Does The Church Have An Obligation To Promote The Latin Mass ?

[Ghosty]

The ecclesiastical structure of the Latin Church is pretty complex, huh?

Blessings

In this particular instance Ecclesia Dei was give appelate authority over issues regarding the implementation of the Extraordinary Form. I don’t know if it has any penal authority over Bishops, but it can (and has) issued statements when local dioceses have gone against the spirit and letter of open implementation of the Extraordinary Form.

It’s an unusual situation for sure, but in this case it was deemed necessary because of the widespread resistance of Bishops to the rules of the Latin Church.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Frosty]

I’m not much on the “who’s who” either, but this one I do know: Dario Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos is head of Ecclesia Dei.

Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos has retired. The Ecclesia Dei Commission has been merged into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, so in effect, Cardinal William Levada is now in charge of Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Ace86]

But that does not make its celebration mandatory, since only if a ‘stable group’ requests it does it have to be.

Nobody has defined "stable group’. Does the one couple, in our parish of 1500, who regularly attend the EF when they are on vacation constitute a ‘stable group’ for whom a priest who speaks/reads no Latin and has never celebrated or seen the EF must celebrate it?

Yes, it makes its celebration mandatory. The Pope ultimately wants it in every parish. A couple requesting it would be considered a stable group - indeed, married couples are usually stable and certainly constitute a group.

The priest would be required to learn some Latin, and learn the TLM. The FSSP does workshops at their seminary for any priest wishing to learn the TLM, and the SSPX gives out a TLM kit which the priest can use to learn the Mass. Let’s not make problems where there are none.

 

[mardukm]

In this particular instance Ecclesia Dei was give appelate authority over issues regarding the implementation of the Extraordinary Form. I don’t know if it has any penal authority over Bishops, but it can (and has) issued statements when local dioceses have gone against the spirit and letter of open implementation of the Extraordinary Form.

It’s an unusual situation for sure, but in this case it was deemed necessary because of the widespread resistance of Bishops to the rules of the Latin Church.

Thanks for the explanation! It helps me out a lot. Prior to this, I had the impression that most EF proponents were just monarchial papists who think the Pope is the be-all and end-all of the life of the Church. Your explanation has helped correct me on the matter (though I don’t doubt there still are monarchial papists in the fold ).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos has retired. The Ecclesia Dei Commission has been merged into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, so in effect, Cardinal William Levada is now in charge of Ecclesia Dei.

Thank you for notice. I knew that the commission was being merged into the Holy Office and that the Cardinal was due to retire but not that his retirement was already effective.

 

[Seamus_L]

Pope Benedict has granted wider use of the Latin Mass. If a Bishop refuses to comply with that, it makes no sense to continue appealing to him, because that ipso facto implies the Bishop and not the Pope is the final authority.

 

[Joannm]

Yes, it makes its celebration mandatory. The Pope ultimately wants it in every parish. A couple requesting it would be considered a stable group - indeed, married couples are usually stable and certainly constitute a group.

The priest would be required to learn some Latin, and learn the TLM. The FSSP does workshops at their seminary for any priest wishing to learn the TLM, and the SSPX gives out a TLM kit which the priest can use to learn the Mass. Let’s not make problems where there are none.

No it doesn’t. I don’t know where you are getting your information from but it certainly isn’t what is written in SP. No one is forcing priests to learn Latin or TLM. Is a parish supposed to add a mass for two people. I don’t think so. Is this one couple going to financially support all that is needed to have one in the parish, training for the priest, books, vestments, etc? Please produce a document from the pope himself that states he wants it in every parish.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, the Church has an obligation to promote the Mass of All Time (the TLM).

There is no such thing as “the Mass of All Time”.

 

[Seamus_L]

Quite a few people seem to think the Novus Ordo is now the Mass of All Time and cannot be replaced.

 

[Ace86]

No it doesn’t. I don’t know where you are getting your information from but it certainly isn’t what is written in SP. No one is forcing priests to learn Latin or TLM. Is a parish supposed to add a mass for two people. I don’t think so. Is this one couple going to financially support all that is needed to have one in the parish, training for the priest, books, vestments, etc? Please produce a document from the pope himself that states he wants it in every parish.

Indeed, no one is forcing them to. But if people request it, then yes that priest must provide for them, or the bishop may find some other suitable arrangement if he is unable. We can imply that the pope wants it in every parish.

By the way, you have to know Latin to learn the TLM, otherwise you’d have to memorize the prayers and the meanings behind them since they are indeed in Latin.

 

[Ace86]

There is no such thing as “the Mass of All Time”.

That is one of the nicknames for the Traditional Latin Mass. It has other names as well. If you, as an Eastern Catholic, are offended by it, well that’s too bad. It does not mean that other Masses don’t come from antiquity (except for the Novus Ordo of course!). So try to get so insulted.

 

[Ace86]

Quite a few people seem to think the Novus Ordo is now the Mass of All Time and cannot be replaced.

And they’ll be in for quite a shock when the next saintly pope appears and fixes this Vatican II mess.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Quite a few people seem to think the Novus Ordo is now the Mass of All Time and cannot be replaced.

No, there is no such thing as a “Mass of All Time” at all. Unless you are referencing the actual Eucharistic Sacrifice then any approved Eucharistic Liturgy fits.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That is one of the nicknames for the Traditional Latin Mass. It has other names as well. If you, as an Eastern Catholic, are offended by it, well that’s too bad. It does not mean that other Masses don’t come from antiquity (except for the Novus Ordo of course!). So try to get so insulted.

I am not insulted by it, it is not a correct term.

The Extraordinary Form can in no way be called the “Mass of All Time” because it is a fact that it was not mandated for the whole Latin Catholic Church until after Trent. It was not the Mass that was celebrated in the first centuries of the Church.

Also the 1962 Missal is different from what was mandated following Trent so even calling it the Tridentine Latin Mass is not wholly correct (also that is actually what TLM means, the T is Tridentine, not Traditional).

Also the Church, as a whole, does not have any obligation to promote the Latin Mass, just as it does not have any obligation to promote the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (in any form or language).

 

[FAB]

Yes, the Church has an obligation to promote the Mass of All Time (the TLM). Eventually the Novus Ordo will be gotten rid of entirely, because it was invented in the 60s by a committee, and does not come from Apostolic Tradition.

He certainly needs the support of priests, but the bishops are the most important from what you said. They are the ones who can discipline wayward priests.

Furthermore, in my opinion, the Pope himself should celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass in order to really encourage it.

Actually the Ordinary form of the mass matches very closely to earliest descriptions of haf of the eucharistic celebration. the TLM didn’t start to devlope until the middle ages, it is a 1000 years from any Apostilic Tradition and the Church has much more pressing issues than to promot it activly.
Peace,
FAB

 

[Ace86]

Actually the Ordinary form of the mass matches very closely to earliest descriptions of haf of the eucharistic celebration. the TLM didn’t start to devlope until the middle ages, it is a 1000 years from any Apostilic Tradition and the Church has much more pressing issues than to promot it activly.
Peace,
FAB

No it doesn’t. The early Christians did *not *face the people, used Greek, *not *the vernacular, did *not *have altar girls, and did *not *change the words of Consecration. Your statement is a sick joke.

 

[Ace86]

No, there is no such thing as a “Mass of All Time” at all. Unless you are referencing the actual Eucharistic Sacrifice then any approved Eucharistic Liturgy fits.

Yes, I am referring to the Most Holy Sacrifice. The reason the Novus Ordo does not fit (while valid), is that it was invented and concocted in 1969. Time did not start in 1969, and neither did the Church or her liturgy.

 

[Ace86]

It’s certainly a correct term. It comes from the Apostolic time. It spread throughout the Church. At Trent, it was codified (not made-up) because of its absolute orthodoxy against the heresy of Protestantism. It was everywhere, except in those cities where other Missals were in use, such as the Sarum rite, the one in Milan, etc.

It was the Mass celebrated, although at that time it was mostly in Greek.

TLM stands for both. Many, if not most, traditionalists use that abbreviation and mean either Tridentine or Traditional. Either one is correct. It is not heresy or even wrong to say “Traditional Latin Mass”. Note the name of this subforum.

It has an obligation to promote the Mass that brings the good fruits of the Holy Spirit, which the Novus Ordo clearly cannot. It should promote any liturgy that brings good fruits.

I am not insulted by it, it is not a correct term.

The Extraordinary Form can in no way be called the “Mass of All Time” because it is a fact that it was not mandated for the whole Latin Catholic Church until after Trent. It was not the Mass that was celebrated in the first centuries of the Church.

Also the 1962 Missal is different from what was mandated following Trent so even calling it the Tridentine Latin Mass is not wholly correct (also that is actually what TLM means, the T is Tridentine, not Traditional).

Also the Church, as a whole, does not have any obligation to promote the Latin Mass, just as it does not have any obligation to promote the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (in any form or language).

 

[Ace86]

Actually the Ordinary form of the mass matches very closely to earliest descriptions of haf of the eucharistic celebration. the TLM didn’t start to devlope until the middle ages, it is a 1000 years from any Apostilic Tradition and the Church has much more pressing issues than to promot it activly.
Peace,
FAB

Also, the TLM was basically unchanged since the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great, in about the 6th century. It is indeed much closer to Apostolic Tradition than something invented in 1969!

 

[FAB]

No it doesn’t. The early Christians did *not *face the people, used Greek, *not *the vernacular, did *not *have altar girls, and did *not *change the words of Consecration. Your statement is a sick joke.

For one there was no tabernacle, that is a much laterdevelopment an dthe bishop faced the people, Greek was the venacular and later came Latin, there was not a set written form of the consecration, as far as altar girls I said the ordinary more closely resememble the earliest written description, however since the liturgy developed from Jewish tradittion which women helped with prepartion of the meal, remember Martha, who’s to say. Communion was given by the hand, by deacons, and we know from Paul’s letter and historical accounts that there were women deacons.
I’m sorry if you think this is a joke, but it’s not, it’s written history of the Church.
Peace,
FAB