Back to Reform of the Reform
  • Dixit_Dominus_44
    Posts: 181
    The TLM folks are a distinct minority in most places.


    Considering the persecution they have faced, it's incredible there are any left.

    The current Pope, based on Traditionis Custodes, seems terrified of a group that is minuscule compared to the One Billion Catholics in the church.

    The reason seems to be the growth of the TLM, something like 600% in just a few years. Exponential growth seems to be the issue.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    If you're basing that exponential growth assertion on Crisis Magazine's article, be sure to keep this paragraph in mind near the end:

    Nevertheless, TLM-attending Catholics still make up a very small minority in the Church. As noted, 658 parishes (pre-Traditionis Custodes) offer at least one TLM regularly. However, there are 16,702 total Catholic parishes in the United States, according to the most recent data. Thus, only 4% of parishes offer even one TLM on a regular (although not necessarily weekly) basis. In the ocean of American Catholicism, attendance at the TLM is still a small, albeit growing, bucket.

    Source:https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the-growth-of-the-latin-mass-a-survey

    Average attendance among survey respondents (20% response rate to survey requests) increased from 145 to 196. That's hardly exponential growth, although it is linear growth.

    And average attendance at merely 196? NO dwarfs TLM hands down.

    But your 600% growth figure isn't from Crisis. That's from Fr. Z's blog:
    https://wdtprs.com/2021/07/its-not-just-the-numbers-right-now-its-the-rate-of-growth/

    From the time that Summorum Pontificum was implemented in 2007, over the next 10 years there was 500% growth.


    That refers to locations offering the TLM. In ten years after SP a fivefold increase in places where the TLM was celebrated isn't surprising, but it was still a small overall total. The Latin Mass Directory currently lists 659 total places where the TLM is celebrated in communion with Rome. So start with fewer than 100 before 2007 and it increases to 600 by 2017, and now it's 659. Big whoop. And the growth leveled considerably, indicating saturation.

    TLM advocates cherry-pick statistics to suit their narrative.

    But it's not about the numbers. It's about liturgical unity in the post-conciliar Church and accepting that the council decreed to reform and replace the then-existing Missal. We've been through that in the other thread.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    funny... we have grown 300% in one year.
    Thanked by 2CCooze tomjaw
  • TCJ
    Posts: 967
    The TLM near has a skyrocketing attendance. I think one of the factors that all the other churches denied the sacraments to Catholics for some time last year. Now the families that started going to the TLM aren't returning to their old parishes.
    Thanked by 3francis CCooze tomjaw
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    And... once they worship in this centuries old tradition for a few months, it’s almost as if they have discovered buried treasure
    Thanked by 2tomjaw mmeladirectress
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Hawkins,

    RotR, if it is supremely successful at improving the MofPVI, but keeping it still the MofPVI, will not displace the TLM.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    The Missal of 1962 has been juridically displaced, or rather replaced and superseded. Sacrosanctum Concilium and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae and now Traditionis Custodes have done that, even though by way of exception the 1962 Missal was and is still permitted to be used. Pope Francis has instructed bishops that use of the 1962 Missal is to be immediately curtailed and eventually phased out. We've been over this in the other thread.

    If you mean the SSPX and other groups not in full communion with the Church will continue to use the earlier Missal(s), so the TLM won't be displaced since those groups will still use it, then you are correct; but that is the extent of it. The Roman Catholic Church has committed herself to discontinuing the celebration of Mass using the 1962 Missal.

    That's why RotR has been rejuvenated and should be the dominant liturgical movement going forward. The Novus Ordo has to be celebrated more authentically, more consistent with pre-conciliar liturgical tradition.
    Thanked by 3a_f_hawkins Elmar toddevoss
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    The Novus Ordo has to be celebrated more authentically, more consistent with pre-conciliar liturgical tradition.
    Pipe. Dream. Naivety.

    Naivety
    Naivety or naiveness is the state of being naïve, that is to say, having or showing a lack of experience, or understanding sophistication, often in a context in which one neglects pragmatism in favor of moral idealism. One who is naïve may be called a naïf.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Dixit_Dominus_44
    Posts: 181
    But it's not about the numbers. It's about liturgical unity in the post-conciliar Church and accepting that the council decreed to reform and replace the then-existing Missal. We've been through that in the other thread.


    You have suggested I based my comments on reading an article by Eric Sammons (whom I consider to be a theological lunatic) and the WDTPRS priest, who (as far as I know) has never served as a pastor anywhere at anytime. Who told you my comments were based on them? I suspect whoever told you such a thing was having a bit of fun at your expense. If you read those authors, I firmly beg you to STOP doing so. I don't consider them to be healthy.

    My comments are based on starting TLM communities all over the world, working with Fr Arnaud Devillers, Fr James Jackson, Fr Robert Ferguson, Fr Josef Bisig, and others—all of those excellent men, excellent Catholics.

    TLM advocates cherry-pick statistics to suit their narrative.


    MarkB, your peace of soul seems robbed by the growth of the Traditional Latin Mass. You seem to forget that it's not a "numbers game." Just because people show up for an Ordinary Form Mass, that doesn't mean they are necessarily true Catholics. Catholics have to know—or at least have some clue about—the basic truths of the faith. Nancy Pelosi has cited her "devout Catholic faith" when it comes to her public votes for abortion. I disagree with that, and she's hardly alone. Just sitting in a church doesn't necessarily make one Catholic. To be Catholic you must assent to certain dogmatic truths: The Trinity, The Creed, The Eucharist, etc. Not all TLM Catholics do, but most do.

    In terms of what you say about liturgical unity, please Google "Dominican rites" and "Eastern Rites" … and compare 3-4 Ordinary Form Masses.

    [Please stop trying to read the souls of other participants ("your peace of soul seems robbed").--admin]
    Thanked by 3tomjaw CCooze dad29
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    The Missal of 1962 has been juridically displaced, or rather replaced and superseded.

    This is untrue according to Pope Benedict, and of course SC. The large numbers of bishops that have allowed the Mass to continue shows this also to be a Statement that has little to back it up.
    Sacrosanctum Concilium and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae and now Traditionis Custodes have done that, even though by way of exception the 1962 Missal was and is still permitted to be used. Pope Francis has instructed bishops that use of the 1962 Missal is to be immediately curtailed and eventually phased out. We've been over this in the other thread.

    You are reading a lot into Traditionis Custodes that according to canon lawyers is really not there, you need to try to keep your extreme personal views from clouding your reading of vague Church documents. Have you been reading what the bishops have been writing in their letters allowing us to continue?
    If you mean the SSPX and other groups not in full communion with the Church will continue to use the earlier Missal(s), so the TLM won't be displaced since those groups will still use it, then you are correct;

    Can you cite a Church document that tells us the SSPX are not in full communion. N.B. Francis gave all their priests faculties. The word you are looking for is irregular, I do find it interesting that when it comes to the TLM you claim it is to be displaced when the documents do not clearly back this up, but when it comes to the SSPX you claim they are not in Communion while we have the documents that they have faculties provided by Francis.
    but that is the extent of it. The Roman Catholic Church has committed herself to discontinuing the celebration of Mass using the 1962 Missal.

    Has Pope Francis spoken with authority on this matter? Please read Vatican I, many Canon lawyers are of the opinion he does not have this power. So to correct your statement... "Pope Francis in a motu proprio has implied he would like to see a unity of celebration based around the N.O."
    That's why RotR has been rejuvenated and should be the dominant liturgical movement going forward. The Novus Ordo has to be celebrated more authentically, more consistent with pre-conciliar liturgical tradition.

    The RotR has been a dead end as it is always celebrated at the whim of your priest or bishop. Until the Pope sets an example and backs it up with deeds rather than words the RotR will still be a dead end. Perhaps if we interpreted SC as it was written we could say throw out the N.O. perform the minor modifications to the TLM and then we would have the Mass as SC intended.
    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • Chrism
    Posts: 868
    Those who prefer the EF, how does this affect you? Will it change how and where you worship?


    Obedience to the extinction clauses of the accompanying letter does require further reflection. While obedience does not admit dragging one's feet and waiting for the legislator to die, it also does not mean "overobedience", that over-eagerness to be first which is really a form of disobedience to the will and spirit of the legislator. My feeling from the MP and accompanying letter is that extinction is not meant to be put in place everywhere immediately. Rather, it is up to the bishop to decide the fate of each community, with no timeframe by which full global extinction must occur (6 months, 1 year, 5 years, 50 years, 500 years?)

    So the sword of extinction hangs over us, but it is not up to us to dictate the time of execution. We should continue as we have been until the sword falls upon us. But knowing that the sword is there gives us some time to prepare in case it does fall.

    So what preparation should be made? It seems most reasonable to me that if the faculties for celebrating the 1962 Missal are completely withdrawn, then the existing 1962 Missal community would want to have the "next best thing" for them. Those who don't care about remaining regular might go irregular, sadly, and some may go Eastern Rite. But I think most would be open to remaining regular, and Roman, if it is not too difficult for them, and many in the community would prefer to stay together as a community than split apart. I think a solution that might preserve the community in the event that faculties are withdrawn would be to convert the 1962 Missal Masses to 1970 Missal Masses in Latin.

    This will require a certain amount of learning and preparation. And I propose that it is prudent to start now as a contingency. Altar servers should read up on Reid, and musicians should be ready to find Propers, etc. It would not be a bad idea to have a few Novus Ordo Masses in Latin, sung and spoken, to make sure everything is ready. Call it an earthquake drill, or duck and cover. The up side is it demonstrates that the community members "do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs". The downside is someone might say that we have demonstrated our readiness "to return to a unitary form of celebration" and cut off faculties. So if you go down that route, do practice some "virtus in media" (pun intended).
    Thanked by 2Schönbergian CHGiffen
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Just sitting in a church doesn't necessarily make one Catholic. To be Catholic you must assent to certain dogmatic truths: The Trinity, The Creed, The Eucharist, etc. Not all TLM Catholics do, but most do.
    This has nothing to do with the form of Mass and everything to do with the TLM community being entirely self-selected as a subset of Catholics who would naturally be more interested in their faith and willing to search out the less common form of the Roman Rite.
    You are reading a lot into Traditionis Custodes that according to canon lawyers is really not there, you need to try to keep your extreme personal views from clouding your reading of vague Church documents. Have you been reading what the bishops have been writing in their letters allowing us to continue?
    This is my issue as well. Mark, you seem to have...glee at the pronouncements of this motu proprio despite the clear practical issues with it. You argued in favour of there being no grace period but then never backed it up. I won't say it's openly distasteful like some have here, but it certainly strikes me as a bit...off.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Dad,

    Is the attitude behind TC, therefore, the cause of declining Catholics, or merely a symptom
  • TCJ
    Posts: 967
    Basically, the TLM doesn't even have to grow and it will overtake the NO at the current rate.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    This is in response to tomjaw's post. I won't cite every excerpt because that would make for a post that's too long. Instead, I'll state points that respond in order to the counterclaims he made to my post:

    1. Yes, the Missal of 1962 has been juridically displaced. You refer to Pope Benedict to say it hasn't, but TC abrogated Pope Benedict's legislation. Summorum Pontificum is no longer liturgical law. My statements have been about what the state of affairs is under TC because TC has introduced new liturgical norms and laws.

    2. Bishops are well within their authority to permit the 1962 Missal to continue to be used, subject to the restrictions imposed by TC. Bishops are not free to ignore TC. I'm not reading any personal views into TC. TC has very clearly stated restrictions about permitting continued use of the 1962 Missal.

    3. The SSPX do not have faculties to say Mass. They are not in union with the ordinaries of the territories in which they have churches. Pope Francis granted faculties to absolve sins and witness marriages (and celebrate a nuptial Mass, if occurring at the same time). That's the extent of the faculties granted to SSPX priests. Anyone attending a SSPX Mass for the Sunday obligation is attending a valid but illicit Mass. That they continue to celebrate Masses without the necessary faculties, contrary to Canon Law, shows they are not in full communion with the local ordinary nor with Rome. I think you believe the faculties granted by Pope Francis were more encompassing than they were.

    4. In TC and the accompanying letter, Pope Francis did indeed state that the Church is committed to discontinuing the celebration of the 1962 Missal. Here I will cite TC and the letter to bishops:

    TC:

    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.


    "Unique" = sole, only.

    The accompanying letter:

    Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

    ...

    While, in the exercise of my ministry in service of unity, I take the decision to suspend the faculty granted by my Predecessors, I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops. In the Motu proprio I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations. It is up to you to authorize in your Churches, as local Ordinaries, the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962, applying the norms of the present Motu proprio. It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.



    I don't understand why so many people seem not to understand what Pope Francis has clearly stated: the Novus Ordo is the sole, unique liturgical expression of the Roman Church (excepting things already discussed in the other thread, such as the Anglican Use), bishops are to restrict the celebration of Mass using the 1962 Missal according to TC's norms, they may continue allowing some groups (no new groups) to celebrate Mass using the older Missal, but such permission and the bishop's pastoral care must be done in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration using the newer liturgical books.

    I'm not misreading TC nor the accompanying letter. I'm flabbergasted that so many devotees of the TLM seem not able to understand them or haven't read them carefully. Some of the professional authors understand what the pope has done, which is why they used hyperbolic language like "atom bomb" and "declaring war" to describe the effects of TC. But many everyday commentators seem not to realize how far-reaching TC is.

    Bishops may permit the TLM to continue to be celebrated, but they must begin preparations for uniting all their flock in celebrating the Novus Ordo. That's what the Pope's recent instructions require.

    It's very clearly stated in the two documents.
    Thanked by 3Elmar OraLabora Don9of11
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    It's very clearly stated in the two documents.


    It is clearly stated. Some will parse words, create arguments out of thin air, and so on. The reason being, "it isn't what I want therefore it isn't valid." Whether any of us like it or not, it is the law until another pope changes it. The bigger issue now is dealing with individual bishops who may or may not be favorable to the TLM.
    Thanked by 5MarkB Elmar MarkS Don9of11 bhcordova
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    @MarkB
    You still don't get it, you keep saying the same things but they are only your opinion! As far as I understand you are not the pope, not a canon lawyer and not a bishop, so your opinion is valueless.

    Interestingly we have been told to continue inviting people to our Masses as they are an integral part of the diocese evangelisation efforts. Integral because everything else has failed. So no Reform of the Reform here. I am sorry if this upsets you but you could learn to be more charitable, and not worry so much about what your neighbour thinks.

    Pope Francis is not well, he will not be with us in the not too distant future, and I expect all his works will be thrown out. By attempting to change the past Papal writings he takes away from the future, and diminishes the value of his own efforts.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    As my friend has said to me, "These people [the Trads] just want what they want, and they won't be persuaded otherwise."

    tomjaw, I don't know how I could be any more clear nor patient. What you dismiss summarily as "only" my "opinion" I have been careful to back up with citations and explanations and reasoning. I have not simply said, "This is what I think, just because, so there."

    I state an opinion but I also back it up with citations, facts and reasoning.

    There is a difference between uninformed opinion and informed opinion.

    Some opinions are incorrect; some are correct.

    I don't see you engaging with my arguments, reasoning, facts nor citations. You dismiss my arguments because I'm not the pope nor a canon lawyer nor a bishop.

    I'm not the pope, but I believe I have correctly and thoroughly explained what the pope meant and legislated in TC. You don't have to be the pope to understand what the pope did and meant.

    I'm not a canon lawyer nor a bishop, but I believe I have a correct understanding of what TC requires and allows bishops to do concerning regulation of Mass celebrated using the 1962 Missal. You don't have to be a canon lawyer nor a bishop to understand what bishops are now supposed to be doing.

    You dismiss my opinion as "valueless". Honestly? Valueless? Because I don't have official authority? I think most readers will realize your assertion about my opinions is groundless and false and lacking in rationality.

    Yes, these people just want what they want.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    MarkB
    I too have backed up my arguments... As for your quote below, we could change [the Trads] to MarkB and the statement will be equally true.
    As my friend has said to me, "These people [the Trads] just want what they want, and they won't be persuaded otherwise."

    I find your citations, "facts" and reasoning to be unconvincing. Also if you think the bishops are not doing their job you should tell them not us. We have seen what the bishops are saying and doing, and they do not agree with you in a majority of cases.

    Yes, your opinion is valueless, just as mine is. We have no control apart from which church, what pew we sit in, and what we put into the collection.

    I have really enjoyed this discussion but it is now clearly rehashing the same things, so I will be heading off to produce more resources for those attending the TLM, it will be a far better use of my time.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 147
    “ Basically, the TLM doesn't even have to grow and it will overtake the NO at the current rate.”

    Haha, I know many insurance agents who would love to have you on their marketing team. I’ll let you in on a little mantra we have, current assumptions are only current until they aren’t anymore.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 147
    “ By attempting to change the past Papal writings he takes away from the future, and diminishes the value of his own efforts.”

    Uh, that’s kinda why we have apostolic succession. They legislate and lead the Church today because their predecessors aren’t here anymore.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Attention, please. This thread is about "reform of the reform".

    Please remove all your off-topic comments.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Chonak,

    Is the goal of the Reform of the Reform to have a single form of the Missal of Paul VI, so far as you know?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    I don't think there's a general agreed approach about that. It's hard for me to identify who is an RotR advocate these days. Maybe Msgr. Francis Mannion, who founded the Society for Catholic Liturgy; maybe Fr. Peter Stravinskas.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Here's why I ask: if Pope Francis has declared the Missal of Paul VI as the unique form of the Roman Rite, then (at some level) he has mandated that there be only one form of the Missal of Paul VI, but nobody who advocates for the Missal of Paul VI, except possibly the RotR folks, believes that there should be only one form of that Missal.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Off-topic. This is not a thread about the views of people who are not advocating RotR.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    The OP suggested
    As I understand it, back in the day Reform of the Reform was about celebrating the Novus Ordo as it was intended to be celebrated.
    No recent pope has suggested that the Missal is perfect and not to be changed. GIRM, under JPII, was revised with changes to the rubrics. BXVI in SP advocates changing the OF to be more like the EF. Pope Francis demanded revision of the Mandatum ceremonial. And all three have strongly advocated eliminating the violations of the rubrics which are said to be commonplace.
    I would point to the Ordinariate Use, which is governed by GIRM with 'local' modifications, by a procedure indicated in GIRM.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Let me try to rephrase.

    Among the advocates of the Reform of the Reform, whoever they might be, is there a general agreement that there should be only one form of the Missal of Paul VI?

    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    And a parallel strand of development - Pope Francis
    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.
    I don't see lex orandi as meaning where you stand, which way you face, or how you hold your arms. These are all important, but secondary to what you say. To my mind much the most important thing to be addressed is the use of unauthorised songs and other words. And the authorisation by bishops of inappropriate songs.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen tomjaw DavidWilde CharlesW
  • lmassery
    Posts: 405
    To answer Chris, I do not agree with the suppression of the TLM, and I believe the RofR is just getting started. I see a future where the NO parishes that are most in continuity with our liturgical heritage survive while others close. I think even if there remains a “regular” NO, the percentage of parishes that offer more traditional liturgies will increase. And this will be a benefit to all
    Thanked by 3sdtalley3 Chris Garton-Zavesky dad29
  • lmassery
    Posts: 405
    Chris,
    Yes, I’m a proponent. The reason will be B, due to a large demographic shift and due to the increased openness my generation has (millennial) toward tradition
    Thanked by 1Chris Garton-Zavesky
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    @Francis
    You will like this, before the philistine parish priest was imposed, our Sunday Mass schedule was Sat eve Mass, 8am, 9am, 10am, 11am, 12noon, and an evening Mass at c. 5pm. The 11am Mass alternated between a 'folk' group and Hymn choir, yes the folk group had a Guitar group reliving the 1960's in the 1980's, the Hymn choir sang what most people call Traditional Hymns (i.e. songs found in 'Hymn' books published in the 1940's and 1950's ). Well the new arrangement in the mid to late 1990's was to combine the 8 and 9 into an 8.30am, and the 12noon stopped being a Latin N.O. and would have the Folk and Hymn choir alternating with the Chant and Polyphony choirs, each doing one Sunday a month.

    This philistine priest, that boasted of having the complete works of Palestrina on CD wanted the choirs to combine so each 12 noon Mass could be a mixture of musical styles. He though he could please everyone, but the choirs refused to combine.

    The first choir that gave up due to old age was the folk choir! It was always a sore point with them, that all the young musicians joined the Chant and Polyphony choirs. I suppose this is an example of the Reform of the Reform!

    The philistine at least liked music at Mass, one hilarious occasion saw him insist on music at the 8.30am Mass so he announces the recessional Hymn, and starts singing, he puts down his hymn book to kiss the altar, and notices no one is singing! So he asks them to sing, they ignore him! He proceeds to walk out being the only one singing! He would also try to hand out hymn books at the Mass that had never been sung to find congregation handing them straight back to him or walking around and returning them to the shelf!

    We had always been a church that only had boys and men on the altar, and we had crowds of boys, so we had a monthly rota to serve at most of the Sunday Masses. Once the philistine had got rid of the Latin N.O. Mass, the senior servers resigned, some joining the TLM up the road, the others lapsing, or moving away. So we went from having around 50 boys and 10 men serving to 1 old man, 5 boys and 5 girls, because the girls needed something to do in Mass.

    It gets worse, when the philistine was promoted (fortunately he was overlooked for bishop), the replacement hated music and spent most of his time trying to get rid of the three remaining choirs! More Reform of the Reform you see. He has now retired back to Ireland and they have a nice African priest who was trying to rebuild, but the Covid shut down appears to have killed off the parish, looking at the number of parishioners that now come to our TLM up the road.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    @francis
    I gave up with my Parish in my teens, as many other younger Catholics did. I swapped the N.O. mass for the TLM, so I was much better off. I was introduced to the Divine Office, and our Traditional Faith.
    I do feel sorry for the older folks that saw their parish destroyed by the clergy, the last few of the faithful remnant over the last 20 years have either gone to their eternal reward, or found the TLM. Win, win situation!
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,159
    If the Reform, be that what it may, arrives at the point where its liturgical books really are the head revision of the Roman Rite, then they actually will be the Traditional Latin Mass (and Roman Office). No withering, no loss, but a regrettable interlude then happily past.

    However at present they are not: and no amount of legislation can make them so by fiat. They are a different something: use, Rite, form, expression, what have you. We don't have to agree on the term, perhaps. But it's an objective fact that they are not the same: far further apart are they, for example, than the rites (for that was Pius's word) which Quo primum plainly stated were to be maintained because of their venerable age.

    It seems to me more likely, in view of the history of rites, that the ritual distinction will be recognized and accepted eventually. Actually I can imagine no other solution: recognizing and accepting the truth, for Pete’s sake. What didn't work and won't work is pretending and claiming they are the same use/rite/form when they are not.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw francis
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    @tomjaw - If it is true that 'the big problem with the N.O. is the options', then if you reduce the options you remove most of the problems? That seems a pretty simple RotR!

    @Andrew_Malton - for a low Mass, can you list for us three or four major ritual distinctions between VO and NO. Some of us don't see it.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    @Hawkins
    That seems a pretty simple RotR!
    The problem we have is SC is clear the that the N.O. is not what it asked for. So who asked for the N.O.? As we keep pointing out the Reform of the Reform is not going to succeed until the Pope and the Bishops set the example they need to lead. Until that time many of us can continue to take refuge at the TLM.

    Appealing to young priests is good but our young priests and some older ones have given up on the N.O. and focus on the TLM. The two final straws for our seminary was Pope Francis, and the collapse of vocations, and an older group of the clergy who got fed up or seeing newly ordained priests say First TLM Masses, and upsetting boomers with their Traditional sermons.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    The problem we have is SC is clear the that the N.O. is not what it asked for.


    This is false. The Novus Ordo is well within the parameters and guidelines for liturgical reform decreed by Sacrosanctum Concilium.

    The implementation of the NO isn't faithful to SC in most places, but that's not an intrinsic defect in the NO; it's a defect in those who prepare the celebrations of Mass.

    RotR is about implementing the NO in ways that are more faithful to SC.

    I agree that RotR won't succeed on a large scale without better example, leadership, commitment of resources, and specific guidance from bishops to priests and lay parish staff.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    As we keep pointing out the Reform of the Reform is not going to succeed until the Pope and the Bishops set the example they need to lead.
    Yes, sine qua non. I keep repeating that too. Along with pointing out that the bishop is personally answerable at his Particular Judgement for the loss of any soul in his diocese therough his action or omission.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Charles,

    One of the tremendous benefits of the Baltimore Catechism is that it proposes the truths of the faith in simple formulae, easily learned by children and fruitfully unpacked by adults.

    Why did God make you?

    God made me to know Him, to love Him and to serve Him in this world, so as to be happy for ever with Him in the next.
    [unpackable questions include "How do I know Him?", "What does it mean to serve Him in this world?"

    To oversimplify, in the case of the Missal of Paul VI, means to say less in more words, to leave unspoken and unclear that which was both spoken and clear.

    Mark,

    Of course the Ordo of Paul VI isn't what the Council explicitly called for, but how can you argue that it is well within the parameters of the Council's document on liturgy?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Of course the Ordo of Paul VI isn't what the Council explicitly called for, but how can you argue that it is well within the para


    The missal of Pius V is not what the Council of Trent necessarily called for. It left the formulation of the liturgy up to him - same thing happened with Paul VI.

    To oversimplify, in the case of the Missal of Paul VI, means to say less in more words, to leave unspoken and unclear that which was both spoken and clear.


    I agree on oversimplifications and would be the first to admit that. However, there is a big difference between rubrics and doctrine. Some items in the TLM may have suffered from redundancy even to the point of being unnecessary. John XXIII actually fixed some of that.

  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 685
    Along with pointing out that the bishop is personally answerable at his Particular Judgement for the loss of any soul in his diocese therough his action or omission.


    Was Jesus answerable to the 70 who left him? If one leaves the church they do so on his/her own accord.

    One of the tremendous benefits of the Baltimore Catechism is that it proposes the truths of the faith in simple formulae, easily learned by children and fruitfully unpacked by adults.


    And many of the devotional hymns suppressed for so many years teach us these same beliefs because many of them were written for school children.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    A bishop who permits heretical texts to be sung in his diocese is responsible for any damage to souls which this may cause. Just as he is responsible for any damage caused by predatory pædophilia among his clergy when he tolerates or ignores it. Preaching truth, as Jesus did, does not make one responsible for those who reject it.
    Thanked by 3CCooze CHGiffen tomjaw
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 685
    heretical texts
    give examples?

    The bad behavior of priest is not the fault of the Bishops, but a personal choice of the priest. This however, is way off topic from Reform of the Reform.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    when he tolerates or ignores it
    or, as has often happened, just moves the priest to another parish, and tells the victim to shut up.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Parishes are being closed or combined in vast numbers across Europe. Why? we have no vocations and our seminaries are empty or closed. We had a Mass of vocations up until the 1960's, and all these priests are retiring over the next few years. With no priests what is the point of having a parish?

    b) Mass attendance is down and continues to decline


    Generally speaking, OF parishes are losing members OR pretend that people 'on the rolls' still attend regularly. I suspect that THIS is the main reason behind slamming the door on the EF. They desperately need bodies and contributions.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    It's falsifiable. I have claimed the NO is well within the parameters and guidelines of SC. That should be possible to refute if it's a false claim.

    We're not talking about claims for the existence of fairies or invisible purple dragons; we're talking about a conciliar document with a particular text and a rite with a particular text and set of rubrics and how the rite in question accords with what the conciliar document decreed should be produced.

    SC decreed a range of possibilities and left much open; it did not decree a specific form for the new rite.

    If I instruct you to place a football between the two 40-yard lines, I can't complain if you place it on the 50 yard-line when I would have preferred that you place it on one of the two 43-yard lines. What you did was well within the parameters of what I instructed you to do. If you were to place the football on a 22-yard line, well then I would have reason to balk because that placement wouldn't be within the parameters stated.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • mmeladirectress
    Posts: 1,076
    >> Generally speaking, OF parishes are losing members OR pretend that people 'on the rolls' still attend regularly. I suspect that THIS is the main reason behind slamming the door on the EF. They desperately need bodies and contributions.

    well, how does slamming the door on devout Catholics (frequently young people & young families) who are drawn to the Mass of All Time help their numbers and contributions? Mystery to me.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    That's not the topic of this thread, but to counter the speculation in the post above, TC and the accompanying letter stated two reasons for curtailing the use of the 1962 Missal:
    1. Permission to celebrate using that Missal was misused to foster attitudes contrary to church unity.
    2. The church must unite behind the reformed liturgy decreed by Vatican II.

    Attendance figures have and had nothing to do with TC.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • mmeladirectress
    Posts: 1,076
    "speculation" is the formulation of a theory. I only asked a question, I didn't speculate anything.

    Thanked by 2tomjaw dad29
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Finally, there shall be no innovation....
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
Add a Comment