Why was the Latin mass forbidden, now allowed

  • Thread starter Thread starter hudson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hudson said:
Markthompson if that were true would it be allowed to suspend a Priest or Bishop for celebrating the banned? TLM?
Click to expand...
As someone said earlier in the thread, it was ArchBishop Levebre’s consecrations that excommunicated him along with the newly consecrated Bishops. God Bless.
 
In the Diocese of New York during the '70’s and '80’s, the reigning Cardinal not only did not allow Latin, but forbade the Mass in all languages except English and Spanish. Of course, with the ascention of Cardinal Wojtila to the throne of St. Peter, the Diocese looked the other way with respect to ethnically Polish parishes. As for the several ethnically Italian parishes in Manhattan and the Bronx, they just ignored the heirarchy and offered the Mass in both Italian and English as usual.
However, there was a great loss for parishes that heretofore had the gospel and sermons in almost all European languages as well as Chinese and Hindi.
There was historical precident for restricting RC services to English and Latin. In the
1870’s when Irish Bishops in Pennsylvania forbid ethnic Polish parishes in Pennsylvania to use anything but Latin and English in their services. This, plus the Irishers insisting that the deeds of Churches and schools (built with the nickels and dimes of the Polish immigrants) be turned over to them. At that time, the Poles felt that these actions were in retaliation for the Poles being brought in by coal mining comanies to replace rebelious Irish miners, and after a failed appeal to Rome, led to a scism and the founding of the Polish National Catholic Church. This scism lasted for a little over 100 years until JPII resolved the situation and re-united the PNCC with Rome in the 1990’s.
 
MarkThompson said:
Yes and no. From the standpoint of the **end user **
Click to expand...
Ha ha. Do you work in IT?
… looks like a technicality, in that if they no longer have the Latin Mass at their local parish it doesn’t matter much whether it’s due to Reason A and Reason B. However, it is not a technicality, in that (1) the fact that the missal itself was never abrogated means that, going forward, it can be reintroduced simply by relaxing the restrictions on using it, rather than by having to re-promulgate it in what I’m sure would be a bizarre process, and (2) it helps define the way we look at it. As the Holy Father said, things that were sacred to one generation cannot now be considered un-sacred. They can be forbidden in practice, though: this happened, for example, with Communion in the Hand and Communion under both Species, both of which were practiced in the past for generations and later forbidden by the Church for prudential reasons. When, by contrast, something is abrogated entirely, the Church is more or less saying it has no right to existence.
Click to expand...
I think I see the difference.

I would love to know under which circumstances was a priest allowed to say the TLM. How easy was it?
 
ProVobis said:
Someone made a case that Quo Primum had perpetual force.

alcazar.net/quo_primum.pdf
Click to expand...
We were making that case for Quo Primum back in the 70s too!

There were many Trad Catholics who were rebelling and attending TLMs…in my area we had the ORCM (Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement), a small group that only existed for a few yrs in the 70s; then we also had the Ven. Catherine Ann Emmerich Shrine in Feasterville, PA, where a retired priest said the TLM for a group of the faithful; and then about 2 hrs away was a SSPX chapel, which I never got to go to because I don’t drive.
 
PiousTemplar said:
As someone said earlier in the thread, it was ArchBishop Levebre’s consecrations that excommunicated him along with the newly consecrated Bishops. God Bless.
Click to expand...
Are you sure he wasn’t suspended from Priestly duties for celebrating the TLM? I am unsure as I have only read a few articles stating he was suspended in 1976.
 
hudson said:
Markthompson if that were true would it be allowed to suspend a Priest or Bishop for celebrating the banned? TLM?
Click to expand...
Yes, why wouldn’t it? The issue is not that he is “saying a Mass the Church has deemed to be bad,” but that he is going beyond the bounds of obedience by saying a Mass he has no permission to say. If your local Roman-rite priest starts celebrating the Melkite rite, which he is forbidden to do, just because he likes it better, his bishop would entirely justified in suspending him. It’s not a judgment about the Melkite liturgy, it’s a question of what the priest is permitted to celebrate. It is a complete mistake to think that just because a liturgy is, objectively speaking, valid and holy, any priest is allowed to celebrate it. Compare it to when Clement VIII issued a revised edition of the Roman Missal in 1604, superseding the 1570 edition. You couldn’t say, “Oh, I reject these revisions, so I’ll keep on using the 1570” – and if you were suspended as a priest, it was not because the Church had suddenly judged that the 1570 missal was horrible and Pius V has gotten it all wrong, it was because you were simply required to switch over to the new edition.
 
Cider said:
No groups have excommunicated themselves only because of the mass. The SSPV have excommunicated themselves because they are sedevaticantist. The SSPX were never excommunicated as a whole, only the archbishops and the bishops he consecrated without Papal authority. And it was the disobedience of the consecrations not the celebration of the mass that incurred it.

The Old Catholics broke with the Church and the Pope after Trent and they are also Sedes IIRC.
Click to expand...
The Old Catholics are not technically sedevacantists, or sedeprivationists. They reject papal infallibility ENTIRELY. Sedevacantists believe there has not been a valid Pope since Pius XII, they do NOT reject a belief in the office of the Papacy, nor do they reject Papal infallibility. Technically, Old Catholics are schismatics because they reject the very idea of a need for a Papacy.
 
hudson said:
So was it decided recently that it had been suppressed enough? What would happen if it grew in popularity to challenge the ordinary form? Would it once again be suppressed?
Click to expand...
Can someone answer this so I can go to bed?
 
How can someone answer something that hasn’t happened and may never happen? We don’t know.
 
We aren’t allowed to pit one form of the mass against another, I bet that if anyone answers it will be reported.
 
Cider said:
We aren’t allowed to pit one form of the mass against another, I bet that if anyone answers it will be reported.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t looking for an answer that would do this. I just returned to the Church after 15 years and have just now been exposed to the ef. I really like it and hope it won’t be banned again. That’s all.
 
All this, it wasnt forbidden but just no one was offering it sounds a lot like telling your kid they can have the candy if they find it after you’ve locked it in the safe and mailed the key to China.
 
Joining in here. So restricted and abrogated are different fair enough. I just find it odd that the Church has set itself up for a predicament now. In theory the Church could do the same thing again let’s say with another Pope and then what? Pope blank now restricts or even forbids the use of the TLM. How are the priests to respond such as those in FSSP?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top