The Latin Mass "Not many parishes – ALL parishes" - England and Wales

[LilyM]

Lily,
I can understand and respect your want for a clear source stating that a formal ban was placed upon lay participation. Like you, I have limited time and resources to find such. And at this present moment in time, I haven’t found such a clear-cut reference. But rest assured… I will.

But what I have found are references and cited, were articles 2 & 4 of Summorum Pontificum that clearly lift any impediment to lay participation. Like I asked more than once; if there never was a ban, then why, for the love of God, did Pope Benedict use the words he did? Was he just making it up as he went along? Was it just his imagenation running away with him? Or was there REALLY a ban on lay participation, de facto or otherwise?

Unless His Holiness is liturgically hallucanating, there was a ban and he fixed if postehaste in his Motu Proprio. And there simply is no getting around that, Lily.

As I’ve already stated, I think you’re focusing on the wrong emphasis in this article. Isn’t it more important that the Traditional Latin Mass is going to be more readily available (at least for the time being) in England and Wales for starters, than it is for us to dissect a chronological error by a reporter for The Telegraph, and for us to quibble over the definition of “private Mass”? Let’s not loose sight of what is really important here.

For the love of God… The TLM is truly and finally being freed! Let us rejoice in that! THANKS BE TO GOD!!

Wouldn’t you agree?

I’ve told you exactly why the Pope might need to say so even if there wasn’t an actual ban - more than once. He may need to say so to make things clear for people who WRONGLY thought that there was a ban when in reality there wasn’t.

Let me make an analogy here. Say you walk up to your front door and there’s some stranger standing there saying to you ‘you can’t come in’. Even though what he says is untrue, of course you still need to TELL him that ‘yes I can, it’s my house’.

To say so doesn’t mean you’re hallucinating, it also doesn’t mean that there ever was a genuine ban on you going into your own house, of course there wasnt. It just means that he wrongly thought there was and needed to be corrected.

Does any of this make sense to you at all? I hope so.

 

[Caveman]

I’ve told you exactly why the Pope might need to say so even if there wasn’t an actual ban - more than once. He may need to say so to make things clear for people who WRONGLY thought that there was a ban when in reality there wasn’t.

Let me make an analogy here. Say you walk up to your front door and there’s some stranger standing there saying to you ‘you can’t come in’. Even though what he says is untrue, of course you still need to TELL him that ‘yes I can, it’s my house’.

To say so doesn’t mean you’re hallucinating, it also doesn’t mean that there ever was a genuine ban on you going into your own house, of course there wasnt. It just means that he wrongly thought there was and needed to be corrected.

Does any of this make sense to you at all? I hope so.

That analogy would make sense only if the man/men blocking the door were Popes Paul VI and to a lesser extent. John Paul II. If I go by your line of thinking, those two pontifs were the ones who;

1. Ereted the impediments for the laity from participating in the TLM (in the case of Pope Paul VI).
2. Kept the status quo going from his predecessor (Pope John Paul II)
3. Lessened the restriction ever so slightly, but still filled with enough legalistic mumbo-jumbo to esentially, keep the laity out.

But as I’ve asked you a number of times, I’m perplexed as to why you would lasar forcus in on basically inconsiquential mistakes (such as the time line, and evern that’s debatable).

Don’t you have more than just a sentence or two concerning the liberalization of the usage of the TLM?

You’ve spent scant time on the filet mignon about to be given to you. Instead, you spend most of your time complaining about the bistro didn’t serve filet mignon for the past forty days… or was it eighteen… or was it that filet mignon was ALWAYS available… just never advertized?

The bottom line is, many, many , MANY customers had to do without filet mignon for various abount of time. Well, there’s a new Chef in town. May don’t like him. But Chef Bennie don’t rightly give a hoot in hell. He;s gonna make sure that EVERYONE get’s the best cut of beef. No matter how loudly the Spam Mafia kicks or howls or screams.

And that’s all that really matters

 

[SacredHeartFan]

From The Telegraph (of London). Here’s the first few paragraphs; (Emphasis mine)

Latin Mass to return to England and Wales

…all seminaries will be required to teach trainee priests how to say the old Mass so that they can celebrate it in all parishes. Catholic congregations throughout the world will receive special instruction on how to appreciate the old services, formerly known as the Tridentine Rite.

Yesterday’s announcement by the senior Vatican cardinal in charge of Latin liturgy, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, speaking on behalf of Pope Benedict XVI, will horrify Catholic liberals, including many bishops of England and Wales.

Asked whether the Latin Mass would be celebrated in many ordinary parishes in future, Cardinal Castrillon said:*** “Not many parishes – all parishes.*** The Holy Father is offering this not only for the few groups who demand it, but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist.”

At least both sides will have their way! But you know, their is one rite with two ways of celebrating.

 

[LilyM]

That analogy would make sense only if the man/men blocking the door were Popes Paul VI and to a lesser extent. John Paul II. If I go by your line of thinking, those two pontifs were the ones who;

1. Ereted the impediments for the laity from participating in the TLM (in the case of Pope Paul VI).
2. Kept the status quo going from his predecessor (Pope John Paul II)
3. Lessened the restriction ever so slightly, but still filled with enough legalistic mumbo-jumbo to esentially, keep the laity out.

But as I’ve asked you a number of times, I’m perplexed as to why you would lasar forcus in on basically inconsiquential mistakes (such as the time line, and evern that’s debatable).

Don’t you have more than just a sentence or two concerning the liberalization of the usage of the TLM?

You’ve spent scant time on the filet mignon about to be given to you. Instead, you spend most of your time complaining about the bistro didn’t serve filet mignon for the past forty days… or was it eighteen… or was it that filet mignon was ALWAYS available… just never advertized?

The bottom line is, many, many , MANY customers had to do without filet mignon for various abount of time. Well, there’s a new Chef in town. May don’t like him. But Chef Bennie don’t rightly give a hoot in hell. He;s gonna make sure that EVERYONE get’s the best cut of beef. No matter how loudly the Spam Mafia kicks or howls or screams.

And that’s all that really matters

sigh one more time … you yourself have said that in the past it was priests and bishops have told you you couldn’t go to private TLMs, no? So, obviously and clearly THEY (those Bishops and priests) are the men wrongly blocking the door, of whom I was speaking. To take my analogy any other way would seem to be either deliberate obtuseness or something worse on your part.

And if they were doing so WRONGLY then why blame the Popes? How is it the Pope’s fault if people misunderstand what he says? Jesus’ words were and are quite regularly and widely misunderstood - I suppose that’s His fault too and He too is to be blamed for the fact that not everyone understands His teachings? Or could it just possibly be that the fault lies with those misinterpreting them?

Again, as pleased as I am that the TLM is to be more widely available, I won’t stand by and see any of our Holy Fathers slandered or disrespected as you are doing. And if you were only focused, as you have claimed to be, on the fact that the TLM has been freed, you wouldn’t be so gleefully maligning them either.

 

[Caveman]

sigh one more time … you yourself have said that in the past it was priests and bishops have told you you couldn’t go to private TLMs, no? So, obviously and clearly THEY (those Bishops and priests) are the men wrongly blocking the door, of whom I was speaking. To take my analogy any other way would seem to be either deliberate obtuseness or something worse on your part.

And if they were doing so WRONGLY then why blame the Popes? How is it the Pope’s fault if people misunderstand what he says? Jesus’ words were and are quite regularly and widely misunderstood - I suppose that was His fault too and He is to be blamed for the fact that not everyone understands His teachings? Or could it just possibly be that the fault lies with those misinterpreting them?

Again, as pleased as I am that the TLM is to be more widely available, I won’t stand by and see any of our Holy Fathers slandered or disrespected as you are doing. And if you were only focused, as you have said, on the fact that the TLM has been freed, you wouldn’t be maligning them either.

sigh As those priests were following directives from both their bishops and from Rome. And also keep in mind the howling that came from the utter vast majority of Catholic diocese world-wide when the Ecclesial Dei Commission authorized the Indult.

We came that close }{ to open schism in The Church… we both know it. To deny such is a Polly Anna arritude to the highest desgree.

I’m not, per se, “blaming” anyone. I’m just stating factually (de facto or otherwise) that from 1970-2007, there was in the vast majority of the Catholic world, a ban on th laity from legitimatly attending the Traditional Latin Mass. The popes at the time promulgated it, the bishops at the time implimented it on the local level, and many a priest promptly ignored it. And quite often, with a wink and a nod from the bishop. So as you see, I’m not "maligning (as you say) anyone. I’m just pointing out a series of factual events that many are having quite a tough time coming to grips with. All the sadder for them.

But that’s the fact of the matter, Lily. Any moves to restore anything that even resembled orthodox Catholicism was roundly ignored, sneered at, ridiculed, or laughed at from more than one seminary, chancery, convent or rectory than we can count.

But again, we’re getting sidetracked. If you want to focus in on the inconsiquentials on the periphery… you go right ahead. That’s most certainly your call.

I, however, will concentrate on the heart of the matter… a return to traditional, orthodox Catholicism. THANKS BE TO GOD.

 

[LilyM]

sigh As those priests were following directives from both their bishops and from Rome. And also keep in mind the howling that came from the utter vast majority of Catholic diocese world-wide when the Ecclesial Dei Commission authorized the Indult.

We came that close }{ to open schism in The Church… we both know it. To deny such is a Polly Anna arritude to the highest desgree.

I’m not, per se, “blaming” anyone. I’m just stating factually (de facto or otherwise) that from 1970-2007, there was in the vast majority of the Catholic world, a ban on th laity from legitimatly attending the Traditional Latin Mass. The popes at the time promulgated it, the bishops at the time implimented it on the local level, and many a priest promptly ignored it. And quite often, with a wink and a nod from the bishop. So as you see, I’m not "maligning (as you say) anyone. I’m just pointing out a series of factual events that many are having quite a tough time coming to grips with. All the sadder for them.

But that’s the fact of the matter, Lily. Any moves to restore anything that even resembled orthodox Catholicism was roundly ignored, sneered at, ridiculed, or laughed at from more than one seminary, chancery, convent or rectory than we can count.

But again, we’re getting sidetracked. If you want to focus in on the inconsiquentials on the periphery… you go right ahead. That’s most certainly your call.

I, however, will concentrate on the heart of the matter… a return to traditional, orthodox Catholicism. THANKS BE TO GOD.

Of course they howled - just as they did with SP, I’m sure. That’s because a lot of diocesan bishops, priests and laity don’t like and even fear the TLM, yes, but NOT because Rome is banning or has ever banned either the TLM or lay participation in it, either overtly or covertly.

Rome has in fact been leading the way on this issue, and dragging a lot of the rest of us kicking and screaming into acceptance of the TLM, and NOT doing the opposite.

Saying they winked at unauthorised restrictions of the TLM is just like saying Jesus winked at sin when he taught commands He knew most of us wouldn’t keep. He didn’t, neither did Rome wink at wrongful actions regarding the TLM.

And I’m asking you yet again - in which document or documents did Rome promulgate the ban as you say they did? If no such document is forthcoming then your assertion that there was such a ban from Rome is baseless. Stop repeating this muck unless and until you can provide concrete evidence of it.

 

[Caveman]

Of course they howled - just as they did with SP, I’m sure. That’s because a lot of diocesan bishops, priests and laity don’t like and even fear the TLM, yes, but NOT because Rome is banning or has ever banned either the TLM or lay participation in it.

OK, you’re right… when Pope Benedict has those specific words added to Art.s 2 and 4 of Summorum Pontificum, it was just to snap into line a small minority of renegade priests and bishops… riiiiight. Yeah, that’s what Motu Proprios are used for.

Rome has in fact been leading the way on this issue, and dragging a lot of the rest of us kicking and screaming into acceptance of the TLM, and NOT doing the opposite by overtly or covertly banning it or banning lay participation in it.

Yep, ever since the pontificate of Benedict XVI.

Saying they winked at unauthorised restrictions is just like saying Jesus winked at sin by teaching commands He knew most of us wouldn’t keep. He didn’t, neither did Rome wink at wrongful actions regarding the TLM.

No, I didn’t say that… you said that. Get it straight. Remember in the Indult that phrase “according to the wishes of the Holy Father The Latin Mass shoulod be freely and generously given to the Faithful”… “Rightful aspirations”… (or words to those effects)? Do you recall the reception the Indult recieved? In most diocese, it was looked upon as a joke. And you know it. And even though he was much loved, Pope Paul II never did stand up to those that ignored/disrespected his wishes. As the old saying goes… silence is consent.

And I’m asking you yet again - in which document or documents did Rome promulgate the ban as you say they did? If no such document is forthcoming then your assertion that there was such a ban from Rome is baseless. Stop repeating this muck unless and until you can provide concrete evidence of it.

I do believe I’ve already pointed out the articles from SP where His Holiness lifts the restrictions on lay participation. He did DO that for a reason… didn’t he? Or are his words just “so much muck” as well.

I think I really am starting to understand your obsession with the freeing and the ever glowing popularization with the TLM.

Yeah… it’s becoming clearer every time you post.

 

[LilyM]

OK, you’re right… when Pope Benedict has those specific words added to Art.s 2 and 4 of Summorum Pontificum, it was just to snap into line a small minority of renegade priests and bishops… riiiiight. Yeah, that’s what Motu Proprios are used for.

Don’t put words in my mouth - you and I know very well it wasn’t and isn’t a minority, and THAT alone would be sufficient reason for Benedict to ‘snap them into line’ by clarifying that the laity can freely participate, even if there never HAD been any ban from Rome on them doing so!

No, I didn’t say that… you said that. Get it straight. Remember in the Indult that phrase “according to the wishes of the Holy Father The Latin Mass shoulod be freely and generously given to the Faithful”… “Rightful aspirations”… (or words to those effects)? Do you recall the reception the Indult recieved? In most diocese, it was looked upon as a joke. And you know it. And even though he was much loved, Pope Paul II never did stand up to those that ignored/disrespected his wishes. As the old saying goes… silence is consent.

Again, can I point out the ludicrousness of what you’re saying? Even though He was much loved, people have treated Jesus’ words as a joke and worse for 2,000 years - so obviously by your logic He consented to their doing so by HIS failure to ‘stand up to’ those who ignored or disrespected HIS wishes? And I presume we are to take HIS silence as consent as well

I do believe I’ve already pointed out the articles from SP where His Holiness lifts the restrictions on lay participation. He did DO that for a reason… didn’t he? Or are his words just “so much muck” as well.

Talk about demolishing straw men. Firstly he simply stated that there WAS no restriction, which is not the same thing at all as lifting a restriction.

I’ve already told you what the reason for this probably was - there was and is very deep resistance at a grass roots level to the TLM and to lay participation in it. That in itself justifies Benedict making clear that the laity are to be freely permitted to attend.

It does not, contrary to your opinion, constitute an admission or acknowledgment that there was previously any legitimate ban at all, let alone a ban from Rome, on their attendance.

I think I really am starting to understand your obsession with the freeing and the ever glowing popularization with the TLM.

Oh, please enlighten me …

I DO have an obsession with people not slandering and maligning the Vatican and the Holy Fathers by making unfounded allegations against them. Which has nothing to do with the TLM, for which I have nothing but approval and acceptance.

 

[gferrer]

OK, you’re right… when Pope Benedict has those specific words added to Art.s 2 and 4 of Summorum Pontificum, it was just to snap into line a small minority of renegade priests and bishops… riiiiight. Yeah, that’s what Motu Proprios are used for.

FYI, here is a quote from Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the World to Present the “Motu Proprio” on the Use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the Reforms of 1970:

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.

This is not, of course, an ex cathedra statement; the Pope could be wrong in stating that the TLM was never juridically abrogated. But I personally would have trouble accepting the judgement of anyone over that of the Pope in matters of this kind without very specific evidence.

 

[Caveman]

Don’t put words in my mouth - you and I know very well it wasn’t and isn’t a minority, and THAT alone would be sufficient reason for Benedict to ‘snap them into line’ by clarifying that the laity can freely participate, even if there never HAD been any ban from Rome on them doing so!

You most certainly make it sound as if it’s just a minority. And besides, the purpose of this particular Motu Prorprio ISN’T as a disciplinary tool. Your lack of even the basics is telling.

Again, can I point out the ludicrousness of what you’re saying? Even though He was much loved, people have treated Jesus’ words as a joke and worse for 2,000 years - so obviously by your logic He consented to their doing so by HIS failure to ‘stand up to’ those who ignored or disrespected HIS wishes? And I presume we are to take HIS silence as consent as well

And those who chose to treat the words of Jesus as a joke will suffer the consequences. Jesus never failed “to stand up” to evil. You do know your basics of Catholicism, don’t you? Or do you just get by by rolling your eyes?

Talk about demolishing straw men. Firstly he simply stated that there WAS no restriction, which is not the same thing at all as lifting a restriction.

When did I say there was “no restriction”? Are you making this up as you go along? I Think you are.

I’ve already told you what the reason for this probably was - there was and is very deep resistance at a grass roots level to the TLM and to lay participation in it. That in itself justifies Benedict making clear that the laity are to be freely permitted to attend.

As I’ve already pointed out to you, the MP is a liturgical guide… not a disciplinary tool. Keep trying. Just by the law of averages, you’ll eventually get one right.

It does not, contrary to your opinion, constitute an admission or acknowledgment that there was previously any legitimate ban at all, let alone a ban from Rome, on their attendance.

Oh, so we’re back to The Holy Father making innaproppriate statements on documents where they don’t belong… riiiiiiight.

Oh, please enlighten me …

No problem… your pharasidic legalism betrays your obstinance to face the truth concerning that many within The Church have made it their lifes work to destroy anything and everything even resembling taritional Catholicism. If you choose to bury your head in the sand, that’s your call. There you go. You asked my opinion… I gave it.

I DO have an obsession with people not slandering and maligning the Vatican and the Holy Fathers by making unfounded allegations against them. Which has nothing to do with the TLM, for which I have nothing but approval and acceptance.

The only ones slandering and maligning are those in your head.

 

[Caveman]

FYI, here is a quote from Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the World to Present the “Motu Proprio” on the Use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the Reforms of 1970:

This is not, of course, an ex cathedra statement; the Pope could be wrong in stating that the TLM was never juridically abrogated. But I personally would have trouble accepting the judgement of anyone over that of the Pope in matters of this kind without very specific evidence.

…Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.

Now the pieces are starting to come together. That’s exactly what The Pope is saying… the TLM was technically NEVER done away with… but it sure as hell was de facto. And that’s exactly why the statements he gave in SP lifting the impediments for lay attendence were placed there.

It was a liturgical clairification to what had been wrong for almost 40 years.

 

[LilyM]

Ummm, Cavey … firstly there’s no qualitative difference between lifting a previous restriction and clarifying that no restriction exists. Surely specifying that laity are to be allowed to attend a specific form of liturgy comes under the appropriate subject matter for a liturgical guide?

If not, then lifting a previous restriction on their attendance of said liturgy certainly wouldn’t either.

And are you saying that THIS MP specifically said (which it didn’t, I’ve just reread it) that it didn’t intend to deal with disciplinary matters? Or that in general Motu Proprios aren’t supposed to deal with them? Because Ecclesia Dei most certainly did - not only the excommunication of Lefebvre and the issue of supporting the SSPX, but the setting up of the Ecclesia Dei commission.

 

[Caveman]

Ummm, Cavey … firstly there’s no qualitative difference between lifting a previous restriction and clarifying that no restriction exists. Surely specifying that laity are to be allowed to attend a specific form of liturgy comes under the appropriate subject matter for a liturgical guide?

If not, then lifting a previous restriction on their attendance of said liturgy certainly wouldn’t either.

And are you saying that THIS MP specifically said (which it didn’t, I’ve just reread it) that it didn’t intend to deal with disciplinary matters? Or that in general Motu Proprios aren’t supposed to deal with them? Because Ecclesia Dei most certainly did - not only the excommunication of Lefebvre and the issue of supporting the SSPX, but the setting up of the Ecclesia Dei commission.

You , I or anyone else who scurries about in an attempt to find a directive on Private Masses, even though the reality WAS that laity was banned from said Masses, is much akin to the engineers on the Titanic running around trying to find the blue prints of the hull. Umm… focus, guys… focus.

I personally don’t think that Pope Benedict, theological genius, Successor of Peter, the one chosen by The Holy Ghost, would place said words into the MP that didn’t reflect the truth of the matter. His Holiness doesn’t seem to me like the type of inividual who says things for no reason. But I guess he seems that way to some.

Unfortunantly, there are those in the Catholic world today who will scramble and hyper-ventilate over the most trivial of legalistic matters in an effort to discredit a return to orthodoxy.

I also suggest you re-read the MP. You obviously didn’t get it right. This is a liturgical directive, not a disciplinary condemnation.

In closing, I can’t speak for you or anyone else. But for me, I’m just tickled to death that the TLM is coming back, much to the chagrin of the Roman Protestants of the world.

Oh, and watching them pout, huff and puff, stamp their feet, grasp at straws and basically go into melt-down, causes me unending joy.

Have a happy day.

 

[childofmary1143]

Not to mention that numerous religious institutions (monasteries and convents) held them, held them regularly, and permitted lay people to come along too, they didn’t shut the doors on 'em. St Padre Pio, for one concrete example - he was allowed to continue to say the TLM, said it at the same time every day and in the same place as he always had, EVERYONE knew and could attend if they so desired.

Well St. Padre Pio died on September 23, 1968 which was before NO Mass (1970) and so it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to celebrate the NO Mass.

 

[Brendan]

This is not, of course, an ex cathedra statement; the Pope could be wrong in stating that the TLM was never juridically abrogated. .

Actually, it’s a matter of historical record. The use of the 1962 Missal has been permitted by Rome continously since it was promulgated in 1962.

To be abrogated means to have revoked permission for it’s use, and that never happened. If you feel otherwise, could you provide the name of the document that revoked the permission for use of the 1962 Missal?

 

[Johndigger]

I had dear friends that were at this Mass. The news report is accurate in what the Cardinal said.

In Christ,

JD

 

[Caveman]

I had dear friends that were at this Mass. The news report is accurate in what the Cardinal said.

In Christ,

JD

Thanks, John!!

 

[Sarabande]

Actually, it’s a matter of historical record. The use of the 1962 Missal has been permitted by Rome continously since it was promulgated in 1962.

To be abrogated means to have revoked permission for it’s use, and that never happened. If you feel otherwise, could you provide the name of the document that revoked the permission for use of the 1962 Missal?

I didn’t read through all of the posts, so if I’m totally off the mark as to what was actually being discussed, my apologies.

We have had parishes specifically made for the TLM in my diocese and the neighboring diocese for at least 15 years. All they did was ask permission to have this parish and it was granted. Anyone could attend. Lay people didn’t need to get permission to go. At a cathedral in another city I used to live in back in 2000, they used to do the TLM every Sunday. People attended that just as much as the other masses. No permission was asked to attend it. A new priest who was ordained prior to the MP was given permission by our diocese to have his first mass as the TLM at our diocese cathedral. They just couldn’t publicly “advertise” (which I always thought was strange), but about 1000 people attended as it went around word-of-mouth. So, I think these would correspond to what Brendan discussed in the above quote.

 

[Caveman]

I didn’t read through all of the posts, so if I’m totally off the mark as to what was actually being discussed, my apologies.

We have had parishes specifically made for the TLM in my diocese and the neighboring diocese for at least 15 years. All they did was ask permission to have this parish and it was granted. Anyone could attend. Lay people didn’t need to get permission to go. At a cathedral in another city I used to live in back in 2000, they used to do the TLM every Sunday. People attended that just as much as the other masses. No permission was asked to attend it. A new priest who was ordained prior to the MP was given permission by our diocese to have his first mass as the TLM at our diocese cathedral. They just couldn’t publicly “advertise” (which I always thought was strange), but about 1000 people attended as it went around word-of-mouth. So, I think these would correspond to what Brendan discussed in the above quote.

Brendan,
Of course it was never abrogated. It was still in use by that VERY small number of priests who celebrated the TLM privately.

And Sara,
You’re right. There most certainly were parishes prior to the most recent Motu Proprio that celebrated the TLM… but only a few… and only if the local bnishop “gave permission”… and only if it was kept hush-hush like some dirty little secret that no ones really suppose to talk about.

Thanks be to God that Pope Benedict is actually freeing The Mass of the Ages!!!

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

And Sara,
You’re right. There most certainly were parishes prior to the most recent Motu Proprio that celebrated the TLM… but only a few… and only if the local bnishop “gave permission”… and only if it was kept hush-hush like some dirty little secret that no ones really suppose to talk about.

Hi,

We have had Latin Masses, in my area, but I never felt it was considered a “dirty little secret”. There wasn’t much call for it.

There is one Parish which offered it every week, but I don’t know how well attended it was.

Lux