Podcast Interview with Larry Chapp and Cy Kellett on Catholic Answers: Focus

Posted by

Linked below is the video cast of the show wherein we discuss, yet again, Traditionis Custodes. I think it is not bad except that for some strange reason I kept pronouncing Summorum Pontificum as Summorum Pontificorum. Sigh. Just one more of my many public humiliations…

13 comments

  1. Gentlemen, it seem obvious to me that the subsequent effect of SP was to expose the almost ubiquitous paucity of reverence that evolved in the NO Mass. The response from Pope Francis should not have been CT. It should have been a concerted effort to reform and redirect the drifting NO Mass towards a more structured and reverent liturgy as found in the UA. SP should be reinstated and the NO Mass should be reformed to reflect a truly reverent liturgy. (Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter?) That fixes the issue of sloppy liturgies found in the overwhelming number of parishes throughout the western world. As for your confusion with Pope Francis’ intentions? I find your answers in this podcast insufficient and disingenuous. I think you know more than you are letting on. Great Podcast.

    AMDG

    Andrew Vavuris

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The problem is that I don’t know what the Pope’s intentions are. I don’t think anyone outside of his inner circle does. I had enough critical things to say about Pope Francis in the video that are based on the public facts that are known. To speculate beyond that about intentions and motives I have no clue about would be irresponsible. He is, after all, the Holy Father and I have no intention of joining the rad trad pitchfork brigade Lynch mob.

      Like

      1. I understand. However, isn’t it concerning that we don’t know the Holy Father’s intentions? Why the confusion?

        Like

    2. SP was a failure because the bishops were disobedient to it and for the most part refused to generously make the Old Liturgy availabile. Then they hypocritically called that Liturgy divisive and called for the resending of the pesky document they were disobeying.

      Like

    3. SP was a failure because the bishops were disobedient to it and for the most part refused to generously make the Old Liturgy availabile. Then they hypocritically called that Liturgy divisive and called for the resending of the pesky document they were disobeying.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Gentlemen, SP was not a mistake. If anything its result is a growing success and an answer to the cry for reverence so much lacking in most NO liturgies. CT was the mistake. SP exposed the sloppy/ lazy liturgy contained in most NO parishes throughout the western world. The NO needs reform (Synod?) and to return the sacredness abandoned by decades of neglect. Perhaps the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter is the answer for English speaking congregants.

    How much longer can we endure disingenuous greeters, throw away missals, banal banners (rainbow?), bored “alter servers” waving at their doting parent(s) and the gaggles of Eucharist Ministers (clutching their purses) invading the sanctuary as they clamber past the bobbling heads choir (who stare at their empty loft now used for storage) to “distribute” holy communion like they are passing out raffle tickets?

    Kyrie eleison,
    Andrew Vavuris

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think I made it pretty clear that I think CT was a mistake. My complaint about SP is that it set itself up for failure. If Pope Benedict wanted a more reverent Novus Ordo then he could have mandated changes. He was the Pope for crying out loud. He should have issued directives for the reform of the NO such as ad orientem worship, altar rails, chant choirs, no Eucharistic ministers, only the Roman canon, etc… I attend an Ordinariate parish. There is the model. Heck, if he wanted to Benedict could have established a commission to scrap the NO and to translate the TLM into the vernacular, had the canon read out loud and more congregational responses. But he did none of that. He just made the TLM more available which was good, but insufficient.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. There is another way that SP set itself up for failure – devotees of the Vetus Ordo do not actually want to reform the Novus Ordo. In the Archdiocese of New York this has been demonstrated time and again. When the then-new pastor of Our Savior replaced the TLM with a reverent, Ordinariate-inspired Novus Ordo, he was branded a wreckovator. When the Opus Dei pastor of St. Agnes offered a Latin ad orientem Novus Ordo in lieu of the regularly scheduled Sunday TLM, he received a deluge of complaints. And when other pastors in the Archdiocese go through great pains to introduce Gregorian chant, communion received kneeling, or ad orientem worship to their Novus Ordo masses, nobody shows up because anyone who would appreciate those reforms is already at the TLM.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. A good discussion. Your comments above re the ability for Pope Benedict to mandate changes to the NO is an interesting point and does lead one to wonder why that didn’t occur.

      I wonder whether perhaps he honestly thought the two would influence each other and create a more reverent but still relatable liturgy. This perhaps shows Pope Benedict’s naivete as to the state of the Church in the parishes (and the tension between adherents to the two different forms) but I wonder if it is not the same sort of naivete we saw during Vatican 2 (which you have written about elsewhere), which suggests Pope Benedict was, at the very least, consistent.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to Dane E. Ryan Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s