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

[KenB]

My childhood memories are all post Vatican II, but I did have the pleasure of attending a Tridentine Mass in Chile once. It was amazing and truly lovely. Perhaps one day I will be able to take may family to a Tridentine Mass in our area.

I like how old William Buckley summed up the matter; one can imagine his sly grin:​

William F. Buckley’s thoughts on Catholic liturgical change; regarding the impact of the reforms following the Vatican II Council, Buckley replied (in 1979):

“As a Catholic, I have abandoned hope for the liturgy, which, in the typical American church, is as ugly and as maladroit as if it had been composed by Robert Ingersoll and H.L. Mencken for the purpose of driving people away.

Incidentally, the modern liturgists are doing a remarkably good job; attendance at Catholic Mass on Sunday having dropped sharply in the 10 years since a few well-meaning cretins got hold of the power to vernacularize the Mass, and the money to scour the earth in search of the most un-musical men and women to preside over the translation.

The next liturgical ceremony conducted primarily for my benefit, since I have no plans to be beatified or remarried, will be my own funeral; and it is a source of great consolation to me that, at my funeral, I shall be quite dead, and so will not need to listen to the accepted replacement for the noble old Latin liturgy. Meanwhile, I am practicing Yoga, so that, at church on Sundays, I can develop the power to tune out everything I hear, while attempting, athwart the general calisthenics, to commune with my Maker, and ask Him first to forgive me my own sins, and implore Him second, not to forgive the people who ruined the Mass."​

Incidentally, I read where Buckley’s son arranged for his fathers funeral mass to be in the Tridentine form.

 

[malphono]

In the pre-conciliar days no set degree was required for ordination. Now the M.Div. is required in the United States.

Required perhaps by the remaining US Province, but what does that matter? It’s a non-Pontifical degree.

One could read the quoted statement to mean that no O.Carm ever had a Pontifical degree (STB, STL, etc) in pre-concilar times, which is of course not true.

Also I think there is a recognition by the Church today that priests need to be formed more in spirituality and pastoral counseling than in the past. These are areas where they will be working everyday.

And many did, in fact, work in those areas “everyday” in pre-concilar times as well. And quite successfully. The implication there is that the pre-conciliar O.Carm had minimal training is spirituality. I knew many of them and can say without hesitation that that is totally untrue. As far as pastoral, I again disagree. I knew many, and as a group they were generally better at “pastoral counseling” than their secular counterparts.

The celebration of the EF is not something that every priest will be doing nor does every priest want to do so.

An O.Carm would not offer the EF according to the Missale Romanum anyway. He would do so according to the Missale Carmelitanum. Why a Carmelite would not want to do that is a mystery to me.

Also, while there is a Carmelite rite, the O.Carm. surrendered the rite to Rome in the early 70’s. The O.C.D. did so a couple of years before the O.Carm. did. Why this was done and why Rome accept it is a mystery because Rome did not request that it be surrendered, as far as I can tell.

If memory serves, the Carmelite usage was that of the O.Carm, not the OCD. In any case, yes, Rome did not demand (or even “request”) that it be abandoned, and it was not suppressed. As I recall, nor was it even exactly “surrendered” since its continued use was left to the Provincial. Again, if memory serves, certain provinces (at least one in Italy) did maintain it at least throughout the 1970s. The situation is similar to that of the Dominicans. The ancient usage could (in theory at least) be recaptured tomorrow.

I was fortunate to have experienced Conventual Mass according to the Missale Carmelitanum many years ago, and it is forever etched in my memory.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Required perhaps by the remaining US Province, but what does that matter? It’s a non-Pontifical degree.

One could read the quoted statement to mean that no O.Carm ever had a Pontifical degree (STB, STL, etc) in pre-concilar times, which is of course not true.

The M.Div. is what is required for ordination in the United States, this is from the USCCB and the Program for Priestly Formation, 5th Edition. While Pontifical degrees are excepted as equivalent they seem not to be preferred.

And many did, in fact, work in those areas “everyday” in pre-concilar times as well. And quite successfully. The implication there is that the pre-conciliar O.Carm had minimal training is spirituality. I knew many of them and can say without hesitation that that is totally untrue. As far as pastoral, I again disagree. I knew many, and as a group they were generally better at “pastoral counseling” than their secular counterparts.

From my talk with those O.Carm. who are still alive that attended seminary pre-vatican II they all say that they did not get as much pastoral counseling as we get today and they wish that they would have had more. As for spirituality, no they did not get what we get today.

An O.Carm would not offer the EF according to the Missale Romanum anyway. He would do so according to the Missale Carmelitanum. Why a Carmelite would not want to do that is a mystery to me.

We can not offer the EF according to the Missale Carmelitanum because we no longer have the right to. As I said, in the early 1970’s the General Council (our worldwide leadership) surrendered the rite to Rome.

If memory serves, the Carmelite usage was that of the O.Carm, not the OCD. In any case, yes, Rome did not demand (or even “request”) that it be abandoned, and it was not suppressed. As I recall, nor was it even exactly “surrendered” since its continued use was left to the Provincial. Again, if memory serves, certain provinces (at least one in Italy) did maintain it at least throughout the 1970s. The situation is similar to that of the Dominicans. The ancient usage could (in theory at least) be recaptured tomorrow.

I was fortunate to have experienced Conventual Mass according to the Missale Carmelitanum many years ago, and it is forever etched in my memory.

I would love to experience it, but again, we do not retain the right to celebrate it.

But then, how should I know what I am talking about, after all, I am only a Carmelite student in formation for the priesthood. How would I know anything about the internal things of my Order.

 

[malphono]

The M.Div. is what is required for ordination in the United States, this is from the USCCB and the Program for Priestly Formation, 5th Edition. While Pontifical degrees are excepted as equivalent they seem not to be preferred.

A Pontifical Degree is accepted as an equivalent? Now that’s a hoot.

From my talk with those O.Carm. who are still alive that attended seminary pre-vatican II they all say that they did not get as much pastoral counseling as we get today and they wish that they would have had more. As for spirituality, no they did not get what we get today.

Oh, so the post-conciliar O.Carm are more spiritual than their predecessors? Sounds like something the late Leo Bronzezewski (or however it was spelled) would have said.

We can not offer the EF according to the Missale Carmelitanum because we no longer have the right to. As I said, in the early 1970’s the General Council (our worldwide leadership) surrendered the rite to Rome.

Perhaps so, perhaps not.

I am sorry but you are mistaken. The order surrendered the rite. I have this from one of the previous Prior Generals of the order.

Perhaps so. Perhaps not.

I would love to experience it, but again, we do not retain the right to celebrate it.

I have a feeling you wouldn’t really, but that’s neither here nor there. In any case, if it were defunct it would be classified as suppressed. It isn’t. It’s still considered to be “alive” albeit in a coma.

But then, how should I know what I am talking about, after all, I am only a Carmelite student in formation for the priesthood. How would I know anything about the internal things of my Order.

Which means you should know that the O.Carm were quite successful in pre-conciliar days. Even when they offered the Carmelite usage in their parish churches. "

In any case, I’m not sparring for an argument. I treasure (for a variety of reason which I have no intention of going into here) the ancient and venerable Carmelite usage. And those good Carmelite Fathers that I knew personally. But, truth be told, I no longer care. The O.Carm don’t seem to, so why should I?

 

[JReducation]

As I have stated before. Religious order, religious congregations, socities of apostolic life, secular orders and secular institutes that have priests have an obligation to follow the requirements for priestly formation that is in effect in the episcopal conference where the formation takes place.

Br. David is correct. In the USA the degree that is required is a Master’s of Divinity, which is a four-year master’s degree. It is a professional degree. The program of studies offers training in the EF and Latin as electives, not as requierd for graduation.

As far as Pontifical Degrees, these are not designed to prepare men or women for ordiantion. I have an STD. My degree is in Mystical Theology. I spent three years studying just that. It is not a degree that prepares one for Holy Orders. None of the pontifical degrees are designed to form priests. They are to form theologians. There is a difference between a priest and a theologian. A priest, brother, sister or lay person who wants to be a theologian can get either a pontifical degree or an academic degree, i.e. a PhD. When pontifical degrees were created there were no academic degrees such as MA, MS, PhD. Today there are.

On another note, religious orders, societies of apostolic life, congregations, etc cannot step outside of their statutes and out of their obedience to the directives of their general chapters and their constitutions to satisfy the demands and requests of the laity. They must do so within the parameters that their legislation allows. To step outside of the the legislation of the community and outside of the boundaries set by the chapter can get you into very serious trouble, even excommunicated, if you are in solemn vows.

For example, in my community we make solemn vows, not simple vows. Solemn vows have a far deeper bind and carry very serious consequences if you violate them. You usually get several reprimands. Eventually you are taken before a tribunal and you can be excommunicated, not because you celebrated the EF, but because you are obstinate in your disobedience. If a Major Superior, the chapter or the constitutions do not allow for the celebration of the EF without the proper permissions or in the case of other communities where the EF is the only form allowed and you celebrate the OF without the proper authorization and you persist in your disobedience, then you can be excommunicated.

You are not excommunicated because you clebrate the EF or the OF, but for your obstinate disobedience. Bishop Lefebvre is not the only person who can be excommunicated for obstinate disobedience.

I know several priests of the Sons of the Holy Redeemer and the the Institute of Christ the King and the FSSP. If they celebrate the OF without the proper permission and they insist on doing it, they will be excommunicated and they can even be dismmissed from their community.

The rules go both ways, not just in defence of the OF, but also in defence of the EF. All of these institutes will tell you, we do not exist to satisfy the requests of the laity. We exist to live according to the mission that our founders gave us and to reach union with Christ through the example of our founders and our charism. The charism is what has to be protected at all cost. I believe this is what Br. David is saying.

Sometimes the laity can be just as obstinate. Fortunately, they don’t make a solemn vow of obedience to a rule and constitution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

As I have stated before. …
Sometimes the laity can be just as obstinate. Fortunately, they don’t make a solemn vow of obedience to a rule and constitution.

How nice. I know all of that (actually better than you might think, but that’s not up for discussion in this forum). And it has nothing to do with my previous post.

But the last line of that post bears repeating: I no longer care. Ergo, I’m out of this fray. Ciao.

 

[mick321]

…

Br. David is correct. In the USA the degree that is required is a Master’s of Divinity, which is a four-year master’s degree. It is a professional degree. The program of studies offers training in the EF and Latin as electives, not as requierd for graduation.
…

You are not excommunicated because you clebrate the EF or the OF, but for your obstinate disobedience. Bishop Lefebvre is not the only person who can be excommunicated for obstinate disobedience.

Sometimes the laity can be just as obstinate. Fortunately, they don’t make a solemn vow of obedience to a rule and constitution.
…

.
Is it common for those seeking the Catholic priesthood to decline the EF and Latin electives? If so, why? Do some Catholic religious orders officially discourage or prohibit that knowledge? Lack of interest?

Some of us like to think of Catholic Priests as professionals. We expect professionals to possess a certain level of knowledge in their chosen field. Medical doctors are expected to know anatomy. Civil engineers are expected to know geometry. Either one may even know a bit of Latin.

My eleven year old nephew is an altar server with about six EF assists. He can recite both celebrant and server parts of the Ordinary of the Mass - from the Signum Crucis to the Credo - before having to refer to his 5x7 that takes him thru [his responses] to the end. Obstinate? Only in his desire to serve. He has not yet taken solemn vows. So he can rest easy for now.
.

 

[JReducation]

.
Is it common for those seeking the Catholic priesthood to decline the EF and Latin electives? If so, why? Do some Catholic religious orders officially discourage or prohibit that knowledge? Lack of interest?

Some of us like to think of Catholic Priests as professionals. We expect professionals to possess a certain level of knowledge in their chosen field. Medical doctors are expected to know anatomy. Civil engineers are expected to know geometry. Either one may even know a bit of Latin.

My eleven year old nephew is an altar server with about six EF assists. He can recite both celebrant and server parts of the Ordinary of the Mass - from the Signum Crucis to the Credo - before having to refer to his 5x7 that takes him thru [his responses] to the end. Obstinate? Only in his desire to serve. He has not yet taken solemn vows. So he can rest easy for now.
.

Those are good questions. I’ll try to answer as best I can.

1. It is common for most seminarians to pass up the EF and the Latin courses. The reason usually has to do with the fact that the EF and the Latin are not required. The English and Spanish speaking coutries are not required to study Latin to be ordained. And no priest is required to celebrate the EF. It is an option that is open to them, not an obligation.
2. Some religious orders actually demand that their members study Latin and the EF, because that’s all they use: i.e. Carmelite Monks, Sons of the Holy Redeemer and so do some secualr institutes: ie. FSSP, and Christ the King.
3. Religious orders do not prohibit the study of the EF and Latin. But they have a series of courses that they requie from those who are going to be priests. These courses are usually related to the mission and charism of the order. Therefore, it is not always possible to fit in the EF and Latin courses into a seminarian’s schedule.
4. In addition, most seminarians want to graduate with a major, because it grants them an academic degree instead of a professional. That is, they can graduate with an MA instead of an M.Div. They will usually use their electives to major in an academic area: ie. scriptures, spirituality, liturgy, moral theology, church history, patristics, systematic theology, catechesis, religious education or pastoral counseling. The M.Div gives them a degree in ministry, which is a more general knowledge degree.
5. Mlost religious do not want to serve in parishes. Few religious orders were founded to run parishes. We have been spoiled in the USA. The shortage of secular priests prompted the bishops to ask religious to take over parishes. This was to be a short-term arrangement that has laster over 200 years. Now, younger religious want to go back to the charism and mission of their founders and they don’t want to go to parishes. They have seen the harm that parishes do to religious The want to avoid it like a plague.
6. Those religious who were assigned to parishes often became so secularized that they looked just like any ordinary priest. The spent their every moment with the parishioners and involved in parish activities. They gradually dropped community activities such as: prayer, meals, recreation, retreat, chapters, silence, lection divina, common recitation of the Liturgy of the Hours, the habit, manual labor, chores around the house, time before the blessed sacrament together and so forth. The often declined to serve the community in community ministries such as the council, formation, missions, hermitages and so forth. For many of these men it is very painful when the superior pulls them out of the parish and makes them return to live inside a community with all of the above activities and schedules and regulations. The hardest thing for them is giving up their freedom. In the parish they had a car, they could enter and leave the house without permission, they had mnoney, they had friends from the outside, they had access to secular people, they could go to any form of activity they wanted and they did ot have to ask for permission for anything. They could always use the parish as an excuse. Once they return to their community house all this is gone, even the cell phone. Many of these men are very bitter when they retiurn. Some leave the religious life and return to become secular priests, because they cannot live as religious in a commiunity.

That’s why younger religious do not study the EF or the Latin, because they have no plans on being stuck in a parish. They want to be preachers, missionaries, cooks in a soup kitchen, do street ministry, work with drug addicts, do respect life, care for the poor, the sick and the elderly, they want to live in a neighborhood and be a presence, run retreats, live in hermitages, teach, be theologians or serve the community in some capacity such as cook, porter, launderer, house keeper, handy man, mechanic and so forth. You don’t need Latin or the EF for any of these.

I hope this answers your questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

.
Is it common for those seeking the Catholic priesthood to decline the EF and Latin electives? If so, why? Do some Catholic religious orders officially discourage or prohibit that knowledge? Lack of interest?

Some of us like to think of Catholic Priests as professionals. We expect professionals to possess a certain level of knowledge in their chosen field. Medical doctors are expected to know anatomy. Civil engineers are expected to know geometry. Either one may even know a bit of Latin.

My eleven year old nephew is an altar server with about six EF assists. He can recite both celebrant and server parts of the Ordinary of the Mass - from the Signum Crucis to the Credo - before having to refer to his 5x7 that takes him thru [his responses] to the end. Obstinate? Only in his desire to serve. He has not yet taken solemn vows. So he can rest easy for now.
.

Br JR covered this question very well but I would like to add, out of the 103 credits required for the M.Div. only 12 are electives. Of that there are further restrictions, 2 of the elective credits must be in Spirituality, 2 of the elective credits must be in another faith tradition. That leaves 8 elective credits and my order places another restriction that one of my electives must be in Carmelite Spirituality, which seem to be mostly 3 credit courses so that would fill the Spirituality requirement but would take a credit away from my other elective credits.

I have a posibile interest in Pastoral Counseling and strong interest in Spiritual Direction. This will burn up my electives unless I do the Spiritual Direction out side of the theologate during the summer. The last part though, classes in the EF are not offered at the theologate I must attend, at least not presently.

The M.Div. is also the entry degree for the Doctor of Ministry degree.

 

[mick321]

Br JR covered this question very well but I would like to add, out of the 103 credits required for the M.Div. only 12 are electives. Of that there are further restrictions, 2 of the elective credits must be in Spirituality, 2 of the elective credits must be in another faith tradition. That leaves 8 elective credits and my order places another restriction that one of my electives must be in Carmelite Spirituality, which seem to be mostly 3 credit courses so that would fill the Spirituality requirement but would take a credit away from my other elective credits.

I have a posibile interest in Pastoral Counseling and strong interest in Spiritual Direction. This will burn up my electives unless I do the Spiritual Direction out side of the theologate during the summer. The last part though, classes in the EF are not offered at the theologate I must attend, at least not presently.

The M.Div. is also the entry degree for the Doctor of Ministry degree.

.
Thanks again Brother, for your patience and indulgence. I understand now. These gentlemen are simply too busy with other coursework.

Perhaps for another thread: “Does the Church Have an Obligation to Promote the Catholic Priesthood?” and “If so, to what end?”.

Peace. Out.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

.
Thanks again Brother, for your patience and indulgence. I understand now. These gentlemen are simply too busy with other coursework.

Yes there is a lot of course work.

Perhaps for another thread: “Does the Church Have an Obligation to Promote the Catholic Priesthood?” and “If so, to what end?”.

I do not understand this question in regards to what we are discussing here.

Are you implying that those who chose not to study Latin and the EF are not part of the Catholic Priesthood? That the study of Latin and the EF are somehow intergral to the Catholic Priesthood?

That can not be so as the Eastern Catholic Churches have the fullness of the Catholic Priesthood but there is no reason why they should ever study Latin or the EF. Latin may be an elective choice but I doubt many, if any, would chose it.

 

[JReducation]

.

Perhaps for another thread: “Does the Church Have an Obligation to Promote the Catholic Priesthood?” and “If so, to what end?”.

Peace. Out.

I thought that was pretty obvious. Of course the Church has an obligation to promote the priesthood, religious life and Catholic marriage, all three must be promoted with equal emphasis and equal intensity and as necessary to the life of the Church. The Church has already proclaimed this in almost every document in Vatican II, as well as before and after.

Every diocese has a vocation director to promote priestly vocations, a vicar for religious to promote and protect religious life and the marriage tribunal. Every religious institute and society of apostolic or priestly life also has a vocation director.

The only difference here is that those vocation directors who represent religious communities promote religious life. But if the religious community is a clerical community, as are the Carmelites, they vocation director promotes both, religious life and priesthood. Whereas if you go to a site for Capuchis, Franciscans, Conventuals, Trappists and other mendican and monastic orders, you will not see the priesthood promoted. You will see the religious life promoted, also known as the consecrated life. These communities recruit men to follow the life, not to minister as priests. That comes as a vocation within a vocation for some members. And it is up to the superior and his council to decide if they need another priest. If they decide that they do not need another priest, then you do not have a vocation to be a priest. As strange as that may sound, that’s the way it works. The authority’s decision is the sign of a vocation.

Am I misunderstanding you? Do you mean to ask if the Church has an obligation to promote that Latin Rite priests learn Latin and the EF?

If that’s the question, the answer to that is as follows:

In every country, except the English and Spanish speaking countries, the Church has already directed that the study of Latin be part of the curriculum. The only exception are those men who belong to religious orders. They follow the curriculum of their order and that of the Church, which may or may not include Latin.

As to the EF, that is not part of the ordinary curriculum of formation of priests. It is up to the individual who wants to learn it to ask for it. If that man is a secular priest, he must ask his bishop. If he is a religious, he must ask his major superior. The difference is that a bishop cannot deny a secular priest permission to learn it. A religious superior can. The religious superior has powers over the members of his community that the bishop does not have over the priests in his diocese. That is why the bishop is an Ordinary and the religious superior has two titles. He is an Ordinary and Father of the community, hence the titles Abbot, Guardian, and Prior. These grant him additional powers that a bishop does not have. Most bishops don’t want those powers either, because with those powers come duties toward their men, such as caring for them in their infirmities and old age, at their expense. And they are morally responsible for their on-going formation and their spiritual growth. Bishops have enough to do without being responsible for people’s health, old age, and spiritual life. Also bishops cover a much smaller geographical area than do major religious superiors. They don’t answer to anyone except the Holy Father. Major superiors have a pyramid of superiors above them and they also have to answer to their subordinates, bishops do not.

I’m not sure if this answers your question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[FRANK1046]

Can someone explain this to me.Is it true or not.
[mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php](http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php)

 

[ProVobis]

Novus ordo means new order, not new rite.

And how is this flattering to the Catholic Church?

Hey look, I accept the OF without any reservations. I attend it myself without any reservations. I even understand some of the abuses that go on, even though the regular EF attendees do not. It’s still valid and makes up a major portion of the Church.

And I’m not even a traditionalist. So why are you trying to correct me and pass over biting attacks against the EF?

 

[JReducation]

Can someone explain this to me.Is it true or not.
[mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php](http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php)

These brothers are sedevacantists who believe that every pope from Bl. John XIII to Benedict XVI are anti-popes. The problem with their logic is that it is too much of a coincidence to have five anti-popes in a row. Second, canon law and theology clearly say that even if the pope is a heretic, he remains the pope. Being a heretic does not disqualify him as pope. For a pope to lose his right to the Chair of Peter he has to be excommunicated by a council of bishops. None of the popes named on their list was ever excommunicated and John XXIII was beatified. A beatification is an infallible act. Only a real pope can make an infallible declaration.

I only go to their site when I want to know what the sedevacantists are saying this week.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

Can someone explain this to me.Is it true or not.
[mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php](http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php)

Oh here we go again with that sede outfit. :banghead: To paraphrase Judge Marilyn: I wouldn’t believe them if their tongue came notarized.

 

[JReducation]

Oh here we go again with that sede outfit. :banghead: To paraphrase Judge Marilyn: I wouldn’t believe them if their tongue came notarized.

 

[JReducation]

MISUNDERSTANDING ALARM

I was not trying to correct you. I am sorry if it sounded that way. I was not trying to jump on your case either. I was simply trying to explain why it was called Novus Ordo and why it no longer is call that. That piece of information was meant for general consumption, because so many people keep referring to it as the NO or as a different rite. Both are incorrect usages of language. Benedict XVI has said that it is the Latin Rite mass and it is the Ordinary Form.

So, the term NO has been retired. But this information is meant for everyone, not a correction directed at you. I just piggy-backed on your post. Sorry if there was any offense. I really am sorry.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

And how is this flattering to the Catholic Church?

Hey look, I accept the OF without any reservations. I attend it myself without any reservations. I even understand some of the abuses that go on, even though the regular EF attendees do not. It’s still valid and makes up a major portion of the Church.

And I’m not even a traditionalist. So why are you trying to correct me and pass over biting attacks against the EF?

 

[brigid12]

My childhood memories are all post Vatican II, but I did have the pleasure of attending a Tridentine Mass in Chile once. It was amazing and truly lovely. Perhaps one day I will be able to take may family to a Tridentine Mass in our area.

I like how old William Buckley summed up the matter; one can imagine his sly grin:​

William F. Buckley’s thoughts on Catholic liturgical change; regarding the impact of the reforms following the Vatican II Council, Buckley replied (in 1979):

“As a Catholic, I have abandoned hope for the liturgy, which, in the typical American church, is as ugly and as maladroit as if it had been composed by Robert Ingersoll and H.L. Mencken for the purpose of driving people away.

Incidentally, the modern liturgists are doing a remarkably good job; attendance at Catholic Mass on Sunday having dropped sharply in the 10 years since a few well-meaning cretins got hold of the power to vernacularize the Mass, and the money to scour the earth in search of the most un-musical men and women to preside over the translation.

The next liturgical ceremony conducted primarily for my benefit, since I have no plans to be beatified or remarried, will be my own funeral; and it is a source of great consolation to me that, at my funeral, I shall be quite dead, and so will not need to listen to the accepted replacement for the noble old Latin liturgy. Meanwhile, I am practicing Yoga, so that, at church on Sundays, I can develop the power to tune out everything I hear, while attempting, athwart the general calisthenics, to commune with my Maker, and ask Him first to forgive me my own sins, and implore Him second, not to forgive the people who ruined the Mass."​

Incidentally, I read where Buckley’s son arranged for his fathers funeral mass to be in the Tridentine form.

:clapping::clapping: - I love(d) his dry humor!

 

[Holly3278]

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.

You know, I don’t know that the Novus Ordo Mass will eventually be gotten rid of entirely or not. I mean, why would it? If the Traditional Latin Mass was still the standard Mass, I may never have become Catholic. Why? Because I probably wouldn’t have understood the Mass. I have no problem with the Traditional Latin Mass and wish it was more widely available. Its just that for a person like me who doesn’t understand Latin, I’m not sure if I would have joined the Church or not to begin with had the Novus Ordo not been commonly used at the time of my conversion.