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.

funny... we have grown 300% in one year.

And... once they worship in this centuries old tradition for a few months, it’s almost as if they have discovered buried treasure

The Missal of 1962 has been juridically displaced, or rather replaced and superseded.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.

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]

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).

Dad,

Is the attitude behind TC, therefore, the cause of declining Catholics, or merely a symptom

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.

@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
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.

“ 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

@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!

@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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

>> 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.

"speculation" is the formulation of a theory. I only asked a question, I didn't speculate anything.