Not yet three months into his administration of the Archdiocese of Detroit and the new Archbishop Edward Weisenburger has already called for the eviceration 10 TLM parishes and drafted an instruction against traditional elements in the Novus Ordo with a decree reminiscent of Charlotte Bishop Michael Martin's horrific document. There is some uncertainty as to whether this document was meant to be released or was leaked; the archdiocese moved swiftly to scrub access to the document from the internet shortly after Rorate Caeli broke the story. At any rate, one notable aspect of the document, entitled Traditionis Custodes Implementation Norms, concerns not the TLM but the ad orientem posture at the Novus Ordo. As Martin sought to do in Charlotte, Weisenburger wishes to ban Mass ad orientem throughout the archdiocese:
The document can be read in its entirety here.
Back in 2023, I made a video entitled "The Peril of the Reverent Novus Ordo." The gist of the video was that the "reverent Novus Ordo" was not a refuge against attacks on the Traditional Latin Mass. In fact, I argued that the TLM would weather its tribulations better than the Novus Ordo. This is because the TLM has an inherent structure and rubrical stability that is independent of the celebrant, something entirely lacking in the NO. In other words, if the TLM is reverent, it is because that is simply how the liturgy is structured; if the NO is reverent, it is because the celebrant has deliberately chosen to include traditional elements of reverence, such as communion rails, ad orientem, Latin, chant, and all the "smells and bells." A liturgy that is at the mercy of the celebrant is in a more precarious position than one whose rubrical form is more fixed. How many reverent Novus Ordos have been axed by the machinations of a progressive bishop? Or abandoned as soon as the Trad-friendly pastor gets a new assignment? Obviously we are seeing TLMs getting axed as well, but the TLM has a resilience that the reverent NO doesn't. The TLM will endure. The future of the reverent NO is far less certain.
Traditional Catholic attitudes towards the reverent Novus Ordo are mixed. I think all traditionalists agree that the reverent NO is no substitute for the Traditional Latin Mass. I myself made this argument in my video, "But What About the Unicorn Novus Ordo?" Beyond this, there is a diversity of opinion, with some seeing the reverent NO as a constructive stepping stone towards tradition, while others are so hostile to the NO under any incarnation that they refuse to admit the possibility of a "reverent" Novus Ordo at all. I think the actions of bishops like Weisenburger and Martin suggests that the reverent Novus Ordo is indeed an incubator for pro-TLM sentiments. If it wasn't, it would not be proscribed. As someone who has attended both TLMs and unicorn NOs simultaneously for years, I can attest to this. A diocesan congregation becomes more sympathetic to the TLM to the degree that traditional elements are incorporated into the Novus Ordo. This is, of course, because whatever traditional elements are found in a Novus Ordo are carry overs from the TLM, and to the degree that one appreciates, say, altar rails or Gregorian chant, one is appreciating what was bequeathed to us by the Traditional Latin Mass. And there is a great deal of overlap—Catholics who attend the reverent Novus Ordo also tend to attend the Traditional Latin Mass when it is available.
The bishops thus see these traditional elements as a "gateway drug" to the TLM and therefore suppress them. This is why the unicorn Novus Ordo is neither a refuge nor alternative to the TLM. The same bishops who are eager to root out the TLM will do the same to the reverent Novus Ordo, because everything that makes the reverent Novus Ordo reverent comes from the TLM. The bishops, then, are correct; the reverent Novus Ordo is a gateway drug to the TLM. That's precisely why it's being attacked.
As for the faithful of Detroit who choose to go to the four sites designated for the Traditional Latin Mass, Archbishop Weisenburger mandates they be lectured weekly on their obligation to to go their territorial parish. His instruction says:
This is incredibly petty, spiteful, and malicious. The Archbishop considers TLM Catholics to be second-class Catholics who can't even be allowed to enjoy their Mass quietly in peace without being condescendingly lectured about it from the pulpit. As I said in my previous article ("Latin and the Contextual Understanding of Ritual"), progressives do not actually care about the laity nor their "legitimate aspirations," to use the memorable phrase from Summorum Pontificum. Weisenburger, Martin, and those like them deserve all the public opprobrium they are getting.
Don't let the faithful see anything Catholic; they might want more.
ReplyDeleteI agree with just about everything above. I think, the argument that people could always have a "reverent" Novus Ordo in Latin with all the "smells and bells" was always a kind of canard. I always thought that anyone making that argument -- usually, some Bishop -- should have been immediately challenged with the request to have him count on one hand where such Masses existed in his diocese. Moreover, the argument is a silly one, for it supposes that the Novus Ordo in its normal form is not (!) meant to be celebrated reverently. If you want "reverent" liturgy, then you need to import all the stuff that reminds you of a Tridentine Mass. Or, I guess, you could just go to a Tridentine Mass. Is that really meant to be an argument in favor of the revised liturgy?
ReplyDeleteIn fact, if one looks at the instructions -- "responsa" -- from the Consilium during the reform and from the Sacred Congregation of Rites after, the "Powers-That-Be" were making pretty clear that they were intentionally dismantling not just the previous liturgy, but also the previous liturgical style. Look at Notitiae (which can be found on-line). The Vatican received a lot of questions along the line of: "This is how we've been doing it. But, the new Missal says nothing about it. Should we still do it?" (For example, hitting one's chest three times during the Confiteor.) And, the Vatican's response was almost always: "Most certainly not! That's the 'old way.' Things are new now."
I mean, a lot of the traditional ritual and pageantry of the Tridentine Mass was based on simple customary practice, which (yes) eventually got some codification and structure in the Missal of Pope St. Pius V. For instance, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and Last Gospel were just the private devotions of the Celebrant, which used to be said in the Sacristy before and after Mass.
This is where I do disagree with the above. I am not so sure that it is accurate to say that the Roman Missal itself gave the liturgy a structure that could not vary or be changed. Otherwise, why was there such diversity before Trent? And, even after Trent: Why did they have to write so many manuals and ceremonials telling the Priest how to celebrate this, that, and the other?
Also, we need to be historically-minded when we make claims about the "old ways." I was born in 1972. Obviously, I did not grow up with the Tridentine Mass, so that I have no direct, personal experience of how it was celebrated before the revisions. From what I gather from those who did, both conservative and liberal, it was not always a "reverent" experience: Priests mumbled through the prayers (because, of course, no one would have understood them, anyways), most Masses were a "Low Mass" because it was low maintenance and short (no singing at all -- sorry, Palestrina), many Priests opted to celebrate "Pro Defunctis," since it was even shorter. Please, my Traddy friends, read some of the canons from the medieval "reform" councils, like the Laterans. There are recriminations with the Clergy for their irreverent celebration of the Holy Mass -- if they celebrated at all! The Blessed Eucharist and Holy Oils were just kept about the Church someplace. They used the church as a storage locker for private goods. Etc.
Also, we do well to remember that the Clergy that gave the Church so much grief in the wake of the liturgical reform were the same who had been celebrating the Tridentine Mass before. Do you suppose those "rubric-breakers" only became such after the Council?
If you want your latin mass back then maybe it is worthwhile considering the following. Prevost is an antipope. His election was invalid because the cardinals violated Pope JPII's papal law on elections Universi Dominici Gregis by having 133 cardinals voting when the maximum allowed is 120 and also because they elected a candidate who had made statements against Catholic doctrine, contrary to Cum ex Apostilcus Oficio of Pope Paul IV.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/12/catholics-of-rome-denounce-prevost-as-an-anti-pope/
Since the cardinals failed in their duty to elect a Catholic pope, according to Pope Nicholas II's Bull In Nome Domine, the faithful of Rome have the right to assemble and elect a Catholic pope in cases where the election has not been pure, sincere and free.
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/11/pope-nicholas-iii-infallibly-taught-that-faithful-can-elect-a-catholic-pope/
A very bad argument indeed.
Deletehttps://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2025/05/what-universi-dominici-gregis-doesand.html
^See section on the number of cardinal electors
Thank you for publishing my comment and for your response. I appreciate it and see you are fair when someone with an unorthodox point of view posts on your blog. Thank you!
DeleteNevertheless I disagree with your argument.
To be elevated a Cardinal and to have a right to vote are two different things. The law said 120 electors max and it was perfectly feasible that the cardinals decide on a method to exclude 13 electors from each ballot round to ensure they met the requirement.
Furthermore, UDG does not allow any derrogation to the law. The last paragraph called promulgation says:
"As determined above, … I declare completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution"
And point 4 says the law cannot be changed or corrected by the Cardinals
"With the Apostolic See vacant, it is not licit that the laws promulgated by the Roman Pontiffs, be in any way corrected and/or changed, nor that anything whatsoever be taken away from or added to them and/or dispensed from concerning their parts. most of all those, which pertain to the ordering of the business of electing the Roman Pontiff. If anything would happen to be done and/or attempted against this prescription, We, by Our Supreme Authority declare it null and irritus."
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/17/the-cardinals-claim-to-a-dispensation-from-the-rule-of-120-is-a-total-lie/
This is where I do disagree with the above. I am not so sure that it is accurate to say that the Roman Missal itself gave the liturgy a structure that could not vary or be changed. Otherwise, why was there such diversity before Trent?
ReplyDeleteMost dioceses used their own local missals, not the Roman Missal. Even then, the variations between different diocesan uses were generally less than the variations between the licit options of the Novus Ordo.
Also, we need to be historically-minded when we make claims about the "old ways." I was born in 1972. Obviously, I did not grow up with the Tridentine Mass, so that I have no direct, personal experience of how it was celebrated before the revisions. From what I gather from those who did, both conservative and liberal, it was not always a "reverent" experience: Priests mumbled through the prayers (because, of course, no one would have understood them, anyways), most Masses were a "Low Mass" because it was low maintenance and short (no singing at all -- sorry, Palestrina), many Priests opted to celebrate "Pro Defunctis," since it was even shorter.
TBH that sounds like a liturgical paradise compared to what we've got now, let alone to what we had in the post-Conciliar crazy days. Just imagine being able to step into a Catholic church, anywhere in the world, and the biggest complaint you were likely to come away with was that there was no schola cantorum and the priest said his parts a bit too quickly!
Also, we do well to remember that the Clergy that gave the Church so much grief in the wake of the liturgical reform were the same who had been celebrating the Tridentine Mass before. Do you suppose those "rubric-breakers" only became such after the Council?
I think it perfectly likely, actually, for three main reasons.
In the first place, as Aristotle says somewhere or other, most people follow the law largely out of habit, so if you change the law you make people less likely to follow it, at least at first, because people essentially have to learn a new habit. Vatican 2, of course, changed an awful lot of laws in an awfully short period of time, resulting in a widely-documented collapse in Church discipline. Hence it wouldn't be surprising if a priest who was habituated to celebrate Mass according to the rubrics should lose this habit in the general change and anarchy of the 1960s and '70s.
Secondly, the Novus Ordo, with its multitude of options, encourages tinkering and novelty in a way the TLM doesn't.
And thirdly, it's abundantly clear from the evidence that liturgical abuses were much more widespread after V2 than before it, and the simplest and most plausible explanation is that priests who weren't breaking the rubrics of the TLM felt free to break those of the NO.