More Fallout From Traditionis Custodes And The Pope's Letter

As I predicted Sunday mornimg, there was no mention of Traditionis Custodes in that day's masses at our novus ordo parish, nor would there be any reason to mention it. Our pastor has sent no e-mails to reassure us of anything. We have a reverent OF celebration that includes professional vocalists with a small orchestra and a full organ. It's mostly all back from the lockdowns. Nobody is threatening it, and it appears that the archdiocese smiles on our rectory.

A visitor sent me the image above, which is a social media message an ordinariate priest sent to his little group, as yet still a considerable distance from being a parish. Unlike our successful parish, clearly unthreatend by Traditionis Custodes, Francis's letter is clearly the one thing that's on their minds, notwithstanding they aren't a Latin mass parish and are no more threatened than ours.

In fact, the priest goes on to say the Holy Father is "deeply, distressingly unpastoral". Just him, of course. Not speaking as a priest at all. But, er, Father, why did you use the official group mailing list to express your opinion? You're a priest 24/7. Were the Chicago priests who got busted for hanky-pank in a Miami rental car near a school acting only in their personal capacity, not as priests? Appears Cdl Cupich didn't think so. This is one reason I would not go within a mile of the ordinariate for any pastoral function, its standards for ordination are distressingly low, and we see it over and over, as we see it here.

Beyond that, I went back to the letter and re-read it carefully. Catholic commentators that I took seriously in good faith when I started as a Catholic, like Msgr Charles Pope, have called its tone "harsh", but I just don't see this. Where does Francis call anyone names? Where does he scold anyone? Where does he use abrasive or profane language? Where does he not give full explanations, fully footnoted, for his action, referring to scripture and Church authorities, in particular the Vatican II constitutions? I keep coming back to the sense I get that in fact, the traditionalists Francis identifies don't really acknowledge Vatican II, and for Francis to cite its constitutions is perhaps the big thing that's too harsh.

The problem the ordinariate priest acknowledges is, of course, that Traditionis Custodes does in fact pose "some implicit threat to our existence as ordinariate Catholics". Astonishingly, in the next sentence, he directly accuses the pope of scandal. Just him, of course. Not speaking as a priest, just some guy wearing clericals with access to the group's official mailing list. If this priest felt the need to say anything, since as he acknowledges, his group isn't affected, wouldn't just a two-sentence note suffice saying the group isn't affected, and we'll learn more about how the move affects those who are in coming weeks?

That's certainly what the US bishops are saying. Their position generally appears to be things will continue as they have while we work on this. We'll see it through. Calm down.

So the question I have is why people who aren't affected are in such a panic. The ordinariate priest, wno isn't affected, is nevertheless saying "he's talking about us in the most unpastoral way!" The people Francis is talking about are described fairly precisely:

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.

In other words, he's referring to people who use the former liturgy as a totem, and we can see fairly clearly that ordinariate groups share similar totems with the Latin mass faction, such as women and girls wearing chapel veils, insisting on communion kneeling and on the tongue, and indeed, using the innovation of intinction to enforce the latter. I don't see how those totems imply anything other than "we have it right; everyone else has it wrong"; in other words, they're using them as a force for disunity.

I've certainly seen this over and over covering the North American ordinariate for nearly ten years in my former blog. In fact, without being specifically referred to or called out in any way in the pope's letter, I'm seeing an ordinariate priest recognizing that Francis, describing only a general set of attitudes, seems to be referring to him and his flock. As the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it.

I would guess that the ordinaries recognize this as well. If they want to stay out of the crosshairs -- because it would seem at least some of their priests understand that they qualify -- they should be acting forcefully to discourage these tendencies before higher authority moves in to do it. The problem, though, is that by doing this, they would take away what for many of their flock feel makes them special. But isn't that the point of Francis's letter?