Traditionis custodes and two years of abject failure

The author of the Rorate post appears to be incredibly biased, confused, and ill-informed as do so many of these self appointed church experts.

The author must be horribly disappointed by many a Cistercian or Carthusian foundation. Do they not believe these are legitimate sign posts of Catholic tradition?

The one who seems angry is the author not the Bishop of Rome. They have misconstrued and misrepresented the entirety of TC to meet their own presupposed narrative.

One thing the author does seem to get right is that TC and the ensuing determinations have in fact have ‘reemphasized the connection between the law of prayer and the law of faith.’ And it has done so in the context of the current Roman Missal. Those asserting the opposite do so in direct contradiction to the mind of the church.

The early effects of TC seem to be largely successful in consolidating the wants of the church and the needs of the faithful into ecclesial communion and harmony. Those few unable or unwilling to join into this offered mode of communion and harmony are permitted to pursue a different path in a different setting.

TC seems to strike a balance between providing harmony to the faithful while permitting a narrow exception for the few.

It is worth keeping in mind that many persons in this ‘TLM’ movement will never be happy until the principle celebration at every parish and every institution of the Latin Rite is the ‘TLM.’ The ‘TLM’ could be established as the principle celebration in their proper parish and it would still not be enough.

The author is clearly trying to weaponize a piece of art from 1987, which has been addressed time and time again, as shock value propaganda to sow distrust in the Bishop of Rome.

“If ‘Piss Christ’ disturbs you, maybe you should think about what it symbolizes. And what it symbolizes is a very horrific and painful and tragic and inhuman way for a human being to die. And that’s how they crucified Christ,” he [Andres Serrano] said.

Bishop Paul Tighe, the No. 2 in the Vatican’s culture and education ministry, said the inclusion of even provocative artists was evidence of the Vatican’s desire to enter into dialogue with contemporary culture.
“We’re ready for a conversation,” Tighe said. “We want to hear and talk with, meet with, dialog with artists, because we think artists have perspectives and ways of seeing the world that we need to take account of.”

Here's another: the Ordinary Form in Latin

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIbOK11yPA8

Very nice.  I was an acolyte and lector many times at a similar Mass at the Basilica Shrine in DC.

I do not by any means disdain the OF when it is offered in this fashion, but when you compare it side-by-side with the EF, the differences are very evident.  And to many people, that matters.

When people die, they often urinate and defecate.  Other things sometimes happen as well.  Standard depictions of Our Lord's crucifixion are extremely sanitized, and the loincloth is there for modesty reasons.  The alternative would scandalize, not edify.  A crucifix with bodily excretions running down it, hoisted above the altar in a Catholic church, would drive away more people than whispered Latin, liturgical silence, and reiteration of traditional Catholic morality on awkward issues ever could.

I cannot imagine a Christian culture anywhere in the world, where an image of Jesus, or even a bare cross (as is the preference of most Protestants), submerged in urine, would be acceptable either to Christians, or to any people who have the smallest modicum of respect for Jesus.  Muslims revere Christ (just not as Lord and God), and Hindus and Buddhists view him very favorably.  Think of it this way, would you be okay with a picture of your own mother submerged in piss?  I didn't think so.

And an image of Muhammad, or the word "Allah" in Arabic script (الله), treated in the same fashion?  Just close your eyes and try to imagine what the reaction to that would be.  Two words: Charlie Hebdo.  Not that all Muslims would react that way, but it would only take one or a few.  It would be the rare, rare Muslim who would just smile and say "that's okay, because religious freedom and artistic expression, you know".

Whatever the subjective motivations of the "Piss Christ" creator might be, surely he can understand that his work is offensive, gravely so, to anyone who has any regard whatsoever for the man Jesus.  He may well understand that and doesn't care.  That's his call.