Adult Catholics who have respect for the Supreme Pontiff, understand that the Lord gives and the Lord takes away—blessed be the Name of the Lord.
Popes give and popes take away—blessed be the popes. But are we obliged, under the pain of mortal sin, to like it? It depends.
St. Pope John Paul II opened the door to more celebrations of the Vetus Ordo. Pope Benedict XVI went much further allowing it to be celebrated freely but also as the exception rather than the rule—the rule is the Novus Ordo. It is the ordinary form of the Mass, while the Vetus Ordo is out of the ordinary, which better defines in English, Benedict’s use of extraordinary not as“being better” but as out of the ordinary or regular usage.
For the first 10 years of Pope Francis papacy, there was no indication from His Holiness that he would suppress in any way or aspect Summorum Pontificum, let alone abrogate it altogether.
Even Praytell was a bit shocked with the complete suppression of Summorum Pontificum because by Pope Francis doing this, he was striking Pope Benedict XVI in the face even while the Emeritus Pope was still living next door to His Holiness—and there was no communication to the Emeritus Pope that Pope Francis would completely suppress SP and institute the backward looking TC (when the NO was the only form of the Mass allowed after Vatican II).
Thus, we can say that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was a victim of this abusive document and everyone else who embraced SP because Pope Benedict XVI allowed it—they were obedient to His Holiness and moved forward (forward looking) with SP. And they (and me) accepted Pope Benedict’s interpretation of Vatican II in continuity with what preceded it. The majority of Catholics who accepted SP also accept Vatican II properly interpreted and in line with how Pope Benedict XVI interpreted Vatican II and SP.
Thus, we can say that all those who were obedient to Pope Benedict’s liturgical vision, not just in allowing the Vetus Ordo, but also inspiring a logical “reform of the reform” of the Novus Ordo were victimized by Pope Francis and His Holiness’ Traditionis Custodis.
But we aren’t children and we cannot remain stuck in the victims’ state of mind.
We know that in life, in our faith life and worship too, that God and the popes give and God and the popes take away. We might feel victimized, but that’s our problem not theirs.
Arthur Cardinal Roche gave an interview to a less than friendly interviewer, which the good Cardinal should be commended for doing so.
I have no reason to believe that Cardinal Roche is making up or is in a state of wishful thinking when he says Pope Leo XIV is not going to change Traditionis Custodis or bring back SP. I take it at face value that he is communicating what Pope Leo has indicated to him.
Children might pout about this for the rest of their lives, but adults should not be doing so. They should put on their big boy pants and move forward and accept reality and remain in full communion and love with the pope and the bishops in union with him.
But I think that Cardinal Roche, who once supported Pope Benedict XVI and Summorum Pontificum and then supported his new boss, Pope Francis and TC and he’s supporting is newest boss Pope Leo XIV, should have been less verbally victimizing of those who had and have a hard time when Pope Francis in the most authoritarian and mean way, suppressed the liturgical magisterium of Pope Benedict.
Here’s what Cardinal Roche said in the interview which Rorate Caeli carried:
Interviewer: This year will mark five years since the implementation of Traditionis Custodes, the motu proprio from Pope Francis’s pontificate, which adjusted a previous motu proprio from Pope Benedict’s pontificate. Do you think, in view of these changes from pontificate to pontificate, we are likely to see Pope Leo give his own guidance – particularly as much of the Catholic revival amongst young people seems at least to have a focus on the 1962 Mass? Or do you see something coming from Pope Leo?
Cardinal Roche: No, I do not. He is not going to change Traditionis Custodes. He is not going to go back to Summorum Pontificum.
His words to the priests and people of consecrated life in Notre-Dame on Saturday evening are very, very clear: stop preferring your own particular view about this matter, and return to what the Church is asking you to do. He said that very clearly, not only there, but also two or three weeks back in his concluding talk for his Wednesday catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium. He made it very clear that the direction of the Church is in this particular direction, and that personal choices should not come into this matter.
Why? Because the Church assembles as a family, as a group, not simply as individuals. Of course we are individuals, but we assemble as a Church who believe in what the Church has given to us, what it handed down to us from the Lord, and we remain faithful to that deposit of faith.
Interviewer: Would you say to those people who attend the Vetus Ordo that it would be better for them to go to a Novus Ordo, or would you say they really should not be going to a Vetus Ordo Mass?
Cardinal Roche: You should not be going to that Mass exclusively, I think. That is what I would say. But the thing that impresses itself upon me constantly, dealing with groups of traditionally minded people, is that when they come to see me and talk about this, and they say the Pope has not been kind to us, I say to them: the Holy Father has given you the possibility of celebrating the Mass according to the Antecedent Rite. What is your problem? What else is it that you are wanting?
Generally speaking, they cannot answer the question. But you see in the traditionalist blogs that they are wanting more than that. They are wanting to turn back to a Church that does not have the teaching of the Second Vatican Council; that does not have this new form of working together in order to evangelise the world. So I would say, for any Catholic with any tendency, you should always examine your conscience against what is the teaching of the Church, and not just what you prefer to do yourself.
24 comments:
There is no contradiction between respecting current norms and advocating for change in those norms. That, after all, is how we got the liturgical reform in the first place. Obedience does not mean that we have to agree with non-dogmatic opinion.
A pope who engages malicious disregard for papal precedence and deeply insults his living predecessor merits a certain amount of righteous scorn.
Canonically, I am not certain Traditiones Custodes is even valid since it was based on deceptions and lies. Roche is the worst kind of cleric: a time server who goes with whatever which way the wind blows. A very unprincipled scamp.
The last paragraph in the Cardinals interview was obtuse, to put it kindly. Does he actually believe that the 'traditionalists' he reads on line represents every Catholic who prefers the VO? That demonstrates a total lack of effort of on his part or an intentional, self-serving, characterisation of a large segment of Catholics. He could very easily have called on the FSSP, which is in full communion with the Holy See, and gotten a clear answer to his questions.
In regard to the notion that Traditionis Custodes had proved cruel..must, would, be kicked to the curb to make room for Summorum Pontificum:
Such talk was preposterous...wastes of time and energy...had z-e-r-o chance to have experienced the light of day.
Pope Leo XIV at various turns had shattered the pipe dream nonsense in regard to Summorum Pontificum's supposed restoration.
The interview with Elsie Allen:
His Holiness had presented the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI as the solution to the quest to worship via the Roman Liturgical tradition.
Pope Leo XIV via said interview also shattered claims that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI had not flowed from Vatican II.
=======
January 2026 A.D. Extraordinary Consistory:
Cardinal Roche's powerful pro-Traditionis Custodes paper that Pope Leo XIV had authorized for circulation among the Cardinals.
========
Pope Leo XIV's June 29, 2026 A.D. letter to Cardinal Roche.
AI Overview:
"On June 29, 2026, Pope Leo XIV sent a letter to Cardinal Arthur Roche, Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, reinforcing Pope Francis's liturgical vision and the direction of Traditionis custodes."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Benedict's creation of two forms of one rite is without precedent.
This disregard for precedence deeply insults his predecessors and merits a certain amount of righteous scorn.
The creation of a new order for the Mass that replaced the historic Roman right is without precedent. Pope Benedict merely applied a correction to this.
Actually, Fr. it is the other way around. The NO has no demand from the Vatican II so in itself is fabricated with disregard for the existing form.
Anthony and rcg - The ONE Roman rite was reformed many times over the centuries. That the Roman rite should be reformed is well within precedents. The Mass of Paul VI is the Roman rite.
That TWO forms of the ONE Roman rite should be created is unprecedented.
Pope benedict didn't create either form of the Mass. And it isn't without precedent to have multiple rites within the Roman Rite. There was the Benedictine Rite, Dominican Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, and others.
The things your saying aren't true.
You are dissembling Fr K. The changes you refer to were organic and in continuity with the pre existing forms. The NO is clearly a break from previous forms and has a significant difference in its focus.
The reforms of the past were minor and infrequent. What we have with the Novus Ordo is preciously that, a new order, a new rite that has replaced the old rite, not reformed it. In the nearly two millennia prior to Vatican II there was no precedent for the scale of the changes made with the new Mass. It is the Novus Ordo that is unprecedented. Stop pretending otherwise.
👍
rcg - I would argue that the changes that came with the Mass of Paul VI are also organic and in continuity.
Anthony - "Minor" and "infrequent" don't matter. The Roman Rite has been adjusted many times over the centuries. If you don't think the Mass of Paul VI is the Roman Rite, it's time to change your initials from FSSP to SSPX. And stop pretending that YOU get to decide what is and is not the Roman Rite.
Lol! 3 new Eucharist Prayers alone demolishes your intellectually dishonest position.
You can argue all that you want but that will not make it true. The Novus Ordo is a major break with the liturgical tradition of the Roman rite. That being said, this does not make it illegitimate, but it is not just an adjustment of the historical Roman rite. It is a new rite that has replaced what came before and it is dishonest to say otherwise. And this, despite your objections, is unprecedented. And I will not play your silly word games. "Rite" can have two meanings: a particular ritural order of the Mass, and grouping of churches that use the same ritual rite.
Father Anthony,
Notice he hasn’t addressed the 3 Eucharistic Prayers that were added? That alone wrecks his argument because so many priests avoid the Roman Canon like the plague
Anthony - You can argue all you want that the Mass of Paul VI is a "major break with the liturgical tradition of the Roman rite," but that does not make it true.
You can also continue, dishonestly, to claim the authority to determine what is and is not the Roman rite.
SSPX for you...?
Let's see what the actual facts show:
1) New Eucharistic prayers. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
2) Completely rewriting the orations. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
3) A completely new cycle of readings spread over three years. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
4) Suppression of the minor orders. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
5) De facto suppression of Latin. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
6) De facto suppression of ad orientem worship. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
7) Replacement of psalm based antiphons with vernacular hymns. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
8) Abandonment of Gregorian chant in favor of modern music. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
9) Communion in the hand while standing. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
10) Lay extraordinary ministers of Communion. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
11) Lay readers. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
12) Female ministers. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
13) Replacement of the Offertory prayers with prayers modeled after Jewish table prayers. An unprecedented break with liturgical tradition.
It is the facts, not my mere opinion, that shows that the new Mass is a break with the liturgical tradition of the Roman rite. And note that by tradition I mean what has been handed down over the centuries, not what is more ancient or in line with Sacred Tradition. You can argue that these changes are good, but it is dishonest to insist that they are not a break with liturgical tradition.
As for what is, or is not, the Roman rite. The Novus Ordo is indeed the present rite of the juridical Roman Rite, but is not the same liturgical rite that preceded it. To insist that it is, is just a legalistic fiction and does not differ from the legalistic declaration that the two forms of the Mass belong to the one Roman Rite.
3 extra Eucharistic prayers? That is not only a break it’s a rupture. You obviously failed logic!
Eucharistic Prayer II
• Origin: Based on an ancient 3rd-century text from the Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215 AD)
Eucharistic Prayer III
• Origin: A brand-new, modern composition created in the wake of the Second Vatican Council rather than an adaptation of a single ancient text.
• Author: Written primarily by the Italian liturgist Cipriano Vagaggini, drawing inspiration from both Western and Eastern liturgical traditions.
• Characteristics:
• Rich in theological depth, explicitly highlighting the unceasing offering of the Church from east to west.
• Flexible and popular choice frequently used on Sundays and feast days, as it allows for the insertion of the specific saint of the day or patron saint during the intercessions
Eucharistic Prayer IV
• Origin: Inspired by ancient Eastern anaphoras, specifically modeled loosely on the Anaphora of St. Basil (from the Alexandrian and Antiochene traditions).
And since we're talking "organic",... Eucharistic Prayer I, the Roman Canon, appears to have been assembled from a number of independent prayers which were brought together over time. Some of the earliest units in Eucharistic Prayer I go back at least to the fourth century, if not earlier. Other parts were added to the original form of the prayer. For example, the Sanctus seems to have been added to the prayer by the middle of the fifth century. The sections which begin “In communion…” and “To us, also, your servants…” were probably added during the time of Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth century. It also appears that the sections which commemorate the living and the dead, both of which begin “Remember Lord your servants…,” were used occasionally as special inserts whenever the circumstances warranted their use. Over time, they begin to be used during all celebrations of Mass. These additional sections to the Eucharistic Prayer ended with “Through Christ our Lord,” as all prayers normally do. These words testify to the Church’s faith that all prayer addressed to God the Father is offered through the ministry of Christ the High Priest. In the Middle Ages, due largely to the force of habit, the custom arose of the priest celebrant spontaneously (it seems) adding “Amen” to each of the phrases, “Through Christ our Lord.” The word “Amen” at these various points eventually became a formal part of the Roman Canon.
The new Eucharistic prayers may be meritorious but they are an unprecedented break with the liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite. Stop pretending otherwise.
If this priest had been celebrating Mass ad orientem it might have saved his life:
https://share.google/E9h5D49WpZMP1Ibav
I know that K of the Dwindling Parish knows more than Cardinal Antonelli but here is what the Cardinal and to say about the Consilium and its membership:
“[The Consilium] is merely an assembly of people, many of them incompetent, and others of them well advanced on the road to novelty. The discussions are extremely hurried. Discussions are based on impressions and the voting is chaotic. What is most displeasing is that the expositive Promemorias and the relative questions are drawn up in advanced terms and often in a very suggestive form. The direction is weak." (166-67)
"Many of those who have influenced the reform... have no love and no veneration of that which has been handed down to us. They begin by despising everything that is actually there. This negative mentality is unjust and pernicious, and unfortunately, Paul VI tends a little to this side. They have all the best intentions, but with this mentality they have only been able to demolish and not to restore." (192)
"While I would like to be mistaken, I can say that [Bugnini's] greatest lacuna was his lack of any theological training or sensibility. This was a grave defect and lacuna because in the liturgy, every word and every gesture expresses a theological idea. I have the impression that much has been conceded to the Protestant mentality, especially in matters regarding the sacraments." (196)
Post a Comment