MY MOST HUMBLE SOLUTIONS!
1. Reinstate Summorum Pontifcum immediately as it was! Pope Benedict XVI was brilliant and no greater respect could be shown to him for his liturgical genius by re-instituting what was so cruelly canceled in the most woke way and without pastorality for those who are attached to the TLM, mostly young Catholics.
OR
2. Create a Vetus Ordo Ordinariate with their own bishops and make the FSSP the foundation of it, name new bishops and allow these bishops to found parishes wherever they wish as the Anglican Ordinariate is and functions! Make sure that local Latin Rite Bishops have no say in allowing this Ordinariate into their own dioceses--like the Anglican Ordinariate and all Eastern Rite Churches!
Release Summorum Pontificum from death row--We are opposed to the culture of death, including the death penalty!
This is what Traditionis Custodes hath wrought and it, in all seriousness, should be canceled:
Following the 2021 publication of Traditionis Custodes, which restricted the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) in diocesan parishes, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has reported continued growth, with many observers noting new faces in their chapels and a rise in attendance. The restrictions prompted Catholics seeking the traditional liturgy to turn to the SSPX. [1, 2, 3]
- Increased Attendance: Reports immediately following the 2021 restrictions indicated an influx of attendees at SSPX chapels.
- Continued Growth: The SSPX has maintained a steady upward trajectory in adherents and locations, continuing a long-term trend, according to their 2025 news reports.
- "Refuge" Status: The SSPX is increasingly viewed as a "refuge" for traditional Catholics, particularly in dioceses where the Traditional Latin Mass has been heavily restricted or abolished.
34 comments:
Well said, Father McDonald. The Golden Calf worshipper won't like your statement!
Here is something from Rorate you might find interesting, in particular that Francis might not have excommunicated SSPX for doing these consecrations:
But, despite these difficulties, the great success of Summorum Pontificum showed that Tradition could live within the regular diocesan walls if there was enough charity on the side of the diocesan Shepherds.
And yet: the magnificent experiment was brutally interrupted by the violent and illegitimate decision of Francis in the cruelly misnamed motu proprio "Traditionis custodes", of 2021. Ironically, Francis, in his bizarre way of personalizing things, granted to the SSPX several concessions without asking for anything in return: including jurisdiction for confessions and marriages. (His personal liking for the SSPX is among other things, what leads us to believe that, if the SSPX had decided for the consecrations in his pontificate, he would have found a way not to excommunicate those involved.)
The SSPX has promoted the notion that via Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI had driven Catholics into the Society (as well as additional TLM outfits).
Helping to fuel the SSPX's irregular status/"schism" is that which Summorum Pontificum hath wrought, if we believe the SSPX.
Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX: In regard to Summorum Pontificum:
"This allowed a certain number of priests to discover it ("Tridentine Mass"); and by celebrating it – it must be acknowledged – many priests began to question their priesthood, and to question the Council and the New Mass."
"However, the perspective of this motu proprio (Summorum Pontificum), which remained flawed, was based on an error: two forms of the same rite of Mass..."
"This was the error of Pope Benedict XVI and the limitations of this motu proprio: it just could not work.
"We have the experiment of Pope Benedict XVI and it cannot work: to put truth next to error; to put the two Masses next to each other, so that one can “fertilize” the other; to have “a reform of the reform through continuity”… it is a total illusion"
=======
1. Summorum Pontificum was based upon "error" and "total illusion."
2. When exposed to the TLM via Summorum Pontificum, Catholics recognized the TLM's supposed superiority as compared to the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
3. As the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI flowed from Vatican II, Summorum Pontificum has also exposed the supposed horrific, destructive nature of the Council.
4. Therefore, to ensure the SSPX's growth, as well as to drive Catholics into additional irregular, if not schismatic TLM groups, let us return to Summorum Pontificum.
=======
The above does not even take into account Pope Benedict XVI's supposed "modernism," which had driven safe harbor-seeking Catholics into TLM groups who had opposed Pope Benedict XVI/"Modernist, Newchurch" Rome.
=======
Now, it is Pope Leo XIV who has, or will soon supposedly, drive numerous additional Catholics into the SSPX/irregular, if not schismatic, TLM groups.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The SSPX, Michael Matt, Rorate Caeli...Trad Inc...have insisted that Summorum Pontificum was a monumental flop.
That is, a flop in that Pope Benedict XVI's desire to secure:
1. Liturgical peace between two forms of Mass.
2. Mutual enrichment of both forms of Mass.
Failed in horrific fashion supposedly. Why?
-- Summorum Pontificum was, and would remain so if reinstated, based upon supposed lies that Pope Benedict XVI had concocted.
-- Summorum Pontificum flopped, and would flop again if reinstated, as the two forms of Mass are incompatible with each other supposedly.
-- Therefore, liturgical peace is impossible supposedly between the "True Mass," and banal, fabricated, Masonic Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
If anything, given the horrific opinion of Summorum Pontificum that has echoed throughout the TLM Movement, why on earth would we wish to return to Summorum Pontificum?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
SSPX are not the only ones who celebrate the old Mass. Why do you always go to the most extreme to denigrate the traditional Latin Mass and is adherents?
Because he has nothing of substance to offer. Father wants a reasoned solution to the liturgy question? Let’s talk about how horrible the SSPX is instead!
It’s dishonest, uncharitable, and at this point, beyond tiresome to the point that Rip van Winkle would need another twenty years of sleep if he read MT’s comments right after waking up.
Nick
Anthony, have you identified the SSPX as extremist?
Anthony, do you agree that the SSPX enjoys substantial support among TLM adherents?
Anthony, thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony, earlier today here I quoted Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX.
In regard to Summorum Pontificum, Father Pagliarani declared:
"This allowed a certain number of priests to discover it ("Tridentine Mass"); and by celebrating it – it must be acknowledged – many priests began to question their priesthood, and to question the Council and the New Mass."
He declared also that Summorum Pontificum promoted "error."
He insisted that Summorum Pontificum could not work.
"We have the experiment of Pope Benedict XVI and it cannot work: to put truth next to error; to put the two Masses next to each other, so that one can “fertilize” the other; to have “a reform of the reform through continuity”… it is a total illusion"
=======
Anthony, did I misrepresent Father Pagliarani (SSPX Superior General)?
Also, please explain as to how I "denigrated" the TLM?
Anthony, thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I'm not wholly sold on the idea, but for the good of souls and so the progressives can be be themselves peacefully, perhaps it's time for an ordinariate. Pope Benedict XVI's vision was genius, the RCC hierarchy seem not to be able to handle it.
I keep getting back to the same place, why do so many prelates care about such a small minority except for having to face their own sins having that minority in their backyards.
There are places, like Philadelphia, where the ordinary has been generous, folks have choices and they peacefully make them. My observation is it's a total non-issue here, just souls going about their business. More adults in the room, such as is found here, seems needed for peace already.
I do not agree that the SSPX enjoys substantial support among TLM adherents. Sympathy, yes; support, no. That is why the FSSP exits. That is why many priests who do support the old Mass remain in their diocese despite the limitations and hardships that are placed upon them. So no, stop presenting the extremists view of the SSPX as if they were mainstream among the supporters of the old Mass.
Fr. McDonald's suggestions go beyond just the SSPX and address the broader TLM community. They are valid whether or not the SSPX come aboard. By focusing on views of the SSPX you are implicitly suggesting that a solution to the present problem needs their consent, as if they represented the entire TLM community. Most members of the TLM community would be thrilled if Fr. McDonald's suggestions were implemented.
Anthony,
It's not worth your effort. MT's only capable of making comments that are in turn hyperventilating smears, un-Catholic papolatry, red herrings, and/or verifiably false (as incomplete).
Father Anthony and Nick,
It is because ET Suit, is non compos mentis. When I get email notices he has posted, I automatically delete them. I still think it is the All Highest K pretending to me someone else. The patterns are the same: non-responsiveness, projection, non-sequiturs, lack of self awareness and insults.
Anthony, thank you for your reply.
You and I disagree in monumental fashion with each other.
Anthony, may you and your family
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony said..."Most members of the TLM community would be thrilled if Fr. McDonald's suggestions were implemented."
The restoration of Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum-based liturgical approach is a key plank in regard to Father McDonald's plan in question.
Anthony, do you contend that "most members of the TLM community would be thrilled" to embrace the following:
-- The claim that the "banal, fabricated, Masonic" Novus Ordo will enrich the TLM.
-- The claim that the "banal, fabricated, Masonic" Novus Ordo belongs within the same sentence as "two forms of the one Roman Rite" claim.
-- The declaration that "there is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal."
-- In regard to the Roman Liturgical Tradition: Pope Benedict XVI's claim that the Novus Ordo does not represent "rupture."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony, may you and your family enjoy many happy and blessed years.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I wonder whether most members of the TLM community would be thrilled to embrace Pope Benedict XVI's declaration that the Novus Ordo — the banal, fabricated Bugnini Mass — "will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite."
I wonder whether most members of the TLM community would be thrilled to embrace Pope Benedict XVI's declaration that "Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.
"The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
=======
Again, in addition to the two above points, should we return to Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical plan, will the TLM community accept:
-- The claim that the "banal, fabricated, Masonic" Novus Ordo will enrich the TLM.
-- The claim that the "banal, fabricated, Masonic" Novus Ordo belongs within the same sentence as the "two forms of the one Roman Rite" claim.
-- The declaration that "there is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal."
-- Pope Benedict XVI's claim that the Novus Ordo does not represent liturgical "rupture."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
You can rant all that you want, but living in the TLM community I can tell you that all that most want is just to be left alone and be able to celebrate the old Mass in freedom. Many even go back and forth between the two masses. Stop trying to characterize the TLM community by its loudest and most extremist elements.
It is clear that MT has had no real interaction with real TLM communities in complete union with Rome and her priests. It experience is reading extremists on blogs.
Father McDonald, my local FSSP parish, with which I have interacted from its founding, is in complete union with Rome.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony, I have to agree with you. Going back to my example of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the ordinary has been generous, options are available, and people gi about their business peacefully. Neither side engages in displays or debate and I believe cross pollination and visiting exists. My point? This doesn't need to be made into a big deal because it isn't. It's, per my observation, unity in diversity as intended.
Anthony, feel free to rant against my rants.
=======
Anthony, that is great news...that many "go back and forth between the two Masses."
I take it then that said folks do not view the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI as faith-sapping, pew-emptying, banal, fabricated by Monsignor Bugnini, alongside six Protestant ministers.
Therefore, said folks have rejected your claim that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI represents a rupture from the Roman Liturgical tradition.
That is your contention. Correct?
You reject the following teaching from Pope Benedict XVI. Correct?
"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."
Anthony, have I mischaracterized you?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony, via the following declaration, had Archbishop Chaput denigrated the TLM community?
Archbishop Chaput:
"And it’s my personal experience that many people who are attached to the Tridentine form simultaneously reject many parts of the Council, and I think that’s a very bad thing.
"Now I also know many Catholics who love the Tridentine form and go to it faithfully who accept the Council.
"But for many of the people – you don’t have to scratch them very hard before they bleed anti-Council thoughts and sentiments.
"Because in my personal experience as a bishop, it is true that many of the younger seminarians and younger priests were beginning to distance themselves from the Council, not only on the teachings of liturgy, but also other things and somehow abandoning the Council to the dustbin of history rather than as the chief gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church of our time."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony, is the following declaration from Peter Kwasniewski an accurate portrayal of the TLM community?
Thank you.
'While I am an adamant opponent of feminism, I am no less staunch an opponent of chauvinism wherever I see it — and I do see it reappearing in the traditional movement, along with other -isms (e.g., antisemitism, libertarianism, sedevacantism) that are incompatible with Catholic tradition.
"The revival of traditional liturgical practice has permitted the reappearance of some extreme points of view that deserve refutation."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
That they are in complete union with Rome undercuts your attempts to characterize the entire TLM community by remarks from the SSPX.
If you had followed, and understood, what I have said for a long time you would know that I believe that the new Mass can, and indeed should, be said in a manner that reflects a continuation with our historical liturgical tradition. Does it have elements that represent a rupture with that tradition? Yes. But it also has options that would, if used, continue that tradition. Frankly, it is a mixed bag. Despite its shortcomings, the major problem with the new Mass is that the use of these traditional elements has been effectively prohibited. I have written repeatedly on this. I have also stated that I would gladly say the new Mass if I were allowed to freely use those traditional options that are included in the missal.
Fr. Pagliarani does not speak for the entire TLM community, so who cares?
Current tally: 26 comments, 12 by MT, taking up (by rough estimate) at least 75% part of the comment page. How do we turn this guy off? Good grief, just go start your own blog at this point. (Wait, no, your readership would fall off dramatically and permanently if you didn't ride the coattails of this combox).
Also, MT, thank you for proving me right so clearly and quickly. Maybe TJM is right about you and the Padre!
Nick
Bishop Varden shares the position that Archbishop Chaput criticizes. Don't worry, I know that won't penetrate through to your brain, because I've pointed that out to you repeatedly.
Nick
"It’s dishonest, uncharitable, and at this point, beyond tiresome"
Nick
MT, why are you chasing "declarations" of flawed, opinionated, sinful mortal men instead of simply appreciating the tradition as it organically evolved and was handed down? Read the mass text and appreciate its scriptural poetry before concerning yourself with finding an "ideal" characterization of those adherents.
If I could block his inane comments here, I would.
No, it is not. Do some extremist exist? Yes, they do in every community, but they do not represent the entire community. Should we try to characterize the entire Novus Ordo community by the vocal extremists that are in it? No. Nor should, as you seem to be attempting, characterize the TLM community by some extremist elements.
Anthony, how do you determine whether somebody is an extremist?
=======
Are the following folks extremists?
Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX.
Bishop Fellay.
Bishop Strickland.
Peter Kwasniewski.
=======
Are folks who denounce the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI as the "Novus Bogus" extremists.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Extremists are those who depart significantly from the common opinion and push a single idea to its limits without regard to contra balancing ideas; i.e., the same dynamic that produces heresy. Those who attack the entire TLM community because of the views of a minority are extremists, as are those who attack the entire Novus Ordo community because abuses of a minority. Our good Lord said, "Blessed our the peacemakers." Will you not seek that blessedness rather than amplifying division?
Post a Comment