The significance of 25 December was stated in the document...
"From the Office of the Archbishop of Chicago, Decomber 25, 2021, the 60" anniversary of Apostolic Constitution, Humane Salutis by which Pope Saint John XXlll convoked the Second Vatican CounciI."
The significance for the audience was Christmas. You would have to be blind to think otherwise. Surely the cardinal as a most effective pastor would care about the rhetoric he uses and how the words are recieved by the community.
I’d recommend reading Sacrosanctum concilium in tandem with Ratzinger’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, which speaks to the “continuity” the Council had in mind.
If you're so inclined, it's also very very helpful to try to get a sense of the 1850 - Vatican II liturgical movement. Trying to get a sense of that movement and what it advocated, the widespread "experiments" (many of them undertaken with full ecclesiastical permission), and so forth has been helpful to me. Sometimes Sacrosanctum Concilium is read as if it dropped out of the blue, and it DEFINITELY didn't... there was a LOT of study over decades that preceded it.
Cupich's once-a-month-Novus-Ordo scheme has all the appearances of a trap. He likely expects the TLMers to fail to show up for his monthly "special edition," and he will then declare their absence to be prime facie evidence of rejection of the Novus Ordo and use it as justification for shutting down the TLM completely. Bans, proscriptions, crackdowns... these are not emblems of confident, thriving regimes. If anything, this move by Cupich is reminiscent of the imposition of martial law in Poland, 1981-83, i.e., a desperate, last-ditch attempt to prop up a failing system. By any objective metric (Sunday Mass attendance, vocations to the priesthood & religious life, infant baptisms, sacramental marriages, parochial school enrollment, etc.), the Catholic Church, in America at least, is weaker than it's been in more than 100 years. And then throw in the pandemic-era exodus of the lukewarm masses. It's hard to imagine circumstances under which the Church would appear to be less likely to succeed in bullying and browbeating into submission a cohort of its most faithful members. And yet here's Cupich and his confreres in Rome partying like it's 1969, imagining that they're still powerful enough to call the shots and have everyone fall in line. We'll see...
By the grace of God, I'm not a Chicagoan, so I will not face this choice. As I said, I fully expect Cupich to make hay of the TLMers' recusancy from his monthly "loyalty oath" Mass. But I wonder... if they *do* turn up en masse, might he not exploit that, as well? "See! The so-called 'trads' have taken to their reeducation splendidly, so let's move on to Phase 2..."
“There are bishops who have long opposed the use of the Extraordinary Form, and even ‘reform of the reform’ liturgical sentiments, because their own seminary formation taught them those things were contrary to development of the Church’s teachings at the Second Vatican Council. Many of them are, no doubt, acting in good faith.”
JD, I have to commend you and thank you for challenging me with what seems to me to be quite a charitable presumption. I genuinely hope that I can arrive there myself, but I have a hard time reading this as anything other than as a deeply personal and malicious attack, rooted in power and not in good-faith theological formation. (My perspective is that of someone who has attended Mass in the now “antecedent” rite no more than a handful of times and has never attended a “novus ordo” Mass that was celebrated ad orientem.) The extra step Cupich takes to restrict the ad orientem posture really just reads as making sure that the so-called “RadTrads” don’t feel *too* comfortable on the first Sunday of the month/high holy days. In my reading of Sacrosanctum concilium and the GIRM, I see nothing that even hints at the possibility of such a restriction. This seems personal. And to take it to the macro level, this whole process - from the hastily cobbled-together “consultation” of the world’s bishops to the answering of the dubia - seems to have been designed to produce this exact result with or without any “proof” of a pressing pastoral concern.
I am going to pray for Pope Francis, Cardinal Cupich, Archbishop Roche, and everyone else involved. I’ll also be praying for the many people I know who are TLM adherents, that they remain with Christ and His Church and that God may use this trial as a way to sanctify each of them. My heart breaks with them.
JD takes the high road with his reflections on Cardinal Newman and documents of the second Vatican council. This is good IMO as it's good to remember that the Church has an ancient history of strife and struggle through which somehow the Holy Spirit works.
It's also important to recognize within that history people often act out of their basic fallen human nature in concrete ways that shouldn't be swept up as just another event in history. There is something at play here that is much older than even the Church herself. Cardinal Cupich, with the backing of Pope Francis, has the power and the TLM community under his care does not. Cupich is wielding that power as nothing other than a bully. He's going to display his dominance come what may. That's what bullies do. If that means a loss of the faithful or even his own priests, that's a price worth paying. Ideological bullying and nothing more.
I would suggest the faithful and seminarians refuse to play the game. There are still places where the bishop is not a wolf in shepherd's clothing. Find one and live there peacefully. We have many liturgical refugees in our parish who have no desire for confrontation with rotten bishops but who also won't subject themselves or their families to the domination of a bully when the Lord has granted them other options
Speaking of families. I would advise all clerics that tradition minded Catholics, TLM or not, tend to have large families, and we understand who the primary educators of our children are (there's VII again). We are bound by conscience to teach our children about the history of wolves in shepherd's clothing that has been a part of salvation history from ancient biblical times right up to our own.
Many thanks to JD and The Pillar for your balanced but always enriching coverage of TC and its fallout.
As someone who was driven to the TLM in part by the scandalous liturgical practices and homelies of some NO priests (no doubt inspired by the “Vatican II spirit”), I really hope that a reform of the reform can breathe new life - and faithfulness - to the way we celebrate mass. And I pray that fellow TLM faithfuls will be part of that movement.
Brutal moves like that of His Eminence Cardinal Cupich (and Roche) make it hard to see their pastoral concern for their brethren in Christ, and can seem nakedly “political” - I really fear they will damage the much-fought for and fragile truce in these liturgical wars.
And thanks for the beautiful quote from St JH Newman, it is excellent food for thought.
As someone who's always been familiar and comfortable with the Ordinary Form, a Mass according to VII reforms, celebrated versus populum by a traditionalist Priest, is actually something I am really looking forward to so we can actually get to a witness what is so often talked about.
I go to Holy Mass at the Brompton Oratory in London (UK), which was founded by St John Henry Newman and is run by Oratorian Fathers (i.e., the Congregation of the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri) - I can assure you they feel very attached to the TLM, as it is a big part of their charism, but they also offer NO mass daily and on Sunday (multiple times, including the Vigil Mass).
And I know many priests who offer both NO (versus populum) and TLM mass.
I’m not sure that’s how they would put it, but they do strive to say Holy Mass in a respectful and faithful way, wether the TLM or the NO. There are several churches around where I live in London that would correspond in at least some ways to the “reform of the reform” movement (and some indeed have Gregorian chants sung by a choir).
I would add that if all NO masses were celebrated the way the Oratorian Fathers do it, and all homelies as beautiful as theirs, I would not have felt compelled to attend TLM in the first place.
As many other TLM faithfuls would tell you, I have absolutely nothing against the NO Mass - I fully adhere to the teachings of VII, I spent my entire life attending NO Mass until a couple of years ago, and as they say “a Mass is a Mass”. But there is a deplorable tendency amongst some clergy and faithful to see the NO Mass as something that should be first and foremost an expression of the community’s creativity (cue horrendous music, light shows, sermons on the need to change Church dogma on mariage and divorce, etc), rather than as the worship of God in community. I’ve even once attended Mass in Paris in a parish run by Jesuits where Mass was interrupted right after the Gospel so the faithful could discuss in small groups what the Gospel meant to them, and where the faithful all gathered around the altar as the priest consecrated the host.
The point in going to TLM is not to reject VII or silently dissent from Rome, it’s just the parish where I feel the most confident of priests’ faithfulness to Church teachings (VII included), where the liturgy and church itself are the most beautiful, and where I can attend with my kids without any parishioners feeling compelled to tell me “they can’t hear and kids shouldn’t attend mass anyways”.
I wish this was the perspective more bishops heard! I know a few “rad trad” types who have what I consider to be very problematic relationships to Vatican 2 and obedience to bishops, but my sense (as a person who attends a beautiful and reverent NO) is that many, if not most, TLM folks feel the same way you do.
"[E]specially in the archdiocese which houses the most renowned academic center for liturgy in the country."
I can't say where it comes from exactly, but in 2019 I attended a daylong symposium on preaching for clergy sponsored by that liturgical institution that advertised the speaker as an expert on the liturgical thought of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; what was delivered instead was a drumbeat on the thought of Edward Schillebeeckx. I had thought I had escaped that nightmare decades ago, even if he just escaped official silencing. I stayed to the end out of sheer stubbornness, but I was about the only one. So the reputation of that august body must be questioned.
***"In fact, at the root of the current discord over liturgy is disagreement about authority, papal prerogatives, and the Church’s centralization — arguably, the Church is still arguing right now about Vatican Council I, which took place in 1869 and 1870, and only incidentally about Vatican Council II.
This is why Newman wrote that “the whole course of Christianity from the first, when we come to examine it, is but one series of troubles and disorders.”"***
It's in those times that the Saints shine and and become the teachers we emulate is it not? I'm reminded of St Joseph Pignatelli (who unofficially led the Jesuits through the years of suppression) and his well known prayer of Perfect Resignation.
It will interesting to see how this plays out at St John Cantius with whom the Cardinal has reached an understanding over the years . And of course they have always celebrated both the Novus Ordo and the TLM every day. The sticking point would be versus populum. But I will guess that the Cardinal will give permission to Cantius for Ad Orientem. Not so much to others . His suspicion /hostility towards Ad Orientem seems a combination of ignorance and/or pettiness. But in fairness he probably felt confirmed in his suspicion by the Pope’s slapdown of Cardinal Sarah a couple years ago (no doubt at the behest of the Pope’s liturgical advisors from Anselmo)
Pretty sad when some traditional Anglican Churches look more catholic than the Roman Catholic Church. In Anglo-Catholicism the Priest faces east and the choir sings traditional music (organs, no guitars and senseless lyrics) but the format of the service closely resembles the new mass (two readings done by laity, conducted in the vernacular, etc). We are shooting ourselves in the foot. If we define catholicism by our statements of faith aligning with our expression of faith than I am inclined to call the Anglican Church (at least the traditionalists) more catholic today that what is happening within the actual Catholic Church. Very sad indeed.
My wife is not religious but she attends Christmas mass with me and I've always considered this to be the Spirit working within her. We were out of town for Christmas this year and visiting family and attended the ordinary form because we couldn't find a Latin mass that still had seats available. After we left she said she hated every second of it, found it to be abrasive and jarring (referring to the music which didn't align with what the priest was saying or what was happening within the service). She said the priest seemed more wrapped up in himself at the altar even proudly innovating by adding his own words during the Eucharistic prayer. She isn't a believer and that was her reaction. She is famous for saying we ought to put out money where out mouths are. This was very telling for me and I think indicative of how others see this new mass too.
She also couldn't help but poke fun at the imagery around the altar as well. She asked me why the priest just casually ascended the steps while clapping his hands to the guitar driven music and what the point of having a giant banner with a plain cup and some wheat on it had to do with the seriousness of my faith. The church post-Vatican II is a joke to people who are not within the immediate orbit of religious life. This is why pews are draining and people have no strong religious convictions anymore.
These are just insulting comments. At the Last Supper and in the early Church of the Apostles plain things were the norm. Earthenware vessels etc. The OT mentions instruments accompanying worship such as horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp. The Mass you describe going to seems closer to the Cenacle than anything.
The reality is it just wasn't your cup of tea and that's fine, but it's just rude to deride it as if it is somehow intrinsically inferior to your preference.
Edit to add, that it was surprising that your wife found the Christmas day music to not align with the theme of the Mass? Didn't they sing the traditional Christmas hymns that day?
I do not think you understand what is happening within the Catholic Church regarding the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Mass. You sound more like a Lutheran here which is way off the mark of the original article and the meat of my comment.
How do you arrive at the charge that I sound like a Lutheran when I'm here for the very purpose of defending the authority of the Church in this matter. Could you be engaging in projection with the charge?
Defending the authority of the church? You are all sorts of mixed up. You claim the liturgy ought to reflect the actions of the ancient church. What does that means for the liturgy that was developed over time prior to the radical changes of Vatican II? Your idea of authority is cherry picking what it authentic and what is not. Doesn’t get much more Protestant than that. From the very start you’ve been abrasive at any rate and from other comments here you’re clearly not here to engage, just offense.
No, I didn't claim "the liturgy ought to reflect the actions of the ancient church". I was simply echoing Sacrosanctum concilium in it's instruction regarding restoration of the liturgy...
"21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community."
I respectfully ask that you treat me with Christian charity.
"The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather it proves the offender's inability to forget himself in the rite, and his readiness to spoil for every one else the proper pleasure of ritual." - C.S. Lewis
Note that CSLewis was not addressing the reformed form of the Mass here, but unless you are using it to denounce VII's decision for reform, isn't this the very opportunity people want to contribute to the Mass as envisioned by VII? Do you not think that here is what people who've turned to the TLM have really wanted all along? I wonder if people just can't see the gift they are being given by TC and Cdl Cupichs policy.
Of course that goes without saying. He's making a critique of a certain modern proclivity to dismantle ritual in favor of "humility." I think we can certainly see this prominently in the Church in the last century with it coming to a peak in the late 60s early 70s. The issue at hand is that this "spirit" seems to have had a great part to play in the revision of the liturgy.
The way I understand it, the reform was a long worked on process to restore active participation to Eucharistic worship rather than anything to do with humility. That the reform involving greater participation would inevitably involve teething problems and missteps should not be a reason to abort the whole process. The mantra "the spirit of Vatican II" has unfortunately served as an anti VII mantra for a whole generation.
The opening song (as they called it, should be a hymn) and closing song were Christmas songs. The Mass parts were done from the new worship music book and were guitar based. Like during the Eucharistic prayer, the Great Amen sounded like it belonged at a Boy Scout campfire meetup.
Also, my wife is not Catholic, she do not have any “preference”. She is an outsider who stands at the fringes of the church (not unlike many many self professed Catholics). My comments were meant to highlight how others see this new Mass compared to the Latin. Your response is indicative of why the church can’t get to these people.
The fundamental problem with the comment is that it treats the mass as a show. How was the set design? What were the musical numbers like? Etc.
I'm a Byzantine Catholic. I appreciate the anesthetics of the liturgy. But the only criteria I will put forth for a good or bad liturgy is conformity to the norms that make it valid. Anything else inevitably casts aspersions on the valid praxis of one time, Rite, or place in history or another.
The “show” is aligning the message and the doctrine with the actions. In that sense it is a show and the current one doesn’t work because nothing comes together. Conformity to the norms to make it valid is such an arbitrary understanding of validity…like a self licking ice cream cone…it’s valid if they say it’s valid and do it validly. Come on…
But that is the nature of Canon law. What is Canon law and the norms: it's what the pope declares it. Why can't there be an external criterion? Because the pope is infallible in faith and morals (or so I was told during JPII and BXVI).
Now you're diving into orthodoxy which is beyond the basis of my original comment. I really do think it is too simplistic (and dismissive) to say the Pope declares it therefore it is correct. I really liked how this article articulated that we are still actually reconciling Vatican I which is where this whole infallibility thing came to be (and not without it's own host of controversies as well). I can quote church fathers who do not adhere to the doctrine of infallibility primarily because it has meant different things to different people in different eras.
Of course validity is important, but it can be a bit of a red herring. I think it's helpful to make a comparison to another sacrament to illustrate a point. I can have a valid marriage that is rich, loving, edifying, etc. I can also have a valid marriage that is far from that. Surely if we were in the later situation, we wouldn't just be content that our marriage was valid?
The best criticisms of the modern Rite are of the elements that diminish the penitential and latreutic elements. These don't cast aspersions on any time, Rite, or place as these are novel elements and a diminishing of the Rite itself to make it palatable for modern man.
Nic: To run with your comparison, what makes a rich, loving, and edifying will vary from person to person. One couple finds the joy in their differences, another finds the differences to be the difficulty. In the same vein, the those who enjoy the 1962 Missal for its aesthetic elements may not like a JPII mass for the same reasons. But someone may very well enjoy and find edification in the former but not the latter. The only criteria by which to judge "good" or "bad" is the validity. (to further draw out the point, many High Church Anglican liturgical services are very similar in the externals to an Ordinariate mass. However, the one is better than the other - despite the external similarities - because of the sole distinguishing characteristic: validity.)
As to the criticism you draw out, it bears noting that the Byzantine liturgy uses different penitential and eucharistic prayers, different vestments, and different architecture. If we are going to use that to determine "better" or "worse" then you invite comparisons between the two.
It also bears noting that to the extent your comment describes the JPII mass as making it "palatable for modern man" this also diminishes the mass of the early church, which for obvious reasons lacked much of the externals in the 1962 Missal.
I agree about the essential nature of validity. Even a "low" Catholic mass is better than a "High" Anglican liturgy because of that fact.
The Byzantine liturgy is a great example. I have no problem with different expressions (the cries for uniformity are coming from the other side of this). However the penitential elements, architecture, prayers, vestments, etc. of the Eastern Rites speak of a deeply traditional, cultural religiosity. This is precisely what separates the NO from the Eastern Rites and Traditional Western Rites.
As for the early church, I fail to see why this does so. My point isn't that the 1962 missal is the only valid way to worship God. That would be ridiculous.
The way I read Cupich's policy, not only those who normally celebrate TLM but every Catholic in the Archdiocese, including those who celebrate Eastern rites or rites associated with orders, like the Dominican, are required to celebrate the Paul VI rite on Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost Sunday. Am I reading it incorrectly?
Liturgy and doctrine aren't disconnected. At least some of the motivation, on the part of some parties, for trying to surpress the traditional liturgy is to soften up the ground for doctrinal changes (on the lines of the German 'synodal way'), which they'd like to impose in the future. Dividing orthodox TLM and NO catholics weakens the opposition when the time comes (if it does).
I really look forward to any work you do on "traditionalist" communities/parishes. Hard data would be useful. On one hand, the total number of people in the US who are involved (for instance, regularly attend the Extraordinary Form) is a very small proportion of those who attend Mass on Sunday. On the other hand, the issues and questions involved loom large far beyond that demographic. Many people think about it, grapple with it (as I do myself) largely without extensive or regular first-hand connection with such communities.
I deeply appreciate your encouragement to read Sacrosanctum Concilium. I try to go back to it every few years. I would also say that anything that could be done to summarize or plot the trajectory of the Liturgical Movement is really important as well. Very often, SC is discussed as if it fell out of the blue, but it didn't.
I was really surprised as I read more of the history to learn how many of the "Novus Ordo" changes had been tested and evaluated for years, and even decades before Vatican II. There's no doubt the new missal was a surprise to many, even most, people, but on the other hand priests/bishops/monks/scholars had been discussing and testing many many things beforehand. The historical context doesn't resolve current questions by itself... but it can lead us away from cartoons and nostalgia, and a strong tendency for people discussing it who weren't alive during those decades to project a lot of stuff on them (in many different flavors).
The suggestion to *actually read* Sacrosanctum Concilium is an excellent one. I read it last summer and found it reassuring to my faith in what the new form of the Mass could be. (And a form that if it were implemented would likely keep many orthodox young Catholics from feeling the need for an EF Mass, IMO.) Also, I always appreciate the reminder that in the grand scheme of things we are not actually that far out from V2, so some turmoil might be expected. And the wisdom of St. JHNewman is always welcome!
As someone who actually thinks an attempt at reuniting Roman Catholics (I can never remember the precise term- Latin Catholics?) under one form of the Roman rite is a good idea, it is certainly discouraging to hear Cardinal Cupich demand that that unity should happen under a form of the NO that isn’t demanded by the council documents. Pastorally, it seems harsh not to give the concession of ad orientem (which seems fully justified by SC) to those who are so affected by this new set of norms. Not to mention it reinforces the idea that the choice for faithful Catholics is simply either a 1970s era guitar Mass or a TLM. If those were my only options I would cling to the EF with all my might too.
In the Vaticans announcement about Cdl Cupich's new policies based on TC, it reiterates this point...
"In keeping with Pope Benedict XVI’s observation cited above, the preamble to the policy reminds priests that some elements from the pre-Vatican Missal are still an option in the current Missal: e.g., Gregorian Chant, Latin, incense, etc.
Priests seeking authorisation to use the pre-Vatican Missal are also requested to accompany the faithful who want to continue to attend Mass celebrated in that rite. They are asked to discuss the “possibility of using the reformed liturgical rites” which can be celebrated in Latin. In this way, the priest himself manifests that while “seeking the good of those who are rooted in the previous rite,” he is also “accompanying them towards the common use of the one lex orandi of the Roman Rite”." https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2021-12/cardinal-cupich-chicago-policy-traditionis-custodes-1962-missal.html
To me it sounds like it provides an opportunity to start the reform of the reform rather than a way of forcing traditionalist Priests simply to use the Ordinary Form in it's current form.
The significance of 25 December was stated in the document...
"From the Office of the Archbishop of Chicago, Decomber 25, 2021, the 60" anniversary of Apostolic Constitution, Humane Salutis by which Pope Saint John XXlll convoked the Second Vatican CounciI."
The significance for the audience was Christmas. You would have to be blind to think otherwise. Surely the cardinal as a most effective pastor would care about the rhetoric he uses and how the words are recieved by the community.
Although it was signed on the 25th it wasn't released until the 27th.
I’d recommend reading Sacrosanctum concilium in tandem with Ratzinger’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, which speaks to the “continuity” the Council had in mind.
If you're so inclined, it's also very very helpful to try to get a sense of the 1850 - Vatican II liturgical movement. Trying to get a sense of that movement and what it advocated, the widespread "experiments" (many of them undertaken with full ecclesiastical permission), and so forth has been helpful to me. Sometimes Sacrosanctum Concilium is read as if it dropped out of the blue, and it DEFINITELY didn't... there was a LOT of study over decades that preceded it.
"At The Pillar, we’re firming up plans to study those things in the next few months. We look forward to reporting what we learn."
Looking forward to reading it!
Cupich's once-a-month-Novus-Ordo scheme has all the appearances of a trap. He likely expects the TLMers to fail to show up for his monthly "special edition," and he will then declare their absence to be prime facie evidence of rejection of the Novus Ordo and use it as justification for shutting down the TLM completely. Bans, proscriptions, crackdowns... these are not emblems of confident, thriving regimes. If anything, this move by Cupich is reminiscent of the imposition of martial law in Poland, 1981-83, i.e., a desperate, last-ditch attempt to prop up a failing system. By any objective metric (Sunday Mass attendance, vocations to the priesthood & religious life, infant baptisms, sacramental marriages, parochial school enrollment, etc.), the Catholic Church, in America at least, is weaker than it's been in more than 100 years. And then throw in the pandemic-era exodus of the lukewarm masses. It's hard to imagine circumstances under which the Church would appear to be less likely to succeed in bullying and browbeating into submission a cohort of its most faithful members. And yet here's Cupich and his confreres in Rome partying like it's 1969, imagining that they're still powerful enough to call the shots and have everyone fall in line. We'll see...
Well, prove em wrong. Show up for the JPII mass as well as the 1962.
By the grace of God, I'm not a Chicagoan, so I will not face this choice. As I said, I fully expect Cupich to make hay of the TLMers' recusancy from his monthly "loyalty oath" Mass. But I wonder... if they *do* turn up en masse, might he not exploit that, as well? "See! The so-called 'trads' have taken to their reeducation splendidly, so let's move on to Phase 2..."
Bingo. Heads you lose, tails the cardinal wins.
“There are bishops who have long opposed the use of the Extraordinary Form, and even ‘reform of the reform’ liturgical sentiments, because their own seminary formation taught them those things were contrary to development of the Church’s teachings at the Second Vatican Council. Many of them are, no doubt, acting in good faith.”
JD, I have to commend you and thank you for challenging me with what seems to me to be quite a charitable presumption. I genuinely hope that I can arrive there myself, but I have a hard time reading this as anything other than as a deeply personal and malicious attack, rooted in power and not in good-faith theological formation. (My perspective is that of someone who has attended Mass in the now “antecedent” rite no more than a handful of times and has never attended a “novus ordo” Mass that was celebrated ad orientem.) The extra step Cupich takes to restrict the ad orientem posture really just reads as making sure that the so-called “RadTrads” don’t feel *too* comfortable on the first Sunday of the month/high holy days. In my reading of Sacrosanctum concilium and the GIRM, I see nothing that even hints at the possibility of such a restriction. This seems personal. And to take it to the macro level, this whole process - from the hastily cobbled-together “consultation” of the world’s bishops to the answering of the dubia - seems to have been designed to produce this exact result with or without any “proof” of a pressing pastoral concern.
I am going to pray for Pope Francis, Cardinal Cupich, Archbishop Roche, and everyone else involved. I’ll also be praying for the many people I know who are TLM adherents, that they remain with Christ and His Church and that God may use this trial as a way to sanctify each of them. My heart breaks with them.
This is so very true that it just makes me cry.
Sounds a *teeny* bit biased. Just a bit.
in which direction?
JD takes the high road with his reflections on Cardinal Newman and documents of the second Vatican council. This is good IMO as it's good to remember that the Church has an ancient history of strife and struggle through which somehow the Holy Spirit works.
It's also important to recognize within that history people often act out of their basic fallen human nature in concrete ways that shouldn't be swept up as just another event in history. There is something at play here that is much older than even the Church herself. Cardinal Cupich, with the backing of Pope Francis, has the power and the TLM community under his care does not. Cupich is wielding that power as nothing other than a bully. He's going to display his dominance come what may. That's what bullies do. If that means a loss of the faithful or even his own priests, that's a price worth paying. Ideological bullying and nothing more.
I would suggest the faithful and seminarians refuse to play the game. There are still places where the bishop is not a wolf in shepherd's clothing. Find one and live there peacefully. We have many liturgical refugees in our parish who have no desire for confrontation with rotten bishops but who also won't subject themselves or their families to the domination of a bully when the Lord has granted them other options
Speaking of families. I would advise all clerics that tradition minded Catholics, TLM or not, tend to have large families, and we understand who the primary educators of our children are (there's VII again). We are bound by conscience to teach our children about the history of wolves in shepherd's clothing that has been a part of salvation history from ancient biblical times right up to our own.
Many thanks to JD and The Pillar for your balanced but always enriching coverage of TC and its fallout.
As someone who was driven to the TLM in part by the scandalous liturgical practices and homelies of some NO priests (no doubt inspired by the “Vatican II spirit”), I really hope that a reform of the reform can breathe new life - and faithfulness - to the way we celebrate mass. And I pray that fellow TLM faithfuls will be part of that movement.
Brutal moves like that of His Eminence Cardinal Cupich (and Roche) make it hard to see their pastoral concern for their brethren in Christ, and can seem nakedly “political” - I really fear they will damage the much-fought for and fragile truce in these liturgical wars.
And thanks for the beautiful quote from St JH Newman, it is excellent food for thought.
Merry Christmas to Ed, you and your families!
As someone who's always been familiar and comfortable with the Ordinary Form, a Mass according to VII reforms, celebrated versus populum by a traditionalist Priest, is actually something I am really looking forward to so we can actually get to a witness what is so often talked about.
I go to Holy Mass at the Brompton Oratory in London (UK), which was founded by St John Henry Newman and is run by Oratorian Fathers (i.e., the Congregation of the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri) - I can assure you they feel very attached to the TLM, as it is a big part of their charism, but they also offer NO mass daily and on Sunday (multiple times, including the Vigil Mass).
And I know many priests who offer both NO (versus populum) and TLM mass.
Is the Ordinary Form of the Mass they offer a manifestation of a reform of the reformed Vatican II Mass?
I’m not sure that’s how they would put it, but they do strive to say Holy Mass in a respectful and faithful way, wether the TLM or the NO. There are several churches around where I live in London that would correspond in at least some ways to the “reform of the reform” movement (and some indeed have Gregorian chants sung by a choir).
I would add that if all NO masses were celebrated the way the Oratorian Fathers do it, and all homelies as beautiful as theirs, I would not have felt compelled to attend TLM in the first place.
As many other TLM faithfuls would tell you, I have absolutely nothing against the NO Mass - I fully adhere to the teachings of VII, I spent my entire life attending NO Mass until a couple of years ago, and as they say “a Mass is a Mass”. But there is a deplorable tendency amongst some clergy and faithful to see the NO Mass as something that should be first and foremost an expression of the community’s creativity (cue horrendous music, light shows, sermons on the need to change Church dogma on mariage and divorce, etc), rather than as the worship of God in community. I’ve even once attended Mass in Paris in a parish run by Jesuits where Mass was interrupted right after the Gospel so the faithful could discuss in small groups what the Gospel meant to them, and where the faithful all gathered around the altar as the priest consecrated the host.
The point in going to TLM is not to reject VII or silently dissent from Rome, it’s just the parish where I feel the most confident of priests’ faithfulness to Church teachings (VII included), where the liturgy and church itself are the most beautiful, and where I can attend with my kids without any parishioners feeling compelled to tell me “they can’t hear and kids shouldn’t attend mass anyways”.
I wish this was the perspective more bishops heard! I know a few “rad trad” types who have what I consider to be very problematic relationships to Vatican 2 and obedience to bishops, but my sense (as a person who attends a beautiful and reverent NO) is that many, if not most, TLM folks feel the same way you do.
Or maybe I should say, I wish this were the perspective the Holy Father heard.
"[E]specially in the archdiocese which houses the most renowned academic center for liturgy in the country."
I can't say where it comes from exactly, but in 2019 I attended a daylong symposium on preaching for clergy sponsored by that liturgical institution that advertised the speaker as an expert on the liturgical thought of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; what was delivered instead was a drumbeat on the thought of Edward Schillebeeckx. I had thought I had escaped that nightmare decades ago, even if he just escaped official silencing. I stayed to the end out of sheer stubbornness, but I was about the only one. So the reputation of that august body must be questioned.
***"In fact, at the root of the current discord over liturgy is disagreement about authority, papal prerogatives, and the Church’s centralization — arguably, the Church is still arguing right now about Vatican Council I, which took place in 1869 and 1870, and only incidentally about Vatican Council II.
This is why Newman wrote that “the whole course of Christianity from the first, when we come to examine it, is but one series of troubles and disorders.”"***
It's in those times that the Saints shine and and become the teachers we emulate is it not? I'm reminded of St Joseph Pignatelli (who unofficially led the Jesuits through the years of suppression) and his well known prayer of Perfect Resignation.
My God, I do not know what must come to me today.
But I am certain that nothing can happen to me
that you have not foreseen, decreed,
and ordained from eternity.
That is sufficient for me.
It will interesting to see how this plays out at St John Cantius with whom the Cardinal has reached an understanding over the years . And of course they have always celebrated both the Novus Ordo and the TLM every day. The sticking point would be versus populum. But I will guess that the Cardinal will give permission to Cantius for Ad Orientem. Not so much to others . His suspicion /hostility towards Ad Orientem seems a combination of ignorance and/or pettiness. But in fairness he probably felt confirmed in his suspicion by the Pope’s slapdown of Cardinal Sarah a couple years ago (no doubt at the behest of the Pope’s liturgical advisors from Anselmo)
Pretty sad when some traditional Anglican Churches look more catholic than the Roman Catholic Church. In Anglo-Catholicism the Priest faces east and the choir sings traditional music (organs, no guitars and senseless lyrics) but the format of the service closely resembles the new mass (two readings done by laity, conducted in the vernacular, etc). We are shooting ourselves in the foot. If we define catholicism by our statements of faith aligning with our expression of faith than I am inclined to call the Anglican Church (at least the traditionalists) more catholic today that what is happening within the actual Catholic Church. Very sad indeed.
My wife is not religious but she attends Christmas mass with me and I've always considered this to be the Spirit working within her. We were out of town for Christmas this year and visiting family and attended the ordinary form because we couldn't find a Latin mass that still had seats available. After we left she said she hated every second of it, found it to be abrasive and jarring (referring to the music which didn't align with what the priest was saying or what was happening within the service). She said the priest seemed more wrapped up in himself at the altar even proudly innovating by adding his own words during the Eucharistic prayer. She isn't a believer and that was her reaction. She is famous for saying we ought to put out money where out mouths are. This was very telling for me and I think indicative of how others see this new mass too.
She also couldn't help but poke fun at the imagery around the altar as well. She asked me why the priest just casually ascended the steps while clapping his hands to the guitar driven music and what the point of having a giant banner with a plain cup and some wheat on it had to do with the seriousness of my faith. The church post-Vatican II is a joke to people who are not within the immediate orbit of religious life. This is why pews are draining and people have no strong religious convictions anymore.
These are just insulting comments. At the Last Supper and in the early Church of the Apostles plain things were the norm. Earthenware vessels etc. The OT mentions instruments accompanying worship such as horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp. The Mass you describe going to seems closer to the Cenacle than anything.
The reality is it just wasn't your cup of tea and that's fine, but it's just rude to deride it as if it is somehow intrinsically inferior to your preference.
Edit to add, that it was surprising that your wife found the Christmas day music to not align with the theme of the Mass? Didn't they sing the traditional Christmas hymns that day?
I do not think you understand what is happening within the Catholic Church regarding the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Mass. You sound more like a Lutheran here which is way off the mark of the original article and the meat of my comment.
How do you arrive at the charge that I sound like a Lutheran when I'm here for the very purpose of defending the authority of the Church in this matter. Could you be engaging in projection with the charge?
Defending the authority of the church? You are all sorts of mixed up. You claim the liturgy ought to reflect the actions of the ancient church. What does that means for the liturgy that was developed over time prior to the radical changes of Vatican II? Your idea of authority is cherry picking what it authentic and what is not. Doesn’t get much more Protestant than that. From the very start you’ve been abrasive at any rate and from other comments here you’re clearly not here to engage, just offense.
No, I didn't claim "the liturgy ought to reflect the actions of the ancient church". I was simply echoing Sacrosanctum concilium in it's instruction regarding restoration of the liturgy...
"21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community."
I respectfully ask that you treat me with Christian charity.
"The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather it proves the offender's inability to forget himself in the rite, and his readiness to spoil for every one else the proper pleasure of ritual." - C.S. Lewis
Note that CSLewis was not addressing the reformed form of the Mass here, but unless you are using it to denounce VII's decision for reform, isn't this the very opportunity people want to contribute to the Mass as envisioned by VII? Do you not think that here is what people who've turned to the TLM have really wanted all along? I wonder if people just can't see the gift they are being given by TC and Cdl Cupichs policy.
Of course that goes without saying. He's making a critique of a certain modern proclivity to dismantle ritual in favor of "humility." I think we can certainly see this prominently in the Church in the last century with it coming to a peak in the late 60s early 70s. The issue at hand is that this "spirit" seems to have had a great part to play in the revision of the liturgy.
The way I understand it, the reform was a long worked on process to restore active participation to Eucharistic worship rather than anything to do with humility. That the reform involving greater participation would inevitably involve teething problems and missteps should not be a reason to abort the whole process. The mantra "the spirit of Vatican II" has unfortunately served as an anti VII mantra for a whole generation.
The opening song (as they called it, should be a hymn) and closing song were Christmas songs. The Mass parts were done from the new worship music book and were guitar based. Like during the Eucharistic prayer, the Great Amen sounded like it belonged at a Boy Scout campfire meetup.
Also, my wife is not Catholic, she do not have any “preference”. She is an outsider who stands at the fringes of the church (not unlike many many self professed Catholics). My comments were meant to highlight how others see this new Mass compared to the Latin. Your response is indicative of why the church can’t get to these people.
The fundamental problem with the comment is that it treats the mass as a show. How was the set design? What were the musical numbers like? Etc.
I'm a Byzantine Catholic. I appreciate the anesthetics of the liturgy. But the only criteria I will put forth for a good or bad liturgy is conformity to the norms that make it valid. Anything else inevitably casts aspersions on the valid praxis of one time, Rite, or place in history or another.
The “show” is aligning the message and the doctrine with the actions. In that sense it is a show and the current one doesn’t work because nothing comes together. Conformity to the norms to make it valid is such an arbitrary understanding of validity…like a self licking ice cream cone…it’s valid if they say it’s valid and do it validly. Come on…
But that is the nature of Canon law. What is Canon law and the norms: it's what the pope declares it. Why can't there be an external criterion? Because the pope is infallible in faith and morals (or so I was told during JPII and BXVI).
Now you're diving into orthodoxy which is beyond the basis of my original comment. I really do think it is too simplistic (and dismissive) to say the Pope declares it therefore it is correct. I really liked how this article articulated that we are still actually reconciling Vatican I which is where this whole infallibility thing came to be (and not without it's own host of controversies as well). I can quote church fathers who do not adhere to the doctrine of infallibility primarily because it has meant different things to different people in different eras.
Of course validity is important, but it can be a bit of a red herring. I think it's helpful to make a comparison to another sacrament to illustrate a point. I can have a valid marriage that is rich, loving, edifying, etc. I can also have a valid marriage that is far from that. Surely if we were in the later situation, we wouldn't just be content that our marriage was valid?
The best criticisms of the modern Rite are of the elements that diminish the penitential and latreutic elements. These don't cast aspersions on any time, Rite, or place as these are novel elements and a diminishing of the Rite itself to make it palatable for modern man.
Nic: To run with your comparison, what makes a rich, loving, and edifying will vary from person to person. One couple finds the joy in their differences, another finds the differences to be the difficulty. In the same vein, the those who enjoy the 1962 Missal for its aesthetic elements may not like a JPII mass for the same reasons. But someone may very well enjoy and find edification in the former but not the latter. The only criteria by which to judge "good" or "bad" is the validity. (to further draw out the point, many High Church Anglican liturgical services are very similar in the externals to an Ordinariate mass. However, the one is better than the other - despite the external similarities - because of the sole distinguishing characteristic: validity.)
As to the criticism you draw out, it bears noting that the Byzantine liturgy uses different penitential and eucharistic prayers, different vestments, and different architecture. If we are going to use that to determine "better" or "worse" then you invite comparisons between the two.
It also bears noting that to the extent your comment describes the JPII mass as making it "palatable for modern man" this also diminishes the mass of the early church, which for obvious reasons lacked much of the externals in the 1962 Missal.
I agree about the essential nature of validity. Even a "low" Catholic mass is better than a "High" Anglican liturgy because of that fact.
The Byzantine liturgy is a great example. I have no problem with different expressions (the cries for uniformity are coming from the other side of this). However the penitential elements, architecture, prayers, vestments, etc. of the Eastern Rites speak of a deeply traditional, cultural religiosity. This is precisely what separates the NO from the Eastern Rites and Traditional Western Rites.
As for the early church, I fail to see why this does so. My point isn't that the 1962 missal is the only valid way to worship God. That would be ridiculous.
The way I read Cupich's policy, not only those who normally celebrate TLM but every Catholic in the Archdiocese, including those who celebrate Eastern rites or rites associated with orders, like the Dominican, are required to celebrate the Paul VI rite on Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost Sunday. Am I reading it incorrectly?
Cdl Cupich has no authority over the Eastern Churches in the same geographic region as Arch. Chicago as a general rule. They have their own bishops.
Liturgy and doctrine aren't disconnected. At least some of the motivation, on the part of some parties, for trying to surpress the traditional liturgy is to soften up the ground for doctrinal changes (on the lines of the German 'synodal way'), which they'd like to impose in the future. Dividing orthodox TLM and NO catholics weakens the opposition when the time comes (if it does).
I really look forward to any work you do on "traditionalist" communities/parishes. Hard data would be useful. On one hand, the total number of people in the US who are involved (for instance, regularly attend the Extraordinary Form) is a very small proportion of those who attend Mass on Sunday. On the other hand, the issues and questions involved loom large far beyond that demographic. Many people think about it, grapple with it (as I do myself) largely without extensive or regular first-hand connection with such communities.
I deeply appreciate your encouragement to read Sacrosanctum Concilium. I try to go back to it every few years. I would also say that anything that could be done to summarize or plot the trajectory of the Liturgical Movement is really important as well. Very often, SC is discussed as if it fell out of the blue, but it didn't.
I was really surprised as I read more of the history to learn how many of the "Novus Ordo" changes had been tested and evaluated for years, and even decades before Vatican II. There's no doubt the new missal was a surprise to many, even most, people, but on the other hand priests/bishops/monks/scholars had been discussing and testing many many things beforehand. The historical context doesn't resolve current questions by itself... but it can lead us away from cartoons and nostalgia, and a strong tendency for people discussing it who weren't alive during those decades to project a lot of stuff on them (in many different flavors).
Great perspective
The suggestion to *actually read* Sacrosanctum Concilium is an excellent one. I read it last summer and found it reassuring to my faith in what the new form of the Mass could be. (And a form that if it were implemented would likely keep many orthodox young Catholics from feeling the need for an EF Mass, IMO.) Also, I always appreciate the reminder that in the grand scheme of things we are not actually that far out from V2, so some turmoil might be expected. And the wisdom of St. JHNewman is always welcome!
As someone who actually thinks an attempt at reuniting Roman Catholics (I can never remember the precise term- Latin Catholics?) under one form of the Roman rite is a good idea, it is certainly discouraging to hear Cardinal Cupich demand that that unity should happen under a form of the NO that isn’t demanded by the council documents. Pastorally, it seems harsh not to give the concession of ad orientem (which seems fully justified by SC) to those who are so affected by this new set of norms. Not to mention it reinforces the idea that the choice for faithful Catholics is simply either a 1970s era guitar Mass or a TLM. If those were my only options I would cling to the EF with all my might too.
In the Vaticans announcement about Cdl Cupich's new policies based on TC, it reiterates this point...
"In keeping with Pope Benedict XVI’s observation cited above, the preamble to the policy reminds priests that some elements from the pre-Vatican Missal are still an option in the current Missal: e.g., Gregorian Chant, Latin, incense, etc.
Priests seeking authorisation to use the pre-Vatican Missal are also requested to accompany the faithful who want to continue to attend Mass celebrated in that rite. They are asked to discuss the “possibility of using the reformed liturgical rites” which can be celebrated in Latin. In this way, the priest himself manifests that while “seeking the good of those who are rooted in the previous rite,” he is also “accompanying them towards the common use of the one lex orandi of the Roman Rite”." https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2021-12/cardinal-cupich-chicago-policy-traditionis-custodes-1962-missal.html
To me it sounds like it provides an opportunity to start the reform of the reform rather than a way of forcing traditionalist Priests simply to use the Ordinary Form in it's current form.