How will Pope Francis impact traditionalists?

[Thomas_Casey]

Please stay on topic

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps Pope Francis will impact traditionalists by helping them to see and appreciate the beauties of a simpler, unelaborate Mass.

I remember almost the same thing being told in the 60’s.

And even several months ago when it was rumored that the EF would be undergoing changes.

 

[Sister_Terese]

Call me naive, but I’m not sure I understand what the concern is.

First, the man has not been pope a week.

Second, whatever he does we just have to live with it. He’s the pope. We’re not. End of story.

I was watching an interview on the news. It was a sister and a Protestant minister. They journalists were asking the same question. “Where is this pope leading the Church and what do you think he’s going to focus on?” Something like that . . .

The Protestant gave a rather simple answer. The sister went on and on. I just sat there and thought to myself, why would a religious even speculate. I can see a non-Catholic, because the idea of a pope, obedience, and authority of the Holy See is a foreign country to them. But it should not be foreign territory for a sister or any Catholic for that matter. We have 2,000 years of experience with the papacy. We know that no two popes are alike. The each have their style and their agenda. At the end of the day, whatever we want or don’t want may or may not happen and we have no power over that. So why dwell on it?

I remember something that Archbishop DiNoia said not too long ago. I’ll paraphrase, because I don’t have the quote. The subject was Vatican II and the SSPX. He said something to the effect that it was incomprehensible to him that the SSPX or anyone should be having such a problem with Vatican II. He went on to explain how in a Dominican priory this was a non-issue. You do as the Church says and you focus on the duty of the day. You don’t spend time thinking theology.

I also remember something that someone posted here. The poster had visited a Cistercian house. The monks said something to the effect that they do not think theology, because it interferes with the life of faith.

Last night, I saw a program with Dr. Martin and Dr. Hahn. Both said the same thing. If you want to live the faith, don’t think theology, don’t think liturgy, don’t think law, just be faithful to the sacraments, to the moral teaching of the Church and to charity.

During my weekly lesson to the brothers, I told them that they don’t own the pope. They don’t pay his salary. They don’t bind and unbind. Only the pope does. It is a waste of their energy and time to try to second-guess what the man is thinking.

As I said, call me naive; maybe we’re doing too much second guessing. It’s fun to try to guess what the other player is going to do. As long as we keep in mind that this is only a mental exercise, not a real issue, because we have no real control, then we’re fine. The minute that we take the fun out of it and make it a real concern, our blood pressure is going to rise.

Your comments are well thought out. Any knowledgeable Catholic knows that the Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals and ONLY when he speaks ex-cathedra. I must also mention that many of the abuses which were borne of Vatican II, were propagated by those who claimed (and still claim) that the Catholic Church needed to change–“reform”. Then they proceeded to piece by piece begin the dismantling of Church teachings. Nowhere in the Vatican II documents did it recommend that the Mass be put in the vernacular. Nowhere in the Vatican II documents did it recommend the Mass be said with the altar turned around. Nowhere in the documents does it recommend Holy Communion in the hand. Nowhere in Vatican II was it stated that nuns and sisters should remove their habits. It called for simple modifications. These and many more things came about as abuses such as altar girls. In your everyday Catholic parish on Sundays, there is a parade of 20-30 Extraordinary Ministers to the point where the priest sits while Holy Communion (under both Species–which is also an abuse) is “distributed” by lay people. And then they parade through the Church to “purify” the Sacred Vessels–which are to be handled ONLY by those ordained to the priesthood. All of these practices came from blatant disobedience despite the Holy Fathers’ continual attempts at correcting these abuses. And, things have gotten even worse lately. No better way than to render the Church’s Holiest ritual, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, into secular hootnannies. If you’ve ever been to a Novus Ordo Mass said in accordance to the actual documents/rubrics of Vatican II, It is almost indistinguishable from the Tridentine. But that is not what we see in our everyday parishes on Sundays. I love our Holy Father. I have great hope and faith in the Catholic Church’s mission and Truth. My point here is that for many Traditionalists, they have suffered greatly during the years following Vatican II–NOT because of Vatican II, but because the floodgates of error followed it. These people love their Faith and their Church. We have fought hard these past 48 years to restore the Church’s orthodoxy and Sacred Traditions that so many have seen fit to discard.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Your comments are well thought out. Any knowledgeable Catholic knows that the Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals and ONLY when he speaks ex-cathedra. I must also mention that many of the abuses which were borne of Vatican II, were propagated by those who claimed (and still claim) that the Catholic Church needed to change–“reform”. Then they proceeded to piece by piece begin the dismantling of Church teachings. Nowhere in the Vatican II documents did it recommend that the Mass be put in the vernacular. Nowhere in the Vatican II documents did it recommend the Mass be said with the altar turned around. Nowhere in the documents does it recommend Holy Communion in the hand. Nowhere in Vatican II was it stated that nuns and sisters should remove their habits. It called for simple modifications. These and many more things came about as abuses such as altar girls. In your everyday Catholic parish on Sundays, there is a parade of 20-30 Extraordinary Ministers to the point where the priest sits while Holy Communion (under both Species–which is also an abuse) is “distributed” by lay people. And then they parade through the Church to “purify” the Sacred Vessels–which are to be handled ONLY by those ordained to the priesthood. All of these practices came from blatant disobedience despite the Holy Fathers’ continual attempts at correcting these abuses. And, things have gotten even worse lately. No better way than to render the Church’s Holiest ritual, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, into secular hootnannies. If you’ve ever been to a Novus Ordo Mass said in accordance to the actual documents/rubrics of Vatican II, It is almost indistinguishable from the Tridentine. But that is not what we see in our everyday parishes on Sundays. I love our Holy Father. I have great hope and faith in the Catholic Church’s mission and Truth. My point here is that for many Traditionalists, they have suffered greatly during the years following Vatican II–NOT because of Vatican II, but because the floodgates of error followed it. These people love their Faith and their Church. We have fought hard these past 48 years to restore the Church’s orthodoxy and Sacred Traditions that so many have seen fit to discard.

Sister, you lost me. I’m not sure how your post responds to my post. Thank you for any clarification that you can offer.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Laity still can’t “force” a bishop to let them have the EF in their diocese.

But I thought that Pope Benedict made it so that the parish priest does not need to seek the approval of the Diocese any longer to have an EF Mass. Such decisions can be made at the parish level. That’swhat I read anyway.

 

[JReducation]

But I thought that Pope Benedict made it so that the parish priest does not need to seek the approval of the Diocese any longer to have an EF Mass. Such decisions can be made at the parish level. That’swhat I read anyway.

There has to be a coordination between the bishop and the priest. For example, the priest cannot say more than one mass without the permission of the local bishop. In most dioceses, there is a blanket permission for two, because of the shortage of priests.

However, if the priest wants to celebrate a third mass in order to get in an EF, then he must coordinate with the bishop. If he wants to drop regular parish mass to put in an EF mass, it cannot inconvenience the parish schedule. If it does, the bishop has to be brought in on it. Pastors don’t have permission to change mass schedules without the permission of the chancery. The chancellor usually deals with these issues.

If the priest is a regular priest, he must have the permission of his superior. The superior cannot grant permission without the permission of his brothers. The brothers cannot grant the permission unless it’s allowed by the rule or the constitutions of the community.

 

[Cat]

Call me naive, but I’m not sure I understand what the concern is.

First, the man has not been pope a week.

Second, whatever he does we just have to live with it. He’s the pope. We’re not. End of story.

I was watching an interview on the news. It was a sister and a Protestant minister. They journalists were asking the same question. “Where is this pope leading the Church and what do you think he’s going to focus on?” Something like that . . .

The Protestant gave a rather simple answer. The sister went on and on. I just sat there and thought to myself, why would a religious even speculate. I can see a non-Catholic, because the idea of a pope, obedience, and authority of the Holy See is a foreign country to them. But it should not be foreign territory for a sister or any Catholic for that matter. We have 2,000 years of experience with the papacy. We know that no two popes are alike. The each have their style and their agenda. At the end of the day, whatever we want or don’t want may or may not happen and we have no power over that. So why dwell on it?

I remember something that Archbishop DiNoia said not too long ago. I’ll paraphrase, because I don’t have the quote. The subject was Vatican II and the SSPX. He said something to the effect that it was incomprehensible to him that the SSPX or anyone should be having such a problem with Vatican II. He went on to explain how in a Dominican priory this was a non-issue. You do as the Church says and you focus on the duty of the day. You don’t spend time thinking theology.

I also remember something that someone posted here. The poster had visited a Cistercian house. The monks said something to the effect that they do not think theology, because it interferes with the life of faith.

Last night, I saw a program with Dr. Martin and Dr. Hahn. Both said the same thing. If you want to live the faith, don’t think theology, don’t think liturgy, don’t think law, just be faithful to the sacraments, to the moral teaching of the Church and to charity.

During my weekly lesson to the brothers, I told them that they don’t own the pope. They don’t pay his salary. They don’t bind and unbind. Only the pope does. It is a waste of their energy and time to try to second-guess what the man is thinking.

As I said, call me naive; maybe we’re doing too much second guessing. It’s fun to try to guess what the other player is going to do. As long as we keep in mind that this is only a mental exercise, not a real issue, because we have no real control, then we’re fine. The minute that we take the fun out of it and make it a real concern, our blood pressure is going to rise.

I think it’s difficult for many of us who live in the United States to understand that we can’t “vote” to approve or disapprove of something in the Catholic Church.

We in the U.S. are used to debating the issues, campaigning to gain support for our point of view, and then going to the polls to elect those who most closely support our point of view. Then we expect the person we voted for to take office and vote according to the platform that he/she stood for during their campaign.

So we struggle with the concept of “authority.” We have a hard time with the idea of “what the Pope says goes.” We have this American feeling that we should be allowed to vote on it, or that our bishops should be allowed a “veto.”

That’s not going to happen, right? The Catholic Church is not a republic, is it? Can you imagine how awful it would be if the Catholic Church were run like a democracy?

 

[pnewton]

There has to be a coordination between the bishop and the priest. For example, the priest cannot say more than one mass without the permission of the local bishop. In most dioceses, there is a blanket permission for two, because of the shortage of priests.

I have to smile when I read this. In may parish, our priest has permission for four on Sunday.

 

[Sirach2]

I have to smile when I read this. In may parish, our priest has permission for four on Sunday.

Our neighboring parish priest also says four on a weekend - one vigil mass Saturday, and three on Sunday. We are so needing more priests!

 

[ProVobis]

There has to be a coordination between the bishop and the priest. For example, the priest cannot say more than one mass without the permission of the local bishop. In most dioceses, there is a blanket permission for two, because of the shortage of priests.

However, if the priest wants to celebrate a third mass in order to get in an EF, then he must coordinate with the bishop. If he wants to drop regular parish mass to put in an EF mass, it cannot inconvenience the parish schedule. If it does, the bishop has to be brought in on it. Pastors don’t have permission to change mass schedules without the permission of the chancery. The chancellor usually deals with these issues.

If the priest is a regular priest, he must have the permission of his superior. The superior cannot grant permission without the permission of his brothers. The brothers cannot grant the permission unless it’s allowed by the rule or the constitutions of the community.

Given these constraints, it seems like another alternative is to have the EF as a Saturday vigil. (They did that in my area with the Spanish and Polish Masses.) However, the Saturday evening time slot doesn’t usually sit well with the EF crowd.

 

[Marie5890]

Given these constraints, it seems like another alternative is to have the EF as a Saturday vigil. (They did that in my area with the Spanish and Polish Masses.) However, the Saturday evening time slot doesn’t usually sit well with the EF crowd.

Is there a minimum amount of parishioners that have to consistantly attend the EF in order for the bishop to ok it? Does anyone know? Or is that also at the discretion of the individual bishop?

I know in my diocese the EF is celebrated every week in one parish in Hartford (CT) but I am not sure of it’s attendance #s.

 

[erlembald]

Given these constraints, it seems like another alternative is to have the EF as a Saturday vigil. (They did that in my area with the Spanish and Polish Masses.) However, the Saturday evening time slot doesn’t usually sit well with the EF crowd.

The MP also mentions the possibility of a personal parish. I thank God that in our diocese we have such a personal parish for those who prefer the EF (led by FSSP priests). This is mainly due to our Bishop being a traditional Catholic himself; sadly this is also the reason why he is so often attacked and vilified in the media, and constantly criticized by modernist theologians and priests

 

[Tobias22]

The MP also mentions the possibility of a personal parish. I thank God that in our diocese we have such a personal parish for those who prefer the EF (led by FSSP priests). This is mainly due to our Bishop being a traditional Catholic himself; sadly this is also the reason why he is so often attacked and vilified in the media, and constantly criticized by modernist theologians and priests

I think there won’t be much impact except that there might beany more separate “traditional” parishes established. The liturgy probably won’t be a focus of the Pope except to keep his own liturgies simple which indirectly could influence to OF.

 

[erlembald]

I think there won’t be much impact except that there might beany more separate “traditional” parishes established. The liturgy probably won’t be a focus of the Pope except to keep his own liturgies simple which indirectly could influence to OF.

If Pope Francis’ papacy will lead to a more simple, pristine NOM - without any liturgical dancing or other hullaballoo - I’d be very grateful! I for my part think that the Traditional Mass itself (not the vestments etc.) is an perfect example of liturgical austerity. Nothing in it is vain or gimmicky, everything is centered around Christ.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Most assuredly, they cannot exert force.

It has been said that the pope may bind as well as unbind. What would be the response if Pope Francis ‘unbound’ the EF making the OF the universal rite of the Church, uniting all of us in one liturgical rite? Has anyone noticed the disunity and division that the SP has caused? Catholics against Catholics, especially in this subforum and other traditional websites. If there was ever a need to bring peace and unity among our own Catholics, I see this as a concern. Would traditionalists rebel or submit?

When Paul VI set forth the “Novus Ordo” many years ago and our parishes began to instruct us gradually in implementing the changes, I would guess that 95% of Catholics gave filial submission to the direction the Holy Spirit was leading the Church in the Council. Their first priority above all else was to reform the liturgy. It has been a continual grievance to me that this division has created chaos, rather than unity. May the Lord give us His guidance in this regard.

You said would the traditionalists rebel or submit, which presupposes the Church would go with the majority. Heck, the majority of Catholics don’t even go to Mass in the US. Ask yourself this question, “Would the majority of non-traditionalists rebel or submit?” Then you will have a good idea about how seriously Catholics take the authoritative mandates of the Church. My guess is like yours that if they prescribed only one form, it would probably be the NO, but that would only be in the sense that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of heart of the people. Both forms are in essence the same. Rather than create only one form, perhaps education about the sameness of the two forms would serve the purpose of bringing unity better than alienating one group or the other.

 

[Sirach2]

Rather than create only one form, perhaps education about the sameness of the two forms would serve the purpose of bringing unity better than alienating one group or the other.

Wasn’t that what I said a few posts ago? Indeed, that is the job of the Paraclete, who “unifies all these differences, not making them equal but in harmony with one another,”

 

[ProVobis]

Is there a minimum amount of parishioners that have to consistantly attend the EF in order for the bishop to ok it? Does anyone know? Or is that also at the discretion of the individual bishop?

No minimums, but it seems the bishop would have to weigh in the attendance he would be losing as well, though. Just being realistic here. Some of the EF’s in Chicago, for example, are in parishes where they were on the brink of closing their doors prior to the EF being introduced there.

 

[ProVobis]

This is mainly due to our Bishop being a traditional Catholic himself; sadly this is also the reason why he is so often attacked and vilified in the media, and constantly criticized by modernist theologians and priests

The other way to look at it is if the Pope or bishop holds the TLM in a low-profile environment, there may be perhaps less resistance to it as well.

 

[erlembald]

The other way to look at it is if the Pope or bishop holds the TLM in a low-profile environment, there may be perhaps less resistance to it as well.

I understand where you’re coming from, but wouldn’t that somehow also send the message that - figuratively speaking - the EF is the unwanted, merely tolerated sibling of the family? That the bishops are ashamed of it?
In some (if not many) cases here in Europe, the bishops only served the letter of the law and gave the FSSP small, unappealing and architecturally ill equipped churches for the Mass, so as to disincentivize the promotion of the EF. This is quite unfair and does not speak well of a bishop’s pastoral care.

 

[malphono]

I understand where you’re coming from, but wouldn’t that somehow also send the message that - figuratively speaking - the EF is the unwanted, merely tolerated sibling of the family? That the bishops are ashamed of it?
In some (if not many) cases here in Europe, the bishops only served the letter of the law and gave the FSSP small, unappealing and architecturally ill equipped churches for the Mass, so as to disincentivize the promotion of the EF. This is quite unfair and does not speak well of a bishop’s pastoral care.

I doubt it would send that sort of message. Those who oppose the Usus Antiquior aren’t going to change. OTOH, if their attentions are diverted, perhaps they will lay-off obstructing it. No, it’s not great but it’s better than the alternative.