After a couple weeks of prayer and study, Tulsa Bishop Konderla is now officially implementing the new Motu Proprio on the Latin Mass here in this diocese. The two diocesan Latin Masses will be allowed to continue in the parish church. No need to find an alternative location. Deo gratias for these two individual dispensations. The Traditional Mass in those two locations continues! As expected, the two already existing TLM "groups," Clear Creek abbey and the FSSP parish, are permitted for now to continue with the TLM.
From the Office of the Bishop
I am going to confine myself to listing the main aspects of this diocesan decree, raise serious questions and concerns of a general nature, in accord with canon law #212, and let the reader draw their own conclusions for themselves, which I encourage them to express respectfully to the Bishop himself.
The Decree:
1. I think it is safe to say, from plain reading of the text, that the Bishop is clearly giving his full, official support for Francis' new law, in this document, which, however, many bishops (Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Mueller, Archbishop Vigano, Bishop Schneider, etc, etc), priests, and theologians are assessing to be a doubtfully valid, extremely unjust, spiritually abusive document from the Francis himself, with his clear written intention, as received and now clearly accepted as legitimate by Bishop David Konderla, to literally bring the growth of the Latin Mass, and that of all Latin Mass apostolates, to an official end. Including in this local Catholic Church, of the Diocese of Tulsa.
To bring to a full stop the growth of new Latin Masses in the parish churches, or any kind of new Latin Mass "groups." Bishop Konderla in his decree clearly is giving his full moral support and cooperation for this motu proprio, not just a legal acceptance out of strict obedience, to be frank saying nothing about the serious problems of this motu poprio, especially that it is clearly a kind of unjust suppression of the Ancient Mass. In his decree, the Bishop, if we are honest, makes no positive statements as to the perennial value and truth of this Ancient and Venerable Roman Rite, or future place in the life of the universal Church, or throughout this local Church, except for pastoral care for those presently attending the TLM, though I am told he has learned the 1962 rubrics for when he visits Clear Creek or the FSSP.
Questions: Is this decree more representative of the mind of the Presbyteral Council, than of Bishop Konderla personally? In other words, as I have been wondering for some time, is Bishop Konderla himself seeing the perennial value and truth of the Traditional Catholic Mass, and wants to see its presence grow in the future, however that might unfold? His authority as a Successor to the Apostles is much higher than any presbyteral council, but yet is he not going along with what the most senior priests want, those formed in the Novus Ordo and those most attached to its novelties?
2. The Decree goes on to say that priests "already" using the 1962 missal "may continue." As stated, this is referring to priests who already say the TLM, not priests learning or wanting to learn the TLM, young or old alike, whether ordained before the motu proprio or afterwards. Therefore as it reads, no priest in the diocese, on the grounds of a "parochial church" at least, except at only two locations--Sts. Peter and Paul in Tulsa and Holy Cross in Wagoner--is permitted by the Decree to offer the Traditional Mass publicly. I read that paragraph now five times, and I don't see any other way around that, unless perhaps the Bishop can extend the dispensation/permission to other diocesan priests in the future, contra what the motu proprio dictates and as stated intends. But for now this Decree does not permit this. The diocesan TLM is confined and quarantined to only two pre-existing parish churches, besides the FSSP apostolate. And according to the Holy Father, no new TLM communities are to be approved in the future.
Questions/Concerns: What of the group of Catholics I have been in contact with, many who will not be able to drive each Sunday to Tulsa (rising gas prices, etc), who once formally petitioned the Bishop for a priest to offer the TLM at their rural parish, having suffered there many liturgical abuses? This Decree--as it stands--would not allow this. Or, what of the actual diocesan priests I have talked to in rural areas that told me they want to say the TLM, but are hesitant to move forward? Or, what of the many Catholics throughout the entire diocese, which I would guess to be 20,000 square miles, spread out over 78 parishes, with 56,000 registered Catholics, with 105 priests, or the 30 young priests? Other than the few priests and a few hundred Catholics permitted the TLM in a few select locations?
Per the Decree implementing the commands of the Pope, only two diocesan TLMs can be offered in a parish church, one in the city of Tulsa in the northern part of the diocese, the other an hour east of downtown in the town of Wagoner. Anyone else living a long drive from those locations, would not have access to the Mass of the Saints, in their parish, as long as the motu proprio exists and is enforced by the Bishop, in this Decree.
Yet, if only 10% of the Catholics in the pew at any average parish would like to attend the TLM, offered at one time on Sunday, if they really learn about it, then there would be at least 5,600 Catholics in our diocese, wanting to see our liturgical Catholic Tradition restored, certainly across many diocesan parishes, besides two.
As of August 1st, 2021, Bishop Konderla is officially following orders from Francis, except with two dispensations, and bringing to an end any growth of the TLM. I don't see any other way to read what the Decree is saying, and I can't read the Bishop's mind if he has an alternative meaning or plan, so we are left to assume this is in fact his plan going forward.
A young Tulsa seminarian, wearing a cassock, told a group of us recently one day, that "Most of us seminarians do not want the Novus Ordo in the future. We are all wanting to learn and offer the Latin Mass." And he didn't seem rigid, uptight, or a mean sort of guy, despite the stereotype. It is also said that most young priests favor a restoration of the Traditional Mass. What then, Bishop Konderla, of our 30 young priests, many certainly interested in the TLM? Are they to end up leaving for the FSSP? How will this unjust dictate affect their priesthood?
3. The Decree says that this new motu proprio "affirms the exclusive competence" of the bishop to approve the TLM. It does not say it now grants or returns this exclusive competence back to the Bishop. It says it affirms it, as if it is something already existing prior to the new motu proprio. Bishop Konderla here is not saying that the motu proprio is merely abrogating Pope Benedict's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which recognized the universal right of all Roman rite priests to use the 1962 missal, without any needed permissions (indult). Bishop Konderla is saying that he, Bishop Konderla, has "exclusive competence" for the approval, that Pope Francis' document "affirms" this position which Pope Benedict clearly taught is false. In other words, he may grant the Latin Mass as a special indult going forward, or he may choose to forbid a priest from saying it publicly.
Concern: my concern is, reading this decree, it would seem that the Bishop and this Diocese actually side with Francis contra Pope Benedict's actual teaching on the universal, pre-existing right to the Latin Mass. Is this the case? As many bishops and priests have said, Summorum Pontificum was in fact NOT a "universal indult" that can one day be revoked in what--at its core it recognized as true--but rather a recognition that the Traditional Roman Rite was never abolished, and that every Roman rite priest and lay Catholic has a right to the Traditional Mass, in part because every Catholic has a right to the traditional, ancient liturgy of whatever liturgical rite they officially belong to (Latin, Maronite, Byzantine, etc). Whether in Duncan, Okmulgee, Bartlesville, Tahlequah, Stillwater, Hulbert, Wagoner, Tulsa, or any other part of Eastern Oklahoma.
4. The Decree goes on to say that the TLM-offering priests in this diocese accept the legitimacy of the "liturgical reform" of 1970, i.e. of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. That in his assessment, Bishop Konderla is finding little problems with the way the liturgy is said under either form, throughout the diocese.
Questions: What of the frequent liturgical abuses, irreverence, banalities, watered down sermons, that faithful Catholics in the pew of the Novus Ordo rite are subjected to every Sunday in this diocese, as in any other diocese? What about the loss of Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, traditional vestments, etc. What of Pope Benedict's own teaching that the post-Vatican II "liturgical reform" does not actually faithfully represent Vatican II's document on liturgical reform? What of many critical studies of the Novus Ordo Missae, that show that the actual central act of the Novus Ordo rite, the Canon, presents the Mass mainly as a narrative memorial of the Last Supper, with the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass both severely blurred, and made secondary. Which contradicts the teachings of the Council of Trent on the nature of the Mass? How can any Pope or Bishop require any of us to accept that, to be allowed Mass in Latin facing East, and that not be spiritual abuse of the highest order? And how can any priest in this diocese officially believe the traditional teaching on the Mass, and at the same time accept the new teaching expressed in the "liturgical reform" as "legitimate" when the new "lex orandi" of the Novus Ordo Missae clearly expresses a new "lex credendi" that does not teach through the new liturgy and its praxis, the Catholic doctrine of the Mass.
5. The Decree speaks of itself and its implementation of the motu proprio, as a law "for matters of the future" for the purpose of "accompaniment" (pt. 3). The word "accompaniment" is a novel, pastoral principle taught by Francis, to slowly bring Catholics on the outer margins of the Church, by a gradual process of counsel and direction, so that they will be brought from those outer margins, to live a more moral, and spiritual life closer to the mainstream practice of the Church.
Concerns: it would seem this section is making it clear for us laity reading it that this motu proprio/and decree, constitutes a "law for the future," not just a temporary measure or response to the new motu proprio, to help us Catholics attached to the TLM in a spirit of "accompaniment," like accompanying divorced and remarried Catholics, to eventually leave our problematic attachment to the TLM and TLM communities, return to the 1970 missal and post-conciliar reforms, as Pope Francis wrote is the goal.
That going forward, this Decree, which accepts Francis' stated purpose, is to help us traditionalists to go through a gradual change, to go through a kind of healing or reform of how we act and believe, to gradually come into conformity with Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae. That is after all what the Pope explicitly stated in his letter to the bishops, sent to Bishop Konderla with the new motu proprio, which the Bishop is giving full support and implementation. By stating this is the law for the future, this is not saying this is a temporary way forward, but how the Bishop/Diocese will, through force of this Decree, proceed forward throughout this diocese. Perhaps circumstances will change, but that is how I am reading this document.
Summary and Conclusion:
In summary, as I read it, Bishop Konderla's Decree, while showing pastoral care for two diocesan TLM communities, is giving his full support and implementation of this dictatorial, and in my opinion clearly invalid motu proprio. It safeguards for the time a few Latin Mass groups, while at the same time bringing to an end the growth of Tradition in this local Church. The Diocese kicked out two well established TLM-devoted communities, one of exorcist priests, the other sisters ministering to families and doing street ministry, shortly after Bishop Slattery, their Founder, retired. Now, any future diocesan TLMs or TLM groups, will no longer continue, per the motu proprio, and the decree implementing it. If for example you want to start up a lay group coming together to pray, study, and support the Traditional Latin Mass, Chant, and Latin, to educate and assist priests and laity locally about it, to hold conferences, distribute newsletters, etc, you would be a "new Latin Mass 'group'" and this is now forbidden.
I am not a prophet. God knows how this will play out in the years to come. This is just my straight-forward reading and understanding of this Decree, and my serious concerns and questions as a traditional Catholic. But what matters in all this is the Catholic Truth. And in order to believe and uphold the Catholic Truth, it is impossible to not also reject the Error that is now invaded universally the Catholic Church--i.e. Catholic Modernism. A Catholic Modernism found in certain texts of VII and the Novus Ordo Missae, both valid, but with very serious problems that have still not been corrected or even taken seriously by the Vatican, with serious pastoral concern for our doctrinal concerns. We are essentially being forced to accept these Errors, in this motu proprio, in order to have the TLM. This is gravely unjust, and it not only comes from the pen of Pope Francis, but as of today the pen of Bishop Konderla.
You are to regard as legitimate the new position of the "liturgical reform" that the Mass is to be presented, and can legitimately be presented, as mainly a narrative memorial of the Last Supper during the Canon and Consecration, very similar to the Lutheran, Methodist, or Episcopalian rites, to accept that Error in the most central aspect of the Novus Ordo Missae.
This I refuse to accept, come what may, because I profess the contrary, which is the dogmatic and constant teaching since the Apostles, from Christ to His Apostles, that the Mass is primarily the offering of the propitiatory Sacrifice of Calvary on the altar, of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist, and the memorial aspect, while part of the Mass, is absolutely secondary according to the divine institution of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and the constant teaching of the Magisterium for 2000 years.
When God would teach us that "1 + 1 = 2," and then one day certain popes or bishops in a liturgical missal should require us to accept also as Truth that "1 + 1 = 3," or that "It is legitimate to believe that 1 +1 = 3," then I reject the second as Error, and affirm the first as Truth. As should all of us faithful Catholics today affirm publicly, the Catholic Truth, as discussed here.
Praise be to Jesus Christ!
Questions, constructive feedback, or just to say hello, send me an email at:
JosephOstermeir@gmail.com