Just a small thing: maybe don't include the guy's profile name when you critique him? With it available, it kinda makes it easier for anyone to potentially do damage to him and his reputation.
This seems like a situation where the guy came to a conclusion before hearing what the good bishop said. He stressed allowing the TLM and Novus Ordo to exist together, not one being superior to the other
So I read your e-mail and now it’s doing to me what others comments did to you. I’m going to respond to the past 6 months to 2 years of episodes, as I really shouldn’t be taking time to write this, and I have much deeper thoughts than this longish comment, and my podcast backlog will grow until summer, but the episode was downloaded before I read your post.
For context, I’m a Netter, I did youth ministry on the side for years until my kids hit an age where I started volunteering for the stuff 5 yos do instead of teenagers. I’ve recently run retreats and other events at my current parish. My daughter was actually at your house. We never met when you lived in town though your old neighbor certainly knows me, though I’m better friends with another of their friends who I know your wife would remember. Anyways, I’m just a guy with a big gray beard who’s really into soccer, who your hunting buddy coached my son. That’s outside of trying to love Christ and be a good husband and father OFC.
Point is, I do get annoyed when the TLM comes up, and Latin in general. My experience, the few times I’ve been to TLM, is that it’s like going to Mass with a corpse. Last year I was at a Dominican parish in Cinci that is traditional, I think there was Latin chant. No one sings. At the daily Novus Ordo Mass in my parish today, we sang the Alma Redemptoris after Mass with much more heart despite being a few dozen people. I was at a beautiful old church in Vilnius for a TLM, same thing, or worse.
The whole Ad Orientum / Populum likewise annoys me. My pastor changed to Ad Orientem, which I teased him for being a hipster, but whatever, he’s the custodian of the Mass, not me. But I’ve found over the last year that when the consecration happens, and the host is right there in the center facing me, my heart leaps now. I’m actually giddy my schedule has me on Campus twice a week where they are celebrating Ad Populum. The short of it is, the Liturgy informs our theology and is informed by theology. Which direction does the Liturgy say we should face?….. UP! My heart is focused UP no matter what. Father holding Jesus, facing the tabernacle where Jesus is reserved and our beautiful crucifix of him doesn’t make it any more holy than him facing us, or in my experience help the congregation face UP. My pastor’s beautiful heart, which he said Ad Orientum helps him pray, does. That and our community is going to matter much more, but all pales in comparison to He who we offer to the Father.
Thanksgiving I was at a Mass off an Interstate driving home from Thanksgiving after seeing family. We were at the exact type of Mass people on your show, including yourself, have spoken of with disdain. Maybe 100 people, in this tiny church, at Sunday Mass. It was very homely, but it was beautiful. The community was beautiful, and I’d rather be there than back in Cinci if I can’t be at home.
Now I’m not some liberal nut job at all, I’m very conservative in politics and faith. My kids know Latin, one was boasting how awesome it was to his friends when they were gaming online last week. We sing the Latin Marian hymn of the season at night prayer as a family. But I know where my preferences lie, and I know even more I am called to be where I am, and that’s more important than what the liturgy is like. Furthermore, I can’t imagine most saints really giving a rip on most of our preferences. If a man who has been consecrated to be an offering to God is celebrating the Liturgy, that’s what they are there for, and that’s what I want to be there for. Not the trappings around it despite how they might help us enter in at times.
But I did pray about this when it came up 5-10 years. And I’m 100% sure if the Latin liturgy became the new Roman standard, I’d become a Byzantine Catholic that day. I do have a fondness for the Divine Liturgy, and a friend who is becoming an Eastern Rite Deacon, but pretty sure that’s not my path today. I also have seen in town the rift that being overly zealous for a devotion can cause, on both sides. I don’t want to see the Latin liturgy suppressed. But I do think its proponents are only seeing one side, and have the same single minded, conformity, zealousness that can cause strife and harm. If anything I think we need a proliferation of rites instead of this lock down we’ve been in for 500 years. That’s much more in line with what was instead of what we ended up with in reaction to the sins of Luther we’re still dealing with.
I understand there are people who are drawn to the TLM. My friend converted and is at St. Peters now with his family. One of my sons tends to be there or on campus for Mass. That’s fine. But I’m not buying God cares one iota about the sequence of vibrations coming out of our mouths, and instead He cares about the dispositions of our hearts.
So my challenge to each of you traditionalists is the next time I’m in one of your traditional parishes visiting family, or friends, or passing through. Make sure you’re participating in the Mass, and not spectating. Make sure your part of the heavenly voices. Make sure I leave as much in awe of your community as the miracle we were all there for.
Sorry about the rant, but you said you wanted a comment. And I do love the show, and look forward to listening to EVERY episode, but my backlog is growing until yard work season starts, and club soccer season ends, and my upcoming Spring craziness subsides.
Amen. Thank you for taking the time to write this. I came here to simply agree with the original commenter (whose name should NOT have been shared) and to suggest, Mr Fradd, that the reason it bugged you is because you know there's truth to it. You used clickbait titles on your shorts videos and the longer one to attract people who all want to be in the same echo chamber. I'm for Jesus.
Thank you for your honesty, RobBob. I must push back on the comments you made re: Latin and Ad Orientem “annoying you.”
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass isn’t for our entertainment or personal preference, right? Your complaints about Latin and Ad orientem may stem from a lack of understanding or familiarity with the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, The General Instruction of the Roman Mass, Music in Catholic Worship etc. These documents are “the Bible” for Pastors, Liturgists and Church Musicians.
These contain the “why” we do literally EVERYTHING in the Mass. Some Pastors are more faithful to these documents than others - and tand have sown much confusion as a result.
I recommend any Catholic not familiar with these documents to go to the Vatican website and download them for yourself. Read them - they are not difficult to understand.
Vatican II didn’t change quite as much as everyone thinks when it comes to things like organ music, Latin chant and ad orientem.
When the church called for full, conscious and active participation, it didn’t necessarily mean you are singing every note of every song. Believe me, Latin Mass goers are not merely “spectators” and if they are - or Novus Ordo Mass goers are for that matter- niether are fulfilling their proper role.
You say that you see zealotry on one side, but you also come across as a bit zealous too.
Lastly, there is no reason the forms cannot coexist, along with the other Roman Rites - of which there are many! But importantly, there is only one form being suppressed right now. Why?
I want to be clear, the debates annoy me, not liturgy. I go to Mass 5 of 7 days a week Ad Orientum because that’s what my parish currently does. It was 7/7 this Fall, when I wasn’t lazy in the morning. I was merely commenting on my experience after months of Ad Orientum ONLY.
As I mentioned above, I personally think the TLM should be allowed. I think a “one size fits all” approach leads to lukewarmness, and God calls us individually. He puts different devotions on our hearts and in our lives. This all seems consistent from what I’ve seen throughout history and in life. I know the Eucharist is a sacrament, but what makes a Liturgy valid is comparatively small. Most of what we think of around every Liturgy IS devotional.
What I do know, and the point I tried to make, is we get very passionate about our devotions. Because we meet God in a devotion, including how Liturgy is celebrated, we get very passionate. And it’s hard for us to realize not everyone relates or experiences the same thing. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t share why we personally like it, or encourage others to try it. But no one, on either side, should condemn others for encountering God in it or for not liking our favorite.
I assure you, I have had many frustrations and feelings similar to you on other topics related to our Catholic faith and our Bishops and Pope Francis stewardship of it. I’ve gone to confession for them, and I try hard to not fall back into that trap. My response was purely for Matt, because he asked, not some crusade against the TLM.
If I was Zealous related to the TLM, it was that the community should engage more in celebrating Liturgy. I never leave annoyed at the liturgy, usually it’s more disappointment and sadness. The annoyance is always regarding people saying it is objectively better. I want to be leaving the Liturgy in awe, similar to what I experience when I’ve been at other liturgies or with other communities. I realize the Eucharist and the sacrifice is always there.
As for the importance of singing, you can read MANY church fathers that exhort us to sing. If anything, reading them reinforced my thoughts AGAINST the organ. Not because I dislike it (I enjoy Bach), but because it usually hampers singing in my humble experience. Music and lyrical setting should be secondary to that. I’ll leave you with St. Paul.
“you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.” - Col 3:16
“be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another [in] psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and playing to the Lord in your hearts.” - Eph 5:16
Thank you for taking the time to respond- I so appreciate it and have a better understanding of what you were trying to convey.
I have been a liturgical musician for 45 years and was a victim of the abuses VII wreaked the church. My dad left the church because our parish was one of those which had Latin Mass one Sunday, closed for the week and returned to no kneelers, no communion rail, ad populum Mass and no catechesis. The law was down and he never went back. I didn’t go to church again until I started dating my future husband, thanks be to God. My dad died when I was 19 and never got the chance (or yet had the interest) to understand why we left.
Hence began my lifelong search to understand what the heck happened after VII. That’s a deep well from which to drink, but I have learned a lot.
Being a military family, we moved around a lot. I have experienced firsthand, from the position of musical liturgical leadership everything from the STL Jesuit dominance to the capitalist influence of music publishers at NPM conventions, to the translation wars between dynamic and literal translations etc.
All this to say how glad I am of the wonderful influence the documents Music in Divine Liturgy, Sing to the Lord, and the General Instruction if the Roman Missal. Now I understand these documents aren’t necessary exciting or interesting to someone who hasn’t involved in planning liturgy, but I like to explain to people who complain about something- that there’s always a ‘why’ to what we’re doing. (Or there should be) Why are we doing everything a cappella in Lent, or why are we doing antiphons that aren’t like songs, or why are we chanting Mass Parts in latin (“NOT that awful Gloria again!?) Why is the choir singing alone during the Preparation of Gifts, etc, etc. The answer can be found in the church’s documents.
Bottom line is this - we’re all a different trajectory in our faith journey- hopefully all up! But I agree, these different liturgies speak to us at different points in our faith journeys. When I was newly back, I loved the guitar Mass - the group sang songs from Godspell. Now I think back in horror! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 And I can’t stand the STL Jesuit songs. Ha ha!
That’s why the suppression and ultimate elimination of TLM feels so unjust to me. That ‘authoritarian’ approach was ultimately very damaging to the Church, and we’re already seeing the damage of Pope Francis’s edict beginning. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
"I have been a liturgical musician for 45 years and was a victim of the abuses VII wreaked the church."
The transition was not smooth for sure, but at some point we stop being a victim of less than ideal circumstances. Saints see opportunity in suffering.
"Why are we chanting Mass Parts in latin (“NOT that awful Gloria again!?) Why is the choir singing alone during the Preparation of Gifts, etc, etc. The answer can be found in the church’s documents."
We chant Mass parts in Latin because some people feel that it's important. All of that is up to the bishop, however, something that traditionalists don't always note. I grew up with an all English Mass. I have the "to spec" Vatican II Mass right now that traditionalists quite often imagine fixes everything. My husband and I quietly say in English the Latin chant when it comes up. The "liberal" parish that is our 1/4 time parish is at times like a refreshing change of pace because I know that I will not be slogging through a foreign language in the middle. I know exactly what the other poster is talking about in that regard. Our job is to pray and participate with the priest, not be an audience for the the choir or display our ability to chant without real meaning. When the bishops agree with pewsitters like us, that's all that necessary to have a fully English Mass. That is Vatican II as well.
"When I was newly back, I loved the guitar Mass - the group sang songs from Godspell. Now I think back in horror! "
This could be part about "finding out" that guitars and Masses with them low bow, unfortunately. Tastes do change as we age, but cringe has nothing to do with the quality of music. God commands joyful noise from the heart. That always looks like cringe in the modern world.
"That’s why the suppression and ultimate elimination of TLM feels so unjust to me. That ‘authoritarian’ approach was ultimately very damaging to the Church, and we’re already seeing the damage of Pope Francis’s edict beginning. It just doesn’t make sense to me."
It doesn't make sense because quite often people who feel the way you do are not always seeing a fuller picture. Peter's job is to make sure all the sheep have safe pasture. Missal of 1962 communities, if they produced saints, would not only be not repressed but instead duplicated by the Vatican. Unfortunately, Missal of 1962 communities end up small, insular, stocked by families driving often hours past perfectly acceptable parishes. "I'm Catholic but I'm a real Catholic" communities develop. It's a clear pathway to schism, in a way that mere unhappiness with a local parish does not create. The goal of offering the Missal of 1962 was always one rite again. It's pastoral care, with hope of reunification. Even Pope Benedict's explanation was aimed towards that. That's why the Missal of 1962 is going to be eventually phased out.
Every time I read a comment such as yours, by a Catholic vehemently criticizing the TLM and the people who attend a TLM (because your comments are criticisms) after a Substack post that discusses the TLM, I know without the commenter explicitly stating so that he is a cradle Catholic who has been raised in the Church without really learning to think about what the Mass really is about. I converted to Catholicism twenty years ago at the age of 45, having been baptized and raised Presbyterian. My husband was raised in a non-denominational church but became Presbyterian when we married. We converted together. The main point I want to make is that the Novus Ordo Masses are very much Protestant-like and but for the crucifix and the statues of Our Lady in the sanctuary one would never know she’s in a Catholic Church attending Mass. The guitars and flutes next to the alter, the horrible hymns are anything but holy and sacred; the bad music is a distraction from the holiness of the Mass and very much meant to please the congregation instead of God (just as in a Protestant service). People arrive late at NO Masses and disrupt others as they find and settle into their seats. The men wear cargo shorts and t-shirts and the women wear pants and short dresses (and some young women wear clothing better suited for partying). Probably the worst most distressing aspect of the NO Masses is the way people stand in line holding their hands out to receive the body of Christ as if they merit touching His body in their unconsecrated, filthy hands and they take Our Lord’s body - our king’s body - from the filthy unconsecrated hands of an extraordinary minister, often a woman, and we wonder why a majority of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence. And then there is the presence of women on the alter either young girls serving the priest or women reading scripture - the entire NO Mass has been feminized. My husband and I drive fifty minutes to attend a TLM. We live in a rural area and the Catholic church in the town nearest us often has a female lector wearing a long white gown leading the procession. We attend that Mass only in extreme circumstances when we cannot get to our TLM for some reason. In a TLM, no one arrives late. The sanctuary is silent before Mass starts as people kneel and pray then sit silently waiting. The men wear long pants and button shirts. The young girls dress modestly. Women wear veils. They know they are at Mass to worship Christ in His real presence there and thus dress accordingly. In a high Mass, the chant is in Latin, but very holy; one need not understand the words to know the music glorifies and honors God. The music lifts people up to God. People receive the body of Our Lord with humility, on their tongues while kneeling, from the consecrated hands of a priest or a deacon, as fitting for the proper reception of Our King’s body. In short, the TLM is a Mass that properly celebrates and acknowledges the holiness and kingship of Christ. The NO Mass is there for Catholics to say they’ve been there and done that, filled their Sunday obligation in the least painful way to themselves (they don’t even have to change clothes after leaving Mass before they do their yard work at home), without having to pay much attention to what happened during Mass. Very Protestant in tone. I believe cradle Catholics who criticize the TLM just haven’t experienced Protestant services or they would with-hold criticism. I also believe they don’t really understand that Mass is about worshiping God as He calls us to, with humility and respect, not about worshiping God as easily as possible without having to think about the real purpose of the Mass. One Mass elevates us to God. The other Mass lowers God to man.
I evaluated both our various claims on Magisterium AI and as is always the case , we are both right AND wrong in various things. I LOVE this tool as all documentary sources are linked for quick reference!
Yes, but the Vatican 2 documents do include heresy, notably Nostra Aetate, which claims paganism and demon worship (Buddhism/hinduism) offer valid paths of “illumination” for men. Illumination by Lucifer I say!
I get the concern for guarding the faith. But Nostra Aetate doesn’t teach that Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion offers a path of salvation. It simply acknowledges that other traditions can carry rays of truth and goodness—the kind any person can grasp through reason—while never placing them alongside the Gospel or denying that Christ alone saves.
Its aim is straightforward: end hostility, speak honestly about shared human longings for God, and promote peace without surrendering doctrine. Nothing in the text denies a defined dogma, which is what heresy actually requires.
The deeper point is this: the Church’s propagation, holiness, unity, and stability remain steady signs of her divine origin. She can be wounded by her members, but she cannot defect from the faith Christ gave her.
Yes, I read the document in its entirety, and I will soon read the rest of the documents. As it is, I have seen a hodgepodge of different documents by JP2, and some of the popes from around Vatican 2. Much good theology and small bits that are heretical and worrying. I believe this laid the ground for the disaster under Francis and Leo.
Nostra Aetate read without it's context is very short. It's a subdocument and it needs to be read very carefully. Reading the VII documents from the beginning, including the constitutions is helpful to place the subdocuments.
Thank you for writing this. I have been on the edges of the online squabbles about the Missal of 1962 (there is no such thing as the "TLM") and the current missals for years. My challenge to our "traditionalist" brothers and sisters about the Mass is the same. The form does not matter, but the real spirit of Vatican II was that we participate in the Mass. Revelation tells us that we not audiences in Heaven, but active in love of God.
I have had similar experiences when my otherwise "ordinary" parish has gone heavy into traditionalism. Yeah, it was okay at first. However, I find myself actively wishing we could remove some of the candleabra at the altar. My husband and I say the important pieces in English when the Latin comes up. Vatican II was a miracle. Pentecost came again. I try to respect the sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in the faith. But to my fellow faithful, the rejection of modernism is in accepting Vatican II. It is not in indulging in what we imagine were pre-Vatican II Masses while being audience members. If there's any "ism" attached to someone's Catholicism, it's time for some prayers. God bless. Thanks again.
Vatican 2 was not a miracle. How can allowing women to be altar servers and lectors be a miracle? “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” We as Catholics must exemplify the Bible in our liturgy and practices, not the woke liberalism of Vatican 2 and the changes thereafter.
Vatican 2 brought some of the worst changes imaginable: lower belief in the real presence, lower vocations to priesthood, more fallen away Catholics, and abandonment of adoration. If the council was so good as many say, why did it bring only negative change?
Vatican II was reacting to world already suffering from deep doubts about God, let alone Christianity. Lower vocations, less belief, more fallen away Catholics were already happening well before Vatican II. That's particularly true in Europe, with the US being a couple decades behind. Most of "undo Vatican II" rhetoric doesn't understand that Vatican II was working on a very sick patient, and had clear goal in mind. It did not bring only negative change. The benefits have vastly outweighed the bumps. VII has setup a situation where we have more converts all over the world than we were producing before Vatican II. In the West it is offsetting those lost to secular culture, even if the Church cannot over come it.
The miracle of Vatican II is the miracle of Pentecost. It is reaching out to the world, a new evangelization that has come again. It is the rebirth of the Church. Worries about women in more public roles are legitimate as they are clear signs of social decay. However, theologically, there's no issue with either female altar servers (that would the Blessed Virgin too) or simple readers. The Church has made it clear repeatedly that women are not admitted even to the deaconate, where her formal authority starts. What a faithful Catholic can do here is simply not worry about. Jesus has this and the gates of Hades will not prevail against His Church.
As Catholics we do not exemplify the Bible. We glorify God. The Bible is many things, but it is not our example, nor the yard stick the faithful should be using to measure either the Church or themselves. Our examples are Christ, and then Mary and the saints. In other words, we Catholics exemplify, Christ. The Bible is the library our bishops use to create liturgy. To them and the bishop's charism, the liturgical practices should be left. Private reading of Scripture is a beautiful and fruitful devotion, but we should not be attempting to 2nd guess the caretakers of the Bible with the library itself.
But sir, thank you for a very intellectual debate, and I wish you a blessed Sunday. I hope I am answering your arguments and not parroting my thoughts at every turn. God bless you, as you seem to wish the very best for the Catholic Church, regardless if I think you are wrong.
I wish that was true, but I believe that abandoning 1963 years of Church tradition is a work of the devil. This was unprecedented. The liturgy evolves with time and is codified, not decided upon miraculously and completely changed. Also, female altar servers and female lectors ARE a terrible thing to be justifying-the Bible prohibits things such as this, and women would be better served truly observing the example of the Virgin Mary in humility and silence. But Leo is already tearing down the role of our heavenly Queen, so it is no surprise that such ideas are abandoned by Catholics.
Vatican II did not abandon 1963 years of Church tradition. The earliest Masses where in Greek, not Latin. Latin was only becoming a universal language at the time of Christ. It would take another 200 years for Latin to displace Greek. What people think of as the "TLM" only dates from the Council of Trent. That was fiat decision that replaced many local liturgies at the time. It introduced changes to practice and then has been tweaked in the 500 years since, at times substantially.
Vatican II is the expression of 2000 years of Church tradition, starting all the way back at St. Peter and his first council, which undid much of the religious customs of the Mosaic law. It met to answer a question and resulted in decisions better evangelize and relieve unnecessary burdens. Vatican II mimicked Peter's council.
As for the rest of it, I can tell you're a convert because you're thinking like a Protestant. The Bible is not the authority of the Catholic Church. Peter is the rock that Jesus left us. Pope Leo is asking the faithful to use words that will better evangelize the people you've left behind. To clarify our meaning around Our Lady. That's all. It's not tearing her down.
Meanwhile Our Lady is always found serving. Serving God, serving Christ at table, serving a couple who didn't even know need help. She was not silent, as you can find in Luke 1, the Magnificat or at Our Lady's many apparitions. It's not okay to try to use Mary as a reason why the Church is wrong here, while claiming they are not doing enough to defend her.
Yes, these changes take hundreds of years. It is contrary to the nature of the Church to alter tradition in such a way, especially if the new tradition is contrary to the Bible and irreverent. There is no need to change all liturgical and Church traditions of the past 2000 years, and doing so only implies that past revelations or decisions were wrong. It is the nature of the Church to build upon and develop tradition, not institute liturgical or traditional reforms in every aspect. Vatican 2 is the only such church council since the original council to do so. The original council set groundwork, Vatican 2 changed everything and built a newer, irreverent Church. Also, Pope Leo has already engaged in heresy when he prayed at the climate conference with the weird demonic spiritual rituals occurring there. To pray with heretics as part of their rite is to be a heretic. While valid pope, he cannot teach from his full authority as successor of Peter as he has rejected God and the Catholic Church. And yes, our lady served constantly, she was a model of a holy woman. However, do not confuse teaching with serving. Our lady never taught but remained in meekness always. The tasks of lector and acolyte are reserved to men for the reasons that a lector is an important position of teaching the word of God, and acolytes are called to discern priesthood and get a taste of the priestly life. Neither of these things can women do. Does that make sense? If you want more specifics for my other claims, please ask.
And no, our beautiful church is overrun by homosexuals, pedophiles, and Marxists. It is our God-given role as men to stand up and fight against those who wish to take it down, even if they are in the apostolic lineage. There are many good priests and bishops, and like you said, Hades will not prevail. God needs us to fight for his beauty and the tradition of the Church which He instituted.
Our beautiful Church is not overrun by all those people. When the empty tomb was discovered, the soldiers were bribed to spread reports that the apostles had stolen the body. That same is true today. Are there sinners and bishops/priests who will not make Heaven. Yes? But the Church is not on the verge of falling apart. It is a slight of hand by the media unfortunately.
I read both if your very thoughtful responses. What you don’t seem to realize though is that it’s exactly Vatican II which produced all these documents which clearly state everything about the proper rubrics of the Mass.
I didn’t say these things though to judge others in a different journey than my own, but to say we all should seek to serve the Liturgy, not be served BY it. As humans, we do so imperfectly, but it is in the humble striving where we must make room for what Holy Mother Church teaches us in those documents.
Anytime I catch myself judging those responsible for any one liturgical celebration, I pray, “Satan, get behind me! Lord, humble me!”
At the same time when I hear myself say, “I don’t like it when THEY…” I remind myself I am called to serve, not be served by, the Liturgy.”
Practically, that means singing the chants I like and the P&W stuff I don’t like, because in the end, it’s not about ME, it’s about GIVING GOD worship due HIM.
". What you don’t seem to realize though is that it’s exactly Vatican II which produced all these documents which clearly state everything about the proper rubrics of the Mass."
Rubrics as strong recommendations were offered. However, repeatedly it was given to the local bishop to change standards for the purpose of the salvation of souls. In what little I have seen of parts of canon law, it's even built into it that way. It's hard to make argument of Latin for English speakers when interaction with the liturgy is part of that salvation. I believe indeed that the documents suggest preservation Latin in places that naturally have many people visiting, like downtown cathedrals and the like. (For clarity, I would need to look this up again. ) If true, that it wasn't meant necessarily even from inception to be something everyone experienced all the time in their neighborhood parish.
"Practically, that means singing the chants I like and the P&W stuff I don’t like, because in the end, it’s not about ME, it’s about GIVING GOD worship due HIM."
Here's the rub: no earthly worship ever will give God his due. King David wanted to build a Temple for God because God had a tent. The response was praise, but then also "What can you build God, when Heaven is His throne and earth his footstool?" (paraphrasing here :)) If God wanted perfect worship, he would have just created beings that could do so. We worship God for our sake. We've lost that natural connection to Him and this one of the ways back. Worship is not for me as individual specifically, but it is for us humans. So yes, we all served by the liturgy. It is a gift from God for our salvation. In other words, He doesn't need all these Masses, but we do. It appears that part of the reason that Missal of 1962 is offered despite all the headaches decades on to try to make sure all of the sheep are being fed.
Those who feel that any discussion of the TLM is divisive are lacking in catechesis and/or liturgical formation. I do not attend the TLM, as I am an Eastern Christian (Ruthenian), but I can say with full confidence that objectively the TLM gives great glory to God. It is the inheritance of the Western Tradition, whereas the Byzantine Rite is the inheritance of the East.
I enjoyed this episode, and was heartened (as I could tell you were) by Bishop Schneider's efforts on behalf of the Latin Mass. Those who leap to the accusation of divisiveness here should consider the fact that it is the ancient rite that is being persecuted today, not the newer rite. Bishop Schneider is calling for liturgical justice and peace. That is the opposite of factionalism. And his approach to speaking the truth is suffused with charity: he is never bitter and always exudes hope. I don't see how this would be a threat to anyone with good intentions.
The Bible verses he semi-quoted seemed to be more about "Who's on top?", and making sure nobody put St Paul in place of Christ.
It's truth that some people do care more about TLM than Christ. I know several who skip Mass when they wake up too late to drive four hours to TLM Mass, despite believing that Christ is truly present at their local NO (minutes away). In a sense, such people seem to worship the TLM, rather than Christ.
I think where the commenter played into a vagueness is this: Striving to educate and call people to higher liturgy is not the same as worshipping the liturgy. Calling people to higher worship is "divisive" in the same way that Christ calling people to eat His flesh and drink His blood caused a pretty stark division among His followers.
Division isn't always wrong. Sometimes -despite all efforts- someone walks away from you, and then claims you walked away from them. Sad, but a reality.
The pettiness of these people! The TLM is the liturgy of the Catholic Church and has been so for two thousand years. To call celebration of the Mass that formed the saints ‘divisive’ shows their mala fides. Those who attend the Latin Mass simply want to worship God. Those who accuse Catholics who attend a Catholic Mass of being ‘divisive’ or in ‘schism’ are not sincere and their motives are not genuine. And those who attack people such as Archbishop Schneider, who defended the Faith, and, in doing so, preserved its integrity for us, are nasty and are obviously sowing division themselves.
RobBob, the liturgy was not celebrated in Latin until a version of Latin was developed deemed worthy of being used to offer the sacrifice. This “Liturgical Latin” was not the Latin spoken by the people just as the Classical Latin taught in today’s schools was the hierarchical language used by the Roman government rather than the Latin spoken by the common Latin-speaking people. I believe there is a letter by Cicero in which he remarks how different is the Latin he spoke at home growing up from that he used in the Senate. See Christine Mohrmann’s lectures on Liturgical Latin regarding how the Latin in the liturgy was embellished to make it worthy of offering the Sacrifice.
Thanks, I’ll lock it in my mind as more like what Church Slavonic evolved into (apt since the first draft was on the feast of Cyril and Methodius). Also, I don’t know that you personally feel this way, but there’s a line of thought in this comment that struck me hard.
It is, “deemed worthy of being used to offer the sacrifice” is really dangerous. The Jews had this mindest of God, and Jesus constantly rebuked them. He went as far as to call God Daddy. It makes me incredibly cautious and helps me understand the pitfalls of some in the TLM community.
I will say, there is something to singing “Salve Regina” with the mindset of Queen of Heaven, of a song worthy of an Empress. My wife is also fond of this beautiful grayscale image of a little shepherd boy offering a dandelion while on his knees to Jesus and Mary. She wants to be our mother not our Empress. Yesterday’s Psalm fits “As a child has rest in its mother’s arms, even so my soul.” Remember God had her appear as a Native American. God came as a person. God wants the same.
While praying on this comment, I also had the inspiration about why the Devil must hate this form of latin so much when it’s used against him. It’s the latin of the evil emperors, who were prone to orgies, would burn their cities to the ground and persecuted the church mercilessly. They were his play things. And the devils empire is all gone in Ash, except for within the Church. So yes, it must remind him, all he works so hard to build in the world today, will likewise disappear the moment God chooses, and He will use it as He sees fit at the end.
But this idea that I have a good language, and a bad language, I use every day seems very very wrong. The idea that I can’t speak straight from my heart in my native tongue, that’s certainly bad. NLP teaches that how we talk and think about problems has profound consequences on us. I wouldn’t underestimate the application of it to this underlying idea. And little things adding up is certainly something the Saints understood. I deeply want God to purify ALL of me, and if He does, which language I speak in doesn’t matter at all.
I think we have to be on guard personally for pride and thinking this practice or other is good in itself. As St. John of the Ladder warns, Vainglory can infect everything. And again, you can give conflicting advice to two people based on where they are. Let’s not for one minute be open to thoughts that there’s something magical about the external sound vibrations made while Latin is said. Or that God cares which language we pray in. I am certainly the last one to discourage someone from leaning into a devotional practice that leads them closer to God. But this mindset seems inherently dangerous to me.
I have a lot to say about this but I will limit it to this story or encounter I had. Once there was a guest at the Christian faculty group’s weekly lunch at my university. He was a Bible translator for Wycliff Bible translation to its and his current job was to learn the Choctaw language well enough to translate the Bible (or parts of it) into Choctaw. The Jesuits had done the whole Bible during the 29th century but no one knew that version of Choctaw anymore. Why? There were 3 versions of Choctaw, normal or everyday Choctaw, a version just used for their traditional religious stories, and a third one was whose purpose I don’t remember.
The Jesuits chose to use the version for their traditional religious stories because this version was only used for the most important things—their relationship with their gods. To use any other version of Choctaw, at that time, would suggest this Christian God, Jesus Christ, is not very important.
Now in the USA we speak English, but there is not just one language English. We use different forms of English in law, medicine, contracts, and historically public worship. We also use a different language in informal situations than in other formal situations. I did not talk to other older women in the same way I spoke to my mother. And I would not speak to my mother in a public and formal situation the way I did at home as a child. It would have been disrespectful.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is both our Queen and our mother. When we pray privately to ask her intercession we can use informal language, but in public worship an appropriate decorum is necessary, which means an appropriate form of language. And I think you will find that the Choctaw are not unique, everywhere in every society there is a difference in formal and informal language and often the use of informal words in a situation that requires formal words is a purposeful insult.
So, yes, I know what you’re talking about. I have a friend I’ve known since we were young, before he was in Seminary. Online or at his parish, there’s a proper way I need to treat him since he is in public in his office as a priest. But on the phone or in person, we are friends and brothers (Something our priests need, and hopefully they experience with at least family and each other). But, reflecting more, we are thinking more as men than as God thinks.
I also know plenty of older catholics who grew up in Vatican I . Many of them have struggled to really know and accept God loves them. Many have scruples. The one exception I can think of had something extraordinary happen to her, so much so she won’t share it because she’s afraid others will think she’s weird. These are very reverent people who love the Mass and attend often. The others had something in the Charismatic Renewal break through to them, which is why they can be so pushy about it. My point is, I do think there’s a danger to formalism keeping us away from intimacy and receiving God’s love. This doesn’t mean I’m advocating for casualness in Mass or LOTH. I think Padre Pio’s quotes and stories in particular give us a great balance of reverence and love. Other saints, like Therese of Lisieux, focus much more on intimacy.
One person who taught evangelism decades ago would say “We are good at Catechizing in the Catholic church, but not good at evangelizing our own”. And also that “we know God loves us (pointing to his head), but need to get that to go 8 inches down to our heart”, when explaining the job of evangelization. I think he’s right, and if we did love God as we ought, we’d all be Saints.
I know if we love God deeply, we’ll want to learn and know him more. If we love him, we’ll want to please him, and learn what displeases him. Great love will drive us to great reverence and avoiding sin. So to me, we need to start there instead of with reverence or anywhere else. You see this in men who truly love their wives, whether it’s with Peterson, or Matt. They seek to know and love their wives deeply, so we should be doing with Our Lord. But we always need to trust Him as the Father who sees us far off in the midst of our sin, runs to us, and embraces us, flaws and all. The King of Mercy is constantly showering the Love from His heart in Water to Cleanse us and His Blood to make us divinely holy. He asks for trust in response.
I just don’t know how we get there by focusing on reverence even if I get your point. Love requires intimacy, between humans AND between us and God.
"the liturgy" of "the Catholic Church " is singular. Maybe you didn't mean that, but actually you did say it, even if unintentionally. There were saints before the TLM, and there are many saints outside the Latin rite, including some in St Peters (St basil the great) who have been venerated since before Latin was used in Rome for the liturgy. Abother example is St Anthony of Egypt who was revered far and wide as the father of monasticism and we recently celebrated.
No - I am not placing it into singular at all. You are quite correct- there are many rites within the faith and that is the beauty of the organic development of the liturgy. There is Byzantine, Melkite, the oldest ones in Egypt. I am not saying that at all and I also do not disparage the Novus Ordo if that is what will bring a person closer to Christ. The TLM that we celebrate today is the 1962 Mass, and that is different itself.
I do believe you. And I pointed out people not being precise the other way in this very thread.
Unfortunately the TLM has been attacked in recent years (mainly by Francis), and there are others who talk like the TLM should be the only option. So being precise does matter.
Saying the 1962 liturgy is still a valid Liturgy within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is what I think you are meaning. And as far as I know that's true, but I'm not a cannon lawyer to be sure. And as I said elsewhere, I don't want it supressed.
But the original comment as I read it did sound a bit arrogant and elitist like a few others unfortunately. Again, I am glad to hear you don't seem to feel that way. But it is what it is. And it's what I was responding to Matt's call for comments on.
I was responding to those who call the TLM ‘divisive’ - which is absurd. The Catholic Church was strikingly not divided as regards the liturgy prior to the Novus Ordo.
I realise that you meant it as an explanation, and not a criticism, but I might have sounded elitist, and, to be frank, I am an elitist. I actually think that the liturgy- the worship of God- should be the best and most beautiful that is possible. That requires hard work, thought, humility and education of oneself. It also requires humility to acknowledge and respect tradition and the wisdom of our forefathers. So, I am not apologising for being elitist. I think there has been a dumbing down in the name of accessibility and egalitarianism. Why should we apologise that it takes work on our part to understand the depths and nuances of what we believe?
I can only presume my experience has been different from yours.
I became a Catholic by going straight from the Episcopal Church to a small independent schismatic group. (They later joined the local diocese whose Bishop for several years had been requesting them to reconcile.) The leader (an abbot) had been ordained in a Benedictine monastery in 1948 and they had had a men’s college with over 3,000 students before Vatican II. By 1970 the college was closed. He was pushed out of the monastery and out of the local Catholic parish (where he was pastor as the monastery did and still supplies priests to the local parish) because he had begun not to accept the post VII changes. His reason was he found that his parishioners were losing their faith (or their piety). For this reason he disliked the new Mass. I was of the impression he went along with it until he observed its effects. I find the formalism of the old Mass (as I did the formalism of 1928 Book of Common Prayer which I grew up with as an Episcopalian) draws me close to God. The relatively informal NO Mass (which I have to go to because of travel difficulties) does not make me feel close to God. When I was able to get to the closest TLM (a high Mass) on Ascension Thursday, during Mass I felt like I was in heaven. Which brings me back to the Abbot. He asked me the first time I met him what is the purpose of my life. His answer was to be with God. Since that Ascension Mass (and as I approach 75) I have increasingly thought about the purpose (or ultimate end) of my life being to be with God. I feel like I am with God during the TLM and want to be with God, but the NO leaves me cold in this regard.
Our different experiences to me imply Benedict XVI was correct in allowing both masses and giving freedom to priests to offer the TLM. The mass I went to regularly from 2011 until 2020 (when my wife and I began caring for a little girl 6 months old at the time) was offered by a priest who on average says about 14 masses every week, half NO, half TLM. I discussed getting the girl baptized with our two local priests and with our old TLM priest. Because of a quirk in our State’s child custody laws, technically baptism was not allowed. However, giving into additional pressure from our children, a year ago I asked all 3 about it again and even wrote to the Bishop’s secretary. It was the TLM guy who went the extra mile and convinced the canon lawyer to recommend baptism, which he did a year ago this past Saturday. As is his practice he simply asked, English or Latin, so she was baptized according to the ancient rite.
(Although we hear a lot about those who attend the TLM complaining about the English Mass, this priest’s told me back in 2011 there were just as many complaints by English Mass people about the Latin Mass.)
I thought it was a wonderful interview. If I’m playing DA in favor of this Chris Munoz guy, the only conclusion at which i’m really arriving is that I would just be upset at the Latin Mass and conversations that would encourage it.
So, in other words, I found no division in the interview at all and am stoked that Bp. Schneider was able to get on the show!!!
This is how I read the comment as well. But hearing this passage recently at Mass, I was struck by the same thought as the commentor. Not bc of this interview though. Related to events and opinions surrounding the ending of TLM Mass in my current and former diocese that happened in the past couple years and the fallout that followed. I do see how the comment itself could be perceived as judgmental and divisive, but for me, sitting at Mass, hearing those words read, and having close friends who struggle with where they belong in the Catholic world, it is pretty much what I was thinking.
I'm happy to see interviews that promote unity and discussion.
I heard that Gospel at Mass and thought the exact same thing. The disunity is not highly inflamed in my local diocese, but it is still there where it shouldn't be.
I completely agree. I think the commenter on the interview became an opportunity to dredge up support for Matt's opinion about the TLM. The commenter used the most recent Sunday gospel (providential timing for the release of the interview?) and using fraternal correction the way that Christ calls us to use it. I think Christ, and Paul if he were still writing letters to us, would urge us to read the comment and listen to the interview as you said: stop trying to align with a certain faction within the Church and listen in unity. I would like to think He (and Paul) would also say "please don't make an entire post to make yourself feel better about it because you know there will be plenty of supporters commenting." But that's me being judgemental.
My complaint was that it was only an hour! Great Job Matt, keep up the good work. May the peace of our Lord be with you.
Loved the episode. Didn’t find it divisive, I found it uplifting and the good Bishop’s joy is so beautiful.
Just a small thing: maybe don't include the guy's profile name when you critique him? With it available, it kinda makes it easier for anyone to potentially do damage to him and his reputation.
This seems like a situation where the guy came to a conclusion before hearing what the good bishop said. He stressed allowing the TLM and Novus Ordo to exist together, not one being superior to the other
So I read your e-mail and now it’s doing to me what others comments did to you. I’m going to respond to the past 6 months to 2 years of episodes, as I really shouldn’t be taking time to write this, and I have much deeper thoughts than this longish comment, and my podcast backlog will grow until summer, but the episode was downloaded before I read your post.
For context, I’m a Netter, I did youth ministry on the side for years until my kids hit an age where I started volunteering for the stuff 5 yos do instead of teenagers. I’ve recently run retreats and other events at my current parish. My daughter was actually at your house. We never met when you lived in town though your old neighbor certainly knows me, though I’m better friends with another of their friends who I know your wife would remember. Anyways, I’m just a guy with a big gray beard who’s really into soccer, who your hunting buddy coached my son. That’s outside of trying to love Christ and be a good husband and father OFC.
Point is, I do get annoyed when the TLM comes up, and Latin in general. My experience, the few times I’ve been to TLM, is that it’s like going to Mass with a corpse. Last year I was at a Dominican parish in Cinci that is traditional, I think there was Latin chant. No one sings. At the daily Novus Ordo Mass in my parish today, we sang the Alma Redemptoris after Mass with much more heart despite being a few dozen people. I was at a beautiful old church in Vilnius for a TLM, same thing, or worse.
The whole Ad Orientum / Populum likewise annoys me. My pastor changed to Ad Orientem, which I teased him for being a hipster, but whatever, he’s the custodian of the Mass, not me. But I’ve found over the last year that when the consecration happens, and the host is right there in the center facing me, my heart leaps now. I’m actually giddy my schedule has me on Campus twice a week where they are celebrating Ad Populum. The short of it is, the Liturgy informs our theology and is informed by theology. Which direction does the Liturgy say we should face?….. UP! My heart is focused UP no matter what. Father holding Jesus, facing the tabernacle where Jesus is reserved and our beautiful crucifix of him doesn’t make it any more holy than him facing us, or in my experience help the congregation face UP. My pastor’s beautiful heart, which he said Ad Orientum helps him pray, does. That and our community is going to matter much more, but all pales in comparison to He who we offer to the Father.
Thanksgiving I was at a Mass off an Interstate driving home from Thanksgiving after seeing family. We were at the exact type of Mass people on your show, including yourself, have spoken of with disdain. Maybe 100 people, in this tiny church, at Sunday Mass. It was very homely, but it was beautiful. The community was beautiful, and I’d rather be there than back in Cinci if I can’t be at home.
Now I’m not some liberal nut job at all, I’m very conservative in politics and faith. My kids know Latin, one was boasting how awesome it was to his friends when they were gaming online last week. We sing the Latin Marian hymn of the season at night prayer as a family. But I know where my preferences lie, and I know even more I am called to be where I am, and that’s more important than what the liturgy is like. Furthermore, I can’t imagine most saints really giving a rip on most of our preferences. If a man who has been consecrated to be an offering to God is celebrating the Liturgy, that’s what they are there for, and that’s what I want to be there for. Not the trappings around it despite how they might help us enter in at times.
But I did pray about this when it came up 5-10 years. And I’m 100% sure if the Latin liturgy became the new Roman standard, I’d become a Byzantine Catholic that day. I do have a fondness for the Divine Liturgy, and a friend who is becoming an Eastern Rite Deacon, but pretty sure that’s not my path today. I also have seen in town the rift that being overly zealous for a devotion can cause, on both sides. I don’t want to see the Latin liturgy suppressed. But I do think its proponents are only seeing one side, and have the same single minded, conformity, zealousness that can cause strife and harm. If anything I think we need a proliferation of rites instead of this lock down we’ve been in for 500 years. That’s much more in line with what was instead of what we ended up with in reaction to the sins of Luther we’re still dealing with.
I understand there are people who are drawn to the TLM. My friend converted and is at St. Peters now with his family. One of my sons tends to be there or on campus for Mass. That’s fine. But I’m not buying God cares one iota about the sequence of vibrations coming out of our mouths, and instead He cares about the dispositions of our hearts.
So my challenge to each of you traditionalists is the next time I’m in one of your traditional parishes visiting family, or friends, or passing through. Make sure you’re participating in the Mass, and not spectating. Make sure your part of the heavenly voices. Make sure I leave as much in awe of your community as the miracle we were all there for.
Sorry about the rant, but you said you wanted a comment. And I do love the show, and look forward to listening to EVERY episode, but my backlog is growing until yard work season starts, and club soccer season ends, and my upcoming Spring craziness subsides.
Amen. Thank you for taking the time to write this. I came here to simply agree with the original commenter (whose name should NOT have been shared) and to suggest, Mr Fradd, that the reason it bugged you is because you know there's truth to it. You used clickbait titles on your shorts videos and the longer one to attract people who all want to be in the same echo chamber. I'm for Jesus.
Thank you for your honesty, RobBob. I must push back on the comments you made re: Latin and Ad Orientem “annoying you.”
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass isn’t for our entertainment or personal preference, right? Your complaints about Latin and Ad orientem may stem from a lack of understanding or familiarity with the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, The General Instruction of the Roman Mass, Music in Catholic Worship etc. These documents are “the Bible” for Pastors, Liturgists and Church Musicians.
These contain the “why” we do literally EVERYTHING in the Mass. Some Pastors are more faithful to these documents than others - and tand have sown much confusion as a result.
I recommend any Catholic not familiar with these documents to go to the Vatican website and download them for yourself. Read them - they are not difficult to understand.
Vatican II didn’t change quite as much as everyone thinks when it comes to things like organ music, Latin chant and ad orientem.
When the church called for full, conscious and active participation, it didn’t necessarily mean you are singing every note of every song. Believe me, Latin Mass goers are not merely “spectators” and if they are - or Novus Ordo Mass goers are for that matter- niether are fulfilling their proper role.
You say that you see zealotry on one side, but you also come across as a bit zealous too.
Lastly, there is no reason the forms cannot coexist, along with the other Roman Rites - of which there are many! But importantly, there is only one form being suppressed right now. Why?
I want to be clear, the debates annoy me, not liturgy. I go to Mass 5 of 7 days a week Ad Orientum because that’s what my parish currently does. It was 7/7 this Fall, when I wasn’t lazy in the morning. I was merely commenting on my experience after months of Ad Orientum ONLY.
As I mentioned above, I personally think the TLM should be allowed. I think a “one size fits all” approach leads to lukewarmness, and God calls us individually. He puts different devotions on our hearts and in our lives. This all seems consistent from what I’ve seen throughout history and in life. I know the Eucharist is a sacrament, but what makes a Liturgy valid is comparatively small. Most of what we think of around every Liturgy IS devotional.
What I do know, and the point I tried to make, is we get very passionate about our devotions. Because we meet God in a devotion, including how Liturgy is celebrated, we get very passionate. And it’s hard for us to realize not everyone relates or experiences the same thing. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t share why we personally like it, or encourage others to try it. But no one, on either side, should condemn others for encountering God in it or for not liking our favorite.
I assure you, I have had many frustrations and feelings similar to you on other topics related to our Catholic faith and our Bishops and Pope Francis stewardship of it. I’ve gone to confession for them, and I try hard to not fall back into that trap. My response was purely for Matt, because he asked, not some crusade against the TLM.
If I was Zealous related to the TLM, it was that the community should engage more in celebrating Liturgy. I never leave annoyed at the liturgy, usually it’s more disappointment and sadness. The annoyance is always regarding people saying it is objectively better. I want to be leaving the Liturgy in awe, similar to what I experience when I’ve been at other liturgies or with other communities. I realize the Eucharist and the sacrifice is always there.
As for the importance of singing, you can read MANY church fathers that exhort us to sing. If anything, reading them reinforced my thoughts AGAINST the organ. Not because I dislike it (I enjoy Bach), but because it usually hampers singing in my humble experience. Music and lyrical setting should be secondary to that. I’ll leave you with St. Paul.
“you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.” - Col 3:16
“be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another [in] psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and playing to the Lord in your hearts.” - Eph 5:16
Thank you for taking the time to respond- I so appreciate it and have a better understanding of what you were trying to convey.
I have been a liturgical musician for 45 years and was a victim of the abuses VII wreaked the church. My dad left the church because our parish was one of those which had Latin Mass one Sunday, closed for the week and returned to no kneelers, no communion rail, ad populum Mass and no catechesis. The law was down and he never went back. I didn’t go to church again until I started dating my future husband, thanks be to God. My dad died when I was 19 and never got the chance (or yet had the interest) to understand why we left.
Hence began my lifelong search to understand what the heck happened after VII. That’s a deep well from which to drink, but I have learned a lot.
Being a military family, we moved around a lot. I have experienced firsthand, from the position of musical liturgical leadership everything from the STL Jesuit dominance to the capitalist influence of music publishers at NPM conventions, to the translation wars between dynamic and literal translations etc.
All this to say how glad I am of the wonderful influence the documents Music in Divine Liturgy, Sing to the Lord, and the General Instruction if the Roman Missal. Now I understand these documents aren’t necessary exciting or interesting to someone who hasn’t involved in planning liturgy, but I like to explain to people who complain about something- that there’s always a ‘why’ to what we’re doing. (Or there should be) Why are we doing everything a cappella in Lent, or why are we doing antiphons that aren’t like songs, or why are we chanting Mass Parts in latin (“NOT that awful Gloria again!?) Why is the choir singing alone during the Preparation of Gifts, etc, etc. The answer can be found in the church’s documents.
Bottom line is this - we’re all a different trajectory in our faith journey- hopefully all up! But I agree, these different liturgies speak to us at different points in our faith journeys. When I was newly back, I loved the guitar Mass - the group sang songs from Godspell. Now I think back in horror! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 And I can’t stand the STL Jesuit songs. Ha ha!
That’s why the suppression and ultimate elimination of TLM feels so unjust to me. That ‘authoritarian’ approach was ultimately very damaging to the Church, and we’re already seeing the damage of Pope Francis’s edict beginning. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
"I have been a liturgical musician for 45 years and was a victim of the abuses VII wreaked the church."
The transition was not smooth for sure, but at some point we stop being a victim of less than ideal circumstances. Saints see opportunity in suffering.
"Why are we chanting Mass Parts in latin (“NOT that awful Gloria again!?) Why is the choir singing alone during the Preparation of Gifts, etc, etc. The answer can be found in the church’s documents."
We chant Mass parts in Latin because some people feel that it's important. All of that is up to the bishop, however, something that traditionalists don't always note. I grew up with an all English Mass. I have the "to spec" Vatican II Mass right now that traditionalists quite often imagine fixes everything. My husband and I quietly say in English the Latin chant when it comes up. The "liberal" parish that is our 1/4 time parish is at times like a refreshing change of pace because I know that I will not be slogging through a foreign language in the middle. I know exactly what the other poster is talking about in that regard. Our job is to pray and participate with the priest, not be an audience for the the choir or display our ability to chant without real meaning. When the bishops agree with pewsitters like us, that's all that necessary to have a fully English Mass. That is Vatican II as well.
"When I was newly back, I loved the guitar Mass - the group sang songs from Godspell. Now I think back in horror! "
This could be part about "finding out" that guitars and Masses with them low bow, unfortunately. Tastes do change as we age, but cringe has nothing to do with the quality of music. God commands joyful noise from the heart. That always looks like cringe in the modern world.
"That’s why the suppression and ultimate elimination of TLM feels so unjust to me. That ‘authoritarian’ approach was ultimately very damaging to the Church, and we’re already seeing the damage of Pope Francis’s edict beginning. It just doesn’t make sense to me."
It doesn't make sense because quite often people who feel the way you do are not always seeing a fuller picture. Peter's job is to make sure all the sheep have safe pasture. Missal of 1962 communities, if they produced saints, would not only be not repressed but instead duplicated by the Vatican. Unfortunately, Missal of 1962 communities end up small, insular, stocked by families driving often hours past perfectly acceptable parishes. "I'm Catholic but I'm a real Catholic" communities develop. It's a clear pathway to schism, in a way that mere unhappiness with a local parish does not create. The goal of offering the Missal of 1962 was always one rite again. It's pastoral care, with hope of reunification. Even Pope Benedict's explanation was aimed towards that. That's why the Missal of 1962 is going to be eventually phased out.
Every time I read a comment such as yours, by a Catholic vehemently criticizing the TLM and the people who attend a TLM (because your comments are criticisms) after a Substack post that discusses the TLM, I know without the commenter explicitly stating so that he is a cradle Catholic who has been raised in the Church without really learning to think about what the Mass really is about. I converted to Catholicism twenty years ago at the age of 45, having been baptized and raised Presbyterian. My husband was raised in a non-denominational church but became Presbyterian when we married. We converted together. The main point I want to make is that the Novus Ordo Masses are very much Protestant-like and but for the crucifix and the statues of Our Lady in the sanctuary one would never know she’s in a Catholic Church attending Mass. The guitars and flutes next to the alter, the horrible hymns are anything but holy and sacred; the bad music is a distraction from the holiness of the Mass and very much meant to please the congregation instead of God (just as in a Protestant service). People arrive late at NO Masses and disrupt others as they find and settle into their seats. The men wear cargo shorts and t-shirts and the women wear pants and short dresses (and some young women wear clothing better suited for partying). Probably the worst most distressing aspect of the NO Masses is the way people stand in line holding their hands out to receive the body of Christ as if they merit touching His body in their unconsecrated, filthy hands and they take Our Lord’s body - our king’s body - from the filthy unconsecrated hands of an extraordinary minister, often a woman, and we wonder why a majority of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence. And then there is the presence of women on the alter either young girls serving the priest or women reading scripture - the entire NO Mass has been feminized. My husband and I drive fifty minutes to attend a TLM. We live in a rural area and the Catholic church in the town nearest us often has a female lector wearing a long white gown leading the procession. We attend that Mass only in extreme circumstances when we cannot get to our TLM for some reason. In a TLM, no one arrives late. The sanctuary is silent before Mass starts as people kneel and pray then sit silently waiting. The men wear long pants and button shirts. The young girls dress modestly. Women wear veils. They know they are at Mass to worship Christ in His real presence there and thus dress accordingly. In a high Mass, the chant is in Latin, but very holy; one need not understand the words to know the music glorifies and honors God. The music lifts people up to God. People receive the body of Our Lord with humility, on their tongues while kneeling, from the consecrated hands of a priest or a deacon, as fitting for the proper reception of Our King’s body. In short, the TLM is a Mass that properly celebrates and acknowledges the holiness and kingship of Christ. The NO Mass is there for Catholics to say they’ve been there and done that, filled their Sunday obligation in the least painful way to themselves (they don’t even have to change clothes after leaving Mass before they do their yard work at home), without having to pay much attention to what happened during Mass. Very Protestant in tone. I believe cradle Catholics who criticize the TLM just haven’t experienced Protestant services or they would with-hold criticism. I also believe they don’t really understand that Mass is about worshiping God as He calls us to, with humility and respect, not about worshiping God as easily as possible without having to think about the real purpose of the Mass. One Mass elevates us to God. The other Mass lowers God to man.
I evaluated both our various claims on Magisterium AI and as is always the case , we are both right AND wrong in various things. I LOVE this tool as all documentary sources are linked for quick reference!
https://www.magisterium.com/s/c544f777-1dd9-4c7e-a251-4cff9283aa04
I will leave a ps: in those Vatican II documents you will find that:
* ad orientum was never abolished
*that the human voice is the most important instrument
*that organ and Latin Chant has “pride of place,”
*that “full, conscious and active participation” isn’t only meant to be practiced exteriorly, but interiorly,
*that the Cantor and Psalmist job is to facilitate the voice of the people and hopefully decrease as the people increase
Among many other things many might find surprising, including Pastors!
Yes, but the Vatican 2 documents do include heresy, notably Nostra Aetate, which claims paganism and demon worship (Buddhism/hinduism) offer valid paths of “illumination” for men. Illumination by Lucifer I say!
I get the concern for guarding the faith. But Nostra Aetate doesn’t teach that Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion offers a path of salvation. It simply acknowledges that other traditions can carry rays of truth and goodness—the kind any person can grasp through reason—while never placing them alongside the Gospel or denying that Christ alone saves.
Its aim is straightforward: end hostility, speak honestly about shared human longings for God, and promote peace without surrendering doctrine. Nothing in the text denies a defined dogma, which is what heresy actually requires.
The deeper point is this: the Church’s propagation, holiness, unity, and stability remain steady signs of her divine origin. She can be wounded by her members, but she cannot defect from the faith Christ gave her.
I unpack this more here: https://spiritualwarfarer.substack.com/p/the-catholic-church-remains-trustworthyheres?r=6zsguf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Have you read the Vatican II documents?
Yes, I read the document in its entirety, and I will soon read the rest of the documents. As it is, I have seen a hodgepodge of different documents by JP2, and some of the popes from around Vatican 2. Much good theology and small bits that are heretical and worrying. I believe this laid the ground for the disaster under Francis and Leo.
Nostra Aetate read without it's context is very short. It's a subdocument and it needs to be read very carefully. Reading the VII documents from the beginning, including the constitutions is helpful to place the subdocuments.
Thank you for writing this. I have been on the edges of the online squabbles about the Missal of 1962 (there is no such thing as the "TLM") and the current missals for years. My challenge to our "traditionalist" brothers and sisters about the Mass is the same. The form does not matter, but the real spirit of Vatican II was that we participate in the Mass. Revelation tells us that we not audiences in Heaven, but active in love of God.
I have had similar experiences when my otherwise "ordinary" parish has gone heavy into traditionalism. Yeah, it was okay at first. However, I find myself actively wishing we could remove some of the candleabra at the altar. My husband and I say the important pieces in English when the Latin comes up. Vatican II was a miracle. Pentecost came again. I try to respect the sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in the faith. But to my fellow faithful, the rejection of modernism is in accepting Vatican II. It is not in indulging in what we imagine were pre-Vatican II Masses while being audience members. If there's any "ism" attached to someone's Catholicism, it's time for some prayers. God bless. Thanks again.
Vatican 2 was not a miracle. How can allowing women to be altar servers and lectors be a miracle? “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” We as Catholics must exemplify the Bible in our liturgy and practices, not the woke liberalism of Vatican 2 and the changes thereafter.
Vatican 2 brought some of the worst changes imaginable: lower belief in the real presence, lower vocations to priesthood, more fallen away Catholics, and abandonment of adoration. If the council was so good as many say, why did it bring only negative change?
Vatican II was reacting to world already suffering from deep doubts about God, let alone Christianity. Lower vocations, less belief, more fallen away Catholics were already happening well before Vatican II. That's particularly true in Europe, with the US being a couple decades behind. Most of "undo Vatican II" rhetoric doesn't understand that Vatican II was working on a very sick patient, and had clear goal in mind. It did not bring only negative change. The benefits have vastly outweighed the bumps. VII has setup a situation where we have more converts all over the world than we were producing before Vatican II. In the West it is offsetting those lost to secular culture, even if the Church cannot over come it.
The miracle of Vatican II is the miracle of Pentecost. It is reaching out to the world, a new evangelization that has come again. It is the rebirth of the Church. Worries about women in more public roles are legitimate as they are clear signs of social decay. However, theologically, there's no issue with either female altar servers (that would the Blessed Virgin too) or simple readers. The Church has made it clear repeatedly that women are not admitted even to the deaconate, where her formal authority starts. What a faithful Catholic can do here is simply not worry about. Jesus has this and the gates of Hades will not prevail against His Church.
As Catholics we do not exemplify the Bible. We glorify God. The Bible is many things, but it is not our example, nor the yard stick the faithful should be using to measure either the Church or themselves. Our examples are Christ, and then Mary and the saints. In other words, we Catholics exemplify, Christ. The Bible is the library our bishops use to create liturgy. To them and the bishop's charism, the liturgical practices should be left. Private reading of Scripture is a beautiful and fruitful devotion, but we should not be attempting to 2nd guess the caretakers of the Bible with the library itself.
But sir, thank you for a very intellectual debate, and I wish you a blessed Sunday. I hope I am answering your arguments and not parroting my thoughts at every turn. God bless you, as you seem to wish the very best for the Catholic Church, regardless if I think you are wrong.
I wish that was true, but I believe that abandoning 1963 years of Church tradition is a work of the devil. This was unprecedented. The liturgy evolves with time and is codified, not decided upon miraculously and completely changed. Also, female altar servers and female lectors ARE a terrible thing to be justifying-the Bible prohibits things such as this, and women would be better served truly observing the example of the Virgin Mary in humility and silence. But Leo is already tearing down the role of our heavenly Queen, so it is no surprise that such ideas are abandoned by Catholics.
Vatican II did not abandon 1963 years of Church tradition. The earliest Masses where in Greek, not Latin. Latin was only becoming a universal language at the time of Christ. It would take another 200 years for Latin to displace Greek. What people think of as the "TLM" only dates from the Council of Trent. That was fiat decision that replaced many local liturgies at the time. It introduced changes to practice and then has been tweaked in the 500 years since, at times substantially.
Vatican II is the expression of 2000 years of Church tradition, starting all the way back at St. Peter and his first council, which undid much of the religious customs of the Mosaic law. It met to answer a question and resulted in decisions better evangelize and relieve unnecessary burdens. Vatican II mimicked Peter's council.
As for the rest of it, I can tell you're a convert because you're thinking like a Protestant. The Bible is not the authority of the Catholic Church. Peter is the rock that Jesus left us. Pope Leo is asking the faithful to use words that will better evangelize the people you've left behind. To clarify our meaning around Our Lady. That's all. It's not tearing her down.
Meanwhile Our Lady is always found serving. Serving God, serving Christ at table, serving a couple who didn't even know need help. She was not silent, as you can find in Luke 1, the Magnificat or at Our Lady's many apparitions. It's not okay to try to use Mary as a reason why the Church is wrong here, while claiming they are not doing enough to defend her.
I’m not a convert, I’m a lifelong Catholic. I will answer your thoughts later when I have time to fully address all your points. God bless.
Yes, these changes take hundreds of years. It is contrary to the nature of the Church to alter tradition in such a way, especially if the new tradition is contrary to the Bible and irreverent. There is no need to change all liturgical and Church traditions of the past 2000 years, and doing so only implies that past revelations or decisions were wrong. It is the nature of the Church to build upon and develop tradition, not institute liturgical or traditional reforms in every aspect. Vatican 2 is the only such church council since the original council to do so. The original council set groundwork, Vatican 2 changed everything and built a newer, irreverent Church. Also, Pope Leo has already engaged in heresy when he prayed at the climate conference with the weird demonic spiritual rituals occurring there. To pray with heretics as part of their rite is to be a heretic. While valid pope, he cannot teach from his full authority as successor of Peter as he has rejected God and the Catholic Church. And yes, our lady served constantly, she was a model of a holy woman. However, do not confuse teaching with serving. Our lady never taught but remained in meekness always. The tasks of lector and acolyte are reserved to men for the reasons that a lector is an important position of teaching the word of God, and acolytes are called to discern priesthood and get a taste of the priestly life. Neither of these things can women do. Does that make sense? If you want more specifics for my other claims, please ask.
And no, our beautiful church is overrun by homosexuals, pedophiles, and Marxists. It is our God-given role as men to stand up and fight against those who wish to take it down, even if they are in the apostolic lineage. There are many good priests and bishops, and like you said, Hades will not prevail. God needs us to fight for his beauty and the tradition of the Church which He instituted.
Our beautiful Church is not overrun by all those people. When the empty tomb was discovered, the soldiers were bribed to spread reports that the apostles had stolen the body. That same is true today. Are there sinners and bishops/priests who will not make Heaven. Yes? But the Church is not on the verge of falling apart. It is a slight of hand by the media unfortunately.
I read both if your very thoughtful responses. What you don’t seem to realize though is that it’s exactly Vatican II which produced all these documents which clearly state everything about the proper rubrics of the Mass.
I didn’t say these things though to judge others in a different journey than my own, but to say we all should seek to serve the Liturgy, not be served BY it. As humans, we do so imperfectly, but it is in the humble striving where we must make room for what Holy Mother Church teaches us in those documents.
Anytime I catch myself judging those responsible for any one liturgical celebration, I pray, “Satan, get behind me! Lord, humble me!”
At the same time when I hear myself say, “I don’t like it when THEY…” I remind myself I am called to serve, not be served by, the Liturgy.”
Practically, that means singing the chants I like and the P&W stuff I don’t like, because in the end, it’s not about ME, it’s about GIVING GOD worship due HIM.
". What you don’t seem to realize though is that it’s exactly Vatican II which produced all these documents which clearly state everything about the proper rubrics of the Mass."
Rubrics as strong recommendations were offered. However, repeatedly it was given to the local bishop to change standards for the purpose of the salvation of souls. In what little I have seen of parts of canon law, it's even built into it that way. It's hard to make argument of Latin for English speakers when interaction with the liturgy is part of that salvation. I believe indeed that the documents suggest preservation Latin in places that naturally have many people visiting, like downtown cathedrals and the like. (For clarity, I would need to look this up again. ) If true, that it wasn't meant necessarily even from inception to be something everyone experienced all the time in their neighborhood parish.
"Practically, that means singing the chants I like and the P&W stuff I don’t like, because in the end, it’s not about ME, it’s about GIVING GOD worship due HIM."
Here's the rub: no earthly worship ever will give God his due. King David wanted to build a Temple for God because God had a tent. The response was praise, but then also "What can you build God, when Heaven is His throne and earth his footstool?" (paraphrasing here :)) If God wanted perfect worship, he would have just created beings that could do so. We worship God for our sake. We've lost that natural connection to Him and this one of the ways back. Worship is not for me as individual specifically, but it is for us humans. So yes, we all served by the liturgy. It is a gift from God for our salvation. In other words, He doesn't need all these Masses, but we do. It appears that part of the reason that Missal of 1962 is offered despite all the headaches decades on to try to make sure all of the sheep are being fed.
Those who feel that any discussion of the TLM is divisive are lacking in catechesis and/or liturgical formation. I do not attend the TLM, as I am an Eastern Christian (Ruthenian), but I can say with full confidence that objectively the TLM gives great glory to God. It is the inheritance of the Western Tradition, whereas the Byzantine Rite is the inheritance of the East.
I enjoyed this episode, and was heartened (as I could tell you were) by Bishop Schneider's efforts on behalf of the Latin Mass. Those who leap to the accusation of divisiveness here should consider the fact that it is the ancient rite that is being persecuted today, not the newer rite. Bishop Schneider is calling for liturgical justice and peace. That is the opposite of factionalism. And his approach to speaking the truth is suffused with charity: he is never bitter and always exudes hope. I don't see how this would be a threat to anyone with good intentions.
My thoughts:
The Bible verses he semi-quoted seemed to be more about "Who's on top?", and making sure nobody put St Paul in place of Christ.
It's truth that some people do care more about TLM than Christ. I know several who skip Mass when they wake up too late to drive four hours to TLM Mass, despite believing that Christ is truly present at their local NO (minutes away). In a sense, such people seem to worship the TLM, rather than Christ.
I think where the commenter played into a vagueness is this: Striving to educate and call people to higher liturgy is not the same as worshipping the liturgy. Calling people to higher worship is "divisive" in the same way that Christ calling people to eat His flesh and drink His blood caused a pretty stark division among His followers.
Division isn't always wrong. Sometimes -despite all efforts- someone walks away from you, and then claims you walked away from them. Sad, but a reality.
"Will you also go away?"
Great interview. I found the Bishop, and Matt, to be gracious and charitable in this discussion.
The pettiness of these people! The TLM is the liturgy of the Catholic Church and has been so for two thousand years. To call celebration of the Mass that formed the saints ‘divisive’ shows their mala fides. Those who attend the Latin Mass simply want to worship God. Those who accuse Catholics who attend a Catholic Mass of being ‘divisive’ or in ‘schism’ are not sincere and their motives are not genuine. And those who attack people such as Archbishop Schneider, who defended the Faith, and, in doing so, preserved its integrity for us, are nasty and are obviously sowing division themselves.
Um, Eucharist has been celebrated for 2,000 years, and in many forms/rites.
TLM certainly came later and wasn't what was originally celebrated.
Not saying it isn't a valid form of Liturgy, just not the ONLY Liturgy. This line of thinking is oind of the problem.
RobBob, the liturgy was not celebrated in Latin until a version of Latin was developed deemed worthy of being used to offer the sacrifice. This “Liturgical Latin” was not the Latin spoken by the people just as the Classical Latin taught in today’s schools was the hierarchical language used by the Roman government rather than the Latin spoken by the common Latin-speaking people. I believe there is a letter by Cicero in which he remarks how different is the Latin he spoke at home growing up from that he used in the Senate. See Christine Mohrmann’s lectures on Liturgical Latin regarding how the Latin in the liturgy was embellished to make it worthy of offering the Sacrifice.
Thanks, I’ll lock it in my mind as more like what Church Slavonic evolved into (apt since the first draft was on the feast of Cyril and Methodius). Also, I don’t know that you personally feel this way, but there’s a line of thought in this comment that struck me hard.
It is, “deemed worthy of being used to offer the sacrifice” is really dangerous. The Jews had this mindest of God, and Jesus constantly rebuked them. He went as far as to call God Daddy. It makes me incredibly cautious and helps me understand the pitfalls of some in the TLM community.
I will say, there is something to singing “Salve Regina” with the mindset of Queen of Heaven, of a song worthy of an Empress. My wife is also fond of this beautiful grayscale image of a little shepherd boy offering a dandelion while on his knees to Jesus and Mary. She wants to be our mother not our Empress. Yesterday’s Psalm fits “As a child has rest in its mother’s arms, even so my soul.” Remember God had her appear as a Native American. God came as a person. God wants the same.
While praying on this comment, I also had the inspiration about why the Devil must hate this form of latin so much when it’s used against him. It’s the latin of the evil emperors, who were prone to orgies, would burn their cities to the ground and persecuted the church mercilessly. They were his play things. And the devils empire is all gone in Ash, except for within the Church. So yes, it must remind him, all he works so hard to build in the world today, will likewise disappear the moment God chooses, and He will use it as He sees fit at the end.
But this idea that I have a good language, and a bad language, I use every day seems very very wrong. The idea that I can’t speak straight from my heart in my native tongue, that’s certainly bad. NLP teaches that how we talk and think about problems has profound consequences on us. I wouldn’t underestimate the application of it to this underlying idea. And little things adding up is certainly something the Saints understood. I deeply want God to purify ALL of me, and if He does, which language I speak in doesn’t matter at all.
I think we have to be on guard personally for pride and thinking this practice or other is good in itself. As St. John of the Ladder warns, Vainglory can infect everything. And again, you can give conflicting advice to two people based on where they are. Let’s not for one minute be open to thoughts that there’s something magical about the external sound vibrations made while Latin is said. Or that God cares which language we pray in. I am certainly the last one to discourage someone from leaning into a devotional practice that leads them closer to God. But this mindset seems inherently dangerous to me.
I have a lot to say about this but I will limit it to this story or encounter I had. Once there was a guest at the Christian faculty group’s weekly lunch at my university. He was a Bible translator for Wycliff Bible translation to its and his current job was to learn the Choctaw language well enough to translate the Bible (or parts of it) into Choctaw. The Jesuits had done the whole Bible during the 29th century but no one knew that version of Choctaw anymore. Why? There were 3 versions of Choctaw, normal or everyday Choctaw, a version just used for their traditional religious stories, and a third one was whose purpose I don’t remember.
The Jesuits chose to use the version for their traditional religious stories because this version was only used for the most important things—their relationship with their gods. To use any other version of Choctaw, at that time, would suggest this Christian God, Jesus Christ, is not very important.
Now in the USA we speak English, but there is not just one language English. We use different forms of English in law, medicine, contracts, and historically public worship. We also use a different language in informal situations than in other formal situations. I did not talk to other older women in the same way I spoke to my mother. And I would not speak to my mother in a public and formal situation the way I did at home as a child. It would have been disrespectful.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is both our Queen and our mother. When we pray privately to ask her intercession we can use informal language, but in public worship an appropriate decorum is necessary, which means an appropriate form of language. And I think you will find that the Choctaw are not unique, everywhere in every society there is a difference in formal and informal language and often the use of informal words in a situation that requires formal words is a purposeful insult.
So, yes, I know what you’re talking about. I have a friend I’ve known since we were young, before he was in Seminary. Online or at his parish, there’s a proper way I need to treat him since he is in public in his office as a priest. But on the phone or in person, we are friends and brothers (Something our priests need, and hopefully they experience with at least family and each other). But, reflecting more, we are thinking more as men than as God thinks.
I also know plenty of older catholics who grew up in Vatican I . Many of them have struggled to really know and accept God loves them. Many have scruples. The one exception I can think of had something extraordinary happen to her, so much so she won’t share it because she’s afraid others will think she’s weird. These are very reverent people who love the Mass and attend often. The others had something in the Charismatic Renewal break through to them, which is why they can be so pushy about it. My point is, I do think there’s a danger to formalism keeping us away from intimacy and receiving God’s love. This doesn’t mean I’m advocating for casualness in Mass or LOTH. I think Padre Pio’s quotes and stories in particular give us a great balance of reverence and love. Other saints, like Therese of Lisieux, focus much more on intimacy.
One person who taught evangelism decades ago would say “We are good at Catechizing in the Catholic church, but not good at evangelizing our own”. And also that “we know God loves us (pointing to his head), but need to get that to go 8 inches down to our heart”, when explaining the job of evangelization. I think he’s right, and if we did love God as we ought, we’d all be Saints.
I know if we love God deeply, we’ll want to learn and know him more. If we love him, we’ll want to please him, and learn what displeases him. Great love will drive us to great reverence and avoiding sin. So to me, we need to start there instead of with reverence or anywhere else. You see this in men who truly love their wives, whether it’s with Peterson, or Matt. They seek to know and love their wives deeply, so we should be doing with Our Lord. But we always need to trust Him as the Father who sees us far off in the midst of our sin, runs to us, and embraces us, flaws and all. The King of Mercy is constantly showering the Love from His heart in Water to Cleanse us and His Blood to make us divinely holy. He asks for trust in response.
I just don’t know how we get there by focusing on reverence even if I get your point. Love requires intimacy, between humans AND between us and God.
I didn’t say it was the only liturgy.
"the liturgy" of "the Catholic Church " is singular. Maybe you didn't mean that, but actually you did say it, even if unintentionally. There were saints before the TLM, and there are many saints outside the Latin rite, including some in St Peters (St basil the great) who have been venerated since before Latin was used in Rome for the liturgy. Abother example is St Anthony of Egypt who was revered far and wide as the father of monasticism and we recently celebrated.
No - I am not placing it into singular at all. You are quite correct- there are many rites within the faith and that is the beauty of the organic development of the liturgy. There is Byzantine, Melkite, the oldest ones in Egypt. I am not saying that at all and I also do not disparage the Novus Ordo if that is what will bring a person closer to Christ. The TLM that we celebrate today is the 1962 Mass, and that is different itself.
I do believe you. And I pointed out people not being precise the other way in this very thread.
Unfortunately the TLM has been attacked in recent years (mainly by Francis), and there are others who talk like the TLM should be the only option. So being precise does matter.
Saying the 1962 liturgy is still a valid Liturgy within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is what I think you are meaning. And as far as I know that's true, but I'm not a cannon lawyer to be sure. And as I said elsewhere, I don't want it supressed.
But the original comment as I read it did sound a bit arrogant and elitist like a few others unfortunately. Again, I am glad to hear you don't seem to feel that way. But it is what it is. And it's what I was responding to Matt's call for comments on.
Peace.
I was responding to those who call the TLM ‘divisive’ - which is absurd. The Catholic Church was strikingly not divided as regards the liturgy prior to the Novus Ordo.
I realise that you meant it as an explanation, and not a criticism, but I might have sounded elitist, and, to be frank, I am an elitist. I actually think that the liturgy- the worship of God- should be the best and most beautiful that is possible. That requires hard work, thought, humility and education of oneself. It also requires humility to acknowledge and respect tradition and the wisdom of our forefathers. So, I am not apologising for being elitist. I think there has been a dumbing down in the name of accessibility and egalitarianism. Why should we apologise that it takes work on our part to understand the depths and nuances of what we believe?
I can only presume my experience has been different from yours.
I became a Catholic by going straight from the Episcopal Church to a small independent schismatic group. (They later joined the local diocese whose Bishop for several years had been requesting them to reconcile.) The leader (an abbot) had been ordained in a Benedictine monastery in 1948 and they had had a men’s college with over 3,000 students before Vatican II. By 1970 the college was closed. He was pushed out of the monastery and out of the local Catholic parish (where he was pastor as the monastery did and still supplies priests to the local parish) because he had begun not to accept the post VII changes. His reason was he found that his parishioners were losing their faith (or their piety). For this reason he disliked the new Mass. I was of the impression he went along with it until he observed its effects. I find the formalism of the old Mass (as I did the formalism of 1928 Book of Common Prayer which I grew up with as an Episcopalian) draws me close to God. The relatively informal NO Mass (which I have to go to because of travel difficulties) does not make me feel close to God. When I was able to get to the closest TLM (a high Mass) on Ascension Thursday, during Mass I felt like I was in heaven. Which brings me back to the Abbot. He asked me the first time I met him what is the purpose of my life. His answer was to be with God. Since that Ascension Mass (and as I approach 75) I have increasingly thought about the purpose (or ultimate end) of my life being to be with God. I feel like I am with God during the TLM and want to be with God, but the NO leaves me cold in this regard.
Our different experiences to me imply Benedict XVI was correct in allowing both masses and giving freedom to priests to offer the TLM. The mass I went to regularly from 2011 until 2020 (when my wife and I began caring for a little girl 6 months old at the time) was offered by a priest who on average says about 14 masses every week, half NO, half TLM. I discussed getting the girl baptized with our two local priests and with our old TLM priest. Because of a quirk in our State’s child custody laws, technically baptism was not allowed. However, giving into additional pressure from our children, a year ago I asked all 3 about it again and even wrote to the Bishop’s secretary. It was the TLM guy who went the extra mile and convinced the canon lawyer to recommend baptism, which he did a year ago this past Saturday. As is his practice he simply asked, English or Latin, so she was baptized according to the ancient rite.
(Although we hear a lot about those who attend the TLM complaining about the English Mass, this priest’s told me back in 2011 there were just as many complaints by English Mass people about the Latin Mass.)
I thought it was a wonderful interview. If I’m playing DA in favor of this Chris Munoz guy, the only conclusion at which i’m really arriving is that I would just be upset at the Latin Mass and conversations that would encourage it.
So, in other words, I found no division in the interview at all and am stoked that Bp. Schneider was able to get on the show!!!
“Unity in the Church does not require uniformity.” Excellently said! I can see where it is difficult for Protestants to understand this.
Wait aren’t you being synodal? This is exactly the synodal way Papa Francesco proposed no?
Does his comment suggest the interview was divisive? Or does his comment urge viewers/listeners to listen in unity as Catholics and not as factions?
I highly suspect it’s the latter. Perhaps this post spins the comment in an uncharitable light when it was made in charity.
This is how I read the comment as well. But hearing this passage recently at Mass, I was struck by the same thought as the commentor. Not bc of this interview though. Related to events and opinions surrounding the ending of TLM Mass in my current and former diocese that happened in the past couple years and the fallout that followed. I do see how the comment itself could be perceived as judgmental and divisive, but for me, sitting at Mass, hearing those words read, and having close friends who struggle with where they belong in the Catholic world, it is pretty much what I was thinking.
I'm happy to see interviews that promote unity and discussion.
I heard that Gospel at Mass and thought the exact same thing. The disunity is not highly inflamed in my local diocese, but it is still there where it shouldn't be.
I completely agree. I think the commenter on the interview became an opportunity to dredge up support for Matt's opinion about the TLM. The commenter used the most recent Sunday gospel (providential timing for the release of the interview?) and using fraternal correction the way that Christ calls us to use it. I think Christ, and Paul if he were still writing letters to us, would urge us to read the comment and listen to the interview as you said: stop trying to align with a certain faction within the Church and listen in unity. I would like to think He (and Paul) would also say "please don't make an entire post to make yourself feel better about it because you know there will be plenty of supporters commenting." But that's me being judgemental.
Well said!
It would have been so easy to just skip this comment, skip the discourse, but you had to respond and write a whole post — furthering “division.” Why?
Division is nothing new in the Church, but you obviously stake a claim / pick “a side” bc you will continue talking about the TLM in this vein.
Just do it. Broadcast, teach, and tell. Some of us will choose to follow you or not, you’re not going to capture everyone, Matt.
Coming down into the comments and using one to write a post is.. small.
Do big for the Good of the Church. In good Faith. Per God’s Will. No regrets.
I didn’t skip it for the same reason you chose not to skip commenting on my article. You had something you thought worth saying.