EF = Extraordinary Form - uses 1962 Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII said in Latin only
A bishop’s power includes regulating the liturgy, so (contra Corsair), he has the authority, for instance, to forbid a priest from attempting to say a Mass he’s incapable of. If a priest’s Latin is too poor, the bishop can forbid him to say Mass in Latin (in either the EF or OF), just like he can forbid a priest from attempting to say Mass in Chinese who doesn’t speak good enough Chinese. Likewise, if a priest had shown no understanding of, or willingness to follow, the rubrics of the EF, the bishop could prevent him from saying it.A couple of years ago a priest stopped to tell me that he was denied his request to celebrate the mass in Latin, particularly the extraordinary form. I know the priest and love it Latin. He even gives absolution in Latin. He’s very orthodox. I thought Pope Benedict freed priests from being denied saying the TLM or extraordinary form now.
Not quite:
Right, the language on SP says a priest may do so without permission in private. Although private is used losely because the laity can still join him in his private Mass. I guess the only difference is that a private Mass is not regularly scheduled.
Yes – ideally, a priest would always defer to his bishop’s judgment, and the bishop would always exercise excellent judgment.
The “EF” always used today (even by the SSPX) is the 1962 Missal, which was promulgated at the beginning of Vatican II. The Liturgy itself is a seventh-century Liturgy; the reforms made at both the Council of Trent and at Vatican II (or by the sub-committee, originally commissioned by Pius XII, that was finishing up at the time of Vatican II) were negligible. The “OF” was not promulgated by Vatican II; it wasn’t finished until 1969.
This is mostly true, except that (1) the 1962 Missal predated Vatican II by several months, and (2) it is not possible to say that the TLM is a “seventh-century Liturgy” (or of any other specific century); it is a liturgy comprising some elements of earlier times, and some of much later times.
Right. Every liturgy is an evolution of the previous one, going back to the first one. In the East, the Liturgy of St. James is credited as the first and then the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil was made from it. Then the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was made out of St. Basil’s. But its wrong to say the DL of St. John is a first century Liturgy which the Liturgy of St. James was. It was originally written in the 500s.
This particular priest’s Latin is impeccable. He’s said many of the ordinary form masses at our parish all in Latin. He’s quite good at it and has a strong command for the language. He’s also fluent in Spanish and I believe a few other languages. His pronunciation is quite good. I say my rosary in Latin.
I hate to say it but there is the possibility the bishop has been put under pressure by his own diocesan members to stamp out any Latin in the liturgy. I’ve seen people with disgusted looks on their faces and stirring around when even a Latin hymn is sung in their churches.
We can make a number of guesses why, including the usual conspiracy theories regarding people hating Latin, modernism, etc. But the real reason lies with the Bishop. Perhaps he sees something we don’t. He’s responsibility is to care for his Church which is the diocese (each diocese is a particular Church) and thus he needs to prioritize the needs of the flock and of the diocese. Perhaps a TLM isn’t as important as something else. Why not write the Bishop or his office and ask why? You’ll get a better answer instead of the usual guesswork you’ll get here.
Trent created no Mass. And Vatican II didn’t either.
No as that is not the job of an Ecumenical Council but both the Council of Trent and Vatican II called for a reform of the Liturgy, at least I am sure Vatican II did, I think Trent also made such a call but in the way that the call was to formalize the Liturgy and have one Missal across the whole of the Roman Church.
Thanks for pointing out the other rites, such as the Ambrosian and Mozarbic Rite, which could easily be called the “Tridentine” Mass(es) as well. “Tridentine” may be a convenient way of identifying the old Latin Mass but it’s unfair to imply it started with Trent.