The Cruel and Incoherent Further Restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass
Fr. Gerald E. Murray: The Vatican insists the use of Latin is “creating division.” In fact, the Holy See is sowing seeds of division by stigmatizing and penalizing faithful Catholics.
The document Responsa ad dubia (“Responses to doubts”) of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) on certain provisions of Pope Francis’ Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes (TC) just published Saturday, is, plain and simple, a brutal exercise of raw ecclesiastical power in pursuit of the elimination of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) and the other sacramental rites that, with it, constitute a liturgical unity. It expands the clampdown on the TLM initiated by Pope Francis in TC.
The faithful who find spiritual nourishment in these liturgical rites are shown no pastoral charity or generosity of spirit in this new order of things. They are unjustly accused of fomenting disunity in the Church by virtue of their attachment to the older rites. In his prefatory letter, CDW prefect Archbishop Arthur Roche states: “As pastors we must not lend ourselves to sterile polemics, capable only of creating division, in which the ritual itself is often exploited by ideological viewpoints.” This claim about the TLM is never illustrated in his letter. It is asserted as if it were a fact plainly evident to all. It is not.
Who are the nefarious people promoting ideological viewpoints that exploit the older ritual? Where and how is this being done, and to what purpose? By what definition is a viewpoint an “ideology,” as distinct from a set of principles? When are polemics sterile and not fruitful? Polemics are regularly used these days by many in the Church to denounce all sorts of things such as man-made global warming and anti-immigrant policies in various nations. Do these polemics qualify as sterile, causing division?
Archbishop Roche states:
“The first aim is to continue ‘in the constant search for ecclesial communion’ (Traditionis custodes, Preamble) which is expressed by recognising in the liturgical books promulgated by the Popes Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite (cf. Traditionis custodes, n. 1). This is the direction in which we wish to move, and this is the meaning of the responses we publish here. Every prescribed norm has always the sole purpose of preserving the gift of ecclesial communion by walking together, with conviction of mind and heart, in the direction indicated by the Holy Father.” (Emphasis added.)
Question: Is not a Catholic free in his mind and heart to respectfully disagree when he finds the direction the pope wants him to walk to be the wrong way to go? Isn’t such Gospel frankness what we owe to our chief shepherd when we consider that he has made a mistake? Or does Archbishop Roche want us to believe that popes do not make mistakes? Certainly not, Since the Responsa ad dubia are an indictment of the decisions of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI concerning the TLM.
Click here to read the rest of Father Murray’s column . . .
The Cruel and Incoherent Further Restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass – The Catholic Thing
|
Question: Is not a Catholic free in his mind and heart to respectfully disagree when he finds the direction the pope wants him to walk to be the wrong way to go? Isn’t such Gospel frankness what we owe to our chief shepherd when we consider that he has made a mistake?
I have respectfully disagreed on various actions our current pope has done.
Christian,
I have been meaning to comment to you about your reply in the late hours of Christmas night regarding the question you posed about a Catholic’s being ‘free in mind and heart’ ‘to respectfully disagree with the Pope?’ I knew from ‘when’ you posted that the subject has meaning for you, as it does for me, so I simply intended to share my observation which I wrote in 2015, i.e., the book: “Half a Dialogue.” My broader observation is in the obligation of conscience.
Simply put, “Half a Dialogue” was just my commentary on Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si’ in which he asked for input from the reader. He asked 25x for “dialogue,” 12x for “debate,” and 6x for “discussion.” These three words were used a total of 43 separate times. I noted “While one might hesitate to give input, any such reticence is more than compensated by Pope Francis’ repeated and mitigating invitation to discuss and debate the matters expressed in Laudato Si’… I take the Holy Father at his word that he desires such dialogue….”
I can now say, almost 7 years after writing “Half a Dialogue”, that such welcome for dialogue has rarely (if ever) been manifested in subsequent writings of Pope Francis, yet he has not overtly taken his prior offer for discussion off the table, or reframed the invitation. But to some extent the very invitation to dialogue, not re-presented as an exception, seems to beckon replies and comment on other subjects.
Canonists have pointed out to me that responding to an invitation for dialogue argues well for presenting such points respectfully, but without excuse. In addition, there are other justifications such as Canon 212 and St. Paul’s words correcting St. Peter in Galatians 2:11, which provide further argument to respectfully disagree with Pope Francis but are not necessary to add here.
Lastly, I would share with you that I sent a copy of “Half a Dialogue” to the head of every US Diocese and offered a copy to the head of each Canadian Diocese. I also sent copies to key Curial figures and received touching encouragement from some of the more highly respected and recognized among them. Pope Benedict was one of the first to favorably reply, with a copy of his first encyclical as a gift: Deus Caritas Est. Pope Benedict’s prompt response was probably due in part to my having inadvertently mailed his copy the week of his birthday!
While only a very few replied with endorsement of climate change arguments, no one in any way implied I had exceeded the boundaries of propriety or etiquette in my arguments to Pope Francis.