Why was the Latin mass forbidden, now allowed

  • Thread starter Thread starter hudson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hudson

Guest
Why was the TLM Mass forbidden, but now allowed? I do not want to start an arguement, but it makes no sense to me. It seems like the Vatican banned it long enough so that there could be a generation of Priest that don’t know how to do it. Now they allow it as if it was never banned but very few Priest can do it. Someone please make me understand. I was born in the 80s and have no idea about any of this. I did look at some newspaper stories from back in the 70s/80s and they all say the TLM was banned. Here is one.

news.google.com/newspapers?id=KXpQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AxIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6509,1196170&dq=marcel+lefebvre+latin+mass&hl=en
 
Turns out it was all misinformation. Pope Benedict went out of his way to report that the old Missal was never forbidden. Unfortunately, the people knowingly spreading that misinformation will probably never be reprimanded.

And you’re right, it seems as if we lost a whole generation of legal would-be Latin Mass priests.
 
hudson said:
Why was the TLM Mass forbidden, but now allowed? I do not want to start an arguement, but it makes no sense to me. It seems like the Vatican banned it long enough so that there could be a generation of Priest that don’t know how to do it. Now they allow it as if it was never banned but very few Priest can do it. Someone please make me understand. I was born in the 80s and have no idea about any of this. I did look at some newspaper stories from back in the 70s/80s and they all say the TLM was banned. Here is one.

news.google.com/newspapers?id=KXpQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AxIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6509,1196170&dq=marcel+lefebvre+latin+mass&hl=en
Click to expand...
If I had to guess, I don’t think it was a conspiracy. There was a new mass and there needed to be uniformity. Everyone had to adhere to the new mass just as they adhered to the old mass.

I don’t think anyone expected this small group of protesters to start such an organized movement for holding onto the TLM.

This is why I say that as much as they’re disobedient, these small group of folks kept the Traditional mass going.
 
ProVobis said:
Turns out it was all misinformation. Pope Benedict said that the old Missal was never forbidden. Unfortunately, the people spreading that misinformation will probably never be reprimanded.
Click to expand...
What does “not forbidden” mean? One of the posters on this board admitted to attending Latin masses in hotel rooms.

One had to get a special indult until recently to have a TLM.

Even now, some folks are having a hard time. 🤷
 
TrueLight said:
What does “not forbidden” mean?
Click to expand...
This is a translation of the 2007 SP

“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:…”

Incidentally, this is consistent with Pius V’s Quo Primum which allowed priests to say the Tridentine Mass in perpetuity.
 
ProVobis said:
This is a translation of the 2007 SP

"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:
Click to expand...
Is this an infallible document?
 
Then why did they act like it was? Maybe there would have never been a schism if they had not said it was forbidden. Just my thought.
 
TrueLight said:
If I had to guess, I don’t think it was a conspiracy. There was a new mass and there needed to be uniformity. Everyone had to adhere to the new mass just as they adhered to the old mass.

I don’t think anyone expected this small group of protesters to start such an organized movement for holding onto the TLM.

This is why I say that as much as they’re disobedient, these small group of folks kept the Traditional mass going.
Click to expand...
Actually, it wasn’t just a small group. It was numerous groups (biggest the SSPX) that simply refused to adhere to the new Mass. A huge amount of the laity aswell. But as you said, the Church did not consider the amount of change they were trying to achieve, and the amount of people that had the Latin Mass as part of their culture. It ripped these roots up. The change was so significant at the time many thought the Church had changed it’s teachings. Still today, many Catholics say that the Novus Ordo Mass has lost all of its ‘Catholicism’, because the old Mass was so richly packed with theology.
 
And from what I have read, Blessed Pope John Paul II sent a letter to the Church’s Bishops to be more generous to those Catholics that still want to go to the Tridentine Mass. The majority of Bishops ignored it. This is when Pope Benedict XVI stepped onto the table, went around the Bishops, and let the Masses be celebrated by the priest without the permission of the Bishop.
 
TrueLight said:
What does “not forbidden” mean? One of the posters on this board admitted to attending Latin masses in hotel rooms.

One had to get a special indult until recently to have a TLM.

Even now, some folks are having a hard time. 🤷
Click to expand...
Exactly.

From the Catholic encyclopedia.

Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law.

So, how again was it never forbidden, if one needed an indult. Which didn’t even happen until 1984, and then was almost universally ignored by the Bishops until the moto propio.

Obviously that is a rhetorical question.
 
Cider said:
Exactly.

From the Catholic encyclopedia.

Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law.

So, how again was it never forbidden, if one needed an indult. Which didn’t even happen until 1984, and then was almost universally ignored by the Bishops until the moto propio.

Obviously that is a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...
Good points. So I don’t know if the “forbidden” part is simply semantics.

Then again, I don’t know what I’m allowed or not allowed to say when it comes to the SP, cited by ProNobis, so I think I’ll just observe for a bit.
 
TrueLight said:
What does “not forbidden” mean? One of the posters on this board admitted to attending Latin masses in hotel rooms.

One had to get a special indult until recently to have a TLM.

Even now, some folks are having a hard time. 🤷
Click to expand...
The TLM came under a de facto ban, but not de jure.
 
It’s not like the canons from the council of Trent were secret, they knew that the TLM had been granted in perpetuity. That doesn’t change the facts of what happened.
 
TrueLight said:
If I had to guess, I don’t think it was a conspiracy. There was a new mass and there needed to be uniformity. Everyone had to adhere to the new mass just as they adhered to the old mass.

I don’t think anyone expected this small group of protesters to start such an organized movement for holding onto the TLM.

This is why I say that as much as they’re disobedient, these small group of folks kept the Traditional mass going.
Click to expand...
They never abolished the TLM. It isn’t right that an organisation excommunicates itself in order to hold onto their favourite Mass. Mass is Mass. You can have a very big fondness for the Liturgy of the Tridentine Mass, but that doesn’t mean that it is the ‘correct Mass’, or that it was ‘Correct’ for the SSPX to excommunicate itself because it didn’t like the Novus Ordo. If the Church tells us to do something, we obey, that is what being a Catholic is. Changes to the Liturgy come and go, I’m wondering if there were any ultra traditionalists that broke from the Church at the Council of Trent, because they didn’t like the Tridentine Mass?
 
PiousTemplar said:
They never abolished the TLM. It isn’t right that an organisation excommunicates itself in order to hold onto their favourite Mass. Mass is Mass. You can have a very big fondness for the Liturgy of the Tridentine Mass, but that doesn’t mean that it is the ‘correct Mass’, or that it was ‘Correct’ for the SSPX to excommunicate itself because it didn’t like the Novus Ordo. If the Church tells us to do something, we obey, that is what being a Catholic is. Changes to the Liturgy come and go, I’m wondering if there were any ultra traditionalists that broke from the Church at the Council of Trent, because they didn’t like the Tridentine Mass?
Click to expand...
This does not answer the question of why it was considered banned but now is the equal to the ordinary form. If every news organization states the TLM is banned because everything coming out of the Vatican states it is, then was it not banned?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top