Well written. I like the inclusion of Pope BXVi comments re mutual enrichment. As a Catholic who primarily attends NO but drives an hour about once a month to go to FSSP TLM I see that idea and its’ inevitable value and grounding — it provides hope that the experimental nonsense will be overtaken by the incorporation of tradition- if the hierarchy can wake up and “smell the roses”.
This essay made me realize I should subscribe - and I did - because I don't recall reading such a quietly but greatly reassuring essay on this topic. Thank you for it.
Question: Have there been any recently appointed Bishops who have reversed restrictions on the VO imposed by their predecessor as a result of TC? It seems like several recently appointed Bishops have said they were told to enforce it (implying it was a condition of their appointment)? I thought this was the case with the Bishop of Knoxville. With the Bishop of Charlotte, well he is so looney tunes he clearly could not wait to impose it. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
Anyway, the point of my question is that I believe the purpose of suppressing the VO and imposing the (theologically ambiguous) NO has always been to allow the hierarchy to fundamentally change the Church's theology of the Eucharist. Maybe I am dead wrong about this, but being a protestant for 47 years before starting to go to a VO mass, allowed me to see how the changes in the liturgies of the Episcopal, United Methodist and Lutheran Churches (which look very similar to the NO liturgy) contributed to the demise of these Churches that was brought on by weakening their adherence to the Natural Law and/or divine law. Or what the Romans would call "fas".
I think there's a bit of a difficulty here because right now, a Bishop cannot reverse the restrictions. Francis changed Church law to prohibit that, precisely because it was clear that Bishops would not implement it, and eventually someone would lose their nerve and give up.
Right now the only ones who can reverse existing restrictions is The DDW.
To be fair, I think we have to say that motives for "suppressive" efforts vary depending on who you are talking about. We can perevive broad negative trend lines while understanding that the hierarchy is not a hive mind.
1. The Council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium's preamble speak of pastoral and even ecumenical motives, with nary a hint of a change in doctrine. That's what got the votes. If they had thought they were voting for a change in Eucharistic doctrine, they'd have said that.
2. Paul VI was a hard man to understand. But it's worth noting that the rise of new radical Eucharistic theologies advanced by Schillebeeckx and Rahner impelled him to issue an encyclical, Mysterium Fidei (1965) denouncing them. I cannot help but sense that his motives in squeezing the old rite were more personal: an exhaustion with the old rites, an investment in his own papal legacy, a fear of being out of tune with a restless modern postwar world.
Successive popes have all had different outlooks and policy about the liturgy - every one has been different. Francis might be the only one with a more "horizontal" theology, but it's hard to say he was actually systematic about it - he just didn't have a theological mind. His policies felt more like they were about politics, control, and personal grudges.
3. Some prelates and theologians clearly DID and DO see the modern rite as a vehicle for shifting popular views of the Eucharist. I named two of these above; we can all think of present day examples, and theology journals have been full of such things for the last 60 years, alas. I don't think they are as numerous as they once were. In academia their sinecures are shrinking and notwithstanding San Anselmo's recent influence in DDW, they're more isolated from the life of the Church and formation of priests than they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s in most places.
4. Some bishops are just control freaks. The relentless bureaucratization and centralization of the Church over the last 150 years has only fed such mindsets. They are uncomfortable with people under them doing different things.
5. Some bishops are just following orders, and going with the flow. Bishops are rarely chosen for their great sense of courage or independence of mind in our age!
I do think this assessment tends to support Kevin's view of where the direction of travel is going.
Archbishop Weisenberger was appointed to Detroit by Francis, though - in February 2025. He is not a Leo appointment.
That said, it is worth noting that the Institute of Christ the King was given four new apostolates (mostly oratories, I believe) in the U.S. in the last 18 months - Reno, Oswego, Queens, and Tampa - along with its new retreat center authorized by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
Please note, though, that all 4 new apostolates were based on existing TLMs: it's not like the Bishops in those places decided to defy TC by establishing new Masses.
Yes, that's my understanding on at least three of these oratories. That said, even so, a straight facial reading of Traditionis Custodes suggests that Francis didn't want any *new* such personal parishes** set up by traditionalist priestly societies...and yet, here they are. All four of those bishops certainly had to get approval from Rome (that is, the DDW) to formally erect them, regardless of whether they were replacing existing TLMs.
**Technically, I think all of these are oratories, not personal parishes. But for the ICK, an oratory functions like a personal parish. So it still seems like a violation of the spirit of TC. But clearly, Leo seems willing to relax that provision in application.
Well written. I like the inclusion of Pope BXVi comments re mutual enrichment. As a Catholic who primarily attends NO but drives an hour about once a month to go to FSSP TLM I see that idea and its’ inevitable value and grounding — it provides hope that the experimental nonsense will be overtaken by the incorporation of tradition- if the hierarchy can wake up and “smell the roses”.
This essay made me realize I should subscribe - and I did - because I don't recall reading such a quietly but greatly reassuring essay on this topic. Thank you for it.
Question: Have there been any recently appointed Bishops who have reversed restrictions on the VO imposed by their predecessor as a result of TC? It seems like several recently appointed Bishops have said they were told to enforce it (implying it was a condition of their appointment)? I thought this was the case with the Bishop of Knoxville. With the Bishop of Charlotte, well he is so looney tunes he clearly could not wait to impose it. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
Anyway, the point of my question is that I believe the purpose of suppressing the VO and imposing the (theologically ambiguous) NO has always been to allow the hierarchy to fundamentally change the Church's theology of the Eucharist. Maybe I am dead wrong about this, but being a protestant for 47 years before starting to go to a VO mass, allowed me to see how the changes in the liturgies of the Episcopal, United Methodist and Lutheran Churches (which look very similar to the NO liturgy) contributed to the demise of these Churches that was brought on by weakening their adherence to the Natural Law and/or divine law. Or what the Romans would call "fas".
I think there's a bit of a difficulty here because right now, a Bishop cannot reverse the restrictions. Francis changed Church law to prohibit that, precisely because it was clear that Bishops would not implement it, and eventually someone would lose their nerve and give up.
Right now the only ones who can reverse existing restrictions is The DDW.
Thank you, Kevin.
To be fair, I think we have to say that motives for "suppressive" efforts vary depending on who you are talking about. We can perevive broad negative trend lines while understanding that the hierarchy is not a hive mind.
1. The Council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium's preamble speak of pastoral and even ecumenical motives, with nary a hint of a change in doctrine. That's what got the votes. If they had thought they were voting for a change in Eucharistic doctrine, they'd have said that.
2. Paul VI was a hard man to understand. But it's worth noting that the rise of new radical Eucharistic theologies advanced by Schillebeeckx and Rahner impelled him to issue an encyclical, Mysterium Fidei (1965) denouncing them. I cannot help but sense that his motives in squeezing the old rite were more personal: an exhaustion with the old rites, an investment in his own papal legacy, a fear of being out of tune with a restless modern postwar world.
Successive popes have all had different outlooks and policy about the liturgy - every one has been different. Francis might be the only one with a more "horizontal" theology, but it's hard to say he was actually systematic about it - he just didn't have a theological mind. His policies felt more like they were about politics, control, and personal grudges.
3. Some prelates and theologians clearly DID and DO see the modern rite as a vehicle for shifting popular views of the Eucharist. I named two of these above; we can all think of present day examples, and theology journals have been full of such things for the last 60 years, alas. I don't think they are as numerous as they once were. In academia their sinecures are shrinking and notwithstanding San Anselmo's recent influence in DDW, they're more isolated from the life of the Church and formation of priests than they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s in most places.
4. Some bishops are just control freaks. The relentless bureaucratization and centralization of the Church over the last 150 years has only fed such mindsets. They are uncomfortable with people under them doing different things.
5. Some bishops are just following orders, and going with the flow. Bishops are rarely chosen for their great sense of courage or independence of mind in our age!
I do think this assessment tends to support Kevin's view of where the direction of travel is going.
The new bishop of Detroit eliminated several TLMs within the first few months.
Archbishop Weisenberger was appointed to Detroit by Francis, though - in February 2025. He is not a Leo appointment.
That said, it is worth noting that the Institute of Christ the King was given four new apostolates (mostly oratories, I believe) in the U.S. in the last 18 months - Reno, Oswego, Queens, and Tampa - along with its new retreat center authorized by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
Please note, though, that all 4 new apostolates were based on existing TLMs: it's not like the Bishops in those places decided to defy TC by establishing new Masses.
Yes, that's my understanding on at least three of these oratories. That said, even so, a straight facial reading of Traditionis Custodes suggests that Francis didn't want any *new* such personal parishes** set up by traditionalist priestly societies...and yet, here they are. All four of those bishops certainly had to get approval from Rome (that is, the DDW) to formally erect them, regardless of whether they were replacing existing TLMs.
**Technically, I think all of these are oratories, not personal parishes. But for the ICK, an oratory functions like a personal parish. So it still seems like a violation of the spirit of TC. But clearly, Leo seems willing to relax that provision in application.
Thank you.