I don’t understand the way you divide reality from theory. In particular you say “SP worked in reality even if it did not work in theory.”
Economists who argue for free markets are faced with the criticism that free markets work well according to theory but not in practice (reality?). Likewise free market economists argue that a socialist system might sound good in theory, but does not work in practice. (Actually both systems in theory try to achieve the same allocation of resources.). So many things, work in theory but not in practice. If it does work in theory I doubt it can work in practice.
Its a play on rabid anti-traditionalist bigot Mark Shea's old statement that something "worked in reality, but does it work in theory" which was a rather intuitive understanding that those in power do not necessarily look for something which works, but rather their own pet ideas. That something serves the common good or promotes the interests of harmony is nonetheless an obstacle to the common good and harmony if an elite or powerbroker wants it to be.
Summorum Pontificum "worked." It dramatically lowered the temperature in interfactional disputes in the Church. It advanced the interests of Vatican II promoting unity in diversity. It helped end a sad state of affairs that few if anyone were happy with. It laid a lot of the groundwork for reconcilation with the SSPX, groundwork Francis likes and has himself used.
Yet those in power were not interested in the common good, Vatican II, or the interests of harmony and justice. They were interested in their own egos, their own vision for how the world works. At some point along the way, they convinced Francis to adopt that vision, to chase a "legacy" rather than serve the servants of God.
The failure of Traditionis custodes to stamp out the Latin Mass, and the subsequent weakening of his authority this move engineered is the just reward for such.
Thank you, I now understand. In my Diocese Summorum Pontificium definitely lowered the temperature but also allowed many to discover tradition, as well as made people like my wife and I comfortable when attending NO masses.
Make the NO the only way we can celebrate the mass, then the issue becomes a matter of form than of substance. For it to be the main reason for glibalizing NO mass is rather shallow and imperious, simply because one can do.
"(The accompanying letter to bishops said that only with one expression of the Roman Rite could this crisis of unity be averted.)" Does this mean that the "Anglican Use of the Roman Rite" will have to go? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Use
Ironically once TC came out, a lot of the popesplainers began inventing reasons it would have to once trads pointed it out!
The one thing to remember is that TC and its accompanying letter were full of errors of fact (the liturgy before John XXIII) implication (such as with the Anglinan/Zaire usage being roadblocks to Church unity and not being authentic expressions of the sacrifice of Christ) and a completely unrealistic understanding of the way non-european dioceses work. (A standard of "personal parishes" they themselves have gone back on)
Normally, to prevent these kind of misunderstandings, legislation is proposed and then, after study, it is to take effect upon a certain date. Yet Francis and his court were terrified that if he died (and he had a legitimate health scare to where he did in fact almost die), a future successor would almost certainly not implement the decree. As a result, he ordered it enacted immediately, daring the bishops to call his bluff, not realizing he wasn't even holding cards.
"Summorum Pontificum worked in reality, even if it didn’t work in theory."
I realize that the theory behind Summorum Pontificum was opposed by a number of theologians and academics who you are responding to. However, it continues to be the only way that the 20th Century liturgical reform and Novus Ordo Missae can be squared with Catholic tradition. Otherwise, it's difficult to see how Abp. Lefebvre was wrong in separating himself from Rome.
The idea that the Novus and Vetus Ordo are two forms of the Roman Rite was argued by Cardinal Ratzinger when he was negotiating with the SSPX in the 1980s. It is not surprising that he enshrined this in law once he became Pope. Pope Francis, whether intentionally or not, has justified the actions taken by the SSPX in 1988. I would be curious to read one of the theologians behind Traditiones Custodes explain why Lefebvre's theories of the Council is correct, but I do not expect a coherent answer.
"While you had parishes which were dedicated solely to the TLM and its structures, most parishes were “dual use”, in which the Novus Ordo and TLM were celebrated in the same parish. This was the overwhelming preference in the United States (where over 700 such regular masses regularly occurred), and the common occurrence in Europe."
By my math, in fact, such communities accounted for 88% of all TLM locations in the United States by July 2021.
And it is precisely these which have borne the brunt of TC suppressions since 2021. There is, in fact, only a single TLM only community which has suffered suppression in this effort: The Shrine of Christ the King in Chicago. This was the result of the imposition of conditions by Cardinal Cupich with which the Institute of Christ the King could not comply without violating their own (pontifical right) constitution. But Cupich's hostility to the old rite is of long standing and well known, to put it mildly - and an extreme outlier in the episocpate.
I don’t understand the way you divide reality from theory. In particular you say “SP worked in reality even if it did not work in theory.”
Economists who argue for free markets are faced with the criticism that free markets work well according to theory but not in practice (reality?). Likewise free market economists argue that a socialist system might sound good in theory, but does not work in practice. (Actually both systems in theory try to achieve the same allocation of resources.). So many things, work in theory but not in practice. If it does work in theory I doubt it can work in practice.
Its a play on rabid anti-traditionalist bigot Mark Shea's old statement that something "worked in reality, but does it work in theory" which was a rather intuitive understanding that those in power do not necessarily look for something which works, but rather their own pet ideas. That something serves the common good or promotes the interests of harmony is nonetheless an obstacle to the common good and harmony if an elite or powerbroker wants it to be.
Summorum Pontificum "worked." It dramatically lowered the temperature in interfactional disputes in the Church. It advanced the interests of Vatican II promoting unity in diversity. It helped end a sad state of affairs that few if anyone were happy with. It laid a lot of the groundwork for reconcilation with the SSPX, groundwork Francis likes and has himself used.
Yet those in power were not interested in the common good, Vatican II, or the interests of harmony and justice. They were interested in their own egos, their own vision for how the world works. At some point along the way, they convinced Francis to adopt that vision, to chase a "legacy" rather than serve the servants of God.
The failure of Traditionis custodes to stamp out the Latin Mass, and the subsequent weakening of his authority this move engineered is the just reward for such.
Thank you, I now understand. In my Diocese Summorum Pontificium definitely lowered the temperature but also allowed many to discover tradition, as well as made people like my wife and I comfortable when attending NO masses.
Make the NO the only way we can celebrate the mass, then the issue becomes a matter of form than of substance. For it to be the main reason for glibalizing NO mass is rather shallow and imperious, simply because one can do.
"(The accompanying letter to bishops said that only with one expression of the Roman Rite could this crisis of unity be averted.)" Does this mean that the "Anglican Use of the Roman Rite" will have to go? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Use
Ironically once TC came out, a lot of the popesplainers began inventing reasons it would have to once trads pointed it out!
The one thing to remember is that TC and its accompanying letter were full of errors of fact (the liturgy before John XXIII) implication (such as with the Anglinan/Zaire usage being roadblocks to Church unity and not being authentic expressions of the sacrifice of Christ) and a completely unrealistic understanding of the way non-european dioceses work. (A standard of "personal parishes" they themselves have gone back on)
Normally, to prevent these kind of misunderstandings, legislation is proposed and then, after study, it is to take effect upon a certain date. Yet Francis and his court were terrified that if he died (and he had a legitimate health scare to where he did in fact almost die), a future successor would almost certainly not implement the decree. As a result, he ordered it enacted immediately, daring the bishops to call his bluff, not realizing he wasn't even holding cards.
Amazing
"Summorum Pontificum worked in reality, even if it didn’t work in theory."
I realize that the theory behind Summorum Pontificum was opposed by a number of theologians and academics who you are responding to. However, it continues to be the only way that the 20th Century liturgical reform and Novus Ordo Missae can be squared with Catholic tradition. Otherwise, it's difficult to see how Abp. Lefebvre was wrong in separating himself from Rome.
The idea that the Novus and Vetus Ordo are two forms of the Roman Rite was argued by Cardinal Ratzinger when he was negotiating with the SSPX in the 1980s. It is not surprising that he enshrined this in law once he became Pope. Pope Francis, whether intentionally or not, has justified the actions taken by the SSPX in 1988. I would be curious to read one of the theologians behind Traditiones Custodes explain why Lefebvre's theories of the Council is correct, but I do not expect a coherent answer.
"While you had parishes which were dedicated solely to the TLM and its structures, most parishes were “dual use”, in which the Novus Ordo and TLM were celebrated in the same parish. This was the overwhelming preference in the United States (where over 700 such regular masses regularly occurred), and the common occurrence in Europe."
By my math, in fact, such communities accounted for 88% of all TLM locations in the United States by July 2021.
And it is precisely these which have borne the brunt of TC suppressions since 2021. There is, in fact, only a single TLM only community which has suffered suppression in this effort: The Shrine of Christ the King in Chicago. This was the result of the imposition of conditions by Cardinal Cupich with which the Institute of Christ the King could not comply without violating their own (pontifical right) constitution. But Cupich's hostility to the old rite is of long standing and well known, to put it mildly - and an extreme outlier in the episocpate.