BREAKING: internet oracles were right, new Motu Proprio undoes Summorum Pontificum

Chrystal-J said:

Does this mean I won't be able to watch the Latin Mass on EWTN?

Click to expand...

honestly? yeah, that's probably exactly what that means.

BrAndreyu said:

honestly? yeah, that's probably exactly what that means.

Click to expand...

That would be such a mistake.

EWTN isn't going to take the risk of going against the Pope, even if there is a demand for Latin masses to watch.

It will continue where there is already significant demand for it, but dioceses like mine aren't going to be offering it, so the chances of my ever getting to go to one are slim to none now.

My first reaction: The vulgarity of this motu proprio is matched only by its cruelty


Today, 16 July, is the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. During the Amazonian Synod (“walking together”), it was at her church in Rome, near the Vatican, that the shrine to to the demon Pachamama was set up.

Today, 16 July, is the anniversary of the Great Schism in 1054, when a Bull of Excommunication (not a Pachamama bowl) was lain on the altar of Hagia Sophia.

Today, 16 July, the Manhattan Project for the first time successfully detonated a nuclear weapon. Today is the anniversary of the first nuke in 1945.

In each of those cases, it took a long time to weigh the implications.

It also takes times to absorb and weigh the implications of legislative documents.

That leads me to my first reaction to the Motu Proprio, Traditionis custodes, which effectively insults the entire pontificate of Benedict XVI and the pastoral provisions of John Paul II and all the people they have affected.

Speaking of nukes, while this is quite awful, it is also good in that the line has been drawn. For all the cant about “unity” – which apparently is something to be forced not fostered – the divisions are now clearer.

Traditionis custodes. One wonders if anyone in Rome thinks through the titles of documents (Amoris laetitia… The joy of sex…). This one just screams the maxim of Juvenal: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Without the whole sentence in Latin we can only guess at the meaning: “Overseers of betrayal…” is one option. “Protectors of surrender…”?

Because it takes time to weigh the implications – questions are flooding my mailbox and phone – I note the following at the end:

Continued below.
First reactions to "Traditionis custodes"

Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome, constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them. In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church...


Lettera Apostolica in forma di Motu «Proprio» del Sommo Pontefice Francesco «Traditionis Custodes» sull’uso della Liturgia Romana anteriore alla Riforma del 1970

Chrystal-J said:

Does this mean I won't be able to watch the Latin Mass on EWTN?

Click to expand...

Very good question!!!

BrAndreyu said:

I didn't think you were personally, it's just a very real problem that I've noticed coming from a specific subset of millennials that are very vocal and prominent on social media & their specific reasoning behind why they like the extraordinary form of the mass comes from an ugly place. It's not motivated so much by a love of the church as it is that they see the church as a means to further their ultimately secular political projects. There are a few YouTubers in general that I am thinking about and they all seem to share the same general traits. I got into it with one of them on Reddit a while back when he tried to argue that none of the sacraments that I received as a child have been valid because they weren't received in TLM. I would not dare to tell anyone who received the sacraments in TLM to not be valid because they were not N O, so it legitimately hurt me that these people said this.

Like I said, I would love to be able to go to attend a Latin mass because I never have, but my diocese does not offer them. The only problem I would have would be trying to follow along because I: don't understand Latin and have never been to one before. The thing that people have to remember is that for some of us, the N O is the only thing we know, so it effectively has become "tradition" in our families and it hurts when people who haven't been there from birth come along telling us that we've "never been to a valid mass in our lives" and then proceed to say that Pope St. John Paul II was not a "legitimate pope" because he was the pope who many of us lived our entire childhoods under and it really affected us when he finally passed away (I remember going to the memorial mass for him in 2005 and spending the entire mass in tears). When Pope Benedict XVI changed some of the responsorials during the mass (from "and also with you" to "and with your spirit") it felt weird for a while and I still don't understand why the change was made, but I deal with it because I accept that he was guided by the Holy Spirit.

I don't think that the Latin mass should even be stopped, but I understand what the Holy Father is trying to do here because I think he notices the same ugly current of people latching onto TLM in an attempt to breed secular political projects that I have noticed among my fellow millennials on Reddit and FB who I've had it out with in the past.

So again, if I've offended anyone I am truly sorry, because I did not mean to throw a hand grenade into the forum.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a hand grenade.
But I will give you credit that you probably were not aware of what you held, (or of it's destructive powers,) because you were most likely unaware of the damage such hand grenades have done in these forums before.
Please, for the sake of those previously wounded who remain behind, and in memory of those friends who were casualties, those great friends whom we have lost here, tread lightly and with charity.

pdudgeon said:

But I will give you credit that you probably were not aware of what you held, (or of it's destructive powers,) because you were most likely unaware of the damage such hand grenades have done in these forums before.
Please, for the sake of those previously wounded who remain behind, and in memory of those friends who were casualties, those great friends whom we have lost here, tread lightly and with charity.

Click to expand...

I just have a tendency to get upset when people try to play like the N O is somehow an inferior mass and then appeal to "tradition" as if "tradition" in and of itself is a reason to do something rather than something being traditional because it has been proven to work. Like for instance: traditional marriage is between a man and a woman because that's how children are produced and that has been the building block of successful societies for centuries. Marriage is not between a man and a woman specifically because it's traditional.

What people don't understand is that the post Vatican II mass is my tradition. It is the only one I know, it is how I received all of the sacraments and as I said before "It was good enough for Pope St. John Paul II and Mother Theresa, so it's good enough for all of us". When I think of going to traditional Christmas eve or Easter mass, I think of an N O mass. I don't think of TLM at all, because I was not raised with that being the tradition so it bothers me when people try to insinuate that the masses that I go to, the only ones that I am offered, are somehow "not as valid". Many of these people, in my experience, have also tried to argue that Pope St. John Paul II wasn't a "real pope" because they believe in something called sedevacantism... the incorrect idea that all of the popes after John XXIII have been illegitimate popes because these people don't recognize the legitimacy of Vatican II, which is the church that I was born and baptized into. These people effectively are arguing that I've never received the sacraments and that my baptism isn't legitimate, and that hurts, so I tend to get all full of vinegar about it.

I've had it out with people in my generation on Reddit and Facebook before over this very issue, and these people tend to share a few common traits: they're all my age, they all converted in their late 20s or early 30s, they boast about smoking cigars and drinking expensive beer, and they gravitate to the TLM specifically because they have a secular sociopolitical project that they are trying to advance and (incorrectly) think that the Church is "fertile ground" for advancing such a project. The specific people I am talking about (nobody here) are pharisaic in nature and like to throw it in everyone's face that they only attend TLM because it's "the only true, valid mass" and they like to pretend that this somehow makes them "better" Catholics and more virtuous than those of us who do not have the luxury of attending TLM because our diocese does not offer it.

Maybe I shouldn't let these things bother me the way I do, but seeing as I vociferously defended the church even when I wasn't actively practicing my faith, it really gets under my skin to have to deal with people who hold to that belief and thus, try to not only invalidate my confirmation, holy communion, and baptism; but the very legitimacy of my birth! (My parents were not married in a Latin rite ceremony) So maybe I should be more gracious with people, but I just take offense to the entire notion because I love the mass as I have experienced it my entire life. It has always been the castle that I can run to when the pressures of the secular world and secular life are weighing down on me and I don't appreciate uppity millennial converts who try and tear it down for me.

And again, I'll state that I have no problem with the TLM. How could I? I've never been to one. It's just the attitudes of superiority and smugness that a lot of people who exclusively go to TLM, especially those who are not cradle Catholics, cultivate that bothers me. But I guess I won't have to worry about it anymore, since my diocese will definitely not be offering TLM in light of today's ruling.

Fenwick said:

I imagine SSPX vocations directors are going to be very busy now.

EDIT: Sorry I'm livid right now and feeling really snarky.

Click to expand...

I was late in getting the news, having been busy at my work all day and then a bit wiped.

This is a very unhappy moto proprio. A mistake by a man who has made many mistakes. He has the authority to make those mistakes. Still, he flubbed this one badly. It's going to do real harm.

Fenwick said:

Seems like the magnum opus of his pontificate though, doesn't it? He's been laying the groundwork for this one for years. Why now? Some suspect that his health is declining and he could pass soon, based on his recent hospital stay and how Vatican media relations was spinning it.

Judging by how this seems to have united a lot of Catholics (against him) in a single day though, this might end up being a giant own-goal for him.

Click to expand...

I remember an incident from the coup I lived through where a young revolutionary who had never held a rifle before shot his foot off. This seems similar. Pope Francis doesn't know what's up and how much damage he can do but he's shooting anyway, at his feet and at ours. This is right up there with Amoris Laetitia and is now the 'capstone' of his achievements. Maybe he needs to name a few more cardinals. I think I'll let it rest with that and maybe have a nightmare. That would be better than this. And I'm not even a big Latin Mass guy, having been to only one in the past year.

This is one of those rare occasions where I think Francis has the theological edge over Benedict. I will explain why here, where I am anonymous and can't get my feet shot off. (I gave a taste of my view in this post)

Note that this is a purely theological analysis. I haven't seen any pundits look at it from a theological vantage point. Everyone is talking about anecdotes, practical matters, the politics of the move, the timing, how the transition might work, etc. That's all important, but at the end of the day theology should carry the day.

First, the four relevant documents:

• Summorum Pontificum
• Letter Accompanying Summorum Pontificum
• Traditionis Custodes
• Letter Accompanying Traditionis Custodes

Now, both Benedict and Francis give a twofold justification for their Motu Proprio. The practical justification for both is the same: unity and concord. Let's just say that both Motu Propria did achieve unity and concord to some extent. The practical rationale in both cases is obvious. I am more interested in the theological rationale.

For Benedict the theological rationale for Summorum Pontificum was the antiquity of the Missale Romanum, which could not be abrogated even in principle. For Francis the theological rationale for Traditionis Custodes is the Second Vatican Council. Francis is also holding to the commonsensical position--which even hardened traditionalists accept and which Benedict must implicitly accept--that a single liturgical Rite cannot have two significantly different forms of worship.

The theological principles are both extremely well-established. The problem is that they contradict in this case. The Second Vatican Council disregarded the antiquity of the Missale Romanum, plain and simple. This was a tragic mistake, but we can't turn back history. This, then, is the central question: Did the Council have the authority to disregard the Rite's antiquity and to displace it with a new Rite? I think the answer is, "Yes, the Council had the authority to do this stupid thing." Especially on a Catholic ecclesiology, the Pope and the bishops, gathered together in a universal council, had the authority to make such a change, and that change must now be respected.

Note that if we read Francis in good faith, he is not innovating. Like Benedict he is a "Custodian of the Tradition." Francis is guarding the work of the Council and of Pope Paul VI. Benedict was guarding the principle of liturgical antiquity and the theological patrimony of the Rite. I don't see how we could reject the Council without reverting to a kind of hyper-Conciliarism where even the most fundamental acts of an Ecumenical Council could be rejected on the basis of a significant lack of 'reception' (and lack of reception is not currently in evidence, by the way). I can, on the other hand, see how we could overlook the theological patrimony in this case. I mean, we have essentially overlooked it for over 55 years now. There is no real justification for such a thing, but it did happen and now we must accept the Council rather than try to turn back history. There is no real option that I can see. Rejecting the Council is only possible for sedevacantists.

At this point I don't think Traditionis Custodes will ever be reversed. The best thing would be for traditionalists to carve out a place for themselves in the Novus Ordo, and to enrich that Rite with their sensibilities. Of course they can continue attending the TLM for a long time, but if they wait too long they will have no efficacy in the new Rite and will therefore have no ability to enrich it.

(To be honest, I'm not sure what the endgame was for Summorum Pontificum. I'm not sure Benedict knew either. Maybe traditionalists thought that the 1962 Missal would eventually become the ordinary form and Paul VI's Missal would be abrogated? In reality that was never going to happen, as even Benedict says in his letter.)

BrAndreyu said:

In English layman's terms, this means what exactly? That nobody is allowed to say the "Latin Mass" anymore?

If that is the case, why is that so horrible exactly? Like I said about the Latin Mass: It's not that I'm against it, I've never been to one but I'm skeptical about how "great" it supposedly is, because it's held up by the "tradcath" scene of 30-something converts who only became Catholic because they believe that the Catholic church fits well with their quasi-White nationalist political beliefs and they use it as a means to virtue signal to the rest of us who have gone to mass in English (or our native language) since birth. Seriously. The Novus Ordo was good enough for St. John Paul II and Mother Theresa, so it's good enough for me. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Novus Ordo and I'm going to take the unpopular opinion of siding with Pope Francis on this one: rigidity for rigidity's sake is bad, especially when we're supposed to be bringing people into the church rather than making it an exclusive place that only the most dedicated people can belong to and I feel that the constant promotion of the Latin mass as being superior to the Novus Ordo (and the believers that have experienced Novus Ordo since birth) does that. It's not right and it is uppity and pharisaic.

Now sometimes I want to see a different form of mass, but not because I want to be able to signal to my secular political tribe how "pious" and "holy" I am that I go to a mass that I cannot understand in a dead language that nobody uses, but because there are different traditions that are just as valid as the Latin mass and Novus Ordo. If you want to see a different form of the mass, just go to an Eastern Catholic church! Ukr. Greek Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Maronite, Armenian Catholic... these all exist in communion with Rome and shouldn't be viewed as inferior just because they don't use the Latin mass.

Again, I'm not down on the Latin mass. I've never been to one, but the notion that the Novus Ordo is somehow invalid or inferior to the Latin mass is ludicrous on it's face and ludicrous in it's spirit because of the kind of people that promote that ideology and their motives for doing so.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I think that you are making the wrong comparison here.
If you want to slam the TradCatholics, that's your privilege. After all, it isn't like it hasn't been done by lots of people throughout history, beginning with the very first Christians, who were thrown out of their synagogs for believing that Jesus was the Son of God, come to Earth in the form and shape of a man.
That is who we worship, and that is why our priests face the altar when they offer the Sacrifice. It is why we genuflect to Christ, in awe of Him.

Please, for the last time, the mass is for Him, to honor Him, to love Him, to worship and to adore Him.
We sing His glory, not our own.
Our priests face the altar, because we do not turn our backs in the Very Presence of the King of Glory.
We simply can't.
The mass is not about us,
it's all about Him.

BrAndreyu said:

It will continue where there is already significant demand for it, but dioceses like mine aren't going to be offering it, so the chances of my ever getting to go to one are slim to none now.

Click to expand...

Unless you move in the future.
That would be the challenge now for any of us who are in your same situation: Does my faith mean enough to me that I would either move or travel to be near to a parish where the Latin Mass is still offered.

zippy2006 said:

This is one of those rare occasions where I think Francis has the theological edge over Benedict. I will explain why here, where I am anonymous and can't get my feet shot off. (I gave a taste of my view in this post)

Note that this is a purely theological analysis. I haven't seen any pundits look at it from a theological vantage point. Everyone is talking about anecdotes, practical matters, the politics of the move, the timing, how the transition might work, etc. That's all important, but at the end of the day theology should carry the day.

First, the four relevant documents:

• Summorum Pontificum
• Letter Accompanying Summorum Pontificum
• Traditionis Custodes
• Letter Accompanying Traditionis Custodes

Now, both Benedict and Francis give a twofold justification for their Motu Proprio. The practical justification for both is the same: unity and concord. Let's just say that both Motu Propria did achieve unity and concord to some extent. The practical rationale in both cases is obvious. I am more interested in the theological rationale.

For Benedict the theological rationale for Summorum Pontificum was the antiquity of the Missale Romanum, which could not be abrogated even in principle. For Francis the theological rationale for Traditionis Custodes is the Second Vatican Council. Francis is also holding to the commonsensical position--which even hardened traditionalists accept and which Benedict must implicitly accept--that a single liturgical Rite cannot have two significantly different forms of worship.

The theological principles are both extremely well-established. The problem is that they contradict in this case. The Second Vatican Council disregarded the antiquity of the Missale Romanum, plain and simple. This was a tragic mistake, but we can't turn back history. This, then, is the central question: Did the Council have the authority to disregard the Rite's antiquity and to displace it with a new Rite? I think the answer is, "Yes, the Council had the authority to do this stupid thing." Especially on a Catholic ecclesiology, the Pope and the bishops, gathered together in a universal council, had the authority to make such a change, and that change must now be respected.

Note that if we read Francis in good faith, he is not innovating. Like Benedict he is a "Custodian of the Tradition." Francis is guarding the work of the Council and of Pope Paul VI. Benedict was guarding the principle of liturgical antiquity and the theological patrimony of the Rite. I don't see how we could reject the Council without reverting to a kind of hyper-Conciliarism where even the most fundamental acts of an Ecumenical Council could be rejected on the basis of a significant lack of 'reception' (and lack of reception is not currently in evidence, by the way). I can, on the other hand, see how we could overlook the theological patrimony in this case. I mean, we have essentially overlooked it for over 55 years now. There is no real justification for such a thing, but it did happen and now we must accept the Council rather than try to turn back history. There is no real option that I can see. Rejecting the Council is only possible for sedevacantists.

At this point I don't think Traditionis Custodes will ever be reversed. The best thing would be for traditionalists to carve out a place for themselves in the Novus Ordo, and to enrich that Rite with their sensibilities. Of course they can continue attending the TLM for a long time, but if they wait too long they will have no efficacy in the new Rite and will therefore have no ability to enrich it.

(To be honest, I'm not sure what the endgame was for Summorum Pontificum. I'm not sure Benedict knew either. Maybe traditionalists thought that the 1962 Missal would eventually become the ordinary form and Paul VI's Missal would be abrogated? In reality that was never going to happen, as even Benedict says in his letter.)

Click to expand...

Basically what pope francis has done here is to pull another brick out of the wall, aka playing a game with gravity to see how many bricks he can pull out of a wall before it falls down.
And in doing so he periodically pulls out first one brick, then another, and another.
His telling statement to young Catholics in the beginning of his Pontificate was "Go out and make a mess!"
And that is what he has done.

This is a sad change for me. The nearest TLM is 100 or so miles from me. I had hoped a local one might start up eventually, but this will obviously make that very difficult. I love my NO parish and would not leave it for a TLM, but I would have liked the option to attend both. I have not been to a Latin Mass yet, but I would like to experience the same style of Mass my mother, grandmother, and great-grandparents knew in their days.

It is said that the devil hates the Latin language. I hope the same is not true of the pope.

BrAndreyu said:

"It was good enough for Pope St. John Paul II and Mother Theresa,

Click to expand...

you know both of those people were spiritually formed under the Latin Mass? Like they were well established in their vocations when the new mass was made up.
Speaking of vocations, you notice how they have plummeted since the implementation of the new mass? I am sure that is just coincidence though...