"This is so contrary to the fear-driven and defensive culture war Christianity I’ve experienced as imbedded into American Catholicism."
While there is indeed a lot of this attitude, I think it's necessary to acknowledge that Pope Francis was pretty antagonistic toward U S. Catholics in general, and especially antagonistic toward those with more conservative/traditional attitudes. His actions and comments that he would make came off as very passive aggressive to many of us. I tried my best to love him and give him every benefit of the doubt, but it was impossible not to feel his animosity toward us. That genuinely hurt me, as a devout Catholic who simply loves the Traditional Latin Mass, and who wanted to feel loved by my Holy Father, because Pope Francis seemed to view me no differently than he viewed sedevacantists or schismatics or those who ignorantly reject the second Vatican council.
All of this is to say: I don't blame most people for being defensive and afraid — Pope Francis bears a great deal of responsibility for that. I love him and I hope to embrace him in Heaven someday, but I also hope that Papa Leo will handle the "rad trad" situation with much more care than Papa Francis did.
I would also absolutely love it if he made it part of his mission to reform the liturgical messiness of the last few decades and reunite us all under one single Mass — a Mass that's truly faithful to what Vatican II prescribed.
Jacob, I do think people in the Extraordinary Form community need to understand, though, that it does not connect with everyone and that a reverently created Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass is beautiful and good and just as spiritually nourishing as the Extraordinary Form is. Like I’ve told people I feel disconnected from the Mass when I have attended the Extraordinary Form and people have pooh poohed that with a sort of smugness and I found that very disconcerting.
Also, calling the Ordinary Form the “Novus Ordo”, at least for some people, myself included, is extremely disrespectful, and calling the Extraordinary Form the Traditional Latin Mass is also extremely frustrating to me too, because Vatican II and every edition of the Roman Missal is part of the Tradition of the Church, and the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite can be and is celebrated in Latin.
I object to the term “Traditionalist” or “Trad” for similar reasons, and avoid using those terms.
I don’t know if there are neutral terms that can be used in place of these or not. I hope there are.
I'm sorry that certain terms invoke such negative feelings within you. But I would encourage you, for your own sake, to try to cultivate a detachment from such emotional responses, because there's plenty of disrespect being thrown around online nowadays, and it's not worth losing your peace over people using words that you dislike. For what it's worth, I certainly didn't intend anything I said to be disrespectful, and in my experience of discussing this stuff and observing others discussing it over the years, the vast majority of people don't mean any of those terms in a disrespectful way. I recognize that "Novus Ordo" has been highjacked by the anti-Vatican II crowd who use it as a slur against the post-conciliar Church, but to most people it's a neutral term that is simply a popular name for the Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI — and in fact he was, I believe, the first one to use the term in a 1976 address he gave to the cardinals.
I find "Ordinary form" and "Extraordinary form" clunky, which is why I don't use them. I see nothing wrong with the term TLM, and I typically refer to the Ordinary form as either "the regular Mass" or "the new Mass" in casual conversation, but that's just my personal preference. If you prefer the EF and OF terms though, I'll certainly use them in our conversation out of respect for you.
Regarding what you said about how the Extraordinary form "does not connect with everyone", to be frank I think that's the wrong attitude to have, but unfortunately it's an attitude that many share today on both sides of the "liturgy wars". The purpose of the Mass is to offer worship to God that is fitting to God, not worship that satisfies our individual personal preferences. I've attended a Byzantine Divine Liturgy, and I didn't like it, but that has no bearing on whether it should exist, or whether it is a fitting expression of worship, nor does it mean that the Byzantines should create a new liturgy that appeals more to my personal preferences. All kinds of people have all kinds of different personal preferences, so the fact that not everyone likes the Extraordinary form is an irrelevant point, I think. For any form of liturgy, there will always be people who don't like or connect with it. There are undoubtedly many people who don't connect with either the Ordinary form or the Extraordinary form, does that mean we should create a third form of Mass to try to suit these people?
This is partly why I think it's actually very important for us Latins to be reunited within a single liturgy again. Having two forms of Mass not only gives the impression that we should seek out a liturgy based on or personal preferences, but it also just divides us. And under Pope Francis, those of us who attend the Extraordinary form were treated as outcasts, booted from our home parishes and segregated to other buildings. This divided our parishes rather than uniting us — ironically, the Pope who claimed to want to reach out to the marginalized was actively marginalizing many members of his own flock.
You may ask: if I desire unity, why not simply attend the Ordinary form?
And my answer is: because it is an objectively worse liturgy.
This has nothing to do with personal preference. The fact is, the Extraordinary form was carefully developed by the Church over centuries, and became the Latin rite liturgy for close to a thousand years. There are ages and ages of Divine wisdom in the Extraordinary form, and it is — objectively — far more conducive to worship and reverence than the Ordinary form, which was a severe break from tradition, and I believe a massive mistake. It also was not what Vatican II called for, but rather was the product of ideological individuals within a post-conciliar committee. None of this is to question it's validity — those who do so are simply revealing their own ignorance. And I do attend my parish's Ordinary form fairly regularly, when i can't attend the Extraordinary form for whatever reason. I also certainly don't judge people for preferring the Ordinary form; I believe that anchovy pizza is objectively worse than pepperoni, but I don't judge anyone for preferring anchovy (maybe a strange example, but hopefully you understand what I mean).
So, unless it is outright banned, I will continue attending the liturgy that our Church has been offering for the vast majority of her history. But my hope is that, as I said, we will eventually have a single liturgy that is actually in line with the Church's tradition, including what Vatican II prescribed — and this liturgy will look far more like the Extraordinary form than the Ordinary form.
Yes, this is a very emotional topic for me, in part because my experience with the Extraordinary Form and people who attend the Extraordinary Form has been about 75% negative, although I do have a few close friends who attend it who accept Vatican II and the full Magisterium and are respectful of and obedient to the Holy Father.
And my perspective on the liturgy is I am very much a “reform of the reform” guy whose thought has been influenced heavily by Cardinal Francis George, Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, Romano Guardini, and especially Bishop Robert Barron, so the Ressourcement school of theology, if that helps you understand where I’m coming from.
I’m with you on Ad Orientem, Gregorian Chant, incense, and I do think that some of the principal parts of the Mass should still be done in Latin, and I think receiving the Eucharist on the tongue and kneeling would restore some reverence that I think was lost in the poor implementation of Sacronsanctam concilium.
So if we reformed the Ordinary Form along the lines of what Pope Benedict XVI called for in The Spirit of the Liturgy, that is what I would love to see, and that is actually how the private Ordinary Form Mass that was celebrated immediately before I professed my private vow of celibacy was celebrated.
But, I’m just a privately vowed celibate Catholic layman, and this is just my private, personal opinion. I defer what constitutes fitting worship to the Magisterium and the Holy Father, and if they decide differently than me, I’ll defer to their judgment.
Happy to continue the conversation via direct messages if you like, in the interest of mutual understanding.
This is why I don’t usually read these kinds of posts: the division in opinions and judgments and proclamations of knowing more that the opposite side is of no value to the Holy Catholic Church. Do what you do and don’t chastise the others for what they do. You or your Mass are no better than the other. Jesus Christ is made into the body, blood, soul and divinity at all Masses. You are not holier, or more pious.
Linda, I never chastised anyone, judged anyone, or claimed to be better or holier than anyone. You evidently read all kinds of things into my words that weren't there, and then attacked me for things I didn't say.
As to your claim that no Mass is better than another, that's simply false — there are all kinds of things that can make one Mass objectively better or worse than another. The idea that nothing about Mass matters except that the Eucharist is consecrated is very misguided, and not at all in line with Church doctrine.
When I read the letter accompanying Traditiones custodes, outlining why Pope Francis issued it, I have definitely been around the Tridentine Mass community, and what he identifies as problems in that community and the neo-Lefebvrists in the SSPX and other places having hijacked Summorum pontificum to spread their heresy, which is the flip side of the Spirit of Vatican II crowd of the 1970s-1990s, is a big reason why I have avoided the Tridentine Mass, that and I do think the reforms in Sacronsanctam concilium are good when they are properly done the way that Pope Benedict XVI describes in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, which he wrote back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.
Of course, Benedict XVI is my favorite of the popes in my lifetime so far (although I love them all and am grateful for them all),so I might be a bit biased in that regard.
Anyway, my one criticism of Traditiones custodes is, at least in some places where it has been implemented, it has not distinguished between the neo-Lebvrist heretics it is (rightly) aimed at and people like Jacob who accept Vatican II and are docile to the Magisterium who ended up caught in the crossfire (and I have friends like him offline who are in the same boat), and I am hopeful that Pope Leo will approach this with more pastoral sensitivity as well.
Paul, I really appreciate your insights and commentary on Leo's address. I share similar impressions upon hearing and reading his initial comments. Thanks for what you do, here!
This was extremely helpful for me today, particularly the part at the end about the fearful nature embedded in today’s American Catholic culture. I attempted going to Mass last night, here in Michigan. The homily was, in addition to being inaccurate in parts, rooted in control and fear. Afterward I caught myself wondering what you or Dominic would say about it, and reading some of Pope Leo’s recent words has been reassuring.
Beautiful! Thanks so much for sharing, brother!
Very hopeful.
I was hoping you would be sharing your initial thoughts on Pope Leo XIV. Thank you, Paul!
"This is so contrary to the fear-driven and defensive culture war Christianity I’ve experienced as imbedded into American Catholicism."
While there is indeed a lot of this attitude, I think it's necessary to acknowledge that Pope Francis was pretty antagonistic toward U S. Catholics in general, and especially antagonistic toward those with more conservative/traditional attitudes. His actions and comments that he would make came off as very passive aggressive to many of us. I tried my best to love him and give him every benefit of the doubt, but it was impossible not to feel his animosity toward us. That genuinely hurt me, as a devout Catholic who simply loves the Traditional Latin Mass, and who wanted to feel loved by my Holy Father, because Pope Francis seemed to view me no differently than he viewed sedevacantists or schismatics or those who ignorantly reject the second Vatican council.
All of this is to say: I don't blame most people for being defensive and afraid — Pope Francis bears a great deal of responsibility for that. I love him and I hope to embrace him in Heaven someday, but I also hope that Papa Leo will handle the "rad trad" situation with much more care than Papa Francis did.
I would also absolutely love it if he made it part of his mission to reform the liturgical messiness of the last few decades and reunite us all under one single Mass — a Mass that's truly faithful to what Vatican II prescribed.
Jacob, I do think people in the Extraordinary Form community need to understand, though, that it does not connect with everyone and that a reverently created Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass is beautiful and good and just as spiritually nourishing as the Extraordinary Form is. Like I’ve told people I feel disconnected from the Mass when I have attended the Extraordinary Form and people have pooh poohed that with a sort of smugness and I found that very disconcerting.
Also, calling the Ordinary Form the “Novus Ordo”, at least for some people, myself included, is extremely disrespectful, and calling the Extraordinary Form the Traditional Latin Mass is also extremely frustrating to me too, because Vatican II and every edition of the Roman Missal is part of the Tradition of the Church, and the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite can be and is celebrated in Latin.
I object to the term “Traditionalist” or “Trad” for similar reasons, and avoid using those terms.
I don’t know if there are neutral terms that can be used in place of these or not. I hope there are.
I appreciate your thoughtful responses, Mike.
I'm sorry that certain terms invoke such negative feelings within you. But I would encourage you, for your own sake, to try to cultivate a detachment from such emotional responses, because there's plenty of disrespect being thrown around online nowadays, and it's not worth losing your peace over people using words that you dislike. For what it's worth, I certainly didn't intend anything I said to be disrespectful, and in my experience of discussing this stuff and observing others discussing it over the years, the vast majority of people don't mean any of those terms in a disrespectful way. I recognize that "Novus Ordo" has been highjacked by the anti-Vatican II crowd who use it as a slur against the post-conciliar Church, but to most people it's a neutral term that is simply a popular name for the Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI — and in fact he was, I believe, the first one to use the term in a 1976 address he gave to the cardinals.
I find "Ordinary form" and "Extraordinary form" clunky, which is why I don't use them. I see nothing wrong with the term TLM, and I typically refer to the Ordinary form as either "the regular Mass" or "the new Mass" in casual conversation, but that's just my personal preference. If you prefer the EF and OF terms though, I'll certainly use them in our conversation out of respect for you.
Regarding what you said about how the Extraordinary form "does not connect with everyone", to be frank I think that's the wrong attitude to have, but unfortunately it's an attitude that many share today on both sides of the "liturgy wars". The purpose of the Mass is to offer worship to God that is fitting to God, not worship that satisfies our individual personal preferences. I've attended a Byzantine Divine Liturgy, and I didn't like it, but that has no bearing on whether it should exist, or whether it is a fitting expression of worship, nor does it mean that the Byzantines should create a new liturgy that appeals more to my personal preferences. All kinds of people have all kinds of different personal preferences, so the fact that not everyone likes the Extraordinary form is an irrelevant point, I think. For any form of liturgy, there will always be people who don't like or connect with it. There are undoubtedly many people who don't connect with either the Ordinary form or the Extraordinary form, does that mean we should create a third form of Mass to try to suit these people?
This is partly why I think it's actually very important for us Latins to be reunited within a single liturgy again. Having two forms of Mass not only gives the impression that we should seek out a liturgy based on or personal preferences, but it also just divides us. And under Pope Francis, those of us who attend the Extraordinary form were treated as outcasts, booted from our home parishes and segregated to other buildings. This divided our parishes rather than uniting us — ironically, the Pope who claimed to want to reach out to the marginalized was actively marginalizing many members of his own flock.
You may ask: if I desire unity, why not simply attend the Ordinary form?
And my answer is: because it is an objectively worse liturgy.
This has nothing to do with personal preference. The fact is, the Extraordinary form was carefully developed by the Church over centuries, and became the Latin rite liturgy for close to a thousand years. There are ages and ages of Divine wisdom in the Extraordinary form, and it is — objectively — far more conducive to worship and reverence than the Ordinary form, which was a severe break from tradition, and I believe a massive mistake. It also was not what Vatican II called for, but rather was the product of ideological individuals within a post-conciliar committee. None of this is to question it's validity — those who do so are simply revealing their own ignorance. And I do attend my parish's Ordinary form fairly regularly, when i can't attend the Extraordinary form for whatever reason. I also certainly don't judge people for preferring the Ordinary form; I believe that anchovy pizza is objectively worse than pepperoni, but I don't judge anyone for preferring anchovy (maybe a strange example, but hopefully you understand what I mean).
So, unless it is outright banned, I will continue attending the liturgy that our Church has been offering for the vast majority of her history. But my hope is that, as I said, we will eventually have a single liturgy that is actually in line with the Church's tradition, including what Vatican II prescribed — and this liturgy will look far more like the Extraordinary form than the Ordinary form.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Jacob.
Yes, this is a very emotional topic for me, in part because my experience with the Extraordinary Form and people who attend the Extraordinary Form has been about 75% negative, although I do have a few close friends who attend it who accept Vatican II and the full Magisterium and are respectful of and obedient to the Holy Father.
And my perspective on the liturgy is I am very much a “reform of the reform” guy whose thought has been influenced heavily by Cardinal Francis George, Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, Romano Guardini, and especially Bishop Robert Barron, so the Ressourcement school of theology, if that helps you understand where I’m coming from.
I’m with you on Ad Orientem, Gregorian Chant, incense, and I do think that some of the principal parts of the Mass should still be done in Latin, and I think receiving the Eucharist on the tongue and kneeling would restore some reverence that I think was lost in the poor implementation of Sacronsanctam concilium.
So if we reformed the Ordinary Form along the lines of what Pope Benedict XVI called for in The Spirit of the Liturgy, that is what I would love to see, and that is actually how the private Ordinary Form Mass that was celebrated immediately before I professed my private vow of celibacy was celebrated.
But, I’m just a privately vowed celibate Catholic layman, and this is just my private, personal opinion. I defer what constitutes fitting worship to the Magisterium and the Holy Father, and if they decide differently than me, I’ll defer to their judgment.
Happy to continue the conversation via direct messages if you like, in the interest of mutual understanding.
This is why I don’t usually read these kinds of posts: the division in opinions and judgments and proclamations of knowing more that the opposite side is of no value to the Holy Catholic Church. Do what you do and don’t chastise the others for what they do. You or your Mass are no better than the other. Jesus Christ is made into the body, blood, soul and divinity at all Masses. You are not holier, or more pious.
Linda, I never chastised anyone, judged anyone, or claimed to be better or holier than anyone. You evidently read all kinds of things into my words that weren't there, and then attacked me for things I didn't say.
As to your claim that no Mass is better than another, that's simply false — there are all kinds of things that can make one Mass objectively better or worse than another. The idea that nothing about Mass matters except that the Eucharist is consecrated is very misguided, and not at all in line with Church doctrine.
This is very fair, I think, Jacob.
When I read the letter accompanying Traditiones custodes, outlining why Pope Francis issued it, I have definitely been around the Tridentine Mass community, and what he identifies as problems in that community and the neo-Lefebvrists in the SSPX and other places having hijacked Summorum pontificum to spread their heresy, which is the flip side of the Spirit of Vatican II crowd of the 1970s-1990s, is a big reason why I have avoided the Tridentine Mass, that and I do think the reforms in Sacronsanctam concilium are good when they are properly done the way that Pope Benedict XVI describes in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, which he wrote back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.
Of course, Benedict XVI is my favorite of the popes in my lifetime so far (although I love them all and am grateful for them all),so I might be a bit biased in that regard.
Anyway, my one criticism of Traditiones custodes is, at least in some places where it has been implemented, it has not distinguished between the neo-Lebvrist heretics it is (rightly) aimed at and people like Jacob who accept Vatican II and are docile to the Magisterium who ended up caught in the crossfire (and I have friends like him offline who are in the same boat), and I am hopeful that Pope Leo will approach this with more pastoral sensitivity as well.
Paul, I really appreciate your insights and commentary on Leo's address. I share similar impressions upon hearing and reading his initial comments. Thanks for what you do, here!
Thank you for that precious information!
I am so relieved
This was extremely helpful for me today, particularly the part at the end about the fearful nature embedded in today’s American Catholic culture. I attempted going to Mass last night, here in Michigan. The homily was, in addition to being inaccurate in parts, rooted in control and fear. Afterward I caught myself wondering what you or Dominic would say about it, and reading some of Pope Leo’s recent words has been reassuring.