The current pastors of the Church are making it more and more difficult to maintain communion without violating both conscience and reason. This idea of unitary form of the Mass is alien to the entire history of the Catholic Church (including VII) and flies in the face of reason. On the one hand certain prelates state this desire, while on the other hand, they say they don't want to get rid of the Eastern liturgies and want to promote some sort of Amazonian form. It is impossible to see this as anything other than the targeting of a specific form of the Mass - the TLM.
This is, plain and simple, the pushing of an ideology. You can see this in the self contradictions - leaving behind while at the same time not braking from while all concrete expressions of this are, in reality, both?? This is an assault upon the intellect. Persecution and abuse by God's very own ministers is common throughout all of salvation history. There's nothing new under the sun.
"I reject the idea that a paradigm shift is a rupture." I'm inclined to say that this quote alone shows the limits of attempting to engage with Cupich's statements at their face value.
I'm not saying it's impossible for ecclesiastical catchphrases to have rational content, but it's also pretty clear that they're generally used as empty signifiers. When "accompaniment" is being deployed to talk about shutting down TLMs, it's pretty obvious that it could mean just about anything.
A smart churchman will clothe whatever he wants to do in the phrases that are in vogue: accompaniment, discernment, development of doctrine, continuity, unity, etc.
Cardinal Cupich seems to aptly illustrate a disconcerting tendency amongst those within the Church who seek to simply ban the Extraordinary Form. They argue that the post-Vatican II liturgy is in line with previous Church teaching (which is of course true in itself) - while at the same time clearly believing and acting as if the Novus Ordo were both a “paradigm shift” and “radical break”.
I sincerely hope the “discussion” they plan to have with members of the faithful attached to the TLM leads them to realize that this is a deeply problematic (and ultimately heterodox, to stay polite) belief and praxis.
"The premise that ‘paradigm shift’ means a break from the past is unfounded.”"
It is worth noting that the phrase "paradigm shift" was coined by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn. It refers to his view that science consists of revolutions in which the previous body of science is completely removed from the new science. In his words, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are incommensurable and scientists within each of those paradigms can't even meaningfully communicate with each other. So a paradigm shift is an absolute, definitive break from the past. An analogy in politics would be a regime change like in Japan after WWII.
St. John Cantius, one place where the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated in Chicago, is roughly halfway between Cardinal Cupich's Holy Cross Cathedral and St. Nicholas Ukrainian Greek Catholic Cathedral where Bishop Benedict (Aleksiychuk) presides.
Anyone in Chicago who thinks that it's key for the Church of Christ to have a unitary liturgical form should visit St. Nicholas and then rethink.
Mr. Flynn, thank you for reporting on this. I had not seen this post by Cardinal Cupich, and yet had been waiting for some statement from him. It seemed odd to me that he always has a public statement to make whenever Pope Francis makes a move, and yet after this one, he had nothing. For the sake of the EF-friendly communities in ArchChicago that I am closely familiar with, I hate to see what comes next.
Where was I reading recently that the foundational philosophical error is denying that A equals A. So we hear on every side of the secular world that God is not God, truth is not truth, and a man is not a man. Now Cardinal Cupich assures us that 'a paradigm shift is not a break with the past'. Whose side is he on?
I am puzzled. It seems that Cupich and others are saying that we must have one rite as in that we promote unity. The problem is that the NO is not one rite. There are four different eucharistic prayers to start off with; and indeed others. There are then many other options such as whether you say the Confiteor or not. I have been deeply inspired by the celebration of the NO - I think particularly of a parish in Northern Portugal which I attended for many years - but on the other hand I can think of celebrations of the NO where I have felt like walking out because it has been reduced to a circus. I remember particularly a Mass in Newmarket which was so awful that I wondered whether I could ever recommend any lapsed member of my family to attend as it would probably have been an experience to put them off for ever. The problem is that the NO can be mangled in any way the celebrant chooses. The TLM does seem to be less susceptible to being mangled. I attend the NO more frequently than the TLM but I do find the enthusiasts for the TLM to have a better grasp of what the Catholic religion is all about and I share their views on a whole host of other difficulities to be found at present in the Church.
So my conclusion is if the NO can be celebrated in all these different ways what is it about the TLM as yet another different way to celebrate Mass that makes it something to be condemned?
But what are we to make of Rorate Coeli's post of 3rd November. Pope Francis's covering letter to Traditionis Custodes says: "Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, .......— was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre"
Rorate Coeli points to the covering letter of Benedict XVI to his motu proprio and also his book "Last Testament" both of which directly contradict that statement. These are easily accessible sources and therefore if Regina Coeli is correct Pope Francis is simply lying. Unless of course saying "Most people understand..." gives him some sort of let-out. But is surely 'suppressio veri" of the worst kind. Can anyone refute that Pope Francis has lied?
And does not that lead one to believe that the assertion that the Bishops' response to the inquiry about the TLM was negative is also a blatant lie?
For me any shadow of a doubt about the evil nature of what is happening has been removed.
The current pastors of the Church are making it more and more difficult to maintain communion without violating both conscience and reason. This idea of unitary form of the Mass is alien to the entire history of the Catholic Church (including VII) and flies in the face of reason. On the one hand certain prelates state this desire, while on the other hand, they say they don't want to get rid of the Eastern liturgies and want to promote some sort of Amazonian form. It is impossible to see this as anything other than the targeting of a specific form of the Mass - the TLM.
This is, plain and simple, the pushing of an ideology. You can see this in the self contradictions - leaving behind while at the same time not braking from while all concrete expressions of this are, in reality, both?? This is an assault upon the intellect. Persecution and abuse by God's very own ministers is common throughout all of salvation history. There's nothing new under the sun.
"I reject the idea that a paradigm shift is a rupture." I'm inclined to say that this quote alone shows the limits of attempting to engage with Cupich's statements at their face value.
I'm not saying it's impossible for ecclesiastical catchphrases to have rational content, but it's also pretty clear that they're generally used as empty signifiers. When "accompaniment" is being deployed to talk about shutting down TLMs, it's pretty obvious that it could mean just about anything.
A smart churchman will clothe whatever he wants to do in the phrases that are in vogue: accompaniment, discernment, development of doctrine, continuity, unity, etc.
Cardinal Cupich seems to aptly illustrate a disconcerting tendency amongst those within the Church who seek to simply ban the Extraordinary Form. They argue that the post-Vatican II liturgy is in line with previous Church teaching (which is of course true in itself) - while at the same time clearly believing and acting as if the Novus Ordo were both a “paradigm shift” and “radical break”.
I sincerely hope the “discussion” they plan to have with members of the faithful attached to the TLM leads them to realize that this is a deeply problematic (and ultimately heterodox, to stay polite) belief and praxis.
"The premise that ‘paradigm shift’ means a break from the past is unfounded.”"
It is worth noting that the phrase "paradigm shift" was coined by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn. It refers to his view that science consists of revolutions in which the previous body of science is completely removed from the new science. In his words, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are incommensurable and scientists within each of those paradigms can't even meaningfully communicate with each other. So a paradigm shift is an absolute, definitive break from the past. An analogy in politics would be a regime change like in Japan after WWII.
St. John Cantius, one place where the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated in Chicago, is roughly halfway between Cardinal Cupich's Holy Cross Cathedral and St. Nicholas Ukrainian Greek Catholic Cathedral where Bishop Benedict (Aleksiychuk) presides.
Anyone in Chicago who thinks that it's key for the Church of Christ to have a unitary liturgical form should visit St. Nicholas and then rethink.
Mr. Flynn, thank you for reporting on this. I had not seen this post by Cardinal Cupich, and yet had been waiting for some statement from him. It seemed odd to me that he always has a public statement to make whenever Pope Francis makes a move, and yet after this one, he had nothing. For the sake of the EF-friendly communities in ArchChicago that I am closely familiar with, I hate to see what comes next.
Where was I reading recently that the foundational philosophical error is denying that A equals A. So we hear on every side of the secular world that God is not God, truth is not truth, and a man is not a man. Now Cardinal Cupich assures us that 'a paradigm shift is not a break with the past'. Whose side is he on?
I am puzzled. It seems that Cupich and others are saying that we must have one rite as in that we promote unity. The problem is that the NO is not one rite. There are four different eucharistic prayers to start off with; and indeed others. There are then many other options such as whether you say the Confiteor or not. I have been deeply inspired by the celebration of the NO - I think particularly of a parish in Northern Portugal which I attended for many years - but on the other hand I can think of celebrations of the NO where I have felt like walking out because it has been reduced to a circus. I remember particularly a Mass in Newmarket which was so awful that I wondered whether I could ever recommend any lapsed member of my family to attend as it would probably have been an experience to put them off for ever. The problem is that the NO can be mangled in any way the celebrant chooses. The TLM does seem to be less susceptible to being mangled. I attend the NO more frequently than the TLM but I do find the enthusiasts for the TLM to have a better grasp of what the Catholic religion is all about and I share their views on a whole host of other difficulities to be found at present in the Church.
So my conclusion is if the NO can be celebrated in all these different ways what is it about the TLM as yet another different way to celebrate Mass that makes it something to be condemned?
But what are we to make of Rorate Coeli's post of 3rd November. Pope Francis's covering letter to Traditionis Custodes says: "Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, .......— was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre"
Rorate Coeli points to the covering letter of Benedict XVI to his motu proprio and also his book "Last Testament" both of which directly contradict that statement. These are easily accessible sources and therefore if Regina Coeli is correct Pope Francis is simply lying. Unless of course saying "Most people understand..." gives him some sort of let-out. But is surely 'suppressio veri" of the worst kind. Can anyone refute that Pope Francis has lied?
And does not that lead one to believe that the assertion that the Bishops' response to the inquiry about the TLM was negative is also a blatant lie?
For me any shadow of a doubt about the evil nature of what is happening has been removed.