It happened: Traditionis custodes (TLM crackdown)
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    This is infuriatingly sad news, and will go down as the defining move of this pontificate. It is clearly aimed at eliminating the growth of the EF so that it dies out in a few generations. Bye bye to reconciliation with the Society. How bitterly disappointing.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 865
    Sadly, it effectively promotes, more than anything else could, everything it claims to prevent.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 823
    Sadly, there are some particularly pernicious bits in it.

    Every new priest has to appeal to his bishop who in turn has to refer to Rome? Are you kidding me? Obviously the whole point is to invest itself with power so those in Rome can say ‘no’.

    Once again, I also wonder: how can one thing be true (never abrogated, universal right) and suddenly be untrue (no one except those given special permission can)?


    The most concerning phrases summarized for those just coming to this thread:

    Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

    Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

    § 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);

    § 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.

    Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.

    Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.


    Vive la Révolution!
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 865
    In addition to the many ironies and contradictions of the document, the whole thing is a striking contrast to what Vatican II stated (albeit in a different context): "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, and it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power" (Dignitatis Humanae, 1).
  • denroden
    Posts: 14
    At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.[13]


    Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.


    A lot to unpack here.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    And judging by the basilican regulations, Latin and Gregorian chant are considered the "eccentricities".
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,745
    I hope somebody told Benedict XVI. Because I really am that petty.

    I don't want to say a lot, with trolls in our midst. And really, I know nothing: whether I have a Mass to sing, where will I attend, etc. It would just be emoting, at this point.

    But looking forward, what can those of us who prefer the Roman Rite over the Neo-Roman do to keep our communities together and singing? What does this do about Vespers, if anything? Could we have Vespers, or maybe "concerts" (of Vesper music, nudge wink) with a prayer element? What about dry Masses? Granted, they wouldn't fulfill the Sunday obligation.

    I'm not fond of the idea of the Latin Novus Ordo; language is not the issue.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 796
    As we unpack and wait and unpack and wait and try to figure out what tomorrow will look like let alone this Sunday and next, this line from the letter struck me:
    It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration
    Spetta soprattutto a Voi operare perché si torni a una forma celebrativa unitaria


    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • OraLabora
    Posts: 201
    I’m not sure how this would affect Vespers; it can be and is celebrated in the new rite, and the antiphonary for Sundays, feasts and solemnities exists in official approved form. I know a parish in Montreal where Vespers is celebrated in Gregorian chant regularly, and the choir I belong to also does so in Advent and Lent. Or did before the pandemic.

    As for the Mass, from where I sit I’m only interested in two things: one, that the Mass be celebrated reverently according to the rubrics, and two, that the vast patrimony of Gregorian chant not only is preserved, but is used. Not every place every time, but often enough and in enough places that the faithful have access to it.

    Our abbey does this very beautifully in the OF Mass, and our schola and others like ours do try in various other places. There are a handful of scholas doing chant, at least 3 or 4 in Québec.

    I realize many feel differently, but as I age I’ve learned to pick my battles, and given that this comes from the Pope, it’s one I’d definitely lose. So I will focus on chanting well and singing the Liturgy of the Hours daily in Gregorian chant.

    Ora
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 818
    Absolutely appalling. While I sympathize with the desire to mend the rift developing between OF and EF Catholics, this will only deepen that rift and possibly lead to another schism altogether.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,154
    Despite what I think of it - it is unnecessary and doesn't address the real problems - Some in the TLM only crowd will blame everyone except themselves. They will never consider the disruption and discord they have caused in regular parishes through their own bad behaviors. It won't come up as to how they have antagonized others through arrogance, superiority, and generally snotty attitudes toward the NO and the people who celebrate it. Instead of showing the way to be better Christians and be shining examples of all that is good in Christianity, they have devolved in obnoxious little enclaves at odds with everyone else. Sad, but like I said, everyone else will get the blame, not themselves.

    Then there are the empire building priests who want to run their own show. Another matter for another time.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,143
    Strange that using multiple languages everywhere is always suggested as "unifying."

    It's like they giggle to themselves as they write such nonsense.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,154
    Using multiple languages is equally as bad as using one that hasn't been spoken in 1500 years. Language is irrelevant when not understood and out of context. Trads need to base their case on more than language. If you have something to sell or share, find a better way to do it, like put it in English and display what it has to offer. It has much to offer when understood.
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,593
    I have seen a report on-line that the Libreria Editrice Vaticana is refusing to reprint the Latin editions of even the modern liturgical books, or to grant permission to other publishers to do so.
    Thanked by 1succentor
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,154
    Now that is petty.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    I think the pope's new liturgical legislation and accompanying letter accomplish what needed to have been done and finally clarifies and encodes that the Novus Ordo Mass is the normative (the pope uses the word "unique") form of the liturgy in the Roman Rite in the post-conciliar Church.

    Nobody who is committed to the Council and knows what has happened since Summorum Pontificum can disagree with these paragraphs from the letter:

    With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”, [12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

    At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”. [13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” ( DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, [14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

    The regulations in the motu proprio that authorize the bishop to regulate the TLM in his diocese will now make it possible for the bishop to ensure that TLM groups are not separatists exploiting a technicality to remain in ostensible communion with the Church, for the bishop:

    is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;


    I see nothing in this motu proprio nor in the letter that any Catholic could take issue with. I think it was the correct decision, needed at this time to clarify that the Novus Ordo is normative, the preferred liturgy of the Roman Church, and that permitting the TLM is an exception, whose celebration cannot be allowed to encouraged disunity in the Church.

    The pope got it right with this one.
  • redsox1
    Posts: 202
    CharlesW, I share your thoughts. I led the music for the occasional Tridentine Mass at our parish in the mid-90’s. We were the designated site for the archdiocese. The pastor was totally against it and did nothing to facilitate it. I was, however, charged with organizing and leading all the music, and with a small group of others, coordinating the priest and servers. I was very sympathetic to the cause. We did everything, and I mean everything, to accommodate the Latin Mass group and provide the most beautiful Masses we could. I have to tell you, this group was the most difficult, rigid, and sour group of people I have ever worked with in my 40 years of ministry. It left a real bad taste in my mouth. Really sad it had to come to this.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,593
    is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;

    That is an important passage.

    The force of law, by its nature, cannot settle an intellectual debate about the propriety and quality of the liturgical reform.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 818

    I see nothing in this motu proprio nor in the letter than any Catholic could take issue with. I think it was the correct decision, needed at this time to clarify that the Novus Ordo is normative, the preferred liturgy of the Roman Church, and that permitting the TLM is an exception, whose celebration cannot be allowed to encouraged disunity in the Church.

    Except for the heavy-handedness of this motu proprio causing the exact kind of disunity it deplores?
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    Mark, the comment you've just made is akin to arriving at a funeral and saying about someone's dear beloved grandmother "Oh that old hag? Glad she's dead, it was her time!" Let us mourn a bit, yeah?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,154
    Kind of over the top isn't it? All this usually degenerates into bickering. Without that bickering over often, non-essentials might have produced a different outcome from the Vatican.

    I have to tell you, this group was the most difficult, rigid, and sour group of people I have ever worked with in my 40 years of ministry.


    Been there, done that. Many Trads should declare they have met the enemy and it is themselves.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,745
    Trads need to base their case on more than language.

    I quite agree. It's not about the language. If it were, we could just say the NO in Latin. But anybody who has done a significant critique of the NO involving the prayers, readings and rubrics has concluded that it's not the same Mass; it's something else.

    As for "put it in English", we did that; it's called the transitional Mass. The Pope, for the reasons enunciated in the Motu Proprio, is not going to give out indults to say the TLM in the vernacular. And this being the Church, priests can't just do whatever Mass they please. So your suggestion was a dead letter before it entered your modem.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,154
    They had the chance and blew it.

    Note: I actually thought highly of that transitional mass.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    I've been objective. I continue to be objective. If some take offense, that's not on me. We're all adults here and this message board is quasi-academic. If some people have a negative emotional reaction to the news, that's not going to stop me from contributing to the academic discussion and an understanding of what the pope did with his new legislation.
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 853
    Something to ponder. The first reading for this Sunday that we are all meant to hear:
    FIRST READING
    Jer 23: 1-6
    Woe to the shepherds / who mislead and scatter the flock of my pasture, / says the LORD. / Therefore, thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, / against the shepherds who shepherd my people: / You have scattered my sheep and driven them away. / You have not cared for them, / but I will take care to punish your evil deeds. / I myself will gather the remnant of my flock / from all the lands to which I have driven them / and bring them back to their meadow; / there they shall increase and multiply. / I will appoint shepherds for them who will shepherd them / so that they need no longer fear and tremble; / and none shall be missing, says the LORD.

    Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, / when I will raise up a righteous shoot to David; / as king he shall reign and govern wisely, / he shall do what is just and right in the land. / In his days Judah shall be saved, / Israel shall dwell in security. / This is the name they give him: / “The LORD our justice.”
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,143
    Sure, gloating in the face of one's sadness isn't on the one gloating.
    Good grief.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 128
    Re Charles, I’m reminded of King Hezekiah (having recently read 2 Kings as part of local boy Fr. Mike Schmitz’s Bible In A Year). He was a great king of Judah, and late in his life he successfully pleaded with the Lord to spare his life during an illness and lived another 15 years. By all accounts he used these extra 15 years poorly, producing his heir Manasseh who would become a terrible King himself, and vainly boasted of his wealth to the King of Babylon, enticing their nation to eventually lay waste to Israel and Judah.

    I’ve been to several joyful EF masses in the last several years, and I have the pleasure of knowing many faithful Catholics who greatly profited spiritually from SP. But I unfortunately also witnessed what the Holy Father observed that in the 13 years of SP, it “was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.” WhatAbout this all you want, but MANY faithful Catholic laypeople, priests and bishops who otherwise might be more inclined to support their cause perceived or experienced this as well. I think SP lulled too many EF radicals into thinking they were untouchable, and they weren’t.

    As with Charles I don’t think TC gets to the roots of the issue, or even that it will be a net gain for effort of fending off schism. But the hard truth is that so long as we inhabit a world of fallen beings, we will always have to deal with people in positions of legitimate authority who don’t readily agree with us. We cannot control their actions but we can control ours, and our actions have consequences. How EF Catholics use the next several years will be critical to determining the future their movement in the Church. Also, FWIW, Pope Francis won’t be around forever, and we don’t know who his successor will be and what views he may have about the EF movement.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 181
    Now that we have encouraged unity by effectively suppressing one of the longest standing forms of the Mass, perhaps we can encourage unity by defrocking manifest heretics like Fr. Martin and gads of other clergy. Maybe we can also place severe penalties on liturgical abuses, and by law reinforce that the Mass ordinaries worldwide be sung or spoken in the same language or somesuch. Surely, since these things are far more commonplace than sedition in EF communities, they will be dealt with and crushed with equal ferocity!

    End purple.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,154
    I don't realistically expect unity from any of this. Those who hated the TLM will still hate it. Badly behaving Trads will see this as justification for their behavior and become even more extreme. Nothing good will come from it.
  • I am tempted to chuckle and check the calendar.

    The sense of humor needed to write "traditionis custodes" as the first words of a document which intends to cut us off from tradition.....

    Mind you, aren't we near the feast of the 16 Sisters of Compiegne? Maybe the end of Robespierre is nine days away?

    I'm puzzled by the expression unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. Hasn't the point for 52 years been to not have rigidity?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    Vee vill haf unity, und anyvon who ist not unified vill meet der conzekvenses.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 796
    Some in the TLM only crowd will blame everyone except themselves. They will never consider the disruption and discord they have caused in regular parishes through their own bad behaviors....They had the chance and blew it.


    I am not disputing what you are saying, nor am I disagreeing with the motu proprio, but the well-known problem with collective punishment for collective behavior is precisely that people who are not guilty are grouped in with the rest.

    Those who have behaved in an exemplary manner and done everything you have asked (and I will neither say they are the majority nor the minority because numbers don't matter to this argument) are powerless to silence the voices of the schismatics, amplified over the Internet, who deny the Church, deny the Pope and deny the Council, whether formally or practically.

    The power to expel from our midst is given precisely to the pastors. "That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970," was one requirement written by St. John Paul II in 1984 for the granting of the indult.

    Those who behaved well may feel with some justice that they are being punished not for their own failures, but for the failures of the very pastors who are now meting out the punishments.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Elmar
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,154
    Always true that the innocent often get punished for the sins of a few. I understand
    ... powerless to silence the voices of the schismatics, amplified over the Internet, who deny the Church, deny the Pope and deny the Council, whether formally or practically.


    I have seen that happen with one family threatened with arrest if they ever showed up at mass again. The amount of trouble they caused was unbelievable.
    Thanked by 3Chrism CHGiffen Elmar
  • Chrism
    Posts: 796
    The pope got it right with this one.


    TIL that twenty years from now, the next pope may say he didn't. Regardless, I'm not the boss. Back in '07, I was hoping for an apostolic administration or personal prelature.

    I see nothing in this motu proprio nor in the letter that any Catholic could take issue with. I think it was the correct decision, needed at this time to clarify that... permitting the TLM is an exception


    But liturgy cannot exist on an exceptional basis. To be authentic, liturgy must be lived and breathed and practiced at every Hour of the day. One cannot expect the liturgy of the Mass of the 8th Sunday after Pentecost to be preached and meditated upon and experienced in its fullness, if the 7th and 9th Sundays are suppressed, or even if Terce is never said. The TLM must be the norm somewhere, or it will be dead.

    One hopes that the bishops are generous in their provision even as they work to correct the problems that admittedly have developed.
  • davido
    Posts: 470
    MarkB, we’ve repeatedly asked you over the last week to look at the texts of the two masses and compare them. No one can do that and say that the new mass is not a rupture with tradition and a new thing. Yet you consistently follow the gaslighting that the higherarchy is inflicting in the church by saying that 2+2=5. That is not academic, or even quasi academic.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,593
    et custodes ante ostium custodiebant carcerem
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    Anyone who compares the 1962 Missal with the new Missal will conclude they have much in common, unless they have a bone to pick with the new Missal and focus on minutiae instead of the overall structure of the liturgies. I know all about people who have criticized the new Mass's prayers. There was an article on the New Liturgical Movement website yesterday that did that, but the author deceptively switched focus from a claim that 90% of the "texts" of the two Missals overlap to restricting focus on the prayers of the two Missals. That was intellectually dishonest.
    https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/07/mythbusting-how-much-of-1962-missal-is.html#.YPHAej2SmZs

    If you compare the old Mass with the new Mass in structure, they overlap considerably and the lex orandi is the lex credendi of the Catholic Church in both cases.

    Both lex orandis express the same lex credendi. However, the Church has seen fit since Vatican II to embark on a reform of her liturgy. You might prefer the former, unreformed liturgy for your own personal reasons. The Church has decreed and has now legislated that the new, reformed Mass is the only path forward for the Church and that it is the proper liturgical expression of the Church's faith.
    Thanked by 1jclangfo
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    PrayTellBlog published an appeal:
    https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2021/07/16/an-appeal-for-liturgical-peace/

    This is spot-on:

    We can expect that liturgical sensitivities in the more “conservative” or “traditionalist” vein will become more mainstreamed now and less segregated. This will have its effect on parish worship, and some places will probably see in coming years more Latin chant, more use of the Roman canon, and the like. This is an opportunity on all sides for growth in mutual understanding and broader tolerance as our various liturgical spiritualities enhance one another.


    And that's exactly what should have been happening since 1970.

    Traditionis Custodes will be good for the Church for the following reasons:
    1. Vatican II's liturgical reforms are now unquestionably the liturgical path forward for Catholics. No one can dispute that any more. It is settled.
    2. With the TLM no longer being preserved, now being phased out, diocesan and parish liturgical efforts can be focused on celebrating the NO Mass fittingly, beautifully, in harmony with tradition, reverently, thereby offering more spiritual fruits. This is sorely needed in the Church today.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    MarkB, we’ve repeatedly asked you over the last week to look at the texts of the two masses and compare them. No one can do that and say that the new mass is not a rupture with tradition and a new thing. Yet you consistently follow the gaslighting that the higherarchy is inflicting in the church by saying that 2+2=5. That is not academic, or even quasi academic.


    I utterly despite the trad rhetorical tactic of "they could have changed x amount, which would have been fine with me, but they instead changed y amount, which means discontinuity and rupture."

    Clearly, the Novus Ordo is a revised edition of what came before it. I simply can not stand the rhetorical practice of enumerating the revisions to claim to prove that the Novus Ordo is wholly novel.

    These practices are not intellectually honest.
    Thanked by 2MarkB PaxMelodious
  • davido
    Posts: 470
    Except that the last pope said exactly the opposite. And what will the next pope say? If they are going to contradict each other, it can’t be definitive.

    Regarding the 90% claim, it literally cannot be true. The old offertory is gone, the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone. If only 40% of the collects are the same, then it’s likely that it’s similar for the other proper prayers. The canon isn’t said anymore even by conservative priests. Get your head out of the sand.

    [Please, folks, do not get personal about this (or any disputed matter). --admin]
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone


    Nearly everyone on this board knows that the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone because Sacrosanctum Concilium called for duplicate parts of the liturgy to be removed and that these duplicated the penetential rite. Hence, any dispute with this is with Vatican II itself, which is precisely Pope Francis' concern.
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • davido
    Posts: 470
    Clearly it’s not a revision of what came before it. You can’t keep saying that without taking the time to study both.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 818
    Mark, I sincerely hope that a greater number of ad orientem Latin NO Masses with solid liturgy is what will come out of this—but it's hard to be optimistic when another schism seems likely.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,154
    I often hear the "s" word invoked, schism, as if it were some monster from the deep rising like Godzilla to terrorize the city. I think that schism has existed for years in fact if not in name. I could see it becoming formalized with some groups breaking away. Francis is such a departure from his predecessors I could also see schism being his legacy. Time will tell.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,593
    [Please, folks, do not get personal about this (or any disputed matter). --admin]
  • davido
    Posts: 470
    What penitential rite in the old mass? As another current thread has demonstrated, the Kyrie is not a penitential rite.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    I didn't affirm the claim of 90% of the texts are the same. I simply pointed out that the author of the article I linked to switched from that claim to talking about prayers instead of texts, and how that was a dishonest move.

    I asserted that there is considerable overlap between the two Missals, which is true, and that the lex orandis of both Missals express the lex credendi of Catholic faith, which is also true.

    As jclangfo has pointed out, you don't need to focus on a count of duplicated words, with a threshold of x% as your minimum duplication, to achieve substantial expression of the same faith in a reformed liturgy.

    I have also asserted over the past week or so that the new Missal is the definitive liturgical expression of the Church in the post-Conciliar era. That is true too, and Pope Francis just declared and legislated to that effect in a manner that no one who wishes to remain in full communion with the Church can dispute.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,593
    What penitential rite in the old mass?


    Isn't the Confiteor one?
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Skladach
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    Mark, I sincerely hope that a greater number of ad orientem Latin NO Masses with solid liturgy is what will come out of this—but it's hard to be optimistic when another schism seems likely.


    I think that there is good reason to hope for this. I hope that the strategic decision that the traditionalists make is is to take thier love of chant, Latin, ad orientem, and so forth to the Novus Ordo.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 128
    “The canon isn’t said anymore even by conservative priests.”

    Sure it is, which OF parishes do you go to?