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

[LilyM]

Well, that was an unbelievably shallow and childish thing to say. You’ve managed to insult both the English and the Chinese Martyrs.

But I’ll ask sigh yet again… when did I ever deny the legitimacy of the NO?

You, sir, insulted both the NO AND the Chinese martyrs when you didn’t even bother to mention them as if they don’t exist. For which insult you should be on your knees begging their forgiveness.

When you somehow felt it necessary to mention ONLY the martyrs who suffered because of the TLM as if there were no others who suffered for no other form of the Mass. Your deliberate silence on the topic speaks volumes.

 

[Caveman]

If a well attended NO Mass is **replaced **by a TLM in a Parish where Masses are overcrowded, it is being **forced **on who need to attend that particular Mass. When a Mass is offered in another language, it is because there is a large percentage of the congregation who request it. All I said is that the need should be formally assessed, rather than make a blanket instruction which may not be possible to impliment.

Hope this is more clear.

Lux

I understand what you’re saying, let’s just say that we disagree. The main point I’m attempting to stress to you, is that there is no “forcing” of the TLM to “replace” the NO.

I guess this is kind of like the Cathedral of St Peter’s (Chaldean Catholic) in San Diego. They have their version of the NO for their Liturgy, and also Chaldean Liturgy in the anceint Aramaic. In fact, I saw more young people at the anceint Liturgy than at their NO version.

In fact, many of the Eastern Rites offer both –

Ancient Etheopic (Ge’ez) at the Ge’ez Rite
Anceint Slavonic at both the Ukrainian and Byzentine Rites
Ancient Malabar at the Syro-Malabar Rite
Anceint Aramaic at the Maronite, Chaldean and Melkite Rites
etc, etc.

But anyhow, I don’t understand why the opposition to a **Latin Mass **offered at a **Latin Rite **Church.

But like I said, I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I just ask you to re-think your opposition.

 

[Caveman]

You, sir, insulted both the NO AND the Chinese martyrs when you didn’t even bother to mention them as if they don’t exist. For which insult you should be on your knees begging their forgiveness.

When you somehow felt it necessary to mention ONLY the martyrs who suffered because of the TLM as if there were no others who suffered for no other form of the Mass. Your deliberate silence on the topic speaks volumes.

Golly gee… sorry I didn’t mention ALL the Martyrs who’ve died for the Faith over the past 2,000 years. slapping forehead What was I thinking!!??* I didn’t bring up The Slaughter of the Innocents, or the Mexican Martyrs, either. Should I “be on my knees begging forgiveness” for that as well?

I suggest you regain control of your hormones, RE-READ what I posted concerning the English Martyrs, and you will clearly see that any “insult” that you percieve is only in your imagination. Try to stay of topic, Lily. Focus… focus.

Let me say this sigh yet again – I have never stated that the NO be “replaced” or “forced out” by the TLM. Nor do I question the validity of the NO. How much clearer do I have to be on that?

You really do need to cease from trying to change the subject.

What I did do, was point out that hundreds died a Martyrs death for the Faith under the apostates and heretics who occupied the British Throne hundreds of years ago. And their specific crime was simply for either attending Mass, or for having a priest in their homes. Period… end of story. Why are you not getting this?

It’s becoming exceedingly clear that you either hate or are afraid of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Well, I have to get ready for that silly old TLM now. It’s only 250 miles round trip. Would you be willing to drive that far a NO Mass, each and every Sunday? I wonder…

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I understand what you’re saying, let’s just say that we disagree. The main point I’m attempting to stress to you, is that there is no “forcing” of the TLM to “replace” the NO.

OK–I guess we disagree on the understanding of the word “forced” in this context…or perhaps replace?

I am saying that if you replace one Mass every Sunday, this is forcing the TLM on those who need to attend that particular Mass.

Most would prefer to make the choice to attend the TLM, and consider this “forcing” them to attend. And I’m sure a good number would feel this is a justification to miss Mass. I am not saying that I agree, or this is right, just the way it is.

But like I said, I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I just ask you to re-think your opposition.

Again, I do not oppose the TLM, and I really hope that you realize this, but hope the need will be assessed before any scheduling in every parish takes place.

Lux

 

[Caveman]

OK–I guess we disagree on the understanding of the word “forced” in this context…or perhaps replace?

And reasonable people can disagree.

I am saying that if you replace one Mass every Sunday, this is forcing the TLM on those who need to attend that particular Mass.

Please stop saying “replace”. No one has used that word. Not The Holy Father, not Cadrinal Castrillon Hoyos, not Cardinal Arinze, not Archbishop Ranjith, not me… no one. What WAS said was that one would be** added**. Big difference.

Most would prefer to make the choice to attend the TLM, and consider this “forcing” them to attend. And I’m sure a good number would feel this is a justification to miss Mass. I am not saying that I agree, or this is right, just the way it is.

So because someone doesn’t particulary care for the TLM, they’re going to boycott Mass? That’s a mortal sin, right? Last time I checked, people went to hell for mortal sin.

I’m sure it’ll come as no shock to you that I’m not particularly fond of the NO, but **I have and will attended such **if I was unable to make that trek to my parish (250 miles round trip).

Do those who you think would “skip” Mass if it were a TLM, do so because they question it’s validity, or are they suffering from the sin of Pride?

Again, I do not oppose the TLM, and I really hope that you realize this, but hope the need will be assessed before any scheduling in every parish takes place.
Lux

Fair enough, but I ask of you – don’t you think that the “assesment” was already made by The Holy Father when he had Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos make the initial announcemnt concerning the TLM in England and Wales?

 

[trevor_ingleby]

This sounds like a process. Beginning soon, all seminaries will begin to teach the Latin Mass. First off, seminaries will need to have a teacher to teach the seminarians. That will take time. Then seminarians need to begin to study Latin again. (My parish priest doesn’t know Latin, it wasn’t taught in Seminary here).

Then, the current priests who don’t know Latin, have to die, move on, or be replaced by a priest who does know how to say the Latin Mass.

Did the article say how long it would be before parishioners will notice the change?

 

[trevor_ingleby]

trevor_ingleby:
As a former cantor in our parish church choir,I loved the Latin Mass,both the words and the music,and can still remember most of it. I welcome the new ruling,and I suspected when this Pope was elected,that we may see some of the old much loved Catholic ideas comming back. For instance,when I was at school, the Catechism told us to start our day by “rising in the morning dilligently,dressing ourselves MODESTLY and then kneeling down and saying our morning prayers. WHAT HAPPENED ? Only today the congregation at my church had to be reminded by our priest that they should respect the dignity of the church and dress in a decent modest way when they come to mass. God Bless the Pope”.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Please stop saying “replace”. No one has used that word. Not The Holy Father, not Cadrinal Castrillon Hoyos, not Cardinal Arinze, not Archbishop Ranjith, not me… no one. What WAS said was that one would be** added**. Big difference.

Yes, it is, but where is another Mass going to fit into the schedule of a very large parish, even if there is a priest able to celebrate a TLM? We have 8 masses per weeekend in my parish, and adding another would run into the baptisms.

So because someone doesn’t particulary care for the TLM, they’re going to boycott Mass? That’s a mortal sin, right? Last time I checked, people went to hell for mortal sin.

As I said, I don’t agree, but people use any excuse to miss Mass. Soccer or baseball games was a big excuse when I was teaching Religious instructions. (One of the reasons I stopped)

I’m sure it’ll come as no shock to you that I’m not particularly fond of the NO, but **I have and will attended such **if I was unable to make that trek to my parish (250 miles round trip).

I admire your faith and determination, and am so sorry to hear of the abuses that you must have wittnessed, but the bottom line is it is still the Mass, and Jesus is present.

Do those who you think would “skip” Mass if it were a TLM, do so because they question it’s validity, or are they suffering from the sin of Pride?

Sadly, more inflexible than pride…they just don’t feel they need to attend, if they don’t understand it, but also more sadly …inconvenience, if the Mass is longer. No, I do not feel they question the validity, but are unwilling to change their form of worship.

Fair enough, but I ask of you – don’t you think that the “assesment” was already made by The Holy Father when he had Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos make the initial announcemnt concerning the TLM in England and Wales?

If there is as bad a priest shortage over there as here, or if no more people have shown an interest in the TLM, then, no, I do not think there was as much an assessment as a directive.

As I said, Rome has enough priests that they can schedule as many masses as they wish, and still have priests let over. This is not the case here.

Thank you for a great discussion. God bless you and your loved ones.

Lux

 

[Caveman]

As a former cantor in our parish church choir,I loved the Latin Mass,both the words and the music,and can still remember most of it. I welcome the new ruling,and I suspected when this Pope was elected,that we may see some of the old much loved Catholic ideas comming back. For instance,when I was at school, the Catechism told us to start our day by “rising in the morning dilligently,dressing ourselves MODESTLY and then kneeling down and saying our morning prayers. WHAT HAPPENED ? Only today the congregation at my church had to be reminded by our priest that they should respect the dignity of the church and dress in a decent modest way when they come to mass. God Bless the Pope”.

Exactly, Trevor!

I don’t know if you are familiar with such , but here is the link and some examples of something that came out here in The States a few years ago; The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators

1. Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000 between 1930 and 1965, since then the number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 left, and more than half of those will be OVER the age of 70.

2. Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number had fallen to a whopping 450.

3. Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,000. A decline of over 90 percent. Of the 600 seminaries that were open in the U.S. in 1965, two thirds have since CLOSED!

4. Sisters. In 1965 there were 180,000 Catholic nuns in the U.S. By 2002, that number had fallen to 75,000 and the average age was 68. In 1965 there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today there are 8,200, a decline of 94% since the end of the Second Vatican Council.

5. Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. in 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuits. In 2000, the figure was 389. Things are even worse for The Christian Brothers. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99%. In 1965 there were 912 seminarians for The Christian Brothers. Sadly… in 2000, there were only seven. That’s right… SEVEN!! The number of young men studying to become Fransiscans and Redemptorists fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

6. Catholic Schools. Almost half of all Catholic High Schools in the U.S. have since closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools have suffered even worse. Some 4,000 have shut down, and the number of pupils has fallen from 4.5 million to just under 2 million.

I’m sure you remember the verse from Sacred Scripture – “By their fruits, you shall know them”.

 

[Caveman]

Yes, it is, but where is another Mass going to fit into the schedule of a very large parish, even if there is a priest able to celebrate a TLM? We have 8 masses per weeekend in my parish, and adding another would run into the baptisms.

Then that priest FINDS time. Priests don’t dictate to The Holy Father, but the other way around. After all, we aren’t Protestants.

As I said, I don’t agree, but people use any excuse to miss Mass. Soccer or baseball games was a big excuse when I was teaching Religious instructions. (One of the reasons I stopped)

Then those folks need to re-examine their fidelity to Holy Mother The Church. You being a former catechism teacher (as I was, also), I’m sure you’re familiar with the passage concerning cutting away of the dead limbs.

If the folks who you describe consider a sporting event as having the priority over their responsibility to obey God’s Law, then they heap condemnation upon themselves.

I admire your faith and determination, and am so sorry to hear of the abuses that you must have wittnessed, but the bottom line is it is still the Mass, and Jesus is present.

My point exactly. But in all honesty, I’ve met more than one NO priest who’s openly questioned The Real Presence. I’ve never met a TLM pries who has.

I even had a priest (with a dismissive wave of the hand) sneer to me “I don’t worship bread”, to which I responded “niether do I, Father. I worship Christ physically Present in The Holy Eucharist. Don’t you?”. As he turned and stormed away, he hissed “I DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE!!”

I’ve even had some priests confide in me that they personally know Vicar Generals and Deans who question The Real Presence, as well as many of The Sacraments.

Scary, ain’t it?

Sadly, more inflexible than pride…they just don’t feel they need to attend, if they don’t understand it, but also more sadly …inconvenience, if the Mass is longer. No, I do not feel they question the validity, but are unwilling to change their form of worship.

Lux, “inflexibility” IS Pride! But do you see now what I was talking about earlier when I spoke of those who consider what THEY WANT to be of supreme importance?

If there is as bad a priest shortage over there as here, or if no more people have shown an interest in the TLM, then, no, I do not think there was as much an assessment as a directive.

Directive… assessment… so? As St. Augustine once said; “Rome has spoken; the dispute is at an end”.

As I said, Rome has enough priests that they can schedule as many masses as they wish, and still have priests let over. This is not the case here.

I’m quite sure The Holy Father has given this considerable prayer and thought. You know, I mentioned the English Martyrs a few posts ago. Consider this if you would – Catholic priests back then WILLINGLY went to England KNOWING that if they were apprehended, they would have their intestines ripped out, their limbs hacked off, and eventually beheaded. And all the while, this torture would last for hours. And still they went.

If a priest present day has a heavy Mass schedule as his biggest complaint, he needs to stop his whining.

As I just pointed out to Trevor, the number of priests that enroll in (for lack of a better phrase) *Novus Ordo seminaries *has dropped like a stone. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but Traditional Latin Mass seminaries, such as the FSSP, have a WAITING LIST! That’s gotta tell ya something.

Thank you for a great discussion. God bless you and your loved ones. Lux

And you as well, my friend.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

"Lux et Tenebrae:

Yes, it is, but where is another Mass going to fit into the schedule of a very large parish, even if there is a priest able to celebrate a TLM? We have 8 masses per weeekend in my parish, and adding another would run into the baptisms.

Then that priest FINDS time. Priests don’t dictate to The Holy Father, but the other way around. After all, we aren’t Protestants…

I do not agree that it would be in the common good for the Pope to officially instruct that a TLM mass be celebrated in every Parish, every week. And I really do not think he will do this. I doubt the American bishops will impliment this instruction, but will submit reasons why this is not in the “common good” for their congregations.

If the folks who you describe consider a sporting event as having the priority over their responsibility to obey God’s Law, then they heap condemnation upon themselves.

They do not believe they do. But this is what you are dealing with, so change must be brought about slowly.

Directive… assessment… so? As St. Augustine once said; “Rome has spoken; the dispute is at an end”.

Rome has also made the NO the primary Mass. And this was done in council. There must be some meeting of Bishops to put in a mandate such as is suggested here.

Lux

 

[Caveman]

I do not agree that it would be in the common good for the Pope to officially instruct that a TLM mass be celebrated in every Parish, every week. And I really do not think he will do this. I doubt the American bishops will impliment this instruction, but will submit reasons why this is not in the “common good” for their congregations.

You can disagree, I’m not saying that you can’t. But like St. Agustin said…

Also, what you said about the American Bishops not implimenting this instruction… isn’t that the textbook definition of Protestantism? Since when does the USCCB dictate the direction of The Church. They don’t trump The Holy Father, do they?

They do not believe they do. But this is what you are dealing with, so change must be brought about slowly.

Again, you cite what “they” deem appropriate. “They” don’t dictate to The Holy Father. But anyhow, slowly is exactly what Cdl Castrillon Hoyos said.

Rome has also made the NO the primary Mass. And this was done in council. There must be some meeting of Bishops to put in a mandate such as is suggested here.

Lux

No, it’s not the “primary” Mass. I believe The Holy Father reff’ed to both being equal within the same Rite. And the NO wasn’t even begun to be formulated until AFTER the 2d Vatican Council already came to an end.

And as far as a “meeting of the bishops” is concerned, The Successor of Peter, The Vicar of Christ… well, he’s already spoken. The Holy Father doesn’t need nor require the approval of the USCCB or any other Bishops Council.

Those who are desireous of collegiality most certainly can saddle up with the Episcopalians. God knows they need the membership.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Also, what you said about the American Bishops not implimenting this instruction… isn’t that the textbook definition of Protestantism? Since when does the USCCB dictate the direction of The Church. They don’t trump The Holy Father, do they?.

There are always steps to be followed. I’m sure you know there are slight differences in the GIRM with the American (or whatever conference) adaptations. The Bishop’s conference reviews instructions, and requests adaptations. Some are ratified, and some are rejected, but the Bishops always have the opportunity to respond.

I do not think His Holiness will make a blanket instruction on the number, but even if he did, I’m sure the bishops would request an adaptation, due to the need, and possibility of including another Mass each week.

No, it’s not the “primary” Mass. I believe The Holy Father reff’ed to both being equal within the same Rite. And the NO wasn’t even begun to be formulated until AFTER the 2d Vatican Council already came to an end.

I don’t have time to look this up, but that is not my understanding of the way it is. Do you have any official documentation?

And as far as a “meeting of the bishops” is concerned, The Successor of Peter, The Vicar of Christ… well, he’s already spoken. The Holy Father doesn’t need nor require the approval of the USCCB or any other Bishops Council.

That definitely depends on what is being said. The bishops do have much room to disagree on many things.

Those who are desireous of collegiality most certainly can saddle up with the Episcopalians. God knows they need the membership.

Because they don’t wish to attend a TLM? Did you hear the gospel this AM?

Lux

 

[Caveman]

There are always steps to be followed. I’m sure you know there are slight differences in the GIRM with the American (or whatever conference) adaptations. The Bishop’s conference reviews instructions, and requests adaptations. Some are ratified, and some are rejected, but the Bishops always have the opportunity to respond.

Respond doesn’t equate to approve. When Rome says their is any given set of options that any given Bishop Conference can chose, fine. But when Rome speaks difinitivly, there is no disussion. It’s been that way for going on 2,000 years.

I do not think His Holiness will make a blanket instruction on the number, but even if he did, I’m sure the bishops would request an adaptation, due to the need, and possibility of including another Mass each week.

What either of us think… that’s irrelevant. His spokesman, Cdl Castrillon Hoyos has already said that there WILL be a TLM added in every parish in England and Wales. It will take many years, but it will happen… period.

I don’t have time to look this up, but that is not my understanding of the way it is. Do you have any official documentation?

Give me a day or two. I just had family from out of state arrive. Better yet, I’m sure if you did a quick internet search using the words Extraordinary, Ordinary, equal and Catholic Mass, you could find the info out fairly quick.

That definitely depends on what is being said. The bishops do have much room to disagree on many things.

NO, it doesn’t. Once Rome speaks difinitivly, the book is closed. Like I asked you before, who is the Successor of Peter, The Pope in Rome, or the USCCB?

Because they don’t wish to attend a TLM? Did you hear the gospel this AM?

Lux

No, not because they chose not to attend a TLM… rather, because some think they have veto authority over The Holy Father.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Many parishes already regularly sing hymns in Latin. A lot of the missalettes and hymnals have the Latin and English texts side-by-side and it’s easy to follow along.

Many of the Latin prayers and responses are pretty easy to figure out.

It won’t be necessary to convert priests into a generation of Latin scholars. No one is going to ask a priest getting ready to say the Mass in Latin to translate an account of the Punic Wars or rewrite one of Cicero’s orations.

It’s really not that difficult.

Not rocket science.

Mica, mica, stella parva.

[Twinkle, twinkle, little star!]

Pax vobiscum.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Respond doesn’t equate to approve. When Rome says their is any given set of options that any given Bishop Conference can chose, fine. But when Rome speaks difinitivly, there is no disussion. It’s been that way for going on 2,000 years.

A homily by a Cardinal paraphrasing the Pope’s wishes is a long reach from “Rome has spoken” officially. But even if it were official-

However, the new rite will not disappear; the Pope wishes to see the two forms of Mass existing side by side.

does not say “celebrated in every Parish”. I did search and found it interesting to note that England & Wales were excepted from the general rule that permission must be obtained for the celebration in the 1988 Motu.

Give me a day or two. I just had family from out of state arrive. Better yet, I’m sure if you did a quick internet search using the words Extraordinary, Ordinary, equal and Catholic Mass, you could find the info out fairly quick.

I couldn’t find any recent official statement, so I went back to the Motu

the missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II obviously is and continues to be the normal form – the “forma ordinaria” – of the eucharistic liturgy. The last version of the “Missale Romanum” prior to the council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the council, will now be able to be used as a “forma extraordinaria” of the liturgical celebration.

the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited “motu proprio,” that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new missal will certainly remain the ordinary form of the Roman rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

Originally Posted by **Lux et Tenebrae **
That definitely depends on what is being said. The bishops do have much room to disagree on many things.

C:

NO, it doesn’t. Once Rome speaks difinitivly, the book is closed. Like I asked you before, who is the Successor of Peter, The Pope in Rome, or the USCCB?

Motu:

In conclusion, dear brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own diocese (cf. “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the “motu proprio.”

Furthermore, I invite you, dear brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this “motu proprio” has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

PS Equal could have 2 meanings in this situation, which I believe is another misunderstanding in our discussion. I certainly do agree that the forms are equal in authenticity, but I doubt it is possible for them to become equal in number in the forseeable future.

 

[Caveman]

Exactly, Al!!

Et cum spiritu tuo

 

[Al_Masetti]

Exactly, Al!!

Et cum spiritu tuo

Oremus!

[Let us pray.]

 

[Caveman]

A homily by a Cardinal paraphrasing the Pope’s wishes is a long reach from “Rome has spoken” officially. But even if it were official- does not say “celebrated in every Parish”.

It wasn’t a sermon, it was a press conference. And when the official representative for The Holy Father states “whatever” in his name… that’s the same as him saying. That’s the whole reason for subservient officials. Surely you don’t expect The Holy Father to be the announcer for EVERYTHING coming out of the Vaticn, do you?

I did search and found it interesting to note that England & Wales were excepted from the general rule that permission must be obtained for the celebration in the 1988 Motu.

Here are just a few references that took me less than a minute to find–

Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 4
“Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.” catholiclatinmass.org/sacrosanctum-concillium.html

“… the Most Rev. Joseph N. Perry, Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago, presented a talk entitled The Spirituality of the Traditional Latin Mass, showing how the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Mass, held in equal honor…” sanctamissa.org/en/workshop-article.html

And lastly, from Sumorum Pontificum itself –

“Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.” summorumpontificum.net/2007/07/summorum-pontificum-english.html

I couldn’t find any recent official statement, so I went back to the Motu

Lux

Hope this helps!