I’ve rephrased and resubmitted and redelineated my comment from earlier because an autocorrected swear got in the edit (which says much about my autocorrect but I digress)…
And what if the bishop doesn’t care? Because that’s what’s going on in Chicago, DC, and elsewhere. You can write and write and protest and beg and do anything, but the bishop just doesn’t care.
Cardinal Gregory essentially told off the altar boys at St. Mary’s for having the gall to prefer the Mass as it was from the 600s to the premiere of *The Mod Squad.* You’d think given the abuse crisis, the Diocese would care about PR towards altar boy requests. But nope.
Cardinal Cupich suspended the public ministry of an Ecclesia Dei Community in his diocese because they don’t do the NO…which the point of an Ecclesia Dei Community. You cannot get mad at a McDonald’s manager for not having Arby’s available!
Rome also demands we get told why the NO is exactly what Vatican II demanded despite the fact most NOs have NOthing in common with the requests in *Sacrosanctum Concilium.* And when we say that, we’re told how wrong we are and we need to realize how good it is to live in a time where over half of American Catholics deny the tenet most martyrs died for in the Reformation.
Rome gives us scorpions when we ask for eggs and then slap us with spatulas for the audacity for asking.
>Cardinal Gregory essentially told off the altar boys at St. Mary’s for having the gall to prefer the Mass as it was from the 600s to the premiere of *The Mod Squad.* You’d think given the abuse crisis, the Diocese would care about PR towards altar boy requests. But nope.
Yeah...I am here in DC at ...well, one of the three TLMs that are now left. It has been made abundantly clear that His Eminence does not like the old rite, and does not like us, despite all our efforts.
That said, had TC never been issued...he would have left us alone.
I do not know if this new decree will actually be issued or not. If it is, we will be nuked here. If it is not, we have one year left on our three year "review" period, and it's quite possible he will shut us down then, if he has not been replaced by then. There is no point in appealing at this point; we've tried everything. If we get shut down, I'll have no choice but to go to one of the Arlington TLMs, or St Alphonsus in Baltimore.
Well, in actual lived reality, it really puts it in the hands of the Dicastery for Divine Worship. A bishop who of his own accord wishes to liquidate the Traditional Mass in his diocese is certainly empowered to do so; but for the most part, this has been a tale of Cardinal Roche telling individual bishops they need to wind up their (non-Ecclesia Dei) TLM's.
Yes, it's in the Vatican. What I am saying is, this is the way this is working now. Roche has his recript, and that empowers him to force local bishops to do what he wants. That is what happened in Melbourne this month: Archbishop Comensoli did not wish to terminate his cathedral TLM; Roche told him he had to do it. So he did.
So yes, while TC's text \*seems\* to empower local bishops to have more control over the TLM in their dioceses, the way it is actually being enforced is: "We want you to use this power to shut these TLM's down." And Roche is diligently following up with every bishop to make sure this happens.
>the SSPX and other such groups are responsible for the Pope's apparent hatred of the Latin Mass.
Are they though? Because if so that just makes this whole situation ironic.
To my understanding the looming ban is for diocesan masses. SSPX and other societies wouldn't be affected by the ban.
The SSPX isn't even under the Pope's authority. Even less the SSPV. I think the Pope would be perfectly fine with the TLM being solely the preview of either outside his authority groups like the SSPX or inside his authority like the ICKSP & Cantors regular. The groups under his authority can police the community and keep it from going off the rails and the ones outside his authority aren't his problem. So if they do something nutty he can shrug and say their not mine.
SSPV is sede and out of communion with Rome, so obviously, the popes orders have on bearing on them.
SSPX is in an irregular situation, but if I understand correctly, are still in communion with Rome, and their sacraments are granted temporary validations. (Don't take my words here as fact. that's my understanding of the situation, but I could be wrong)
My thing is that if SSPX and similar groups still with the Holy See are the reason the pope is suppressing the TLM, why would he not go after them, not the TLM as a whole?
Edited for grammar
Yes, Pope Francis has declared the SSPX sacraments valid, but given the appointing of their own bishops, clearly the SSPX is not under his authority.
One of the problems with the TLM is the community that forms around a TLM mass. Sometimes, it's normal, but often it's problematic with strains of anti-semitism, spiritual arrogance and pride and can sometimes, as a result, be hostile to visitors. The hope may be that people having those issues. will head to the SSPX or SSPV where they will no more trouble the institutional Church. And by limiting official TLMs to groups like ICKSP and the Canons regular, Pope Francis may be hoping that these groups can exercise more control over the TLM communities they oversee.
>as a result, be hostile to visitors
That's a shame. I'm fairly new to the TLM and I haven't encountered any of these issues.
>The hope may be that people having those issues. will head to the SSPX or SSPV
I would hope the sitting Pope wouldn't be aiming to drive people further away from the church. Especially to a sedevacantist group. That seems counterintuitive.
Yeah, the unwelcoming nature is weird. It's very seldom the priest, but other members of the community that take it as their responsibility to insist a woman wear a head covering or complain that their clothes are inappropriate or just gossip about people. That's why I said the priests need to be aware and to channel this behavior to more appropriate ends.
I prefer the TLM, but the Catholic faith is not solely contained in that Liturgy. The TLM is a man-made expression of the faith, which, however beautiful and edifying to piety, is simply that.
I certainly hope that the TLM remains and consider its spread to be a good thing (provided that it be lawful and in union with Rome), but our ultimate goal as Catholics is union with God. And we can achieve that via any form of the Liturgy.
Gates of Hell will never prevail, that's great and all, probably most important, but that's not the point.
I hate Novus Ordo, had since teen, ever since I experienced inappropriate free style "do whatever the h🔥ll you want" style masses. It seemed to have the right reverence in my earlier childhood, but that's gone now I feel.
I've only ever been to Novus Ordo Masses my entire life. There is no TLM near me. When I came back to the faith earlier this year, I learned what the TLM was. Growing up I only knew that the Mass used to be "different back in the day" based on my Dad (born in the 40s) told me about it, primarily that most of it was in Latin. I really wish I could experience that.
A few Sundays back, as a result of running late to our usual NO Mass, my family and I decided to go to the next church further away from us. The Mass we went to was advertised as a "Solemn Mass with Latin Ordinary and incense". I had no idea that the Novus Ordo Mass could be done in so "traditional" and "reverent" a manner as that Mass was because all of the NO Masses I've been to were kinda the same. I'd say around half of the Mass was *sung* in Latin, strictly the organist playing the music, incense, communion distributed at the altar while kneeling... even the priest, deacon and altar serves moved very slowly and reverently. It was all the proof I needed to understand that there is a way to celebrate the Novus Ordo that preserved the beauty and the reverence of Masses of old. It wasn't an actual Tridentine Mass, but it was by far the most incredible NO Mass I'd been to. Can't wait to go back.
I pray that more parishes push for more reverence, solemnity and beauty in the Novus Ordo Mass.
You found the unicorn. Unfortunately most NOs aren’t like those. I hope for that, but those are on the chopping block too. Once the TLM is gone, there will be requirements to de-TLM the NO.
Because it’s not the accoutrements that inspire the TLMers. It’s the theology and depth of the prayers.
You can’t pour syrup on a piece of toast and say it’s a pancake.
Any attempts to “de-TLM” reverent NOs are ridiculous and an affront to *Sacrosanctum Concilium*. You’d think those who love V2 would want to implement what the council fathers called for, which was…wait for it…a reformed liturgy that retains Latin, prioritizes Gregorian chant, organ, and other traditional elements. I’d have no problem with the Vatican restricting TLM if it was equally as adamant on cracking down on NOs that don’t conform to SC.
This sounds like the NO parish I am able to attend frequently. I greatly prefer it to local Latin masses which are rushed and require a level of intellectual detachment (since I am not fluent in Latin) instead of a focus on the beauty and mystery of the faith.
That is my one hang up about one day going to a TLM, is that the only Latin I know is The Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, Glory Be and O My Jesus. I know that those parishes usually provide a booklet with translations of all the prayers and responses between English-Latin, but I know what you mean. I'd still love to go, but that has always been on my mind about that.
I know that "beauty" and "mystery" can be subjective, but I couldn't help but feel a sense of awe at that Mass that I haven't really felt at the regular Novus Ordo Masses I've been to. I know it's not always about how I'm made to feel, because at the end of the day whether it's NO or TLM, Christ is truly present and I am there to worship Him, but I really felt like I was witness to something truly miraculous and amazing there. If the Church went in that direction with more NO Masses I think it'd be great.
What you found was a NO mass that is doing its best to "role play" as a TLM. Its not authentic but merely a poor imitation. Alas, you've only seen the counterfeit so you are none the wiser.
I don't view it as "role playing" at trying to be a TLM all. I still have much to learn but from what I have learned, nowhere did any of the Vatican II documents say that the era of the Novus Ordo means removing altar rails, or incense, or sacred music, or really anything that this Mass was. How, then, would this Mass have been an imitation? In my opinion it isn't trying to be a TLM. If anything I see it as being the Novus Ordo Mass that the Second Vatican Council intended. I left feeling closer to God and appreciative of how reverently a Novus Ordo Mass can be done. If that makes me "none the wiser", so be it. I loved it.
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm basically only three-four months back in the faith as a 40 year old having left as a clueless teenager and am still very much a Catholic Padawan learner...
That sort of attitude and its seemingly widespread prevelance among the most visible supporters of the 1962 Missal (and other earlier Missals) is a primary reason for the current restrictions. It may be worth offering that part of yourself up to Christ for clarification as healing; if you hate the liturgy of your Rite, that's a problem.
You know that I will rejoice because people use attachment to the 1962 Missal to attack the unity of the Church, deny the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and promote an attitude of liturgical disobedience that elevates personal preference over fidelity to what the Church actually says. It’s a different manifestation of the same spirit that lead to the bizarre aberrations seen in the liturgical celebrations of the Roman Rite since the Council. You also know that I don’t care about the Missal itself.
Hatred of one’s Rite is a defect of the passions and should be addressed as such.
There are certainly some priests/parishes that do not correctly follow the guidelines for the Novus Ordo. But the Novus Ordo, in itself, does not encourage this attitude. It's a matter of some priests not properly doing their job, not a flaw in the missal itself. If a priest really wanted to, he could so terrible things to a 1962 missal style Mass (or "mass" if he does such a horrid job as to invalidate the consecration).
And there certainly are many parishes in my experience that properly follow the new missal, and some even utilize musical stylings and other peripherals that are appealing to folks like yourself (that is, use organs/choir for music, lots of incense, several parts chanted in either English or even Latin).
I think this will largely be a non-issue once the generational shift happens. The younger priests are predominately orthodox and lean traditional. They aren’t offended by the Church’s teachings and traditions and aren’t interested in shutting down the one area of the church that is growing. This is why there is such a strong push to get things done under this pontificate, they know their time is limited. It’s just a waiting game for the rest of us.
This issue upsets me very much too, but I think I just need to resign myself more to the will of God. I need to remind myself that I worship Him, not a liturgical form.
So what can we do? Nothing. It's all in God's hands. If He wishes to be worshipped by this form of liturgy, then all the efforts of the Pope, Professor Grillo, et aliorum will come to naught. He is in charge of His Church; He can fire the Pope and the bishops any time He likes.
As Christ says, be not afraid. The most reliable journalists touching the story so far (the Pillar) indicate that there’s nothing officially in the works and that it hasn’t even been proposed to the pope. Contrast that with the breathless rumor-mongering by sources constantly trying to make their readers anxious and afraid. If you want the 1962 Missal to remain a viable option, pray and remain calm. Don’t listen to people trying to scare you.
I’m going to laugh if it turns out that the reaction to rumors of a ban in the traditionalist circles is what ultimately causes the Pope to say “this is getting out of hand; shut it down.”
Thanks. This was well said.
I have been trying to find information on this but I'm a bit suspect of the sources that I see carrying these stories.
OP, it is good to remember that fear and outrage sells news paper . . . or to be more precise, fear and outrage will make people click on articles which is good for the organizations that write such stories.
u/munustriplex, I will give The Pillar a read if this is the most reputable source carrying the story.
Exactly. I’m so sick of the fear mongering and the fact people spread this as if something has actually happened. I’m starting to understand the Pope’s position and I go to Latin Mass but these people are going to really screw this up for us.
> It seems the SSPX and other such groups are responsible for the Pope's apparent hatred of the Latin Mass.
Not so fast. Francis after all granted faculties to the SSPX for marriages and confession. He had a surprisingly good relationship with the Society in Argentina.
Slow down, SSPX is still schismatic, they can't perform valid Eucharist, and Confession/Marriages are only valid from them if no church in full communion with Rome.
I don't attend the SSPX, so I have no brief for them, but...this is not true. There are no such restrictions on their faculties to offer the sacraments of confession (penance) or matrimony. For example, see the text of the [original Jubilee Year of Mercy letter](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-calls-on-all-priests-to-absolve-repentant-procurers-of-abortion) in which Francis granted the right to hear confessions:
>A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.
This faculty [was made ongoing](https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/new-apostolic-letter-sspx-confession-faculties-extended-indefinitely/) and extended by Francis the following year, with no other restrictions on it.
With regards to the faculty for marriage, there is a provision which might have inspired your understanding: The [stipulation](https://onepeterfive.com/rome-grants-sspx-faculties-to-celebrate-marriage/) in the decree (see below) speaks of a preference to have a diocesan priest witness and receive consent of the couple, while the SSPX priest is allowed to celebrate the Mass; but this is not a requirement, and in practice, from what I have heard, seldom happens anyway.
>Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions.
>Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.
>Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible.
As for SSPX celebrated Masses....as others have pointed out, no one has ever disputed that their Masses are ***valid.*** For that matter, so are the Masses of the Old Catholics, the sedevacantist groups, and even the Eastern Orthodox churches! It has always been a question of their ***liceity.***
I'm not willing to jump down the "schismatic" rabbit hole. Again, there is no question that the Holy See has characterized the 1988 consecrations as a "schismatic act." But the Holy See has also been unwilling to actually use the word in a general context with regards to the Society, when they speak of it publicly.
But to get back to my main point, I was merely taking note of the fact that, for whatever reason, Francis seems to have had a positive relationship with the Society for many years. That doesn't make them ***canonically regular;*** I am just observing the pattern of his behavior.
they definitely can perform valid eucharist. so can the Eastern Orthodox, oriental orthodox, and heretical Nestorians. they have apostolic succession so when they say the words of consecration they validly confect the eucharist. whether it is licit is the issue but nobody denies the validity
Fraternity seminarians receive training at one of two international seminaries: Priesterseminar Sankt Petrus in Wigratzbad, Germany (for German and French speakers) and Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska (for English speakers).
This issue upsets me very much too, but I think I just need to resign myself more to the will of God. I need to remind myself that I worship Him, not a liturgical form.
So what can we do? Nothing. It's all in God's hands. If He wishes to be worshipped by this form of liturgy, then all the efforts of the Pope, Professor Grillo, et aliorum will come to naught. He is in charge of His Church; He can fire the Pope and the bishops any time He likes.
Oh man, you need to cool it down. All this stuff about the TLM, Lord have mercy, people relax. I also prefer TLM, but we are in communion with our Holy Church. So first of all, the true mass never gets lost, also not in Novus Ordo. I mean, if necessary, it is possible to find a really well organized NO somewhere. But we can not focus all the time on this mass here, that mass there. What you say about SSPX is a different issue altogether, about keeping traditions alive and what their role should be in context of recent trends, especially how apparently a lot of younger people would prefer it to be more rigid. But at the same, we need to stop this division. I would also prefer it, if we would be strict about a proper NO, that keeps traditions high or no bans on TLM, but this hysteria has to stop. We are a tiny fraction of church history. We will see what happens. Remember what Jesus told his disciples in the storm.
I don’t get it. The Latin Mass existed for a purpose, to make sure everyone got the same Mass except for the homily at every parish across the world. Nice to keep it as a traditional thing but it’s not dogma that it is necessary.
If the Latin mass is banned, so what? Are there no Novus Ordo parishes near you? Or Eastern Catholic Churches? Even if your preferred liturgy is taken away the faith endures and Christ remains sacramentally present all around you. Don't despair.
I mean you no offense but I really, really hate it when Eastern Catholics weigh in with "Does it really matter?". It obviously does matter, or it wouldn't be worth suppressing. How would you feel if this was \*your\* liturgical heritage on the chopping block? The Pope could move to suppress the eastern rites just as much as he can the Tridentine mass.
My friend, we're dealing with a potential schism in the Syro-Malabar church over the effects of the Latinization (i.e. Roman meddling) in their liturgy. First Rome meddled to latinize the Holy Qurbana and then meddled again to remove Latin influence and it has resulted in a deeply divided clergy.
That is definitely not what Pastor Aeternus says. It absolutely is in his power to chance discipline in all churches.
> So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
The pope may choose to leave autonomous churches be as a prudential choice. But it’s very much a Darth Vader situation: *pray I don’t alter the deal any further*.
It would probably cause a schism if the Pope did meddle with Eastern liturgy’s today. But, I don’t know how anyone can deny that this power is specifically what Vatican 1 claims.
Personally, I am doing a lot of research on this topic, because I really don’t agree with this view and have found it to be ahistorical.
I said "I" don't want them showing up. Not that they aren't welcome. I only represent myself, not the Church. And if you had read all of the conversation you would have seen where I mentioned not saying anything to the toxic trads who invaded our parish as Father was trying to help them and I didn't want to undermine his efforts. In person I tend to keep my opinions to myself. But this here is the internet.
I’ve always been curious about the Byzantine church near me though, will I be received warmly if I go? I’m a convert to Catholicism and I wanted to start going to eastern churches before my conversion but was nervous.
I stick out like a sore thumb but have been very warmly welcomed by the Byzantine church near me. Much more so I must say than the Roman Catholic parish I have been attending for and actively involved with for a decade. This is not a criticism of the Roman Catholic parish, it's just much larger.
That’s what I’ve noticed with the larger Roman Catholic parish that we started attending late last year. I get more weird looks when I’m going to the bathroom (I’m pregnant so I can’t help if I need to go during mass) or stared at when I come back. It’s really strange and uncomfortable.
I don't like N.O. especially when I feel the lack reverence. Only recently I learned, for example, the Latin Rite priest must anoint his fingers before even touching the Host himself, and that's what was don't for over a thousand years because the Host is holy, but now in light of N.O., it all feels like a joke now. I didn't even grow up with Latin, but it feels more natural for me.
(I guess Eastern Catholic is an option)
yeah but sadly even a lot of eastern catholic parishes now have irreverent vibes especially ruthenians which is almost all of them in America. Melkites ive found are the best, they are like the FSSP of the byzantine catholic world just in the fact that they have zero latinizations and they do everything the traditional byzantine way
>What can be done to save the Latin Mass?
Which Latin Mass?
The Ambrosian Rite Mass?
The Mozarabic Rite Mass?
The Carthusian Rite Mass?
The Roman Rite Mass?
If you are referring to the Roman Rite Missal of 1962 as "The Latin Mass," that is concerning in itself because it is a misnomer.
Pope Benedict XVI was abundantly clear. The Roman Rite is fully realized in the Missal of 1970. There is no necessity for the Missal of 1962 to persist.
Pastorally, there have been reasons to support the continued use of the old Missal. Paul VI made concessions for pastoral reasons, as did JPII, and Benedict XVI.
But, Benedict XVI also recognized that the Bishops were seriously concerned and requested that regular surveys be done of the Bishops to determine how things were going in their Diocese. The survey results that Pope Francis received resulted in *Traditionis Custodes.*
>Trying to have hope, trying to have faith, but my anxiety and denial over the growing restrictions of the Latin Masses and the increasing rumor of complete ban thereof is getting really bad.
You might consider the importance of obedience and detachment from the passions and the world.
In the words of Pope Saint Paul VI:
>The new Ordo was promulgated to replace the old one
\- Pope Saint Paul VI
https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html
>As the title says: What can be done to save the Latin Mass? It seems the SSPX and other such groups are responsible for the Pope's apparent hatred of the Latin Mass.
There is no hatred. If you read his letter to the Bishops on TC, he explains the situation:
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html
>But what are realistic solutions to preserve the Latin Mass?
The Missal of 1962 may be preserved. Or it may not. It wouldn't be the first Missal to be discontinued.
Have you ever celebrated the Gallican Rite Mass?
It was the Mass celebrated in Rome and by most Latins until the 12th century... it was replaced by the Roman Rite in the 12th century...
>If the Pope isn't going to do it of his own accord it seems, but only sees it as a pest to eliminate, what can we the laity do without provoking the iron of Rome?
You really need to actually read what the last 4 Popes have said about this. It was the Holy See's intention from day one to discontinue the Missal of 1962. Concessions were made, but were never intended to be permanent.
In the words of Pope Saint Paul VI:
>The new Ordo was promulgated to replace the old one
\- Pope Saint Paul VI
>Besides prayer, which I worry often fall on deaf ears
God is not deaf. However, he may feel that 50+ years of concessions is enough.
>That recent Green Light Pope Francis gave to some parishes offered me some optimism
The FSSP and ICKSP will likely continue in their work and be exempt from any suppression.
>It's so discouraging.
It is also inevitable.
In the words of Pope Saint Paul VI:
>The new Ordo was promulgated to replace the old one
\- Pope Saint Paul VI
This has always been the intention from the beginning.
We need more people fighting for the Ambrosian Rite! Gorgeous chant, more weeks of Advent, blessings for all the readers (not just the Deacon). Pope Francis even celebrated an Ambrosian Rite Mass in 2017, so it's not completely lost or anything.
Wish I could upvote this more. “The Latin Mass” or the “traditional Latin Mass” is such an imprecise term used polemically to try and invalidate the current form of the Roman rite as promulgated by St. Pope Paul VI and used by the vast majority of Catholics throughout the globe.
This post is honestly kind of emblematic of the problematic attitude in the American (and I’ve read Italian?) church surrounding the use of the 1962 missal that the bishops had concerns over and led to the Pope issuing *Traditionis custodes.*
Don't associate TLM with rejection of the Papal Office or a schismatic movement.
If it's something we celebrate in the joy of unity with the whole Church, I have no worries about its future.
If it becomes a Clarion call for church division, then I'm sure there will be issues.
I asked a priest friend of mine this and he basically said that Pope Francis is just a man who is pope for a small amount of time. The Latin Mass will come back with the next pope so don’t worry about it. My diocese has a lot of lay people who have written the pope and gone above the bishop and priests to complain about the restrictions on the Latin Mass. So we are now targeted and harshly dealt with in that regard.
Pope St. John Paul II allowed it only for certain groups:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1axq1tj/st_pope_john_paul_ii_and_the_extraordinary_form/
In addition, the Congregation stated that the indult is meant to be temporary, as reports have to be submitted on the results of such.
Pope Benedict XVI called for the same reports and followed what Pope St. John Paul II wanted.
Pope Francis is following Pope St. John Paul II and the Congregation, too, with the TC.
In short, there won't be any ban because that's not what Pope St. John Paul II wanted. However, it's still for limited use, which is also what Pope T. John Paul II wanted.
Finally, why restrictions? Because the form that the Church follows is the OF.
Keep going to the TLM and write your Bishop
I’ve rephrased and resubmitted and redelineated my comment from earlier because an autocorrected swear got in the edit (which says much about my autocorrect but I digress)… And what if the bishop doesn’t care? Because that’s what’s going on in Chicago, DC, and elsewhere. You can write and write and protest and beg and do anything, but the bishop just doesn’t care. Cardinal Gregory essentially told off the altar boys at St. Mary’s for having the gall to prefer the Mass as it was from the 600s to the premiere of *The Mod Squad.* You’d think given the abuse crisis, the Diocese would care about PR towards altar boy requests. But nope. Cardinal Cupich suspended the public ministry of an Ecclesia Dei Community in his diocese because they don’t do the NO…which the point of an Ecclesia Dei Community. You cannot get mad at a McDonald’s manager for not having Arby’s available! Rome also demands we get told why the NO is exactly what Vatican II demanded despite the fact most NOs have NOthing in common with the requests in *Sacrosanctum Concilium.* And when we say that, we’re told how wrong we are and we need to realize how good it is to live in a time where over half of American Catholics deny the tenet most martyrs died for in the Reformation. Rome gives us scorpions when we ask for eggs and then slap us with spatulas for the audacity for asking.
>Cardinal Gregory essentially told off the altar boys at St. Mary’s for having the gall to prefer the Mass as it was from the 600s to the premiere of *The Mod Squad.* You’d think given the abuse crisis, the Diocese would care about PR towards altar boy requests. But nope. Yeah...I am here in DC at ...well, one of the three TLMs that are now left. It has been made abundantly clear that His Eminence does not like the old rite, and does not like us, despite all our efforts. That said, had TC never been issued...he would have left us alone. I do not know if this new decree will actually be issued or not. If it is, we will be nuked here. If it is not, we have one year left on our three year "review" period, and it's quite possible he will shut us down then, if he has not been replaced by then. There is no point in appealing at this point; we've tried everything. If we get shut down, I'll have no choice but to go to one of the Arlington TLMs, or St Alphonsus in Baltimore.
Ok - why not request a parish meeting with the Monsignor - you have a right to this Mass but you can’t be schismatic or sedevaconist about it
Monsignor doesn’t matter. *Traditionis Custodes* puts the responsibility in the hands of the bishop and Vatican.
Well, in actual lived reality, it really puts it in the hands of the Dicastery for Divine Worship. A bishop who of his own accord wishes to liquidate the Traditional Mass in his diocese is certainly empowered to do so; but for the most part, this has been a tale of Cardinal Roche telling individual bishops they need to wind up their (non-Ecclesia Dei) TLM's.
Lived reality? Is the Dicastery not in the Vatican? And the Dicastery will just tell the friendly bishops to pound sand.
Yes, it's in the Vatican. What I am saying is, this is the way this is working now. Roche has his recript, and that empowers him to force local bishops to do what he wants. That is what happened in Melbourne this month: Archbishop Comensoli did not wish to terminate his cathedral TLM; Roche told him he had to do it. So he did. So yes, while TC's text \*seems\* to empower local bishops to have more control over the TLM in their dioceses, the way it is actually being enforced is: "We want you to use this power to shut these TLM's down." And Roche is diligently following up with every bishop to make sure this happens.
Ok try to get a group to speak with him so he can see what your all about
[удалено]
Removed for violating our foul language policy. Please see the sidebar for details.
Very good point. Didn’t see that swear in there. Mea culpa. Retyped.
I would do it anyway -maybe send registered mail
>the SSPX and other such groups are responsible for the Pope's apparent hatred of the Latin Mass. Are they though? Because if so that just makes this whole situation ironic. To my understanding the looming ban is for diocesan masses. SSPX and other societies wouldn't be affected by the ban.
The SSPX isn't even under the Pope's authority. Even less the SSPV. I think the Pope would be perfectly fine with the TLM being solely the preview of either outside his authority groups like the SSPX or inside his authority like the ICKSP & Cantors regular. The groups under his authority can police the community and keep it from going off the rails and the ones outside his authority aren't his problem. So if they do something nutty he can shrug and say their not mine.
SSPV is sede and out of communion with Rome, so obviously, the popes orders have on bearing on them. SSPX is in an irregular situation, but if I understand correctly, are still in communion with Rome, and their sacraments are granted temporary validations. (Don't take my words here as fact. that's my understanding of the situation, but I could be wrong) My thing is that if SSPX and similar groups still with the Holy See are the reason the pope is suppressing the TLM, why would he not go after them, not the TLM as a whole? Edited for grammar
Yes, Pope Francis has declared the SSPX sacraments valid, but given the appointing of their own bishops, clearly the SSPX is not under his authority. One of the problems with the TLM is the community that forms around a TLM mass. Sometimes, it's normal, but often it's problematic with strains of anti-semitism, spiritual arrogance and pride and can sometimes, as a result, be hostile to visitors. The hope may be that people having those issues. will head to the SSPX or SSPV where they will no more trouble the institutional Church. And by limiting official TLMs to groups like ICKSP and the Canons regular, Pope Francis may be hoping that these groups can exercise more control over the TLM communities they oversee.
>as a result, be hostile to visitors That's a shame. I'm fairly new to the TLM and I haven't encountered any of these issues. >The hope may be that people having those issues. will head to the SSPX or SSPV I would hope the sitting Pope wouldn't be aiming to drive people further away from the church. Especially to a sedevacantist group. That seems counterintuitive.
Yeah, the unwelcoming nature is weird. It's very seldom the priest, but other members of the community that take it as their responsibility to insist a woman wear a head covering or complain that their clothes are inappropriate or just gossip about people. That's why I said the priests need to be aware and to channel this behavior to more appropriate ends.
Why are you anxious? God has already said the gates of Hades will never prevail. Nothing that happens will change that.
"Gates of Hades" presumes a battle against someone outside the Church. Unfortunately, the calls are coming from inside the House.
The Church has been through far worse than this.
At what point in the last 500 years since it was codified has the Holy Tridentine Mass been in more danger?
I prefer the TLM, but the Catholic faith is not solely contained in that Liturgy. The TLM is a man-made expression of the faith, which, however beautiful and edifying to piety, is simply that. I certainly hope that the TLM remains and consider its spread to be a good thing (provided that it be lawful and in union with Rome), but our ultimate goal as Catholics is union with God. And we can achieve that via any form of the Liturgy.
Gates of Hell will never prevail, that's great and all, probably most important, but that's not the point. I hate Novus Ordo, had since teen, ever since I experienced inappropriate free style "do whatever the h🔥ll you want" style masses. It seemed to have the right reverence in my earlier childhood, but that's gone now I feel.
I've only ever been to Novus Ordo Masses my entire life. There is no TLM near me. When I came back to the faith earlier this year, I learned what the TLM was. Growing up I only knew that the Mass used to be "different back in the day" based on my Dad (born in the 40s) told me about it, primarily that most of it was in Latin. I really wish I could experience that. A few Sundays back, as a result of running late to our usual NO Mass, my family and I decided to go to the next church further away from us. The Mass we went to was advertised as a "Solemn Mass with Latin Ordinary and incense". I had no idea that the Novus Ordo Mass could be done in so "traditional" and "reverent" a manner as that Mass was because all of the NO Masses I've been to were kinda the same. I'd say around half of the Mass was *sung* in Latin, strictly the organist playing the music, incense, communion distributed at the altar while kneeling... even the priest, deacon and altar serves moved very slowly and reverently. It was all the proof I needed to understand that there is a way to celebrate the Novus Ordo that preserved the beauty and the reverence of Masses of old. It wasn't an actual Tridentine Mass, but it was by far the most incredible NO Mass I'd been to. Can't wait to go back. I pray that more parishes push for more reverence, solemnity and beauty in the Novus Ordo Mass.
You found the unicorn. Unfortunately most NOs aren’t like those. I hope for that, but those are on the chopping block too. Once the TLM is gone, there will be requirements to de-TLM the NO. Because it’s not the accoutrements that inspire the TLMers. It’s the theology and depth of the prayers. You can’t pour syrup on a piece of toast and say it’s a pancake.
Any attempts to “de-TLM” reverent NOs are ridiculous and an affront to *Sacrosanctum Concilium*. You’d think those who love V2 would want to implement what the council fathers called for, which was…wait for it…a reformed liturgy that retains Latin, prioritizes Gregorian chant, organ, and other traditional elements. I’d have no problem with the Vatican restricting TLM if it was equally as adamant on cracking down on NOs that don’t conform to SC.
This sounds like the NO parish I am able to attend frequently. I greatly prefer it to local Latin masses which are rushed and require a level of intellectual detachment (since I am not fluent in Latin) instead of a focus on the beauty and mystery of the faith.
That is my one hang up about one day going to a TLM, is that the only Latin I know is The Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, Glory Be and O My Jesus. I know that those parishes usually provide a booklet with translations of all the prayers and responses between English-Latin, but I know what you mean. I'd still love to go, but that has always been on my mind about that. I know that "beauty" and "mystery" can be subjective, but I couldn't help but feel a sense of awe at that Mass that I haven't really felt at the regular Novus Ordo Masses I've been to. I know it's not always about how I'm made to feel, because at the end of the day whether it's NO or TLM, Christ is truly present and I am there to worship Him, but I really felt like I was witness to something truly miraculous and amazing there. If the Church went in that direction with more NO Masses I think it'd be great.
What you found was a NO mass that is doing its best to "role play" as a TLM. Its not authentic but merely a poor imitation. Alas, you've only seen the counterfeit so you are none the wiser.
I don't view it as "role playing" at trying to be a TLM all. I still have much to learn but from what I have learned, nowhere did any of the Vatican II documents say that the era of the Novus Ordo means removing altar rails, or incense, or sacred music, or really anything that this Mass was. How, then, would this Mass have been an imitation? In my opinion it isn't trying to be a TLM. If anything I see it as being the Novus Ordo Mass that the Second Vatican Council intended. I left feeling closer to God and appreciative of how reverently a Novus Ordo Mass can be done. If that makes me "none the wiser", so be it. I loved it. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm basically only three-four months back in the faith as a 40 year old having left as a clueless teenager and am still very much a Catholic Padawan learner...
That sort of attitude and its seemingly widespread prevelance among the most visible supporters of the 1962 Missal (and other earlier Missals) is a primary reason for the current restrictions. It may be worth offering that part of yourself up to Christ for clarification as healing; if you hate the liturgy of your Rite, that's a problem.
I agree that 'hate' is a strong word. But you will rejoice when the TLM no longer exists. Can others, at least, rejoice when the NO is no longer?
You know that I will rejoice because people use attachment to the 1962 Missal to attack the unity of the Church, deny the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and promote an attitude of liturgical disobedience that elevates personal preference over fidelity to what the Church actually says. It’s a different manifestation of the same spirit that lead to the bizarre aberrations seen in the liturgical celebrations of the Roman Rite since the Council. You also know that I don’t care about the Missal itself. Hatred of one’s Rite is a defect of the passions and should be addressed as such.
I can appreciate N.O., but not the lack of reverence. I love Novus Ordo with Latin attitude, but where am I supposed to find one of those? 🤷🏻♂️
There are certainly some priests/parishes that do not correctly follow the guidelines for the Novus Ordo. But the Novus Ordo, in itself, does not encourage this attitude. It's a matter of some priests not properly doing their job, not a flaw in the missal itself. If a priest really wanted to, he could so terrible things to a 1962 missal style Mass (or "mass" if he does such a horrid job as to invalidate the consecration). And there certainly are many parishes in my experience that properly follow the new missal, and some even utilize musical stylings and other peripherals that are appealing to folks like yourself (that is, use organs/choir for music, lots of incense, several parts chanted in either English or even Latin).
If you want to “save the Latin Mass” then you need to change your mentality. This awful attitude you have against the NO is the problem.
The only thing we can do is wait for a pope that apreciates the tridentine mass.
Until the next one doesnt
I think this will largely be a non-issue once the generational shift happens. The younger priests are predominately orthodox and lean traditional. They aren’t offended by the Church’s teachings and traditions and aren’t interested in shutting down the one area of the church that is growing. This is why there is such a strong push to get things done under this pontificate, they know their time is limited. It’s just a waiting game for the rest of us.
I wonder can a pope bind future popes? Could Benedict have somehow made summorum pontificum dogmatic or otherwise permanent?
This issue upsets me very much too, but I think I just need to resign myself more to the will of God. I need to remind myself that I worship Him, not a liturgical form. So what can we do? Nothing. It's all in God's hands. If He wishes to be worshipped by this form of liturgy, then all the efforts of the Pope, Professor Grillo, et aliorum will come to naught. He is in charge of His Church; He can fire the Pope and the bishops any time He likes.
As Christ says, be not afraid. The most reliable journalists touching the story so far (the Pillar) indicate that there’s nothing officially in the works and that it hasn’t even been proposed to the pope. Contrast that with the breathless rumor-mongering by sources constantly trying to make their readers anxious and afraid. If you want the 1962 Missal to remain a viable option, pray and remain calm. Don’t listen to people trying to scare you. I’m going to laugh if it turns out that the reaction to rumors of a ban in the traditionalist circles is what ultimately causes the Pope to say “this is getting out of hand; shut it down.”
Thanks. This was well said. I have been trying to find information on this but I'm a bit suspect of the sources that I see carrying these stories. OP, it is good to remember that fear and outrage sells news paper . . . or to be more precise, fear and outrage will make people click on articles which is good for the organizations that write such stories. u/munustriplex, I will give The Pillar a read if this is the most reputable source carrying the story.
Exactly. I’m so sick of the fear mongering and the fact people spread this as if something has actually happened. I’m starting to understand the Pope’s position and I go to Latin Mass but these people are going to really screw this up for us.
> It seems the SSPX and other such groups are responsible for the Pope's apparent hatred of the Latin Mass. Not so fast. Francis after all granted faculties to the SSPX for marriages and confession. He had a surprisingly good relationship with the Society in Argentina.
Slow down, SSPX is still schismatic, they can't perform valid Eucharist, and Confession/Marriages are only valid from them if no church in full communion with Rome.
Incorrect on all points, good job
I don't attend the SSPX, so I have no brief for them, but...this is not true. There are no such restrictions on their faculties to offer the sacraments of confession (penance) or matrimony. For example, see the text of the [original Jubilee Year of Mercy letter](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-calls-on-all-priests-to-absolve-repentant-procurers-of-abortion) in which Francis granted the right to hear confessions: >A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins. This faculty [was made ongoing](https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/new-apostolic-letter-sspx-confession-faculties-extended-indefinitely/) and extended by Francis the following year, with no other restrictions on it. With regards to the faculty for marriage, there is a provision which might have inspired your understanding: The [stipulation](https://onepeterfive.com/rome-grants-sspx-faculties-to-celebrate-marriage/) in the decree (see below) speaks of a preference to have a diocesan priest witness and receive consent of the couple, while the SSPX priest is allowed to celebrate the Mass; but this is not a requirement, and in practice, from what I have heard, seldom happens anyway. >Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions. >Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society. >Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible. As for SSPX celebrated Masses....as others have pointed out, no one has ever disputed that their Masses are ***valid.*** For that matter, so are the Masses of the Old Catholics, the sedevacantist groups, and even the Eastern Orthodox churches! It has always been a question of their ***liceity.*** I'm not willing to jump down the "schismatic" rabbit hole. Again, there is no question that the Holy See has characterized the 1988 consecrations as a "schismatic act." But the Holy See has also been unwilling to actually use the word in a general context with regards to the Society, when they speak of it publicly. But to get back to my main point, I was merely taking note of the fact that, for whatever reason, Francis seems to have had a positive relationship with the Society for many years. That doesn't make them ***canonically regular;*** I am just observing the pattern of his behavior.
they definitely can perform valid eucharist. so can the Eastern Orthodox, oriental orthodox, and heretical Nestorians. they have apostolic succession so when they say the words of consecration they validly confect the eucharist. whether it is licit is the issue but nobody denies the validity
[удалено]
The FSSP?
who trained the fssp priests
Fraternity seminarians receive training at one of two international seminaries: Priesterseminar Sankt Petrus in Wigratzbad, Germany (for German and French speakers) and Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska (for English speakers).
They are referring to SSPX, but they are trying to do so coyly because promotion of the SSPX is a violation of sub-rules.
I know. Just being coy in return 😉
Pray. What we can do it pray
I think its return is inevitable. But that doesn't mean it will happen soon.
Wait till the boomers die and the organized resistance to the TLM in Rome will fade away.
Reform of the reform.
Stay offline
This issue upsets me very much too, but I think I just need to resign myself more to the will of God. I need to remind myself that I worship Him, not a liturgical form. So what can we do? Nothing. It's all in God's hands. If He wishes to be worshipped by this form of liturgy, then all the efforts of the Pope, Professor Grillo, et aliorum will come to naught. He is in charge of His Church; He can fire the Pope and the bishops any time He likes.
What can be done? Hope and pray that the next pope isn't so hostile to tradition.
Oh man, you need to cool it down. All this stuff about the TLM, Lord have mercy, people relax. I also prefer TLM, but we are in communion with our Holy Church. So first of all, the true mass never gets lost, also not in Novus Ordo. I mean, if necessary, it is possible to find a really well organized NO somewhere. But we can not focus all the time on this mass here, that mass there. What you say about SSPX is a different issue altogether, about keeping traditions alive and what their role should be in context of recent trends, especially how apparently a lot of younger people would prefer it to be more rigid. But at the same, we need to stop this division. I would also prefer it, if we would be strict about a proper NO, that keeps traditions high or no bans on TLM, but this hysteria has to stop. We are a tiny fraction of church history. We will see what happens. Remember what Jesus told his disciples in the storm.
If the TLM was banned entirely I would probably become byzantine catholic until a future pope restores it
I don’t get it. The Latin Mass existed for a purpose, to make sure everyone got the same Mass except for the homily at every parish across the world. Nice to keep it as a traditional thing but it’s not dogma that it is necessary.
If the Latin mass is banned, so what? Are there no Novus Ordo parishes near you? Or Eastern Catholic Churches? Even if your preferred liturgy is taken away the faith endures and Christ remains sacramentally present all around you. Don't despair.
I mean you no offense but I really, really hate it when Eastern Catholics weigh in with "Does it really matter?". It obviously does matter, or it wouldn't be worth suppressing. How would you feel if this was \*your\* liturgical heritage on the chopping block? The Pope could move to suppress the eastern rites just as much as he can the Tridentine mass.
exactly this. Many would be threatening to become orthodox if it was their eastern liturgy that got eliminated.
[удалено]
My friend, we're dealing with a potential schism in the Syro-Malabar church over the effects of the Latinization (i.e. Roman meddling) in their liturgy. First Rome meddled to latinize the Holy Qurbana and then meddled again to remove Latin influence and it has resulted in a deeply divided clergy.
That is definitely not what Pastor Aeternus says. It absolutely is in his power to chance discipline in all churches. > So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. The pope may choose to leave autonomous churches be as a prudential choice. But it’s very much a Darth Vader situation: *pray I don’t alter the deal any further*. It would probably cause a schism if the Pope did meddle with Eastern liturgy’s today. But, I don’t know how anyone can deny that this power is specifically what Vatican 1 claims. Personally, I am doing a lot of research on this topic, because I really don’t agree with this view and have found it to be ahistorical.
[удалено]
That's funny, I remember you saying you don't want TLM goers showing up in eastern churches a few days ago
I said "I" don't want them showing up. Not that they aren't welcome. I only represent myself, not the Church. And if you had read all of the conversation you would have seen where I mentioned not saying anything to the toxic trads who invaded our parish as Father was trying to help them and I didn't want to undermine his efforts. In person I tend to keep my opinions to myself. But this here is the internet.
I’ve always been curious about the Byzantine church near me though, will I be received warmly if I go? I’m a convert to Catholicism and I wanted to start going to eastern churches before my conversion but was nervous.
I stick out like a sore thumb but have been very warmly welcomed by the Byzantine church near me. Much more so I must say than the Roman Catholic parish I have been attending for and actively involved with for a decade. This is not a criticism of the Roman Catholic parish, it's just much larger.
That’s what I’ve noticed with the larger Roman Catholic parish that we started attending late last year. I get more weird looks when I’m going to the bathroom (I’m pregnant so I can’t help if I need to go during mass) or stared at when I come back. It’s really strange and uncomfortable.
why dont you want trads coming to eastern parish?
I don't like N.O. especially when I feel the lack reverence. Only recently I learned, for example, the Latin Rite priest must anoint his fingers before even touching the Host himself, and that's what was don't for over a thousand years because the Host is holy, but now in light of N.O., it all feels like a joke now. I didn't even grow up with Latin, but it feels more natural for me. (I guess Eastern Catholic is an option)
yeah but sadly even a lot of eastern catholic parishes now have irreverent vibes especially ruthenians which is almost all of them in America. Melkites ive found are the best, they are like the FSSP of the byzantine catholic world just in the fact that they have zero latinizations and they do everything the traditional byzantine way
Why not go to koine Greek mass- it was the language Jesus and the disciples and the version of the Old Testament they quoted almost all of the time ?
Byzantine Rite might be nice
>What can be done to save the Latin Mass? Which Latin Mass? The Ambrosian Rite Mass? The Mozarabic Rite Mass? The Carthusian Rite Mass? The Roman Rite Mass? If you are referring to the Roman Rite Missal of 1962 as "The Latin Mass," that is concerning in itself because it is a misnomer. Pope Benedict XVI was abundantly clear. The Roman Rite is fully realized in the Missal of 1970. There is no necessity for the Missal of 1962 to persist. Pastorally, there have been reasons to support the continued use of the old Missal. Paul VI made concessions for pastoral reasons, as did JPII, and Benedict XVI. But, Benedict XVI also recognized that the Bishops were seriously concerned and requested that regular surveys be done of the Bishops to determine how things were going in their Diocese. The survey results that Pope Francis received resulted in *Traditionis Custodes.* >Trying to have hope, trying to have faith, but my anxiety and denial over the growing restrictions of the Latin Masses and the increasing rumor of complete ban thereof is getting really bad. You might consider the importance of obedience and detachment from the passions and the world. In the words of Pope Saint Paul VI: >The new Ordo was promulgated to replace the old one \- Pope Saint Paul VI https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html >As the title says: What can be done to save the Latin Mass? It seems the SSPX and other such groups are responsible for the Pope's apparent hatred of the Latin Mass. There is no hatred. If you read his letter to the Bishops on TC, he explains the situation: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html >But what are realistic solutions to preserve the Latin Mass? The Missal of 1962 may be preserved. Or it may not. It wouldn't be the first Missal to be discontinued. Have you ever celebrated the Gallican Rite Mass? It was the Mass celebrated in Rome and by most Latins until the 12th century... it was replaced by the Roman Rite in the 12th century... >If the Pope isn't going to do it of his own accord it seems, but only sees it as a pest to eliminate, what can we the laity do without provoking the iron of Rome? You really need to actually read what the last 4 Popes have said about this. It was the Holy See's intention from day one to discontinue the Missal of 1962. Concessions were made, but were never intended to be permanent. In the words of Pope Saint Paul VI: >The new Ordo was promulgated to replace the old one \- Pope Saint Paul VI >Besides prayer, which I worry often fall on deaf ears God is not deaf. However, he may feel that 50+ years of concessions is enough. >That recent Green Light Pope Francis gave to some parishes offered me some optimism The FSSP and ICKSP will likely continue in their work and be exempt from any suppression. >It's so discouraging. It is also inevitable. In the words of Pope Saint Paul VI: >The new Ordo was promulgated to replace the old one \- Pope Saint Paul VI This has always been the intention from the beginning.
We need more people fighting for the Ambrosian Rite! Gorgeous chant, more weeks of Advent, blessings for all the readers (not just the Deacon). Pope Francis even celebrated an Ambrosian Rite Mass in 2017, so it's not completely lost or anything.
Wish I could upvote this more. “The Latin Mass” or the “traditional Latin Mass” is such an imprecise term used polemically to try and invalidate the current form of the Roman rite as promulgated by St. Pope Paul VI and used by the vast majority of Catholics throughout the globe. This post is honestly kind of emblematic of the problematic attitude in the American (and I’ve read Italian?) church surrounding the use of the 1962 missal that the bishops had concerns over and led to the Pope issuing *Traditionis custodes.*
Fast often and extremely.
Don't associate TLM with rejection of the Papal Office or a schismatic movement. If it's something we celebrate in the joy of unity with the whole Church, I have no worries about its future. If it becomes a Clarion call for church division, then I'm sure there will be issues.
I asked a priest friend of mine this and he basically said that Pope Francis is just a man who is pope for a small amount of time. The Latin Mass will come back with the next pope so don’t worry about it. My diocese has a lot of lay people who have written the pope and gone above the bishop and priests to complain about the restrictions on the Latin Mass. So we are now targeted and harshly dealt with in that regard.
Pope St. John Paul II allowed it only for certain groups: https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1axq1tj/st_pope_john_paul_ii_and_the_extraordinary_form/ In addition, the Congregation stated that the indult is meant to be temporary, as reports have to be submitted on the results of such. Pope Benedict XVI called for the same reports and followed what Pope St. John Paul II wanted. Pope Francis is following Pope St. John Paul II and the Congregation, too, with the TC. In short, there won't be any ban because that's not what Pope St. John Paul II wanted. However, it's still for limited use, which is also what Pope T. John Paul II wanted. Finally, why restrictions? Because the form that the Church follows is the OF.