@MarkB
I would invite you to read this open letter to the Holy Father by a Dominican priest about the effect the older rite had on his understanding of the Mass and his priesthood (I'm looking at the first part). I have heard and read other testimonies from many other priests - some of whom I know personally - expressing the same thing.

There is nothing heretical, nothing "nostalgic" or unhealthy, nothing unCatholic here. In fact, the priest points out that the Church herself supported him in his discovery of and attachment to the older Mass - only to be abandoned by TC. It seems very odd to me that something which so clearly has helped this priest and so many others must be eliminated from the Church - something which is not evil, heretical, or against the faith in any way, and in fact has been loved and venerated for centuries by popes and people alike. It just doesn't add up. Why can't this be at least tolerated in the Church if it is bringing such good to souls?

It is disturbing to me that such testimonies are not part of the conversation, or even dismissed on the basis of an appeal to strict obedience or some sort of ultimatum that "You either believe the Holy Spirit guides councils or you don't." By this logic, the Church was wrong to approve (and to continue to tolerate) those groups dedicated to the older rites. It also denies any accommodation or exception granted to many other groups in the Church - the Neocatecumenal Way, the rite of Zaire, numerous local adaptions, etc.

It also seems to go against the stated principles of Pope Francis himself, who has said repeatedly that the Church must accompany marginal groups, make exceptions for difficult cases, listen to those who have been misunderstood, and even tolerate situations which, while not ideal, are the best that people can live in their circumstances. In this case, however, the law has come down with no appeal, no listening, no recourse. This is especially troubling since it contradicts the teaching and practice of previous popes.

As has been said over and over, it is difficult to what good is coming out of this: those who are using the rite to breed division - the ones who are supposed to be corrected and helped by TC - are only becoming more bold and recalcitrant, while those who simply love and benefit from the rite are being deprived of something good and holy for no apparent reason.

It appears your “seeing” and “fleeing” were quite coincidental! Of course I may be totally off since this thinking only arises from spurring with you all these years.

Seems to me Vatican II was more concerned with our relations with Protestants than anything else. It wanted the hostility toward them ended but unfortunately, the result was incorporating some of their views and errors into Catholicism. We became too obsessed with what Protestants thought of us and naively believed we could all go forth together as some kind of super church. How did that work out for us?

Our issues today are largely internal and don't involve the Protestants. The mainline Protestant churches have gone into a serious decline maybe even worse than our own. It is beyond time to start worrying about and working on our serious internal issues such as doctrine, liturgy, and place in the world. Evangelization is essentially dead and we have really lost our way where it is concerned. We have far greater issues than the form of the mass we use.

Charles, I couldn't agree more with this. We cant offer what we don't have, and we need to get ourselves sorted out before we try and do anything else. One cannot expect protestants to believe the tenets of the faith when Catholics themselves do not believe them or live them out. They see through the hypocrisy which only sinks us deeper into the mire in their minds (and rightfully so).

“ who has said repeatedly that the Church must accompany marginal groups”

I would hardly call TLM adherents marginal groups in the sense the Holy Father often refers. They are some of the most dedicated Catholics in the Church despite all the odds, they volunteer and participate in everything, they have the most beautiful churches, their masses are filled with the finest music, they have access to by-and-large orthodox priests, and they, and importantly their children, live in an environment where this is normative. It’s hard for everyone to be Catholic these days, but I really think some perspective is needed, and IMHO we should be reluctant to give into wider woke culture’s attempts to brand everyone a victim, which I’d hazard a guess most if not all of us deplore. To quote a local priest on retreat I attended, “we have absolutely no excuse to not be a saint.”

On a purely pragmatic level, Rome’s tolerance for BS in TLM communities is rapidly on the decline as manifest in today’s news over there; whether or not this is fair doesn’t change a thing. If people even want to be able to celebrate a TLM in communion with Rome this time next year, spiritual houses need to be put in order and fast…

Charles,

I half expected that link to take me to the Babylon Bee, since such a headline should be preposterous satire. Alas. Alas.

How can the FSSP at that parish be guardians of the older forms and not be allowed to use any of them for baptisms, confirmations, absolutions, burials, and all the rest?

Charles... I can hold a spot for you in the catacombs should you ever want to come running! I just can't tell you where it is.

a few bad apples really do ruin it for everyone

except it's not the apples that are the problem... it's the tree they have come from, if you get my drift, and a diabolical axe is being laid to the root.

Charles: there are many public TLM's being celebrated all over the world, growing in attendance weekly by various orders that are legal to do so. You don't have to find a literal 'cave' at this point in time, but that might come sooner or later depending upon how this all plays out I suppose.

It is a shame that your experience with traditionally minded people many times seemed to be on the fringe.

As you know I have been praying for the abrogation of the N.O., and it looks like it is being abrogated by it's very own austere defenders by them simply attacking anything that detracts from it. When you ferociously clip the wings, beak and talons of a peaceful "mother" dove and her entire family without a justifiable reason, people will begin to wonder why, raise eyebrows and start thinking about what is really going on.

In this regard, TC is the gift that keeps on giving! I never thought such an action would be so blatantly attempted with such naivete. Of course if the naive really believed in God, they would not even attempt such foolishness. They really think that they can sink the ship with their own man made plans.

Read Psalm 2

IMHO whatabouting this is pretty pointless. At a certain point we need to respond to the Church and her leaders the way they are, not how we wish they were.

Well, if TC holds, James Joyce was wrong. "Here Comes Everybody"--except you Old Rite people.

I prefer Joyce's ecclesiology, although not much else.

As you know I have been praying for the abrogation of the N.O., and it looks like it is being abrogated by it's very own austere defenders by them simply attacking anything that detracts from it

If the Novus Ordo is outright abrogated, the chance of its replacement looking anything like the Extraordinary Form are essentially nil. The "best" that you could hope for would be 1967.

I'm confused. Does this apply equally to "Novus Ordo" communities with issues, or only to "some of the most dedicated Catholics in the Church despite all the odds, [who] volunteer and participate in everything, [who] have the most beautiful churches, [whose] masses are filled with the finest music," etc. etc.? And why exactly does the fairness of this whole enterprise not matter?

One is the normative liturgy of the Church and one is a fringe minority which was only given the opportunity to use their form of the Roman Rite less than fifteen years ago. I agree that it is not "fair" and was carried out in a vengeful manner that will only increase divisions, and will hurt devotees of the usus antiquior who have nothing in common with the Vorises and Marshalls of the world. However, given the behaviour of these loud individuals as self-professed leaders of the community, as well as figures like Viganò who openly criticize the new pontificate also being associated with the UA movement, everyone should have seen this coming a mile away.

Here it begins. The TLM for the Easter Triduum has been banned in Rome.

It depends what they mean by Easter Triduum. Traditionally it was Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. If so, these are not days of obligation. One can sit home then. But neoliturgists have a different view, so that Easter Sunday, too, counts there. Then too bad. At least in Rome there are different Catholic churches of Oriental rites.

I'll be honest: I can see T.C. really only helping two groups of people: SSPX & Eastern Rite parishes.

"Reform of the Reform" is even more 'niche-ey' (Nietzsche?) than TLM, and is even less-tolerated by bishops (and, in my experience, the bishops who support RotR also support TLM, & v.v.); and actually doesn't exist as such: it's simply choosing one valid option over other equally valid options, based on the opinions and taste of the priest &/or music director: "Gather Us In" is just as valid for the 'Entrance Chant' as "Praise to the Lord" (both option 4), or "Dicit Dominus: Ego cogito" (option 1) for this coming Sunday.

At least in Rome there are different Catholic churches of Oriental rites.

Oh well, there also appears to be an SSPX chapel - Santa Caterina da Siena. If I read the Italian correctly, which I might not have done.
https://fsspx.it/it/roma

In this regard, TC is the gift that keeps on giving! I never thought such an action would be so blatantly attempted with such naivete.

I guess I have no compelling reason to doubt the "lively pastoral charity" of these people, but I do hope they will forgive me when I apply the same standard of "lively pastoral charity" to my own parish work and musical leadership. I didn't realize it was ethical to improve my music program so drastically and precipitously.

If only I had known before...

Don't be too sure of that: The local Ukrainian parish here is almost completely disaffected Latins:

The Ukrainians and Maronites are probably the most Latinized of Eastern churches. They do many things the rest of us don't.

@Schönbergian

If the Novus Ordo is outright abrogated, the chance of its replacement looking anything like the Extraordinary Form are essentially nil. The "best" that you could hope for would be 1967.

The N.O. will not be abrogated, it will fall into disuse, this is happening across Europe as we speak. Our seminaries are emptying and closing, if we have no priests we have N.O. Mass.

One is the normative liturgy of the Church

You have fallen into the trap, the N.O. Mass is one of the many Rites and Usages of the church. As soon as thay say it is the only Rite you can tell they are not of the Church.

and one is a fringe minority which was only given the opportunity to use their form of the Roman Rite less than fifteen years ago. I agree that it is not "fair" and was carried out in a vengeful manner that will only increase divisions, and will hurt devotees of the usus antiquior who have nothing in common with the Vorises and Marshalls of the world. However, given the behaviour of these loud individuals as self-professed leaders of the community, as well as figures like Viganò who openly criticize the new pontificate also being associated with the UA movement, everyone should have seen this coming a mile away.

The Church never ceased to have the Traditional Roman Rite, it has been said continuously, I know priests that never said the N.O. Mass, they refused and carried on with the Roman Rite. I know that some so called catholics believe that a new church was founded with Vatican II and everything that has been said and done since is not defective unlike what came before. With T.C. it seems that these thoughts have crept into Francis and his cronies in Rome. So if the Church was defective before Vatican II, and the Faith and Liturgy of those prior times are wrong and need to be suppressed, we no longer have a ONE true Catholic Church, we had a defective church that has lead to another defective church.

So Francis can try to suppress the TLM, but he has not long on this earth and we are young, we will outlive him. The SSPX will continue and grow, and we can attend their Masses and receive the Sacraments, because the Pope has told us we can and magically given them faculties.

What will happen in our diocese, as has happened in many others across Europe, is our seminary has closed, and will not reopen in the near future. We have no new vocations for the first time ever, the other diocese that used our seminary have no vocations either and we have all been relying on converts from the church of England. This source has dried up, young men do not go to the N.O. Mass here in the U.K. they are statistically insignificant.

As Benedict predicted we will become a smaller Church, Francis is just aiding this prediction to come true sooner rather than later. We have been in decline since Vat II, and unless the Church can find a way of making Vat II work and bring in vocations, it will continue to decline. I gave up with the N.O. Mass and its watered down Faith along time ago, I and many others have found Tradition, if more found Tradition, maybe we can fill our seminary in the Future. This future does not have room for the N.O. it is a cul-de-sac, it has not taken us to where Vat II expected it has failed, time to try Tradition it worked before, and the Church will have to return...

Cardinal Cupich published a follow-up:

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/11/10/cupich-traditionis-custodes-latin-mass-241806

Even in the comments section, you have people confusing the Tridentine Mass with any Mass celebrated in Latin, under the impression that Latin has now been banned by TC. How is this not a repeat of what was brought back to us after the Council by destructive bishops: the insistence that what was encouraged was actually banned?

The 40s & 50s might have been the Golden Age of American Catholicism, but in Europe attendance and vocations were declining.

In attendance, maybe, but not in any other metric, seeing as Catholics had essentially marginalized themselves in society and the normative Mass was a far cry from the idealized Tridentine liturgy of UA advocates today. I don't know how we, as musicians, could look to a period when most Catholics shunned our artistic patrimony in favour of the garbage of the day (Mother at your feet is kneeling) as some sort of high water point. It's historical revisionism.

Speaking in terms of time, you are correct: the novus ordo is a fringe minority of the masses said throughout Christian history.

Which is irrelevant because it has been legislated as the normative form, or Ordinary Form, of the liturgy. We may not like it, and wish it to be different, but playing cute word games does not diminish the authority of the Church to regulate its liturgy in the end. The degree of lawyering around Church legislation that I see from some here reminds me too much of the excuses progressives have for outright ignoring liturgical rubrics they aren't fond of; they feel they know best, not the Vatican, and any deviance from the norms is justified thusly.

First, given that the liturgical reform took place at the behest of the council fathers at Vatican II and in conformity with conciliar teachings, failing to promote a return to a unitary celebratory form in accord with the directives of “Traditionis Custodes” will further call into question the authority and value of the council as an integral part of Catholic tradition.

Your lips to God’s ears, cardinal.

under the impression that Latin has now been banned by TC

That is both untrue & true simultaneously: Some bishops have (obviously, in my opinion) over-stepped their bounds, but invoking the clause in T.C. that forbids the 'blending of the rites' have prohibited: Roman (i.e. "fiddleback") vestments, chalice veils, burses, maniples, dalmatics, copes, humeral veils, Latin, Gregorian Chant, polyphony, ad orientem, etc. And these bishops are in places like Mexico and the Philippines, where the Novus Ordo is "flourishing" (allegedly), but also where liturgical abuse rampant.

So, T.C. didn't outright forbid the N.O. in Latin (though the Vatican Press has, conveniently, stopped publishing, and prevented the publication of, the Missale Romanum, Editio Typica Tertia, emendata), but some bishops are forbidding it.

Serviam, would you accept the claim that the texts and rubrics of the OF are a natural outgrowth, but that how it is typically celebrated is a break with the council?

Serviam, would you accept the claim that the texts and rubrics of the OF are a natural outgrowth, but that how it is typically celebrated is a break with the council?

One could make the argument that the lowest common denominator is typically what becomes common practice, with Low Mass in the pre-conciliar Church and vernacular/EP2/EMHCs in the post-conciliar Church. However, given that one of the aims of the reforms was to make the sung Mass normative and it has clearly failed in that regard, I believe that chaos would have ensued regardless of what was specifically contained in the reforms. There were bishops "experimenting" with the liturgy as early as 1966, not 1970, and most would agree that the reforms of 1965 were nowhere near severe enough to serve as a springboard for that.

That is both untrue & true simultaneously: Some bishops have (obviously, in my opinion) over-stepped their bounds, but invoking the clause in T.C. that forbids the 'blending of the rites' have prohibited: Roman (i.e. "fiddleback") vestments, chalice veils, burses, maniples, dalmatics, copes, humeral veils, Latin, Gregorian Chant, polyphony, ad orientem, etc. And these bishops are in places like Mexico and the Philippines, where the Novus Ordo is "flourishing" (allegedly), but also where liturgical abuse rampant.

Seeing as these elements are part and parcel of the OF, there is no "blending of the rites" and therefore this is a clear abuse of power. I would expect that clause to apply to events like celebrating the OF with a silent Canon or the old Lectionary.

I think that Romano Guardini experimented with Versus Populum in his parish in the '50s.

But freestanding altars weren't per se built in anticipation of Versus Populum; they are a very ancient style of altar (I don't think that they were thinking of Versus Populum when they built the main altar at St. John Lateran), and were encouraged by exponents of the Liturgical Movement, as part of general liturgical revival, to encourage the circumambulation of the altar during incensations.

Serviam, would you accept the claim that the texts and rubrics of the OF are a natural outgrowth, but that how it is typically celebrated is a break with the council?

No, I would not. We know that what was asked for is not what we got. We could have had a "revised" liturgy that was substantially the same as the EF but with tweaks such as having the readings in the vernacular, for instance. The wretched and extreme iconoclasm that came in after VII was certainly not called for. The militant disdain for latin was not called for. The changing of the credo was not called for. The changing of the liturgical calendar was not called for (as best I can tell; it was just an unfortunate side effect). The undermining of the Roman cannon was not called for. Communion in the hand was not called for (worse still, the active persecution of those who seek to receive in the traditional manner).

The current missal (to be clear, I do not claim it is "invalid" although I do heartily believe that it is intrinsically deficient and I would eagerly see the missal retired ASAP) was constructed primarily by a freemason, in the wake of a disastrous council where all sorts of evil politicking was going on (and where the schemas which had been carefully prepared well in advance were scrapped at the very last minute so that bad actors could exploit a power vacuum). It was constructed with sensitivities to protestants in mind, not sensitivities to what had come before. What we ended up with was something that bears striking resemblance in certain respects to protestant liturgies as had been conceived by the likes of Luther and Cranmer... (Speaking of free standing tables...)

So no, I would not say it's a natural outgrowth. I think it was maliciously engineered and shoved roughshod down the throats of faithful catholics the world over, and now we are witnessing the implosion of the liturgical star that has been this whole grand experiment.

"By their fruits you shall know them." For the (as of yet) majority of my life, I have known nothing but banal liturgies conducted by priests who—at least some of them—apparently didn't/don't believe in the real presence, or if they did, they certainly didn't act like it. The piety fostered (or rather, the lack thereof) by the new mass is perhaps most damning of all.

For heaven's sake: it's in the name granted by Paul VI himself "novus ordo" (new order). It's not the "revised missal of Pius V". It's the first missal that didn't have quo primum printed in the front of it. And they didn't do that because they knew thew were breaking away from the mold in an illicit way.