Could Pope Francis ever remove the Latin Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter misstherese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We seem to fall into this modern error: nice doesn’t equal good. Pope Francis is a good man, yes. He is a nice pope. But his actions toward Catholic strongholds is questionable, and open to criticism.

Could he remove the Latin Mass? No. SP? Yes, he could, however he would not - imagine the backlash. I’m sure he fears God more than to forbid the Mass of the Saints.
 
LoyalViews said:
Mass of the Saints.
Click to expand...
We’ve got 20+ Rites. We also have the consecrated religious who have either their own rites, or their own missals. Some have their own liturgical calendar, even. Their own version of the Divine Office.

When you refer to the Tridentine as “the Mass of the Saints”, you’re excluding all those within those communities who did not partake in it. Although this does fit within the ongoing narrative I have witnessed that “traditionalists” prefer to either exclude or ignore the consecrated religious.
 
Norvus Ordo, especially in metro city parishes, have lost a lot of reverence and holiness over the years.

I see no problem with offering a Latin Mass.

The parish I go to does both. I alternate between the two. Their norvus ordo still has the same reverence that the Latin Mass does. The Tabernacle is at the center, communion is received on bended knee.

You can update the mass, but somethings should never have changed.
 
LordParrott said:
OraLabora, I wish it was just that simple. My sources are reliable. I wish otherwise. It is not slander when it is fact.
Click to expand...
I have a journalism background, having worked in TV Broadcasting for a bit, among other things. A big part of this is corroboration; you need to be able to corroborate your sources, along with possible citations and the like.

You present a story with no context to your sources. Not even something like “Vatican officials close to Pope Francis”, you simply say “I know people”. You don’t even give a quantity to your sources, how many you have talked to. Their relationship with Pope Francis, how they know him.

A similar thing would be me saying “LordParrott is fine with abortion, in fact in private he has said that abortion should be unrestricted. My sources are reliable, so this is not slander, it’s fact”.

If you do not provide additional context to your claims, either yes, it is slander; or we can start calling you a pro-abortionist and leverage the same sourced methodology that you have used.
 
Last edited:
The traditional rites of those communities of which you speak were also repressed before Sommorum Pontificum - the Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, Carthusian Rite, Mozarabic Rite - all in traditional form. Sommorum Pontificum allowed all these rites the freedom of participation which beforehand had to be a point of request.
 
They were repressed throughout the entire time that the Tridentine was the primary missal?

A quick Google search indicates that in the case of the Dominicans, they used their Rite until 1968 or so, until they switched over to the Roman rite. And under the condition that the master of the order and the provincials could grant permission to use the old Rites/Forms.

For centuries these groups did their own liturgical practices, without using the Tridentine. I guess their Saints achieved Sainthood in spite of their vocation?
 
Is there an issue with leveraging a search engine to quickly find out that the Dominicans only started using the Roman Rite officially in 1968, and to this day have permission to use their own Rite? In the old days instead of looking at two or three sources online you’d sometimes single-source with an encyclopedia.

Lets say that the Orders had their rites/forms suppressed writ large in 1968. You still have centuries to account for.
 
But upon the wake of the Novus Ordo, with which I only have a few problems, traditional rites were suppressed in the name of the spirit of the council by superiors of various orders. If they were not, there wouldn’t be a need for SSPX affiliated communities, nor sedevacantist religious orders.

I have numerous academic sources I want to quote, but the post limit doesn’t allow my bibliography.
 
I think we may be talking past ourselves a bit here. What took place after the Missal of Paul VI isn’t what I am speaking about, rather I am speaking about what happened before the Missal of Paul VI.

The claim by some (you are not the only person to use this expression) is that the Tridentine, used before the Missal of Paul VI, was “the Mass of the Saints”. My issue with using that descriptor is that there are Saints who never participated in the Tridentine since they would have used the Liturgies their communities were using.

Saying the Tridentine is “the Mass of the Saints” effectively elevates it above other perfectly valid Liturgies and practices that also produced many fantastic Saints.
 
Very true. What about saints of the East Syriac tradition? Is the Assyrian Liturgy inferior to the Tridentine? Of course not.
 
I’d start with Hijacking and ruining the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
 
LordParrott said:
OraLabora, I wish it was just that simple. My sources are reliable. I wish otherwise. It is not slander when it is fact.
Click to expand...
Gossip and innuendo. “My sources”. “It is fact”. Sorry but as was mentioned Melchior_1, without context, it remains… gossip, innuendo and murmuring. Something that as a Benedictine I am commanded to avoid, as per the Rule of St. Benedict.

I hear a lot of gossip related to the Vatican as well. I am close to several people at the Pontifical Athenaeum of Sant’ Anselmo where I’ve stayed frequently. I’ve never shaken the Pope’s hand but have shaken the hand of several who have, including two abbot-primates. These people are in daily contact with the Vatican so there is no shortage of juicy stories.

But you won’t see me relating them here.
 
LoyalViews said:
Could he remove the Latin Mass? No. SP? Yes, he could, however he would not - imagine the backlash. I’m sure he fears God more than to forbid the Mass of the Saints.
Click to expand...
Backlash? Noisy backlash, perhaps. But huge backlash? Not so much. The fact remains that the vast majority of Catholics do not give a hoot about the EF Mass. Only a tiny, but noisy, minority does. In Quebec where I live, due to some historical baggage, the “Latin Mass” is largely deemed a pejorative. I don’t agree necessarily but there is a lot of resentment still in Quebec towards the pre-Conciliar Church, outside of a tiny minority of EF Mass aficionados and uber-traditionalists.

If the Holy Father killed SP, the reaction in Quebec would range from indifference to cheers.

I say this as a great fan and practitioner of Gregorian chant. I attend an OF Mass in Gregorian chant twice a week at the local abbey.
 
Anyone who talks about “a fat dyke” is either not Catholic or if Catholic they need to go to Confession immediately!
 
Im sorry, but that’s what the LGBTIA community calls them. I wasn’t trying trying to be vulgar. I don’t even know if the word has any “dirty” connotations.
 
FALSE.

Latin: the language of the Vulgate, Augustine, Aquinas.

Pope St. John XXIII, who called the Council that ‘ended’ the Latin Mass (against the wishes of the pontiff himself) firmly disagrees with you.

Latin, THE language of Rome, the Apostolic See of St. Peter, IS a “mystically designated sacred language” of the Church.

Venerable languages
The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East…

A primary place
But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in God’s special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire — and that for so many centuries — it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See. Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

The nature of Latin
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See
For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.” She further requires her sacred ministers to use it.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as religious reasons.” These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”

In addition, the Latin language “can be called truly catholic.” It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure … of incomparable worth.” It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.
Click to expand...
 
As for the main question, what is the point?

People in this thread have claimed that Pope Francis is bothered by the growing popularity of the Latin Mass? What is that claim based off of? The pope is bothered that people are being drawn into the Church by the Traditional Latin Mass? People who otherwise were lapsed or non-Catholics?

Yes, there are people of certain generations within the Church, so selfishly & stubbornly committed to their failed “reforms”, who would rather have “traditional” Catholics abandon the faith & never step foot in a church again rather than allow the hated Traditional Latin Mass to ever be said anywhere on earth ever again. Let their souls be damned, literally.

I think it unfair to impute such, frankly, malevolent & destructive sentiments, to Pope Francis.

Pope Francis has emphasized his role as a pastor; “repealing” Summorum Pontificum would serve no pastoral purpose, just the opposite, doing so would be a politically-motivated wedge that divides the flock against itself and drives people out of the Church.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top