There is more to the story than many of the bishops didn’t implement TC. Define that. There were many other places, primarily more rural or semi-urban, where people were asking for the TLM under SP. along about 2020, we thought we were making headways and that the bishop would allow it soon. Then wham, TC, and all communication stopped. These places are not included in the statistics because our Masses were not “shut down,” but rather progress toward full SP implementation was halted. In our area, after TC, we pretty much can’t even talk about the TLM anymore. It’s hush hush.
My take on it was that the survey was issued as a pretext and then was used to ban the TLM- that is, PF was a political figure and operated by insincerities. If it hadn’t been for Diane Montagna, no-one would have known how the bishops viewed their TLM parishioners. I read comments by the bishops at the time the survey was leaked and they were the opposite of critical - high praise actually, and their characterisation of the TLM crowd was pretty accurate. That is, they are generally reverent, community-minded, respectful- pretty much the opposite of the descriptions by Pope Francis. The whole manoeuvring that we were subject to was so socialist and gas-lighting. It is pretty appalling when a pope lies, but people should stop talking niceties and speak the truth. Socialism does not see lying as bad, merely a means to an end, and any mechanism that achieves the objective is allowed. Whether or not we are looking at socialism, per se, we are certainly witnessing socialist techniques and any person who breaches the approved narrative had better be prepared for the ‘point and shriek’ response - another tactic. The thing is - people have been cowed by these disproportionate responses but everyone has to call it when they see it and be prepared to say that the person justifying the action does not actually believe it but is telling lies.
As an update, by the way, a new official development that likely won't surprise Mr. Tierney: the news website of the German Bishops' Conference uses the most diplomatic of languages to admit that....there was some dissimulation by the late pontiff:
"Pope Francis appears to have ignored the advice of the bishops previously consulted worldwide when he restricted the Traditional Latin Mass. According to documents that have now become public, the responses to a survey conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the implementation of the rules for the pre-conciliar liturgy put in place by Pope Benedict XVI were significantly more positive than the Pope himself presented."
For the past 56 years the faithful have been trying to understand: “Why would they (Pope, Curia, Concilium) screw up the unscrewupable?” I mean…Holy Mother Church was in very good shape prior to Vatican II; tons of vocations, schools, universities and hospitals thriving. If this isn’t/wasn’t planned destruction of the Church, then what exactly WAS it? What were Pope Francis’ goals: Moral clarity, growing the flock, and the salvation of souls? Or destruction of one of the few parts of the Church that is thriving?
The Church was not in “very good shape” before VII and NO. If it were, it would never have folded before the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. Bishops worldwide were sounding the alarm not to interpret the institutional numbers you cite as signs of health. In 1959 Ratzinger called them baptized pagans.
How was Mass attendance? Catholic schools/school enrollment? Seminary and convent populations? Belief in the Real Presence?
Number of parishes?
Catholic knowledge of the Faith?
You cite Ratzinger. In many ways a great theologian, yet a waffling and cowardly Pope. Fully onboard with the novelty of Vatican II, but seemed to realize later in life what a mistake it was.
Holy Mother Church, by any and every objective measure was in better shape (by an order of magnitude) than she was after the Vat II train wreck.
"The choice before Leo XIV is if he wants to acknowledge the reality the bishops tried to tell Francis now, or later. He likely won’t like later."
At this early date there is still a lot to learn about Papa Prevost, but one thing that has become clear is that he is careful to avoid any *direct* contradiction or criticism of his predecessor. That might change in the future, but it seems less and less likely to me. If we are looking at a Thermidorian pontificate, it's shaping up to be a soft Thermidor. But that's how the modern papacy operates!
I, too, share the sense that these revelations make even more likely *some* sort of reversal of TC, or at least of its execution, in the not too distant future, but I would be surprised if Leo even addresses the question of What Francis Knew And When He Knew It. But he doesn't really need to, does he? He can simply allude to a new evaluation of pastoral realities on the ground and feedback from his beloved brother bishops. Future popes may be less kind (or indirect). Such a slow and evasive correction of these deep injustices will be frustrating to many of us; but I think our expectations must be reasonable. Alas, no matter what Leo does, it does not seem likely that dioceses like Detroit and Charlotte are going to see any of their massacred parish TLM's restored until new ordinaries arrive in these places.
Good way to think of it- “soft” ( gradual, peaceful, careful) correction. It will not be pleasant for all but it will make for good reading in 50 years for my elderly children and middle aged grandchildren.
Yes, there will be no tumbrels rolling up to scaffolds in St Peter's square, nor even a damnatio memoriae for the late pontiff under *this* pontificate!
But there are lots of ways to bury the dead with a smile.
I am not making any predictions about a Honorius treatment under a post-Leo XIV pontificate. But it is worth keeping in mind that the Third Council of Constantinople's anathema of Honorius did not come until 43 years after his death (basically, when he had just about passed out of living memory given the life expectancies of 7th C. Christendom). Communications are far quicker now, it's true, but the enormous edifice of the modern papacy changes course more slowly. And any formal corrections or apologies for the previous pontificate will almost certainly take different forms: As Sam Clemens liked to say, history does not always repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
Didn't something like 2/3 of the bishops not enforce TC in any significant way after its promulgation? Or at least, not take steps to suppress the Latin Mass in their dioceses?
If "enforce" means the sort of things +Roche has been targeting in his enforcement of the rescript -- that is, elimination of ALL parish TLM's outside Ecclesia Dei communities, and proscription of celebration of the old rite by virtually all diocesan priests -- then the percentage was a lot higher than two thirds in the U.S....at least until the rescript campaign commenced.
It is a trickier question in Europe, where traditionally nearly all authorized TLM's are conducted by Ecclesia Dei orders and priestly societies. Even in France, there never were all that many diocesan priests (publicly) celebrating the old rite. So, there was not nearly so much to "enforce." Traditionis Custodes was clearly an act aimed squarely at the American Church.
Why do you say that Francis had several theological degrees? He left his theological studies in Germany without completing them and received no degree. He returned to Argentina where he apparently matriculated in the school of Peronism
Why do you say that Francis had several theological degrees? In fact, he left his theological studies in Germany without completing them and received no degree. He returned to Argentina where he apparently continue to matriculate in the school of Peronism.
I always attributed it to God using Pope Francis to get rid of the Novus Ordo. I actually like a reverent Novus Ordo, but God must have greater wisdom.
Before TC if you touched grass, the Latin Mass parish in my diocese was growing but more as a niche, historical, celebrate tradition and continuity parish. The young people in the diocese would visit sort of like tourism then go back to their Novus Ordo parish. Some would stay, and certainly the statistics of everyone being pro-life were much higher, then the more liberal parishes, and the birth rate was higher and the mode of the age in the parish was so much younger.
TC created the divide, and pushed for a firm choice. It was only after TC that I ever heard a person in real life question the Novus Ordo.
I think that Benedict had it figured out- a theory of “rupture,” the confused idea that the church kind of started over or needed to recreate the foundational church for the modern period is dispositive here. Ergo TLM is reactionary - don’t distract us with data.
There is more to the story than many of the bishops didn’t implement TC. Define that. There were many other places, primarily more rural or semi-urban, where people were asking for the TLM under SP. along about 2020, we thought we were making headways and that the bishop would allow it soon. Then wham, TC, and all communication stopped. These places are not included in the statistics because our Masses were not “shut down,” but rather progress toward full SP implementation was halted. In our area, after TC, we pretty much can’t even talk about the TLM anymore. It’s hush hush.
My take on it was that the survey was issued as a pretext and then was used to ban the TLM- that is, PF was a political figure and operated by insincerities. If it hadn’t been for Diane Montagna, no-one would have known how the bishops viewed their TLM parishioners. I read comments by the bishops at the time the survey was leaked and they were the opposite of critical - high praise actually, and their characterisation of the TLM crowd was pretty accurate. That is, they are generally reverent, community-minded, respectful- pretty much the opposite of the descriptions by Pope Francis. The whole manoeuvring that we were subject to was so socialist and gas-lighting. It is pretty appalling when a pope lies, but people should stop talking niceties and speak the truth. Socialism does not see lying as bad, merely a means to an end, and any mechanism that achieves the objective is allowed. Whether or not we are looking at socialism, per se, we are certainly witnessing socialist techniques and any person who breaches the approved narrative had better be prepared for the ‘point and shriek’ response - another tactic. The thing is - people have been cowed by these disproportionate responses but everyone has to call it when they see it and be prepared to say that the person justifying the action does not actually believe it but is telling lies.
Universae Ecclesaie laid out a check in for the implementation 10 years later.
It might have been pretextual but that's why it was commissioned.
Ah ha! Thanks for that!
As an update, by the way, a new official development that likely won't surprise Mr. Tierney: the news website of the German Bishops' Conference uses the most diplomatic of languages to admit that....there was some dissimulation by the late pontiff:
"Pope Francis appears to have ignored the advice of the bishops previously consulted worldwide when he restricted the Traditional Latin Mass. According to documents that have now become public, the responses to a survey conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the implementation of the rules for the pre-conciliar liturgy put in place by Pope Benedict XVI were significantly more positive than the Pope himself presented."
https://english.katholisch.de/artikel/62765-leak-did-francis-restrict-traditional-latin-mass-against-the-advice-of-the-bishops
For the past 56 years the faithful have been trying to understand: “Why would they (Pope, Curia, Concilium) screw up the unscrewupable?” I mean…Holy Mother Church was in very good shape prior to Vatican II; tons of vocations, schools, universities and hospitals thriving. If this isn’t/wasn’t planned destruction of the Church, then what exactly WAS it? What were Pope Francis’ goals: Moral clarity, growing the flock, and the salvation of souls? Or destruction of one of the few parts of the Church that is thriving?
The Church was not in “very good shape” before VII and NO. If it were, it would never have folded before the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. Bishops worldwide were sounding the alarm not to interpret the institutional numbers you cite as signs of health. In 1959 Ratzinger called them baptized pagans.
How was Mass attendance? Catholic schools/school enrollment? Seminary and convent populations? Belief in the Real Presence?
Number of parishes?
Catholic knowledge of the Faith?
You cite Ratzinger. In many ways a great theologian, yet a waffling and cowardly Pope. Fully onboard with the novelty of Vatican II, but seemed to realize later in life what a mistake it was.
Holy Mother Church, by any and every objective measure was in better shape (by an order of magnitude) than she was after the Vat II train wreck.
Certainly refute any of these points.
"The choice before Leo XIV is if he wants to acknowledge the reality the bishops tried to tell Francis now, or later. He likely won’t like later."
At this early date there is still a lot to learn about Papa Prevost, but one thing that has become clear is that he is careful to avoid any *direct* contradiction or criticism of his predecessor. That might change in the future, but it seems less and less likely to me. If we are looking at a Thermidorian pontificate, it's shaping up to be a soft Thermidor. But that's how the modern papacy operates!
I, too, share the sense that these revelations make even more likely *some* sort of reversal of TC, or at least of its execution, in the not too distant future, but I would be surprised if Leo even addresses the question of What Francis Knew And When He Knew It. But he doesn't really need to, does he? He can simply allude to a new evaluation of pastoral realities on the ground and feedback from his beloved brother bishops. Future popes may be less kind (or indirect). Such a slow and evasive correction of these deep injustices will be frustrating to many of us; but I think our expectations must be reasonable. Alas, no matter what Leo does, it does not seem likely that dioceses like Detroit and Charlotte are going to see any of their massacred parish TLM's restored until new ordinaries arrive in these places.
Good way to think of it- “soft” ( gradual, peaceful, careful) correction. It will not be pleasant for all but it will make for good reading in 50 years for my elderly children and middle aged grandchildren.
Yes, there will be no tumbrels rolling up to scaffolds in St Peter's square, nor even a damnatio memoriae for the late pontiff under *this* pontificate!
But there are lots of ways to bury the dead with a smile.
I am not making any predictions about a Honorius treatment under a post-Leo XIV pontificate. But it is worth keeping in mind that the Third Council of Constantinople's anathema of Honorius did not come until 43 years after his death (basically, when he had just about passed out of living memory given the life expectancies of 7th C. Christendom). Communications are far quicker now, it's true, but the enormous edifice of the modern papacy changes course more slowly. And any formal corrections or apologies for the previous pontificate will almost certainly take different forms: As Sam Clemens liked to say, history does not always repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
“Bury the dead with a smile, “ - nice phrase and I agree that we might see this one a shovel full at a time.
Didn't something like 2/3 of the bishops not enforce TC in any significant way after its promulgation? Or at least, not take steps to suppress the Latin Mass in their dioceses?
Correct. Which strongly hinted at the survey not supporting Francis. He responded by revoking the Bishops authority on this matter with the rescript
If "enforce" means the sort of things +Roche has been targeting in his enforcement of the rescript -- that is, elimination of ALL parish TLM's outside Ecclesia Dei communities, and proscription of celebration of the old rite by virtually all diocesan priests -- then the percentage was a lot higher than two thirds in the U.S....at least until the rescript campaign commenced.
It is a trickier question in Europe, where traditionally nearly all authorized TLM's are conducted by Ecclesia Dei orders and priestly societies. Even in France, there never were all that many diocesan priests (publicly) celebrating the old rite. So, there was not nearly so much to "enforce." Traditionis Custodes was clearly an act aimed squarely at the American Church.
Great read.
It would be fitting with modern statecraft for this to leak before Pope Leo XIV turns to retract TC. One might hope for that possibility.
Why do you say that Francis had several theological degrees? He left his theological studies in Germany without completing them and received no degree. He returned to Argentina where he apparently matriculated in the school of Peronism
Kevin is the story of Francis ripping the document out of Ladaria’s hands in the same article of Diane’s or a different one? I didn’t see that story ?
BXVI should have seen this through instead of abdicating. Nevertheless, I assent to the Magisterium on this whole mess
Larry Chapp covers this well here, min 63ff:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2hpq9vQP7qykNx6pDPFOat?si=NEy0lnTGSQOad-y8Nm9-MQ
Correct, "Pope Francis wasn't lying, he was listening to the minority voice":
https://open.spotify.com/show/2sAgLr81gBJf3jBtpXJWFJ?si=ZkSJvq7_SjiBTAngkZRvJQ
Why do you say that Francis had several theological degrees? In fact, he left his theological studies in Germany without completing them and received no degree. He returned to Argentina where he apparently continue to matriculate in the school of Peronism.
I always attributed it to God using Pope Francis to get rid of the Novus Ordo. I actually like a reverent Novus Ordo, but God must have greater wisdom.
Before TC if you touched grass, the Latin Mass parish in my diocese was growing but more as a niche, historical, celebrate tradition and continuity parish. The young people in the diocese would visit sort of like tourism then go back to their Novus Ordo parish. Some would stay, and certainly the statistics of everyone being pro-life were much higher, then the more liberal parishes, and the birth rate was higher and the mode of the age in the parish was so much younger.
TC created the divide, and pushed for a firm choice. It was only after TC that I ever heard a person in real life question the Novus Ordo.
I think that Benedict had it figured out- a theory of “rupture,” the confused idea that the church kind of started over or needed to recreate the foundational church for the modern period is dispositive here. Ergo TLM is reactionary - don’t distract us with data.