I watched the St Sabine's Christmas Eve 'Mass' online with a mixture of shock and horror. I do hope it is officially addressed by the Church when the Christmas season is over.
It is great that Pope Francis is concerned about the ecclesiology and doctrinal orthodoxy within various groups of the laity. But I'm not convinced that the most fervent supporters of Fr. Pfleger, or those of likeminded liturgical innovators are less deviant visavis the teachings of Vatican II or the previous ecumenical councils than the attendees of Extraordinary Form mass.
Only thing to point out yet again, although one could say St. John Cantius and the Canons of St. John Cantius are the standard bearer for the EF in Chicago, it is crucial to inform the reader that they have also always (every Sunday! Every weekday!) celebrated the Ordinary Form. Unlike FSSP. Unlike ICKSP. Will they be subject to "bination" restrictions (absurd in their case). Prohibition of Ad Orientem ?(absurd in their case as it obviously was never weaponized against OF or V2). I believe it was for these reasons, as noted in their letter, the Cardinal has "encouraged" them to ask for "permissions".
It's not clear that the people most against the TLM have a problem with NO abuses. The NO was probably meant to be a transitional form by those who wrote it, leading to more innovative forms later, and since these haven't come about (yet), innovators have carried on with the trajectory unofficially.
I think this is a really strange take by the Pillar.
Ostensibly, based on what we are told, the problem with the Old Mass is that the people who offer it think they are a church unto themselves. But Fr. Pfleger and his congregation exemplify this mentality. If Traditiones Custodes is really about ecclesiastical unity then Fr. Pfleger and his congregation should be on the top of the list for correction, regardless of how difficult they make the life of the bishop. Cupich doesn’t seem to mind when traditionalists make a fuss about his policies.
I appreciate that the Pillar is trying to put a charitable reading onto Traditiones Custodes, but I don’t think such a reading exists. The document is the work of a collection of bitter ideologues trying to prop-up a failed life project. Sorry.
"But while there might be reasonable grounds to ask if liturgical discipline only applies in one direction..."
MIGHT??? Why equivocate? What additional proof or grounds do you need? Is there any--ANY--evidence whatsoever of Cupich or any of his minions taking anyone to task over this abomination?
'A rather freewheeling Eucharistic prayer during the Christmas Eve Mass'-- oh indeed. This attitude ('oh, people being a tad exuberant') is one of the significant reasons so many of us are adamantly opposed to recognising that the Pauline Rite, valid though it be etc etc, is the 'sole expression of the Roman Rite': people who live in the Pauline ethos have no idea that the great Canon of the Mass was (give or take-- I'm trying not to be a pedant) unchanging and unchangeable for 1500 years and that there are good reasons for that.
I spent this year's Christmas in New Orleans, and was quite edified to discover a parish culture very different from my own. I attended Mass at a gorgeous one-time proto-cathedral that offered both High Mass and "Ordinary Form (English Language)"; the latter was a refreshingly reverent presentation that seemed very much to flow from the Vatican II council fathers' intentions for reformation of the liturgy. (They had also offered Midnight Mass for Christmas with the music of Haydn, but alas, I could not attend). It was the first time I had encountered such a Mass, and I was pleased to see that yes, this "middle road" actually can happen, and be done well. My mother observed that the priests, parishioners, and parish culture all seemed to be "very chill", which was a nice Christmas gift for her.
Another parish, only a few miles away, offered what they termed a "Jazz Mass" - a "wonderful worshipful experience" featuring a gospel/jazz choir. This parish was a historically African-American parish, founded by free people of color, so I presume this mass is an authentic expression of their unique cultural, historical background - or if you prefer, the unique "liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony, culture, and circumstances of history of a distinct people...", to borrow from the Other Blessed Code of Canon Law. I did not get a chance to attend this Mass myself, but by all accounts it is a reverent, joyful celebration of the Liturgy. Much as liturgical dancing finds a beautiful expression in Masses in African cultures, it seems that jazz music finds a home amidst the Masses of New Orleans.
All of this is to say that I am very curious about the ways in which the same types of "prominent instances of novelties or abuses" can crop up in one context and be very obviously a liturgical abuse, and yet be present in another context as a completely organic, authentic expression of reverence and worship. What exactly is it that differentiates these two contexts? Is it just "I know it when I see it"?
And by the same token, what exactly is it that differentiates the celebration of the Extraditionary Form in a reverent, worshipful context from one that is "extra-communion" or contrary to "full acceptance of the liturgical books"?
Bad Latin. It's really embarrassing when canon lawyers, the ones who really (supposedly) work with Latin, make blunders like "Traditiones Custodes." Get with it, guys. Especially if you're trying to impress the Latin Mass crowd.
I watched the St Sabine's Christmas Eve 'Mass' online with a mixture of shock and horror. I do hope it is officially addressed by the Church when the Christmas season is over.
It is great that Pope Francis is concerned about the ecclesiology and doctrinal orthodoxy within various groups of the laity. But I'm not convinced that the most fervent supporters of Fr. Pfleger, or those of likeminded liturgical innovators are less deviant visavis the teachings of Vatican II or the previous ecumenical councils than the attendees of Extraordinary Form mass.
Bullies only bully those who don't hit back?
Wonderful article. I read The Pillar for such insight and fortitude to tell the truth. I haven't renewed my subscription lately. How do I do so?
Only thing to point out yet again, although one could say St. John Cantius and the Canons of St. John Cantius are the standard bearer for the EF in Chicago, it is crucial to inform the reader that they have also always (every Sunday! Every weekday!) celebrated the Ordinary Form. Unlike FSSP. Unlike ICKSP. Will they be subject to "bination" restrictions (absurd in their case). Prohibition of Ad Orientem ?(absurd in their case as it obviously was never weaponized against OF or V2). I believe it was for these reasons, as noted in their letter, the Cardinal has "encouraged" them to ask for "permissions".
It's not clear that the people most against the TLM have a problem with NO abuses. The NO was probably meant to be a transitional form by those who wrote it, leading to more innovative forms later, and since these haven't come about (yet), innovators have carried on with the trajectory unofficially.
I am eternally grateful that Robert Barron was elevated to the episcopacy sand out from under the wretched Cardinal Cupich.
I think this is a really strange take by the Pillar.
Ostensibly, based on what we are told, the problem with the Old Mass is that the people who offer it think they are a church unto themselves. But Fr. Pfleger and his congregation exemplify this mentality. If Traditiones Custodes is really about ecclesiastical unity then Fr. Pfleger and his congregation should be on the top of the list for correction, regardless of how difficult they make the life of the bishop. Cupich doesn’t seem to mind when traditionalists make a fuss about his policies.
I appreciate that the Pillar is trying to put a charitable reading onto Traditiones Custodes, but I don’t think such a reading exists. The document is the work of a collection of bitter ideologues trying to prop-up a failed life project. Sorry.
"But while there might be reasonable grounds to ask if liturgical discipline only applies in one direction..."
MIGHT??? Why equivocate? What additional proof or grounds do you need? Is there any--ANY--evidence whatsoever of Cupich or any of his minions taking anyone to task over this abomination?
'A rather freewheeling Eucharistic prayer during the Christmas Eve Mass'-- oh indeed. This attitude ('oh, people being a tad exuberant') is one of the significant reasons so many of us are adamantly opposed to recognising that the Pauline Rite, valid though it be etc etc, is the 'sole expression of the Roman Rite': people who live in the Pauline ethos have no idea that the great Canon of the Mass was (give or take-- I'm trying not to be a pedant) unchanging and unchangeable for 1500 years and that there are good reasons for that.
300 parish churches in Chicago, and 1 is held out as an example of all that is unhinged.
I spent this year's Christmas in New Orleans, and was quite edified to discover a parish culture very different from my own. I attended Mass at a gorgeous one-time proto-cathedral that offered both High Mass and "Ordinary Form (English Language)"; the latter was a refreshingly reverent presentation that seemed very much to flow from the Vatican II council fathers' intentions for reformation of the liturgy. (They had also offered Midnight Mass for Christmas with the music of Haydn, but alas, I could not attend). It was the first time I had encountered such a Mass, and I was pleased to see that yes, this "middle road" actually can happen, and be done well. My mother observed that the priests, parishioners, and parish culture all seemed to be "very chill", which was a nice Christmas gift for her.
Another parish, only a few miles away, offered what they termed a "Jazz Mass" - a "wonderful worshipful experience" featuring a gospel/jazz choir. This parish was a historically African-American parish, founded by free people of color, so I presume this mass is an authentic expression of their unique cultural, historical background - or if you prefer, the unique "liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony, culture, and circumstances of history of a distinct people...", to borrow from the Other Blessed Code of Canon Law. I did not get a chance to attend this Mass myself, but by all accounts it is a reverent, joyful celebration of the Liturgy. Much as liturgical dancing finds a beautiful expression in Masses in African cultures, it seems that jazz music finds a home amidst the Masses of New Orleans.
All of this is to say that I am very curious about the ways in which the same types of "prominent instances of novelties or abuses" can crop up in one context and be very obviously a liturgical abuse, and yet be present in another context as a completely organic, authentic expression of reverence and worship. What exactly is it that differentiates these two contexts? Is it just "I know it when I see it"?
And by the same token, what exactly is it that differentiates the celebration of the Extraditionary Form in a reverent, worshipful context from one that is "extra-communion" or contrary to "full acceptance of the liturgical books"?
Bad Latin. It's really embarrassing when canon lawyers, the ones who really (supposedly) work with Latin, make blunders like "Traditiones Custodes." Get with it, guys. Especially if you're trying to impress the Latin Mass crowd.