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...
“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.
"[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.
Not at all surprising that he would implement everything Cardinal Roche "suggested." Requiring permission from priests to say Mass ad orientem, though, took me by surprise. This reminds me of the 2017 policy that Bishop Malloy implemented in the diocese of Rockford—as far as I know, the it unfortunately still stands.
On another note, Cardinal Cupich signed the ArchChicago policy on Dec. 25th. I just imagine him adding in, "Merry Christmas you filthy animals."
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.
"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...
“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.
Sounds a *teeny* bit biased. Just a bit.
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!
"[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.
Not at all surprising that he would implement everything Cardinal Roche "suggested." Requiring permission from priests to say Mass ad orientem, though, took me by surprise. This reminds me of the 2017 policy that Bishop Malloy implemented in the diocese of Rockford—as far as I know, the it unfortunately still stands.
On another note, Cardinal Cupich signed the ArchChicago policy on Dec. 25th. I just imagine him adding in, "Merry Christmas you filthy animals."
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.