Traditionis Custodes (3)

It is very interesting, to me, to see the reactions of bishops from around the world to Pope Francis' motu proprio on the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the Mass.  An auxiliary bishop from the Netherlands, Bishop Rob Mutsaerts, calls the motu proprio a 'declaration of war' on the part of Pope Francis.  He also opines this is another sign of how Pope Francis is losing hold of his authority as Supreme Pontiff.  In any case, here is the article published by the National Catholic Register.  It is worth a read since it explains some about the terms ("oekaze") the bishop uses as well as where he is coming from.  The actual letter (in English) of Bishop Mutsaerts' follows.  I found the actual letter quite interesting and worth a read.  It is inserted here just in case your platform doesn't translate from the original.  I'm usually suspicious of software driven translations but this seems quite coherent.  So, have at it!

An evil oekaze of Pope Francis

Pope Francis promotes synodality: everyone must be able to talk, everyone must be heard. There was little mention of this in his recently published motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, an oekaze that must immediately put an end to the traditional Latin Mass. In doing so, Francis puts a thick fat line through Summorum Pontificum- Pope Benedict's motu proprio that gave ample space to the old Mass. The fact that Francis is reaching for the power word here without any consultation indicates that he is losing authority. This was evident earlier when the German Bishops' Conference did not care about the pope's opinions on the synodal process. The same occurred in the United States, where Pope Francis called on the Bishops' Conference not to prepare a document on dignified communication. Then no advice, but a warrant must have been given to the Pope when it comes to traditional mass.

The language is very much like a declaration of war. Every pope since Paul VI has always left openings for the old Mass. If any changes were made, they were minor revisions, see, for example, the 1984 and 1989 indults. John Paul II firmly believed that bishops should be generous in allowing tridentine Mass. Benedict even opened the door wide through Summorum Pontificum: "What was sacred then, it still is today".

Francis slams the door through Traditionis Custodes. It feels like treason and is a slap in the face to its predecessors. Moreover, the Church has never abolished liturgies. Not even Trent. Francis completely breaks with this tradition. The motu proprio contains briefly and powerfully some theorems and commands. By means of an accompanying longer statement, etc. is further exploded. This statement contains quite a few factual inaccuracies. One is the claim that what Paul VI did after Vatican II would be the same as what Pius V did after Trent. This is completely true. Remember that before that time various (overwritten) manuscripts circulated and local liturgies had arisen. It was a mess.

Trent wanted to restore the liturgies, remove inaccuracies and check for orthodoxy. Trent was not about rewriting the liturgy, nor about new additions, new eucharistic prayers, a new lectionary or new calendar. It was purely about ensuring uninterrupted organic continuity. The missal of 1517 har reached back to the missal of 1474 and so on back to the 4th century. There was continuity from the 4th century onwards. Even after the 15th century there is four centuries of continuity. From time to time, at most, some minor changes were made or an addition of a party, remembrance or column.

Vatican II asked for liturgical reforms, according to council document Sacrosanctum Concilium. This is a conservative document. Latin was maintained, Gregorian chants retained their legitimate place in the liturgy. However, the developments that followed Vatican II are a far from the council documents. The infamous 'spirit of the council' is nowhere to be found in the council texts themselves. Only 17% of the prayers of the old missal (Trent) can be found in the new missal (Paul VI). Then it is difficult to speak of continuity of organic development. Benedict recognized this and therefore gave ample space to the Old Mass. He even said that no one needed his permission ("What was sacred then, it still is today").

Pope Francis is now pretending that his motu proprio is in the organic development of the Church, which completely contradicts reality. By making Latin Mass practically impossible, he finally breaks with the centuries-old liturgical tradition of the R.K.Kerk. Liturgy is not a toy of popes, but is heritage of the Church. The Old Mass is not about nostalgia or taste. The Pope must be the guardian of tradition; The Pope is the gardener, not the manufacturer. Ecclesiastical law is not just a question of positive law, there is also such a thing as the law of nature and divine law, and moreover there is such a thing as Tradition that cannot simply be brushed aside.

What Pope Francis is doing has nothing to do with evangelism and even less to do with mercy. It's more like ideology. Why don't you go to a parish where the Old Mass is being celebrated? What do you come across there: people who just want to be Catholic. These are generally not people who deal with theological disputes, nor are they against Vatican II (but against its implementation). They love the Latin Mass because of its sanctity, its transcendence, the soul fence that is central, the dignity of the liturgy. You run into big families, people feel welcome. It is only celebrated in a small number of places. Why does the Pope want to deny people this? I come back to what I said earlier: it's ideology. It is Vatican II including its implementation with all its aberrations, or nothing! The relatively small number of believers (which, incidentally, is growing, while the novus ordo is collapsing) that feels at home at the traditional Mass must and will be eliminated. That's ideology and malice.

If you really want to evangelize, really show mercy, support Catholic families, then you are honouring tridentine mass. The Old Mass may no longer be celebrated in parish churches (where can you?), you explicitly need permission from your bishop, who may only allow it on certain days, and for those who are ordained in the future and want to celebrate the old Mass, the bishop must seek advice from Rome. How dictatorial, how unpastoral, how unforgiving do you want it!

Francis mentions in Art. 1 of its motu proprio de novus ordo (the current Mass) "the unique expression of the Lex Orandi of the Roman Rite". He therefore no longer distinguishes between the Ordinary Form (Paul VI) and the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine Mass). It has always been said that both are expressions of the Lex Orandi, so not just the Novus ordo. Again, the old Mass has never been abolished! I never hear Bergolio about the many liturgical abuses that exist here and there in countless parishes. In parishes, anything is possible except the Tridentine Mass. All weapons are thrown into battle to eliminate the Old Mass. why? For God's sake, why? What is Francis' obsession with wanting to prey on that small group of traditionals? The Pope must be the guardian of tradition; Not the prison guard of tradition. While Amoris Laetitia excelled in vagueness, Traditionis Custodes is a perfectly clear declaration of war.

I suspect Francis is shooting This Motu Proprio in the foot. For the brotherhood Pius X it will turn out to be good news. They will never have suspected that they owe this to Pope Francis.....

+Rob Mutsaerts

Traditionis Custodes (2)

 Over the past week there has been plenty of ink spilled on the subject of Pope Francis' motu proprio seeking to limit the Extraordinary Form of the Roman rite of the Holy Mass.  Sorting through all of this is the task of a parish priest who is privileged to serve those with a devotion to the usus antiquior

(another name for the EF).  Cardinal Burke has written an outstanding analysis of this motu proprio which has been published on his personal web-site which can be found here.  George Weigel, Pope St. John Paul the Great's biographer, has also written a piece worth reading.  Mr. Weigel is upfront about his preference for the Ordinary Form, he is also upfront about his disdain for the "bullying" this motu proprio represents.

It is sad that there are those who have taken this as an opportunity to gloat and cast aspersions on to those who love the Latin Mass; including a priest from the Diocese of Rockford (Illinois) who claims to be "writing from the trenches".  It turns out that there have only ever been two places where the usus antiquior has been offered in his diocese, of which only one survives with only about 200 souls.  Seriously?  ONLY??  I'm sorry, that does not count as "writing from the trenches".  That does count as gloating, i.e.: cheering for a pre-determined outcome without any real experience of the issue involved.

Sad too are those who take this as an opportunity to throw darts at the Holy Father, Vatican Council II, and any number of other targets in the contemporary Church.

Brothers & sisters, this is not a time for recriminations.  It is a

time for prayer and for purification.  Please pray for the unity of the Church; the purification of the Church.  But don't stop there!  Contribute to the unity of the Church by your own acts of charity - especially towards those with whom you may not agree.  Contribute to the purification of the Church by your own acts of penance - for your own sins against charity as well as those who have contributed to the chaos in which we find ourselves now.

We can get through this, as we have overcome every obstacle over the past two millennia.  But we can only do so through our reliance on God and his charity, justice, & mercy.

Motu Proprio: Traditionis Custodes

Brothers & Sisters in Christ,

With the promulgation of Pope Francis' motu propio Traditionis Custodes the last few days have been difficult to say the least, for the laity no less than for so many priests (and bishops).  Many bishops have already written to their priests and made public statements for the sake of their laity.  An excellent article covering this has been published by the National Catholic Register.  

Our own Bishop Callahan was, unfortunately, away on Friday when the motu proprio was released and so was unable to even read it himself much less comment and reassure the faithful of the Diocese of La Crosse.  However, he wrote and distributed a letter Monday afternoon which follows: 

19 July 2021 Year of St. Joseph 

 My dear Brothers: 

 May the Lord give you peace. 

Last Friday, on the feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Pope Francis, surprised the Church with news that overturned the Liturgical life of the Church, especially from the vantage point of what many of us have come to understand from the Apostolic Letter of Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio: Summorum Pontificum, which allowed any priest to use the traditional (older) rite of the Mass without the permission of his bishop. 

In issuing Traditionis Custodes our Holy Father outlined changes and restrictions in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy in the Extraordinary Form. I am certain that this news has caused some distress for some of you and some of the faithful of our Diocese. I feel it is necessary to study the decree further for deeper clarity and to ensure a complete understanding of the Holy Father’s intentions. While I work toward faithfully implementing the Traditionis Custodes in a manner that best serves the need of the faithful and our Diocese I grant permission for priests of the Diocese who have previously been celebrating the Liturgy using the 1962 Roman Missal to continue celebrating Masses at the times and locations in which they had previously been established. They must be celebrated with all relevant liturgical and disciplinary norms. No new celebrations of the traditional Latin Mass may be scheduled at this time. 

I request that priests who are celebrating according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 contact my office over the next couple of weeks, in writing, with a formal request in order to be considered for faculties (Art. 5) and so we might better determine locations where the Sacred Liturgy, celebrated in Extraordinary Form, may be scheduled in order to spiritually nourish those that have a unity to the Eucharist in this liturgical form. 

 Oremus pro invicem, 

 +William

I find it reassuring that our bishop, recognizing the pastoral care that has been rendered to the faithful of the Diocese of La Crosse in offering holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (also referred to as the usus antiquior or the Traditional Latin Mass), is taking time to understand the Holy Father's intentions and implementing  Traditionis Custodes "in a manner that best serves the needs of the faithful".  I would ask the faithful to keep him in prayer as he seeks to understand how this is to implemented in our diocese.

Many of you know this motu proprio knocked me for a loop.  I have come to appreciate the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite just as I have always appreciated the Ordinary Form.  I have stated over and over again that both forms play an important role in the continued perfection in the evangelical counsels (faith, hope, & charity) to which we are all called at Baptism.

On a personal note, I cannot understand how a pope who is so concerned about accompaniment and the synodal path (indeed, one could consider these the central, pastoral themes of his papacy) could deem a not insignificant number of the faithful entrusted by God to his care worthy of that same accompaniment he has declared necessary for those who are clearly outside the boundaries of the Church's moral teaching; and then centralize a decision regarding the Mass when he has himself stated several times that issues concerning the liturgy should not be centralized on Rome, and that local ordinaries and conferences of bishops should be given latitude in deciding these things for their own region.

However, I am confident that Bishop Callahan has the care of ALL his people at heart and will work with his priests to find a way forward; and I am even more confident that God has us all in the palm of His hand, and will care for those who love AND trust Him.

Again, please, keep the prayers going!

Is this a sin?

One of the issues that inhibits our understanding of sin is exposed whenever someone asks me “is it a sin???”  The problem in answering the question is that it isn’t usually that simple.

In days gone by it was very simple because the process that went on in the heads of priests when dealing with sin stayed there, in their heads; it was then applied to the specific situations of their flock.  Now people are much more informed about the “grey areas”, however, this brings on confusion – or a race to absolve everyone of all sin – because, while many people know there is a grey area, they don’t generally know very well how to apply the principles involved, especially to themselves.  Confused yet?

You see, there is an objective side to sin – which is always well defined (some might call it “black & white”); then there is a subjective side to sin, that is – how is the seriousness, situation, awareness, and intention - and therefore the guilt - of the sin understood in this instance? ...and when do each of these issues bear on subjective guilt??? (because sometimes the best of intentions are still objectively and subjectively wrong, wrong, wrong!!!)

The objective side to sin recognizes that a particular sin is either “serious matter” (aka: grave matter) or something less serious.  It recognizes a particular matter as sinful (or less so) in all cases.  Thus, abortion is always the taking of an innocent life and is therefore a very serious – or grave – matter.  Kicking your dog, while objectionable, is less so and not always so.  Thus, recognizing serious ( or “grave”) matter is simply a matter of knowing the scriptures and the teaching of the Church.

This only becomes an issue when some people take it upon themselves to determine whether or not something is sinful.  This has been an issue since Adam & Eve.  Unfortunately for Adam & Eve - and for many of us since, we don’t get to decide whether something is a sin or not – ONLY GOD AND HIS CHURCH GETS TO DETERMINE THAT.  So, we must always be mindful of God’s plan for human life and happiness, and bend our will to His.

The subjective sense of sin is about discerning the issue in a particular instance.  This involves questions of – Did the person know it was wrong?  Did the person freely choose to do that which is wrong?  Among other things.  It can be helpful to seek the counsel of another, especially one who is serious about, and experienced in spiritual matters, in difficult situations or when there is a question in one's heart (or when one's conscience is "niggling" one over the issue).  Priests are very happy to assist with these questions.

So, you see, “Father, is it a sin?” isn’t always such a simple thing to answer.  This is particularly true when too many people ask the question in order to condemn another, not because they are concerned about the sinfulness of their own actions.

Please, never be afraid to ask the question.  I’m always happy to help faithful Christians to understand the Church’s teaching on matters of sin.  I’m even more eager to forgive sins through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) and to assist all of God’s children in experiencing the hope and peace that comes from our salvation in Christ.

Presence

Over the next several weeks leading up to the Eucharistic Congress in Budapest, Hungary, we will be examining the many facets of our Eucharistic faith and the theology that underpins and explains it.  In this way we will build a foundation for the Eucharistic coherence so important for living our faith wholly and with integrity.  But, we must begin with the issue of sacramental realism.

Over the past 15 months many have at one time or another been watching Mass on-line or on television.  Some may have even gotten used to it and wondered why they would want to go church again when they can find their favorite on-line Mass and watch from the comfort of their home.

Well, as I’ve said before: if you think watching Mass at home is as good as being there, I’ll happily take your tickets the next time the Badgers or Packers make it to a championship game and you can watch it in the comfort of your home! 😊

Actually, it is far more than that.  Attendance at Mass is more than being some place for a significant event – although it is that.  Attendance at Mass is more akin to an intimate evening between husband and wife, lover and beloved.  Imagine having that datenight on-line. Oy!

That is, in part, what sacramental realism is about.  It is about being there and the encounter that takes place when we come into the presence of God in a way that does not exist in any other context this side of heaven.  And all this because the Most Holy Eucharist is what our Lord, Jesus Christ said it is at the Last Supper, and what the Church has witnessed to since that time.

Our Lord is waiting for you.  He wants an encounter with you that will change your life and everything about your life.  You haven’t experienced that yet?  Like many human relationships it can take time.  Keep at it.  Give it time.  Most importantly, open yourself to Him completely.  You’ll be surprised; but more importantly, you’ll be fulfilled and complete.

Free Will & Conscience

The two great misconceptions inhibiting our more effective participation in our democracy are misunderstandings regarding the duties of Catholics in public life (both within the body politic as well as in the public square more generally) and the role of individual “conscience”.

The first is more easily addressed since it comes from our baptism in Christ: we who have been made in the image and likeness of God have been given the task of subduing the earth and exercising dominion over all creatures (cf. Genesis 1:28).  In other words, we are called to exercise “right or wise rule” over all creation.  I could write a whole article just on that!  But I digress.  To put it more directly, we exercise dominion over creation when we seek more and more to order it according to God’s design and will.  Anything that subverts this moral order in creation is a misuse of our free-will and a subversion of God’s intention in creating us – individually and collectively.

The second issue has been quite regular in the news and opinion pages over the last few years – that of conscience.  Many, including many politicians and far too many clergy, seem to understand conscience as 1) whatever I am comfortable with; 2) whatever I “feel”; 3) whatever I have convinced myself is right (free, of course, of objective truth).  These are all, of course, incorrect understandings of conscience according to our Christian Tradition.

Conscience, properly understood, is that voice of God speaking to us, especially in times of stress or moral crisis.  It is formed in us through the cultivation of virtue and a constant deepening of our intimacy with God.  Seems easy enough, but it is a life-long process as well as an intentional process; but it is what we have been called to in baptism and the life of grace.

The tough part, often, is that we have a tendency to see our life in communion with God as merely a portion of our life.  It isn’t.  It’s the whole of our life; meaning every thought, word, and deed is subject to the right use of conscience, and therefore, the “wise rule” (dominion) of created things.

Happy 4th of July!

A happy Independence Day to all!  It is a joy to celebrate the blessings of liberty each year.  We have seen over these many years that liberty is a blessing that must be guarded with the greatest vigilance.  Too often, as we have also seen over these many years, we find ourselves only steps away from losing this blessing, yeah, even giving them away.

It has been popular over the past few years to dismiss our founding fathers because of their imperfections, weaknesses, inconsistencies, etc.  However, we dismiss their legacy, especially their intellectual legacy, at our great peril.  Indeed, as Aristotle recognized, a benign dictatorship is the most efficient form of government:  as our Catholic intellectual tradition teaches, a world ruled according to Catholic principles by near saints; but, alas, we are not saints yet.  A democratic republic is the best we’ve come up with so far: but if we don’t understand, appreciate, and apply the ideals set forth in our Declaration of Independence and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (among other documents of note produced throughout the history of our republic), and principles as they are set forth in our Constitution, and finally, recognize and act at significant moments to further refine these principles, then all will have been for naught; and this great patrimony could be lost to humanity.

Thus, the continued, active participation of every man and woman of faith is necessary as was repeatedly recognized by the founding fathers.  However, if our participation is to be worthwhile, it will be necessary that we first of all ensure that we are each and all one with the will of God – as Lincoln said, when an aide expressed the confidence that “God is on our side”, we should be more concerned that we be on God’s side.  Having done our best to ensure this through our participation in the life of the Trinity through our active participation in the sacred rites and a life of grace, let us dedicate ourselves to the unfinished business before us.  But, for today, let us celebrate!

“May Christ our Lord help us all with His bountiful grace, so that we may know His holy will and perfectly fulfill it.” (St. Ignatius of Loyola)