Quote:

---

The rumors are true. My sources in Rometoo many and too reliable to be doubtedconfirm that a document is circulating at the Vatican which, if given papal approval, would significantly restrict use the "extraordinary form" of the liturgy, the traditional Latin Mass (TLM).

This document is in draft form. It could be amended. It might never be released. But it would not even be under discussion without at least tacit approval (if not active support) from Pope Francis. And if it is released in anything like its current form, it would be a pastoral and doctrinal disaster. It would thwart a powerful movement for reform in the Church, and it wouldparadoxicallyundermine the Pope's own authority.

---

Disaster looms if Pope Francis restricts the traditional Mass | Catholic Culture

Troubling. I agree with Lawler, it seems like there is a lot of enthusiasm for the TLM, and there's not much enthusiasm anywhere in the RCC.

Quote:

---

"A plethora of young families are coming, attracted by the sacred beauty and reverence of the Mass, the traditional catechesis and true parish family life," said pastor Fr. Jonathan Romanoski.

---

From the link inside the article talking about explosive growth...

Does parish life look different in TLM parishes? I can understand the beauty and the connection to church history, but that feels like something that's not sustaining...like being connected to a church body is.

I'm an outsider just trying to understand. I struggle with the idea of something in the foreign language being the missing element, as it were.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

"A plethora of young families are coming, attracted by the sacred beauty and reverence of the Mass, the traditional catechesis and true parish family life," said pastor Fr. Jonathan Romanoski.

---

From the link inside the article talking about explosive growth...

Does parish life look different in TLM parishes? I can understand the beauty and the connection to church history, but that feels like something that's not sustaining...like being connected to a church body is.

I'm an outsider just trying to understand. I struggle with the idea of something in the foreign language being the missing element, as it were.

---

TLM has it's fans, I've never attended one personally, but they seem to be very enthusiastic about it, as I'm sure a subset were prior to the institution of the Novus Ordo. I get the feeling that many see TLM as a path back to a Church with fewer of the other changes that have taken place simultaneously with the liturgy changes.

It has history, but it has been out of practice for 45+ years, there's not much connection to a lived experience any more.

It seems like it will have to come to a head at some point. Looking closely from the outside, having two different forms of Mass will be had to bring unity.

Seems like you are being funny about Jesus speaking Latin. Would you be surprised to discover that there is a strong possibility that he did? When standing before Pilate in the Roman court he would have. Just saying its something to consider.

A few questions for those concerned about the future of the TLM:

1. In doing some surfing around (I know not very conclusive) I noticed a number of references to large families and younger people. Maybe it is just my experience going to "la misa en espanol" - but the same claims could be made by other groups of Catholics, you think?

2. I came across a weird site (Vatican In exile) - it would seem that some TLM enthusiast are drawing a line in the sand, maybe? From what I am reading, it looks like the CDF will require parishes to require the local Bishop to approve - what is wrong with that?

3. For those that are driving more than 5 miles to go to a TLM mass - do you think God put you where he believes you can best serve? Meaning in your neighborhood. Would it not be better if you could be more active in your local parish leading a bible study or getting involved in RE classes?

+++

I know this is a divisive issue between so called "traditionalist" and so called "modernist" Catholics - I for one reject such titles, but I think you get my point. I am interested in understanding more about this movement. Why is the ritual of the mass more important? I guess that is where I am confused.

I have tried attending a TLM only to feel a false sense of spirituality. Now that was me - so don't take that as a shot at TLM in general. I am not as taken with the smells and bells as I once was. I thirst more than ever! I think TLM will always be with us, but we need to dig deeper and recognize Jesus in our brother and sister right where we are, right in our own neighborhoods.

+pablo

Are valid sacraments not sufficient? If the bishop does not want a particular preference to be anything but a rare exception, who are we to seek out what he has intentionally tried to make scarce? And if the Popes do the same, as they have historically, why not submit?

Fighting the good fight and trusting in the Holy Spirit is expected of us, I think, though any particular century or stretch of centuries under the guidance of the Magisterium in Rome may be as off target as on, and Catholics may only refer to Rome to figure that out, kind of a double bind.

In the end, everyone is a Methodist in his own head, best to get out of it every now and then.

PabloSerna said:

---

2. I came across a weird site (Vatican In exile) - it would seem that some TLM enthusiast are drawing a line in the sand, maybe? From what I am reading, it looks like the CDF will require parishes to require the local Bishop to approve - what is wrong with that?

---

Ah, yes, "Pope" Michael!

The question about valid sacraments is an interesting one, as it has the potential to lead to all kinds of anything goes. Valid being the operative word. A lot of this thought is the ultimate offspring of centuries of rationalism, and rationalism promotes minimalism. In the example of alchemy becoming chemistry through rationalism, we no longer worry about incantations or phases of the moon when making products, because we've determined what is and what isn't strictly necessary (sufficient) for the desired output. I think this laudable approach, which has given us all sorts of scientific advancements, has turned back onto matters of faith. This path leads to spiritual minimalism.

Bishops are part of the laity and the laity are also God's kleros and clergy. Bishops have the responsibility for their decisions, but that doesn't mean the laity are without a voice or role in all aspects of the Church. I don't see why a bishop has any particular authority to change what should not be changed (if indeed this is something that should not be changed). As the fathers said over and over again - "Do not move an ancient boundary stone which your fathers have placed." This isn't a call for democracy, but one of witness. Lex orandi, lex credendi is a real thing, so any change to the one should be considered for the implication to the other

As an outsider to the issue, I'm left to wonder what is driving the changes. The why matters almost as much as the what.

Zobel said:

---

The question about valid sacraments is an interesting one, as it has the potential to lead to all kinds of anything goes. Valid being the operative word. A lot of this thought is the ultimate offspring of centuries of rationalism, and rationalism promotes minimalism. In the example of alchemy becoming chemistry through rationalism, we no longer worry about incantations or phases of the moon when making products, because we've determined what is and what isn't strictly necessary (sufficient) for the desired output. I think this laudable approach, which has given us all sorts of scientific advancements, has turned back onto matters of faith. This path leads to spiritual minimalism.

Bishops are part of the laity and the laity are also God's kleros and clergy. Bishops have the responsibility for their decisions, but that doesn't mean the laity are without a voice or role in all aspects of the Church. I don't see why a bishop has any particular authority to change what should not be changed (if indeed this is something that should not be changed). As the fathers said over and over again - "Do not move an ancient boundary stone which your fathers have placed." This isn't a call for democracy, but one of witness. Lex orandi, lex credendi is a real thing, so any change to the one should be considered for the implication to the other

As an outsider to the issue, I'm left to wonder what is driving the changes. The why matters almost as much as the what.

---

One can see where this goes, you just dodge the definition of a "boundary stone" and you maintain whatever continuity that you suppose to be important. I have to say, the Orthodox position on liturgy makes the most rational sense.

The Extraordinary Form (EF) of the Mass is intended to be extraordinary, or out of the ordinary form. As such, the Ordinary Form (OF) is the preferred form. No, extraordinary does not mean "ooooooooohhhhh it's so EXTRAORDINARY - it's so FABULOUS". It means it is something OUTSIDE the normal ordinary way.

When Pope Benedict issued Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, he specifically wrote:

Quote:

---

Art 1. - The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed (now Saint) John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church's lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

---

So right there in Article 1, it is spelled out that one is ordinary and one out of the ordinary. But then he writes something that I thought was going to be a problem right from the get go that I highlighted.

I agree they are two forms of the same thing, but writing that having two forms would not lead to division was hopeful, at best. As you can see on threads like this, many of those who regularly attend the EF are hyper-proud of their youth and fecundity. You also see regular derogatory comments about the OF and their fellow Catholics who attend that Mass.

Sure, these parishes are growing and seem vibrant - but so is mine. Just because those attending EF masses had poor experiences at OF parishes does not mean all are universally so. And guess what? Just like in OF parishes, there are people at your EF parish who are using their cell phones or walk up to Communion in a state of mortal sin or have been married three times. You just don't notice them because you don't want to. The Catholics at EF parishes are no more or no less devout that those at an OF parish.

So - whereas I am against any actions by Pope Francis to restrict usage of the EF, it can be said that those who go overboard in favor of that Mass and speak out against the OF are bringing it upon themselves.

Having said that - much of the issues with the OF mass are not because it's in the vernacular, but because of the music. Yes, it sounds superficial, but the music that became popular in the 70s -80s is nothing short of atrocious. If our priests want to increase the devotion of the faithful at Mass, ban anything and everything by Marty Haugen, David Hass and the rest of that gang.

wbt5845 said:

---

ban anything and everything by Marty Haugen, David Hass and the rest of that gang.

---

I had a feeling that I knew what you were talking about before ever looking them up, I was right.

It boggles me that we have thousands of years of liturgical music development and yet turn to recently composed pop tripe to play during Mass.

Compare and Contrast:



and



Hell, even the version from the movie Sister Act is better than that David Hass crap.

PabloSerna said:

---

A few questions for those concerned about the future of the TLM:


1. In doing some surfing around (I know not very conclusive) I noticed a number of references to large families and younger people. Maybe it is just my experience going to "la misa en espanol" - but the same claims could be made by other groups of Catholics, you think?

I'm sure there are many parishes, including Novus Ordo, that have a large number of the young people and big families. St. Mary's in College Station for example has a huge number of young people who regularly go to mass and take part in parish life. At least in my experience, I see that from just about every traditional church I've been to.

2. I came across a weird site (Vatican In exile) - it would seem that some TLM enthusiast are drawing a line in the sand, maybe? From what I am reading, it looks like the CDF will require parishes to require the local Bishop to approve - what is wrong with that?

Yeah.... "Pope Michael." I wouldn't pay too much attention to Vatican in Exile. I do think some Catholics "draw a line" as you put it on the grounds of fundamental differences in belief as to the theology of the Mass. I personally fall into this group. I think that the New Mass opens the door for scandalization, therefore I avoid it. Now, I am not really "concerned" about the the future of the mass because there will always be priests and bishops who will continue saying mass despite supposed "restrictions," (see Apb. Marcel Lefebvre or more recently Apb. Vigano for example).

3. For those that are driving more than 5 miles to go to a TLM mass - do you think God put you where he believes you can best serve? Meaning in your neighborhood. Would it not be better if you could be more active in your local parish leading a bible study or getting involved in RE classes?

I think about it as a mini-pilgrimage and a minor form of penance. God puts us where ever he decides to put us, I don't know why but I'm not gonna question it either haha. If there was a local Latin mass, I agree I think it might be better to stay involved locally. However, many might find an issue regarding the morality of "staying local" if there isn't a local traditional parish. Sometimes they are accused of having pride or being pretentious, but I think it's not like that at all. If something causes scandal, it would be prudent to avoid it.

---

If simply having "valid" sacraments was enough then there would be no reason to not go to Orthodox, Sedevacantist, or even *some* Protestant liturgies. The reason we believe we can't just submit to being told we can't attend the Traditional Mass is largely because of the problems with the theology of the New Mass.

I keep saying "we" but must clarify that not everyone that attends the TLM thinks the same way on the matter, in fact it's a pretty diverse group of people. I only mean to represent my own beliefs on the subject.

CurakAg said:

---

If simply having "valid" sacraments was enough then there would be no reason to not go to Orthodox, Sedevacantist, or even *some* Protestant liturgies. The reason we believe we can't just submit to being told we can't attend the Traditional Mass is largely because of the problems with the theology of the New Mass.

I keep saying "we" but must clarify that not everyone that attends the TLM thinks the same way on the matter, in fact it's a pretty diverse group of people. I only mean to represent my own beliefs on the subject.

---

I see it as important to consider who, exactly, has discerned that there is a problem with the theology of the New Mass? There are plenty of reasonable objections, I'm sure, but there's a long line of people wanting to change Rome's mind about things.

If someone is telling you that the theology of the New Mass encouraged by the Pope is problematic, well, they're already a Protestant whether they like it or not. Without submission to the Pope and Magisterium on matters of theology, the whole structure of the Roman Catholic Church ceases to make any sense.

It's the Vatican I problem that C.S. Lewis distilled down quite well, I'm paraphrasing, but he said, the problem with the Papacy is not that one might submit to everything the Church has ever said, but also, one must submit to everything the Pope might choose to say in the future.

Those rejecting the theology of the Novus Ordo have decided that they don't like the new stuff, well, neither did Luther, as he saw it.

CurakAg said:

---

The reason we believe we can't just submit to being told we can't attend the Traditional Mass is largely because of the problems with the theology of the New Mass.

---

What specifically is problematic with the "theology of the New Mass" (which you meant to say Ordinary Form).

Please forgive the ignorance of what I'm about to say, I'm no expert on catholic liturgies and mass forms.

I have heard mass said in English, Spanish, and once in laying in what I assume is a "traditional Latin mass". I was not there as an active worshipper... is the substance of the ritual differe in the TLM than the english/Spanish mass I attended?

I certainly found the Latin mass to be a beautifully done service...doesn't help the church I had the pleasure of visiting that day is older than the United States by about 35 years( and I respected the priest and his works enough I was donating weekly to the plate, much to the suprise of my host family), but I do not know enough about how the catholic church conducts services to know the difference.

Thanks for entertaining what may possible be a redundant question.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Please forgive the ignorance of what I'm about to say, I'm no expert on catholic liturgies and mass forms.

I have heard mass said in English, Spanish, and once in laying in what I assume is a "traditional Latin mass". I was not there as an active worshipper... is the substance of the ritual differe in the TLM than the english/Spanish mass I attended?

I certainly found the Latin mass to be a beautifully done service...doesn't help the church I had the pleasure of visiting that day is older than the United States by about 35 years( and I respected the priest and his works enough I was donating weekly to the plate, much to the suprise of my host family), but I do not know enough about how the catholic church conducts services to know the difference.

Thanks for entertaining what may possible be a redundant question.

---

I'll get you a small portion of the way to a reasonable answer.

Tridentine Mass - Wikipedia

TLM or "Traditional Latin Mass" was the form of the liturgy for ~400 years everywhere in the Roman Catholic Church regardless of local language. The oversimplified take is that TLM was codified at the Council of Trent to standardize of diverse practices across the churches loyal to Rome, but I don't know enough about that to tell you any better than a google search could.

The Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II") in the 1960's initiated changes to the liturgy used in Holy Mass. Most notably, the entire liturgy was translated into local languages and the position of the altar was moved such that when the priest performed the liturgy related to the consecration the host, he would face the congregation rather than the altar.

Subsequent to Vatican II, TLM was deemed to be acceptable only in extraordinary circumstances. Many clergy and laity did not like the changes, but went along with orders grudgingly. Others went semi-underground (read up on Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX) to keep it going, while yet others went to the other extreme and did other things like hold hands in a circle around the altar during the prayers of consecration.

Some see the changes as engaging and more relevant to the congregation, others see them as theologically problematic and blasphemous.

There is far more to it, but that's what you would most notice if you walked in unaware to the two different liturgies and compared them.

So what was the reason for the liturgical and ritual change? I understand the motivation behind the linguistic alteration, was the change driven by interpretation of scripture, or ?

Will have to do some digging on this, I never realized the actual ritual had changed. I can see why that would trigger serious controversy, it is very rare in ANY religion to change an established, and considered important, part of a worship service or event and not create.... upheaval

Ag_of_08 said:

---

So what was the reason for the liturgical and ritual change? I understand the motivation behind the linguistic alteration, was the change driven by interpretation of scripture, or ?

Will have to do some digging on this, I never realized the actual ritual had changed. I can see why that would trigger serious controversy, it is very rare in ANY religion to change an established, and considered important, part of a worship service or event and not create.... upheaval

---

You could publish books arguing about various aspects of the change, the reasoning, the letter of the law of Vatican II vs. the "spirit" of Vatican II, etc., etc. After 60 years of practice, it remains controversial. I've only scratched the surface personally.

My barely grounded assumption is that the Vatican had been troubled for a while about declining engagement with liturgy. The notion of Christendom's return was falling away and they felt the need to retool and engage a world that was ripped up by two World Wars in the prior 50 years amidst other modernizations that had drastically changed daily life for each one of the people in the pews.

The criticism that I have read about the Latin mass was that, while it could be ancient, orthodox and very reverent, that was rare. Instead, you had a priest that could barely read it, and the engagement of the faithful was in large part seen/experienced as a process of going through the motions in a language no one understood for reasons no one understood.

My armchair theory is that the change was a reaction to a modern world where travel, communication, and interaction with others outside of your immediate sphere had become commonplace for the first time in history. Prior, everyone lived their rituals and did what they did, and there was value to that, but few ever considered why. That would at least partially explain the change to local languages.

The reorientation of the altar seems to involve a more novel bit of theology; a dodgy subject when you're talking the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I get the idea that it might seem more participatory to not have the priest's back turned to the congregation, but I also give more credit to the people that thought up the original liturgy. They would have considered that dynamic as well and did what they did for a reason too.

Seems like they could have kept it the same, and just done it in the local language.

Zobel said:

---

Seems like they could have kept it the same, and just done it in the local language.

---

Certainly, though I'm not qualified to parse it out.

What I have read is that much of the VII documentation and official pronouncements are often very thorough, sound and understandable while many of the practical changes that happened after the fact can only be defended obliquely. One position is that certain factions went into VII with an agenda and they enacted it after the fact more or less regardless of what the letter of the law said, they lobbied a but of vagueness into the text and off they ran.

I'm sure there are counterarguments to that position, it remains controversial for sure.

I am not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, so I would rather let others answer for me on the specific problems in the New Mass. I will attach a few links to things I've watched or read in the past that was very helpful to me. You may not end up agreeing, but hopefully you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Fr. Franks does a great job in these two videos:



From "What is wrong with the New Mass?"
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm

And in response to the gentleman (or lady) above on the issue of the Pope:
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q7_pope.htm

There are countless articles, podcasts, debates, books, etc. but these are just a few quick resources. I'd be happy to share more for anyone interested.

CurakAg said:

---

And in response to the gentleman (or lady) above on the issue of the Pope:
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q7_pope.htm

There are countless articles, podcasts, debates, books, etc. but these are just a few quick resources. I'd be happy to share more for anyone interested.

---

The position that SSPX and others take of, "I respect your position and office, but respectfully believe that you are in error" seems healthy. There is official pushback against them, but they haven't been treated as heretics of old. It may take centuries to resolve as these things do in God's time. The interim may be purposefully instructive.

The bigger question in my mind is how at any one point you discern which side to take in an active debate. I'm out of my depth, so I don't. It's going to resolve to His will eventually, I've got to tend to my own house that's falling over before I worry about the weeds in the yard.

CurakAg said:

---

I am not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, so I would rather let others answer for me on the specific problems in the New Mass. I will attach a few links to things I've watched or read in the past that was very helpful to me. You may not end up agreeing, but hopefully you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Fr. Franks does a great job in these two videos:



From "What is wrong with the New Mass?"
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm

And in response to the gentleman (or lady) above on the issue of the Pope:
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q7_pope.htm

There are countless articles, podcasts, debates, books, etc. but these are just a few quick resources. I'd be happy to share more for anyone interested.

---

I would dismiss anything from SSPX as they are schismatic.

I also don't have time to listen to a couple of hour long YouTube videos.

Seems like anyone who professes a problem with "the theology" of the OF Mass, of which Pope Benedict has said is the equivalent of the EF, should be able to cite one or two issees right of the top of their head.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

SSPX is not schismatic.

Quick examples- removal of the prayers at the foot of the altar, much less prayer for intercession, and the lax rubrics that effectively did away with closed digits after the Consecration and other acts of reverence.

---

These can be fair concerns, but what authority agrees that they warrant disobedience (if it rises to that) with Rome?

All authority rests in Rome, and it takes a long time for Rome to agree that Rome was wrong on anything in particular if they ever do. Pick any one issue and Luther may have had better canon law on his side than Lefebvre ever did. Luther was obviously never rehabilitated, Lefebvre may yet, but his actions were decreed officially as schismatic in 1988 by a congregation of bishops. Maybe that's not authoritative under canon law, but it sure sounds like it.

The subsequent lifting of the excommunications made clear that SSPX held no doctrinal authority at all.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

SSPX is not schismatic.

Quick examples- removal of the prayers at the foot of the altar, much less prayer for intercession, and the lax rubrics that effectively did away with closed digits after the Consecration and other acts of reverence.

---

Yes they are:

https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046

Quote:

---

The leaders of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are in schism, and remain suspended from the sacraments, says the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

---

Thank you for citing examples of what are perceived to be differing theology. I think these are differences of form, not theology, but I am too busy today to get into that debate.

That article is outdated and no longer true.

You'll have a tough time convincing me that a group that uses the name of the Holy Father in the Roman Canon is in schism from said pope.