Rome Newsroom, Jun 16, 2025 / 16:31 pm (CNA).
Cardinal Raymond Burke said he has asked Pope Leo XIV to remove measures restricting the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) in dioceses.
Burke spoke at a London conference organized by The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, telling attendees that he hopes the new pontiff will “put an end to the persecution” of Catholic faithful who want to celebrate Mass using the “more ancient usage” — “usus antiquior” — of the Roman liturgy.
The prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura and former patron of the Order of Malta was one of seven guest panelists invited to speak at the faith and culture conference held on June 14.
Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan, who has written extensively on the Eucharist and Church tradition, also spoke at the weekend conference held to mark the 60th anniversary of the U.K.-based society.
“I certainly have already had occasion to express that to the Holy Father,” Burke said via video link. “It is my hope that he will, as soon as is reasonably possible, take up the study of this question.”
After the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969. This liturgy, celebrated in the vernacular, largely replaced the TLM in dioceses worldwide.
During the conference, Burke expressed his desire for Pope Leo to overturn Francis’ 2021 Traditionis Custodes moto proprio and restore Benedict XVI’s 2007 Summorum Pontificum, the Catholic Herald reported.
“It is my hope,” Burke said at the conference, “[Leo will] even continue to develop what Pope Benedict XVI had so wisely and lovingly legislated for the Church.”
Besides criticisms leveled against Traditionis Custodes, the U.S. cardinal has been publicly critical of other initiatives led by Pope Francis.
In 2016, Burke and three other cardinals submitted “dubia” — formal requests for clarification — regarding interpretations of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
The prelate also criticized the 2019 Synod on the Pan-Amazon Region convened by Pope Francis, saying parts of the agenda appeared “contrary” to Catholic teaching.
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.
We read: “In 2016, Burke and three other cardinals submitted ‘dubia’ — formal requests for clarification — regarding interpretations of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.”
At issue is whether pastoral practice can contradict the natural law and moral absolutes, of which the Church is “no way the author nor the arbiter” (Veritatis Splendor, 1993, n. 95).
Four points and a summary:
FIRST, waiting in the wing is the now dangling post-synodal study group #9, one of fifteen dealing with the sidelined “hot button issues”—namely “Theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues.” Say what?
SECOND, about intermingled synodism with moral theology, one framing input could have been layman Russell Shaw (former Secretary for Public Affairs of the then National Conference of Catholic Bishops) and his very readable “Papal Primacy in the Third Millennium” (Our Sunday Visitor, 2000)…
The long histories of the papacy and conciliarism, both, are succinctly summarized; relevant documents are lucidly cited; various proposals for shared are summarized; including a synod shared-jurisdiction model based on archbishoprics rather than bottoms-up roundtables (with the role of bishops not limited “primarily as facilitators”); but overall with this form of decentralization in tandem with (almost replacing) vastly reduced curial offices; all still subject to well-advised papal authority, but more by exception where non-negotiable guardrails are endangered—such that Church unity is respected and advanced. As well as (surely) the morality of the inborn and universal natural law (now explicitly part of the Magisterium, under Veritatis Splendor, n. 115).
THIRD, from the back bleachers, it seems that synods could have been productively advanced within—rather than without?—the “hierarchical communion” articulated in Lumen Gentium (which the Council approved by a vote of 2,099 to 46, including the “Explanatory Note” approved by a vote of 2,134 to 10).
FOURTH, instead of a bottoms-up/synodal “inverted pyramid,” Shaw cites British historian Thomas Babington Macaulay, no friend of Catholicism:
“…The Arabs have a fable that the Great Pyramid was built by antediluvian kings, and alone, of all the works of men, bore the weight of the flood. Such as this was the fate of the Papacy [Protestantism, and Revolutionary France]. It had been buried under the great inundation; but its deep foundations had remained unshaken; and when the waters abated, it appeared alone amidst the ruins of the world which had passed away.”
SUMMARY: How better to marry “communio” under the universal call to holiness with the foundational and intact “hierarchical communion” of Lumen Gentium? This, rather than the rigid myopia of suppressing TLM?
Mr. Beaulieu, as a former Naval Officer, Perhaps you can refine my understanding that as a courtesy, the Second Mate does not change course for the first 30 minutes of his shift. To do so before that is to render a negative judgment of the previous watch stander. Pethaps that is Pope Leo’s tack? Time will tell.
My guess is that Pope Leo won’t change anything regarding the usage of the TLM for at least the remainder of this year. If he does indeed allow wider usage of the Latin Mass, he should decree that a new, updated missal be published for liturgical use. As beautiful as the TLM is, calendar-wise, it has been stuck in time since 1962. There have been many new saints canonized and different feast days added to the Roman calendar since 1962, most notably Divine Mercy Sunday. A new missal is badly needed for the TLM to stay in congruence with the current Roman calendar.
Leave the translations, liturgical rubrics, and symbolism the same as the ’62 missal. Just update the missal.
Make women’s veils optional as it is in the English Mass and the Byzantine Rite, and maybe remind people that they don’t have to dress like they just stepped out of an 1800’s Laura Ingalls Wilder book. It’s not wrong for a lady to wear dress pants to either an English or Latin Mass instead of a skirt that’s so long, the altar boys look like they’re wearing shorts.
Yes, wear nice and modest clothes for Mass. But dress as if you live in 2025.
Headcoverings are entirely optional at our local TLM. I hear you about the sort of dress choices you can see but it’s a free country after all. I may naturally dress like Laura Ingalls Wilder but that’s not something enforced at the TLM. I also see ladies in jeans with mantillas frequently. At the end of the day it’s really not anyone’s business. Modesty’s a virtue but modesty is first modeled in our hearts.
The only thing I want to see banned are long skirts/dresses with high tops. What is with this younger generation??
High tops?
Think basketball shoes, but the ones I am thinking of are Converse High Top Sneakers. (Google it if interested).
.
High tops sneakers have their place, although I don’t think the Converse shoes would make a good basketball shoe. I suppose with the right pants or jeans they could be okay for Mass. But not with a long skirt or dress. Please, girl, buy some pumps or something
High top sneakers paired with long dresses.
It’s a perfectly acceptable smart-casual — and modest — fashion choice by young women.
Thank you for explaining Mrs Hess. I thought maybe you were talking about high cut midriff exposing tops. That would certainly be something unusual at the TLM.
🙂
I haven’t noticed those tennis shoes but I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to fashion. I guess now I’ll be watching for them.
Perhaps we need to have moral cops at our doors! 🫢 God forbid that we welcome sinners into our midst.
The liturgical calendar linked to the Novus Ordo is an incongruous disaster. Very few who support the Traditional Latin Mass would wish to see its missal align with the liturgical year of the Novus Ordo. And ALL the traditionalist orders would flatly reject such a move. “Updating” the 1962 missal in such a radical manner would promote just as much division as trying to ban the TLM altogether.
There is a book called Cooking for Christ: Your Kitchen Prayer Book, by Florence Berger. It was originally published in 1949, by Catholic Rural Life. It ties different recipes in with the liturgical year, showing traditional foods that were made for the different saints’ days and holidays.
They reissued it fairly recently, edited. I don’t so much mind that they had people add foods for holidays that weren’t mentioned in the original book, but it annoys the fire out of me that they put recipes for St. Thomas’ Day in the Christmas season under St. Thomas Becket, using the words the original author wrote regarding the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle, which used to be celebrated on December 21 but was changed to July 3 in 1969 “so that the series of major ferias of Advent not be interrupted,” (because somehow after a thousand years of celebrating it on December 21 it suddenly because such a terribly pressing issue /s). Instead of explaining that Risengrod and Pate de Noel were traditionally made on December 21 for the feast of St. Thomas but now that feast has been moved to July 3, the new edition pretends that it was related to St. Thomas of Canterbury (December 29), thus moving it from before to after Christmas.
It makes me very cranky, as do other things that got edited because they were too old-fashioned.
I wish they’d leave the calendar alone. God may not need the reassurance and continuity of liturgical seasons & Holy days but we do.
If all the traditionalist orders would reject it, what does that say about them? Seems like Pope Francis was right in noting the dissentiion among TLM-ers. They reject papal authority when it doesn’t support their nostalgia.
Much like bishops since 1970 have rejected parts of VII or papal authority when it comes to novelty and heterodox beliefs.
If “TLM-ers” reject papal authority, why have they not joined schismatic churches?
No, Franciscus punished Catholics he disliked, often lashing out at those who dared disagree with him. So too Franciscus petted and promoted those who embraced his heteropraxy and various ideological agendas.
Perhaps Pope Leo will test further the obedience of those who prefer the Mass he learned as a child. Perhaps a different Pope will resolve this abuse. Regardless , afterFranciscus, my guess is that these Catholics will continue to wait for liturgical justice. Only the Beauty of God is everlasting.
God’s Fool- One foot on either side of the fence?
So,
Please see my reply, below, of today, 8:11 AM.
Best to you.
2025 isn’t noted for its nice and modest clothes.
And I don’t see anyone advocating for corsets and hoopskirts, which is what adult women in the Little House books wore.
Cardinal Burke is lying! His claim that restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) amount to “persecution” of faithful Catholics is false and distorts the intent of Traditionis Custodes (2021). Pope Francis issued the document not to suppress tradition, but to promote unity in worship and fidelity to the vision of Vatican II. The Council called for a reformed liturgy to foster full, conscious participation, and Canon Law (Canon 838) affirms the Holy See’s authority to regulate liturgical practices. After a global consultation revealed that the TLM was sometimes used to reject Vatican II, the Pope acted pastorally to protect Church unity. Calling this “persecution” misrepresents the Church’s governance and fosters division. The TLM is still allowed under certain conditions, especially when aligned with the Church’s broader life. While love for the Vetus Ordo is valid, it must not become a rallying point for dissent. The Church’s liturgy should reflect unity and living tradition—not retreat into nostalgia or resistance to reform.
Deaccon Dom, calumny & detraction are things we shouldn’t be taking lightly. Charity in speech is pretty critical too.
No, it is Pope Francis who lied, repeatedly, about the communities who desire the TLM and his motivations for attacking it. The results of the so-called “global consultation” were never released, because the faithful – apart from hate-filled people – did not wish to see the TLM restricted. Nor did the majority of the world’s bishops. It is only the noisy minority of agnostic modernists who agitate against the traditional liturgy of the Church.
Deacon Dom: Maybe you can find a way to work some of your TDS material into the discussion.
Hah! We can DREAM of his being a bit creative. Instead, we read (or do not, which I do) the same old tired tawdry talking points aimed at untruth, filled with deceit and malice. Then he makes of himself not only a deacon but also a dom. Hah!
meiron, as far as my understanding permits me, “Dom” is a title used for monks – usually the abbot. Maybe “Deacon Dom” is a monk.
Yes. Dom could stand for Dominic or Dominicus. This guy could really be or suggest to us that he may be a monk or an abbot. The name could reflect how he sees himself, with or without basis in reality.
Some of us find his posts short on charity. I usually note the name then fly by.
Dom writes: “Pope Francis issued the document not to suppress tradition, but to promote unity in worship and fidelity to the vision of Vatican II. The Council called for a reformed liturgy to foster full, conscious participation, and Canon Law (Canon 838) affirms the Holy See’s authority to regulate liturgical practices. ”
Unity in worship? What planet have you been on since 1965. Let me set you straight, Dom: There is NO UNITY in the NO Mass. To asset same leads me to believe that: a. You are not a Catholic deacon; b. You are not a Catholic; c. You haven’t been to many Masses since 1965.
“The Council called for a reformed liturgy to foster full, conscious participation”
Can you cite the exact documents of the Council itself that said the liturgy needed to be reformed, and specifically those that called for Latin to be banned in favor of the vernacular of all the many different countries and linguistic regiions because goodness knows that dozens and dozens of different languages is so much more unifying than a single language? Not to mention that banning the Mass and language that tied us to all the centuries before us seems far from being unifying; rather it rips us apart from all those many people who lived on earth before us.
Here you go: #50 of Sacrosanctum Concilium says, “The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.”
Latin was not banned, but the Mass was definitely to be revised. The TLM, which is the unrevised Mass, should no longer be celebrated.
The revised Mass can be celebrated in Latin. No problem. But it should be the revised Mass, not the 1962 unrevised Mass. Vatican II called for the revision. Let’s obey Vatican II.
okey kokey. First, where does Vat 2 require obedience to anything? Where the anathemata?
Second, full active participation intends an active RECEPTIVITY to the grace of God inhering in the SACRAMENT of the Mass. It has nothing to do with clapping, laughing, chatting, or dancing to bad bawdy music. It has nothing to do with anything except participating in the union of God made flesh in the spirit of man. Educate yourself. “Thou should” not say what anyone else should not do. Who are you to judge?
No one did away with the Old Mass. The rite of the Mass was revised, as Council Fathers decreed. And yet the old rite remains. They did not decree that men such as you declare it dead. What’s your problem? Ask God to help you.
okey kokey. First, where does Vat 2 require obedience to anything? Where the anathemata?
Second, full active participation is an active RECEPTIVITY to the grace of God inhering in the SACRAMENT of the Sacrifice of the Mass. It has nothing to do with clapping, laughing, chatting, or dancing to bad bawdy music. It has everything to do with participating in the union of God made flesh in the spirit of man. Educate yourself.
No one did away with the Old Mass. The rite of the Mass was revised, as Council Fathers decreed. And yet the old rite remains. Council Fathers did not decree that men such as you declare it dead.
The Novus Ordo is not a revision of the TLM, and Bishop Bugnini did not follow Sancrosanctum Concilium as a guide when concocting his terrible liturgy. Moreover, the very idea of a Novus Ordo today is a pure fiction, the most divisive liturgy ever celebrated in the history of the Church. Not only has it eliminated the universality of liturgy, it has lowered the Roman Rite even below that of a “national” or “ethnic” rite – like the Byzantine Divine Liturgy – to become instead a purely diocesan or even parish-based worship service, just as prevails in all Protestant churches. In every parish, the Novus Ordo is different – often considerably so – from the Novus Ordo of every other parish. Just drive across the country on vacation if you want proof. The circus has come to town, but it’s a different circus in every town.
Indeed, one could probably be forgiven for suspecting that the 1965 Ordo Missae was closer to idea the council fathers were thinking of in SC. Then Bugnini completed his bait and switch.
Here’s an interesting take on the liturgical reform by a certain Fr. Josef Ratzinger in a letter to a colleague in 1976:
The problem of the new Missal lies in its abandonment of a historical process that was always continual, before and after St. Pius V, and in the creation of a completely new book, although it was compiled of old material, the publication of which was accompanied by a prohibition of all that came before it, which, besides, is unheard of in the history of both law and liturgy. And I can say with certainty, based on my knowledge of the conciliar debates and my repeated reading of the speeches made by the Council Fathers, that this does not correspond to the intentions of the Second Vatican Council. (Wolfgang Waldstein, “Zum motuproprio Summorum Pontificum”, in Una Voce Korrespondenz 38/3 [2008], 201–214)
Quoted at the New Liturgical Movement web site, January 2, 2023.
“Latin was not banned?”
There’s an understatement.
Sacrosanctum Concilium: “36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”
Not, “The use of the Latin language is to be dumped completely in favor of a completely vernacular Mass, and, in the case of English, one translated so poorly from the Latin that it doesn’t match what’s said in other countries.”
“The rite of the Mass is to be revised”
“Revised.” Not “changed completely”
Yes, I’ll tell you this: if TC is rolled back and the TLM is given permanent protected status in parish liturgical celebrations, I will probably quit my job as a parish liturgical music director. If the Church can’t figure out how to celebrate the Mass, if it can’t commit to Vatican II’s call for liturgical reform, if it capitulates to pre-Conciliar crybabies, then it can do without my efforts. I’ll do something more lucrative with my life.
The solution is not to perpetuate an outmoded liturgical form. The solution is to celebrate the post-Conciliar liturgy properly.
It doesn’t need to be one or the other Mr Robert. Our local parish that celebrates the TLM also has NO Masses. Everyone gets along. It’s not a liturgy competition. Catholic means universal. Universal doesn’t exclude diversity.
You are correct, mrscracker. There are THOUSANDS of parishes in the USA that have an English language Mass AND a Spanish language Mass. If I were to attend the latter, I wouldn’t understand a word of it (it could as easily be said in Latin for that matter).
The parish near us that has both TLM and NO Masses also has a Mass in French occasionally. It’s all good.
🙂
The Church knows exactly how to pray the Mass. The Council Fathers of Vat 2 did declare a parish liturgical music director as the Determinator of all rubrics and Orders of the Commemoration of the Paschal Mystery of our Lord. You ARE free to choose the type and place of your source of bodily support. Godspeed.
Please do quit. You obviously know nothing about liturgy or the sacred music of the Church. Parish liturgical music directors with your frame of mind have been a plague since Vatican II. I was one myself, many years ago, mea culpa.
The Church knows exactly how to pray the Mass. The Council Fathers of Vat 2 did not declare a parish liturgical music director as the Determinator of all rubrics and Orders of the Commemoration of the Lord’s Paschal Mystery. You ARE free to choose the type and place of your source of bodily support. Godspeed.
Robert Honovar, you sound like a petulant child having a tantrum. I think you overvalue your importance as a parochial “liturgical music director.”
Sacred music directors, like me, are trying to restore beauty and propriety to the new Mass by introducing the proper chants at the entrance and at Communion instead of relying on the contemporary songs that a lot of parishes sing. If the new, reformed Mass were celebrated properly, in continuity with the Church’s liturgical tradition, then few people would see a need to seek out Masses celebrated using the obsolete 1962 Missal.
I understand why traditionalists seek out the older Mass. I’m trying to provide a solution in my parish that obviates that desire among traditionalists.
The Church needs to be faithful to tradition AND faithful to Vatican II.
I reiterate: if the Church fails to endorse the new Mass 100%, if it goes backward to endorse the 1962 Missal yet again, then I will conclude the Church has no idea what it’s about nor what it’s doing. This is a key moment to reiterate that Vatican II and the new Mass are the norm for the Roman Church’s liturgy and that the old Mass is going to be phased out of use completely.
The litugical reform is the most significant good thing to come out of Vatican Council II. There is no going back, there is no undoing it.
“I will probably quit my job as a parish liturgical music director.”
I shudder to think about what music you’re probably playing at the Masses, given your attitude.
“The solution is not to perpetuate an outmoded liturgical form.”
The Liturgy is not a fad or a fashion that goes out of style. And your contempt for the pre-Vatican II Mass is an insult to the Church and to the faithful of many centuries.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/pop-goes-the-mass
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/bad-poetry-bad-theology
Robert, what exactly is the “proper” celebration of the “post-conciliar liturgy? The rubrics of the NO missal seem to allow for almost open-ended elasticity in the celebration of Mass, so that the priest/celebrant can legitimately give us the Missa/improv.
Deacon Dom!
How is this still even an issue, now that Bergoglio is gone?
Of course suppression of the valid Catholic Mass as it has been said for centuries is persecution. Cardinal Burke is absolutely right.
And how can the celebration of the valid Catholic Mass in the same form as was said during Vatican II be characterized as opposition to Vatican II?
Esteemed Deacon, I’m afraid this popesplanation of yours is a little too close to the mark. You’re actually starting to sound like Bergoglio.
DD, uniformity is a modernist lie. Any two TLMs look alike ; no two freemasonic Novus Ordos ressemble each other…
There was never uniformity in worship in Church history. Today there are 24 liturgical models in unity with the Pope.
Bergoglio’s intentions are today before St Peter. We can only rely on the verbal affirmations of his right hand hit-man Cardinal Roche on the uniformity of Novus Ordo :
“When the liturgy is mistaken for entertainment, it never truly works and often comes across as shallow to people.”
The restrictions imposed by Francis were indeed cruel and gratuitous as well as fallacious in re: the spirit of VII. One of many unchristian behaviors on his part.
Unity in worship is an interesting concept in a time when the language in which the Mass is said varies so widely.
Again, it’s Cardinal Raymond Burke who dares pose the test of truth, and the integrity of the faith to a Roman pontiff. May he finally succeed with a positive response.
I am also praying that Pope Leo XIV consciously guides the Church away from the notion of having to maintain one’s synodally synodal synodality in the journey through the synod of life.
Humanness has been redefined as Synodaliness. It’s epochal. We’ll all find out what it means after we all finish walking together. Although the timeline has not been disclosed.
So, Did you intend humor? If not, follow. Else stop.
There may good arguments for revising the 1962 liturgical calendar, but is this effective? “It’s been stuck in time since 1962.” A saint is perpetually a saint, and time is temporal as well as eternal. Sure, new saints have been added since 1962 and sure, Divine Mercy is a great feast. OTOH, there are only so many days in the year. Which shall we relegate to history’s dustbin? Surely not the celebration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus! [One of my favorite names is Mercy. A close second is Margaret Mary.]
Thank you for the gesture of allowing women to choose their fashion! No, people don’t have to dress as if they had just stepped out of the Dark Ages or off the farm. Neither do they have to ‘not’ dress as if they had just rolled out of bed. I’ve seen more than my share of that style! Thoughtful gesture, too, that, allowing women in dress pants or nice clothes! If you would, please, define “dress” pants. Define also “nice.” Then take a poll to see if we can get semi-universal agreement on deinitions.
If the rare orthodox Muslim woman or the rare ‘nun’ should dare to appear at a diocesan NO Mass, should we allow them in? Or should the feminine fashion police escort them to the nearest dressing room? We should also vote on where the permissive length of skirt would cease. Would that be two inches below the knee or three above the ankle? Should faded jeans, graphic tees, wrinkled, worn, and ripped flip-flops be forbidden? What if Mass is in Africa where neither climate nor poverty know closed toe shoes?
Stop.
Sorry I struck a few nerves, meiron and everyone. I’m mainly just tired of the “members only and fancy formal wear only” attitude that some TLM attendees have exhibited to the point where some Catholics who don’t wear head coverings or dress to the nines avoid the TLM out of fear (or frankly, disgust) of being looked down upon. I’m not accusing anyone on this page of that.
I was at a wedding last week (in a Novus Ordo parish) and the guest priest said a very reverent Mass with Latin ordinaries and tons of incense. The photographer (who I happen to know attends the TLM) was walking around the front area of the church near the altar DURING the Mass and even when the Eucharistic Prayer was being said. It was a huge distraction, and was hypocritical in my opinion. I don’t have anything against the TLM itself, it’s mainly the overall attitude of some people who regard the Novus Ordo as just a pee-on liturgy that I’m upset with.
Whether you attend the TLM, Novus Ordo or an Eastern Rite parish, we’re all Catholic and no liturgical rite is superior to the other.
I’ve spoken my piece. God bless you all, and God bless Pope Leo XIV.
Yes , we’re all Catholics and the Mass is not a competition sport with opposing teams and fans. It’s all good. Or at least it should be.
I like to go to the TLM in Lewiston, Maine, which is about 55 miles from here, when I feel up to it. In the past when there I have spoken to people who make the trip from way up in northern Maine EVERY Sunday – about a 250 mile round trip.
Since Mass starts at 8:30 that would mean that they’re probably rising at around 5 a.m. to get the family up and ready to go. They probably leave home at around 5:30 for the 2 1/2 hour (EACH WAY) trip. About 20 minutes into the trip they pass the local Novus Ordo Church – Do the math.
Just leave us alone – we’re more than willing – even glad, to make the sacrifices necessary to get to the TLM.
Good for you Mr. Terence. That’s a long drive. We used to live where there were no Catholic churches within an hour’s drive. It’s a real commitment to do that on back roads. We had some seriously rough terrain to cover but at least not a 250 mile round trip. That’s impressive.
All that wasted fuel and time, not to mention wear and tear on the car, adds up to wasted money when a perfectly fine novus ordo Mass is within ten miles. Not to mention carbon emissions making the journey. Surely, Jesus does not want these families to waste so much time and money when a Mass is much closer. I don’t think it’s virtuous at all to drive 250 miles each way to go to a Mass when there’s one only twenty minutes away.
I hope he listens, and I don’t even attend the Tridentine Rite (and no plans to do so any time soon, actually).
Nor do I attend the Tridentine Mass. But, it is NOT a “Rite.” The TLM is the Extraordinary Form of the LATIN RITE. (The Novus Ordo is the Ordinary Form of the same Rite.)
Which is to say that for the Church to actually remove the TLM is like a self-administered lobotomy. And after which, the Catholic Church will pride itself in remembering nothing.
Like some of the amnesiac table talk at town hall synodal roundtables. Not even a memory of the actual provisions of the authorizing Second Vatican Council Constitution on the Liturgy. It is true, however, that much of the liturgical abuse (e.g., clown masses) in the early decades following the Council is now in the rear-view mirror.
Lord (if there is a Lord), spare us another plague of “liturgists,” or even more clericalization of the laity through another pandemic of “ministries” (conflated with the ministerial priesthood).
A Woodstock peace sign to y’all!
A high-fiver right back atcha’.
On November 19, 1969, in an Address to a General Audience, November 19, 1969, Pope Paul VI referred to the now so-called “ordinary form” of the Latin Rite this way:
“We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass.”
He called it the “new rite”!
If by the Novus Ordo is meant a Mass that is prayed strictly according to the Roman Missal i.e. ONLY saying the Black exactly as printed and ONLY doing the Red exactly as it is printed, then it must be concluded that RARELY is a Novus Ordo Mass actually said. (I’ve never seen anywhere in the Roman Missal any instruction to: “ad lib or modify in any way you choose anything contained herein.”
Of course, my comment was meant to imply that 90% of the liturgical wars that have been fought since 1965 have been caused by priests & bishops who have never strictly conformed to what appears in the revised Roman Missal. That is to say they never strictly adhere to say ONLY WHAT APPEARS IN BLACK PRINT and to ONLY DO WHAT APPEARS IN RED PRINT.
If bishops and priests had adhered to strictly follow the Missal, we wouldn’t have had the liturgical circuses we’ve all been subjected to.
Novus Ordo means “new order.”
The NO and the Tridentine rite have two different calendars, different readings (because of the calendars), feasts, language, prayers, etc.
An honest person, or at least one from Mars with no skin in the game, would conclude that they are in fact two distinct rites (or liturgy if you prefer), both of which are currently celebrated by the Roman Catholic Church
No, the Roman Missal promulgated after Vatican Council II is a revision of the former Roman Missal of 1962. There is one Roman Rite whose Missal has been revised. The V2 Missal is the current iteration of the Roman Rite’s form of the Mass.
The pre-V2 Missal is obsolete, having been replaced by the V2 Missal.
There is no such thing as “extraordinary” and “ordinary” forms of the Mass. Please stop using that language, which was a legal fiction introduced by Benedict XVI and has been officially expunged by Pope Francis’s Traditionis Custodes.
There is one form of the Mass: the 1970 Missal, updated in 2008. That is the only form that should be used.
I think the Pope needs to be careful in reinstating the TLM. The previous FBI head and Administration considered it a breeding ground for Catholic terrorist. Who knows what is lurking in the hearts of TLM Catholics. If they get an upper hand, besides dressing reverently in Church, they will start restoring Catholic staples like saying the Rosary and The St Michael the Arch Angel prayer after Mass, not to mention Churches filled with incense.
Again, the trad comments are displaying ignorance and incorrigibility. There is no pleasing them without giving in to their demands. Vatican II happened. The Roman Rite was updated and reformed. That’s the inconvenient truth for trads.
I’m convinced trads and regular Catholics will never get along. Pope Francis was right to issue Traditionis Custodes. Do away with the TLM. Let the trads self-deport.
May Pope Leo support TC.
Before and discussion on the new or old rite of mass, people should read Quo Peimum by the council of Trent.
For example:
“We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal”
And
“Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
Obviously this document was ignored during VII
Quo Primum does not prevent future Church authority from changing the Mass of Paul V. Please, just stop it. The Missal of Paul V was ammended several times by popes before Vatican II. Please stop with the simplistic, fundamentalist, incorrect attempts to interpret magisterial documents.
Is this website a trad site? It seems to be, based on the comments. I don’t like that. I thought it was a reliably centrist, orthodox Catholic website. If it’s becoming trad, I will probably put it on my avoid list, like I do with Rorate Caeli’s website.
Anyone who claims that Archbishop Bugnini was a freemason who infiltrated the Church to destroy it with the new Mass is out of his/her mind. Pope Francis was right about trad enclaves being dangerous and divisive. You see it every time this site posts a story about the liturgy. You see it above. What ignorance and hostility to Vatican 2. Thank God for Vatican 2 and the novus ordo Mass. Thank God for Traditionis Custodes.
Pope Leo will do the right thing and continue with the full implementation of Vatican 2’s liturgical reforms.