Sola Liturgia? Will we see TLM Protestants?
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    So things are heating up in the apparent run-up to whatever Pope Francis is going to do to modify/revise/revoke Summorum Pontificum. Rorate Caeli has a banner warning that a reliable source says it will drop this Friday.
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/07/urgent-prayers-highly-reliable-source.html

    At Crisis Magazine, Peter Kwasniewski wrote last week:

    If Summorum Pontificum is abrogated, the traditional Roman liturgy will not be abrogated thereby; if Summorum’s provisions are curtailed, that will be no reason to curtail the ever-increasing restoration of our immense treasury of faith and culture. It may be that Divine Providence sees a need to wean us still more from the milk of ultramontanism so that we may exercise our mandibles on the meat of tradition—with or without the approval of prelates.

    Source: https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the-tragic-flaws-of-a-great-gesture-summorum-pontificum-at-fourteen

    In response to a question that linked to his article from The New Liturgical Movement, he wrote:
    image

    Is this not a hint that if SP is rolled back severely, we will see the emergence of TLM Protestants? Their rallying cry "Sola Liturgia"?

    A new schism or just defecting to SSPX?

    I think this is a direct result of not correctly understanding or refusing to accept that the new Mass indeed has priority over the TLM in the post-conciliar Church. When you are more committed to the TLM than you are to full communion with the Catholic Church, something is wrong.

    Peter Kwasniewski is very knowledgeable and a formidable writer. I think his conclusions are wrong about the Church not having the authority to abrogate or restrict the TLM and I disagree with his proposal that the new Mass should be suppressed in favor of the Church returning to the TLM exclusively.

    His suggestions, bordering on recommendations, that Catholics should consider disobeying Church authority if it restricts the TLM strike me as a Protestant mentality of a new variety: TLM Protestants.
    1298 x 708 - 130K
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 236
    The OF doesn’t have priority over the EF, nor does the EF have priority over the OF. The OF is more common at the moment, but there is nothing in Church law that prohibits the EF from becoming more ordinary than the OF.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,155
    I am of the opinion that some of the more extreme TLM folks are already in schism. Prof K may already be there.

    There has been a lot of hysteria from similar Trad groups but until something actually happens, I wonder how they know what will come from Pope Francis? Do they have inside spies? Did the Mormon angel appear to them with golden tablets and reveal all? Or are they just excessively paranoid?

    Time will tell.
  • davido
    Posts: 470
    Is there a real question to this thread or is this just Trad baiting?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,155
    Drop this Friday? I guess we will have to wait and see.
  • davido
    Posts: 470
    However, I’ll take the bait.

    Why is it Protestant trad? Why not Orthodox trad? Would not the orthodox be the ones who don’t think a pope has the authority to completely abrogate the ancient liturgy they received from their ancient saints?
    Thanked by 2francis tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,155
    The popes have never claimed any authority over eastern liturgies. The patriarchs and bishops couldn't change it without a Pan Orthodox council. It will never happen since they can never agree on anything.

    I don't think the Trads could be Protestant in the sense that Luther and Calvin were. At worst, they could go into schism. Pius X folks already did that.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    The Novus Ordo/OF most certainly does have priority in the post-conciliar Church. That was one of the results of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the promulgation of the new Mass that superseded the TLM. Not even Summorum Pontificum altered that. Benedict XVI affirmed that the Novus Ordo is the normal form, the normative form of the liturgy even while stating that the EF may be celebrated in addition to the OF.

    I think many errors result from not getting that one important point correct or refusing to accept it as true.

    If the rumors of an imminent intervention from Francis are true, we may soon read a further clarification of the status of the OF as normative, as having priority in the post-conciliar Church.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 349
    I don't think the Trads could be Protestant in the sense that Luther and Calvin were.


    Protestant with a small p, perhaps?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,155
    Who knows? Since none of us know what is going to happen, we will just have to hold our reactions until after the fact.
  • Mark,

    If the two rites don't propose the same faith, by definition, the defective one is the Ordo of Paul VI.

    You propose a very strained reading of the terms Ordinary and Extraordinary. Pope Benedict didn't say "Ok., it can be celebrated by those who are too old or too stubborn to accept the truth " ... or anything like it. In fact, he said that priests should offer the Mass in the Extraordinary Form even if the faithful don't ask for it.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw rich_enough
  • madorganist
    Posts: 740
    one of the results of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the promulgation of the new Mass that superseded the TLM. Not even Summorum Pontificum altered that.
    supersede: to take the place of; replace or supplant
    abrogate: to abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by authority (American Heritage Dictionary)
    Summorum Pontificum itself says that the TLM was never abrogated: numquam abrogatam. Now, supersede and abrogate aren't exactly synonyms, but in context, abrogate seems more forceful. @MarkB, do you mean to argue that the TLM was merely superseded, not abrogated? If not, you might want to rethink your wording.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 823
    When you are more committed to the TLM than you are to full communion with the Catholic Church, something is wrong.

    Something is indeed wrong, but it isn’t the people who love the TLM.

    If the pope were to abrogate the TLM tomorrow and it suddenly became illicit everywhere, I would not only fully support, but encourage people to continue attending TLM’s, consequences be damned. We are dealing with a papacy that breaks from tradition, not tradition breaking away from the papacy, which is how the story is currently being spun.

    I repeat: it is modern Rome breaking from the past, not traditional Catholics who break from Rome. Rome separates itself from its own foundations. Ultramontanists scare fence-sitters away from tradition as being disobedient. MUCH better to be disobedient to a pope who is not in communion with tradition than to obey said pope and break from tradition which carries farrrrrrrrrrr greater weight. I see this situation akin to latæ sententiæ excommunications: the doing of the act in itself demonstrates a split. In this case the one doing the splitting is the pontif, not the PiPs attending TLMs or even the priests performing them even when asked not to by pathetic ordinaries.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,456
    ServiamScores and Prof K both have their theology in tact... this has long been coming, and now the sheep and goats go their ways...
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    .
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 334
    If the pope were to abrogate the TLM tomorrow and it suddenly became illicit everywhere, I would not only fully support, but encourage people to continue attending TLM’s, consequences be damned. We are dealing with a papacy that breaks from tradition, not tradition breaking away from the papacy, which is how the story is currently being spun.


    Oh, hey, I recognize Martin Luther’s argument.

    1) The liturgy was originally that of the apostolic tradition, given by Jesus himself, and generally fantastic.
    2) Lately we’ve got these bad popes who are doing their own thing and the liturgy has been perverted and corrupted.
    3) I know what real tradition is, and what the real, authentic, traditional liturgy is.
    4) I’m going to do that no matter what, separate myself from the Pope, and feel good about doing what’s actually traditional, and it’s the Pope’s own fault for having abandoned tradition.

    MarkB, I think you have your answer.
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 133
    Spot on ServiamScores, thank you.

    I will add that those TLM-goers who refuse to attend a Novus Ordo, as opposed to those that are also fine with attending a Novus Ordo in addition to the TLM, are precisely the ones who realize that it is not only about TLM vs Novus Ordo. The Catholic Faith is more than just the Mass - although obviously the Mass contains one of the most central aspects of the Catholic faith and is probably the most visible representation of it in some ways. But the Catholic faith is a whole package; the liturgy, yes, but also a lifestyle and a tradition going back 2000 years. And thus it is NOT any sort of "sola liturgia" are you are trying to cleverly make it out to be. Those who attend the TLM may have their faults (as we all do) but by and large, they only desire to live the Catholic faith and worship at the Catholic Mass, as was done for centuries. They do not deny any of the traditional Catholic teachings yet are excoriated for simply desiring the centuries-old expression and living of the Catholic faith, while others who are clearly heterodox or outright heretical are given a pass and let alone.

    And if you want to claim that TLM Mass goers do deny any Catholic teachings on the grounds that they supposedly deny the authority of the Pope, well, then that would really be part of the crux of the matter, wouldn't it...but I will just say that I think you would find that traditional faithful Catholics would be the most ardent and grateful supporters of the papacy if the one filling the position didn't show himself to be their enemy.

    Bottom line is, as ServiamScores pointed out, traditional Catholics did not and do not make any split or "schism" - how can you say that when what they do is simply what had been done until Rome decided to turn the life of the Church upside down? When such drastic changes are made to centuries of tradition, it is the burden of the one making the changes to show that he is not being schismatic, not the ones who simply hold to what was taught to them and their fathers and their fathers, etc. Maybe Summorum Pontificum will be outdated by the end of this week if the rumors are true - but what Pope Benedict said about the traditional Mass (what was once holy and sacred cannot suddenly become bad and unholy) is easily applied to the whole package of the traditional expression of the Catholic faith. Benefit of the doubt is most aptly applied to tradition in the Catholic faith, not novelty.
  • Francis,
    Neither Dr. K nor Serviam specialized in the theology of tact. Bluntness is called for, and they're delivering it well. The truth in charity has to be true, to start with.

    Now, they do have their theology intact, but that's a different point.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 133
    Oh, hey, I recognize Martin Luther


    Oh the irony of this comment! Since we're talking about the Liturgy...surely you are aware that much of what Luther, Cranmer and all of the Protestants originally did to, or stripped from, the Mass was implemented with the Novus Ordo Missae? In light of this fact, this is most certainly not an issue of "traditionalists" falling into Protestantism, it is an issue of Rome herself falling into the same errors that the Protestants did/do with regards to thr liturgy, which of course has implications on what ones believes about Catholicism as a whole.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,108
    @MarkB
    The SSPX are not in schism, Pope Francis has given them faculties. The marriages and confessions were all made valid by a stroke of his pen a few years ago. The SSPX priests are validly ordained, and their Masses are valid but were formerly illicit.
    You may not like this, and I may look at canon law and tradition and see a square and a circle and wonder how they can be combined. Francis is Pope and can bind and loose as he sees fit, what he cannot do is change the past, because if he say's that Pope Benedict was wrong he calls into question his own judgement.

    You nor I are qualified to look into others souls to see if people are in schism, we can be charitable and assume and pray for the best. It is easy to point at people at any Mass and look at their external behaviour, but we cannot judge intent, The splinter in our neighbours eye may be smaller than the beam in our eye. The public statements contrary to the Faith of public figures is a different matter and such require public condemnation, and public repentance. Telling people that the ancient form of the Roman Rite the Mass of countless saints, is acceptable as many popes have affirmed is not the same.

    Are you really saying that the form of the Roman rite known as the N.O. is the primary way we can show communion? This is nonsense, the Catholic church has always had different rite and Uses. It is offensive to suggest that those using say the Sarum Use were not in Communion with Rome, Our Eastern Catholic friends would also find it offensive to suggest that they must put aside their ancient rites for the sake of 'communion'.

    A Dominican is no less a member of the Catholic Church, if he only uses the Dominican Rite, the same applies to all the other Rites and Uses.

    "Sola Liturgia" what nonsense, the Trads follow "lex orandi lex credendi". Those who misapply Vat II and demand that we must show communion by attending only one of the variety of Uses and Rite of the Catholic Church it is they whose cry is "Sola Liturgia".
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,155
    Seems to me the conflict in France was about TLM priests refusing to celebrate the Chrism Mass with their bishop. It is hard to follow their reasoning on this one since the Chrism Mass is not a mass to be said by a solitary priest. Will it turn out those priests shot themselves in the foot?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,456
    Oh the irony of this comment! Since we're talking about the Liturgy...surely you are aware that much of what Luther, Cranmer and all of the Protestants originally did to, or stripped from, the Mass was implemented with the Novus Ordo Missae? In light of this fact, this is most certainly not an issue of "traditionalists" falling into Protestantism, it is an issue of Rome herself falling into the same errors that the Protestants did/do with regards to thr liturgy, which of course has implications on what ones believes about Catholicism as a whole.
    Bingo. I have been saying this for years and years and finally it is all coming to bear. I think what is unfolding could be the last gasp of the new mass as it drowns in failure and tries like hell to climb on top of anything that can keep it afloat. SP was the beginning sign of that attitude, but the TLM does not rely on SP.

    I was going to correct the statement about the SSPX being in schism as they are not and have never been... I am glad tomjaw made that clear.

    As for foot problems, you might ask almost all of the bishops to remove their shoes to see who actually has bullet holes and gangrene to go with it.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 823
    Oh, hey, I recognize Martin Luther’s argument.

    1) The liturgy was originally that of the apostolic tradition, given by Jesus himself, and generally fantastic.
    2) Lately we’ve got these bad popes who are doing their own thing and the liturgy has been perverted and corrupted.
    3) I know what real tradition is, and what the real, authentic, traditional liturgy is.
    4) I’m going to do that no matter what, separate myself from the Pope, and feel good about doing what’s actually traditional, and it’s the Pope’s own fault for having abandoned tradition.


    Gamba, I confess this made me chuckle rather more than upset me. Unfortunately, I believe you woefully incorrect on this point.

    Luther split and "made himself his own pope" and immediately changed things. You cannot possibly claim that maintaining the tradition as it was handed on is even remotely equivocal to what Luther did—which was NOT maintain what was handed on but CHANGE.

    The man was a filthy wretch by the end, who spouted all sorts of evil things that are recorded for time-immemorial in his collected works. Why anyone would choose to follow such a depraved man is a mystery to me.

    Simply saying, "I am not going to change from what has always been done, when we know the pope is changing things he shouldn't" is wholly different from, "I don't like what the pope is doing so I'm going to do something completely different to suit my tastes [that is NOT rooted in pre-existing liturgical praxis]"

    _____________
    I am reminded of the stunning plea (there's video of it floating around on YT) made by Lefebvre at one of his later public masses where he essentially says [paraphrasing here]:

    "How can it possibly be that I am the one being called schismatic? If, even two years before the council, I had tried to say mass in the vernacular, facing the people, with all the abominations we see now, I would have been excommunicated as a heretic! And yet mere months after the council, they decry me as a radical and schismatic for doing what we have always done for centuries!"

    It is a very convincing argument in his favor.

    I am simply saying that the people who continue to have Mass the same way that centuries upon centuries of Catholics had it all across Europe, are not the ones one can accuse of schism. If St. Alphonsus walked in the door, or St. Francis de Sales, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. John of the Cross, or St. John Marie Vianney, or____, or____, etc. which Mass would they say? Your honor, I rest my case. No matter what PF says (and don't get me started on Quo primum) the TLM will forever be valid. It is THE rite of the roman church.

    I recently had a priest ask me what church teaching I most struggled with. While I make an assumption here, I believe he was expecting me to say something like "contraception". I could see the very clear look of surprise on his face when I replied that what bothers me most is our apparent 180º turn on the death penalty; I utterly fail to see how something could be deemed licit by pope after pope, and even the angelic doctor himself, as a perfectly legitimate (if extraordinary) penal action for the greater good, and suddenly, POOF! not any more!

    That's not how authentic development of doctrine works, folks. You don't get to literally reverse course and say something completely contrary to centuries of tradition and formal church teaching and call it dogma and (literally) re-write the catechism. nopety, nope nope. (and the same goes for the liturgy)
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 334
    That’s why I said I saw Luther’s line of argument, not Luther’s liturgical ideas.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    What troubles me greatly about the OF is just that which Serviam hints at above. If any number of saints (or even Joe Schmo the peasant) from Charlemagne until 1960 walked in on the NO as it is celebrated 99% of the time, they would without question think they had stumbled upon some sect of heretics celebrating a heretical rite. Yes, I know the N.O. is valid and not heretical, but the above remains true regardless.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 865
    The Novus Ordo/OF most certainly does have priority in the post-conciliar Church. That was one of the results of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the promulgation of the new Mass that superseded the TLM.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "priority" here. Does this mean that the NO should be the preference of most Catholics, or that it is a better expression of the Roman rite? I'm looking in vain for any use of the word (or any other term with the meaning you would like to give it) in SP or any other church document or papal statement. I also can't find the part of SC where it says a "new Mass" or even a new form of the Mass is called for, one that would supercede the older form, with the old one being forbidden. This would be something completely unprecedented in the history of the Church.

    There's nothing in SC or SP which argues for such a "priority." Even a scholar like Laszlo Dobszay (hardly a traditionalist and someone whom I'm sure you would agree with on many points) calls the OF the "neo-Roman rite," one that is "Roman" only in the sense of being celebrated by the majority of the Latin Church, and being officially approved. "However, the conclusion is quite different if we test the Novus Ordo from the viewpoint of its content. In this respect, it does not belong to the ancient and long-lived Roman liturgy, but represents another type" (The Bugnin-Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform, pp. 154-55).

    Nothing in Summorum Pontificum suggests that Pope Benedict meant anything more by "ordinary form" than what Prof. Dobszay meant by "neo-Roman." In fact, the only time he elaborates on the meaning of "ordinary" is in the follow-up letter, where he writes (in the context of how the EF will not lead to division in parishes), "it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful." He says nothing about it being "normative" or somehow a standard against which other things are judged, or that it has "priority" over the EF.

    On the contrary, if you follow Prof. Dobaszy's logic, the EF would actually have "priority" in the sense of being the historic Roman rite. Then the contradiction inherent in the notion of a pope having the authority to "forbid" the Roman rite comes into focus.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 823
    Trenton, I couldn't agree more.

    I was praying one day and realized that if St. Theresa of Avila walked in this very moment, she would shriek in horror and what we had done to her church. Then I thought about St. Alphonsus (I love his sermons) and felt honestly convicted that he would fashion a cord and start whipping people out.

    The moment my mass wasn't the same one as the great saints was a very dark day for me. Like you, I believe it valid/licit and I believe Christ truly present, but I think it a gross injustice thrust upon us.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 128
    Serviam, the Church has the authority to regulate her own liturgy, She alway had and she alway will. Liturgical discipline is not the same as doctrine. To cite just a few examples, She did it in promulgating the Missal of Prius the V, when it folded a multitude or regional variations into a single liturgical book. She did it again in 1955 in revising the Order for Holy Week. And again in 1962 which, if you go to a “Mass of the Ages” today, is the book you would be using.

    To follow your line of argument, if JPII, Paul VI, Teresa of Calcutta, Oscar Romero, or Carlo Acutis walked in the door, which form of the Mass would they use?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 823
    Gamba, fair, but it's still not quite the same. For starters I don't believe any of his initial fight with rome was about liturgy. Or at least, it was primarily about liturgy. Didn't that come later? Also, as you put it correctly, he separated himself from the pope. I think people who cling to the TLM aren't separating themselves from the pope. I think he is separating himself from them. I don't know a single normal person who is happy about being separated (if this is actually true) from the pope. Everyone wishes it were not so; I don't know of anyone who revels in the idea. Most find it utterly terrifying (myself included). But again, I don't feel like we ran away from home and said, "screw you, dad!". I feel like dad left mom (or at best is in an abusive relationship) and we are scrambling to survive the best we can. Big difference.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 823
    pfreese, there's a lot to unpack in your reply.

    Yes, the church has the right to regulate various aspects of liturgy. I'm still suspect, however, that someone has the right to completely start from scratch almost 2000 years in.

    Also, Pius V merely universalized and codified what was already in practice. He didn't reinvent the wheel at the time. What he did with his missal is not at all similar to what happend with Paul VI's missal. Not at all.

    "Liturgical discipline is not the same as doctrine." prima facie this seems true, but in reality it is not. This is why we have the centuries old quip, "lex orandi, lex credendi". Changing how we pray has changed how we believe. The proof is all around us in the utter collapse of what was once a thriving church but is no longer. True, outside forces also affect this, but it is very fair to say that we mostly did it to ourselves.

    Tweaking certain bits of holy week is not at all the same as completely replacing the mass with a new rite altogether. One could be seen as a "development of doctrine" type of scenario and and the other can only be seen as a complete revision, not borne out of what is old, but cut from new cloth.

    As for modern saints, many would argue that canonizing these people so quickly was in fact quite imprudent. That is a discussion for another day. But the fact still remains that the overwhelming majority by a ratio of about 10,000:1 would fall in the TLM camp, not the other way around. The onus of the burden of proof is on promulgators and exponents of the new system, not those who defend the old.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw francis veromary
  • pfreese
    Posts: 128
    Serviam, the Missal of Paul VI was a revision of that of Pius V, at least that’s how the Church sees it, I frankly don’t care that a few one off commentators disagree with the Church on that.

    Continuing with the saints, what about the Apostles? The Early Martyrs? Augustine? John Chrysostom? Did they worship in the TLM? No. Lord knows how much the Mass changed between their day and the High Middle Ages, but that happens when you have something that’s nearly 2000 years old.

    Gamba’ observation of the resemblance of Luther is interesting, but I think an even better comparison might be the Old Catholics. As the Holy Father mentioned a few months back, 100 years or so adrift from Rome resulted in some interesting things, like ordaining women and blessing same-sex marriages, and they thought THEY were the trads back then.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 865
    Serviam, the Missal of Paul VI was a revision of that of Pius V, at least that’s how the Church sees it, I frankly don’t care that a few one off commentators disagree with the Church on that.

    I'm not aware of any authoritative teaching on this - am I a heretic for disagreeing? For that matter, is Cdl. Ratzinger? Or other reputable scholars (some not traditionalist)?
    Continuing with the saints, what about the Apostles? The Early Martyrs? Augustine? John Chrysostom? Did they worship in the TLM? No. Lord knows how much the Mass changed between their day and the High Middle Ages, but that happens when you have something that’s nearly 2000 years old.

    Strawman alert - no one has claimed that every last saint, let alone those from the East or from before the liturgy was codified (!) worshipped in the TLM. But what we know of as the TLM is substantially the same rite as that known to Western saints for over 1,000 years. The Rite of Paul VI - not so much (see above). You can discount that if you like (and the argument is meant to be more rhetorical than logical), but it does suggest that we should not discount how so many saints have worshipped over the centuries.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,155
    Some of the things in the NO the Trads rail about are rather trivial and a bit silly. The NO faces the people. Although it doesn't have to face the people, those true to tradition would say the priest and the people should face east. That is tradition and many TLM masses face here, there, and anywhere. What else has changed that causes the Trads such angst. Prayer I is so similar to the Roman Canon there is hardly any difference. I remember all the flap about pro multis, which agreed, was incorrectly translated. That was fixed in the 2010 translation but we all knew what was meant anyway so it all came down to argument for the sake of argument. Vestments were simplified. Good, they needed to be. Altars were so encumbered with useless wrappings, you could hardly see them underneath all the junk. That needed simplification, too. The biggest legitimate differences I see are music and the current over-emphasis on sermons. Unless the priest actually has something to say that teaches doctrine or illuminates scripture, he shouldn't talk for the sake of talking - but they sadly do. Music went to pot and that is blatantly obvious. Not that most parishes ever put all that much money into music and made it any kind of priority. Most still don't. It is cheaper to let a bunch of amateur guitarists play than hire degreed and competent organists. Better training of priests in liturgy and music could certainly help out there. Many can barely chant these days.
    Thanked by 2MarkB veromary
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    But they (the Old Catholics) split over doctrine, like Luther.

    If the Missal of Paul VI was simply a revision of that of Pius V, like the Missal of John XXIII, why did Paul deem it necessary to call his creation the NOVUS Ordo Missae, rather than simply Ordo Missae; Also, if it was essentially the same Missal and simply a revision why was it necessary to remove the decrees of promulgation of Pius V, Clement VIII, and Urban VIII, which bind in perpetuity? After all, the Roman Missal of 2010 contains the decree of promulgation of Paul VI.

    I am of the same opinion as Fr. Z., that Benedict's language in Summorum was a juridical solution, not a liturgical or theological one, to prevent the need for Roman Rite priests to become bi-ritual in order to use the Vetus Ordo.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    If the two rites don't propose the same faith, by definition, the defective one is the Ordo of Paul VI.

    Is an assertion posing as a hypothetical, and is patently as well as demonstrably false.

    From Summorum Pontificum:

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

    It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.


    Both liturgical forms celebrate and express the same faith. The exact same faith.

    And, no, there isn't a document that explicitly uses the word "priority" about the Novus Ordo, but the whole history of what happened in the Church from Sacrosanctum Concilium to the promulgation of the new Missal, to Benedict referring to the Novus Ordo as the normal and ordinary liturgical form in the Church, leads to the true conclusion that the Novus Ordo does have priority in Catholic liturgical life, meaning it is to be considered the preferred, normative, expected, default liturgical form going forward even though the older form is still permitted. That's also what is meant by the liturgical reform is irreversible.

    If Pope Francis contributes anything to the discussion and understanding of the relation between TLM and NO, between EF and OF in whatever document he is expected/rumored to promulgate, I hope he clarifies and legally encodes that although the two liturgical forms celebrate and express the same faith, and although both may be celebrated, the NO/OF is to be preferred as the standard liturgical form in the Roman Catholic Church because the liturgical reforms of Vatican II brought about a new, reformed, default set of liturgical rites in the Church while perhaps not abandoning what preceded it entirely. That should entail that all Catholics, ordained and lay, are expected and might be legally required to celebrate the Novus Ordo at least part of the time, while no Catholic is expected to celebrate the TLM at all.

    Catholics who would refuse to abide by a directive to celebrate the Novus Ordo at least some of the time could, I think, be said to have a Protestant-like mentality of rejecting Church authority since Vatican II because they will be rejecting the Church's path of liturgical reform.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    If they celebrate according to the '62 books, they're celebrating a slightly reformed and changed version of the TLM which in some ways is a result of the liturgical movement, so how is that a rejection of liturgical reform?
    Thanked by 2tomjaw veromary
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    Mark, you keep making that claim over and over that the laity must attend and the clergy must celebrate the OF, but there is absolutely no legislation to support that claim, and at the end of the day it is simply your opinion. Hardly binding on all the faithful.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    It's a rejection of Vatican II's initiation of a major liturgical reform from after 1962.

    To say, "I accept the Church's liturgical reforms up to [insert personally preferred year here] but not anything after 1962," is to reject the Church's authoritative decision to reform the liturgy, a decision made at an ecumenical council, no less.

    You don't get to decide for yourself what year is the final year of "legitimate" liturgical reforms. Church authority decides that.

    And you have to accept it, if you are a Catholic who wishes to remain in good standing and full communion with the Church.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    I'm not saying it's currently a requirement for Catholics to attend the NO. I think it's a correct attitude and practice to have in the post-conciliar Church, but it's not legally required.

    I hope Pope Francis makes it a requirement because it's needed in order to reign in the separatist, Vatican II-rejecting attitudes that have developed in some TLM-exclusive parishes and religious communities, and to establish in a clear, indisputable way that no TLM-preferring Catholic would be able to deny that the NO is the preferred set of liturgical rites in the Church and there's no going back from Vatican II's liturgical reforms.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    You are unequivocally wrong on your last point, as, again, there is no legislation confirming that stance. If anything, the Church openly permitting orders and communities to celebrate ONLY according to the traditional missal and rites (at least implicitly) blatantly contradicts that claim.

    Edit: by your last point, I refer to the one in your reply two comments above as opposed to immediately above.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    They are currently permitted to celebrate the TLM exclusively, yes. However, if they do so because they reject Vatican II's liturgical reforms in principle, they are doing so in bad faith and are not in full communion with the Church.

    If they do so because, while accepting Vatican II's liturgical reforms in principle, they don't have a reverent NO Mass to attend or for another good reason they prefer the TLM, that's okay.

    But if in principle they would refuse to celebrate or attend a NO Mass, or if they believe the NO is defective or invalid, there's an underlying set of problems behind that stance that show a refusal to be in full communion with the Church, which has authoritatively established a new set of default liturgical rites.

    Church authority needs to clarify these things in a legislative way, in my judgment.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    I won't disagree that there is plenty which the Church ought to clarify, perhaps this issue included. Do I understand that your argument is that, if one privately believes the OF to be invalid, that they are not in full communion? I suppose that would be true. But preferring the EF to the OF and therefore attending or celebrating it exclusively is hardly the same as that.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Mark,

    Actually, it's a hypothetical.

    We know for a fact that the older form of the rite proposes the faith, whole and entire, and we know that proponents (including yourself) of a "nice for historical study, but not useful today" approach insist that there is something in the deposit of faith which is newly present in the Missal of Paul VI (for why else would one be required to celebrate it as proof of orthodoxy) which is not present in the older form.

    A Franciscan can not be compelled to use the Dominican Rite. Why? Because he's not a Dominican. Can a Dominican be compelled to use the Roman Rite? Also, no. Why? Because the Dominican Rite is included in a grandfather clause from the 1500s. Accepting the rite of Paul VI as valid does not compel one to celebrate it.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw francis veromary
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,155
    What is not hypothetical is that there is no distinct TLM rite church. The TLM is permitted but is not a separate church apart from the mainstream Catholic church. As it stands now, it is divisive - shouldn't be, but is. I have witnessed the battle between the TLM group who didn't want Benediction using a host consecrated at a NO mass. My question was and is, why are we putting up with this? This kind of absurdity should not be condoned or tolerated. If, on the other hand, a TLM is offered at a mass for those who want it, I am fine if it goes no further than that and doesn't veer off into cult behavior. Unfortunately, that is exactly what sometimes happens. Some better guidelines are needed.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    The host and benediction thing is crazy, and does seem to be a sort of denial of the validity of the OF.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,108
    @pfreese
    To follow your line of argument, if JPII, Paul VI, Teresa of Calcutta, Oscar Romero, or Carlo Acutis walked in the door, which form of the Mass would they use?

    More nonsense, what Mass would Saint Pio of Pietrelcina and St. Josemaría Escrivá celebrate. As for the Saints of the early centuries we know the Roman Canon to be an ancient prayer, and the structure of the Mass as found in the Trent Missal is closer to more ancient forms of the Mass than the Missal of Paul VI is to the Missal of Pius V.

    @MarkB
    Once again I see the demand that only TLM adherents "must attend the N.O. Mass to show they are in communion with the rest of the Church". Why this novel rule? Does it apply to the Eastern Rites in Communion with Rome? If not why not? What is possibly binding about the Missal of Paul VI?

    I have not been to a N.O. Mass for almost 25 Years, my 8 children soon to be 9 have never attended the N.O. Mass and attend Mass everyday at our N.O. Parish.

    @trentonjconn
    The host and benediction thing is crazy, and does seem to be a sort of denial of the validity of the OF.


    This is bizarre, but I suspect this in the congregation at fault, in shared churches you may have seen them move to receive the Blessed Sacrament from the Celebrant, and avoid the priest distributing the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle. Some of them moaned about this to me once and I pointed out that because we have plenty of TLMs the Hosts in the tabernacle have more than likely been consecrated at a TLM. Just as the Holy water has been blessed to the older books, everyone is still using the Pentecost Water we blessed at the pre-1955 vigil. This year our Paschal candle was prepared at the pre-1955 Liturgy, and because of the Covid restrictions no further ceremonies took place for the N.O. Vigil later. Their Vigil started with the beginning of Mass, with the candle lit on the sanctuary, usually we have two candles. At this rate according to some people perhaps some of our parishioners who only attend the N.O. are no longer in communion with the Church?
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    On "ordinary" and "extraordinary", I think the terms should be understood in reference to the OF and the EF liturgies in a similar way that they are understood in reference to ministers of Holy Communion.

    In the Novus Ordo, clergy are the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion and laity may be installed as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, but only if necessary and by way of exception. If there are sufficient clergy (ordinary ministers) to distribute Holy Communion, then lay (extraordinary) ministers are not to be used; in fact, using lay extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion unnecessarily, when there are sufficient clergy, is a liturgical abuse.

    That means clergy are the preferred, normative, normal, default, standard, expected ministers of Holy Communion. Laity may distribute Holy Communion, but that is not the preference nor standard of the Church.

    I think the terms "ordinary" and "extraordinary" as used by Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum about the post-conciliar and pre-conciliar liturgies, respectively, should be understood in a similar way.

    The ordinary form of the Church's worship is the post-conciliar liturgy: the preferred, normative, normal, default, standard and expected liturgy in the post-Vatican II Church. The extraordinary form is permitted by way of exception to the norm and is not to be generally preferred but may be personally preferred as long as such personal preference doesn't in principle exclude the ordinary form of the liturgy, which is now the Church's standard liturgical form. Exclusive participation in or celebration of the EF might be a de facto refusal to accept the OF in principle; not necessarily, but could be.

    The comparison is not perfect, but I think it aptly gets at how the relationship between the NO and the TLM should be understood in the Church which, since Vatican II, has reformed the liturgy while permitting the unreformed liturgy to still be celebrated.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    Eastern Rite churches are not bound by Latin Rite liturgical norms nor canon law.

    The Latin Rite Church definitively and authoritatively reformed her liturgy at Vatican II to adopt a new standard. Latin Rite Catholics have to accept that fact.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 128
    “ and the structure of the Mass as found in the Trent Missal is closer to more ancient forms of the Mass than the Missal of Paul VI is to the Missal of Pius V.”

    Citations please
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    This year our Paschal candle was prepared at the pre-1955 Liturgy, and because of the Covid restrictions no further ceremonies took place for the N.O. Vigil later. Their Vigil started with the beginning of Mass, with the candle lit on the sanctuary, usually we have two candles.


    This is strange. Two Easter Vigils in the same church are expressly prohibited. "This directive is liturgical law and can be found in the Sacramentary and in the Circular Letter Concerning the Preparation and Celebration of the Paschal Feasts, 94: “The celebration of the Easter Vigil for special groups is not to be encouraged, since above all in this vigil the faithful should come together as one and should experience a sense of ecclesial community.”
    Source: https://www.rcan.org/sites/default/files/files/07qotvigil.pdf

    And from the Roman Missal's rubrics for the Easter Vigil: "Of this night’s Vigil, which is the greatest and most noble of all solemnities, there is to be only one celebration in each church."

    That anecdote, the refusal of TLM and NO communities in the same parish to celebrate a common Easter Vigil and instead celebrating separate Vigil Masses, is a perfect example of the liturgical separatist mentality in the Church that needs to be overcome.

    And the importance of Church unity/ecclesial community is what this discussion is really about.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW CHGiffen Elmar
  • pfreese
    Posts: 128
    Tomjaw, re the saints, you’ve implicitly proved my point, the saints celebrated the form of the Eucharistic celebration according to the Church’s authorized norms at the time of their Earthly lives, even Escriva. The Apostles worshiped according to a Eucharistic form handed down by Christ, those from the mid-1500s to the mid-1900s worshiped according to the Mass of Pius V, and now according to that of Paul VI. In the coming decades and centuries the Church will canonize plenty of saints who primarily or exclusively worship/ped according to the Pauline Missal (looking at you Carlo Acutis), because that’s just how time rolls.