Pope, in interview, laments 'rigidity' of youth who prefer Latin Mass [CWN]

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, I do not disagree that it could be unhealthy. What I reject is that it is unhealthy without further information. There is no evidence one way or another that it is causing spiritual harm so charity would seem to dictate that we accept it is not without more information.

I do not have near you experience, but I am familiar with people in one of the 2 Latin mass communities near me (near being a relative term).

I hate to tell you, but at this stage of my life, when you would be ordained a deacon thirty years you will not have had near my experience in the decades since my ordinations.

When I am assessing a situation, I do not do so in the most charitable way possible…that is a poor methodology to employ in such circumstance. Because, if you use it, you can never actually resolve any question posed or any action proposed to you because of a singularity that, when invoked, abrogates the issue.

Such reminds me of a recent question I answered based on a common situation. Another poster stated (correctly) that my answer did not account for the situation of an abbey nullius. Considering that there are, I believe, nine extant in a world that has right at 3000 ecclesiastical jurisdictions, if my answer were predicated on an abbacy nullius, it would mislead the more than 99% of the Catholic population in the world and, frankly, would be irrelevant to every person living outside of nine vlllages in the world. None of whom, I might add for knowing most of those villages, are likely to read this forum.

One has to answer realistically, drawing from theology, articulating the law or governing norms, and then applying experience. I accept the premise of the poster of the post upon which I am commenting…that there is a problem with the practice being posted. That is, after all, the reason they posted…to illustrate a problem.

The situation, were it in fact not that case the poster was illustrating a problem, could have a resolution as simple as the family lives in some American suburb and father and mother and children all commute each morning into the city where the parents work and the children attend school and, at the end of the day, they make the one hour commute to their suburban home after attending a vetus ordo Mass. But that is not, what I clearly gather, the scenario that the poster wants to communicate.

Beyond all that, from my perspective this “family” (whoever they are and wherever they may exist) is more illustrative of a situation I am commenting on since neither they nor their details can in anyway be educed or speculated.

Beyond the above, I could create the most fantastical circumstance to justify devoting three hours per day to daily Mass involving traveling 200 or more kilometres every day, over and above one’s daily life. But that is really an exercise detached from what is that which one actually encounters in pastoral ministry. This reminds me of my students who would draw out of their pious reading the situations and events of saints…which had, actually, nothing to do with the pastoral life they would be embarking upon, as they reported in subsequent visits to their alma mater.

Personally, rather than the comparison to the vetus ordo, I would make the comparison to a Benedictine abbey as I think it removes the bizarre twists and turns that seems to afflict certain people in a discussion concerning the vetus ordo.

To attend Mass regularly, even frequently, at an abbey is a splendid thing. To say that a family of laity is going to travel over two hours per day, seven days per week, to attend Mass at the monastery as opposed to attending one’s proper and canonical parish should raise a concern that there is a singularly unhealthy situation…which, actually, may originate from a variety of causes.

The reason no analogies to grocery shopping or hockey practices or other situations in life can ultimately apply is because the underlying ecclesiology frankly does not allow such comparison. There are values operative that transcend interactions with a grocer or a school or an office.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It astonishes me that the Latin Mass, the only Mass that some of our greatest Saints ever knew, could be cause for scandal. And worse still, that those who love it would be looked upon with suspicion. I’m pretty sure that St Therese, whom Pope St. Pius X called “the greatest Saint of modern times” might have something to say about this so-called ‘rigidity.’

Peace Mark

Certainly the Blessed Virgin, in her life on earth, would never have experienced a Latin Mass. Nor would a vast many of the saints. The language in the diaspora for the apostles was Greek.

As for Saint Therese, and so many others actually, I often think of the profound joy with which they would have received Vatican II and the joy that would have been hers to see the reformed liturgy and Mass and the breviary in French. It is not that hard to imagine it when you experienced it yourself. To say nothing of the joy that would have been hers for the provision in the 1983 code of canon law to receive Communion even twice per day when she had said, “It is not to remain in a golden ciborium that He comes down each day from Heaven, but to find another Heaven, the Heaven of our soul in which He takes delight.”

 

[Usige]

I hate to tell you, but at this stage of my life, when you would be ordained a deacon thirty years you will not have had near my experience in the decades since my ordinations.

I never meant to imply any differently. Beyond age and education the functional experiences of a married permanent deacon and a priests are very different as are the roles in the realms of spiritual and pastoral care. I was simply trying to move from the abstract to concrete based on my own on going experiences. We have been encouraged to be extra-parochial and hence the reason I try to understand the needs of people outside my geographic parish.

To attend Mass regularly, even frequently, at an abbey is a splendid thing. To say that a family of laity is going to travel over two hours per day, seven days per week, to attend Mass at the monastery as opposed to attending one’s proper and canonical parish should raise a concern that there is a singularly unhealthy situation…which, actually, may originate from a variety of causes.

The reason no analogies to grocery shopping or hockey practices or other situations in life can ultimately apply is because the underlying ecclesiology frankly does not allow such comparison. There are values operative that transcend interactions with a grocer or a school or an office.

You have probably stated your main point a couple time, but perhaps it had been partially obscured in the explination so pardon me if I’m too blunt or if I am miss reading you.

The issue is that people that are making extraordinary effort to attend other than their territorial parish is unhealthy because it is normative to attend the local parish. Is that a fair reading?

If we remove the difference in drive time and say your canonical parish is 30 minutes away, but the monestary is also 30 minutes away would you still see it as unhealthy? In other words is it unhealthy to exercise the preference if the effort is the same?

By extention is it unhealthy to make extraordinary effort to attend the canonical parish if there are other options nearer? So in the hypothetical where a monestary is 10 minutes away, but the canonical parish is 40 minutes away.

What I am trying to get to is if it is only unhealthy to make extra effort when it is not the canonical parish or if it is unhealthy to make extraordinary effort in general. Stated another way, the canonical parish is always a healthy choice as it is normative and personal parishes, monestaries, oratories, et cetera are only unhealthy if it is outside meeting our obligation.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

Please discuss the issues **NOT **each other

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Any official form of the sacraments
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. They are fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

As Fr. Grondin said in a recent post, “Sometimes we can think that we know more than we do and that leads us to make assumptions which could be incorrect. While having questions and seeking answers, we still need to trust that the Holy Spirit is who is guiding the Church. Put your mind at ease and trust in God to guide His Church.”

 

[Convert_in_99]

MODERATOR REMINDER

Please discuss the issues **NOT **each other

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Any official form of the sacraments
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. They are fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

As Fr. Grondin said in a recent post, “Sometimes we can think that we know more than we do and that leads us to make assumptions which could be incorrect. While having questions and seeking answers, we still need to trust that the Holy Spirit is who is guiding the Church. Put your mind at ease and trust in God to guide His Church.”

Thank you for this excellent reminder!

Is there anyway you could make this a sticky?

 

[MacBP]

To be honest, while I gravitate towards Mass in the vernacular, I do understand why some individuals prefer Mass in Latin. With that said, I suspect (although, admittedly, I might be projecting) that Pope Francis’ remarks weren’t meant to target all people who prefer Latin mass but were meant to target those individuals who believe that having a preference for Mass in Latin confers some special, elite status. No one should feel superior, or be made to feel inferior, because they they prefer attending Mass in a particular language. And yes, I’m sure plenty of condescension goes the other way as well, but truthfully in my personal and very limited experience, it tended to flow in only one direction. I’m sure that’s not true everywhere, and I’m sure that this is a minority of individuals who have a preference for Latin Mass, but that’s just my personal experience.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is noted that Pope Francis spoke specifically of the ‘rigidity’ of youth, of those who were NOT raised with the Latin Mass.

 

[collegeathlete]

I think people who spend $8 for coffee at Starbucks everyday are wasting their money and time standing in line, but that is their choice. If someone spends 45 minutes a day and $10 bucks on coffee while talking with their kid I wouldn’t consider it a waste even if it is not what I personally would do. I know someone that drives 15-20 minutes away from work every morning to meet friends for coffee and in 6 years I’ve known him I would have never considered it odd even if I wouldn’t do so.

I don’t know if you have teenagers, but my two oldest kids are 21 and 18. Some of the best conversations we’ve had were driving to various events. Why? Because it was quiet and we really only the people in the car to talk to. I have always been close to my children and it is because most our time is spent talking rather than doing. This goes from our oldest to our second youngest and I suspect it will be the same for our 7th once she starts speaking. For us talking in the car strengthens those bonds more than simple family activities. For some people the journey certainly is the benefit and not just the destination.

My point is that we need to be careful reading our own preferences and family dynamic into that of another group who is not even given a chance to speak for themselves. I cannot say if it is healthy or unhealthy for any particular family, but I don’t think we should start from an assumption that it is a problem simply because it is different from what we might do.

I understand the concern you have, and we don’t have all of the information, but that does not change that as general rule I would say traveling two hours everyday to attend an EF Mass when there is a nearby alternative, and for most people in the U.S multiple alternatives, should be discouraged. I don’t hold that view simply because I personally wouldn’t do such a thing, but because I think it generally would be an unhealthy thing to do.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You have probably stated your main point a couple time, but perhaps it had been partially obscured in the explination so pardon me if I’m too blunt or if I am miss reading you

The issue is that people that are making extraordinary effort to attend other than their territorial parish is unhealthy because it is normative to attend the local parish. Is that a fair reading?

If we remove the difference in drive time and say your canonical parish is 30 minutes away, but the monestary is also 30 minutes away would you still see it as unhealthy? In other words is it unhealthy to exercise the preference if the effort is the same?

By extention is it unhealthy to make extraordinary effort to attend the canonical parish if there are other options nearer? So in the hypothetical where a monestary is 10 minutes away, but the canonical parish is 40 minutes away

What I am trying to get to is if it is only unhealthy to make extra effort when it is not the canonical parish or if it is unhealthy to make extraordinary effort in general. Stated another way, the canonical parish is always a healthy choice as it is normative and personal parishes, monestaries, oratories, et cetera are only unhealthy if it is outside meeting our obligation

No…I think you misread the locus of concern I’ve expressed

It can easily happen one is attending Mass – and even frequently – outside one’s parish. For example, it’s not unusual for a person to attend daily Mass at a place beside their work and go to their parish for Sunday Mass – and even then to go to Mass elsewhere, as on weekends when one visits family

The concern comes regarding one who is explicitly or implicitly severing one’s relationship with their parish…if one is devoting three hours each and every day to be able to attend daily Mass in a place involving such a long commute, that should raise a concern with the priests on both ends…the one who has the cura animarum for this family (the canonical pastor) as well as the priest wherever it is they attend Mass

That concern, frankly, is of lesser import than the concern that arises from an atypical practice that can impinge on one’s duty of state

As one example, I’ve been spiritual director for tertiaries, widowed or single, who are retired and whose prayer life includes the entire Office, an hour of adoration, plus assisting at two Masses at the priory of the friars to whose third order they are affiliated. For them, it was spiritually quite healthy. For someone in a different life circumstance, it would have been very spiritually unhealthy…for them and those depending upon them

Monasticism has been an important part of my life. To be able to go and make retreats and days of recollection there have been wonderfully enriching to both my life and my priesthood. I certainly enjoy the liberty I have now to be able to go more frequently. But, even in retirement, it would be bizarre for me to spend three hours each and every day of the year traveling to a monastery so I could concelebrate with the community. I would hope the Abbot would quickly begin to make inquiries if I were to begin to appear on a daily basis when we have a chapel where I am

As for your other questions, not everyone has Mass next door to their home or office. And everyone’s obligations and the duty of their state of life imposes unique constraints. A 10 minute commute as opposed to a 60 or 75 minute commute, for most people, would be the difference between being able to do something daily and not being able to do something daily – without other things in life suffering. Could they, however, accommodate a 20 or 30 minute commute instead of a 10 minute commute? These are questions the person would have to answer, by honest assessment. With help from a priest, if necessary

The person has to pragmatically look at what is realistic and also what is unrealistic…if necessary with help from a spiritual director or the advice of their parish priest

Some families are able to rationally fit daily Mass into their daily lives – others cannot nor should they. When daily Mass involves a three hour commitment, above all when it need not, that should be a concern to the priest with cura animarum – as should, I would add on the other hand, facilitating the ability of someone to participate in daily Mass who otherwise could not – such as by advising them of options nearby that may enable them to put daily Mass into their schedule because the times are more conducive

But this should be happening in conjunction with the one priest in the diocese who, by the bishop’s appointment, has cura animarum for the person: their parish priest

In an earlier post, I gave a scenario in which the matter could be completely reasonable; they live in a suburb in which they commute into and out of the city for work and school respectively and, in that context, attend this Mass

If, however, we are talking about three hours over and outside of one’s commute to work and school, that is where a priest’s concern should be – because it is every single day

The reality that you will find after ordination is that dysfunctional situations often enough only come to our attention as clergy when there is a crisis involving the family or a member of the family

Involving an issue such as we are discussing, it happens either in the present moment when there is family strife to such a degree that it comes to our attention or, more often, after the fact when the suffering of someone (be it spouse, parents and/or children typically) comes to your attention because of the aberrant religious practice(s) of someone in the family. That is what I’ve encountered most of all…where one is explaining to a grown child that the religious practice of the parent(s) was not at all according to the mind of the Church. There’s a reason why the Church has the norms and guidelines it does

 

[irenaeus1]

There has been much discussion about a specific situation and whether or not it is spiritually healthy for a person and his family to commute 1½ hours each way to attend an EF Mass. But more to the point of what the Holy Father mentions, which was the original point of this thread… if the number of faithful requesting and attending the EF is quite small compared to the general populace of Catholic faithful, and the number of young people, obviously being a subset of that group, is even smaller, and then the number of young people that fall into the lamentable problem of being ‘rigid’ is even smaller still, what is to gain from even addressing this as a problem? The laxity and spiritual bankruptcy of the multitude of Catholic faithful who have to put up with liturgical abuses, theologically loose homilies, catechetics that more resemble psycho-babble (such as, if you were a flavor of ice cream, what flavor would you be?), etc. has much more far-reaching damage potential.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There has been much discussion about a specific situation and whether or not it is spiritually healthy for a person and his family to commute 1½ hours each way to attend an EF Mass. But more to the point of what the Holy Father mentions, which was the original point of this thread… if the number of faithful requesting and attending the EF is quite small compared to the general populace of Catholic faithful, and the number of young people, obviously being a subset of that group, is even smaller, and then the number of young people that fall into the lamentable problem of being ‘rigid’ is even smaller still, what is to gain from even addressing this as a problem? The laxity and spiritual bankruptcy of the multitude of Catholic faithful who have to put up with liturgical abuses, theologically loose homilies, catechetics that more resemble psycho-babble (such as, if you were a flavor of ice cream, what flavor would you be?), etc. has much more far-reaching damage potential.

I do not find these topics occurring in the interview remarkable at all. Quite to the contrary.

Beyond the fact that we have a quite long and broad ranging interview that introduces a 1000 page book of the collected homilies of the Pope from when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires – texts which were part of the liturgies at which he presided and which will have liturgy as a significant focus – Padre Spadaro’s interview occurred just a few days after the Sacra Liturgia conference at which the Cardinal Prefect of the CDW had spoken. The interview was also simultaneous with the clarifications issued by the Holy See about issues that were being raised that concluded
*Therefore, new liturgical directives are not expected from next Advent, as some have incorrectly inferred from some of Cardinal Sarah’s words, and it is better to avoid using the expression “reform of the reform” with reference to the liturgy, given that it may at times give rise to error.

All the above was unanimously expressed during a recent audience granted by the Pope to the same Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.*
Given the events happening in the very days that the interview occurred, it would have been impossible and actually unimaginable for the director of La Civiltà Cattolica not to speak of “reform of the reform” – a term which was clarified in those very days as definitively no longer useful – as well as given the other issues surrounding the liturgy that were swirling and in conversation in those days.

Nei tuoi occhi è la mia parola is a substantive collection that I look forward to prayerfully and meditatively working my way through.

 

[KSU]

There has been much discussion about a specific situation and whether or not it is spiritually healthy for a person and his family to commute 1½ hours each way to attend an EF Mass. But more to the point of what the Holy Father mentions, which was the original point of this thread… if the number of faithful requesting and attending the EF is quite small compared to the general populace of Catholic faithful, and the number of young people, obviously being a subset of that group, is even smaller, and then the number of young people that fall into the lamentable problem of being ‘rigid’ is even smaller still, what is to gain from even addressing this as a problem? The laxity and spiritual bankruptcy of the multitude of Catholic faithful who have to put up with liturgical abuses, theologically loose homilies, catechetics that more resemble psycho-babble (such as, if you were a flavor of ice cream, what flavor would you be?), etc. has much more far-reaching damage potential.

Because of the wishes of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the Church was instructed to make the EF accessible to all the faithful who desired it for its own sake. It was both an extraordinary and clear instruction. Prelates and pastors were given new powers to make it happen, and the laity was given the means of appeal when the EF was denied to them.

Special parishes would not need to be designated or established. All it would take is a few willing priests who could be given permission to spread out to churches all over a diocese, even if only on Saturday or Sunday, so that no one would have to drive an unreasonable distance.

Done deal, right?

Wrong. So here we are debating whether what the Pope said about people who prefer the EF has been taken out of context or mistranslated or is inexplicable.

 

[pnewton]

Why do you see that as rigidity? If they have such a love for the mass (in any form) to go daily and with their teenage children I have a hard time understanding why that’s a bad thing.

I know a Polish family that drives a similar distance to go to a Polish language Mass at a Polish parish. They all speak English but prefer the Polish Mass.

Is that rigidity as well?

We cannot know particulars. However, realistically, three hours is a large investment of time. Surely there must be some days when this is not possible. So what then? Do they go to the Mass that is available in the allotted time, or do they skip that day. This shows whether they are in love with Jesus, or the language/culture.

 

[Brendan]

. To say that a family of laity is going to travel over two hours per day, seven days per week, to attend Mass at the monastery as opposed to attending one’s proper and canonical parish should raise a concern that there is a singularly unhealthy situation…which, actually, may originate from a variety of causes…

Father,

I’m the case of the OP, I don’t think that sufficient information has been presented to indicate that the people in question are NOT attending their proper and canonical parish.

The Polish family that I mention attend their proper and canonical parish. It is a a canonical personal parish that was established by the bishop for those who have an affinity for the Polish language.

Personal Parishes, as you well know, do not have territorial borders. That does not mean that the parish is not their canonical one. Quite the opposite. Their attending that parish is exactly what the bishop envisioned when he established that parish.

In our Archdiocese, all of the EF parishes have been similarly designated, and specifically for those who have an affinity for the Extraordinary Form. In our Archdiocese then, a family to the one the described earlier in the thread WOULD, in fact, be attending their proper and canonical parish. The daily Mass they attend would with their faith community, celebrated by their canonical pastor, even though they live a substantial distance away.

In understand that your reply was to a specific situation that is different from the other family being discussed, and that you are well aware of the canonical differences. I wanted to put this out there in case there are other readers who might take your comment as being applicable to the family that drives an hour to attend an EF Mass.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So, going back more or less to the interview etc. etc., it seems to me that rigidity cuts both ways. It also seems to me that unfortunately, based on certain perceptions of individuals, if a person happen to be an adherent of the OF (have a ‘preference’ for it), that person might see rigidity in an adherent of the EF (those who have a preference for it) and find attendance at that specific rite which involves doing ‘more’ than they would do for OF to be rigid, bewildering, and even unhealthy.

I find that sad. I’m not saying that the people who feel that way are doing it deliberately, or even acting out of any other motives than the purest charity, and I’m sure that many have great experience, intelligence, etc.

But if I were a person who attended an EF rite, however far from my OF church, and had the time and funds and wherewithal to take my children with me to daily Mass, I would be unbelievably sad and hurt that my fellow Catholics would jump to the conclusion that I was being unreasonable, elitist, unhealthy, was setting up my children to hate me and my religion, was rigid, ‘superior’, making my children miserable, etc.

If I were a person who homeschooled my children with Seton, say, as opposed to sending them to the local Catholic school (and there could be reasons which did not involve the school’s being inferior at all–perhaps my children were on the autism spectrum, or recovering from grave illness-) would there likewise be people who would assume that because I was not sending my children to the local Catholic–or even the local public school–that I was setting them up to be socially inept, cultist, etc–that I was 'disrespecting the ‘normal people’? I fear there would be some, if not many, judging by a lot of the comments I see on Catholic mom blogs, etc.

It just seems to me that while people are pointing the ‘rigidity’ finger at those who are doing ‘extraordinary’ things, they aren’t seeing that their own reactions and assumptions are pretty rigid themselves. . .

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father,

Personal Parishes, as you well know, do not have territorial borders. That does not mean that the parish is not their canonical one. Quite the opposite. Their attending that parish is exactly what the bishop envisioned when he established that parish.

In our Archdiocese, all of the EF parishes have been similarly designated, and specifically for those who have an affinity for the Extraordinary Form. In our Archdiocese then, a family to the one the described earlier in the thread WOULD, in fact, be attending their proper and canonical parish. The daily Mass they attend would with their faith community, celebrated by their canonical pastor, even though they live a substantial distance away.

In understand that your reply was to a specific situation that is different from the other family being discussed, and that you are well aware of the canonical differences. I wanted to put this out there in case there are other readers who might take your comment as being applicable to the family that drives an hour to attend an EF Mass.

No, what you write is not correct.
Personal Parishes, as you well know, do not have territorial borders.
Every parish has territorial boundaries. They can be established so that the boundaries are coterminous with the diocese/greater ecclesiastical jurisdiction boundaries – but it is wholly incorrect to say that they do not have territorial boundaries.

It must be stressed that the majority of arrangements for provision of the vetus ordo do not involve the erection of a personal parish.

Even where a personal parish has been erected, that does not mean that it is spiritually healthy to avail oneself of it in the circumstances individuals and families find themselves.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I am re-quoting this, because I think it may have been lost in the shuffle.
Don Ruggero, I would be interested in your comments on my observations.

While I will not presume to speak for the Holy Father, but I have experienced a rigidity in some young priest that I know,and most of them have an affinity for the Extraordinary Form. My diocese has had an Extraordinary Form Mass for over 20 years. Which is funny, because if you talk to some of the traditional leaning people in my diocese, our former Bishop was anything but traditional and/or orthodox.
I have also experienced a lot of disrespect for legitimate authority and nastiness towards other Catholic who do not meet certain “standards”

There is a sense of unapproachableness to many of the young priests I know. May of them seem very caught up in trappings, the use of tailored cassocks, tailored clerical suits/shirts with French cuffs and Roman collars made of linen. The use of Latin in blessing people and items, even when not at an EF Mass, and some are very put off when asked to do it in English.
Many of them are slightly detached and aloof and have a hard time in groups of diverse people. We have gone from 30+ years of Fr. First name to Fr. Last name and many of the older priests (and many parishioners) do not like it at all.

My impression is that many times, these young(er) men are looking for something that was never really there. There are looking at the EF Mass now, seeing it celebrated by people who choose to and can bring all trappings into a Sunday Mass, that for the most part, a parish in 1960 would have only seen once or twice a year.

I have heard many horror stories about Mass is the late 50’s early 60’s in my area. Masses that we rushed through (everyone knew of a 15 minute Mass somewhere) People not engaged in Mass, but praying Rosaries or other devotions, infrequent reception of the Eucharist in many cases for reasons that bordered on Jansinism, the list goes on & on.

I think this rigidity the Holy Father is talking about is the wanting to look at the past with rose-colored glasses, and saying ‘Look Mass attendance was up’., Look more people went to Confession’, ‘We need to go back to this or that’, without looking to see if people are being actually fed, or if we are just making a new generation of Catholics who want to be “entertained” with nostalgia?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

So, going back more or less to the interview etc. etc., it seems to me that rigidity cuts both ways. It also seems to me that unfortunately, based on certain perceptions of individuals, if a person happen to be an adherent of the OF (have a ‘preference’ for it), that person might see rigidity in an adherent of the EF (those who have a preference for it) and find attendance at that specific rite which involves doing ‘more’ than they would do for OF to be rigid, bewildering, and even unhealthy.

I find that sad. I’m not saying that the people who feel that way are doing it deliberately, or even acting out of any other motives than the purest charity, and I’m sure that many have great experience, intelligence, etc.

But if I were a person who attended an EF rite, however far from my OF church, and had the time and funds and wherewithal to take my children with me to daily Mass, I would be unbelievably sad and hurt that my fellow Catholics would jump to the conclusion that I was being unreasonable, elitist, unhealthy, was setting up my children to hate me and my religion, was rigid, ‘superior’, making my children miserable, etc.

If I were a person who homeschooled my children with Seton, say, as opposed to sending them to the local Catholic school (and there could be reasons which did not involve the school’s being inferior at all–perhaps my children were on the autism spectrum, or recovering from grave illness-) would there likewise be people who would assume that because I was not sending my children to the local Catholic–or even the local public school–that I was setting them up to be socially inept, cultist, etc–that I was 'disrespecting the ‘normal people’? I fear there would be some, if not many, judging by a lot of the comments I see on Catholic mom blogs, etc.

It just seems to me that while people are pointing the ‘rigidity’ finger at those who are doing ‘extraordinary’ things, they aren’t seeing that their own reactions and assumptions are pretty rigid themselves. . .

I could not agree with the assessment of the Holy Father more. After these many years of priesthood, time and time and time again, I have had the most negative experiences with those attached to the vetus ordo, which frankly provoked from me some of the same questions and concerns that the Holy Father expressed in this interview. I am gratified to read his assessment and I would be pleased if he would further address this, above all with the bishops.

It is my sincere hope that the expressions of the Pope on these issues is taken into account by each diocesan bishop and that, in their gatherings, they will reflect together about the matter of their subjects and the vetus ordo.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I am re-quoting this, because I think it may have been lost in the shuffle.
Don Ruggero, I would be interested in your comments on my observations.

While I will not presume to speak for the Holy Father, but I have experienced a rigidity in some young priest that I know,and most of them have an affinity for the Extraordinary Form. My diocese has had an Extraordinary Form Mass for over 20 years. Which is funny, because if you talk to some of the traditional leaning people in my diocese, our former Bishop was anything but traditional and/or orthodox.

I have also experienced a lot of disrespect for legitimate authority and nastiness towards other Catholic who do not meet certain “standards”

There is a sense of unapproachableness to many of the young priests I know. May of them seem very caught up in trappings, the use of tailored cassocks, tailored clerical suits/shirts with French cuffs and Roman collars made of linen. The use of Latin in blessing people and items, even when not at an EF Mass, and some are very put off when asked to do it in English.

Many of them are slightly detached and aloof and have a hard time in groups of diverse people. We have gone from 30+ years of Fr. First name to Fr. Last name and many of the older priests (and many parishioners) do not like it at all.

My impression is that many times, these young(er) men are looking for something that was never really there. There are looking at the EF Mass now, seeing it celebrated by people who choose to and can bring all trappings into a Sunday Mass, that for the most part, a parish in 1960 would have only seen once or twice a year.

I have heard many horror stories about Mass is the late 50’s early 60’s in my area. Masses that we rushed through (everyone knew of a 15 minute Mass somewhere) People not engaged in Mass, but praying Rosaries or other devotions, infrequent reception of the Eucharist in many cases for reasons that bordered on Jansinism, the list goes on & on.

I think this rigidity the Holy Father is talking about is the wanting to look at the past with rose-colored glasses, and saying ‘Look Mass attendance was up’., Look more people went to Confession’, ‘We need to go back to this or that’, without looking to see if people are being actually fed, or if we are just making a new generation of Catholics who want to be “entertained” with nostalgia?

I have had occasion to meet such seminarians and younger priests from other dioceses. They do not elicit a positive reaction. The more the affectation and the further one moves from simplicity and into a sort of sartorial elegance, the less positive is the reaction. Fortunately, we did not/do not have this problem in my diocese, thanks to the leadership of our bishops through the years, the formators who oversee the years of formation during which there is opportunity to observe the candidate, and also thanks to the presbyterate.

I think the personal example of Pope Francis and his rejection of such things is a most powerful witness that the things you list are, as you say, trappings whose presence should provoke a real concern for the bishop and the formators.

Indeed, I would agree with your assessment of those who evoke a pre-conciliar past that exists in their imaginations but was not the reality of those of us who experienced it.

I would only add that I think the concerns of the Holy Father – who well remembers that era and who lived through the years of the Council, too – transcend all the issues you list and include many more, especially where it concerns the mindset and also the worldview of the person.

As I have seen it and experienced it in such people, it is indeed a very strange syndrome that he is refers to and warns about; in my experience, what gets expressed as “what was” by those who were not there can border on being so detached from what actually was as to be delusional…which is clearly unhealthy.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Thank you very much, Father.
We are so lucky to have your wonderful perspective!!

Peace be with you.