Sola Liturgia? Will we see TLM Protestants?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,145
    @MarkB
    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.
    Latin Rite Catholics include the Dominicans... they have their own Rite! Our choir have sung at Dominican Rite, Sarum, Ordinariate, and Eastern Rite, but not the N.O. is that a problem for you? What about the third form of the Roman Rite, used by the Ordinariate? Must they be forced to use the N.O. once a year?

    As for the Vigil we are the official Diocesan community and we have permission from our Archbishop as outlined in SP. You are welcome to complain to him! You could also complain about our Coptic Rite celebration of Easter (Julian Calendar), and the Spanish community who have their own Easter celebration. Interestingly the greatest diversity of cultures and native languages can be found at our TLM.

    One of our priests is Coptic Rite (Eparchy of Sohag (Lycopolis)) but also celebrates the N.O. and has over the last year learnt the TLM, he has been very interested to see the similarities between the ancient Coptic Rite and the TLM. Another priest that was with us is a Russian Catholic (Byzantine Rite) priest, and he has permission to celebrate the TLM, which he does regularly.

    Anyway I like your definitions of Ordinary and Extraordinary, Extraordinary ministers are commonplace, and in the future at least in large parts of Europe the Extraordinary form will also be commonplace.

    “ 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.”
    The Roman canon is from no later than the 7th century, etc. see here for a brief guide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass Note the Mass for those that attend the TLM will be familiar with anything from the 10th c. and possibly before.

    As for the St Jose Maria he famously carried on saying the TLM, just look at most photos of him saying the Mass, as for St. Pio, he famously refused to go along with the novelties that later became the N.O.

    I really don't understand why you are so interested in the state of mind of those that attend the TLM. I am not interested in the slightest about the state of mind when it comes to the Liturgy of those friends of mine in my parish that attend the N.O., if they want Mass in English great good for them!
    Thanked by 2veromary dad29
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    Both liturgical forms celebrate and express the same faith. The exact same faith.
    If this were true (and not just a put forth statement of words) the proof would be in the pudding... it is not and has not been for decades... no 'law' is going to change the fact that the TLM is the Mass of Ages, and the more one rails against it, the more obvious to all that it truly is just that.

    you can keep telling me the sky is green and the grass is red, and you can even make laws and rules to say that it is so... but truth will be told by the child. Ask the child the color of the sky and the grass and your world is suddenly false. This is what is happening in our liturgical life right now... CCC... no, not the Catechism... Cancel Culture Catholicism. This is the global phenomenon that is ruling the roost (at the moment) but will come crashing down in the not too distant future.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 138
    Tomjaw, thank you for posting that Wikipedia article, it illustrates my point perfectly:

    “Before the pontificate of Pope Gregory I (590–604), the Roman Mass rite underwent many changes, including a "complete recasting of the Canon" (a term that in this context means the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer), the number of Scripture readings was reduced, the prayers of the faithful were omitted (leaving, however, the "Oremus" that once introduced them), the kiss of peace was moved to after the Consecration, and there was a growing tendency to vary, in reference to the feast or season, the prayers, the Preface, and even the Canon.”

    “Pope Gregory I made a general revision of the liturgy of the Mass, "removing many things, changing a few, adding some," as his biographer, John the Deacon, writes. He is credited with adding the words 'diesque nostros in tua pace disponas' to the Hanc igitur, and he placed the Lord's Prayer immediately after the Canon.”

    To name just a few from the article…

    That’s an awful lot of changes, which is all good and well, the Church has the authority to do that.

    Re Escriva, per a Dr. K article in NLM in 2016:

    “He loved [the Mass of Pius X] so much that he obtained permission to continue with the Mass he had always offered, rather than shifting over to the Novus Ordo Missae.”

    Fine fine fine, no objection from me here.
  • davido
    Posts: 503
    Tomjaw brings up the Anglican Ordinariate order of mass, which I think could shed some light on this whole papal/liturgical authority question.
    Is the Ordinariate Use to be considered a variant of the Roman use? Is it an adaption of the Roman mass (Pius V or Paul VI?) to be pastoral to a particular community? Does it incorporate things from our Catholic heritage?
    Benedict promulgated this use by his own authority, yes? Is this slow gradual development of liturgy, or something else?
    What is different about the Ordinariate Use from the Mass of Paul VI in its genesis?

    I would love to see an in depth article on the topic of the genesis of the Ordinariate use and the power of the papacy.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    Just to play Devil's Advocate: Why is it so necessary to cling to the writings of a Pastoral Council, convened in the 1960s, which did not claim to be doctrinally binding, which was overly optimistic about the goodness of man and the inherent goodwill of the secular governments, whose documents read as being unbelievably outdated and irrelevant to the needs of Christians in the 21st century? No doctrine was ever solemnly defined by Vatican II, and yet it's naive ramblings are adhered to with such doctrinaire ultramontanism that would make Pio Nonno blush with embarrassment.

    I don't reject Vatican II: It happened, and maybe it was important 50 years ago, but like the Council of Vienne, much of what it dealt with, and the world in which and for which it was convened and promulgated no longer exists. In trying to reach the modern world, the Fathers did not realize that the modern world is always changing: The Atomic Age has come and gone, and yet still we must labor over Gaudium et Spes?

    And getting back to liturgy: Based on the vague and often contradictory recommendations of Sacrosanctum Concillium, the Novus Ordo is not the express will of the Council, it is but the outcome of a hurried deliberation of a group of warring committees, and to assert otherwise is contrary to the documentary history of the time, including the writings of Bugnini himself.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 978
    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


    Why is this liturgical abuse acceptable (using the pre-1955 liturgy instead of the officially recognized 1962 liturgy), but using the Ordinary Form a bad thing?

    If the TLMers can pick and choose which version of the TLM they use, then how can they then complain about anything done in the Ordinary Form?

  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    There was an indult granted in 2018 that allowed use of pre 1955 Holy Week rites by a small number of traditionalist religious orders for three years, expiring in 2020. I hadn't heard that the permission extended to diocesan priests nor had been renewed to the current year or beyond.


    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,691
    the Novus Ordo is not the express will of the Council, it is but the outcome of a hurried deliberation of a group of warring committees, and to assert otherwise is contrary to the documentary history of the time, including the writings of Bugnini himself.
    I agree completely, and yet I prefer the OF to 1962.
    The reason for the hurry was that PaulVI feared schism, once SC had said change was possible there was in some places an outbreak of liturgical innovation lacking any foundation in theology or scholarship. 40 different EPs actually appeared in print, and more were in use, totally without approval and thus invalid as sacraments. And that is just the EP, one can imagine how much the rest of the service was corrupted. Fortunately for me, in England we were spared this chaos.
  • Arthur Connick
    Posts: 489
    50. 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.

    For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.
    The NO Mass must also be evaluated through the lens of SC: much was added with little advantage since 1962 and other elements injured which should be restored.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 924
    Amen, Arthur.

    One of my pet peeves is the slight alteration of the confiteor— dropping the invocations to St. Michael and St. JtB. What a STUPID thing to do. It irks me greatly every time I say the truncated version and I silently add the other two back in. It was pure novelty and desecration for its own sake.

    And while we are on the topic, we need to remember that it wasn’t only the mass that was desecrated, but the other rituals and liturgies as well: most notably baptism and exorcism. These are also travesties in their own right.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    ...and even further on the topic, the book of blessings... which I have heard apparently doesn't really actually bestow a blessing on the intended object(s)... Is this true?
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CCooze
  • Fr. Zuhlsdorf has written often on the new book of blessings.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CCooze
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    There were things in that baptism ritual that needed a closer look. Addressing salt as if it were a person rather than a thing. Also, anointing an infant with priest saliva? Yech!!
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    Charles... I talk to my car and my piano all the time... just today I was patting her (my Ford) on the dash, telling her she was doing good... what's wrong with you?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    I don't know. Talking to cars is a sign...

    I have been told that the revisions to the exorcism ritual were not good, but even priests have told me the changes to the baptismal ritual are good.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    I don't believe very many priests these days... less from the bishops, and I will stop there... however, when my car talks to me, it is quite clear exactly what her problem is. This morning she was coughing through a coil.

    The excorcisms are much less effective these days, and I have heard some lectures concerning why... If I remember correctly it has to do with humans giving demons permission and ownership of their person and their property. It may have been Amorth who said it takes much longer to confect an excorcism than it did just a few years back.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    The Pacelli revisions of Holy Week, especially Good Friday, were not well received. (In fact Roncalli never used them, even in the Sistina.) Subsequently, in the Novus Ordo, some of them were walked back, so some parts of the Triduum in the Novus Ordo are actually closer to Pre-55 than 1962. There are articles about this at NLM and others.

    One simple example is the vestments worn by the priest: Pre-55 Good Friday was called the Mass of the Presanctified, and the priest wore the Chasuble; in Pacelli's revision it was considered a Communion service, and the priest wore Cope; Now it's connection with the Mass has been partially restored, and the priest wears the Chasuble again.

    Pre-55 the color of Good Friday was Black, because of the deep sorrow felt; Pacelli changed it to Violet, just like the rest of Lent; Montini changed it to Red, a symbol of blood, to again give Good Friday a distinct color from the rest of the Season.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw a_f_hawkins
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 924
    Read the two baptism rites side by side (google it, there are docs with both in two columns); it is an utter travesty what they did to the rite. I’ve had my children baptized according to the old rite. The new one completely omits the minor exorcisms among other things.

    As for exorcisms, the new rite is almost deprecatory rather than imperative… some exorcists claim it is impotent compared to the old rite.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw francis dad29
  • Chrism
    Posts: 804
    Peter Kwasniewski is very knowledgeable and a formidable writer. I think his conclusions are wrong about the Church...


    I agree with you at least in general. Peter has every right to post here on this forum on matters musical, but his liturgical and ecclesiological manifestoes are annoying to the faithful. In them he operates outside of his academic level of competence, and I regret that his association with CMAA, as a writer, associates me with his theories in some remote way. The CMAA’s beautiful purpose, which has survived even darker times than these, is "the advancement of musica sacra in keeping with the norms established by competent ecclesiastical authority." Disobedience is not what I signed up for, if anything it is what I signed up against.

    The limits of the Pope's authority are prescribed by the Holy Spirit who keeps the Church one, holy, catholic, apostolic, indefectible, infallible, spotless and adorned, the Bride of Christ. We will see what happens with the Traditional Latin Mass. I do hope nothing changes for me in my world, and I hope my friends are not scandalized and remain in full communion with me, but if I don't get my way, whom should I follow? The one who stands iuxta crucem, or the one who stands hier...kann nicht anders?

    While the topic is definitely "tradbait", it is also timely. Thank you for posting.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    I agree with you at least in general. Peter [Kwasniewski] has every right to post here on this forum on matters musical, but his liturgical and ecclesiological manifestoes are annoying to the faithful. In them he operates outside of his academic level of competence, and I regret that his association with CMAA, as a writer, associates me with his theories in some remote way. The CMAA’s beautiful purpose, which has survived even darker times than these, is "the advancement of musica sacra in keeping with the norms established by competent ecclesiastical authority." Disobedience is not what I signed up for, if anything it is what I signed up against.

    The limits of the Pope's authority are prescribed by the Holy Spirit who keeps the Church one, holy, catholic, apostolic, indefectible, infallible, spotless and adorned, the Bride of Christ. We will see what happens with the Traditional Latin Mass. I do hope nothing changes for me in my world, and I hope my friends are not scandalized and remain in full communion with me, but if I don't get my way, whom should I follow? The one who stands iuxta crucem, or the one who stands hier...kann nicht anders?


    Who TRULY are the protestants?

    Here is an interesting clip from an article on LSN from March 2021. I think this puts Professor K in the opposite light of the libelous comments asserted above.

    Radio Spada: As we know, going beyond the moral theme, it is impossible not to identify in the doctrinal collapse the very hinge of the present crisis in the Church. In regard to this, on a number of occasions, you have expressed sharp criticism of Vatican II. On this point, we would ask you for a further specification. Speaking with [veteran Italian Vaticanist] Sandro Magister, you said: “The beautiful fable of hermeneutics – albeit authoritative for its Author – nevertheless remains an attempt to give the dignity of a Council to a real ambush against the Church.” May we, therefore, clarify that the problem is not identifiable only since Vatican II but in Vatican II? In other words: did the revolutionary process have a turning point in the “Council” and not only after the “Council”? So to place under accusation not simply with the postconciliar “Spirit of Vatican II,” but also the letter of the Council documents themselves?

    Archbishop Viganò: I don’t see how one can maintain that there is a presumed orthodox Vatican II that no one has talked about for years, betrayed by a spirit of the Council that everyone also praised. The spirit of the Council is what animates it, what determines its nature, particularity, characteristics. And if the spirit is heterodox while the conciliar texts do not seem to be doctrinally heretical, this is to be attributed to a shrewd move by the conspirators, to the naiveté of the Council Fathers, and to the complicity of those who preferred to look elsewhere, from the beginning, rather than take a stand with a clear condemnation of doctrinal, moral and liturgical deviations.

    The first to be perfectly well aware of the importance of putting their hand to the conciliar texts in order to be able to use them for their own purposes were progressive cardinals and bishops, particularly the Germans and the Dutch, with their experts [periti]. It was no coincidence that they managed to reject the Preparatory Schemas prepared by the Holy Office and ignored the desiderata [the requests] of the world’s bishops, including the condemnation of modern errors, especially of atheistic communism; they also succeeded in preventing the proclamation of a Marian dogma, seeing in it an “obstacle” to ecumenical dialogue. The new leadership of Vatican II was possible thanks to a real coup d’état, the pre-eminent role of the Jesuit (Augustin) Bea [1881-1968], and the support of Roncalli [Pope John XXIII, Pope from 1959 to 1963]. If the Schemas had been kept [as the basis for the Council’s documents; but they were put aside just after the Council began, in the fall of 1962, and not kept] nothing that came out of the Commissions [which were set up in the fall of 1962 to draft the Council’s documents, once the Council decided to set aside the prepared Schemas] would have been possible, because the Schemas were constructed on an Aristotelian-Thomistic model that did not permit equivocal formulations.

    The letter itself of the Council [i.e., the text of the Council documents] must therefore be placed under accusation [the Italian is “messo sotto accusa”], because it is from this that the revolution started. On the other hand: could you give me a case in the history of the Church in which an Ecumenical Council was deliberately formulated in an equivocal way to ensure that what it taught in its official acts was then subverted and contradicted in practice? Look: this alone [i.e., the fact that ambiguity and equivocation were deliberately woven into certain passages in the conciliar texts] is enough to catalogue Vatican II as a unique case, an hapax [hapax is a Greek word meaning once, one time, a unique case] on which scholars can try their hand, but which will have to find a solution through the Supreme Authority of the Church.

    Radio Spada: How did you become aware of this crisis? A gradual process? A sudden insight developed only recently?

    Archbishop Viganò: My awareness was progressive, and it started relatively early. But understanding, or beginning to suspect, that what was presented to us as the fruit of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was actually suggested by the inimicus homo [“the enemy of man,” i.e., the devil] was not enough to collapse that sense of dutiful obedience to the Hierarchy, even in the presence of multiple proofs of the bad faith and the malice of some of its members. As I have already had occasion to declare, what we saw then materialize – I speak, for example, of some novelties like episcopal collegiality or ecumenism or the Novus Ordo Missae – could appear as attempts to meet the common desire for renewal, in the wake of post-war reconstruction. Faced with the economic boom and major political events, the Church seemed to have to somehow rejuvenate herself, or so everyone was telling us, starting with the Holy Father. Those accustomed to pre-conciliar discipline, to the respect for Authority, to the veneration of the Roman Pontiff, did not even dare to think that what was surreptitiously shown to us as a means to spread the Faith and convert many souls to the Catholic Church was actually a vehicle, a deception behind which was hidden, in the minds of some, the intention to progressively cancel the Faith and leave souls in error and sin. Those “novelties” pleased almost no one, least of all the lay people, but they were presented to us as a sort of penance to accept, having in exchange a greater spread of the Gospel, and the moral and spiritual rebirth of a West prostrate due to the Second World War and threatened by materialism.

    Radical changes began with Paul VI, with the liturgical reform and the drastic prohibition of the Tridentine Mass. I felt personally wounded and helpless when, as a young secretary to the then Apostolic Delegation of London [in the 1970s], the Holy See forbid the Una Voce Association to celebrate even one Mass according to the Ancient Rite in the crypt of Westminster Cathedral. (continued below)
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • Chrism
    Posts: 804
    Why is this liturgical abuse acceptable (using the pre-1955 liturgy instead of the officially recognized 1962 liturgy), but using the Ordinary Form a bad thing?

    If the TLMers can pick and choose which version of the TLM they use, then how can they then complain about anything done in the Ordinary Form?


    To make a distinction, any liturgy approved by the supreme authority of the Church is considered indefectible, that is to say, it is not objectively evil. As the contemporary letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum said, "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful."

    So older liturgies are not objectively evil. And the Ordinary Form is not objectively evil. Although using either faithfully to its own norms can be disobedient in certain circumstances. Disobedience is a sin (unless it is done out of obedience to rightful authority), and one might call disobedient use "abuse" (wrong use) of liturgy, but this is not the common understanding. The liturgy itself is not abused, even if the power of order is.

    But under the title of "anything done in the Ordinary Form" are a lot of practices which are not covered by indefectibility, which have been invented by laymen or individual priests, bishops, or music publishing companies. These may even be objectively evil (i.e., blasphemous, sacrilegious, profanation), and when they are they should certainly be called "liturgical abuse".
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    (continued from above)
    During the pontificate of John Paul II, some of the more extreme trends of the Council found a propulsive push in the pantheon of Assisi [1986], in the encounters in mosques and synagogues, in the requests for forgiveness for the Crusades and Inquisition, in the so-called “purification of memory.” The possibly subversive power of Dignitatis humanae and of Nostra aetate were evident in those years.

    Then came Benedict XVI and his liberalization of the traditional liturgy, up until then ostentatiously opposed, despite the papal concessions following the Episcopal consecrations of Ecône [in 1988]. Unfortunately, the ecumenical exaggerations did not cease even with Ratzinger, and with them the conciliar ideology that justified them. The resignation of Benedict and the coming of Bergoglio continue to open the eyes of many people, especially of lay faithful.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    I think the problem with Peter K is that he wants a church in his own image. The heavens have not declared that he has been given the role of reformulating the church. He is something of a rabble rouser who appeals to the fears of the paranoid class. The sky is not falling and the church will survive until the end of time. Of that we can be sure.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    Some people might miss this important mention...
    Disobedience is a sin (unless it is done out of obedience to rightful authority)
    In other words, if a pope commands the church to do something contrary to faith and tradition, the people have the duty to resist and appeal to the rightful authority of God, the gospel and that which was handed down to his church.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    In other words, if a pope commands the church to do something contrary to faith and tradition, the people have the duty to resist and appeal to the rightful authority of God, the gospel and that which was handed down to his church.


    Every heretic in history has made a similar claim. And of course, the heretic has the right to decide what the gospel and tradition require.
    Thanked by 1Schönbergian
  • pfreese
    Posts: 138
    Oh Archbishop Vigano, always enlightening us to conspiracies when he himself conspired to quash an investigation into my former Archbishop when he faced no fewer than 11 accusations of sexual harassment (to say nothing about his incredibly selective memory on his dealings with McCarrick). Hard to take anything that guy says seriously.
    Thanked by 1OraLabora
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 924
    Every heretic in history has made a similar claim.

    "Even the devil can quote scripture."

    The fact that heretics have abused a truth does not make it an untruth. Was it not St. Robert Bellarmine who said that one has a duty to oppose a pope in error?
    Thanked by 2sdtalley3 tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    Every heretic in history has made a similar claim.
    Yea, but you failed to mention that they were on the wrong side of faith, tradition and the Gospel.
    And of course, the heretic has the right to decide what the gospel and tradition require.
    No, no heretic has that right at all. It is the opposite of what you say. It is the dutiful resistance of a Catholic to stand for and protect the Gospel and Tradition.
    The fact that heretics have abused a truth does not make it an untruth. Was it not St. Robert Bellarmine who said that one has a duty to oppose a pope in error?

    Yes, Bellarmine and many others including Aquinas... but you have to study the faith to know these things.

    here's some examples:
    Aquinas, along with many of the theologians quoted below, makes clear that any such public resistance is directed toward a prelate’s exercise of authority, as Paul did to Peter if there is a danger to the faith. As licit resistance, it does not constitute “judging” the Pope.

    Concerning this resistance, Thomas Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534), a leading theologian of his time, concurs:

    Therefore, you must resist, to his face, a pope who is openly tearing the Church apart, for example, by refusing to confer ecclesiastical benefices except for money, or in exchange for services … a case of simony, even committed by a pope, must be denounced.

    But what if this “resistance” is not simply rebuking a pope in an improper exercise of authority? Is disobedience ever allowed? Do theologians ever discuss “disobedience” to the “pope” specifically?

    In fact, they do.

    Francisco Suarez (1548–1617) of the School of Salamanca, a Jesuit priest and theologian, considered by many to be one of the greatest Scholastics after St. Thomas Aquinas himself, wrote:

    If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defense.

    Sylvester Prieras (1456–1523), a Dominican theologian, appointed master of the Sacred Palace by Pope Leo X and known for his detailed rebuttal to Luther’s 95 Theses, wrote:

    In answer to the question, “What should be done in cases where the Pope destroys the Church by his evil actions?”: “He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion, nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension[.] … [H]e does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandate prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law[.] … As Cajetan observes, we do not affirm all this in the sense that someone could have competence to judge the Pope or have authority over him, but meaning that it is licit to defend oneself. Indeed, anyone has the right to resist an unjust act, to try to prevent it and to defend himself.”

    Francisco de Vitoria (1483–1546), his Dominican counterpart, founder of the School of Salamanca, wrote:

    If the Pope by his orders and his acts destroys the Church, one can resist him and impede the execution of his commands.

    St. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), Jesuit theologian, Doctor of the Church, one of the greatest defenders of Catholic theology during the Counter-Reformation, wrote:

    As it is lawful to resist the pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior. See Cajetan on this matter and John de Torquemada.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    Oh Archbishop Vigano, always enlightening us to conspiracies when he himself conspired to quash an investigation into my former Archbishop when he faced no fewer than 11 accusations of sexual harassment (to say nothing about his incredibly selective memory on his dealings with McCarrick). Hard to take anything that guy says seriously.
    a blatantly obvious ad hominum attack. refute the facts, not the messenger and then I might take you more seriously.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 138
    Well considering Archbishop Vigano’s observations are almost invariably speculative, non-specific, or difficult if not impossible to verify, we’re basically left with his record of truth-telling on verifiable matters, which, to be charitable, is not great. I’m an underwriter by trade so maybe I’m biased, but given all that I’m not that inclined to treat him as a credible source.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    Well considering Archbishop Vigano’s observations are almost invariably speculative, non-specific, or difficult if not impossible to verify... I’m an underwriter by trade so maybe I’m biased, but given all that I’m not that inclined to treat him as a credible source.
    And which of these observations trouble you? I have plenty of other sources to back what he is proposing on the whole if you are interested to see clearly.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    liturgical and ecclesiological manifestoes are annoying to the faithful
    Which faithful? VO or NO?

    It may come down to this... If the church fully rejects the VO and there occurs a schism, who then are the protestants? The SSPX (and other orders) (VO) or V2ers (NO)?
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 978
    No, no heretic has that right at all. It is the opposite of what you say. It is the dutiful resistance of a Catholic to stand for and protect the Gospel and Tradition.
    But when is it Tradition and when is it tradition? What many here are saying is that the Extraordinary Form is a tradition of the Church, not a Tradition. Please explain how the Extraordinary Form is a Tradition and not a tradition.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    I don't know who else has seen this, but I think it very interesting.

    Do priests who celebrate only in the vernacular really know what they are saying?

    the sense of the translation must be understood according to the mind of the Church expressed by the original Latin text. -Instauratio liturgica

    If sacramental forms are to be understood according to how the Church understands the LATIN, then that is also the case for the other prayers, such as collects, the Prefaces, the Canon, etc. etc.

    ...what does it mean for a community when their priest doesn’t know the language of his own Rite?

    Imagine for a moment that a university’s French Department would hire a professor who couldn’t read French.
    Imagine for a moment that a medical school would pass through someone who couldn’t pass gross anatomy.

    Pope John XXIII in 1962 famously issued an Apostolic Constitution – not some mere encyclical – an Apostolic Constitution called Veterum sapientia in which he mandated the preservation of and teaching and use of Latin. I am not sure there was another document as blatantly ignored as Veterum sapientia, unless perhaps Ex corde Ecclesiae.

    Latin militates against the Modernist project precisely for the reasons John XXIII laid down, as Pius XI had before him.
    Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.” These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 924
    I suspect this comment will come under much scrutiny, but TBH, there reaches a point where schism is almost a relief. I don't mean that anyone should aspire to leave the church or that we should seek to drive souls away... I also don't mean that trads should reject Rome or seek to establish a parallel church. But in a perverse way, I would almost welcome Germany lopping itself off.

    I vastly prefer Our Lord convict their hearts and straighten them out—just so we are clear—but the heresies abounding in Germany are so numerous and odious that they make even the fence-sitters and cafeteria catholics look like monks & nuns.

    I repeat, I don't relish or particularly welcome the idea of anyone breaking away from the church. They do so to their own peril. You don't ever want dad to leave mom... but there comes a point where you can only endure so much abuse and then dad running away with the bar maid is almost a relief, even if it induces a new kind of sorrow and you wish it never came to that. But, at least you aren't being abused anymore and you can get on with rebuilding your life and healing with your mother.

    Frankly, we have reached a tipping point where the church would be much healthier if those who hate her were not able to dismantle her secretly (and some not-so-secretly) from within, but forced to attack her from without. But currently the faithful are attacked from without (to be expected) and from within (not to be expected).

    Then again, if we had had a strong line of [relatively] recent, orthodox pontiffs who were willing to excommunicate heretics and nip their errors in the bud, we wouldn't be seeing the chaos we are seeing...
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    I understand exactly what you're saying.
    However, we all know that it will be painted that devout, orthodox Catholics are the ones breaking off, and not the [reality that it is] other way around...
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    In other words: If your hand affects you, cut it off.

    If a part of the body is infected and dying, it is better for that part to be removed for the health of the body, than for the whole body to be infected and die.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 978
    Serviam, I was scrolling up looking to see who 'TBH' was. :)
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,356
    For folks wanting a TL;DR version:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91XUyg9iWM

    Example of the original grist:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cESACuuh6kM
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,676
    Well. This is a fun discussion to come back to after summer apostolate.

    I don’t have much to add to this topic, thank God, except to clarify on a discrepancy regarding the use of the 1962 missal as opposed to the pre 55. The “Old Archbishop” chose to use the 1962, not as a matter of preference - there are a good many things which he appreciated about the old liturgy, but he certainly wasn’t opposed to liturgical reform. He chose it because it was the last edition of the missal “properly” (not sure how exactly to term it) promulgated by the Holy See. It’s a matter beyond his choice, and boy let me tell you, if you’re not careful in the realm of the liturgy (as well as many other aspects) the prospect of choice can be a danger.

    And let me tell you, Serviam: it is a relief in times like these to be in schism, because I know longer feel like it’s a matter over which I need to lose sleep. Even if I’m only “faux-schismatic”. :)
    Thanked by 2sdtalley3 tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 924
    Sometimes it’s nice to know exactly where the enemy lines are drawn. Better to have a trench over there than enemies in your own camp.
  • Arthur Connick
    Posts: 489
    Well, Pope Francis has chosen to accompany the SSPX in their journey, indeed being generous and merciful in extending faculties to them without insisting they give up their exclusive attachment to the TLM, or even opposition to VII itself. Surely a model for us all!
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,676
    To be fair - I look upon no one in this forum as an enemy.

    Except tomjaw. And that’s only out of sheer jealousy.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 924
    Nor do I.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 241
    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.


    Naturally as time goes on and attendance numbers dwindle at the OF while numbers grow at the EF, demand for more EF Masses will exceed the demand for the OF, which means there will be more EF Masses than OF Masses.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 924
    which means there will be more EF Masses than OF Masses.

    Your mouth to God’s ears!
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    Nice thought but I don't think it is more than wishful thinking.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,145
    which means there will be more EF Masses than OF Masses

    This has already been achieved... We have already had at least one day when in the whole of Ireland the only Masses celebrated were EF.

    I suspect in France we have had days when more EF Masses have been celebrated, than N.O. in French. Large towns in France have no provision for the N.O.

    My parish (N.O.) due to a lack of demand does not have an N.O. Mass on Saturday morning, Our new Parish priest wanted to start one monthly but only two people came so was quickly forgotten. For the last few week if you want to go to Mass on a Thursday you only have the EF to choose from.

    The biological solution is moving along quite quickly across Europe.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,767
    The biological solution is moving along quite quickly across Europe.

    The Pope just performed an abortion on the biological solution.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CCooze
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    :-) ....... :-( ....... :-/ ....... ;-|

    Let nothing disturb you. Pay no attention to the emotions behind that curtain.

    Diabolical disorientation continues... repent, live the Gospel, make reparation, pray the rosary daily, take up your cross and walk to your crucifixion. Our Lady will be right there all the way praying and weeping for you.