This is all very good for the missal and the mass, and I'd be even more delighted to hear similar arguments for the other sacraments.
I know of a diocesan church where the TLM is permitted (praise God), but the faithful are not allowed to be shriven in the old rite, or wed in the old rite, or have their infants baptized in the old rite. It would be nice to get some arguments in favor of those sacraments, too.
Thank you once again for these increasingly-clear clarifications of the Truth. With each passing day I see more plainly how our earthly lives driven by this bewildering dichotomy of the Truth striving for its rightful freedom against the crushing legalism of the world, flesh and devil (a cause too readily taken up by the ones responsible for the freedom of Truth..).
And this realization is always followed up in my mind with the "clincher" colloquial summation of the whole N.O. paradigm: "But he hasn't anything on!", said the little boy about the emperor's new clothes. It's all a massive deception by the anti-Christ forces of the world, putting the Church in the position of the obsequious emperor.
I read so much about how emasculated the Novus Ordo mass is, how theologically bereft, how protestant it has become. And yet, here I am, with virtually no access to the TLM, stuck with the Novus Ordo if I want to receive the Eucharist. As I found myself getting every more despairing and negative I had to come to terms with the fact that the Lord has placed me in this time and place with this bishop, these priests, and this mass.
Three years ago I attended my first mass in what is now my parish church. My wife and I had decided, after decades of practicing non-christian meditation, that we would give christianity a try. The liberal churches were too woke, the evangelical rock bands and big screens didn’t seem to have much to do with spirituality, the mainstream protestant churches were even more woke. So we gave in and went to mass. The Polish priest with an innate flare for ritual held up the host at the consecration—and kept it raised for what seemed like a heavenly eternity—and I became Catholic at that moment. The following year I came formally into the Church and have never looked back.
I learned a lot about the Church—the richness, truth, beauty, and power of the tradition and the ever worsening problems in the institution. At the same time, our parish experienced a series of losses: both of our reverent, orthodox Polish priests were transferred, the long-time music director retired, Latin was banned from the liturgy (previously the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei were in Latin with Gregorian chant), the statue of St. Michael was removed from the church (two years later the pedestal is still empty), the St. Michael prayer was now said after the priest had left (leaving us without a leader), incense is hardly ever used, no kneelers are allowed for communion, the number of altar boys is limited—it’s as if there is a fear of devotional symbols and sacramentals. If there were a TLM within striking distance, that’s where I’d be.
But here I am. So I have had to surrender to the Novus Ordo mass and its place in my devotional life. Regardless of how mangled the calendar has become or how many challenging passages have been eliminated I have had to realize that the readings and the psalms are truly and fully scripture; the prayers, whether inspired or banal are true prayers; the music aspires to heaven even if it falls short; the faithful are worshipping the Lord in the best way they can, their intentions are worthy; and the Eucharist is the real presence of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ Our Lord.
I pray that some day the climate will change and the TLM will be not only permitted, but allowed back into parish churches and even encouraged. Until then I must be grateful that I still have access to the sacraments and put forth the effort to understand them in their traditional fullness.
I should add that if I were just checking out our parish today for the first time, I would not likely have entered the church, given how bland the liturgy has become. On the other hand, it's still better than the formerly rainbow-masked pastor at the very large and popular Methodist church down the street.....
Dr. K, I think you are right in your assertions, and I agree that priests and bishops should thoroughly review all the evidence. Courage seems to be in short supply. That said, I can imagine the response from priests going something like this (and understandably so): "Fine and well for you, Mr. (Dr.) Layman, to trot out answers from theology and canon law books. However, you are not the one who has to deal with my bishop, a man who can make my life a living hell to the extent of de facto canceling the priestly ministry granted me at ordination." How do you respond to that?
Each priest will have to decide the level at which he is willing to commit himself to the truth of the Roman Rite. (I assume we are talking here about a priest who has received the grace of experiencing tradition as a powerful force for good, both for himself and for the faithful.)
At very least, he should continue to offer the Old Mass in private, for no bishop could ever have authority to prohibit it. He should also offer the old-rite sacraments discreetly to laity who request them.
But we also need priests who continue to offer the Old Mass and the traditional sacramental rites in public, calmly and with a clear conscience, regardless of what their bishop may do to them. As I've explained elsewhere on this Substack, that's how the tradition survived in the darkest days of the 1970s. If there had not been clergy willing to endure a canonical no-man's-land, we would never have had Summorum Pontificum.
The seminary used most by our diocese only offers two courses in Latin, and these are electives only.... If a priest wants to learn the TLM they have to find a way on their own....
Nowadays, in the age of the internet you don't need a local course. You can learn it yourself. All the resources you need are online. You just have to want to.
Wrong "peter" responding here, but this would be my response: a clear conscience.
As an analogy, I don't need to confess (sacramentally or professionally) eating a cheeseburger on Monday, even if my boss has forbidden it; because there's nothing wrong with eating a cheeseburger on Monday, whatever my boss says.
Just so, as a priest, if there's nothing wrong with saying the TLM, and my Bishop has no authority to command otherwise, then I don't have to confess it sacramentally or professionally.
A priest's first and really only duty is to offer Sacrifice, hence the term PRIEST, not to put on a show that everybody likes on Sunday. And they must offer it in the way that is most pleasing to God. And of course if he does that he will face obstacles. But that's the way it is. There's more to life than having a nice parish assignment.
But my point is, that's easy for you to say. Like it or not, the bishop is the bishop. Maybe the bishop's actions are unjust (they frequently are) but he has the whip hand. There was a line from the fine movie "Bridge of Spies" where Mark Rylance's character says "the boss isn't always right but he's always the boss."
Actually the boss is Our Lord. He will be the One who judges them and decrees their fate for all eternity, not the guy who happens to be temporarily sitting in the bishop's chair at the present moment.
You're being argumentative. And you're right even when you're wrong: The Lord is the judge, not you, even though you act like you are. As laymen, I don't think we can fully understand the pressures and struggles priests go through. I have my own salvation to work out.
Because I've never gone through any stress or pressure in my life. Give me a break. We need to stop babying these guys. They need to man up and do their jobs.
You're all heart, as well as self-assured to the point of pridefulness. No doubt you will feel the need to have the last word, so I'll just say your comments lend an unpleasant tinge to Dr. K's Substack. Have a nice weekend there in Barad-Dur.
Unfortunately many bishops and cardinals for example Cardinal Cupich in Chicago won't allow the Institute of Christ the King say the TLM in public (I assume they are still able to say it in private) and will not allow St John Cantius to use the 1962 missal for mass on feast days like Christmas, Easter, etc.
To answer the question posed by the article: yes a priest does require faculties to offer Mass publicly.
In the absence of legitimate authority such as when the supposed Bishop and those in neighbouring dioceses and even the Papal claimant are public heretics and have no authority due to tacit resignation of office one might invoke the principle of Epikeia to substitute for faculties but whether this can be legitimately done over the long term is yet to be determined.
Also, the Pope is the living rule of faith. If he institutes a new liturgy then the faithful are bound to follow him. However, a doubtful Pope like Montini is no Pope at all and there is no duty to obey him anything.
How hopeful (and surprising) this all sounds. My relief that Paul VI a) never promulgated the NO and merely wished it be celebrated and b) never abrogated the Usus Antiquior is matched by my worry that some later pope (present or future) might have it in his heart yet to do what Paul VI never did…So I now wonder, is my worry answered by the one Cardinal quoted from the nine, who said in fact Paul VI “could not” abrogate the Old Mass because it had always been valid and ancient? I think the post’s arguments are pretty convincing about what Paul VI never did, but can anyone establish it could not be done? Or perhaps to do so would unwisely provoke a hyperpapalist response.
I'm reminded of the Holy Father's grant of faculties to the SSPX, and in charity I'll assert the Jubilee act was genuinely charitable, but nonetheless quite utterly redundant.
Has anyone written on the fact that the Novus Ordo was designed to remove any obstacle to Protestants (Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19th, 1965)? In other in other words, it was designed to obscure the nature of the Mass, that it is a Sacrifice, and truths of the Faith, such as Transubstantiation and the Real Presence. It has been wildly successful, as demonstrated by the fact that some 70% of those who attend it no longer believe in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist . It is the embodiment and instrument of the Modernist coup in the Church. Although the Novus Ordo is valid by its fingertips, those who attend it are for the most part and largely through no fault of their own no longer Catholics.
It's maddening how they abuse the faith of the laity. Excuse a secular comparison. A first year Business School student could explain how wrecking your "brand" is going to drive away "customers" and destroy the enterprise.
This is all very good for the missal and the mass, and I'd be even more delighted to hear similar arguments for the other sacraments.
I know of a diocesan church where the TLM is permitted (praise God), but the faithful are not allowed to be shriven in the old rite, or wed in the old rite, or have their infants baptized in the old rite. It would be nice to get some arguments in favor of those sacraments, too.
The same or similar arguments can be made for the other sacramental rites.
Thank you once again for these increasingly-clear clarifications of the Truth. With each passing day I see more plainly how our earthly lives driven by this bewildering dichotomy of the Truth striving for its rightful freedom against the crushing legalism of the world, flesh and devil (a cause too readily taken up by the ones responsible for the freedom of Truth..).
And this realization is always followed up in my mind with the "clincher" colloquial summation of the whole N.O. paradigm: "But he hasn't anything on!", said the little boy about the emperor's new clothes. It's all a massive deception by the anti-Christ forces of the world, putting the Church in the position of the obsequious emperor.
Indeed!
A defensive defense of the Novus Ordo mass
I read so much about how emasculated the Novus Ordo mass is, how theologically bereft, how protestant it has become. And yet, here I am, with virtually no access to the TLM, stuck with the Novus Ordo if I want to receive the Eucharist. As I found myself getting every more despairing and negative I had to come to terms with the fact that the Lord has placed me in this time and place with this bishop, these priests, and this mass.
Three years ago I attended my first mass in what is now my parish church. My wife and I had decided, after decades of practicing non-christian meditation, that we would give christianity a try. The liberal churches were too woke, the evangelical rock bands and big screens didn’t seem to have much to do with spirituality, the mainstream protestant churches were even more woke. So we gave in and went to mass. The Polish priest with an innate flare for ritual held up the host at the consecration—and kept it raised for what seemed like a heavenly eternity—and I became Catholic at that moment. The following year I came formally into the Church and have never looked back.
I learned a lot about the Church—the richness, truth, beauty, and power of the tradition and the ever worsening problems in the institution. At the same time, our parish experienced a series of losses: both of our reverent, orthodox Polish priests were transferred, the long-time music director retired, Latin was banned from the liturgy (previously the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei were in Latin with Gregorian chant), the statue of St. Michael was removed from the church (two years later the pedestal is still empty), the St. Michael prayer was now said after the priest had left (leaving us without a leader), incense is hardly ever used, no kneelers are allowed for communion, the number of altar boys is limited—it’s as if there is a fear of devotional symbols and sacramentals. If there were a TLM within striking distance, that’s where I’d be.
But here I am. So I have had to surrender to the Novus Ordo mass and its place in my devotional life. Regardless of how mangled the calendar has become or how many challenging passages have been eliminated I have had to realize that the readings and the psalms are truly and fully scripture; the prayers, whether inspired or banal are true prayers; the music aspires to heaven even if it falls short; the faithful are worshipping the Lord in the best way they can, their intentions are worthy; and the Eucharist is the real presence of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ Our Lord.
I pray that some day the climate will change and the TLM will be not only permitted, but allowed back into parish churches and even encouraged. Until then I must be grateful that I still have access to the sacraments and put forth the effort to understand them in their traditional fullness.
I should add that if I were just checking out our parish today for the first time, I would not likely have entered the church, given how bland the liturgy has become. On the other hand, it's still better than the formerly rainbow-masked pastor at the very large and popular Methodist church down the street.....
Dr. K, I think you are right in your assertions, and I agree that priests and bishops should thoroughly review all the evidence. Courage seems to be in short supply. That said, I can imagine the response from priests going something like this (and understandably so): "Fine and well for you, Mr. (Dr.) Layman, to trot out answers from theology and canon law books. However, you are not the one who has to deal with my bishop, a man who can make my life a living hell to the extent of de facto canceling the priestly ministry granted me at ordination." How do you respond to that?
Each priest will have to decide the level at which he is willing to commit himself to the truth of the Roman Rite. (I assume we are talking here about a priest who has received the grace of experiencing tradition as a powerful force for good, both for himself and for the faithful.)
At very least, he should continue to offer the Old Mass in private, for no bishop could ever have authority to prohibit it. He should also offer the old-rite sacraments discreetly to laity who request them.
But we also need priests who continue to offer the Old Mass and the traditional sacramental rites in public, calmly and with a clear conscience, regardless of what their bishop may do to them. As I've explained elsewhere on this Substack, that's how the tradition survived in the darkest days of the 1970s. If there had not been clergy willing to endure a canonical no-man's-land, we would never have had Summorum Pontificum.
More here:
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/bloodbath-in-tyler-why-and-how-traditional
The seminary used most by our diocese only offers two courses in Latin, and these are electives only.... If a priest wants to learn the TLM they have to find a way on their own....
Nowadays, in the age of the internet you don't need a local course. You can learn it yourself. All the resources you need are online. You just have to want to.
Wrong "peter" responding here, but this would be my response: a clear conscience.
As an analogy, I don't need to confess (sacramentally or professionally) eating a cheeseburger on Monday, even if my boss has forbidden it; because there's nothing wrong with eating a cheeseburger on Monday, whatever my boss says.
Just so, as a priest, if there's nothing wrong with saying the TLM, and my Bishop has no authority to command otherwise, then I don't have to confess it sacramentally or professionally.
A priest's first and really only duty is to offer Sacrifice, hence the term PRIEST, not to put on a show that everybody likes on Sunday. And they must offer it in the way that is most pleasing to God. And of course if he does that he will face obstacles. But that's the way it is. There's more to life than having a nice parish assignment.
But my point is, that's easy for you to say. Like it or not, the bishop is the bishop. Maybe the bishop's actions are unjust (they frequently are) but he has the whip hand. There was a line from the fine movie "Bridge of Spies" where Mark Rylance's character says "the boss isn't always right but he's always the boss."
Actually the boss is Our Lord. He will be the One who judges them and decrees their fate for all eternity, not the guy who happens to be temporarily sitting in the bishop's chair at the present moment.
You're being argumentative. And you're right even when you're wrong: The Lord is the judge, not you, even though you act like you are. As laymen, I don't think we can fully understand the pressures and struggles priests go through. I have my own salvation to work out.
Because I've never gone through any stress or pressure in my life. Give me a break. We need to stop babying these guys. They need to man up and do their jobs.
You're all heart, as well as self-assured to the point of pridefulness. No doubt you will feel the need to have the last word, so I'll just say your comments lend an unpleasant tinge to Dr. K's Substack. Have a nice weekend there in Barad-Dur.
Unfortunately many bishops and cardinals for example Cardinal Cupich in Chicago won't allow the Institute of Christ the King say the TLM in public (I assume they are still able to say it in private) and will not allow St John Cantius to use the 1962 missal for mass on feast days like Christmas, Easter, etc.
To answer the question posed by the article: yes a priest does require faculties to offer Mass publicly.
In the absence of legitimate authority such as when the supposed Bishop and those in neighbouring dioceses and even the Papal claimant are public heretics and have no authority due to tacit resignation of office one might invoke the principle of Epikeia to substitute for faculties but whether this can be legitimately done over the long term is yet to be determined.
Also, the Pope is the living rule of faith. If he institutes a new liturgy then the faithful are bound to follow him. However, a doubtful Pope like Montini is no Pope at all and there is no duty to obey him anything.
How hopeful (and surprising) this all sounds. My relief that Paul VI a) never promulgated the NO and merely wished it be celebrated and b) never abrogated the Usus Antiquior is matched by my worry that some later pope (present or future) might have it in his heart yet to do what Paul VI never did…So I now wonder, is my worry answered by the one Cardinal quoted from the nine, who said in fact Paul VI “could not” abrogate the Old Mass because it had always been valid and ancient? I think the post’s arguments are pretty convincing about what Paul VI never did, but can anyone establish it could not be done? Or perhaps to do so would unwisely provoke a hyperpapalist response.
I'm reminded of the Holy Father's grant of faculties to the SSPX, and in charity I'll assert the Jubilee act was genuinely charitable, but nonetheless quite utterly redundant.
Has anyone written on the fact that the Novus Ordo was designed to remove any obstacle to Protestants (Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19th, 1965)? In other in other words, it was designed to obscure the nature of the Mass, that it is a Sacrifice, and truths of the Faith, such as Transubstantiation and the Real Presence. It has been wildly successful, as demonstrated by the fact that some 70% of those who attend it no longer believe in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist . It is the embodiment and instrument of the Modernist coup in the Church. Although the Novus Ordo is valid by its fingertips, those who attend it are for the most part and largely through no fault of their own no longer Catholics.
It's maddening how they abuse the faith of the laity. Excuse a secular comparison. A first year Business School student could explain how wrecking your "brand" is going to drive away "customers" and destroy the enterprise.