Mass for the 18th Sunday After Pentecost:
I don’t know if Traditionis Custodis had been implemented in the Diocese of Knoxville or not. I don’t think so, thus the relatively new Bishop of Knoxville is doing so.
We have seen a rash of new bishops implementing Traditionis Custodis since the election of Pope Leo XIV all the while knowing that His Holiness is studying and consulting about the more general celebration of the ancient order of rites of the Church. His Holiness also indicated that he might bring it to the synod for discussion. So no decision has been made by him. Traditionis Custodis remains in place and legislation for the Universal Latin Rite of the Church.
I thought the Pastor of the Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul in Chattanooga hit all the right notes.
I have been a big advocate that the Post-Vatican II Mass be influenced by the reverence and precision of the 1962 Roman Missal. Don’t be Protestant! This is what the good Pastor of the Basilica is saying:
22 comments:
The comments about not being Protestant are misplaced!
To be the devil's advocate here. How long does the 'reverent' Novus Ordo Mass last there? How can any of the clergy be trusted? The next bishop could be like the bishop of Charlotte. That gentleman would ban the Papal Mass of Pope Leo XIV if he had his way, e.g. too much Latin and candlesticks, etc. This is all lunacy.
Indeed or subjectivity on steroids!
Here is a spot on comment on the Novus Ordo and the loons desperation to supppress the TLM:
I take comfort in the thought that if the Novus Ordo was a success and truly the future of the Church, people would be flocking to it and there would be no need to legislate against the Vetus Ordo. The fact that they have to is an admission of failure. It will all work out in the long run.
Disagree, and Drew is correct as well.
Nick
FIUV's response, at the bottom of the linked post, explains just some of the problems with the homily. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/10/traditional-latin-mass-annihilated-in.html
If I attended the TLM there, I would be incensed, and not in the smells-and-bells way.
Granted, the pastor/rector here is reportedly a holy priest who supports traditional liturgy. But was he really obligated to say all of these things in this way?
Nick
Nick,
I guess if the priest wants to keep his job with Bishop Dictator
The Very Rev. J. David Carter, JCL, JV, as well as his homily in question, have been bashed and trashed in widespread fashion via "traditional" Catholic social media.
Good luck to those who attempt to convince "traditionalists" to embrace the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI — even when said Holy Mass features Gregorian chant, ad orientem worship, the Roman Canon/EP1, Holy Communion received on the tongue/kneeling, Latin, etc.
For decades, the TLM Movement has preached that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI is an "imposter Mass" that six Protestants had helped to concoct.
Said Mass is the face of Vatican II. In turn, said Council belongs to the modernist/Jewish/Masonic conspiracy designed to destroy the Church.
Such destructive talk has, for decades, been poured into the hearts and minds of "traditional" Catholics. Unfortunately, various "traditionalists" have embraced the Jack Chick-like insanity in question.
Therefore, it is not surprising that via one "traditional Catholic blog, as well as X account after another, Father Carter, as well as his homily in question, have been soaked with verbal venom.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
If we are to forsake the Traditional Latin Mass in favor of the new Mass for the sake of obedience to proper authority, then I ask the bishops to live by the same rule. Accept the entire Mass of Paul VI as written, without any restrictions to the use of legitimate options that are consistent with our liturgical tradition, including: Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem worship, properly installed and vested male minister, Communion on the tongue while kneeling, etc. Nor just as rare and reluctant concessions, but as acceptable and legitimate options widely available without any further permission from the bishop. Let us stop the false notion that either Vatican II or the new Mass itself requires the massive break with tradition that has been imposed since the close of the council.
Mark Thomas,
Let's not separate the rejection of a traditional form of the new Mass by some from its history. Except for some few isolated examples, it exists only on paper. For 50 years those who have desired a traditional form of the Mass have been abused and derided. They have been repeatedly, and falsely, told that the revolutionary way the Mass is now celebrated was mandated by Vatican II and the new Missal. Thus, fairly or not, many have identified the new Mass with this revolution and rejection of Tradition. Rather than further deriding those who want a traditional form of the Mass, work with them to provide such a form with the new Missal on a wide scale basis. Show that the new Mass does not necessary break with tradition. After all, blessed are the peace makers.
In regard to the attempt to convince "traditionalists" to transition to the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI:
Rorate Caeli yesterday featured a story about Peter Kwasniewski. The introduction noted that "Peter Kwasniewski is an author whose works deal intensively with liturgy."
"He has become one of the leading voices for those who see the post-conciliar liturgical reform as a catastrophic break with the past."
=======
Peter Kwasniewski is an important influencer within the TLM Movement.
He is so extreme that he has denounced liturgical reforms that Popes Saint Pius X, as well as Venerable Pius XII, had initiated. Nevertheless, Peter Kwasniewski enjoys a substantial following among "traditionalists."
Peter Kwasniewski has long preached to his substantial "traditional" Catholic following that, as promoted yesterday via Rorate Caeli blog, the liturgical reform has constituted "a catastrophic break with the past."
Conversely, the True Church has taught, via Poope Benedict XVI, for example, the following:
"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
Unfortunately, Peter Kwasniewski/Trad, Inc. has convinced various "traditionalists" that the above teaching is false.
Again, in light of the above, good luck with the attempt to transition "traditionalists" to the "Novus Bogus," which has constituted a supposed rupture with the "True Mass."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
Are we to judge the proponents for a traditional form of the Mass solely by the extremists? There are extremist advocates for reform who reject any attempt at a traditional form of the new Mass. And not just by extremists. For all intents and purposes, the bishops as a whole have rejected any attempt to promote a traditional form of the new Mass. By your logic, should not the reform also be rejected because of the views of the extremists? Why not build bridges and meet in the middle by presenting a widely available traditional form of the new Mass?
MT,
Once again, you paint with an uncharitably broad brush and make unsupported accusations. It is a very bad habit.
Nick
MT,
Pope Benedict XVI said there was no contradiction; but Bishop Williamson and the Holy Holy Impeccable Francis disagree. Strange bedfellows!
Nick
Anthony, I appreciate your replies.
Anthony, I agree with you in regard to the new Mass. I pray for the day when "traditional" Novus Ordo Masses abound throughout the Latin Church.
May the following from Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) become widespread:
"Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements."
=======
Anthony, my concern is that I doubt that many "traditionalists" would embrace the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI even if offered in "traditional" fashion.
"Traditional" Catholic extremists do not appear extreme when measured within the TLM Movement.
Again, it is not unusual within the TLM Movement to encounter pronouncements against the Council, Holy Mass of Pope Paul VI...claims that six Protestants had helped to concoct the reformed Mass...claims that the Council belongs to the modernist/Jewish/Masonic conspiracy designed to destroy the Church.
Anyway, good luck to those who hope to lead "traditionalists" from the "True Mass" to the "imposter Mass."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements."
This is, simply, verifiably not true. Perhaps it could be made to be true if, as Fr. AJM has proposed, there were a Tridentine "use" promulgated, incorporating, et al., portions of the Latin liturgy extant for 1500+ years that were blithely swept away in the 1960s because they didn't comport with the theories of a few progressive (modernist?) liturgists based on bad theology and worse history.
Nick
Mark Thomas,
Unfortunately, the bishops do not allow all of those elements to be used. Let us be clear, a traditional form of the new Mass should not be viewed as a reluctant concession to traditionalists. It is the new Mass. By suppressing this option bishops and pastors are just as extremist as the most hard core traditionalist. It is they, by their insistence on a radical form of the new Mass, who have cemented the idea that the new Mass represents a break with tradition and any use of it is a cooperation with that break. Frankly, I do not want to hear any more criticism of extreme traditionalists until I see an equal criticism of the 50 years and continuing suppression of a traditional form of the new Mass.
I think you’ll find that the Latin rite at the time of Trent had not been static for 1500 years and many of the aspects you lament were later accreditations.
Oh no! Medieval accretions! How un-Catholic!!!
Nick
The point is the Latin rite has never been static or untouched for 1500 years, that’s a trad myth which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The liturgical movement started in the 1920’s with planning for reforms being actively considered under strict secrecy from the 1940’s.
The 1955 Holy Week reforms were widely welcomed; before then the ceremonies were performed early in the morning (if at all) with little solemnity and very few attending.
Not static or untouched, but stable. The changes made before Vatican II were minimal and did not touch the essence of the liturgy. What is a myth is the changes introduced in the new Mass were comparable to those made before the council.
Benny,
No, untouched or completely static can't be supported. But name any other time there were mandatory changes of such a magnitude as those made in the last few years of the 1960s.
I can wait.
As for Holy Week, it's been well demonstrated that the 1955 Holy Week reforms were, indeed, a flop. To the point that a Pope didn't even use them and stuck to the pre-1955 on at least one occasion!
Nick
Post a Comment