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

[brigid12]

Hi Holly! Glad you are better. A lot of us were praying for you.

Since this diocese doesn’t have the TLM close enough for me to afford to get to it, I haven’t attended one. However I have watched it on EWTN and DVDs (beautiful!) and since the missals always had the English translation right there, it probably would have been easy for you. I sang in a choir where they also celebrated the NO in Latin and so we sang lots of Latin. It didn’t take me long to be able to say and even understand a lot of it. I think if it had been around when I converted I would probably have converted sooner.

 

[JReducation]

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.

The bold is mine.

1. Once it has received the approval of the Apostolic See is has apostolic tradition. This is already stated in Summorum Pontificum, that it has the approval of the Apostolic See.
2. The Holy Father has to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the mass in public for the simple reason that this is the universal form of the Latin Rite. The other is the extraordinary form. Summorum Pontificum clarified the mistaken notion that the missal of 1963 had been abrogated. It never said that it had to become the official mass of the Latin Rite Church. The term “extraordinary” is used very deliberately. Just as we use the term “extraordinary” minister of holy communion. In theology and pastoral care it means that which is not the norm.

When he wrote Summorum Pontificum the Holy Father chooses his words carefully to indicate that the mass of 1963 is not the norm and is not to become the norm. Observe that he says that any priest who wants to may celebrate it, but he does not say that every priest must celebrate it.

In fact, in the case of priests who belong to religious orders, they have to apply to their superiors for permission to celebrate it. Only secular priests may celebrate it at will.

If the mass of 1963 has two restrictions: 1) it is extraordinary and 2) some priests have to ask for permission to celebrate it at all, then it would be inconsistent for the Holy Father to celebrate a mass urbi et orbi that is not used urbi et orbi.

Let’s look at it another way. The Holy Father is the Bishop of Rome. However, in his own diocese the EF is to be celebrated as the extraordinary form and the so called novus ordo as the ordinary form. When he goes to his cathedral, St. John Lateran, he celebrates the mass in the OF, sometimes in Italian and sometimes in Latin, but always the OF. The norm in the Archdiocese of Rome is that the mass of the Archdiocese is the Ordinary Form in Italian.

That would make it even more inconsistent if he celebrated or promoted the Extraordinary Form when in his own diocese it is not promoted as the mass for everyone, but only for those who want to celebrate it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[celticsfan1983]

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

Wow, you won’t be winning any awards for charity. Vatican II Mess? Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it not led by the Holy Spirit. Grow up and accept that the council was led by the same Holy Spirt that has led the Church for the last 2,000 years.

I agree with a previous poster: I like the vernacular because I can understand it. But reading this thread, it seems like we have to take sides or something. Why can’t we just have a personal preference without demonizing the other side?

The division shown is absolutely appalling.

 

[JReducation]

Wow, you won’t be winning any awards for charity. Vatican II Mess? Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it not led by the Holy Spirit. Grow up and accept that the council was led by the same Holy Spirt that has led the Church for the last 2,000 years.

I agree with a previous poster: I like the vernacular because I can understand it. But reading this thread, it seems like we have to take sides or something. Why can’t we just have a personal preference without demonizing the other side?

The division shown is absolutely appalling.

I think that the hierarchy and most Catholics would agree with you that it is not a matter of either or. It is a matter of preference. Which ever form of the Latin Rite helps you find God, that’s where you belong and leave others alone. We are our brothers’ keepers, but we are not our brothers’ masters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

I think that the hierarchy and most Catholics would agree with you that it is not a matter of either or. It is a matter of preference. Which ever form of the Latin Rite helps you find God, that’s where you belong and leave others alone. We are our brothers’ keepers, but we are not our brothers’ masters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Amen

 

[Malkin71]

The bold is mine.

1. Once it has received the approval of the Apostolic See is has apostolic tradition. This is already stated in Summorum Pontificum, that it has the approval of the Apostolic See.
2. The Holy Father has to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the mass in public for the simple reason that this is the universal form of the Latin Rite. The other is the extraordinary form. Summorum Pontificum clarified the mistaken notion that the missal of 1963 had been abrogated. It never said that it had to become the official mass of the Latin Rite Church. The term “extraordinary” is used very deliberately. Just as we use the term “extraordinary” minister of holy communion. In theology and pastoral care it means that which is not the norm.

When he wrote Summorum Pontificum the Holy Father chooses his words carefully to indicate that the mass of 1963 is not the norm and is not to become the norm. Observe that he says that any priest who wants to may celebrate it, but he does not say that every priest must celebrate it.

In fact, in the case of priests who belong to religious orders, they have to apply to their superiors for permission to celebrate it. Only secular priests may celebrate it at will.

If the mass of 1963 has two restrictions: 1) it is extraordinary and 2) some priests have to ask for permission to celebrate it at all, then it would be inconsistent for the Holy Father to celebrate a mass urbi et orbi that is not used urbi et orbi.

Let’s look at it another way. The Holy Father is the Bishop of Rome. However, in his own diocese the EF is to be celebrated as the extraordinary form and the so called novus ordo as the ordinary form. When he goes to his cathedral, St. John Lateran, he celebrates the mass in the OF, sometimes in Italian and sometimes in Latin, but always the OF. The norm in the Archdiocese of Rome is that the mass of the Archdiocese is the Ordinary Form in Italian.

That would make it even more inconsistent if he celebrated or promoted the Extraordinary Form when in his own diocese it is not promoted as the mass for everyone, but only for those who want to celebrate it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Pope can go to ANY CATHOLIC CHURCH and say a EF Mass. No Bishop or Cardnial or Priest can refuse. The Pope is the head of the Holy Catholic Church! Whomever would oppose him would be disobedient! If the Holy See said that Latin must return to the schools, the Semanaries, and the Liturgy would there be an oposition? The whole problem is that Cardinals, Bishops and Priests do not listen to Rome or the Holy See unless it relates to their comfort zone. The Pope should say the Mass in EF in public to start the ball rolling and replace progressive Bishops who oppose.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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?

i think that all of us have an obligation to safeguard the Holy Mass. bishops, priests, cardinals, and laity. we all are obligated to be faithfull to our Lord and give the King the best. this means that we must seek what is true, what is beautiful in the eyes of God.

we must help the bishops and priests in the recovery of the beautifull that once was but got trumped by the unfaithfull. we know that the CC has many enemies within and without, the within enemies are the most dangerous. so we must be always on guard to make sure we dont follow that which is wrong. the mentality of today is whatever, whatever is easier goes.

God bless.

 

[celticsfan1983]

i think that all of us have an obligation to safeguard the Holy Mass. bishops, priests, cardinals, and laity. we all are obligated to be faithfull to our Lord and give the King the best. this means that we must seek what is true, what is beautiful in the eyes of God.

we must help the bishops and priests in the recovery of the beautifull that once was but got trumped by the unfaithfull. we know that the CC has many enemies within and without, the within enemies are the most dangerous. so we must be always on guard to make sure we dont follow that which is wrong. the mentality of today is whatever, whatever is easier goes.

God bless.

The first paragraph I’m on board with. But please clarify, it looks like you are saying the unfaithful who trumped the once beautiful are Catholics like myself that prefer Mass in a language other than Latin. And how can a valid, licit Mass where Jesus is present be wrong?

 

[FAB]

The Pope can go to ANY CATHOLIC CHURCH and say a EF Mass. No Bishop or Cardnial or Priest can refuse. The Pope is the head of the Holy Catholic Church! Whomever would oppose him would be disobedient! If the Holy See said that Latin must return to the schools, the Semanaries, and the Liturgy would there be an oposition? The whole problem is that Cardinals, Bishops and Priests do not listen to Rome or the Holy See unless it relates to their comfort zone. The Pope should say the Mass in EF in public to start the ball rolling and replace progressive Bishops who oppose.

Too many people think that the Pope has some kind of dictorial power to order the church to do waht ever he wishes. Since he does not mke decisions in a vacuum this is far from the truth.
From his prevoius role before becoming the Holy Father with JPII, I would suspect he had a hand in approving many of the bishops, why know would he replace them?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Pope can go to ANY CATHOLIC CHURCH and say a EF Mass. No Bishop or Cardnial or Priest can refuse. The Pope is the head of the Holy Catholic Church! Whomever would oppose him would be disobedient! If the Holy See said that Latin must return to the schools, the Semanaries, and the Liturgy would there be an oposition? The whole problem is that Cardinals, Bishops and Priests do not listen to Rome or the Holy See unless it relates to their comfort zone. The Pope should say the Mass in EF in public to start the ball rolling and replace progressive Bishops who oppose.

First, no one said that the pope can not say the EF publicly nor has anyone said that he needs permission from anyone.

You are incorrect though, he can not go into any Catholic Church and say the EF Mass. He can go into any Latin Catholic Church and say the EF Mass if he so chooses. He can not go into any Eastern Catholic Church and say the EF Mass as the EF Mass is not part of those Church’s rites.

The pope chooses not to say the EF Mass publicly at this time and I do not believe it is our place to criticize him on his choice, the OF Mass is the Ordinary Form and that is what he should be celebrating most of the time. I would not be against the pope celebrating the EF publicly but it is his choice as it is the choice of any priest within the Latin Catholic Church (except for the exception Br JR has laid out for religious priests).

 

[CWBetts]

I will weigh in by Monday evening. I have in the past said that I prefer the vernacular, but I had nothing to compare it to. Saturday morning I will be attending my first EF Mass. I am looking foreward to it, and I will be honest, part of it is aesthetical: I think Latin is a beautiful language (Be honest who doesn’t prefer Adeste Fidelis to Oh Come All Ye Faithful?) I doubt if I will ever become a “Latin Mass Only” guy because I don’t feel we have the right, as Catholic Faithful, to second-guess the Holy See. The only way I would become “Latin Mass Only” is if the Vatican required it. But I will tell you about which I prefer come Monday.

 

[Malkin71]

First, no one said that the pope can not say the EF publicly nor has anyone said that he needs permission from anyone.

You are incorrect though, he can not go into any Catholic Church and say the EF Mass. He can go into any Latin Catholic Church and say the EF Mass if he so chooses. He can not go into any Eastern Catholic Church and say the EF Mass as the EF Mass is not part of those Church’s rites.

The pope chooses not to say the EF Mass publicly at this time and I do not believe it is our place to criticize him on his choice, the OF Mass is the Ordinary Form and that is what he should be celebrating most of the time. I would not be against the pope celebrating the EF publicly but it is his choice as it is the choice of any priest within the Latin Catholic Church (except for the exception Br JR has laid out for religious priests).

You are right. I ment The Latin Rite. In the Eastern Rite, “The Devine Liturgy” is a Beautiful Service that everyone should experience. I still believe that The Pope should start to celebrate the EF.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You are right. I ment The Latin Rite. In the Eastern Rite, “The Devine Liturgy” is a Beautiful Service that everyone should experience. I still believe that The Pope should start to celebrate the EF.

I have no problem with you holding this belief nor in you stating it.

I have a problem with those who insist that he do so or who crticize him for not doing so.

There is a fine line here that should not be crossed.

 

[Malkin71]

I have no problem with you holding this belief nor in you stating it.

I have a problem with those who insist that he do so or who crticize him for not doing so.

There is a fine line here that should not be crossed.

Here is something else. I am baptised Eastern Rite. I was Confirmed and Baptised when I was a baby. The Priest did not want to Baptize me because my Dad was not Latin Rite he was Eastern Rite. My Dad went to the change of Rite to the Latin Rite. I perfer “The Devine Liturgy” and “EF” over the “OF”.

Truthfully, The Catholic schools should teach the whole history of the Church from both Eastern Rite and Latin Rites. The beautiful history with the artwork, books, Archecture, etc… Then everyone will come to understand.

 

[otjm]

No thanks, I’ve plenty of traditional sources about that. So something can be condemned, and then not? Sounds strange to me.

That may be due to the sources you use to form you opinions. What you fail to understand is the difference between disciplinary issues and doctrinal ones. Disciplinary issues are all subject to the decisions of the next Pope, or one of 15 popes down the line for that matter. It may well have been, at the time a Pope spoke up about the specific issue, that it was neither the time nor the place for a decision to be made contrary to what the Pope specifically said. He may have condemned an issue in the most strong language; but that condemnation was time and place specific. Later, another Pope may decide differently.

The problem in part is that those of us who are older were taught, incorrectly, that if a Pope said something, that it was for all time binding - and we were either taught this directly or by implication. Many people have a hard time getting their heads around issues that to them seem to be absolutes; and it is even more difficult when those same people, who are horrified by something, go looking through history to find someone - a Pope of some time ago - who said that such and such was absolutley forbidden; they take that statement out of time and place context and imbue it with an immutability that it does not have in reality.

The Novus Ordo Mass does not have the right to even exist.

Please provide some authority other than your own opinion for this; since 4 Popes have now recognized its authority to exist.

 

[CFI]

According to the second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
I’m greatful that Pope Benedict has called for wider use of the Latin Mass, but I believe he desperately needs the support of Bishops and priests in this matter.

Ego affirmo ut potius vulgare sermo Missa celebranda esse.

 

[CWBetts]

Ego affirmo ut potius vulgare sermo Missa celebranda esse.

Now that’s just pompous.

 

[JReducation]

There is a problem on this thread. The title speaks of the Latin mass. Let’s clarify two issues.

1. Both the EF and the OF are the Latin mass. Pope Benedict has defined that and until another pope redefines it, it remains the law of the Church.
2. The use of the Latin language is a separate question.
3. The Ordinary Form is celebrated in Latin in many places, including by the Holy Father, most of the time.
4. The Extraordinary Form is celebrated in Latin, but it is a form of the Latin mass, not THE Latin Mass.

For those who want the Holy Father to celebrate the EF, that’s not the same as asking him to celebrate the mass in Latin. He already does that quite often.

There is no law that forbids the pope from celebrating the EF of the mass. He does not do so because of pastoral reasons. As Brother David has pointed out, he can only celebrate it in a Latin Rite church. The pope can also celebrate mass in one of the other rites, but no one seems to be calling for that. Why not?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[peary]

Vatican II seemed to think so. I don’t see why not.

 

[Phemie]

Vatican II seemed to think so. I don’t see why not.

It depends what you mean by that. It has the obligation to retain Latin as a language for the celebration of Mass and the sacraments & various liturgies but that’s not the same as an obligation to try to create demand for the use of the 1962 Missal.

The call for retaining Latin came AFTER the call to reform the Mass & simplify it in the very same document. You can’t take one article out of context and try to make it mean what it never meant in the original document. Latin was to be safeguarded within the reformed Mass and the reformed sacramental rites.

III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy
21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

After that item come 4 lists of norms to be followed. In those lists is included the article quoted in the OP. Unfortunately, the poster didn’t see fit to add the other parts of that article, namely:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.