Pope Benedict XVI signed papal act on 3/30 "freeing" the TLM [rumor]

[AlexV]

The 1960 Codex Rubricarum clearly envisages a future submission of the Church’s liturgy to the consideration of a Council (since John XXIII had called for one in 1959). The 1963 Vatican decree on the liturgy set the principles for that projected revision.

If you want to learn the story of what happened next, you cannot do better than read Annibale Bugnini’s own autobiography. He is quite honest about what happened next. It makes for sometimes chilling reading.

In 1974 Bugnini appealed for a specific Decree of Abrogation of the 1962 Missal. He failed in his appeal. That is a significant fact.

A year later he was dismissed from liturgical matters and sent to Rome. His last comment on the liturgy, in 1981 (a year before he died), was a criticism of the newly published Order for the Crowning of an Image of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

People who prefer the so-called Tridentine liturgy have a “rightful aspiration” (John Paul II, 1988). They need not defend their preference. They are allowed their rightful aspiration.

Today, in many quarters of the Church, nobody is persecuting those who attend non-Tridentine Masses. Not so Tridentinists. And, let us remember, the average Catholic who attends Mass will attend whatever his parish offers. Those who claim the Tridentine Mass would have few adherents if it were offered widely have to explain how they know that about something that is ruthlessly banned in plenty of areas. In France, about half of those who still bother to attend Mass attend the Tridentine Mass.

Only once in the Church’s history has anyone tried to create a new liturgy (as Benedict XVI himself wrote) and impose it from above with the abolition of the former, 1500+ year old liturgy. That was in 1969.

If there is a universal indult, it will be a reflection of justice and charity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

JKirkLVNV:

You’re asking the same question *I *asked, Byz! What if 5 people in Oatmeal, Tx, want the Pian Mass, out of a population of 100 Catholics? Does that 5% mean that provision has to be made for them? The bishop has to provide a priest that CAN say it or who WANTS to say it?

But then, as to the dragging of feet, there are much larger diocsese like San Diego for instance or Orange, where the TLM is relegated to cemetary chapels or, as is the case in Orange, the Serra Chapel of San Juan Capistrano Mission. Some bishops have been dragging their feet or the old Holy Father would not have reiterated his plea for a wider application of the indult.

Also (and this is my personal bitterness coming through), if our bishops AND our priests had shown greater concern for reverent offerings of the Pauline Mass, without constantly allowing it to be made into a showcase for their own egos, I really believe we wouldn’t have people yearning after the old Mass. You know, as a Byzantine, lots of folks from the Roman Rite jumped over to YOUR rite because they wanted to attend a reverent offering of the Holy Sacrifice (and in my parish, the Pauline Mass IS reverent). Does anyone imagine that they would have found that necessary if they’d been getting what the Church says they have a right to have, ie, a properly celebrated Mass?

No, it’s the hierarchy’s fault, esp. in the west. I don’t normally dump on the bishops, either, but Cardinal Mahoney is STILL consecrating the Most Precious Blood in flagons and THEN fractioning It (for example).

JKirk,
Yes, we do have some “refugees” but this is troubling. First as in some cases they wish to re-latinize us. And second is that some of these “refugees” are in dioceases that seem to be pretty orthodox in nature.

So what you say has a ring of truth to it but I am not absolutly positive that it is correct.

I also refuse to place any blame where the Holy Father did not place any blame himself. While he may have reiterated his plea for a wider application of the indult he did not come out and reprimand any bishops as the Holy Father really has no contact in the minutia of running the dioceses.

As for the Cardinal you named, I will not comment as it really has nothing to do with this topic other than to show that in some dioceses the abuse of the liturgy is deeply set. My guess is that if a wider application was done in those dioceses that one would find that these abuses would appear in the old Mass very quickly.

 

[whosebob]

ByzCath:

How do you know this? Some of those calling for a “universal” indult say that it will allow a priest to chose with no say from the bishop at all.

JMJ + OBT​

I claim no special “insider knowledge” on this issue, but after following the situation with regard to the TLM, indults for it, and other aspects of the matter for a number of years, here’s how I think Pope Benedict XVI’s new “rules” will work:

---

(1) If a Latin Rite priest wishes to (quasi)privately celebrate Low Mass according to the 1962 Missal, then he will need no special permission, the only caveat being that he must have been properly instructed in celebration of that rite and must have the proper vestments and other “equipment” (the altar missal itself, chalice veil, etc.). Keep in mind that there is nothing that prevents a priest from allowing (inviting?) others to attend such a liturgy.

Some would argue that such (quai)private celebrations of the TLM are allowed even now without permission from the local ordinary. But as best I can tell, if the local ordinary does not grant permission (and the priest really should ask), then that priest should and can obtain a celebret directly from the Ecclesia Dei Commission (which will be granted despite the bishop’s lack of approval), and should not use the older rite until he has obtained an express “okay” from the EDC. B16’s decree would make a request to the local ordinary and/or the EDC totally unnecessary, notwithstanding the priest’s obligation to receive proper training.

Here is a real life scenario: St. Joseph Parish (Latin Rite) has priests A, B and C. For each weekday (i.e. not Sunday), there are two publicly scheduled Masses, both of which the local bishop requires (that is, in light of the new “rules”) to be celebrated according to the Pauline Rite. On Mondays, Frs. A and B celebrate those Masses, one each (not concelebrated). Fr. C chooses to celebrate a (quasi)private Mass in the chapel at the rectory on Mondays. By decree of B16, he would be free to do so according to either the Pauline Rite or the 1962 Missal, without asking permission of his bishop with regard to the latter missal, and without otherwise receiving permission from the ECD.

(2) If a Latin Rite priest at a Latin Rite parish wishes – in light of parishioners’ requests and/or his own desires – to publicly celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal, then according to B16’s decree, he will need to ask permission from his bishop to do so, given that the Pauline Rite is the normative rite for Latin Rite parishes. If the bishop denies the request, then it’s “tough cookies,” though that need not stop the priest and parishioners from politely and repeatedly submitting this request to their bishop. As before, the priest and other ministers must have been properly trained to celebrate the TLM.

Real life scenario: Fr. D at St. Martin Latin Rite parish has received requests to have the 7:00am Mass on Wednesdays and the 8:00am mass on Sundays celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. He is properly trained or is planning to become properly trained for such celebrations. He writes his bishop a nice letter, and receives a “yes” or a “no” reply. Perhaps in his letter he indicates how rapidly the number of parishioners attending Fr. C’s (quasi)private TLM on Mondays has grown to such an extent that there is standing room only in the small rectory chapel at St. Joseph Parish (on the other side of town from St. Martin Parish). Such indications might, in fact, directly affect the bishop’s decision.

---

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[mike182d]

Tired:

Such a move would be extremely devisive and it would in no way be consistent with the other liturgical traditions you mention. Ain’t gonna happen anyways.

And forbidding Catholics from celebrating a Mass that was the culmination of more than a thousand years of tradition *isn’t *devisive? This is hypocricy at its finest.

 

[AlexV]

The main tactic since the postconciliar period of those who can’t stand the Tridentine Mass has been to argue that if you don’t abandon the Tridentine and embrace what was invented in 1965-1969, you are somehow disobedient, divisive…

The papal master of ceremonies recently made the ridiculously laughable remark that unless you are old, any sort of preference for the Tridentine Mass puts you “outside the Church” (whatever that means). This despite the PCED’s careful note that there is no age limit whatsoever for preferring the Tridentine. You didn’t have to be alive in 1962.

What are these clowns afraid of? Why do they get so bent out of shape when they hear about Tridentine liturgy? Do they loathe their past of 1500 years so much? Recently Cardinal Mahony said the Latin liturgy (he doesn’t even think the new liturgy is ever in Latin I guess) was a “small slice” of our history. Yeah, Roger, only 1500 years out of 2000.

Most opponents of the Tridentine liturgy are quite happy allowing anything BUT the 1962 Missal. That’s the only thing they feel ought to be banned in liturgy today.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Even if the pope decides to step on the feet of all the Western bishops of the world by granting a “universal” indult, this does not mean that there will any visible change to the laity.

Perhaps you would be surprised. All I know is that our TLM community did not just simply “appear” with Bishop Foyes. When the opportunity is given, the people will come.

 

[Dominica33]

JMJ + OBT​

I claim no special “insider knowledge” on this issue, but after following the situation with regard to the TLM, indults for it, and other aspects of the matter for a number of years, here’s how I think Pope Benedict XVI’s new “rules” will work:

---

(1) If a Latin Rite priest wishes to (quasi)privately celebrate Low Mass according to the 1962 Missal, then he will need no special permission, the only caveat being that he must have been properly instructed in celebration of that rite and must have the proper vestments and other “equipment” (the altar missal itself, chalice veil, etc.). Keep in mind that there is nothing that prevents a priest from allowing (inviting?) others to attend such a liturgy.

Some would argue that such (quai)private celebrations of the TLM are allowed even now without permission from the local ordinary. But as best I can tell, if the local ordinary does not grant permission (and the priest really should ask), then that priest should and can obtain a celebret directly from the Ecclesia Dei Commission (which will be granted despite the bishop’s lack of approval), and should not use the older rite until he has obtained an express “okay” from the EDC. B16’s decree would make a request to the local ordinary and/or the EDC totally unnecessary, notwithstanding the priest’s obligation to receive proper training.

Here is a real life scenario: St. Joseph Parish (Latin Rite) has priests A, B and C. For each weekday (i.e. not Sunday), there are two publicly scheduled Masses, both of which the local bishop requires (that is, in light of the new “rules”) to be celebrated according to the Pauline Rite. On Mondays, Frs. A and B celebrate those Masses, one each (not concelebrated). Fr. C chooses to celebrate a (quasi)private Mass in the chapel at the rectory on Mondays. By decree of B16, he would be free to do so according to either the Pauline Rite or the 1962 Missal, without asking permission of his bishop with regard to the latter missal, and without otherwise receiving permission from the ECD.

(2) If a Latin Rite priest at a Latin Rite parish wishes – in light of parishioners’ requests and/or his own desires – to publicly celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal, then according to B16’s decree, he will need to ask permission from his bishop to do so, given that the Pauline Rite is the normative rite for Latin Rite parishes. If the bishop denies the request, then it’s “tough cookies,” though that need not stop the priest and parishioners from politely and repeatedly submitting this request to their bishop. As before, the priest and other ministers must have been properly trained to celebrate the TLM.

Real life scenario: Fr. D at St. Martin Latin Rite parish has received requests to have the 7:00am Mass on Wednesdays and the 8:00am mass on Sundays celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. He is properly trained or is planning to become properly trained for such celebrations. He writes his bishop a nice letter, and receives a “yes” or a “no” reply. Perhaps in his letter he indicates how rapidly the number of parishioners attending Fr. C’s (quasi)private TLM on Mondays has grown to such an extent that there is standing room only in the small rectory chapel at St. Joseph Parish (on the other side of town from St. Martin Parish). Such indications might, in fact, directly affect the bishop’s decision.

---

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that a priest cannot currently offer the Classical Roman Rite privately without permission from his Bishop.

If (1) above is the new development, I don’t think the reliable sources would consider this “truly a document of great importance on the liturgy of the Latin Church…”

See, for example: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

I noticed that this blog owner is now deleting posts that say “we’ll believe it when we see it,” for he is 100% certain that the document is forthcoming.

Oremus.

 

[NeelyAnn]

ByzCath:

What is the minimum number required to run a Church? Must a parish (or bishop) subsidize the old Mass for the handful in a diocese/city that want to attend one? Why are they so special to recieve this treatment when parishes are being closed for lack of funds and priests to man them?

If the pope does this then I can see the vocations “crisis” getting worse.

Have you ever attended a Tridentine Mass? This senario simply does not fit. I attend the Tridentine Mass at a Diocesian Indult every Sunday. The Church I attend has 4 Sunday Masses. The earliest Mass, Pauline Mass, barely attracts any parishioners. The 2nd Mass, also the Pauline Mass does a little better. The 3rd, again the Pauline Mass, is packed. The 4th Mass is the Tridentine. It is also packed every Sunday with 300-400 people and sometimes more. In addition, the number of elderly is relatively slim. It has mostly young families with lots of children. A lot of teenagers also attend. Also available in my Diocese is an SSPX Chapel, and 3 independent Chapels with Mass every Sunday. I have friends at the SSPX, they average between 200-250 each Sunday, and have been seeing steady growth since opening their chapel. Again, they have mostly young families with lots of children. The old fogeys make up a relatively low number of the attendees. At least one of the independents maintains about as many as the SSPX and is also seeing steady growth. The other 2 seem to manage about 100-150 each Chapel, each Sunday. I think these are rather good numbers considering. I don’t even live in a large city like L.A., Phoenix, Houston, Dalls, Miami, Chicago, etc. I live in a medium size city.

Another, thing I will mention is that we have no problem finding people to say our Indult. Initially the Bishop only allowed old retired Priests to say our Mass. However, he was receiving such a large request from so many others that he recently started allowing them to say it too. We now have middle aged Priests and a recently ordained Priest who take turns. They all say the Mass extremely reverent. They read books about the Mass and watched videos of the Mass before beginning to say it. None of them had any problems learning the Mass, and none of them had any problems with the Latin. There certainly does not seem to be a lack of people who wish to say the Tridentine Mass.

A lot of these people are also daily Mass attendees. Because of this, my Diocese also decided to allow the Tridentine during the week. The SSPX and at least one of the independents also offers daily Mass.

My family and I travel quite a bit. Whenever traveling, we always make sure to attend Mass on Sunday. We always look for a Tridentine to attend. We have found that the same scenario that occurs in our Diocese is occuring in most Dioceses. We have often times attended services with standing room only.

Vocations also do not seem to be an issue. The FSSP, and the SSPX, both have been doing very well when it comes to vocations. There have been several vocations from my Church within the last couple of years from those that attend the Tridentine Mass. That is pretty good for one Mass at one Parish, especially considering the scandals of the past couple of years.
The Institute of Christ the King has also said that their numbers are steadily increasing. None of these groups seem to be experiencing a vocation crisis.

I am a convert to the Catholic Church, I never had Latin, never spoke a foreign language and have never had a problem following the Mass, or learning the Latin. My young daughter understands the Mass very well and had picked up on a lot of the Latin on her own without me teaching it to her.

All these things I speak from my own personal experience.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

NeelyAnn:

Have you ever attended a Tridentine Mass? This senario simply does not fit.

Yes I have and yes it does.

I know you said that all of this is your personal experience but you seem to discount mine.

Another, thing I will mention is that we have no problem finding people to say our Indult.

While is might be true you seem to not understand that a priest is limited to celebrating 2 Masses on days of Obligation with a possible third under special circumstances with the bishops approval. So if every priest wishes to celebrate the old Mass then that limits the number of the current Masses that can be celebrated.

Vocations also do not seem to be an issue. The FSSP, and the SSPX, both have been doing very well when it comes to vocations.

The Institute of Christ the King has also said that their numbers are steadily increasing. None of these groups seem to be experiencing a vocation crisis.

That is because the “crisis” is not real. It is artificial in my opinion. What I meant by it getting worse is that bishops will scrutinize their candidates and prospective candidates all the more and reject some men and maybe not even ordain others who seem to have an attachment to the old Mass, that is if the bishop does not have a need for it in his diocese.

I am a convert to the Catholic Church, I never had Latin, never spoke a foreign language and have never had a problem following the Mass, or learning the Latin.

Well good for you and others like you but this has nothing to do with my points. I am not against Latin at all.

Here in the house during Lent we have added much Latin to not only the Mass but to our Liturgy of the Hours.

 

[otm]

mike182d:

Furthermore, I find it appalling that a pre-existing form of worship within the Roman Catholic Church was *ever *forbidden. {/QUOTE]Well, that is exactly what the Council of Trent did; it surpressed any liturgy that had not been in existence for at least 200 years. There remained several liturgies that survived that change, although most people are not aware of them.

 

[otm]

JKirkLVNV:

And that’s what has me wondering if he isn’t going to do a personal prelature. If most (western) bishops oppose this, surely the Holy Father isn’t going to set up a situation where bishops and the priests in communion with them, serving under them, are arguing over what Mass will be said at St. Phillipa’s at 9:30 on Sunday AM. He may well do it, though (and I have to say, even as one who loves the Pauline Mass, the bishops will, by and large, have only themselves to blame for dragging their feet on the Indult. If they’d bent the knee and neck, there wouldn’t have been such an uproar).

It would, however, seem to fly in the face of the Vatican 2 document concerning the collegiality of the bishops…

 

[ThomasMore1535]

As someone who frequents both the Tridentine Rite and very, very reverent Novous Ordo masses on a regular basis, I am all for the growth of the Tridentine Liturgy. I think that a universal indult could be a good thing, but I leave that to Pope Benedict XVI to decide.

What really, really irks me, though, is how so many of those whom I have encountered in going to Trindentine Masses seem to think that they’re so much holier than those who go to the Novous Ordo mass. So many seem to think that if you actually prefer the Novous Ordo mass, then you must be a modernist or something like that. It is a very subtly “holier-than-thou” attitude. “Oh, there’s no problem with the worshipers at Tridentine parishes. Everything’s very, very reverent. Unlike you silly Novous Ordo people who don’t even believe in the Real Presence anymore.” My apologies if I am oversimplifying matters, but this has been my experience. Now, granted, there is plenty of dissent out there, and plenty of liturgical abuse, but the idea that the Novous Ordo mass itself is responsible for all the problems we’re in right now is just plain ridiculous.

I’m heavily involved in Opus Dei. They do the Novous Ordo Mass, and most of its members attend that mass (though it’s up to each individual to decide). They are among the most faithful, loyal, orthodox Catholics in the Church today. They accept Vatican II in all of its glory, and are firmly in line with every aspect of the Church’s teachings.

Many–not all, certainly–people who I talk with who attend the old mass seem to have an inherrnet suspician of the Council. They lay all the blame for the problems being faced in the Church today on the Council. And yet they don’t even seem to be familiar with the documents. Or, if they are familiar with the documents, they are less-than-honest with what they say.

Finally, it really infuriates me how so many of them seem to be under the delusion that SSPX is not really excommunicated, or that their excommunication was unjust, and that Lefebvre is some kind of a hero. NOTHING can justify disobeying the Supreme Pontiff, nothing. Disobey him, and you disobey Christ. True, SSPX may have reverent masses, and they may all believe in the Real Presence, but this does not make them devout Catholics. I judge nobody’s soul, but they are schismatic, and are not to be looked upon as examples of holiness. Certainly I desire their reconciliation with the Church, and pray that it comes about.

But ultimately, despite their many pious liturgical practices, they are no better than Protestants. They interpret tradition according to their own personal preferences, rather than humbly submitting to the judgments of the Vicar of Christ. These are not the actions of saints. No matter how beautiful their masses may be, they are severed off from the Body of Christ. I pray for their reunion, but they are not heros.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

I also want to make it quite clear in light of my above post that I am overjoyed at how FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King are doing well with vocations to the priesthood. The Tridentine Mass should remain a vibrant part of the Church’s liturgical tradition until Our Lord returns in glory. Certainly many parishes that are in union with Rome who do the Tridentine Mass have more devout congregations than many Novous Ordo parishes. But my point is that many people I talk to at such parishes, though not all, seem to be suspicious of the Council, and sympathize with the actions of Lefebvre.

I love the Tridentine Mass. I love ad orientem, Psalm 42 at the beginning, the Roman Canon, the offeratory prayers, and the Last Gospel. I love the subdeacons, the archpriest at pointifical high masses, the fiddleback chasubles, and many other characteristics of that liturgy. It brings me closer to God. But I think that a lot of people who attend it have too much suspicion of the Council, and anyone who might prefer the Novous Ordo mass.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

AlexV:

The main tactic since the postconciliar period of those who can’t stand the Tridentine Mass has been to argue that if you don’t abandon the Tridentine and embrace what was invented in 1965-1969, you are somehow disobedient, divisive…

The papal master of ceremonies recently made the ridiculously laughable remark that unless you are old, any sort of preference for the Tridentine Mass puts you “outside the Church” (whatever that means). This despite the PCED’s careful note that there is no age limit whatsoever for preferring the Tridentine. You didn’t have to be alive in 1962.

What are these clowns afraid of? Why do they get so bent out of shape when they hear about Tridentine liturgy? Do they loathe their past of 1500 years so much? Recently Cardinal Mahony said the Latin liturgy (he doesn’t even think the new liturgy is ever in Latin I guess) was a “small slice” of our history. Yeah, Roger, only 1500 years out of 2000.

Most opponents of the Tridentine liturgy are quite happy allowing anything BUT the 1962 Missal. That’s the only thing they feel ought to be banned in liturgy today.

Cardinal Mahoney’s comments about the Latin liturgy being only a “small slice” of our history were absolutely disgraceful. I am ashamed that a Cardinal of the Church could actually make such a fundamental mistake. He apparantly doesn’t even realize that Sacrosanctum Concillium specifically state that Latin is to be retained as the normal language of the mass.

There’s nothing wrong whatsoever with personally preferring the Tridentine Liturgy. I can certainly see why many people do. Since the Church is “Catholic”–that is, universal–it should have no problem with permitting a variety of liturgical rites for the faithful to attend. Indeed, before Vatican II the Dominicans had their own rite, the Carthusians had their own rite, and the Archdiocese of Milan had its own rite. This is not “divisive.” It is “diversity” in the true sense of the word–expressing the same action–the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass—in different, equally reverent, ways. One would think that the dissenters in the Church, who seem to care so much about “diversity” and “tolerance” in this day and age, would be only too happy to respect the wishes of those who wish to attend the Tridentine Liturgy. But we know that isn’t the case.

 

[Confiteor]

Judge for yourself its authenticity, but the news has hit the press in Il Tempo, in Italian:
iltempo.it/approfondimenti/index.aspx?id=906034&Sectionid=4&Editionid=5

For English excerpts, rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/:

Yes to the Mass “with the back to the people”

by PAOLO LUIGI RODARI

[THE GESTURE]

IN the next few days, maybe on Holy Thursday (the news is not still certain), Benedict XVI could decide to fulfill an official gesture in which he would concede the possibility, to whoever whishes to do so, to celebrate Holy Mass according to the ancient rite, that of Saint Pius V, and could do so declaring that that rite (which was the one in force before the Second Vatican Council) is still in effect today simply because it has never been abolished.

[WHAT COULD HAPPEN]

The Pope’s gesture, which could determine an important development even towards the schismatic Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, founded by bishop Marcel Lefebvre. With this kind of indult, in fact, all Traditionalists of the Holy Roman Church could return to celebrate Mass with the ancient rite without asking for the permission of a diocesan bishop and, in the meantime, the Lefebvrists, in view of the openness to Tradition made by Rome, could arrive at a declaration of acceptance, without conditions, of the accomplishments made by the Church during and after the Second Vatican Council and, in this way, receive the revocation of the excommunication by the pope, they themselves also returning [and] celebrating freely the Mass with the old rite.

 

[thistle]

Considering that Latin is not even required to be learned by priests, how will giving the right (not requirement) to celebrate the TLM really make any difference? The vast majority globally, as is currently the case, will continue to celebrate the NO.

 

[NeelyAnn]

ThomasMore1535:

What really, really irks me, though, is how so many of those whom I have encountered in going to Trindentine Masses seem to think that they’re so much holier than those who go to the Novous Ordo mass. So many seem to think that if you actually prefer the Novous Ordo mass, then you must be a modernist or something like that. It is a very subtly “holier-than-thou” attitude. “Oh, there’s no problem with the worshipers at Tridentine parishes. Everything’s very, very reverent. Unlike you silly Novous Ordo people who don’t even believe in the Real Presence anymore.” My apologies if I am oversimplifying matters, but this has been my experience. Now, granted, there is plenty of dissent out there, and plenty of liturgical abuse, but the idea that the Novous Ordo mass itself is responsible for all the problems we’re in right now is just plain ridiculous.

Many–not all, certainly–people who I talk with who attend the old mass seem to have an inherrnet suspician of the Council. They lay all the blame for the problems being faced in the Church today on the Council. And yet they don’t even seem to be familiar with the documents. Or, if they are familiar with the documents, they are less-than-honest with what they say.

In all fairness, it can be said that many who attend the Novous Ordo are suspiscious of those who do not, and falsely believe that it is a personal judgement against themselves. I have many NO friends who are very reverent and they do not attend the Latin Mass. They do, however, believe it would be better to attend the Latin Mass but to do so would require a little extra effort at this time and they are either not willing, or unable, to make the longer drive and to attend Mass at a later time. No one I know would ever suggest that they are some how less Catholic. Everyone has to decide for themselves and their families what is best and what works for them. Personally, we could no longer stomach the abuses and irreverence weI witnessed, and I am way to young to have high blood pressure over it, so we made the decision which is best for our family. We figured it was good for the Saints, it had to be good for us.

Regarding your comments on the True Presence, it is true that there are some that generalize about the NO, just as you made generalizations about the Latin Mass. However, this is not the norm. Where they get the info regarding the lack of belief in the True Presence, though, comes from a Gallup Poll, and articles referring to the poll.

See: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=251
And: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1340
Another: catholiclubbock.org/eucharist.htm

As for discussing the abuses of the NO, or the failings of VII (whether that be the fault of interpretation, or the document), Pope Benedict XVI agrees that there are issues there to be discussed. His comments on the subject are easily found. So are the his comments from the time that he was a Cardinal.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos also seems to indicate that a critical assesment done in charity, etc. is okay:
I believe that critical contributions of that sort that can come from the Fraternity can be a treasure for the Church, when expressed under the charisma of Peter and in charity among brethren. In the Church in fact we are all free to formulate critical observations on what doesn’t concern dogma and the essential discipline of the Church itself. On that subject I can testify that Cardinal Ratzinger was already fully convinced of the need for theological dialogue on the difficult points. In full unity there is more light to be found for studying these sensitive points. (30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360)

Taken from Canon Law: [The faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors [bishops] their views on matters that concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the pastors, and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals. (Canon Law 212)

A good article on this topic can be found here: seattlecatholic.com/article_20040406.html

 

[SummaTheo]

AlexV:

The 1960 Codex Rubricarum clearly envisages a future submission of the Church’s liturgy to the consideration of a Council (since John XXIII had called for one in 1959). The 1963 Vatican decree on the liturgy set the principles for that projected revision.

If you want to learn the story of what happened next, you cannot do better than read Annibale Bugnini’s own autobiography. He is quite honest about what happened next. It makes for sometimes chilling reading.

In 1974 Bugnini appealed for a specific Decree of Abrogation of the 1962 Missal. He failed in his appeal. That is a significant fact.

A year later he was dismissed from liturgical matters and sent to Rome. His last comment on the liturgy, in 1981 (a year before he died), was a criticism of the newly published Order for the Crowning of an Image of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

People who prefer the so-called Tridentine liturgy have a “rightful aspiration” (John Paul II, 1988). They need not defend their preference. They are allowed their rightful aspiration.

Today, in many quarters of the Church, nobody is persecuting those who attend non-Tridentine Masses. Not so Tridentinists. And, let us remember, the average Catholic who attends Mass will attend whatever his parish offers. Those who claim the Tridentine Mass would have few adherents if it were offered widely have to explain how they know that about something that is ruthlessly banned in plenty of areas. In France, about half of those who still bother to attend Mass attend the Tridentine Mass.

Only once in the Church’s history has anyone tried to create a new liturgy (as Benedict XVI himself wrote) and impose it from above with the abolition of the former, 1500+ year old liturgy. That was in 1969.

If there is a universal indult, it will be a reflection of justice and charity.

Alex
GREAT POST!

 

[NeelyAnn]

ThomasMore1535:

Finally, it really infuriates me how so many of them seem to be under the delusion that SSPX is not really excommunicated, or that their excommunication was unjust, and that Lefebvre is some kind of a hero. NOTHING can justify disobeying the Supreme Pontiff, nothing. Disobey him, and you disobey Christ. True, SSPX may have reverent masses, and they may all believe in the Real Presence, but this does not make them devout Catholics. I judge nobody’s soul, but they are schismatic, and are not to be looked upon as examples of holiness. Certainly I desire their reconciliation with the Church, and pray that it comes about.

But ultimately, despite their many pious liturgical practices, they are no better than Protestants. They interpret tradition according to their own personal preferences, rather than humbly submitting to the judgments of the Vicar of Christ. These are not the actions of saints. No matter how beautiful their masses may be, they are severed off from the Body of Christ. I pray for their reunion, but they are not heros.

The reason so many have sympathies for the SSPX is because it is not that cut and dry. There are canon lawyers that fall on both sides of this issue and others who have made statements that leave this open as well.

Msgr Perl, most recent letter of September 5, 2005:
‘On the argument presented (that you regularly attend Sunday Mass at a chapel of the Fraternity Saint Pius X) one cannot say but this: the faithful who attend the Masses of the aforesaid Fraternity are not excommunicates, and the priests who celebrate them are not, either – the latter are, in fact, suspended. Which is why it would be difficult to explain this exclusion by this sole motive, at a time in which the reintegration of this Fraternity to the full communion of the Church is sought.’
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/03/ecclesia-dei-sspx-priests-and-faithful.html

And again there are the recent comments of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos which can be found here: 30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360

There are also many instances in Church history that can go other way on this issue - of course the one most heard of is St. Athanasius.

I do not wish to high jack this thread, so I’ll stop here. I will not convince you otherwise anyway, and you will not convince me. It is history that will determine the legacy of the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebre, the NO and all the other issues that NO’s and Traditionalists (neither meant to be derogatory) argue over; just as it was history that determined the legacy of past Popes and Saints. None of us on either side can determine this because we are too deeply invovled and each sees their side through colored lenses and can not be unbiased, each being deeply convinced that their side is correct.

As for the Protestant thing, one of the NO Churches closest to me, occassionaly combines services with the local Lutheran church. In the summer they combine VBS for the children - sometimes with the local Lutheran, sometimes Baptist, and sometimes nondenominational. VBS is not even held on the grounds of this Catholic Church it is held at these other non Catholic churches. Appearantly they do not see any problems with Protestants, so why the SSPX?

I also recall a couple years back, hearing something about making Martin Luther a Saint. If Martin Luther, why not Archbishop Lefebre?

 

[BillyT92679]

ThomasMore1535:

As someone who frequents both the Tridentine Rite and very, very reverent Novous Ordo masses on a regular basis, I am all for the growth of the Tridentine Liturgy. I think that a universal indult could be a good thing, but I leave that to Pope Benedict XVI to decide.

What really, really irks me, though, is how so many of those whom I have encountered in going to Trindentine Masses seem to think that they’re so much holier than those who go to the Novous Ordo mass. So many seem to think that if you actually prefer the Novous Ordo mass, then you must be a modernist or something like that. It is a very subtly “holier-than-thou” attitude. “Oh, there’s no problem with the worshipers at Tridentine parishes. Everything’s very, very reverent. Unlike you silly Novous Ordo people who don’t even believe in the Real Presence anymore.” My apologies if I am oversimplifying matters, but this has been my experience. Now, granted, there is plenty of dissent out there, and plenty of liturgical abuse, but the idea that the Novous Ordo mass itself is responsible for all the problems we’re in right now is just plain ridiculous.

I’m heavily involved in Opus Dei. They do the Novous Ordo Mass, and most of its members attend that mass (though it’s up to each individual to decide). They are among the most faithful, loyal, orthodox Catholics in the Church today. They accept Vatican II in all of its glory, and are firmly in line with every aspect of the Church’s teachings.

Many–not all, certainly–people who I talk with who attend the old mass seem to have an inherrnet suspician of the Council. They lay all the blame for the problems being faced in the Church today on the Council. And yet they don’t even seem to be familiar with the documents. Or, if they are familiar with the documents, they are less-than-honest with what they say.

Finally, it really infuriates me how so many of them seem to be under the delusion that SSPX is not really excommunicated, or that their excommunication was unjust, and that Lefebvre is some kind of a hero. NOTHING can justify disobeying the Supreme Pontiff, nothing. Disobey him, and you disobey Christ. True, SSPX may have reverent masses, and they may all believe in the Real Presence, but this does not make them devout Catholics. I judge nobody’s soul, but they are schismatic, and are not to be looked upon as examples of holiness. Certainly I desire their reconciliation with the Church, and pray that it comes about.

But ultimately, despite their many pious liturgical practices, they are no better than Protestants. They interpret tradition according to their own personal preferences, rather than humbly submitting to the judgments of the Vicar of Christ. These are not the actions of saints. No matter how beautiful their masses may be, they are severed off from the Body of Christ. I pray for their reunion, but they are not heros.

I think this is an excellent post.