wisdom of Pope Benedict, who clearly understood that living tradition emerges in every epoch and in different but complimentary ways. Nor is the Liturgy entirely immutable, as you note. The Personal Ordinariates supply ample evidence of both these points. The regenerative spirit of Pope Benedict’s vision for the Ordinariates encourages all Catholics to apprehend a grander, more profound understanding of liturgical wholeness, and sets an example which is neither defensive nor insular.
Excellent statement Larry. I too am not a traditionalist when it comes to the liturgy, but I understand where they are coming from and think they ought to be allowed to worship as they prefer. It’s not a good idea to make too many assumptions about people who love the TLM. Many traditionalists understand and live Vatican II better than the rest of us do.
“It’s not a good idea to make too many assumptions about people who love the TLM.”
I am impressed that someone out there could have such a thought. Thank you.
Many people tend to uncharity. People who love the TLM comprise a group easy to hate. They are named traditionalist and treated like flies in the ointment of charism, like gadflys against the All Good, like the integrist indietrists the pope has decried. Their group is small, therefore vulnerable to the majority view. The have few chaps like Chapp to defend their view while zealous chaps like Chapp are legion on the other side. These include Francis, Roche, Gregory, ad infinitum, and many other wolves cross-dressed as sheep. People who love the TLM are easily and often lumped into categories: Schismatics, sedevacantists, deniers of VCII, disobedient denizens. They intend division and destruction of the elite modern intelligent evolved church. Lovers of the TLM and their favored activity are forbidden the mere mention in a parish bulletin. Meanwhile, a workshop on Rolheiser’s spirituality of sexuality may merit a glossy insert, maybe even notice of a retreat featuring his work. This is but one example of what the ever-new Church in many places for far too many years has willed to stomach and then regurgitate as good for the church. And still, there exists the rashly unkind and horrendously sillly worry that lovers of the TLM may someday be as weapons against the church. Meanwhile, lovers of the TLM are categorized and identified as full of delusion.
When, O Lord, when shall we be saved from those whose right hands are full of gifts?
Dr. Chapp,
I loved a lot of the points made in this article, but I am confused about the comment about “a modern Church in conflict with itself” and your statement that there never was a time before it existed.
It’s self-evident there was a time before modernity itself existed, so what were you trying to say? That there never was a time that the Church was *not* “in conflict with itself”? Do you believe that is true? If so, I’m not sure what that could even mean; how such a claim could be something other than a Protestant argument against Catholicism (house divided itself cannot stand and all that).
I’m trying not to put words in your mouth but I honestly can’t make heads or tails of this, I think that point lost on more than just traditionalist Catholics. 🙁
Maybe Chapp simply meant “a Church in modern times, in conflict with itself.”
Modernism came into existence in the Garden of Eden with Satan’s first temptation to vanity.