Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Cajun Power's avatar

The problem is that those attached to the TLM were encouraged by Benedict, who convincingly argued that the TLM, being sacred to the Church for centuries, could not suddenly be considered harmful. Now they're being told that it's harmful. How do you pastorally accompany that?

On the other hand, they see liturgical abuses go uncorrected in the NO, even in the places where the TLM is suppressed. So, the message is: we're not really concerned with the integrity of "the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite," but we're very concerned with the TLM. How do you pastorally accompany that?

What's more, they see plenty of "pastoral accompaniment" for pro-abortion politicians, homosexuals and transsexuals, the divorced and remarried, etc. Contraception is back on the table because it's just too hard for people not to contracept. But those attached to the TLM, who just want to worship as their forebears did, get shut out. How do you pastorally accompany that?

Expand full comment
Kevin Tierney's avatar

Trads haven't asked if unity was the real goal, because we know unity was never the real goal. Persecution was the goal. Finding a scapegoat was the goal. The question from trads is not the very interesting one.

The question from far more trad-adjacent Catholics will be. It isn't 2003 anymore. The line between "trad" and "conservative" isn't as clear as it once was. And any analysis of TC that doesn't account for the fact most people attending your given TLM also attend the Novus Ordo without much difficulty, you will miss that distinction, and the potential problem it poses to bishops.

Expand full comment
77 more comments...
Latest

No posts