Little appetite to defend TC, real opposition, and a lot of indifference.
Not hard to see where this is going. Also as a matter of pragmatism, those favoring inculturation have a better shot at it when the TLM is allowed permissively.
This is a genuine question for me. Liturgy functions as a unifying force, and that is a real good. Yet it becomes problematic when that unity is experienced as inauthentic by the faithful across different cultures. We seem to be at a crossroads where we must decide whether the liturgy is meant to form a culture or to serve as an authentic expression of a culture that already exists.
The Novus Ordo strikes me as an attempt to hold these two aims together, and while I can see the good intentions behind its development, the result often feels like we have split the baby. Arguments for broader permissions for the TLM can be made on the same grounds used to justify highly localized or individualized rites, such as those emerging in parts of the Amazon. At the same time, we are urged not to Westernize the Eastern rites even when they are celebrated in the West, while the Eastern Churches themselves, on their own turf, undergo rapid Westernization.
Beneath these surface-level debates lies a set of deeper questions that extend well beyond the immediate concerns surrounding the TLM. What is at stake is not merely preference or aesthetics, but the Church’s understanding of how liturgy, culture, and unity are meant to relate. I hope we will see clear and coherent leadership on this matter.
Fundamental to it all, I think, is regarding liturgy not as something we make or craft or choose or prefer or even do, but as something we enter into and *receive* from our patrimony.
Different streams of patrimony present any number of difficulties, some of them quite knotty...but if that baseline attitude is maintained, it will make them ever so much easier to navigate.
Thank you Father - this is a great point. Unfortunately, if other reports are correct, the Pope asked which two of the four topics the Cardinals would like to focus the most on and Liturgy was not chosen as one of those. Not to say it won't be discussed but the kind of focus your comment requires doesn't seem to be in the cards at this consistory.
I appreciate your comment, and you may be right. What may happen instead is that liturgy gets shoehorned under a less related topic, synodality for example, where only part of the split baby gets attention.
I do not actually see liturgy as a unifying force, in itself. The Church is united in One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism, with the Pope as the principle of unity. Insofar as every liturgy is an expression of that One Faith, they are already united. It is only when a liturgy is celebrated with heretical or schismatic or disobedient insertions (or deletions) that it becomes problematic. I do not see how we can account for the Eastern Rites being united with the West otherwise.
I do agree that it should not be about preference, but about a fitting expression of the true faith.
My frame of reference is purely from the U.S., but it seems that the unifying aspect of TLM is it eliminates the need to have separate Masses in English, Spanish Korean, etc... As no one speaks Latin, we all come together to worship at the same time together.
Thank you for this article. And thank you for respecting cardinals who are happy to talk but wish to remain off record. It is a testament to the integrity of the Pillar that interviewees are not forced to go on record when the situation doesn’t actually demand it. I imagine this cultivates a lot of good will, which in the long run is good for the Church and Pillar readers.
This comment: “The pope served for a long time in Latin America, where the liturgy can be quite uninspiring sometimes, so he understands this issue,” another cardinal said.”
Is that a sort of underhanded swipe at the Pope?? Is liturgy actually commonly uninspiring in LA?
Yes, it very much can be. From a tired, flat, unadorned Mass in a musty, aging colonial church, to “hip” priests with projectors and screens, contemporary music, and semi-protestant vibes.
I’d be curious to know what elements and aspects of the Mass in LA are uninspiring.
Can there be a sort of explainer for that?
The American experience of abuse and reverence in the current Roman Rite, the Tridentine Rite and Traditionalist Protestantism runs deep in my discussions and some of my circles.
Until I read the Pillar I didn’t know about the liturgical in-fighting in the Syro-Malabar Rite, and for instance, the Vatican’s odd obsession with reintroducing ad orientum to its liturgy but dismissing it in the Roman Rite. ***Thanks to the Pillar for that reporting.
“Other cardinals told The Pillar they would have preferred more open plenary sessions, so that the college of cardinals as a whole could listen to the contributions made by each cardinal.”
I’m sure they would have. Again, spending most of the time broken up in pre-selected small groups massaging a “report by committee” *bleh* seems so infantilizing.
I am reminded of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s homily delivered to the cardinals prior to the 2005 conclave on the “Dictatorship of Relativism” - a homily that had such insight, that met the moment so well, it propelled Ratzinger to the papacy.
Alas, there are no heroics in therapeutic HR land.
Inculturation means more diversity in Roman Liturgy.
Tridentine Mass is, likely, a diversion not worthy of serious discussion.
So, the idea is "Church conforming to the Universe" instead of "Universal Church"?
Polyglots know language separation is not only healthy, but a daily reality. Let the priests, the Church, pray in Latin, and combat the Tower of Babel as we have always done. Let us rejoice, I said REJOICE, in being ROMAN CATHOLIC. Thank God every day for your religion.
Seems like kind of poor planning to gather cardinals from all around the world to discuss four topics, and then, upon arrival, ask them to pick only two of the four to talk about, because there won't be enough time to discuss them all. Particularly with today's technology, there is no reason why they couldn't have had the roundtable discussions done ahead of time - either in person at a national/regional level or by video conferencing if random mixing was a priority - so that they could have had ample time to discuss all four topics when they were all together in Rome.
I am very nervous about what liturgy-related stuff comes out of this consistory.
Primarily: it seems that most cardinals (and even Pope Leo) are not well-read or well-studied on fundamental issues surrounding the liturgical question (and they certainly know nothing about the TLM, as a particular subset of the liturgical question), nor do they even care much about it - at least a few people quoted in this article were open about their ambivalence. This does not bode well, it would seem, if the people tasked with making decisions with serious consequences are little-informed and little-invested in the issue.
Secondarily: I have little confidence about the supposed desire to "dialogue…to hear advice, suggestions, proposals and specific issues," when it's clear time after time after time that the one group never invited to discussions and never listened to (whether at diocesan level, the national conference level, or the Roman curial level) are trads/TLM proponents/etc. The Ecclesia Dei Commission was disbanded under Francis, Pope Leo should start with reinstating that!
As an aside: it's so exhausting that horrible and destructive measures (like TC) can be forced through roughshod and changed overnight... yet when winds change, new leadership can't make the simple decision to just reverse certain policies wholesale. Instead of pressing a "fix everything now" switch (rescind TC and reinstate norms under SP, bada bing bada boom), we are subjected to years of mind-numbingly slow progress that is bogged in institutional procedure. Before 2021, the consensus was largely that we achieved a harmonious stasis between the OF and the EF under Benedict XVI - yet we can't just say "let's do that again"?
Thank for the article! Small suggestion: I guess I missed (or forgot) about the government taking Cardinal Porras' passport. I Googled it and found the article, but just offering a friendly suggestion to hyperlink it in this current article.
Thank you, Edgar. Just the kind of write up I was looking for.
Little appetite to defend TC, real opposition, and a lot of indifference.
Not hard to see where this is going. Also as a matter of pragmatism, those favoring inculturation have a better shot at it when the TLM is allowed permissively.
Its a losing battle. People should accept it
This is a genuine question for me. Liturgy functions as a unifying force, and that is a real good. Yet it becomes problematic when that unity is experienced as inauthentic by the faithful across different cultures. We seem to be at a crossroads where we must decide whether the liturgy is meant to form a culture or to serve as an authentic expression of a culture that already exists.
The Novus Ordo strikes me as an attempt to hold these two aims together, and while I can see the good intentions behind its development, the result often feels like we have split the baby. Arguments for broader permissions for the TLM can be made on the same grounds used to justify highly localized or individualized rites, such as those emerging in parts of the Amazon. At the same time, we are urged not to Westernize the Eastern rites even when they are celebrated in the West, while the Eastern Churches themselves, on their own turf, undergo rapid Westernization.
Beneath these surface-level debates lies a set of deeper questions that extend well beyond the immediate concerns surrounding the TLM. What is at stake is not merely preference or aesthetics, but the Church’s understanding of how liturgy, culture, and unity are meant to relate. I hope we will see clear and coherent leadership on this matter.
Fundamental to it all, I think, is regarding liturgy not as something we make or craft or choose or prefer or even do, but as something we enter into and *receive* from our patrimony.
Different streams of patrimony present any number of difficulties, some of them quite knotty...but if that baseline attitude is maintained, it will make them ever so much easier to navigate.
Thank you Father - this is a great point. Unfortunately, if other reports are correct, the Pope asked which two of the four topics the Cardinals would like to focus the most on and Liturgy was not chosen as one of those. Not to say it won't be discussed but the kind of focus your comment requires doesn't seem to be in the cards at this consistory.
I appreciate your comment, and you may be right. What may happen instead is that liturgy gets shoehorned under a less related topic, synodality for example, where only part of the split baby gets attention.
I do not actually see liturgy as a unifying force, in itself. The Church is united in One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism, with the Pope as the principle of unity. Insofar as every liturgy is an expression of that One Faith, they are already united. It is only when a liturgy is celebrated with heretical or schismatic or disobedient insertions (or deletions) that it becomes problematic. I do not see how we can account for the Eastern Rites being united with the West otherwise.
I do agree that it should not be about preference, but about a fitting expression of the true faith.
My frame of reference is purely from the U.S., but it seems that the unifying aspect of TLM is it eliminates the need to have separate Masses in English, Spanish Korean, etc... As no one speaks Latin, we all come together to worship at the same time together.
Thank you for this article. And thank you for respecting cardinals who are happy to talk but wish to remain off record. It is a testament to the integrity of the Pillar that interviewees are not forced to go on record when the situation doesn’t actually demand it. I imagine this cultivates a lot of good will, which in the long run is good for the Church and Pillar readers.
This comment: “The pope served for a long time in Latin America, where the liturgy can be quite uninspiring sometimes, so he understands this issue,” another cardinal said.”
Is that a sort of underhanded swipe at the Pope?? Is liturgy actually commonly uninspiring in LA?
...yes, unfortunately it often is. The good news is that Pope Leo will be aware of the problem.
Yes, it very much can be. From a tired, flat, unadorned Mass in a musty, aging colonial church, to “hip” priests with projectors and screens, contemporary music, and semi-protestant vibes.
It’s very commonly uninspiring to say the least.
I’d be curious to know what elements and aspects of the Mass in LA are uninspiring.
Can there be a sort of explainer for that?
The American experience of abuse and reverence in the current Roman Rite, the Tridentine Rite and Traditionalist Protestantism runs deep in my discussions and some of my circles.
Until I read the Pillar I didn’t know about the liturgical in-fighting in the Syro-Malabar Rite, and for instance, the Vatican’s odd obsession with reintroducing ad orientum to its liturgy but dismissing it in the Roman Rite. ***Thanks to the Pillar for that reporting.
The liturgy is never getting fixed, is it? :/
Liturgy? I thought you had said more Vatican II with synodal characteristics.
“Other cardinals told The Pillar they would have preferred more open plenary sessions, so that the college of cardinals as a whole could listen to the contributions made by each cardinal.”
I’m sure they would have. Again, spending most of the time broken up in pre-selected small groups massaging a “report by committee” *bleh* seems so infantilizing.
I am reminded of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s homily delivered to the cardinals prior to the 2005 conclave on the “Dictatorship of Relativism” - a homily that had such insight, that met the moment so well, it propelled Ratzinger to the papacy.
Alas, there are no heroics in therapeutic HR land.
Well, while I hear you, if a goal is to actually get to know one another, then perhaps this is an effective way to do it.
Synodality is back 😩. Dang it….. Maybe it will bd more substantive, and the problem before was the navel-gazing of the “Synod on Synodality”
Maybe they discussed getting rid of it? Hope springs eternal...
Haha. My hope as well!
Inculturation means more diversity in Roman Liturgy.
Tridentine Mass is, likely, a diversion not worthy of serious discussion.
So, the idea is "Church conforming to the Universe" instead of "Universal Church"?
Polyglots know language separation is not only healthy, but a daily reality. Let the priests, the Church, pray in Latin, and combat the Tower of Babel as we have always done. Let us rejoice, I said REJOICE, in being ROMAN CATHOLIC. Thank God every day for your religion.
Seems like kind of poor planning to gather cardinals from all around the world to discuss four topics, and then, upon arrival, ask them to pick only two of the four to talk about, because there won't be enough time to discuss them all. Particularly with today's technology, there is no reason why they couldn't have had the roundtable discussions done ahead of time - either in person at a national/regional level or by video conferencing if random mixing was a priority - so that they could have had ample time to discuss all four topics when they were all together in Rome.
I am very nervous about what liturgy-related stuff comes out of this consistory.
Primarily: it seems that most cardinals (and even Pope Leo) are not well-read or well-studied on fundamental issues surrounding the liturgical question (and they certainly know nothing about the TLM, as a particular subset of the liturgical question), nor do they even care much about it - at least a few people quoted in this article were open about their ambivalence. This does not bode well, it would seem, if the people tasked with making decisions with serious consequences are little-informed and little-invested in the issue.
Secondarily: I have little confidence about the supposed desire to "dialogue…to hear advice, suggestions, proposals and specific issues," when it's clear time after time after time that the one group never invited to discussions and never listened to (whether at diocesan level, the national conference level, or the Roman curial level) are trads/TLM proponents/etc. The Ecclesia Dei Commission was disbanded under Francis, Pope Leo should start with reinstating that!
As an aside: it's so exhausting that horrible and destructive measures (like TC) can be forced through roughshod and changed overnight... yet when winds change, new leadership can't make the simple decision to just reverse certain policies wholesale. Instead of pressing a "fix everything now" switch (rescind TC and reinstate norms under SP, bada bing bada boom), we are subjected to years of mind-numbingly slow progress that is bogged in institutional procedure. Before 2021, the consensus was largely that we achieved a harmonious stasis between the OF and the EF under Benedict XVI - yet we can't just say "let's do that again"?
Thank for the article! Small suggestion: I guess I missed (or forgot) about the government taking Cardinal Porras' passport. I Googled it and found the article, but just offering a friendly suggestion to hyperlink it in this current article.