Surprise! The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) has returned as a hot-button issue, if it ever really left. Singapore’s Cardinal William Goh Seng Chye hopes restrictions on the TLM will be dropped, The Catholic Herald reports. In 2021, Pope Francis severely restricted the TLM, following Pope Benedict XVI’s approval of greater freedom for the older form of worship back now some eighteen years ago.
San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, on X, “seconded” Cardinal Goh’s comments, writing that “lifting the restrictions on the use of the 1962 Missal would be grand, healing, and unifying.” He also stressed how doing so could strengthen unity and foster love.
Meanwhile, Bishop Michael Martin of the Diocese of Charlotte recently moved to limit the TLM in his diocese to a single chapel, as a result of the late Pope Francis’ pastoral charge. Supporters say the move promotes unity of the Roman Rite, while critics contend it imposes unnecessary uniformity and risks further alienating Catholics attached to the older form.
Cardinal Goh and Archbishop Cordileone’s approach seems to make a lot of pastoral sense, though dropping the current restrictions on the TLM won’t automatically be “healing and unifying.” It will take time, along with a lot of work—prayer, conversation, patience, and explanation. Also, good faith and room for reasonable disagreement among committed Catholics. Rhetoric will need toning down on all sides. Above all, charity will be a “must.”
In the long run, a seemingly unnecessarily severe, apparently 1970s-pastoral-assumption-driven approach—essentially to all-but-eliminating the TLM—probably won’t work. Even many Catholics with little or no interest in the TLM may find highly “unpastoral” what looks to many like a harsh “containment” or “suppression” strategy. Many Catholics prefer a live-and-let-live approach, since both the older form and the newer form are, from their perspective, expressions of the Roman Liturgy.
For the record, my wife and I are members of a fairly middle-of-the-road Catholic parish, with Mass celebrated according to the rubrics. That is, the 1969 Mass rubrics. And in English. No TLM. Even where I work—Ignatius Press—the Mass celebrated is the Novus Ordo, albeit with a mix of English and Latin, and with the Roman Canon offered ad orientem. More or less the “reform of the reform” championed by Pope Benedict XVI and others.
In either case, I don’t really have a dog in the TLM liturgical fight. But, like many people, my wife and I have Traditionalist Catholic friends and family, and fostering deeper communion should be on every Catholic’s agenda. Which is why it seems to me Church leaders ought eagerly to explore ways TLM Catholics can be reasonably accommodated and helped to contribute to the life and mission of the Church. There are growing numbers of young families at the TLM. Why risk adding them to the already large list of the disaffiliated?
Yes, some Traditionalists insist rather loudly that the old Mass is superior to the Mass according to the 1969 Missal, the so-called “new Mass.” So what? That sort of thing isn’t peculiar to Traditionalist Catholics. Eastern Catholic friends often assert the East “does it better,” while maintaining that all Catholic churches are of “equal dignity.” Eastern Catholics, as do Traditionalist Catholics (and, shhh, Novus Ordo Catholics), have their preferences. They often argue for those preferences. It’s no threat or at least it needn’t be.
Of course, it is a big deal that extreme Traditionalist Catholics have denied the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council, trash-talked the Novus Ordo liturgy as a pious picnic, and denounced Pope Francis as an anti-Pope. Respectful critique is one thing; wholesale attack is another.
Now I’ve known people who’ve suffered deeply and personally from Radical Traditionalism. Their stories aren’t pretty. They point to a problem, and we shouldn’t deny it. But these are much like the stories of people getting messed up from other forms of Catholicism, including strands of progressive Catholicism. Let’s not overgeneralize.
In my experience, most Traditionalists are not hardliners or radical Traditionalists or Vatican II repudiators or Novus Ordo invalidators. They may have concerns and questions about Vatican II, doubts and uncertainties about this or that in the Novus Ordo, but most want to be in full communion with the Church. And even some who are radicals are at least willing to talk.
Something some critics neglect is how many hardliners feel provoked, or at least tempted, to adopt a more extreme position by various, recent upheavals in the Church, including what they feel have been public insults from church leaders, including Pope Francis, targeted at them. Fair or not, those reactions should be considered in any genuinely pastoral response.
With all the talk about being a “synodal” Church, surely there are better ways to foster communion with Traditionalist Catholics than a policy of containment. Surely, considering the various groups some synodal gatherings went out of their way to include, cultivate, and accompany—because everyone was told to “go to the peripheries”—we shouldn’t act as if Traditionalist Catholics are on a periphery too far, and are unworthy of accompaniment.
At a 2019 youth gathering, Filipino Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle famously sang John Lennon’s “Imagine,” sans the gratuitous swipes at the afterlife and religion of the original song. Maybe if a prominent Cardinal with an eye on ending the Liturgy Wars publicly performed “Give Peace a Chance” or “All You Need is Love,” some opponents of freer TLM access would be so overwhelmed by it they’d look for ways to build bridges to their Traditionalist Catholic brothers and sisters. Love is all you need.
Unfortunately, some Catholics seem to interpret Vatican II without due regard for the possibility that in the last seventy years the Holy Spirit (or, maybe he is the Holy Ghost?) might have tried to teach us a few things about how liturgical reform and renewal have gone (or not). The Spirit may be encouraging a legitimate diversity within unity, one that includes those deeply attached to the older form of the Mass. Perhaps the Spirit isn’t a fan of easily reducing people to a label like “backwardist” any more than he likes a too ready resort to words like “modernist” and “heretic.”
Maybe Pope Benedict XVI was right when, in his 2007 document Summorum Pontificum, he sought to avoid more division over the Liturgy, and he saw the possible work of the Spirit with those younger Catholics interested in the TLM. That development wasn’t anticipated by Vatican II. The God of Surprises, perhaps? Maybe Benedict XVI was reading “signs of the times” others missed. Perhaps his project needed more time, greater conversation, and more sympathetic dialogue.
Pope Benedict sought to avoid the kind of missteps by church leadership that have contributed to divisions and grave conflicts among Catholics in the past. “Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of centuries have rent the Body of Christ,” he wrote to his brother bishops, explaining his reasons for permitting a “wider use” of the old Mass, “one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden.”
“This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today,” he stressed, “to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.… Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”
I know many supporters of the present TLM crackdown think the Traditionalist Catholics abused Benedict’s effort. Some did, of course, but many didn’t. Probably most just want the older form of the Mass. What’s more, some opponents of Benedict XVI’s pastoral effort now use the polarization to which they have contributed to shut down that effort.
As a committed 1969 Missal Catholic, I’m not troubled by people participating in the TLM. It doesn’t disturb me that many young Catholic families are exploring it. If Traditionalist Catholics—old, young, or middle-aged—can find ways to participate fully, consciously, and actively in the TLM, then more power to them. Such participation in the Sacred Liturgy was the main goal Vatican II’s liturgical reform sought anyway.
Sure, I still argue why the particulars of Vatican II’s reform were needed. I still contend that the “TLM solution” isn’t “scalable” to the whole Church, for a variety of reasons, and even if it were, it wouldn’t ipso factobe desirable. But I can live with differences of opinion among Catholics on such points. Let’s have a robust but charitable discussion. Conversation about those differences is better than cancellation, which is where some critics of the TLM seem to want to move.
Yes, some Traditionalist Catholics can be obnoxious. Much the way you and I can be when something we cherish is under attack. Much as some progressive liturgists can be: “As we begin Mass today, I’d like you to turn to the person next to you, look into their eyes, and say, ‘Hello!’ and tell them where you’re from and what you like about them, this morning.” And, oh, by the way, if you don’t feel comfortable doing it, then there’s something wrong with you. You’re a legalistic, unloving, Pharisaical, rigid jerk. Thanks for joining us.
In any case, if some committed Catholics are able to enter better into the true spirit of the Sacred Liturgy via the TLM, why should it bother me? No one is suppressing the Mass I attend. Sure, some people call for a “reform of the reform,” which wants the celebration of Mass to more closely resemble what Vatican II called for. But whether or not that happens, there’s no real risk of people who prefer the Novus Ordo not being able to attend such a Mass. The risk seems to be all on the side of the tiny group of Catholics especially attached to the TLM.
To be sure, there are those who believe, fantastically in my view, that the future belongs to a universal restoration of the TLM. Let them think so. I think they’re mistaken but so what? If TLM proponents don’t completely agree with my views of the TLM’s future and the Novus Ordo, there’s no need to denounce them or seek to restrict the TLM. Who am I to judge, to paraphrase someone or the other, when it comes to others’ spiritual lives, anyway? Shouldn’t I be happy they find the TLM spiritually beneficial? We can still dialogue, disagree, and discuss the Sacred Liturgy, without trying to put the kibosh on the TLM.
H. L. Mencken famously (but unfairly) described Puritanism as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” Well, certain Catholics seem to operate from “the haunting fear that some other Catholic, somewhere, is attending the Traditional Latin Mass.”
“All are welcome,” right? Why shouldn’t that welcome include our brother and sister Traditionalist Catholics? Todos, todos, todos! A Traditionalist Catholic I know has started praying for Pope Francis’ intercession for an end to the TLM restrictions. What if his prayer is answered?
Since Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’ 2021 motu proprio limiting the TLM, division seems to have increased. Indeed, it seems that despite early missteps and problems, a decade and a half ago progress was being made toward mutual understanding. Not perfect harmony but progress. In recent years, though, we have seen heightened polarization. We’re further away from unity, in many ways, than we were.
It seems time to revisit Pope Benedict’s caution about the Church not contributing to divisions and to ask whether leadership in recent years has sometimes added to unhelpful antagonism. For example, in the use of harsh language and insults directed at “conservative” or “Traditionalist” Catholics. Is that sort of thing really likely to help deepen mutual understanding or will it tend to alienate?
Something, something, “synodality”… something, something, “walking together” comes to mind. To which my supposedly open, welcoming, accepting “progressive” and soi disant “synodal” Catholic pal answers, “Walking together doesn’t mean agreeing on everything!”
Exactly. I don’t have to agree with everything a Traditionalist Catholic thinks to see a brother or a sister there, and not “the other” whose form of Catholic worship is to be suppressed. We can walk together, right?
Again, there’s no personal stake for me in more widely permitting the TLM. But I am interested in greater Catholic unity and treating as sacred the older form of Roman Rite Catholic worship, alongside the many other older forms of Catholic worship we have in Eastern Catholicism.
“We can work it out,” another Singing Cardinal might belt out for us.
Not that I think it will be easy. But perhaps, with the widespread positive response many Traditionalist Catholics have given Pope Leo, it can happen. Of course, some Catholics may say I’m a dreamer, but then I’m not the only one. Maybe someday more will join us and the Church will be as one.
Not exactly a chant, but maybe we can find more than a few Cardinals and other Church leaders to sing the tune. Then again, we now have a Pope who sings the Regina Caeli. Perhaps he will inspire others. Perhaps, in time, he will reconsider his predecessor’s restrictions. Imagine that.
(Editor’s note: This essay was published originally on the “What We Need Now” site and is republished here with kind permission.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I’m happy that traditionalists should not be banished from polite conversation. However, it’s for traditionalists, not others, to define what they stand for. The historical reason why there is any traditional movement to speak of is Archbishop Marcel Lefrebvre. His stand was not based on either preference or obnoxiousness, but the position that there is a lot wrong with the TEXT of both the Second Council of the Vatican and the Novus Ordo (which is no reason to invoke those old red herrings of “repudiation” or “invalidity”).Traditionalists were not provoked into existence by the doings of Pope Francis, but by the regimes of Pope Paul VI and afterwards. Summorum pontificum tradition may fight on the hill of preference or ritualism, which is what they were brought into being to do. But the issues that gave rise to “traditionalism” in the first pace have not gone away. Nor have the traditionalists. Thank you Archbishop Lefebvre.
‘Traditionalism” is, and has always been, primarily about truth. Liturgical abuse and liturgical denial corresponds to how secularized Catholics and self-deified Catholics, encouraged by leaders of corrupted faith, sought to reinvent Catholicism in their own image. Their numbers have been vast, and their minds defiant, even towards such things like the beautiful affirmation that women are not to be abused by poisoning their bodies with contraception. Women and men are made in the image of God and don’t need to be modified. May Catholic amnesia towards its patrimony die its proper death.
I think a lot of people end up attending the TLM because they look for a reform-of-the-reform kind of Mass in their area and can’t find one. Often the TLM is the only option if you want Gregorian chant, ad orientem, Communion at an altar rail, and so on, so people are presented with a very binary choice.
The trouble seems to be that, as we have recently seen with the Bishop of Charlotte, a lot of influential churchmen still seem to think that the new liturgy is *supposed* to be a sort of repudiation of the Roman liturgical tradition rather than an updated but historically consistent new expression of it.
If Catholics want “Gregorian chant” and sacred polyphony, etc., they need to devote more of their school budgets to hiring a well-qualified music teacher or two and training the children of the parish from toddlerhood to LOVE music, to learn how to SING music (which involves reading both the WORDS and the MUSIC!), and as they get older, teaching them to sing correctly in a head voice, with proper breathing, and most importantly, raising them in a SINGING home in which the only music heard is NOT just rock, country, or pop on a recording.
I think Catholic schools especially need to moderate the sports budget and keep in mind that most kids who play sports will probably be in better physical condition and possibly earn a college scholarship, but in all likelihood, will never end up making a living from it or doing it after they are in the working world.
But they are supposed to be SINGING in most Masses, and that means at least some of them need to know how to play the piano, organ, and/or guitar to be able to accompany the music and everyone needs to learn how to sing! Yes, I know some people would prefer no instruments in the Mass, especially that “worldly” piano (which certainly costs a lot less to learn than the organ, and a CostCo piano can be purchased for under a $1000 if you watch the sales, but you can’t really purchase a home pipe organ and even a used one will set you back several thousand dollars).
People at TLM parishes put things like choirs and organ practice schedules and singing families and such together pretty routinely. Despite the fact that singing is not considered a required part of the Mass. That is because at TLM parishes, there is practically guaranteed to be a substantial portion of the parish that wants it, and a practically non-existent portion that opposes it. Find a NO parish with similar desires and lack of opposition, and you’ll probably find similar choirs and organ availability.
I think the trouble is more the presence of opposition, then the lack of substantial numbers in NO parishes with the desire for it.
This astute assessment, combined with the fact that the Roman Church must not return to pre-Conciliar liturgical forms nor theology, is why Pope Leo must reaffirm Traditionis Custodes and commit the Church to the full, correct, and authentic implementation of Vatican II’s liturgical reforms. As long as the TLM afficionados believe there’s a hope that the 1962 Missal will have a place in the post-Conciliar Church, they will hang on. Cut the rope. Decommission it once and for all. Just do it already.
Concomitant with abolishing the use of the 1962 Missal is the need for insisting that so-called “progressive” liturgy and experimentation have no place in the Church either. Let’s celebrate the reformed Mass in continuity with liturgical tradition and without the silly stuff. That will be hard work, but continuing to permit the 1962 Missal to be used will only prolong and add to the difficulties of celebrating the reformed Mass well.
Sebastian says: “This astute assessment, combined with the fact that the Roman Church must not return to pre-Conciliar liturgical forms nor theology,…”:
Why presume the Church ‘must not return’ to ‘pre-Conciliar’ forms or theology? Do you not know for FACT that the Church currently, contemporaneously, today adopts and uses not only traditional forms and theologies but also substances which pre-date VCII (which is what I assume you mean by ‘pre-Conciliar’).
Does the Body and Blood of Jesus, historically present on earth some 2,000+ years ago, not remain within His Church today? Has the Church of today ‘pulled the plug’ on the theology of St. Paul? How about the theology of Augustine or Aquinas? Think on these things.
I also recommend prayer, more prayer, and prayer again and again together with more learning, asking for knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. The Holy Spirit is ours for the asking, unless, of course, the Church threw him off the tower of Babel yesterday. Even then, why not pick Him up and dust Him off?
The statements by this Sebastian prove the divorce between the Novus Ordo and the perennial Catholic Faith. If the Novus Ordo were really in continuity with the Faith, if it really constituted a development rather than a revolution in Faith and Praxis, the Traditional Latin Mass would not appear to be such a counterrevolutionary threat to the new order of liturgy. At some level, everyone recognizes this. Not only is the Novus Ordo radically dissimilar to any previous iteration of the Roman Rite, it is also radically different from any other Rite of the Church: Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, Syro-Malabar, Maronite you name it.
On the contrary, the only reason there are any efforts to celebrate the Novus Ordo in a reverent manner – with the Church’s official music of chant and with all traditional signs of reverence such as kneeling, the communion rail, ad orientem, etc. – is that the TLM has never gone away, It remains as the standard of what a liturgy is supposed to be. The same bishops who hate the TLM are also the bishops who hate any sign of reverence in the Novus Ordo. The Bishop of Charlotte is not some sort of outlier. He exemplifies a clerical attitude that dates from the inception of the Novus Ordo. Get rid of the TLM, and you will see Protestant-style “worship” everywhere. Lex orandi and lex credendi are inseparable from each other and from the TLM.
“the Roman Church”
So, you’re not Catholic, then? Because I know of no actual Catholics who call it the “Roman Church.”
“must not return to pre-Conciliar liturgical forms nor theology”
Sez you.
I attend the TLM (when I can because it is a difficult trip to get there) because it is quiet, contemplative, the music is lovely, the people are quiet when entering the Church, they are quiet when exiting the church – just a few of many reasons.
When there I once spoke to people who come from 100 miles away EVERY Sunday, passing a Novus Ordo Church 5 miles from their house on the way. Why do they do that – you’d have to ask them.
Just let us choose for ourselves – surely that’s not asking too much.
I suspect that folks who end up at TLM also are looking for like-minded folks with whom to worship and create community, maybe even if they don’t totally think about it in that way.
My impression is that TLM goers, at least the younger ones, don’t use contraception (nearly as much anyway), tend to have larger families, tend to breastfeed more, tend to homeschool more, tend to like to do more Church-oriented activities (as opposed to sports and other secular hobbies, etc) more so than the usual NO goer.
I could be wrong but I suspect there is a bit of truth there.
Edward, a lot of people end up at TLM because they are seeking the real-deal Catholic Church that has been eclipsed by the modernist apostasy in Rome.
Novos Ordo can sometimes be celebrated be dignity. TLM can never be offered in an undignified way… It is the Mass scripted by the Apostlic Tradition not the freelason Bugnini.
Mr. Cracked nut: Are you old enough to have attended many pre-Vatican II masses?
I attend pre-Vatican 2 mass on Sundays, and it ressembles my vague memories of pre-1975.
And I am old enough to have spent 2 years in a novos ordo seminary in the 1980s abd to have understood the modernist apostasy is an anti-Catholic phenomenon.
Mr Cracked Nut, you hit the nail on the head. The difference between the modern mass and the pre VII mass is theological, not just language and style. If Catholics were to read what changes were made and why, they would be stocked.
How can the church believe a liturgy that accommodates Protestant beliefs will not have a negative affect on the church?
Too true Nick. The liturgical war of the 16th century that was laid to rest at Trent was re-opened like a can of old worms by the enemies of the church within. With it, every abominable objection to Catholic Truth rears its ugly head, leading a Church which was a powerful bulwark against the demon Zeitgeist, back into a 16th century war zone but via a Trojan Horse and a war within.
The Novus Ordo is the norm,and is accepted unreflectingly by the great majority of Massgoers. But you would be hard put to point to any ways in which it helps build up the holiness of the Church or of individual believers.
There’s a vast library documenting its liturgical superiority, but I have yet to come across a serious defence of the merits of the NO.
Did you notice the great rejoicing in 2019 on the 50th anniversary of its introduction? Neither did I. The date was passed in silence. Could it be because the Church felt there was nothing to celebrate?
You raise an interesting point. I teach at a Catholic university renowned for both its orthodoxy and its, let us say, “upbeat” orientations. Some years ago, I expected huge campus celebrations – lectures, liturgies, testimonies, etc. – about the enormous contributions of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo when the milestone anniversaries of these events were noted. Instead, there was hardly any mention at all. The deafening silence seemed almost embarrassing.
As long as the intent and purpose of both masses is to conform the world to God then the discussion is limited to means and effectiveness between men of good will. The topic is then limited to the discussion of where progressive priests, bishops and laity want to modernize the modern “mass”. Perhaps the discussion would include elements of the new mass that should be reverted to sustain traditions to preclude further modernization.
When I was in high school in a rural community, one of the girls in my class was from an extremely-conservative Baptist church. In the 1970s, while all the rest of the girls (like me!) donned whatever the current fashion fad was and/or jeans/t-shirts or sweatshirts, along with long straight hair (or the current short haircut–the Twiggy, the shag, the flip, etc.!), this girl was wearing long (just above the ankle), homemade calico dresses buttoned up to the neck, black button-up shoes, and her beautiful long red hair in a bun.
And she was one of the most popular girls in the class. Everyone liked her! And she…liked all of us! She was on school sports teams–wearing appropriately modest uniforms. She never wore makeup. She was in the choirs and the school musicals and plays. She was smart–ended up in the Top Ten. (I was #2!). She was very pretty in a “Little House” way! She went to the Homecoming Dance and the Prom with her boyfriend (who dressed in Amish style suits) and didn’t dance but enjoyed being with all the rest of us (none of us could dance very well anyway!).
And she never criticized any of us for our preferences in fashion or music or whatever.
Perhaps it helped that we lived in a farming area of Northern Illinois, where people are generally more accepting of each other as everyone is working very hard to take care of the land and the stock and eke out a living while they fed the rest of the world. Although I moved to this community when I was in high school (yes, had to leave my huge inner-city high school, where we had the highest number of students in my class in history–we were part of the Baby Boomers, and our particular generation was huge!), I was welcomed and had no trouble fitting in, although I do remember becoming a “fashion icon” because I often wore “trendy clothing”–my very “hip” mom embraced the “Cher” look and was willing to buy me the Boho clothing, maxi skirts, mini-mini skirts, the “psychedelic” fabrics, Osh Kosh Bib overalls, and whatever the current bell bottoms were (we went from small flares to “elephant bells” in the same season)!
But for the most part, all the “cliques” got along–our ultra-Baptist girl in her prairie dresses who bowed her head and prayed before eating the cafeteria lunch (I don’t blame her!), the hippies and yippies like me, the “farm girls” in their Osh Kosh overalls, the conservatives in their dress slacks and sweaters, the political activists in their “End The War!” shirts featuring the peace symbol and John Lennon holding a guitar with a dove, or perhaps the “Ecology symbol”, the Jesus People, the one African American girl in the school–all of us were friends or at least friendly with each other. I didn’t become a Conservative Baptist, and our Conservative Baptist friend didn’t fall away from her religion as she grew older. Many of the kids eventually left their farms for careers in the nearby cities, but many are still farming 50 years later. (Our 50th reunion will be held in September 2025!)
Perhaps all that talk about “Love, love, love” and “Give Peace a Chance” was actually taken seriously back then.
And I think it definitely helped that when I was a freshman in high school, the draft for the Viet Nam war ended and all our “boys” were now safe. I don’t know that young people today can imagine how awful it was to grow up wondering if the boys we liked would end up drafted and killed in Viet Nam. I can’t say I blame the generation of teenagers before me from protesting–fear makes people do a lot of weird things.
And now I’m 68, and I still wear slacks all the time, mainly jeans. I can count on two fingers the number of times that I have worn a “dress” in the last 30 years (yes, two times). And I still wear t-shirts that have messages on them that I believe in! I still regret that I was too young to attend Explo 72. I support the military, but I am relieved that my son-in-law decided to go to junior college and then accept a job with an aviation company instead of enlisting. I recycle everything, even though my grown kids shake their heads and tell me it’s silly. I would wear a t-shirt with a peace symbol, but I also support Pres. Trump. I believe people should immigrate legally into the country and apply for asylum in the U.S. if they are in danger in their hostile countries, not just go over the border and enter our country illegally, and I would not join in any movement, Catholic or otherwise, that condoned illegal entry into the U.S.A.
And after converting to Catholicism in 2004, I support both legitimate forms of the Mass and I even accompanied the school choirs for a Traditional Mass private school (and loved all those students!). I do not get diddly-squat out of the Latin Mass and would never want to attend it on a regular basis, but I have many friends who do attend “the Old Mass” and I support their ability to do so. I actually LIKE a lot of the “contemporary music” in the missalettes–but I don’t like all of it and think the hymns with the “swishy” words and rambling melodies should either be revised or removed ASAP! I also love most of the traditional hymns and although I would not want the entire OF form to utilize nothing but chant, I don’t mind if a small amount of chant is used because I know that many others love it. (I don’t love chant–it reminds me of the music in the Hammer Studio horror flicks back in the 1970s!)
Maybe it’s just my “mellow” generation–we tended to live and let live, and many of us still live this way. When we gave someone the peace symbol (google it), we meant it. We supported freedom of speech and religion–hey, it’s in the U.S. Constitution! We also supported the military and our friends (peers) who joined the military and went to Viet Nam.
We were and still are “mellow.”
From what I have seen, many of the converts from Protestantism to Catholicism are from my generation. Perhaps being mellow and open-minded (I prefer the phrase “Thoughtfully Minded’) is one of the attributes that makes many of us willing to actually look seriously at Catholicism and recognize the truth of it instead of closing our ears and listening exclusively to people like Jack T. Chick (who was quite prominent when I was growing up–I even enjoyed a correspondence with him involving the extremely popular TV show, Dark Shadows).
My mother used to love “mellow” bananas, as she called them. I’m talking about the bananas that are totally brown and mushy–I would actually call them “rotten!” While the rest of us would grimace while we watched her eat them (but we didn’t condemn her for her preference), she would enjoy them! Allowing her to enjoy them didn’t hurt our love of firmer bananas, but it sure made for a more peaceful and loving FAMILY!
Maybe Catholics should consider being a bit more “mellow.”
Hello Mrs. Mellow,
Your writing interests me. But too often I have not enough time to read your posts which are often lengthy, so I zip through, choosing a paragraph or two in which to hone.
Your “Explo” did just as implied. What exactly was/is that? Thanks.
Overripe bananas make great banana bread.
🙂
YES! I will forego the overly ripe, brown mushy ones. But if I were hungry enough, I likely would eat those too. I’ve been told that poor folk in India eat the peels, no matter the stage of ripe.
Thank you Mr Brumley!
Like you, I am not a “TLM” person.
However, due to the (against Vatican II) almost total absence of real, authentic, deeper-than-feelings formation on The Mass and other parts of the Church’s Liturgy on the part of all (including and especially those responsible for teaching and preaching it), I have often been accused and labeled as being so. Bring up the radicalness of the saints, the words of Vatican II, and/or of various popes – you know, objective reality and truth – and you are cast aside and canceled as “anti-people” or “anti-participation.” This only underscores the total lack of formation of even the many “educated” persons in “pastoral” positions and such on multiple levels: philosophical, theological, anthropological, specifically sacramental and liturgical, psychological, and so on.
We are led by mostly wounded, worldly men who although called to be “fathers in The Lord” are far more friendly with the world than with Him. How can one say that? How many times have radicalized bishops been permitted by their “brothers” to publicly say any number of preposterous statements, liturgical or otherwise, over the decades with absolutely zero challenge from any other bishops? The great Fr. Fessio said it once during a televised Mass at EWTN, “When bishops act like nuns, nuns have to act like bishops!”
Thus, the situation in North Carolina continues as the latest in a long, long, too long string of similar occurrences where an ordained man takes liberties with The Mass and other parts of the Liturgy of the Church with no adherence or obedience to the Word of God (in the full sense of the term), the examples of the saints, etc.
It makes me think back to the battle Mother Angelica had with Bishop David Foley of Birmingham over the ad orientem posture. As the bishop was being questioned one evening about why (most likely by an insistent layperson), he responded tellingly by saying, “I’ll do what I want!”
Like it or not, this is the attitude of all too many of our bishops and priests (and deacons and laypersons) who, again, have zero, absolutely zero, authentic education, teaching, or formation in this most fundamental of areas and subjects. For those who disagree, Vatican II said it, Our Lord Himself said it (more than once), His saints say it, and the authentic teachers of the Faith say it. If we do not understand the meaning, the depth of significance, of this most rational and deep and true reality…then His Church will continue along the path of division and mediocrity. After all, if the public worship offered by the Church to God is offered in a manner that is politicized, allowed to be treated by personal whim, throwing millenia of work by The Holy Spirit Himself out the window, pushing God Himself to the side in the interest of making the people “feeling good” or “feel involved” or “not offended,” etc., how can the result be otherwise?
You do not have to be a participant in the TLM movement to want a God-centered Mass, according to the true mind of the bishops of Vatican II, as taught authentically by St John Paul II, and by the saintly, angelic-minded Benedict XVI. The great Bishop Sheen prophesied that the laity will save the Church. Pray that He send us real, Christian fathers – not friends of the world and imitators of its ways. Support those who are credible, not who merely hold a position of authority.
The Mass is Source and Summit, as He said, as His Church teaches.
Is it YOUR personal Source and Summit? If not…there is none other possible that is better. If yes…we should all learn more about It, and want it to be offered totally focused on Him, with no politicization or worldly-centered encroachments.
Lastly, regarding our friends who sincerely desire the TLM, for those who look at them with disdain…Persecution, as we know, is a huge, huge indicator…
“Like it or not…all too many of our bishops and priests… have zero, absolutely zero, authentic education, teaching, or formation…”
TL, you nailed the deep tragedy of the situation: The Novus Ordo seminaries were no longer offering Catholic priestly formation when these men were deformed into opinionated Marxist deconstructivists.
“Ignorance is Strength” wrote Orwell in 1984. Novus Ordo applied the principle.
As a convert to the Catholic Church, I approach discussions surrounding liturgical forms without the historical “baggage” that can sometimes accompany lifelong Catholics. My personal experience has led me to a profound appreciation for the Traditional Latin Mass. I find its solemnity, timelessness, and rich symbolism deeply inspiring; it genuinely nourishes my spiritual life and propels me forward in my pursuit of holiness and a more intimate relationship with God.
Conversely, my understanding of the Second Vatican Council is, frankly, more a source of confusion than clarity. I was alive during that period but remained outside the Church. My recollections of visiting a Catholic Mass in the 1970s are quite distinct: I remember being genuinely repelled by what struck me as a lack of reverence, exemplified by things like “felt wall hangings” and, to my ears, “dreadful music.” This experience was so significant that it took me nearly 40 years before I reconsidered the Catholic Church.
The adage “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:16) applies not only to individuals but also, I believe, to broader movements and liturgical developments within the Church. My own journey stands as a testament to the profound impact that liturgical expression can have on an individual’s openness to faith. I view the impact of Vatican II on the Church an invitation to a more open dialogue.
Yes, we need to end the liturgical wars. We need the PEACE of CHRIST to reign on our altars.
You’d know exactly what I mean if you’d been at my granddaughter’s 8th grade graduation “Mass” at Corpus Christi Church in Hasbrouck Heights NJ this past Friday. Before Mass began and in the presence of the reposed Blessed Sacrament, you could easily have been at a pre-basketball game pep rally. There was loud chatter and out-of-control adults running up and down the aisles talking loudly. Families had brought with them oversized placards with their graduate’s face plastered on it and were waving them to cheer on their precious center guard. The pastor gave no less than four homilies during the Mass during which he thanked everyone with the exception of the school custodian/janitor. Of course everyone received Holy Communion because sin has been virtually eliminated in Northern New Jersey. The youth choir was a discordant, chaotic, undisciplined, cacophonic assembly of children whose parents have undoubedtly told them would someday be star performers like Taylor Swift. The Kiss of Peace was the typical Novus Order love-in with everyone running up and down the aisles greeting all their friends with feigned tears in their eyes. It was such is deplorable, disrespectful and irreverent display that we’ve all grown used to. And then I thought about the fact that my Catholic Church seeks to suppress the Old Latin Mass because of some ill-defined pretexts.
I simply cannot wait until September when this same granddaughter will receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. It should be a hoot.
Mr Brumley might perhaps have a different perspective if he had to live with that sort of celebration of the Pauline Mass week after week! I myself, now that I’m old, don’t, but years ago, in a few different dioceses, the shimmering mirage of a ‘properly celebrated NO Mass’ hovered in the distance (and the pages of generally-ignored bishops’ letters and opinion columns written by well-intentioned folks) tantalizing those of us who suffered through sacrilege and irreverence and terrible heresy-inflected ‘sacred music’. After twenty years of that nonsense, I was well-prepared to hear the arguments of the ‘traditionalists’.
Not sure what you mean but just to be clear: over the last forty-five years, I have had my share of problematic celebrations of Novus Ordo Masses. And since at least 1984, I have been carefully listening to and studying the arguments of Traditionalist Catholics. Even before that, in trying to make sense of Catholic things as I explored Catholicism, I talked to Catholics who had grown up with the older form of the Mass. This is not something I have somehow just started thinking about yesterday.
Great thoughts, Mark. I appreciate the contribution to a spirit of unity in the Church and generally agree with letting people participate in the liturgy that speaks to them most. That said, I do think that there are still some liturgical tweaks that could, and maybe even should, be made to aim at greater unity if we’re going to allow for two forms of the same rite going forward. If I had my druthers, I’d explore revising the 1962 missal of the extraordinary form and the latest revision of the revision of the ordinary form with a couple points that I think could work wonders to move toward a central unity. 1.) I’d largely leave the EF as is; but I’d update the readings, responsorial psalms, and prayers to match the current liturgical calendar. It’s obnoxious that those who attend the EF and the OF are supposedly participating in the same rite and liturgy; but still aren’t celebrating the same feasts on the same day. I’d also make it so that even at EF masses the Communicant says “amen” after being presented with the Eucharist. 2.) I’d have OF masses celebrated ad orientem, stipulate use of the Roman Canon, and I’d update the language of the Eucharistic Prayers to be said in Latin. I would also bring back communion rails so that people could have the option of receiving the Eucharist while kneeling.
Given, these are pretty monumental changes; but man would they do a lot more to make these two rites feel more like brothers instead of awkward roommates that just tolerate each other.
Based on my experience assisting at the TLM, it is best to exclusively attend it for at least a decade before suggesting changes to it. There are a lot of things that you don’t fully understand until you’ve been formed by the Rite for quite a while. I expect something similar applies to the NO and other Rites.
Requiring the communicant to say “Amen” seems problematic. Participants at both Masses now move their entire being in order to present themselves to receive. They open their hands or their mouths for what they’ve been taught and at every receipt are told: “The Body of Christ.” Many now say “Amen” while many of those same speakers later renounce their agreement or belief.
Also, at the UA, the receiver typically holds out his tongue. Having to say something would simply reintroduce sound when what is needful at the very moment is preparation by prayerful silent solemn anticipation and expectation of His Wonder soon to be magnified in our hearts and souls. What would OUR word add to Him or to us at such a moment?
Seriously, why? What benefit would an “Amen” bring to such a moment?
Simple questions, are those who claim that “ if there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party (no Holy Ghost) nor is Society affected, in order to justify the act of abortion or sexual immorality, making it appear that such acts are of a “private “ nature and are thus not sinful, in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church ?
I’m pretty sure they are believing a heresy of some sort, however, one can believe a heresy out of ignorance or coercion without being a heretic and outside the Church. Only if such were believed, by a baptized Catholic, with the understanding that it is contrary to required Church teaching, and with no coercion to say or believe otherwise, would the person be out of communion.
It might be good to remember: just because someone tells them, does not mean they have sufficient knowledge. There’s a lot of people in the Church running around saying things about Church teaching. Sometimes they are wrong on what it is, other times they are wrong on whether it is actually a required belief. I personally would not immediately alter my beliefs just because someone told me they were contrary to the Faith, there are far too many people making that claim incorrectly.
As a broader menu to this leavening dialogue it would be interesting to also know what percent of the TLM and the NOVIS ORDO Church membership groups have actually read the four complementary Constitutions of the Church—what the inseparable dimensions of ressourcement (deepening in the fact of the mysterious Incarnation) and aggiornamento (engagement with the ideas and energies a too-much desacralized world) propose—both together. That is, what Benedict identified as the “real” Council as distinguished from the “virtual” council of the media?
Or perhaps, more importantly, have read the Scriptures!
I apologize, but..What is (true) point of this question in the context of an article on this topic?
That those who are (too) focused on The Mass are myopic? Or “Uneducated?” What? (You misspelled Novus, by the way…).
Merely because there are four Constitutions does not make them equal. At all.
As one learns in real, authentic philosophy, as was hammered into us, “If your starting point is off in the beginning, by just a little, tiny bit, then later, when you are 10000 miles down the road (and sooner), you are so far off course that can’t get back.”
And more, “God always forgives, man sometimes forgives…but Nature NEVER forgives.” You pay the price for intellectual errors.
The Starting Point (and Center, and Ending Point, for that matter) Is The Mass and other parts of the Church’s Liturgy. This is The Way It Is. There is nothing else that is, or CAN be, “on the same level,” or “near,” or whatever.
Bugnini got it wrong. That is obvious — both from his very own words (and those of his helpers), and from the “fruit,” (“By their fruit you shall know them…”).
Some day we are going to have to admit that (and fix it, hopefully).
Asking about what others have read — and accusing people of being bad, raddy, traddies who are not – have YOU read (with any depth of understanding) Sacrosanctum Concilium? And then perhaps asked WHY?
Until The Mass is again focused on God (you mentioned Benedict- have you read ANYTHING he wrote about the destruction and chaos in the liturgy? It was his ever-more-intense theme!), the Church will remain divided, confused, worldly and mediocre.
You can read any of the ever-greater number of “theologians” who raise an ever greater number of “interesting intellectual points,” or themes, or whatever, but sooner or later, we have to get back to and address the rock-bottom Foundation, The Only Possible One, Jesus Christ, our Starting Point, our Center, our Ending Point — and re-learn to treat Him as Who and What He Is. In His Mass.
THIS trumps everything else. The Mass is where we ALL can (and should) do that, in that short hour every week, both individually AND corporately, everywhere. This is what He deserves. No more man-centered worship.
Lastly, NONE of the above is said in any legalistic, rule-based, robotic sense. It is all said based on, in and for The Person of Jesus Christ. If you do not have the education and/or understanding to see that reality…well, we all need more.
Vatican II said so.
Did I say “equal”? Or “myopic”? As Pope Leo now navigates the complex landscape of the recent past, I hope you will continue to aim your shotgun blast at me rather than him. Can’t see where your central point differs from my own.
I’m committed to giving you every opportunity. As a famous Hollywood theologian once said “Go ahead, make my day.”
Dear Sir –
I asked a sincere question. Your response seemed not to respond to the thrust of the article, and more…
As does your second response. Neither of my statements even mentioned our new Pope, let alone even thought of criticizing him.
I agree, our new pope has an incredibly complex situation – in virtually every arena – and much, much confusion and even erroneous thought from the last pope. Totally agree.
However, my own basic point is that, in order to enable the true participation that the bishops of Vatican II desired, they said basically that “everyone needs more education and formation” in the Mass and the Liturgy, and that this has not happened, AT ALL. In spite of having the incredible teachings, leadership, and examples of JPII and then Benedict XVI. Even the bishops, responsible for teaching and protecting the Faith – the heart of Which IS The Mass – know precious little about It, and to this day permit It to be politicized, minimized, celebrated in a childish, non-credible manner. And, they perpetuate and force this attitude into their seminarians and dioceses.
Regarding the TLM…everyone ELSE is allowed to have their McDonald’s Mass (really, a Burger King Mass, “Have it your way”), so, why not the TLM people? Why treat them as enemies, as evil, or whatever?
If there IS “division” caused by the TLM, it can only go back to lack of understanding due to no authentic formation. Which, again, goes back to those who are responsible for teaching and protecting The Faith. They STILL continue to do nothing on our Lord’s behalf to bring true peace in this most fundamental, foundational area.
They literally do what our Dear Lord Himself condemned the Pharisees for in Mt 23:13, they “ neither enter [them]selves, nor allow others to enter,” by perpetuating the minimization of the Mass, against the teachings of The Real Vatican II.
Not to belabor the point, but below there is a nice response from a Jesuit priest – a Jesuit! – who is using incorrect very BASIC terminology referring to the two Forms and such. A very minimal thing, to be sure, but…it just makes the point about how very, very, very little understanding and authentic formation there has been, up to our very day, about This Most Fundamental Truth and Reality of all of our lives, and even of the life of the world.
I say very gently, Sir, that it seems possible – possible – that you assume much a proiori in liturgical discussions, ie, that most people are angry TLM anti-pope etc.
Such is not the case. I am Vatican II.
The Real One.
The Mass is Source, Center, and Summit. It can be nothing else. We ALL need – NEED – far, far, far more AUTHENTIC, TRUE teaching, and be ALLOWED to treat Him as He has every right to deserve from us.
God bless, good Sir.
My response is to what is now the 4th and 5th line of your 4th paragraph.
Dear Sir –
I asked a sincere question. Your response seemed not to respond to the thrust of the article, and more…
As does your second response. Neither of my statements even mentioned our new Pope, let alone even thought of criticizing him.
I agree, our new pope has an incredibly complex situation – in virtually every arena – and much, much confusion and even erroneous thought from the last pope. Totally agree.
However, my own basic point is that, in order to enable the true participation that the bishops of Vatican II desired, they said basically that “everyone needs more education and formation” in the Mass and the Liturgy, and that this has not happened, AT ALL. In spite of having the incredible teachings, leadership, and examples of JPII and then Benedict XVI. Even the bishops, responsible for teaching and protecting the Faith – the heart of Which IS The Mass – know precious little about It, and to this day permit It to be politicized, minimized, celebrated in a childish, non-credible manner. And, they perpetuate and force this attitude into their seminarians and dioceses.
Regarding the TLM…everyone ELSE is allowed to have their McDonald’s Mass (really, a Burger King Mass, “Have it your way”), so, why not the TLM people? Why treat them as enemies, as evil, or whatever?
If there IS “division” caused by the TLM, it can only go back to lack of understanding due to no authentic formation. Which, again, goes back to those who are responsible for teaching and protecting The Faith. They STILL continue to do nothing on our Lord’s behalf to bring true peace in this most fundamental, foundational area.
They literally do what our Dear Lord Himself condemned the Pharisees for in Mt 23:13, they “ neither enter [them]selves, nor allow others to enter,” by perpetuating the minimization of the Mass, against the teachings of The Real Vatican II.
Not to belabor the point, but below there is a nice response from a Jesuit priest – a Jesuit! – who is using incorrect very BASIC terminology referring to the two Forms and such. A very minimal thing, to be sure, but…it just makes the point about how very, very, very little understanding and authentic formation there has been, up to our very day, about This Most Fundamental Truth and Reality of all of our lives, and even of the life of the world.
I am not an “angry TLM anti-pope person,” ever – although I DO vigorously support those who desire the TLM.
I am Vatican II. The Real One.
The Mass is Source, Center, and Summit. It can be nothing else. We ALL need – NEED – far, far, far more AUTHENTIC, TRUE teaching, and be ALLOWED to treat Him as He has every right to deserve from us.
God bless, good Sir.
Right on, Mark. Thanks
To be clear, what makes Jorge Bergoglio an anti Pope, is not just that he rejects the teaching of The Magisterium, grounded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture on the legitimate form and substance of the Traditional Latin Mass, but rather, in his complacency and casual approach to all things Catholic, he claims, “ if there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party (no Holy Ghost) nor is society affected, denying that our Call to Holiness is a Call to be Temples of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships , while affirming the counterfeit church with its counterfeit magisterium, that for some time now has been attempting to subsist within The One Body Of Christ, while claiming because the act of abortion or sexually immoral acts are done in private relationships they are not sinful because they are of a private nature, and thus for the counterfeit church, they reject the fact that :
“1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121 1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125“
“Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit“).”
You may say I’m a dreamer But I’m not the only one I hope someday you’ll join us And the world will be as one.
John Lennon went much further. Mark Brumley imagines something conceivably simple. But is it? His argument is quite reasonable. Then Pope Leo has made a public commitment to follow the legacy of Francis. Can he bend a little and include Benedict XVI in his commitment to what? The strife of division over the liturgy? Will he rub more salt into the wound to heal it?
There is hope because he recently quoted Paul VI in declaring, counter to Francis I, that the integrity of Marriage is not a figment of the imagination.
Something some critics neglect is how many hardliners feel provoked, or at least tempted, to adopt a more extreme position by various, recent upheavals in the Church, including what they feel have been public insults from church leaders…”
*******
Exactly. I’ve seen this in our TLM community. It’s got to the point where I don’t feel comfortable attending the TLM, which is a great shame because I love the liturgy. I just can’t do the weirdness, conspiracy stories, & growing anti-Semitism I hear.
When you restrict people’s worship to a “bunker” don’t be surprised when they develop a bunker mentality. Bring the TLM back out into the open, back into the parishes & cathedrals where it belongs.
You’ve got it backwards: the TLM in the post-Vatican II ecclesial context is the bunker that creates the isolationist, anti-magisterial, anti-Vatican II bunker mentality among TLM adherents.
Pope Francis was right about the TLM fostering division and dissension.
Restricting the TLM is not creating a bunker. The TLM itself is already that bunker that engenders opposition to the rest of the post-Vatican II Church. Look how many TLM afficionados refuse to integrate into their parishes after the TLM is discontinued. Instead, they drive hundreds of miles in some cases to the nearest available TLM bunker.
The pre-Vatican II liturgy does not belong anymore in the post-Vatican II Church context.
Thank you Sebastian!
I’ve been around TLM folks for quite a long time Sebastian and this is a new phenomenon.
Sébastien, a bunker is a renforced, underground shelter used in wartime.
No longer protected by the Council of Trent, the TLM bunker is where a small remnant of Catholics are holding out against the resurrgence of the 16th century protestant apostasy.
I’m sorry to hear about that. It’s always sad to hear about what could be a great community running into such problems.
There are a lot of TLM communities who’ve largely escaped that, and I think a sense of security within the parish that it will continue to exist, has something to do with it. Restoration, particular in diocesan parishes (and something to do besides worry-wort about whatever’s in the news) will probably help.
Thank you Amanda. I’ve been attending the TLM from the time Pope Benedict made that possible and I never saw these sorts of problems until he TLM was suppressed.
There you go again. Leading me to hope. So thanks for your reasoned, fair, neutral understanding of wherein peace lies.
Editorial disclosures to the contrary, CWR continues to feature a theologian-blogger who rhetorically, hyperbolically, often without fail, equates capitalized “Traditionalists” to those who hope for a deep and densely populated hell. He often doesn’t even see fit to add the “Catholic” noun to ensure that the “Traditionalist” doesn’t enter Catholic territory. It seems a war and weapons have been chosen.
What’s a person to do? Believe in you??? Nah. In God I trust and hope. What’s good for my soul is what He’ll grant. Weeds, wheat, chaff and all that. God bless our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And you? Have a nice day. 😀
Mr. Brumley is generous in his call for us to lay down our arms in the Latin Mass Wars.
But there is something I would like us all to remember.
The Catholic faith — and its eponymous Catholic Mass — is “catholic”
I.e., universal.
So the Mass, whether it is rendered in the English, French, Brooklynese or Inuinnaqtun language — or even, yes, in Latin — is still the *Catholic* Mass.
In every case, the Consecration in that Mass brings down the Holy Spirit like the dewfall, so that our glorious and merciful Lord, Jesus Christ, is able to join us and become one with us.
If that is true — as it most certainly is — then who can possibly object, whatever language is spoken?
As to some presumed antagonism between Latin Mass attendees and Vatican II, I fail to see how the language of the Masses one attends can possibly have a bearing on one’s opinion of of a Church council that took place 65 years ago.
I have loved the documents of Vatican II since the seventies. And I have done my best to defend the Council on these pages for a long time.
But if Bergoglio — or anyone else — wanted to help Catholics better appreciate Vatican II, then he should have sponsored Vatican II Appreciation Nights at our parishes.
Persecuting the Catholic Mass is only playing into the paranoia of the most raddest of the Trads.
Indeed, persecuting the Catholic Mass, celebrated as it was by the faithful for scores of centuries, in whatever language, appears to me to be an evil unprecedented in Church history.
It’s not just about language. The novus ordo Mass can be celebrated entirely in Latin. TLM afficionados don’t want that; they won’t be happy with that because they reject the novus ordo Mass.
The TLM is inadequate liturgy after Vatican II because it no longer adequately expresses the Church’s faith. It was adequate for pre-Conciliar times. It is inadequate for post-Conciliar times.
Not that the Catholic Faith has changed; it hasn’t. But the understanding and articulation of the Catholic Faith has developed such that a more developed liturgical rite is necessary to express in ritual and sacrament the new articulation of the Catholic Faith.
Sebastian,
Can you explain to me how the Novus Ordo mass experince has been “adequate” for the last two generations?
I was recently looking at my mom’s yearbook from 1958 or so.
Five priests at a smaller suburban parish. That same parish was clustered in the 2010s and closed in 2024. The novus Ordo experiment has been an abject failure. This is the case in diocese after diocese in western civilization.
What would you say would’ve been adequate to keep Catholics Catholic over the last 50 years? The solutions that have been promulgated have not worked.
As soon as the church and her hierarchy appear to be descending to the world, and do not appear to be who they are, other Christ’s who re-present Calvary to us, the world wins. As soon as we diminished and denigrated the awe, reverence, and sacrality of ancient worship and came down to the world, we no longer practiced that great virtue of distinction. It did not look, smell, appear, and sound like the most important event in the history of the universe.
It became easy to leave…
Ave Maria!
Joseph and Sebastian —
I think you are both missing the point.
Which of these is not a true Catholic Mass, TLM or ‘Novus Ordo’?
Which one, celebrated by a validly ordained Catholic priest, does not bring forth Jesus Christ from transcendence into imminence?
The answer is, of course, that they both do.
So suppressing either one is persecuting the Mystical Body of Christ.
Where does that leave those of us who are Greek Catholic? Our liturgy has, for the most part, been unchanged since Vatican II, and it dates back to the early ages of the church. Does our liturgy “no longer adequately express the Church’s faith”? How so?
“The TLM is inadequate liturgy after Vatican II because it no longer adequately expresses the Church’s faith.”
Which pope has taught this? The old Roman Mass was permitted during and after Vatican II by every pope since Vatican II, beginning with Pope Paul VI, who most certainly permitted it in various places, as those of us who lived through “the changes” know.
“Sebastian” seems to be another believer in VII as some sort of “Super Council” which somehow trumps everything that came before it and establishes a “Great Divide” viz “Pre” and “Post” VII. Claiming that it somehow renders all previous theology as deficient should rightly be called into question, as you correctly do here.
TLM afficionados don’t want that; they won’t be happy with that because they reject the novus ordo Mass.”
****
Why do you assume the TLM is a deal breaker? Most folks I know attend both liturgies because the TLM isn’t available here on every single weekday. If the TLM is celebrated they go. If not they go to the NO Mass.
What has always puzzled me about the NO Mass, was that it wasn’t simply the TLM in the vernacular. That would have been simple enough to implement, and do so without intrigue, contention and the resulting conflict between groups compelled to defend the one against the other.
We cannot forget the ulterior motives of archbishop bugnini and his ilk, who worked feverishly to use the NO to effectively “destroy the Catholic Church”, in his own words. Pope Paul VI, made aware of bugnini’s subterfuge, nevertheless kept the NO essentially as it was. Hence, we are where we are.
I, for only one, would welcome a Church council to reopen this liturgical can of sacred, yet convoluted, ritual and rework the NO from scratch based on the legitimate intent of the 2nd Vatican Council fathers. Something very beautiful, mystical and sacred may come out of it all. It beats wandering around aimlessly in a never-ending synodally synodal synod on synodality.
I wouldn’t know the response of the whole Catholic Church regarding the use of the Latin Rite Mass. I myself like it just as the generation that experienced it.
But the modern age youngsters so called the Ultra Modern youth and the generation to come will have greater difficulty in shifting from the present form of Liturgy where they understand, vibe and participate in for prayers, hymns, the liturgical tunes and the Holy Eucharist in their language.
For this Easter Vigil I sang the EXULTET with Latin tune (language of course was MARATHI of Maharashtra, India, Asia). The youth sitting in front of the altar just did not click or find their bearings in the singing. They began talking among themselves quite audibly while the EXULTET was being sung.
The Parish Priest in the middle of the singing had to get up and ask for silence.
Latin rite is no doubt EXCELLENT. I myself like it. It has devotion and meaningful tuning. But for whom? People like me who are in their 60s and above. Will the present generation which is not prepared for such a change yet, be able to find devotion as the OLDER GENERATION found once upon a time.
As it is we are being bombarded here by the Protestants and their numerous splinter groups, in that we are bringing in such changes.
Youngsters are the future of the Church and the World. Where are we heading?
Anil SJ
The youth in my TLM parish do not need to be shushed, because they have been taught what the Mass is and what is going on in it. That is necessary in any rite. As extreme examples, it is extremely rare to see transsubstantiation occur. One cannot witness original sin lifting from a soul during Baptism, or venial sins during the Confiteor. Having the NO in the vernacular has not saved at least a third of US Catholics from not believing in the Real Presence.
The danger in the vernacular is in parents, priests, and catechists believing that they do not need to teach the Mysteries.
Regardless if it is possible for a validly elected Pope to retire the Ministerial Office, Pope Benedict made it clear that The Office Of The Munus, is “forever’ because it includes The Gift of Infallibility, that exists In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost and thus Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son, remains One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Through, With, And In Christ, Oh God , Almighty Father, In The Unity
Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) Amen.
Our diocese didn’t seem to have any problems thriving when we had 21 parishes with a TLM under SP. It was harming nobody except the VII fanatics that remind me variously of an HOA Karen complaining about a house color they don’t like, or corporate middle management doubling down on a failed reorganization plan that they implemented.
And how does gay marriage harm you? Even if it doesn’t, that doesn’t mean gay marriage should be allowed. Same with the TLM. Even if it doesn’t harm you, that doesn’t mean it should be allowed.
Gay marriage harms the nature of sacramental marriage. It harms God’s teaching from the beginning as it rejects the Goodness of His creation: Male and female He created them, and commanded they be fruitful and multiply.
The TLM was the Mass of the Church for 14 Centuries. So what god gave you the insight to proclaim it ought not be?
Vatican II. The Mass was to be revised. And it was.
Paul, in promulgating the 1969-70 Missal, claimed he was introducing a NEW RITE OF THE MASS, noting its newness but its validity, specifically based on the old, containing the same consecration, and was the same sacrament. When introducing the new rite, Paul did NOT claim the new ABROGATED the old.
Revision yes. Abrogation no.
In his autobiography, Bugnini apparently tells the story of his presenting Paul VI with a document which would have specifically ABROGATED the old rite, but Paul did NOT sign it.
The reason Benedict claimed the 1962 Missal had not been abrogated is because no pope prior to Benedict had done that. Paul DID NOT ABROGATE THE 1962 Missal. So why do you claim that it had been?
JPII’s Indult simply allowed a group of people to request and to have available the UA in their parish church by their parish priest. JPII wanted to open doors to SSPX. JPII issued the Indult not only to ‘permit’ the UA but to demonstrate good will as a shepherd, father, pastoral leader, to draw people, priests, seminarians from the SSPX to full lawful communion. He hoped to heal divisions on doctrinal issues re religious liberty, ecumenism, etc., stemming from VCII.
Revision does not imply and did not intend abrogation. The UA still stands and is legal and valid, true and good, beautiful. You don’t have to love it.
“Revised by the enemies of the Catholic Mass” was not stipulated at the council. And yet it happened.
Bugnini was a freemason surrounded by protestant brothers…
The liturgical war – from the 16th century – was supposed to end there in a white flag. Archbishop Lefevbre refused the sell out and helped save the Catholic Mass.
What??
Sorry, “what ” was a reply to Sebastian.
Gay marriage and the TLM in the same comments?
No worries Mrs C 😉
I think there is a little problem with logic.
The Second Vatican Council, for better or worse, left the Roman Catholic world with two distinct liturgies. The One, Holy and Apostolic Church owes us, the sheep if His flock, both a clarification and a resolution.
No, the 1962 Missal was abrogated, even though Pope Benedict claimed it hadn’t been. The fact that indults were granted by Pope John Paul II for the celebration of the 1962 Missal prove that its use had been forbidden after the Mass of Paul VI was promulgated. If the 1962 Missal had not been prohibited, there would have been no need for an indult.
Sebastian do have have the abrogation document somewhere? Legally there actually has to be an express/explicit declaration and it has to be promulgated, accessible and made known. There is a lot of memory lane stuff shared in the comments and that’s fine but it doesn’t substitute or equal with faith. Even if you say it in Latin, laudator temporis acti. So now if there was no such promulgation what kind of this is your life immersion are you professing!
Said me in friendly mixtures with no missing quotes.
Quite frankly, I am tired of the dumping down of the American people and others used to be before 1960 people knew around three languages maybe 2 1/2 now nowadays they don’t even know their language teach Latin have a Latin mass connect with your past because you can’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been
I note that there is the ever-present personal attack that seems to have been substituted for rational discourse. I accept that this article calls for peace and harmony. Nevertheless, the use of the marginalising description that purported to excuse the banning of Catholic liturgy by a Catholic pope, has been gleefully taken up by some in order to commit to full scale attack.
The attack on traditional Catholics, however, is never, and has never been, anything other than a personal attack on the people themselves. The traditional Catholic is designated‘ ‘obnoxious ‘ or ‘divisive’, or, in some comments herein ‘in a bunker mentality.’ Note, that the substance of the argument, the essence, is studiously avoided: thus the merits of the liturgies are not mentioned, or compared. The historical reality of millions leaving the faith is never mentioned, let alone compared to the fact that, as soon as the traditional Mass is freely offered, we witness people returning to the faith, converting (all, one would assume, in order to spend time with those ‘obnoxious’ people who populate the TLM).
The overwhelming arrogance of a position of superiority whereby one can make generalised personal sledges at a large group of people, whose only flaw is that they wish to celebrate the Mass as it has been celebrated throughout the two thousand year history of the Catholic Church. This assumption- that one has a right to wholesale personal criticism of a group of people and one therefore does not engage in a discussion of the substance of the issue – the actual merits and contents of the two liturgies; the fruits of the two liturgies – one which resulted in immediate devastation the faith at every level, and the other, which has seen immediate response by the young throughout the world.
Instead – the deflection reflects the political tactics of those with no true justification of their position – other than a vague, amorphous sense of self-righteous finger-pointing.
1. It’s not a large group of people. Miniscule. 0.2% or less of Catholics.
2. There are sociological reasons why Catholics have stopped attending Mass. American culture does not reinforce Christian faith and in some ways formatively inoculates young people against the gospel. Other Christian denominations have suffered similarly and greater rates of disaffiliation.
3. I have frequently remarked that the pre-Vatican II liturgy is inadequate for the post-Vatican II Church. That’s a comparison of the two liturgies. Vatican II happened. Vatican II reformed the Mass. The prior Mass must not be celebrated anymore. The Church is in a new ecclesial context that has demanded a revised liturgical form.
4. If people *are* being divisive or obnoxious, it’s okay to say that. That would be truth. Catholics should not act contrary to Church unity. I think Fr. James Martin is divisive and obnoxious. Wouldn’t you agree? What’s wrong with saying that?
“There are sociological reasons why Catholics have stopped attending Mass.”
😆😆😆
The main one being the circus came to town.
I grew up in the pre-Vatican II Church with its Divine Liturgy. I am NOT someone who attends the EF Mass for no particular reason other than availability. Do I like the Novus Ordo? Only when it’s prayed respectfully. . ..you know, “Say the Black; do the Red”. In other instances I tolerate it.
But I’d like to point out another difference between worship in the pre-Vatican II Church and afterwards that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RITE OF THE MASS. In my pre-Vatican II Church with it Catholic school, we were expected to all attend 9:00 AM Mass together – all 700 of us from Grade 1 through Grade 8. During that Mass, proper decorum was practiced. No one left their pew except to go to Holy Communion. How did this happen? The religious sisters were there with each of their classes enforcing self-control. Remarkably, no one left the pew to go to the bathroom because THERE WERE NO BATHROOMS TO BE USED IN OUR CHURCH. And, behold, I don’t recall anyone wetting their pants. Nowadays, all of our churches have sprung bathrooms and there is a never-ending parade of children and adults marching to the bathrooms, disturbing others at prayer, even during the homily or during the act of consecration. More has changed in the post Vatican II Church than just the Missal used by the priest.
Latin is the Language of the Church. 2012 global cardinals and bishops opted for the holy simplicity New Mass and what great blessings in many nations now 1.4 billion believers. It is not the Catholic Church of America nor your personal preferences but the Holy Spirit’s lead. One Christ, one church, His mystical body forever. “to know them by their fruits” an increase of participants is no spiritual fruit. “Obedience is everything” (Pater Pio). Mother Angelica said “We are not holier than the Pope” meaning Saint John Paul II, the Great, who tried ABP Levevre to accept the One Church with the Holy Spirit being the Heart of the Church. How great would the Church be by now if ALL ARE ONE in Christ Jesus loving the Church, and offering up. Yes, many young people joined the Traditionals and they are indoctrinated by lies and falsehood, starting by claiming that they are the only holy remnants and its better for the church to die out. What then does God want: obedience, faithfulness building up the church, endurance, perseverance, self-abandonment, to follow Christ, take up ones cross and follow Him. What is more beautiful than the Priest raising up the Host and make Him present. I adore Him the Carnate God, the hero-God, lover of souls, the most important: LOVE HIM, build up the Church and labor there. I had mystical encounters with my God for a long time. “What else could you possibly want, but ME?”
“Yes, many young people joined the Traditionals and they are indoctrinated by lies and falsehood, starting by claiming that they are the only holy remnants and its better for the church to die out.”
That there is
1) a Remnant saved by grace, and that it is
2) a good thing the 68ers will die out is neither a lie nor a falsehood.
The former is attested in Sacred Scripture, the latter a simple biological fact.
I said the Church is the body of Christ. The global church is Christ. The Church is the mystical body of the Son of God; the Church cannot die out. We are all one with Him and He will rescue His Bride. Satan and hell will not prevail against the Church. The Church is eternal. You all need to be in unity with the true Church. You are not. There is condemnation and slander against the Church but the Church is Christ Jesus. Where is the Holy Spirit? You have neither charity nor love but contempt. Jesus Christ will start His divine intervention; He is a merciful God. Don’t say the Church will die – The church is all in one Christ himself. God bless
“You all need to be in unity with the true Church. You are not.”
So people who attend the other 24 valid liturgies of Rome are not in unity with Rome? That is simply absurd. The other 23 liturgies were valid before freemasonic new liturgy, and remain valid after it. The same goes for the Apostlic TLM.
A well thought out cogent argument. The problem is expressed in whether 1 accepts as valid the premise that the Tridentine Mass is understood to be a “dead liturgy”… of the past. It is!! Furthermore it has been understood for millennia that the authoritative word/preference if you will of the most recent ecumenical council IF it reinterpreted the ecclesiological norms – including liturgy – is to be understood as “authoritative”. Vatican 2 effectively introduced the vernacular mass of paul the 6th as the binding form of eucharistic liturgy in the Church from 1970 onwards. The TLM is understood thereby to be “abrogated”, that is to say relegated to history. I see no compelling reason to reintroduce a “dead” liturgy into a living breathing dynamic forward thinking CHURCH. If you’re arguing to keep it for “pastoral reasons”, really to thrill the legions of backwardists we as “church” are plagued with I respectfully disagree. This matter was settled in 1970 with the imposition of the mass of paul the 6th; the 21st century concept of synodality does not extend to persons with a clearly disordered fixation with long gone forms of worship! Such persons have had no less than 56 years within which to conform themselves to the “new” liturgy. These people whom you champion have made it a point to excoriate vatican 2 from the get go; they demonize pope francis. I have no empathy with persons who seek to impede progress in the Church which is what they are all about. If they cannot acclimate themselves to a liturgy that is now 5 decades (plus!) old & that most nearly every western rite catholic worships in I see no reason for their continued membership in the RC Church. Suffice it to say that if I were ever Pope there would be no seat at the table for such antagonistic regressionist and condemnatory persons as they. Make no mistake at heart they would truly like the RADTRADS among their number “triumph” over vatican 2. If they had their way we would not only be forced to experience a liturgy that is now “foreign” to vatican 2 catholics but they would gleefully return to an index of forbidden books, an end to the ecumenical movement, a re imposition of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, the halting of Synodality as the preferred governing system in the Church. They are the RC equivalent of the Taliban. I would not recommend the Church to acclimate itself to the Taliban. Accordingly to uphold validate recognize the TLM types as valid even worthy of a place at the table is counterproductive & in fact absurd.
Speaking of ecumenism, what did the Anglican C.S. Lewis have in mind by “chronological snobbery”? Surely, this is a topic for Roundtable dialogue!
Absolutely Peter! The 1968 New Zeitgeist Church, set up for the demolition of Catholicism and its remodelisation into New World Order’s lackie should be brought to its repentent knees. Down with Rupnik, Down with anti-TLM China Deal, Down with Traditionis Custodes, Down with hands-on McCarrick reconciliation chambers, down with ransacked sanctuaries, down with the snobery of the Novos Ordo demolition team who believe their Marxist inversion of Catholicism is the only truth in town.
“the legions of backwardists we as “church” are plagued with”
The Catholic Church’s mission is to hand-on the Apostolic Tradition from generation to generation unsullied by the Prince of this World.
The Novos Ordo mission is to undermine Apostolic Tradition adapting itself to the “spirit of the day” and imposing a liturgy recrafted by freemasonry.
Wake up Brian. The Modernist era is an apostasy long warned of by saintly popes.
The zeigeist is not a demon of peace, but of war with the Sacred Apostolic Tradition. Brain, your comment above appears to have been written under the influence of the zeitgeist.
If you are right, St Athanasius was a Taliban.
I am obliged to more generally condition what I told Sebastian above June 10, 2025 at 2:42 pm. It helps at times to not say it all at once.
Bishop Schneider and others have held that the Mass of the Ages can never be abrogated. It would have been most obvious to Paul VI who in fact withstood Bugnini heroically.
I must and do side with the good Bishop in this as will all the faithful and all right thinking people. In my opinion (as shared elsewhere), demonic attacks deflected onto Padre Pio gave spiritual aid to the Pope. I believe we can draw from this well graces and should approach it in this manner.
So I don’t mean to imply that Church law can encompass such a thing, as abrogating the Mass, merely that according to law an abrogation must be by official decree. In this case a legalized abrogation would be incipiently void not merely voidable and a Pope trying to do it would witness that something had gone deeply wrong in him.
And such and such of what would be his entourage.
The “fruits” from Bugnini come forth both from freemasonry as well as from corrupt spirit and these have been reproduced time and again down through the years like so many “bad breed” offspring. Many, many priests are not faring as well as did Paul VI! And they ominously mislead congregations at a time.
Mark Brumley is saying that there is an undue and exaggerated antagonism present which is obviously not helping the problems of liturgical aberration and disruption. And this is the essential starting point, I think.
What comes next is the work that so far is not being shouldered or is being avoided even as it is made to appear simultaneously that the traditional is the first obstacle and is easily identifiable as such (which is untrue).
For one thing there is nothing wrong with the formation and discipline in the traditional masses. Yet Traditionis Custodes subjects them to legalistic management leading away from good composition of teaching and example. It is a very unjust treatment meted out upon everyone as if there is an inescapable tricky guilt attaching.
So-called bunker mentality among traditionals would be to do with breach of charism. Traditionis custodies seems to have missed it.
The other side to it is that 1. there are obvious deviations and extremisms happening for the New Rite that are in urgent need of correction and 2. The New Rite has not developed properly in form and discipline according to original intentions for it consistent with sensus Ecclesiae, etc., that is contravening sensus fidelium!
Errors attending on the New Rite include and exceed breach of charism. New Rite people can have their own pet totems helping others carve out their own totems always above scrutiny. Dissension is arising most from these.
Charisms described by St. Paul do not all fit neatly into the traditional way.
The charismatic movement is but one expression of these various charisms; however we can notice two things about that. First, the charismatic movement has attempted to make itself universal and all-encompassing and all-defining –which it is not and can’t be. Second, there has been a distinct non-engagement/non-development/dumbing down/side-stepping, of Iuvenescit Ecclesia.
Notes Brumley, the Holy Spirit seeks to show the way we address these.
Thanks, Elias, for sharing, not all at once but only when we’ve had time to be readied. That document is surely worth note, but I wonder how many may have noticed.
Oh. Somewhere canon lawyer Gerald Murphy has written about abrogation/derogation. The intention of a pope can never be to abrogate ‘the Mass’, but promulgating a new missal may ‘derogate’ or make not applicable prior missals. Also many commenters note that Paul introduced “A New Rite” of the Mass, thereby implying, of course, that there did exist the “old rite” also, and Paul himself authorized its use when asked.
Trads today show exactly why liturgical reform was and still is necessary. The Church won’t go backwards. The liturgy is not a museum piece.
It is comments like these that show how wrong the purported “reform” actually was. The idea that Catholics can even entertain such ideas shows how uncatechized the present generation is.
This comment indicts not only millions of Byzantine Catholics (I’m one), it also indicts millions of the Orthodox, Copts, et cetera. Our liturgies are ancient, and they are certainly not a “museum piece.” Neither is the old Roman Mass. It is here to stay; the modernists are not.
DJR, well said. You put him in his place.
Robert Honavar, neither is the liturgy meant to be a circus act.
Maybe we need a roundtable to explore what it means to not to set the clock backwards, but to set it right?
Or, maybe an ecclesial marriage counselor of some sort? I recall a conversation with a very excellent priest. He made a passing remark about some confident advice he had given to one side in a marriage problem. One side! About such marital difficulties, any seasoned layman knows there are always two or even three sides to such stories (his, hers, and the real).
Said he in sudden horror: “We [priests] can make such a mess of things! I need you to talk to some of my friends…”
Likewise, what about the whole story of ecclesial discontinuity WITHIN continuity? It’s not so much about the Latin language….But, for example, how in the hell did the two-fingered peace language of Woodstock (“backwards” to 1969!) butt its way today between the Consecration and the Communion?
Just askin’, in both a “museum-like” and synodalistic sorta way…
Dear Robert, the Bugnini reformers claimed to be taking the ritual back to the early practices… How backwardist can you get?
Remembering Pope Francis’s justification for TC, that within the population of TLM celebrators there was an excess amount of divisiveness, I can only wonder if the same thing can be said of those who attend the NO, given how radically they seem to adhere to a hermenutic of rupture. I mostly assist at the NO and I can see how it’s consistent with the older missals, but if the NO has caused so many to think of the Church as a “new church” which must clearly reject the pre-V2 Church, perhaps it should be given the TC treatment, for the sake of ecclesial unity. Perhaps if that’s the case, people like me who are attached to the NO will be allowed to continue it for some time to give us time to adjust.
All the vitriol and stupidity above saddens me. Your last sentence literally brought me to tears of empathy at its horror; as a devotee of the TLM, Our Lord knows I’ve been there, and it ain’t pretty. I cannot see how a ‘Catholic’ would want the reality of your last sentence for a dog, let alone a human being.
The Mass is ever old and ever new. No one should ever need to adjust before the Mass of our age ends. I consider that we all should grow up and not accuse or abuse each other over THE MASS of any Catholic rite or form.
Surely we can criticize and make inference about the rites without criticizing the persons of each other. To intone and to channel Brumley’s Beatles, let’s think about each other charitably and “Let (each other) Be.”
Surely God cannot be pleased with us all waving weapons at one another over The MASS. Surely He warned us of an Abomination of Desolation. To whom much has been given much will be asked. It may come to the point that we will all be equally persecuted. Surely that may be within the realm of possibility.
God bless you.
Why our religious war? Liturgy is how we worship God as a body. It’s our supreme act of expressing our faith as was begun with Moses and the celebration of the Sabbatical mystery of the sacrificial lamb.
What changed was the realization of Jesus of Nazareth as the true sacrificial lamb, offered by Christ at the Last Supper, the first Mass offered to the Father on behalf of the Apostles, the future body of Christians, prior to the crucifixion and resurrection. Why prior. Because the sacrifice of the Lamb and the offering of his body and blood as our spiritual sustenance cannot be separated, that is, thought of as consequential. The two are indelibly One, the two are realization of the mystery of faith.
This first offering of his body and blood was real, most efficacious, the model for all liturgical worship that follows. We are fighting a war of separation rather than unity. Our original worship has Christ surrounded by his Apostles, reclining in the adopted Greek fashion of dining, and facing him. He spoke directly to them and offered himself directly to them.
Mass was originally and in general offered versus populism until Charlemagne during the 8th century. Christianity adopting the emperor’s Frankisch practice of facing ad orientem. Should the Church be required to adopt one manner exclusively? That can be debated ad infinitum as it is now. The arguments range in essence from offering the sacrifice to God, the error that versus populism is to the people. That’s a falsehood that keeps us separated. Theologically and verbally the priest always offers the sacrifice to God.
And theologically the finest expressed resolution for celebrating the liturgy of the holy sacrifice of the Mass was exacted by Benedict XVI. Both modes of offering the Mass are valid and good. The abuses of the Mass celebrated versus populum was not the fault of Vatican II, rather of the progressives who hijacked the liturgy. I offer my Mass in Latin in accord with the Novus Ordo as was recommended during Vatican II. Although in the vernacular when suitable. Accept both liturgies and end this divisive war.
Please note Google auto correction errors changing my versus populum to versus populism.
Fr Peter, there is more than liturgy at stake. Cardinal Roach spoke quite clearly that there was a new post-conciliar theology which required novos Ordo. His clarification was monumental : for Cardinal Roach there is a rupture.
At the risk of repeating myself above, that rupture is Luther’s, come home to roost.
Monsieur Cracked Nut, I can’t fully reply to Cdl Roche [not Roach as your Freudian slip] on the preeminence of the Novus Ordo although that’s a forgone conclusion of Vat II and likely Pope Leo. Although he sets the program now not Cdl Roche. My hope even expectation is that he will return to Benedict XVIths’ motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. That’s if he’s determined to put the issue to rest.
Praying for that, Fr Peter, asking for the intercession of Pope Benedict xvi whose medal I attached to my Rosary. (I was one of the seminarists who was told to hide his Ratzinger’s Report under the matress and I wept when he was elected).
I would state that praying for his intercession does not require a Novous Ordo “Church of Nice” presumption that he is in heaven: for Catholic theology, those in purgatory can pray for others but not themselves.
God bless
Mr CN
“Mass was originally and in general offered versus populism until Charlemagne during the 8th century. Christianity adopting the emperor’s Frankisch practice of facing ad orientem.”
This is not only untrue, historically, but the opposite of the truth, and has been recognized by scholars since the 1980s. I could adduce a ton of books and scholarly articles on that subject, but for a short and lucid one, see this
https://ignatius.com/turning-towards-the-lord-2nd-edition-ttl2p/?searchid=2426459&search_query=turning+toward+the+lord
I have attended one Extraordinary Form Mass for the priestly anniversary of a beloved spiritual advisor. I adored (literally!) the solemnity, ancient prayers and overall reverence. It was a blessing beyond measure to attend.
Being linguistically challenged, I might have understood half. Nonetheless, the Word of God spoke to me in the silences. Yes, the crowd was weird, but I’m one to talk.
The Beauty of Christ will save us. The faithful will seek His Beauty wherever they find Him. Perhaps Franciscus was afraid of competition. Free markets work. Both/And, etc. It would be grand if Pope Leo returned to the wisdom of Pope Benedict and Gamaliel’s principle.
Pax et bonum.
Well Mark, you really “kicked the hornet’s nest” on this one. Your article generally expressed how I think about the TLM, which I experienced for the first dozen or so years of my life. The following may get me in trouble, but the CWR should be a place to feely expression options: I think sometimes both the TLM and the NO are used by some as a “boogeyman.” It is good to see all the passion on the topic. Now channel that passion and get out there and fulfill the Great Commission!