Where does the modern church stand on the Traditional Mass right now?

[Stylites]

I never said I wanted to convert to a protestant church. The Eastern Orthodox Church is not protestant, protestantism was a heresy of the WESTERN (Roman Catholic) Church.

Sorry to be unclear. I’ve heard them called the ‘original protestants’ in the sense that they were the first to split with the one Church, over the authority of the papacy.

 

[Zhenia]

Sorry to be unclear. I’ve heard them called the ‘original protestants’ in the sense that they were the first to split with the one Church, over the authority of the papacy.

I really don’t want to get into a debate over the Orthodox vs RC Churches, that was not why I started this thread.

 

[At_Trent]

Here is where the Church stands

Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, ‘to the praise and glory of His name,’ and ‘to the benefit of all His Holy Church.’

Since time immemorial it has been necessary - as it is also for the future - to maintain the principle according to which ‘each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church’s law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.’ (1)

Among the pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their Rule that ‘nothing should be placed before the work of God.’ In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms, in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety.

Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and ‘renewed in accordance with the norms of the Fathers,’ and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times.

"It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform.’ (2) Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X (3), Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.

In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that ‘this kind of liturgical edifice … should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.’ (4)

But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult 'Quattuor abhinc anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given as Motu Proprio, ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.

Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:

cont…

 

[At_Trent]

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.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents ‘Quattuor abhinc annis’ and ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ are substituted as follows:

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

§ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

§ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.

§ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 õ 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” to obtain counsel and assistance.

Art. 9. § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§ 3 Clerics ordained “in sacris constitutis” may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, erected by John Paul II in 1988 (5), continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

Art. 12. This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.

We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as “established and decreed”, and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.

From Rome, at St. Peter’s, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate.

Pope Benedict XVI
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm

 

[At_Trent]

Letter accompanying the Summorum Pontificum

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that 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. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

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. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

cont…

 

[At_Trent]

Recent Universae Ecclesia on the Summorum Pontificum
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=113273

 

[rben20]

This directed at the OP. The Church currently has “two forms of the same Rite” and this pertains to the Roman Rite of worship, the largest rite within the Catholic Church. The Pope has made it clear though that this is only temporary. There are long term plans to have one single form that is neither the OF (Novus Ordo) or EF (Traditional Latin Mass) but perhaps a hybrid of the two. The process has started in the sense that both are to rub off on each other being served side by side. There are also wishes to have a single calendar instead of the current 1962 calendar and OF calendar along with a single liturgy of the hours and etc. I do not know if you or I will have the TLM in our lifetime but there are plans that it will one day cease. The only other scenario is the Church chooses to go back to the EF or to the OF but there will not be both forever. The OF was suppose to be the Mass for the future and technically it hasn’t even gotten a chance but there are already plans to scrub it with a new Mass. That is why I just wish they kept the Traditional Latin Mass as we already had one Mass then… So many changes for no reason. We are really in a wash (liturgical matters) compared to our Eastern brothers and sisters and others in the Latin rite.

 

[Zhenia]

This is frankly, what I thought might be going on.

I had plans in 2 weeks to be chrismated into the Orthodox Church, but I wanted to give the RCC one last chance, so to speak, because I did and do truly love the Traditional Latin Mass, and have often watched them on Youtube in fact whenever I felt I wanted to reminisce.

I’ll be going to a TLM this Sunday with my son (he was not raised Catholic, but is curious about the TLM due to his obsession with Medieval history and wargaming, lol).

I think at this point I will proceed with my original plan, and if I ever need a “Tridentine fix” again, as I sometimes do, if the RCC no longer has it available, I can always go to the Western Rite Orthodox Church near me. They have the Tridentine Mass, but its in English, and it is done just as respectfully (so I am told) as the Tridentine Latin Mass always was.

Dominus Vobiscum!

Zhenia

This directed at the OP. The Church currently has “two forms of the same Rite” and this pertains to the Roman Rite of worship, the largest rite within the Catholic Church. The Pope has made it clear though that this is only temporary. There are long term plans to have one single form that is neither the OF (Novus Ordo) or EF (Traditional Latin Mass) but perhaps a hybrid of the two. The process has started in the sense that both are to rub off on each other being served side by side. There are also wishes to have a single calendar instead of the current 1962 calendar and OF calendar along with a single liturgy of the hours and etc. I do not know if you or I will have the TLM in our lifetime but there are plans that it will one day cease. The only other scenario is the Church chooses to go back to the EF or to the OF but there will not be both forever. The OF was suppose to be the Mass for the future and technically it hasn’t even gotten a chance but there are already plans to scrub it with a new Mass. That is why I just wish they kept the Traditional Latin Mass as we already had one Mass then… So many changes for no reason. We are really in a wash (liturgical matters) compared to our Eastern brothers and sisters and others in the Latin rite.

 

[Will_S]

This directed at the OP. The Church currently has “two forms of the same Rite” and this pertains to the Roman Rite of worship, the largest rite within the Catholic Church. The Pope has made it clear though that this is only temporary. There are long term plans to have one single form that is neither the OF (Novus Ordo) or EF (Traditional Latin Mass) but perhaps a hybrid of the two.

I think you have misunderstood somewhat the “single form” plan that Cardinal Koch mentioned.

1. There is no actual plan to have a single form of the latin rite in some specified X number of years from now.
2. Any changes in the foreseeable future will be changes to the new Mass, not to the old Mass. This is because changes to the old Mass will not be accepted by traditional Catholics. There will not be any repeat of the 1962-1969 changes.
3. The single so-called “hybrid form”, whenever it comes about (probably several hundred years from now) is going to be essentially the old Mass mostly in the vernacular, with an expanded lectionary.

 

[PJM]

=Zhenia;8086320]Hi, A Catholic friend from another forum suggested I post this here. I converted to the Catholic Faith in the 1970s and was searching for the Catholicism from before Vatican II (my mom’s family had told me about it), and when I didn’t find it, I drifted off to the Traditional Masses being held back then. Eventually I got tired of the back and forth between the Trad RCs and the modern RCs, so I figured the gates of hell had prevailed after all, and I left the church.

I was still looking for spirituality though, and didn’t know where to go…I am in the process right now of considering becoming Eastern Orthodox. I have even been meeting with an EO priest. I was looking for a church that has apostolic succession, and that doesn’t drastically change.

But while doing some online searching, I learned that in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of Abp Marcel Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated. I did not know this! I also learned that this new Pope is very favorably disposed toward the traditional Mass.

Does anyone who is a Traditional Catholic know where things stand otherwise? I remember and experienced the horror days of the 1970s when we had to skulk around in motel rooms to hear Mass. I want to know if the modern church is coming around, or not. Please, someone who has stayed involved all these years, please let me know soon. I need to know if there is any hope that Rome may go entirely back to Tradition.

Thanks!

Because the REAL Issue was a segment of Bishops who REFUSED their priest and their flocks the opportunity for a Traditional Latin Mass; His holiness Pope Benedict has taken DIRECT ACTION which permits any qualified Priest to offer what is now termed: “The Extrodinary Form” [meaning not the usual] without First obtaining permission from His Ordinary [Bishop]. This removes One of the TWO the MAJOR Obstacle . The other being Priest who actulally are TRAINED to say it correctly. That too is being addressed in our seminaries.

We MISSED YOU!

Welcome Home. By the way the idea that the Novus Ordo “New Mass” is not ligitment, valid or licit is rubbish. Christ is Still tere waiting for us! It certainly is not [normal practice] as Pious; but G9od willing; that too will change.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Stylites]

I really don’t want to get into a debate over the Orthodox vs RC Churches, that was not why I started this thread.

Certainly. My only thought was in serial conversions to and from apostolic Churches in schism. Supposedly a marriage can be annuled if there were any defects or impediments in its inception, and I have to wonder about converting away from a Church one converted to, and in thinking the gates of hell could prevail against it.

In other words, when you converted to Catholicism, you supposedly were informed beforehand that the Church teaches she alone has the fullness of truth. If you understood that to be true, and then decided to leave the Church with the fullness of truth for one without the fullness of truth but with more cool medeival rubrics and a more archane liturgy or other, then what culpability would there be in rejecting the Church one previously accepted, assuming that marriage or location are not the motivating factors?

 

[santamonica]

The situation for the Traditional Latin Mass is much, much better now than it was even five years ago. The number of TLMs offered has increased greatly since 2007, and many of them are diocesan. The attitude towards people who attend the TLM is getting much better as well. You will still find people who are against it or make fun of it, of course, but overall among Catholics there is a lot more support, or at least respect, for the traditional Mass than there was before.

I encourage you to try attending the TLM in your area for a while before you make your decision!

The comment about there being some official plan to merge the TLM and the NO is not accurate. Some have interpreted recent comments made by a few prelates in that way, but that’s not really what they said. What they have said is that the TLM and NO are two forms of the Roman Rite, the Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form, respectively; that they will coexist in the Church and influence each other (which probably just means the NO will be done more reverently with greater use of Latin, and congregational singing/responses at the TLM will become more common); that there will probably be some additions to the calendar and prefaces of the TLM, and perhaps at some point a more substantial reform of the NO; but no one has said the TLM will be taken away at some future point and replaced with either the NO or some new hybrid form of Mass. Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae have both made it clear that the Extraordinary Form will continue to be part of the Church’s liturgical life.

 

[Zhenia]

Because the REAL Issue was a segment of Bishops who REFUSED their priest and their flocks the opportunity for a Traditional Latin Mass; His holiness Pope Benedict has taken DIRECT ACTION which permits any qualified Priest to offer what is now termed: “The Extrodinary Form” [meaning not the usual] without First obtaining permission from His Ordinary [Bishop]. This removes One of the TWO the MAJOR Obstacle . The other being Priest who actulally are TRAINED to say it correctly. That too is being addressed in our seminaries.

We MISSED YOU!

Welcome Home. By the way the idea that the Novus Ordo “New Mass” is not ligitment, valid or licit is rubbish. Christ is Still tere waiting for us! It certainly is not [normal practice] as Pious; but G9od willing; that too will change.

God Bless,
Pat

Thanks for the added info, but (and this is embarassing because maybe I didn’t make myself clearer), I did not necessarily “come home” to the RCC. When I first started this thread I was just inquiring as to the current state of the TLM and Tradition in the RCC.

 

[PJM]

=Stylites;8089756]Certainly. My only thought was in serial conversions to and from apostolic Churches in schism. Supposedly a marriage can be annuled if there were any defects or impediments in its inception, and I have to wonder about converting away from a Church one converted to, and in thinking the gates of hell could prevail against it.

In other words, when you converted to Catholicism, you supposedly were informed beforehand that the Church teaches she alone has the fullness of truth. If you understood that to be true, and then decided to leave the Church with the fullness of truth for one without the fullness of truth but with more cool medeival rubrics and a more archane liturgy or other, then what culpability would there be in rejecting the Church one previously accepted, assuming that marriage or location are not the motivating factors?

Solidly put:thumbsup: I offer this in support of your comments:

From the first word to the final word in the Bible; NOT ONCE does our God even by implication; permit more than One God “I AM”], One Faith and One Church. In fact the NT alone gives more than100 evidences of this FACT.

Because Confirmation is a purely Voluntary COMMITMENT; that effectively mimics a Personal Covenant commitment; leaving the CC for ANY reason puts ones soul in Spiritual jepordy.

Heb. 6: 1-8 …For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened,[TAUGHT the One TRUE FAITH] who have tasted the heavenly gift, [Catholic Holy Communion] and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,[Confirmation] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God [Heard Gods Teaching EXPLAINED CORRECTLY] and the powers of the age to come,** if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt**. In a most specific way this applies to fallen away Catholics] For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.”

God Bless and thanks for the GREAT Post,
Pat

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Zhenia,

This is frankly, what I thought might be going on.

I had plans in 2 weeks to be chrismated into the Orthodox Church, but I wanted to give the RCC one last chance, so to speak, because I did and do truly love the Traditional Latin Mass, and have often watched them on Youtube in fact whenever I felt I wanted to reminisce.

I’ll be going to a TLM this Sunday with my son (he was not raised Catholic, but is curious about the TLM due to his obsession with Medieval history and wargaming, lol).

I think at this point I will proceed with my original plan, and if I ever need a “Tridentine fix” again, as I sometimes do, if the RCC no longer has it available, I can always go to the Western Rite Orthodox Church near me. They have the Tridentine Mass, but its in English, and it is done just as respectfully (so I am told) as the Tridentine Latin Mass always was.

Dominus Vobiscum!

Zhenia

I don’t want to sound preachy, so I’ll limit myself to saying that I hope you postpone converting to Orthodoxy until you’re more certain of your decision.

 

[Suscipiat2011]

You should convert to a church only on the fact that you like their liturgy! I believe the Orthodox Liturgy is beautiful, but it is not in Communion with Rome. That ends the conversation for me.
I want to be in the church Christ started, not one which was schismatic, like the Orthodox church. You must remember that liturgy is prayer, and prayer can change over time. Dogma cannot. Unless suddenly the Orthodox realize that they are in error and become in Communion with Rome, then it is not a replacement for Catholicism, especially not Traditional Catholicism.

Traditional Catholics understand obedience, and would never join another church for their liturgy, they would humbly object, and try to move for change in the Church. They would try to heal the Church.

I think there are more underlying issues, other than the liturgy, concerning your “conversion” to orthodoxy.

 

[rben20]

I think you have misunderstood somewhat the “single form” plan that Cardinal Koch mentioned.

1. There is no actual plan to have a single form of the latin rite in some specified X number of years from now.
2. Any changes in the foreseeable future will be changes to the new Mass, not to the old Mass. This is because changes to the old Mass will not be accepted by traditional Catholics. There will not be any repeat of the 1962-1969 changes.
3. The single so-called “hybrid form”, whenever it comes about (probably several hundred years from now) is going to be essentially the old Mass mostly in the vernacular, with an expanded lectionary.

Regarding your points Will I understand there is no set plan in stone but there are wishes to have a single form which will be neither the of or ef. Again I’m not even sure this will happen in my lifetime (I’m 22) but theses are circulating thoughts of the pope. All I’m saying is that this is a real thought and wish of the pope to have only one form. There may be updates to the 1962 missal in the form of new canonized saints and the new mass will finally be corrected in order to be celebrated correctly but in due time there will not be either form in the long run. Now time wise God only knows as rome literally takes life to do things but as the saying goes “the wheels of Rome grind slowly but finely” going back to the op we have these two forms for now and maybe in our lifetimes but depending on Rome we can have it for the rest of our lives or only 5 years down. My guess is the pope will first rally the troops (all in favor of ef and all in favor of OF) with both masses done reverently and in accordance with tradition b4 introducing a new mass altogether.

 

[ProVobis]

There are long term plans to have one single form that is neither the OF (Novus Ordo) or EF (Traditional Latin Mass) but perhaps a hybrid of the two. The process has started in the sense that both are to rub off on each other being served side by side.

The only “hybrid” I can see is something like the Latin OF ad orientem. However, at the moment there doesn’t seem to be too much interest in it.

 

[Zhenia]

You should convert to a church only on the fact that you like their liturgy! I believe the Orthodox Liturgy is beautiful, but it is not in Communion with Rome. That ends the conversation for me.
I want to be in the church Christ started, not one which was schismatic, like the Orthodox church. You must remember that liturgy is prayer, and prayer can change over time. Dogma cannot. Unless suddenly the Orthodox realize that they are in error and become in Communion with Rome, then it is not a replacement for Catholicism, especially not Traditional Catholicism.

Traditional Catholics understand obedience, and would never join another church for their liturgy, they would humbly object, and try to move for change in the Church. They would try to heal the Church.

I think there are more underlying issues, other than the liturgy, concerning your “conversion” to orthodoxy.

Hi,

I’m going to say this as charitably as I can, noting as well, that I am a guest here since this is a RC forum, and I am a lapsed RC.

I really did not start this thread to get into a debate as to whether the Orthodox or the RC church is the original church. I have my thoughts and beliefs on that, as do you.

As well, I am not interested in becoming Orthodox solely because of their Liturgy. There are other (theological) reasons as well, which if I mention them will turn this into a debate on the merits of Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholicism, and I don’t want to do that.

 

[Stylites]

Does anyone who is a Traditional Catholic know where things stand otherwise? I remember and experienced the horror days of the 1970s when we had to skulk around in motel rooms to hear Mass.

This brings to mind infidelity.