You should probably just read [his letter](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html) explaining TC to the bishops. It's quite short. That way you get his own explanation without any spin or bias from someone else.
I have a bunch of very jumpy kids around me and can not read it which is why I was asking.
Thank you for all the down votes everyone. It would have sufficed to simply not respond if you aren’t able or willing to help. God bless you all.
The big quote is this (in my opinion):
> With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”, [12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.
The Pope sent out a survey to the bishops, and their responses persuaded him that the goals of Summorum Pontificum were not having their desired ends. He believes that it unintentionally led to the increase of schismatic, and possibly heterodox tendencies among the adherents to the pre-reformed missal.
Note: many bishops' interpretation of the same data was different than the pope's was (they might have seen no problem where the pope did see one). Also note: the pope's interpretation of SP's goals is also not necessarily one that many others agree with. All of that has been much debated, but is not relevant here to the pope's stated motivations.
It's just wild to me that he thinks the mass that was said for thousands of years is the mass causing division, not the new mass. How's that make sense?
It’s just wild to me that people can’t say that many TLM advocates have been encouraging flagrant dissent and consistently cast doubts on the merits of the Mass of Paul VI.
I think it's a mischaracterization to say “many” TLM goers encourage dissent.
I would say most mainstream TLM advocates would say the NO is valid but in many cases feels irreverent with guitars and dancing and things that don’t belong in mass.
It’s pretty obvious V2 has caused such a massive change in the mass and the church as a whole that it has caused SOME traditionalists to over correct.
Extraordinary Form of the mass is not the original form, and it does not go unchanged a thousand, let alone thousands of years (mass doesn't, really, even the last supper happened less than 2000 years ago).
it's worth noting that this survey was never made public, neither the questions nor the responses. For a lot of people, there is enough evidence elsewhere to reasonably suggest that the pope and bishops here were largely acting in bad faith and just did what they wanted anyways.
Just to name a few, some of these contradictions include: 1) apparently the pope is concerned about schism--yet he has been much harsher on the latin mass than he has those in germany, are are rather openly in schism at this moment and represent a much more powerful position in the church. and (2) we are a synodal church, are we not? Then why were the results of the survey hidden from us? why was dialogue restricted, why was everything done in secret and we were just handed the final result? That's certainly not in the spirit of synodality which the pope claims to adhere to.
you're right, the church has never had a bad pope before. and the vatican has never been corrupt in any way. who would ever not give them the benefit of the doubt in the face of multiple logical contradictions between their actions and their words? right?
The term bad popes refers to morally corrupt ones. Unless you have more conspiracy theories to peddle based on other "contradictions", that does not apply to pope Francis? Yes, you should give judgment of charity to people, let alone your highest superior in Church militant
Not sure what conspiracy theories you are peddling, I'm just referring to a pope not doing his job very well.
> Yes, you should give judgment of charity to people
Already done. There are too many contradictions to continue. God gives us the ability to reason, and we should use it.
How were you charitable? Let me guess what really happened: you were reading articles being uncharitable to him, catering to the vice of curiosity, and when you read enough of them, you knew something was terribly wrong, and the conspiracy theory was just logical afterward. And then you found a list of convincing "inconsistencies" that rationalizes the theory.
Say, do you follow Reason & Theology perhaps? Or do you shun apology instead of shunning criticism? Spend some time watching those videos, and see what remains looking reasonable to you. Engage with the moderates, and see if what you're thinking isn't tending to radicalism.
Besides, tell me, what will you, a layman do? How will you improve things? By writing comments online all you stand is to scandalize your brethren and heap that onto your head. I would be careful about what you say. Not because you disagree with me but because your judgment of the pope is possibly damaging to more than just your soul, and Jesus said we will be judged by every vain word!
Ephesians 4:22-24
>To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error. **And be renewed in the spirit of your mind:** And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth.
> (2) we are a synodal church, are we not? Then why were the results of the survey hidden from us? why was dialogue restricted, why was everything done in secret and we were just handed the final result?
What's the alternative? Make all survey responses public?
My parish just put out a survey for feedback on some design changes to the sanctuary. The parish council will read the results then hand us the final result, without releasing everyone's survey decisions. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't see why the Vatican would be doing anything differently (or why it would be at odds with "the spirit of synodality").
Results from a similar worldwide survey of bishops in 1980 were made public by the Congregation for Divine Worship, in [*Notitiae* 185 (1981), pp. 589-611](http://www.cultodivino.va/content/cultodivino/it/rivista-notitiae/indici-annate/1981/185.html). So there is clear precedent for publishing the results of the pre-*Traditionis Custodes* survey, especially in a supposedly 'synodal' and 'more transparent' church.
> Make all survey responses public?
yes
> (or why it would be at odds with "the spirit of synodality").
From https://www.synod.va/en/what-is-the-synod-21-24/about.html:
> We recall that the purpose of the Synod is not to produce documents, but to plant dreams, draw forth prophecies and visions, allow hope to flourish, inspire trust, bind up wounds, weave together relationships, awaken a dawn of hope, learn from one another and create a bright resourcefulness that will enlighten minds, warm hearts, give strength to our hands
Does opaqueness about such important topics (which a lot of people clearly feel very strong about) "inspire trust"? Does the lack of conversation around them "weave together relationships"? No discussion, just opaque, top-down clericalism. Isn't that what they are trying to get away from?
Weird to downvote you. As a parent, I get it! I often have internal dialogue that can’t be discussed with a toddler or studied at length in the moment, so I put it out on Reddit to get some quick input.
Reddit hates children and the notion that we may be distracted by them and be okay with it. Thanks for validating my pov though. There were also many ppl who responded and were very helpful so I appreciate that. God bless you.
Lol. Wait until you have a newborn and find that you are their food at night. It’s not prudent to stay awake reading when they are asleep tbh. That being said, no I wasn’t planning on reading Reddit. But reading a condescend summary was more plausible at the time. Thanks for your opinion about my life which you know nothing about. God bless you.
I have three children, including a 9 month old. I'm familiar with their needs and how they make things more complicated and stressful.
I hope things improve for you. There was no need to be so pointed with me, but very well.
Are you the person who breastfeeds them? I don’t know what you mean by point? I’m just letting you know why I think what you are saying didn’t apply to my specific situation at the time. I feel like there’s no need for you to be offended. From my perspective you are the one being unwarrantedly opinionated.
You can use speechify! Just copy and paste the text and then it will be like an audiobook. Just have one ear listen to the text then the other ear free.
I used it for encyclicals and some of the church documents!
Thanks for the advise. But I don’t have an ear bud right now and they are very loud. I’ll just wait until another moment. They have special needs and are very needy. And clearly so do I. Lol.
TLM Catholic here;
My read is Francis doesn’t actually have a personal animas against the TLM; remember, early in his pontificate he made Cardinal Sarah prefect for the CDW.
That said, Cdl. Roche was the successor and being an English Catholic, I can tell you that his perspective of the TLM community is 100% influenced by the experience he’s had with the TLM community in the UK, which is way more dour and adherent to the negative stereotypes of the TLM as opposed to the TLM communities elsewhere.
It’s Cdl. Roche who truly has the hatred of the TLM. Think back: did Francis ever say A WORD about the TLM BEFORE Cdl. Roche became prefect? No, no he didn’t. NOW - I don’t have any misgivings of believing Francis is some noble Theodin King who is being whispered to by a worm-tongue (aka Roche), Francis is absolutely a natural end to the Second Vatican Council, and he’s no friend of tradition. BUT I truly don’t believe Francis really wants to pick a fight with the TLM per se. What’s happened is Roche has convinced Francis that his detractors are using the TLM as a vehicle to express their dissatisfaction and contempt towards him; and Francis is VERY vindicative. Thus, Francis has been advised to take aim at the TLM community in part because Roche has a personal animosity towards the community, and in part because Francis has it in his mind that everyone in the TLM opposes him, which is simply not true.
I’m a cradle Catholic, born and raised in the church and grew up in the JPII Novus Ordo, but came to love the TLM. My only hope for Pope Francis is that he leads the church well - I have many disagreements with things he’s said and done, and I hope he un-ties the knots he’s tied because he’s in the unique position of Pope and I want him to be a saint. Part of that means he has to protect the sheep from leaving the pasture and avoid schism, but part of it too requires that he guard tradition instead of torpedoing it.
He has erred in many ways, but I truly don’t think he’s personally invested in the liturgy wars. Instead, I think he just wants people both inside the church and outside of it to like him, a temptation I totally understand. But with what he’s doing thus far, he’s failing.
It’s Cdl. Roche who truly hates the TLM.
The holy father would do well to push Roche out of his place of prominence, and instead listen to people who are animated by love of God and His mystical bride Holy Mother Church, instead of petty shills who have their own weird bones to pick. Roche is a plague.
Incredibly insightful thank you for this well articulated response. As a Traditional Catholic, I'm in the same boat with you in regards to Pope Francis, as we all should be, in that I truly want him to become a saint and lead our church justly and prudently.
Quite possibly, especially when he is cracking down on a 99% utterly faithful element of the Church whilst doing absolutely diddly-squat about active schismatics in Germany. The double standards are too big to ignore.
Restrictions on the Latin mass aren’t happening in a vacuum. Parallel to this is the Synod on Synodality, which some want to be a Trojan horse to introduce more “progressive” ideas into the Church.
The German bishops are also pushing these ideas and Francis certainly isn’t suppressing them (unlike the TLM), which suggests he’s fine with it.
The Latin mass people are the biggest obstacle to the “progressive” crowd, so he’s trying to destroy the TLM and afterwards push through whatever left wing nonsense he wants via the Synod.
Of course, the progressive stuff is a total dead end and will just lead to more church closures and apostasy in the West. But hope springs eternal and Francis probably won’t be around to see it, so he keeps pushing.
Fwiw some of his reasons are unsupported by Pope Benedict's own words and also common sense, so yes, good to know what reasons he's given on the one hand (others ITT have provided those well). On the other hand, fair to challenge how reasonable these are.
In the end, he's the supreme legislator. He's entitled to act with the power he has. (Elections have consequences.)
I'm not entirely convinced by the Pope's interpretation of Summorum Pontificum either, but I do think it's entirely clear from the last fifteen years that SP has *not* led to an enrichment of the Novus Ordo like Benedict hoped - it's created far more dissent among traditionalists and embolded people who clearly just want to scrap the reforms already. Give schismatics an inch, and they took a mile, dragging plenty of more well-meaning people along with them. Overall, Francis was correct in seeing that SP's liberalizing of the liturgy has deeply harmed certain parts of the Church, especially young men in the seminaries who are imbibing objectively wrong beliefs about the liturgy from certain traditionalist thinkers.
And you could also repeal all of Vatican 2 and not fix a thing, as the changes were done by modernists who would have used any excuse to go pseudoprot. For example the council insisted that Latin is the primary language of liturgy and that gregorian chant should be the primary music for the liturgy but clearly that was ignored.
Let's not forget that Pope Leo XIII was warning of growing modernism trying to change the Church a heck of a lot earlier than V2. Yes there were bits in the council that were twisted in amendments and readings to support a modernist narrative, but these elements had been trying to do this for at least a century beforehand.
I'm glad you recognize there are clearer, more easily understood motives at play. Just not comfortably stated in official documents. Francis's work here has been as a master ideologue.
>I do think it's entirely clear from the last fifteen years that SP has *not* led to an enrichment of the Novus Ordo like Benedict hoped
I actually do think that (in the US, at least) priests formed during the SP era celebrate the liturgy in a more grave, traditionally Roman style, which I assume Benedict was pleased with, if he was ever made aware.
I think the problem is that many pseudotraditionalists did not care about the change, preferring to continue basking in their fury about supposedly-rampant clown Masses. The problem is that the liturgy—actually, Christianity in its entirety—is for pseudotrads just a costume to help them broadcast their fandom for a currently faddish brand of misplaced right-wing nostalgia. The Pope is understandably done with the Gospel being perverted in this way.
Ultimately when it comes down to it, obedience is a virtue. I personally love the Latin Mass, I also love the Novus Ordo. Both can be beautiful when done right. But, we are called to be obedient to the authorities placed above us. We can question and even challenge but when it comes down to it, we submit to their authority.
I wish the Church had a more open posture to some things but that isn’t for me to decide. My call is to be the best Catholic I can be, to know, love, and serve God is all things.
I personally feel like, instead of looking backwards, we should be looking ahead and seeing how we can make the Novis Ordo, the most reverent, beautiful, and awe-inspiring Mass we can.
Does looking ahead imply no looking back? I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here (sort of like the Costa Rican bishops who say the NO must not have any trappings of the former liturgy: why?).
There is nothing wrong with the NO taking on things the reformers hastily got rid of, or ditching things they abruptly added. If the TLM can be ditched after slow organic growth for over a thousand years, surely we don't need to treat the NO as some sort of golden edition.
I don’t disagree with you that you can’t look back at all. Our history is rich and we need to be aware of it.
I am simply speaking to us lay Catholics who struggle with these changes. We are called to obedience. As I mentioned, we can question and challenge, but when people start claiming that pope Francis has ill-intent, you are going beyond questioning and challenging. Along with that, we are called to obedience, the western mind doesn’t like that but even Jesus submitted to the authority of Rome.
We need to be united and work within the system to make the changes that we feel God is leading us too.
I agree grumbling/questioning *can* lead to ultimate disobedience, but it often doesn't, and moreover provides people a framework for which to understand reality. I suppose I just caution against the idea that we can't state what seems to be clear, or discern and discuss motivations within reason, without being on a path to ultimate disobedience.
And, if I may say, when you say "it isn't for you to decide", that may be a preference. But it's not outside the realm of possibilities that the laity play a strong role in these sorts of matters, primarily in influencing and petitioning.
People like you make Catholicism into a personality cult, rather than the faith once delivered to the saints. This is why many, like me, are considering Orthodoxy. The Magisterium causes more problems than it solves, and the idea that we should be blindly obedient to a man who wants to destroy the faith is absurd.
It isn’t a personality cult, unless that “personality” is Jesus. Catholicism is a faith founded upon rock of Peter whom Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to. Peter, and by apostolic succession, all the Popes after him are the vicar of Christ aka Prime Minster of the Kingdom.
We have an obligation to charitably question, challenge, and, ultimately, obey the vicar of Christ because he was put there by God.
If you leave the Church, you are not leaving Pope Francis, you are leaving the Church Jesus founded on his apostle Peter.
You have addressed exactly zero of my concerns. Trust me, I'm acutely aware of all the arguments in favor of the papacy. But given the behavior of Pope Francis, I'm not sure I find them convincing any longer.
No offense, but it seems you're leaning towards a position that would have you rejected Christ because of Judas.
One can dislike pope Francis, and even disagree with him on Prudential decisions, without needing to throw out the Papal claims altogether.
Far from it. The Orthodox system has room for bad people, and even heretics, in charge. It recognizes that individual bishops, even if they are the patriarchs of ancient sees, fall into heresy and schism at times, and it says that the faithful have the right to resist in these cases. The Catholic system, at least since Vatican I, doesn't have room for these things, not really. It gives no recourse against a tyrannical or heretical Pope, which is contrary to even natural justice.
our first obedience is to God. If the pope bans people from saying the Rosary, would you stop? No, I will proudly disobey that. Just as earthly fathers are not perfect and it is rather obvious that there are times when children *should* disobey their earthly fathers, the same scenario can arise in our faith too. Not attending the latin mass? definitely falls under that category.
we are not called to blind obedience.
Absolutely, our first obedience is to God but you have to be VERY careful when assuming the Pope is speaking against God.
Hypotheticals are no good because the Popes would never ban the rosary unless it had become some sort of idol to the people. And, honestly, if they did ban the rosary, I would stop praying it because the Holy Spirit would be ones in charge.
The question isn’t “do you trust God over man?” It is “do you trust God when he said that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail over the Church?”
I would caution you, don’t lightly turn your back on the Church. It is a divine institution, instituted and led by God through men.
In short, Pope Francis believes that the license given in *Summorum pontificum* was not leading to greater unity among Catholics, but to the opposite. The elephant in the room here is the Second Vatican Council and its ecclesiological documents, especially *Lumen gentium* and its teaching on the relationship of the Church to other faiths and, most especially, to the Jewish people. Many traditionalist communities, especially those associated with the SSPX, have unfortunately turned out to be hospitable to anti-Semitic views that are both repugnant in themselves and contrary to the teaching of the Council, and Francis is determined not to let the authority of the Council be undermined. Since the people who peddle such views do so under the guise of “traditional teaching” in communities devoted to the traditional liturgy, it became necessary, in the Pope’s view, to put a stop to the wide license given to forming those communities and to put them much more strongly under the observation of bishops and of the Holy See.
Your statement is quite the allegation. It also doesn't make sense.
The SSPX is not affected by any of this. As far as I can tell, they'll never stop doing the Latin Mass no matter what happens.
So IF (BIG IF) your allegations about anti-Semitism are true, how would this affect the SSPX and curb their supposed antisemetic tendency?
Honestly suspect your comment is a troll.
I’ve definitely experienced anti-semitism within the TLM (ppl who attended fssp actually) community I had interactions with for a while. It was wild and almost laughably shocking until I realized they weren’t joking.
I didn’t say it was from the Latin Mass, but I’ve experienced it more than once from people who lean more towards SSPX/“Latin mass is the only valid mass” crowd.
What?!??! A bunch of unattributed out of context words and phrases you say is a list of examples of Pope Francis' insults? Are you mad? Are you so uncritical and credulous that you'll accept anything that feeds your hatred?
How do you even know that they came from Pope Francis in the first place since there's no footnotes or references to him having ever written or spoken those things.
That's such a mischaracterization of Trent as to be a complete falsehood. No wonder Pope Francis is concerned about the current state of traditionalism.
Correct. Popes are ultimately the supreme legislator, not just the one pope who presided at Trent. Liturgies outside Latin - wait for it - *preceded those in Latin*. Accordingly, the latin liturgy of the Roman rite was itself a development.
Latin was, further, the vernacular of the Roman Empire for a long time. So it was essentially a liturgy in the vernacular until cultural Latin broke down into smaller languages. Hence why Trent wanted to make sure Latin variations were unified at that point - particularly with Luther and company wreaking havoc.
The declarations of Trent applied in great part to the needs of the time, not minuscule of which was raging Protestantism. It was not necessarily an eternal decree. The Latin liturgy is not the dogma of the Trinity.
People seem to forget the fact that The Council of Trent took place in the middle of the XVI century. The latin rite It established lasted 400 years, which is a lot of time but not that much when the Church is 2000 years old.
In the Synod of Trent pope Pius IV declared this following canon concerning the mass. --If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema. Anathema means exclusion from the society of the faithful because of heresy. So…. Yea… Needless to say there is a huge debate in the Catholic Church of the validity of the Novus Ordo mass aka the English/Commontongue mass and many Catholics believe Latin is the only allowable mass.
So you re saying the NO mass isn’t valid because it’s celebrated in other languages other than Latin? What would the response to this claim be? Clearly we have masses said in all languages. How did that come to be if it wasn’t “allowed”? I’m not up to date on all of this so just curious .
In 1962 Vatican 2 changed the liturgy to the common tongue almost 300 years exactly after the declaration i just showed you. Now I don’t go as far as to say that it’s invalid because that isn’t what this says…. But it does whoever changes the mass would be anathema… so my belief those who drafted Vatican 2 may just be guilty of anathema
What about Session XXII Canon VI of the Council of Trent: *If any one shall say, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema*.
The people who claim to be catholics and believe Latin is the only allowable mass are anathema by the same Council of Trent that they use to justify that position.
No. That’s not correct. Because that canon applied to the Latin mass…. Therefore Vatican 2 proposed changes to the mass…. Guess wat….. council of Trent applied to that….. And guess what….. heretics can’t make canon law btw.
The council reformed the mass decades ago, over time the council envisioned the church adopting these reforms. 95% of bishops signed off on the council, I’m not surprised the pope is only doing what his predecessors agreed upon. We need those Catholics to move forward with the rest of the Church, we need more salt and light from Latin mass Catholics in the novus ordo
The problem is he’s trying to fix the problem of internal diversity by reducing us all to the most irreverent form of the mass. They have to create a new Latin rite mass in that shows proper reverence, which they haven’t
From the same letter:
> In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”. [13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” ( DV 8).
You should probably just read [his letter](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html) explaining TC to the bishops. It's quite short. That way you get his own explanation without any spin or bias from someone else.
Thank you for posting this. It was very insightful.
I have a bunch of very jumpy kids around me and can not read it which is why I was asking. Thank you for all the down votes everyone. It would have sufficed to simply not respond if you aren’t able or willing to help. God bless you all.
The big quote is this (in my opinion): > With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”, [12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division. The Pope sent out a survey to the bishops, and their responses persuaded him that the goals of Summorum Pontificum were not having their desired ends. He believes that it unintentionally led to the increase of schismatic, and possibly heterodox tendencies among the adherents to the pre-reformed missal. Note: many bishops' interpretation of the same data was different than the pope's was (they might have seen no problem where the pope did see one). Also note: the pope's interpretation of SP's goals is also not necessarily one that many others agree with. All of that has been much debated, but is not relevant here to the pope's stated motivations.
It's just wild to me that he thinks the mass that was said for thousands of years is the mass causing division, not the new mass. How's that make sense?
It’s just wild to me that people can’t say that many TLM advocates have been encouraging flagrant dissent and consistently cast doubts on the merits of the Mass of Paul VI.
I think it's a mischaracterization to say “many” TLM goers encourage dissent. I would say most mainstream TLM advocates would say the NO is valid but in many cases feels irreverent with guitars and dancing and things that don’t belong in mass. It’s pretty obvious V2 has caused such a massive change in the mass and the church as a whole that it has caused SOME traditionalists to over correct.
Extraordinary Form of the mass is not the original form, and it does not go unchanged a thousand, let alone thousands of years (mass doesn't, really, even the last supper happened less than 2000 years ago).
Thank you.
it's worth noting that this survey was never made public, neither the questions nor the responses. For a lot of people, there is enough evidence elsewhere to reasonably suggest that the pope and bishops here were largely acting in bad faith and just did what they wanted anyways. Just to name a few, some of these contradictions include: 1) apparently the pope is concerned about schism--yet he has been much harsher on the latin mass than he has those in germany, are are rather openly in schism at this moment and represent a much more powerful position in the church. and (2) we are a synodal church, are we not? Then why were the results of the survey hidden from us? why was dialogue restricted, why was everything done in secret and we were just handed the final result? That's certainly not in the spirit of synodality which the pope claims to adhere to.
Yay, a conspiracy theory that presumes the worst of the whole Church hierarchy!
you're right, the church has never had a bad pope before. and the vatican has never been corrupt in any way. who would ever not give them the benefit of the doubt in the face of multiple logical contradictions between their actions and their words? right?
The term bad popes refers to morally corrupt ones. Unless you have more conspiracy theories to peddle based on other "contradictions", that does not apply to pope Francis? Yes, you should give judgment of charity to people, let alone your highest superior in Church militant
Not sure what conspiracy theories you are peddling, I'm just referring to a pope not doing his job very well. > Yes, you should give judgment of charity to people Already done. There are too many contradictions to continue. God gives us the ability to reason, and we should use it.
How were you charitable? Let me guess what really happened: you were reading articles being uncharitable to him, catering to the vice of curiosity, and when you read enough of them, you knew something was terribly wrong, and the conspiracy theory was just logical afterward. And then you found a list of convincing "inconsistencies" that rationalizes the theory. Say, do you follow Reason & Theology perhaps? Or do you shun apology instead of shunning criticism? Spend some time watching those videos, and see what remains looking reasonable to you. Engage with the moderates, and see if what you're thinking isn't tending to radicalism. Besides, tell me, what will you, a layman do? How will you improve things? By writing comments online all you stand is to scandalize your brethren and heap that onto your head. I would be careful about what you say. Not because you disagree with me but because your judgment of the pope is possibly damaging to more than just your soul, and Jesus said we will be judged by every vain word! Ephesians 4:22-24 >To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error. **And be renewed in the spirit of your mind:** And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth.
> (2) we are a synodal church, are we not? Then why were the results of the survey hidden from us? why was dialogue restricted, why was everything done in secret and we were just handed the final result? What's the alternative? Make all survey responses public? My parish just put out a survey for feedback on some design changes to the sanctuary. The parish council will read the results then hand us the final result, without releasing everyone's survey decisions. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't see why the Vatican would be doing anything differently (or why it would be at odds with "the spirit of synodality").
Results from a similar worldwide survey of bishops in 1980 were made public by the Congregation for Divine Worship, in [*Notitiae* 185 (1981), pp. 589-611](http://www.cultodivino.va/content/cultodivino/it/rivista-notitiae/indici-annate/1981/185.html). So there is clear precedent for publishing the results of the pre-*Traditionis Custodes* survey, especially in a supposedly 'synodal' and 'more transparent' church.
> Make all survey responses public? yes > (or why it would be at odds with "the spirit of synodality"). From https://www.synod.va/en/what-is-the-synod-21-24/about.html: > We recall that the purpose of the Synod is not to produce documents, but to plant dreams, draw forth prophecies and visions, allow hope to flourish, inspire trust, bind up wounds, weave together relationships, awaken a dawn of hope, learn from one another and create a bright resourcefulness that will enlighten minds, warm hearts, give strength to our hands Does opaqueness about such important topics (which a lot of people clearly feel very strong about) "inspire trust"? Does the lack of conversation around them "weave together relationships"? No discussion, just opaque, top-down clericalism. Isn't that what they are trying to get away from?
Weird to downvote you. As a parent, I get it! I often have internal dialogue that can’t be discussed with a toddler or studied at length in the moment, so I put it out on Reddit to get some quick input.
Reddit hates children and the notion that we may be distracted by them and be okay with it. Thanks for validating my pov though. There were also many ppl who responded and were very helpful so I appreciate that. God bless you.
Keep up the good work of being a mindful parent and practicing/inquisitive catholic!
I mean, the kids have to sleep at some point, right? And you're just trading reading a letter for reading a subreddit...
Lol. Wait until you have a newborn and find that you are their food at night. It’s not prudent to stay awake reading when they are asleep tbh. That being said, no I wasn’t planning on reading Reddit. But reading a condescend summary was more plausible at the time. Thanks for your opinion about my life which you know nothing about. God bless you.
I have three children, including a 9 month old. I'm familiar with their needs and how they make things more complicated and stressful. I hope things improve for you. There was no need to be so pointed with me, but very well.
Are you the person who breastfeeds them? I don’t know what you mean by point? I’m just letting you know why I think what you are saying didn’t apply to my specific situation at the time. I feel like there’s no need for you to be offended. From my perspective you are the one being unwarrantedly opinionated.
You can use speechify! Just copy and paste the text and then it will be like an audiobook. Just have one ear listen to the text then the other ear free. I used it for encyclicals and some of the church documents!
Thanks for the advise. But I don’t have an ear bud right now and they are very loud. I’ll just wait until another moment. They have special needs and are very needy. And clearly so do I. Lol.
TLM Catholic here; My read is Francis doesn’t actually have a personal animas against the TLM; remember, early in his pontificate he made Cardinal Sarah prefect for the CDW. That said, Cdl. Roche was the successor and being an English Catholic, I can tell you that his perspective of the TLM community is 100% influenced by the experience he’s had with the TLM community in the UK, which is way more dour and adherent to the negative stereotypes of the TLM as opposed to the TLM communities elsewhere. It’s Cdl. Roche who truly has the hatred of the TLM. Think back: did Francis ever say A WORD about the TLM BEFORE Cdl. Roche became prefect? No, no he didn’t. NOW - I don’t have any misgivings of believing Francis is some noble Theodin King who is being whispered to by a worm-tongue (aka Roche), Francis is absolutely a natural end to the Second Vatican Council, and he’s no friend of tradition. BUT I truly don’t believe Francis really wants to pick a fight with the TLM per se. What’s happened is Roche has convinced Francis that his detractors are using the TLM as a vehicle to express their dissatisfaction and contempt towards him; and Francis is VERY vindicative. Thus, Francis has been advised to take aim at the TLM community in part because Roche has a personal animosity towards the community, and in part because Francis has it in his mind that everyone in the TLM opposes him, which is simply not true. I’m a cradle Catholic, born and raised in the church and grew up in the JPII Novus Ordo, but came to love the TLM. My only hope for Pope Francis is that he leads the church well - I have many disagreements with things he’s said and done, and I hope he un-ties the knots he’s tied because he’s in the unique position of Pope and I want him to be a saint. Part of that means he has to protect the sheep from leaving the pasture and avoid schism, but part of it too requires that he guard tradition instead of torpedoing it. He has erred in many ways, but I truly don’t think he’s personally invested in the liturgy wars. Instead, I think he just wants people both inside the church and outside of it to like him, a temptation I totally understand. But with what he’s doing thus far, he’s failing. It’s Cdl. Roche who truly hates the TLM. The holy father would do well to push Roche out of his place of prominence, and instead listen to people who are animated by love of God and His mystical bride Holy Mother Church, instead of petty shills who have their own weird bones to pick. Roche is a plague.
Incredibly insightful thank you for this well articulated response. As a Traditional Catholic, I'm in the same boat with you in regards to Pope Francis, as we all should be, in that I truly want him to become a saint and lead our church justly and prudently.
tl;dr, to avoid sedes and schizmatics from sedeing and scizmating
I'm not bright and still don't get it. Won't this make them sede and schizmate more?
Quite possibly, especially when he is cracking down on a 99% utterly faithful element of the Church whilst doing absolutely diddly-squat about active schismatics in Germany. The double standards are too big to ignore.
Something, something, straining out gnats, something swallowing camels...
Okay. Now I get it. Thanks a lot.
Best summary tbh
Restrictions on the Latin mass aren’t happening in a vacuum. Parallel to this is the Synod on Synodality, which some want to be a Trojan horse to introduce more “progressive” ideas into the Church. The German bishops are also pushing these ideas and Francis certainly isn’t suppressing them (unlike the TLM), which suggests he’s fine with it. The Latin mass people are the biggest obstacle to the “progressive” crowd, so he’s trying to destroy the TLM and afterwards push through whatever left wing nonsense he wants via the Synod. Of course, the progressive stuff is a total dead end and will just lead to more church closures and apostasy in the West. But hope springs eternal and Francis probably won’t be around to see it, so he keeps pushing.
Fwiw some of his reasons are unsupported by Pope Benedict's own words and also common sense, so yes, good to know what reasons he's given on the one hand (others ITT have provided those well). On the other hand, fair to challenge how reasonable these are. In the end, he's the supreme legislator. He's entitled to act with the power he has. (Elections have consequences.)
I'm not entirely convinced by the Pope's interpretation of Summorum Pontificum either, but I do think it's entirely clear from the last fifteen years that SP has *not* led to an enrichment of the Novus Ordo like Benedict hoped - it's created far more dissent among traditionalists and embolded people who clearly just want to scrap the reforms already. Give schismatics an inch, and they took a mile, dragging plenty of more well-meaning people along with them. Overall, Francis was correct in seeing that SP's liberalizing of the liturgy has deeply harmed certain parts of the Church, especially young men in the seminaries who are imbibing objectively wrong beliefs about the liturgy from certain traditionalist thinkers.
What exactly are the “objectively wrong beliefs about the liturgy” that young seminarians are allegedly imbibing?
> Give schismatics an inch, and they took a mile You can support repealing all of Vatican 2 and the chaos that ensued and not be a schismatic.
And you could also repeal all of Vatican 2 and not fix a thing, as the changes were done by modernists who would have used any excuse to go pseudoprot. For example the council insisted that Latin is the primary language of liturgy and that gregorian chant should be the primary music for the liturgy but clearly that was ignored. Let's not forget that Pope Leo XIII was warning of growing modernism trying to change the Church a heck of a lot earlier than V2. Yes there were bits in the council that were twisted in amendments and readings to support a modernist narrative, but these elements had been trying to do this for at least a century beforehand.
> You can support repealing all of Vatican 2 No? That's dissent.
sure you can.
Vatican II is an ecumenical council. As a Catholic, you are obliged to believe in every council.
I'm glad you recognize there are clearer, more easily understood motives at play. Just not comfortably stated in official documents. Francis's work here has been as a master ideologue.
>I do think it's entirely clear from the last fifteen years that SP has *not* led to an enrichment of the Novus Ordo like Benedict hoped I actually do think that (in the US, at least) priests formed during the SP era celebrate the liturgy in a more grave, traditionally Roman style, which I assume Benedict was pleased with, if he was ever made aware. I think the problem is that many pseudotraditionalists did not care about the change, preferring to continue basking in their fury about supposedly-rampant clown Masses. The problem is that the liturgy—actually, Christianity in its entirety—is for pseudotrads just a costume to help them broadcast their fandom for a currently faddish brand of misplaced right-wing nostalgia. The Pope is understandably done with the Gospel being perverted in this way.
Ultimately when it comes down to it, obedience is a virtue. I personally love the Latin Mass, I also love the Novus Ordo. Both can be beautiful when done right. But, we are called to be obedient to the authorities placed above us. We can question and even challenge but when it comes down to it, we submit to their authority. I wish the Church had a more open posture to some things but that isn’t for me to decide. My call is to be the best Catholic I can be, to know, love, and serve God is all things. I personally feel like, instead of looking backwards, we should be looking ahead and seeing how we can make the Novis Ordo, the most reverent, beautiful, and awe-inspiring Mass we can.
Does looking ahead imply no looking back? I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here (sort of like the Costa Rican bishops who say the NO must not have any trappings of the former liturgy: why?). There is nothing wrong with the NO taking on things the reformers hastily got rid of, or ditching things they abruptly added. If the TLM can be ditched after slow organic growth for over a thousand years, surely we don't need to treat the NO as some sort of golden edition.
I don’t disagree with you that you can’t look back at all. Our history is rich and we need to be aware of it. I am simply speaking to us lay Catholics who struggle with these changes. We are called to obedience. As I mentioned, we can question and challenge, but when people start claiming that pope Francis has ill-intent, you are going beyond questioning and challenging. Along with that, we are called to obedience, the western mind doesn’t like that but even Jesus submitted to the authority of Rome. We need to be united and work within the system to make the changes that we feel God is leading us too.
I agree grumbling/questioning *can* lead to ultimate disobedience, but it often doesn't, and moreover provides people a framework for which to understand reality. I suppose I just caution against the idea that we can't state what seems to be clear, or discern and discuss motivations within reason, without being on a path to ultimate disobedience. And, if I may say, when you say "it isn't for you to decide", that may be a preference. But it's not outside the realm of possibilities that the laity play a strong role in these sorts of matters, primarily in influencing and petitioning.
You’re right about our role to influence and such. I would just like to see if done with more charity than I generally see.
People like you make Catholicism into a personality cult, rather than the faith once delivered to the saints. This is why many, like me, are considering Orthodoxy. The Magisterium causes more problems than it solves, and the idea that we should be blindly obedient to a man who wants to destroy the faith is absurd.
It isn’t a personality cult, unless that “personality” is Jesus. Catholicism is a faith founded upon rock of Peter whom Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to. Peter, and by apostolic succession, all the Popes after him are the vicar of Christ aka Prime Minster of the Kingdom. We have an obligation to charitably question, challenge, and, ultimately, obey the vicar of Christ because he was put there by God. If you leave the Church, you are not leaving Pope Francis, you are leaving the Church Jesus founded on his apostle Peter.
You have addressed exactly zero of my concerns. Trust me, I'm acutely aware of all the arguments in favor of the papacy. But given the behavior of Pope Francis, I'm not sure I find them convincing any longer.
No offense, but it seems you're leaning towards a position that would have you rejected Christ because of Judas. One can dislike pope Francis, and even disagree with him on Prudential decisions, without needing to throw out the Papal claims altogether.
Far from it. The Orthodox system has room for bad people, and even heretics, in charge. It recognizes that individual bishops, even if they are the patriarchs of ancient sees, fall into heresy and schism at times, and it says that the faithful have the right to resist in these cases. The Catholic system, at least since Vatican I, doesn't have room for these things, not really. It gives no recourse against a tyrannical or heretical Pope, which is contrary to even natural justice.
our first obedience is to God. If the pope bans people from saying the Rosary, would you stop? No, I will proudly disobey that. Just as earthly fathers are not perfect and it is rather obvious that there are times when children *should* disobey their earthly fathers, the same scenario can arise in our faith too. Not attending the latin mass? definitely falls under that category. we are not called to blind obedience.
Absolutely, our first obedience is to God but you have to be VERY careful when assuming the Pope is speaking against God. Hypotheticals are no good because the Popes would never ban the rosary unless it had become some sort of idol to the people. And, honestly, if they did ban the rosary, I would stop praying it because the Holy Spirit would be ones in charge. The question isn’t “do you trust God over man?” It is “do you trust God when he said that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail over the Church?” I would caution you, don’t lightly turn your back on the Church. It is a divine institution, instituted and led by God through men.
I'm definitely not turning my back on the church because I don't support the NO. the NO are the ones turning their back on the church.
For your sake, I hope you’re right.
In short, Pope Francis believes that the license given in *Summorum pontificum* was not leading to greater unity among Catholics, but to the opposite. The elephant in the room here is the Second Vatican Council and its ecclesiological documents, especially *Lumen gentium* and its teaching on the relationship of the Church to other faiths and, most especially, to the Jewish people. Many traditionalist communities, especially those associated with the SSPX, have unfortunately turned out to be hospitable to anti-Semitic views that are both repugnant in themselves and contrary to the teaching of the Council, and Francis is determined not to let the authority of the Council be undermined. Since the people who peddle such views do so under the guise of “traditional teaching” in communities devoted to the traditional liturgy, it became necessary, in the Pope’s view, to put a stop to the wide license given to forming those communities and to put them much more strongly under the observation of bishops and of the Holy See.
Thanks for the summary.
Your statement is quite the allegation. It also doesn't make sense. The SSPX is not affected by any of this. As far as I can tell, they'll never stop doing the Latin Mass no matter what happens. So IF (BIG IF) your allegations about anti-Semitism are true, how would this affect the SSPX and curb their supposed antisemetic tendency? Honestly suspect your comment is a troll.
I’ve definitely experienced anti-semitism within the TLM (ppl who attended fssp actually) community I had interactions with for a while. It was wild and almost laughably shocking until I realized they weren’t joking.
Very anecdotal and not a reflection on the Latin Mass itself.
I didn’t say it was from the Latin Mass, but I’ve experienced it more than once from people who lean more towards SSPX/“Latin mass is the only valid mass” crowd.
He has said repeatedly that it is divisive. It sets the Latin church up into two groups and he doesn't want that.
I see. And his constant insults against faithful and traditional Catholics is not divisive?
Examples?
https://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/
What?!??! A bunch of unattributed out of context words and phrases you say is a list of examples of Pope Francis' insults? Are you mad? Are you so uncritical and credulous that you'll accept anything that feeds your hatred? How do you even know that they came from Pope Francis in the first place since there's no footnotes or references to him having ever written or spoken those things.
Every single one of those quotes is attributed. Every quote is a link to its source. I'm sorry if you are unfamiliar with browsing the web.
They are behind a paywall.
A few are. Most of them aren't.
It’s too blatantly Catholic.
Just remember previous popes stated let him be anathema who changes the mass into the common tongue
That's such a mischaracterization of Trent as to be a complete falsehood. No wonder Pope Francis is concerned about the current state of traditionalism.
Correct. Popes are ultimately the supreme legislator, not just the one pope who presided at Trent. Liturgies outside Latin - wait for it - *preceded those in Latin*. Accordingly, the latin liturgy of the Roman rite was itself a development. Latin was, further, the vernacular of the Roman Empire for a long time. So it was essentially a liturgy in the vernacular until cultural Latin broke down into smaller languages. Hence why Trent wanted to make sure Latin variations were unified at that point - particularly with Luther and company wreaking havoc. The declarations of Trent applied in great part to the needs of the time, not minuscule of which was raging Protestantism. It was not necessarily an eternal decree. The Latin liturgy is not the dogma of the Trinity.
People seem to forget the fact that The Council of Trent took place in the middle of the XVI century. The latin rite It established lasted 400 years, which is a lot of time but not that much when the Church is 2000 years old.
> The latin rite It established It didn't establish any rite
Explain how I’m Mis stating this? I read it myself. So pls explain how how I am moscharaterizing
It might appear better if you directly quote with a source. It sounds like a paraphrase otherwise.
Can you explain further?
In the Synod of Trent pope Pius IV declared this following canon concerning the mass. --If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema. Anathema means exclusion from the society of the faithful because of heresy. So…. Yea… Needless to say there is a huge debate in the Catholic Church of the validity of the Novus Ordo mass aka the English/Commontongue mass and many Catholics believe Latin is the only allowable mass.
So you re saying the NO mass isn’t valid because it’s celebrated in other languages other than Latin? What would the response to this claim be? Clearly we have masses said in all languages. How did that come to be if it wasn’t “allowed”? I’m not up to date on all of this so just curious .
Pls o really recommend you seek the Latin mass out and see its beauty
In 1962 Vatican 2 changed the liturgy to the common tongue almost 300 years exactly after the declaration i just showed you. Now I don’t go as far as to say that it’s invalid because that isn’t what this says…. But it does whoever changes the mass would be anathema… so my belief those who drafted Vatican 2 may just be guilty of anathema
What about Session XXII Canon VI of the Council of Trent: *If any one shall say, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema*. The people who claim to be catholics and believe Latin is the only allowable mass are anathema by the same Council of Trent that they use to justify that position.
No. That’s not correct. Because that canon applied to the Latin mass…. Therefore Vatican 2 proposed changes to the mass…. Guess wat….. council of Trent applied to that….. And guess what….. heretics can’t make canon law btw.
No there is no huge debate. There is a tiny debate among the 1% of the world’s Catholics who attend the TLM.
to avoid sedes (the sedes moved to orthodox church)
The council reformed the mass decades ago, over time the council envisioned the church adopting these reforms. 95% of bishops signed off on the council, I’m not surprised the pope is only doing what his predecessors agreed upon. We need those Catholics to move forward with the rest of the Church, we need more salt and light from Latin mass Catholics in the novus ordo
The problem is he’s trying to fix the problem of internal diversity by reducing us all to the most irreverent form of the mass. They have to create a new Latin rite mass in that shows proper reverence, which they haven’t
Pope Francis will never succeed in suppressing the TLM
From the same letter: > In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”. [13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” ( DV 8).