I am watching Fox and Friends Weekend this Saturday morning, May 10th. They just had a great and fun interview with Pope Leo’s older brother. He said he watched the election of his brother on Fox!
Then, Fox and Friends had a clip of children at a Catholic elementary school going wild when they learn the new pope is American and they begin chanting the MAGA chant USA! USA! USA! You can’t make this stuff up!
Then, Fox and Friends host, Rachel Compos-Duffy, said that one of the greatest things that divides American Catholics was Pope Francis’ cruel suppression of the TLM in this country and elsewhere. But she reported that Pope Leo XIV prior to becoming pope, during the time that Summorum Pontificum was in force celebrated the TLM. She said, in the most synodal way, that Pope Leo XIV needs to heal the hurt and confusion that Pope Francis caused to those who embraced the letter and the law of Summorum Pontificum!
She also made the point that his first Mass as pope was in Latin. But even Pope Francis did that at his first Mass with Cardinals. And Pope Francis, not consistency or with any logic, did celebrate various papal Masses at the Vatican in Latin. Some in the media don’t understand that the new Mass can still be celebrated in Latin with local decisions about that.
What Fr. Z says about the TLM teaching us priests about who we are is true and I know this from experience and that the Modern Missal has a tendency to water this down.
But then Fr. Z reported the following:
There are lots of rumors going around that Papa Prevost has celebrated the TLM. Some say this forcefully. I would like to think so, especially because I think that EVERY priest should know how to say it! The TLM teaches priests about who they are. Over time the gains are great and the knock on effects are significant.
15 comments:
Pope Leo was a young boy when the liturgical wars were being waged and likely is carrying no baggage from that era. If he actually has celebrated the TLM that is a very good sign that the evil, ultra vires decree, Custodes Traditionis will be tossed on the ashbin of history. Can't wait for the Roche's backtracking.
I, too, hope there is truth here.
Again, orthodox and liberal can coexist in complete and perfect harmony.
"The TLM teaches priests about who they are. Over time the gains are great and the knock on effects are significant."
This is very true for the laity as well. When exploring the TLM, I found that it opened up a world of truth to me and I liked having my own missal with all its extras to reference whenever I liked, or needed. I liked the verticality, the extraordinary solemnity, the notion of looking to something as opposed to looking at each other. True, the same can be accomplished with the NO, but, there is just something about the TLM (for those who choose to be receptive) that prods one along constantly revealing the faith. It became clear to me that this is intended to be LIFE, not just a somewhat casual hour of my time occupied on Sunday mornings - serious business. Probably, the TLM led me a bit back to my ancestral Byzantine Church. How? It's cadence and discipline prepared me for that which I knew I was drawn to, just was struggling to understand. It also prepared me for the rigors of being Eastern Catholic. Job well done. Note: I grew up during the '70s where formation was, honestly, tepid at best.
Now, before unsolicited, and bitter-sounding correction occurs, these are MY experiences and MY reflections. If a different experience leads one down a similar path, I'm pleased for that individual. This was simply what made clear to me what following Christ truly means and is, how to remain in God's friendship while resonating with my need for a certain type of structure. Note: My formation recollection from the '70s regarding sin, confession, and living in a state of grace is completely different from what both the TLM and Divine Liturgy have taught.
Several priests have said, "The TLM teaches priests about who they are."
Several times I have asked what they did not know about themselves or what they were doing before they celebrated the "T"LM.
Not one has answered.
Well, these priests celebrate both forms and are capable judges. Have you as a priest celebrated the TLM? Case closed.
No, the case is not closed. Can you tell us what you have learned about being a priest or what you have learned about what you are doing at the altar that you did not know before celebrating the so-called "Traditional" Latin Mass?
K, we all know you are a bitter loser, jealous of real priests, including Pope Leo, who can celebrate the TLM. You are likely going to Hell for supporting the modern Nazi Party aka the Dems!
I really don't want to wade into the above, nonetheless, there's following might be additive. Note: I feel the same about Divine Liturgy.
Peter Kwasniewski
"The attempted replacement of the Roman Rite lacks all the above. We know it was produced by a committee in the 1960s and, sadly, feels like it. We know it’s full of options and variables. The vernacular is our own contemporary lingo. The priest usually faces the people (which, all by itself, utterly destroys the rituality, since it no longer appears in any way to be a rite offered to God by a mediator on their behalf). The texts and ceremonies of the day vary not only from church to church but even from Mass to Mass. There is little stability and no quiet spaciousness.
In short: phenomenologically, anthropologically, it is not a rite. Regardless of what is happening sacramentally, it has not the wherewithal to be a rite.
Lately, I’ve been wondering if the most important thing about the old rite is that it is indeed a rite, that is, something from time immemorial that is simply enacted by a priest who adds nothing to it. The new “rite” isn’t that at all; it is modern, polymorphous, and barely religious, since the essence of religion is to offer God adoration through sensible signs.
Can you imagine what a classical Confucian sage would think of the two—the TLM and the Novus Ordo—if he were given a chance to become familiar with each one over a certain period of time? He would instantly recognize the difference between them, seeing the one as authentic and the other as spurious.
Second postscript: You really notice all this most fully when you attend the Solemn High Mass. It may not be easy for you to find one - depending on where you live - but if there's any way you can get to one, please make a point of doing it, and just let the sheer beauty, majesty, and order of the ritual flow over you. It is an act of God and for God. That is why it rightfully claims our veneration.
I'm convinced that most Catholics who oppose the TLM or don't understand "what's the big deal" about it have not even begun to give themselves a chance to appreciate the qualities I've described here, and thus, have not yet tasted the spiritual blessings they bring. But once you taste them, you can't go back - and perhaps that is the unconscious fear all along - the fear of facing a mighty "parting of the ways."
More context from Kwasniewski. Again, it's just so reliable with servants practicing and caring for it, not succumbing to worldly innovation.
"This morning’s Solemn High Mass for the Third Sunday after Easter reminded me with almost shattering force of one of the most basic reasons I love the TLM with all my heart.
For something to be a religious rite, to possess the quality of rituality, it has to have several properties.
First, it must come—and feel like it comes—from ageless depths, from time out of mind, from innumerable nameless ancestors (even if a few of them are named too).
Second, it must be ever unchanging, always the same, semper idem. Its rituality precisely consists in the fact that it is a predetermined, even formulaic, controlled, objective, solemn act of offering. The ceremonies, the words uttered or chanted, the items employed, the ministers and their roles, are “set in stone,” year after year. The use of an ancient sacral language, with formulas that have not changed for eons, massively underlines this aspect.
Third, it must be obviously directed toward the Divinity: God is the one to whom the entire rite is being offered, from the man who is his priest, on behalf of the people for whom he mediates.
These properties are dramatically evident in the old Roman Rite. The moment you encounter it, you know you are up against something that comes from a different world, from across the ages, from fathers and forefathers. It is always the same in its structure and actions; you know what the antiphons and prayers and lessons of each day of the liturgical year will be. There is absolutely no room for the intrusion of novelty, spontaneity, creativity, or any other unbecoming swerve or surprise. It is like a giant river that moves irresistibly to the ocean and carries you with it.
This ritual, this rituality, brings peace. It reflects and restores order. It comes from and returns to the changeless God. It lodges deep in the soul and haunts the imagination. Its stability invites meditation and its quiet spaciousness invites prayer, without cajoling, hectoring, or pandering. It never once makes you the object or the priest the ringmaster. He is nothing but a servant who says and does what he is told to say and do. You are forgotten as you remember God."
TJM - And we all know you are just flat looney.
Last, as I have a feeling what's coming.
These are the experiences and feelings of others validated by a skilled theologian in Benedict XVI. Those feelings and experiences therefore have merit and should not, therefore, be denied. Without question, they NO is valid and if that experience is good for that individual, wonderful.
It's just strange to me how often the NO is tinkered with out of a sense of entitlement to do so, or out of a desire to introduce "more" to the experience. If that prayer was so complete, otherworldly, and sacred, more would be defending it than has ever been evident to me. True, the average pewsitter will mostly have no strong opinions, but what about the shocking numbers that have left for varying reasons jeopardizing their salvation? All must not be well.
Classic projection from a guy who votes for intrinsic evil. Jealous of Father McDonald because you are a second tier cleric!
ByzRus,
You have a more profound understanding of liturgy, much more so than most bishops and priests, including the empty cassock who posts here. Fortunately priests like him will soon just be a bad memory! Deus vult!
TJM,
Thank you, though I really don't. That said, I can point faith in Jesus Christ and traditional liturgy as the "why" for me not drifting away like so many others. There's profound value there, at least to me and, obviously, you and others here.
Im otherwise just a normal guy with an office job, a fondness for 4x4s and mid-size muscle cars mowing his lawn and drinking a beer right now, I'm a bit of a liturgy geek because somehow, cause and effect became crystal clear to me years ago. I'm just trying to get through life as best as I'm can.
ByzRus,
Kudos, you are my kind of man!
Byz - What are "these experiences and feelings?"
Post a Comment