People rarely take much notice of what popes say. And popes say so much that goes unreported in the media. Even when Pope Francis commented unfavourably on a crowd of bishops concelebrating with him taking selfies during Mass it seemed to make little impact. How many people bother to follow papal catecheses such as his series on the Mass? https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2017/documents/papa-francesco_20171220_udienza-generale.html

Nihil, I could probably have phrased my post better too. I just get upset with the "TLM or bust" mentality, when it appears that the TLM will likely go bust in the not too distant future. I understand the frustration and sadness over this, but I also know that we need a way forward that is grounded in reality if this does happen.

Merry Christmas to you also and a blessed New Year.

I just get upset with the "TLM or bust" mentality, when it appears that the TLM will likely go bust in the not too distant future.

I think you might be partly responding to something I wrote earlier on this thread (if not, my apologies). So, please allow me a brief reply.

I started out going to the Novus Ordo as a child and became interested in the TLM as a teenager (and music ministry). I went away to college for music and started going to a Ukrainian Catholic parish for nearly three years after getting fired as organist by the priest chaplain of the Newman Association on campus (which was a blessing in disguise). I graduated, got married, and joined the parish with the indult TLM when my first child was born. When the pastor died, our TLM community was moved to another parish where I started a schola. This went on while I grew so frustrated with the pastor (a diocesan priest) that I started alternating time between my diocesan TLM and the newly started Anglican Ordinariate bi-weekly mission nearby where I would regularly go for the next 2 years. Finally, the FSSP was invited in by my Bishop to take over my parish where I have remained ever since.

So, my own spiritual walk has included spending significant time attending four different uses/rites. I nearly went Eastern Rite in the formal sense and had, in fact, filled out the paperwork to join the Ordinariate (due to a family connection, I am eligible to join), but never handed it in. Something held me back in both cases. Discernment that it is through the Traditional Roman Rite and its spiritual ethos that God has drawn me towards Himself and that my time with other uses/Rites has only served to reinforce that notion is what causes me to hold to it tenaciously.

Are those means truly going to be withdrawn? If it is still God's will to draw me by them, then they will not be and nothing will be able to stop them from being available to me. The Traditional Roman Rite is my "home" within the Church and I don't desire to work in the "homes" of others. I *do* ask that others stop trying to burn mine down and cast me out into the street.

I am just trying to be realistic (based on the way Rome seems to be going) and understand that we should probably prepare for the worst.

Thanks for your reply Nathan. I agree that we should prepare for the worst, but that probably means something a bit different for many of us. It seems to me that the debate on this is a manifestation of a much older (centuries older) debate that centers around concepts like goodness, reason, will, and authority.

Some people will argue that, since Vatican II decreed reform of the liturgy and this was done by the Pope and Bishops, this is good and must be followed. Traditionalists respond that these things, though done by those sitting in positions of authority, have problems in and of themselves and may/must be resisted for reasons which can be understood and articulated. The root of the debate ultimately centers around how the two sides view God.

The statement, "It is good because God commands it" is false because it assumes the goodness of something commanded depends on God's Will instead of having its goodness originating from God's own essential goodness. The correct statement would be "God commands it because it is good." God contemplates his own essential goodness, He knows Himself in His Intellect, and makes commands based on His knowledge.

The debates on this forum about Traditionis Custodes have been frustrating to many on here because those defending restricting the TLM and forcing the NO on traditionalists seem to be of the view that the changes are good and must be followed because the Pope and some Bishops who are in positions of authority said so and that's that. Any reasons put forth to explain why this is not a good idea don't matter and fall on deaf ears because those in authority have spoken and reason doesn't really enter into it. ("It's good and binding because the Church authorities have decreed it"). Traditionalists take the view that the goodness (or lack thereof) of a command can make or break its authority and that this goodness can be known and articulated rationally.

Until this basic difference of understanding is resolved, the two sides will continue to fight in all the ways which have upset you and others.

It's odd that some here think that the EF is going to implode.

That's not the direction it's taking in this Archdiocese; there is one ICK parish which serves about 1,500 people/Sunday and 4 or 5 'OF' parishes which also hold a regularly-scheduled weekly or monthly EF Mass with an average of 200 souls attending. (There is also an SSPX chapel; I don't know the numbers there.)

30 years ago, there was one 'OF' parish holding one EF Mass, serving about 300 souls/week.

Please recall that the Hapsburg Empire was going to fall (!!) until John III Sobieski dropped in for a visit. We have no idea what will happen in the next 2 years, much less 50-100.

Moreover, if the EF is going away, it will do so all by itself. Rome doesn't have to do a thing. That imperious 'drop dead' is what stirs trouble and schism, not a benevolent 'let it die' treatment. I should add that those on this board who echo Rome's 'drop dead' attitude are not encouraging comity, either.

Lastly, I am sympathetic with those who hold the '2 Faiths' theory, although that is not correct. There is one Faith, but lots of different ways to sin. Let's not confuse one with the other!

" those on this board who echo Rome's 'drop dead' attitude "
I can't say I had noticed any of these, perhaps some kind reader could list names for me in a PM (so as to avoid dissension).

"Laws depend on being based on right-reason in order to be binding."

And who has authority and jurisdiction to judge this in a way that binds anyone else?

And who has authority and jurisdiction to judge this in a way that binds anyone else?

That's the rub, isn't it? We all have to make our own decisions about how we will respond to commands we believe are wrong and take the consequences imposed on us by those in positions of authority (and not just in the Church). In the long run, if we're acting in accordance with the truth and justice, we will be vindicated even if that vindication doesn't come until the General Judgement and we suffer wrongly in the meantime.

"That's the rub, isn't it? We all have to make our own decisions about how we will respond to commands we believe are wrong and take the consequences imposed on us by those in positions of authority (and not just in the Church). In the long run, if we're acting in accordance with the truth and justice, we will be vindicated even if that vindication doesn't come until the General Judgement and we suffer wrongly in the meantime."

But they have no indisputable authority or jurisdiction in the present moment to bind anyone else in their own decisions, right?, and arrogating the authority of Tradition is not self-validating in that regard.

If the Tridentine Missal is to be abolished the Vatican II Missal ought to be as well. I see no future for the Novus Ordo except through brute force, i.e., the Jesuitical nonsense of absolute obedience. I honestly don't think that anyone actually 'likes' it: Otherwise, why would the 'conservatives' be talking about the need of a Reform of the Reform (and more than just dressing up the proverbial pig), the 'traditionalists' be talking about a restoration of the Tridentine Missal, and 'progressives' be complaining for the past 50 years that Paul VI didn't go far enough.

What was done after the council is NOT what was intended: As Mr. Hawkins points out above, even those that put the thing together were not happy with it, but Paul VI put an end to revisions far too soon. (Another mistake apart from starting the whole blasted thing in the first place.) There are things in the Novus Ordo that look good on paper, but are confusing or awkward in practice--it's as if the ceremonial was devised at a conference table without anyone actually 'blocking the choreography' in real-life--which, I surmise, is exactly what happened.

And then, there's the problem (yes, problem) of 'active participation'; which, as Benedict XVI noted, has come simply to be 'activity'. Something has to be done. I have no problem with lay people doing the readings, but for heaven's sake train them!--though I would prefer that rather than just random readers, parishes and bishops would actually take advantage of the vast array of invested liturgical ministries, and actually institute men (ahem) as lectors and acolytes, etc. AND FOR GOODNESS SAKE GET THE SONG-LEADERS OUT OF THE SANCTUARY AND TELL THEM TO PUT THEIR HANDS DOWN!!! I would not object, however, to coped cantors to chanting intonations and verses of the propers, etc., from the chancel. Also, I think that versus populum (in its current manifestation--not as an accident of the celebrant facing East in a church with the apse on the West end) is an experiment that has failed--and maybe it wouldn't have failed if it started in 1300, but in the Television Era it was a mistake, as, even if only subconsciously, it turns the celebrant into a kind of 'host' of the Mass (in the Ed. Sullivan meaning of 'host').

Frankly, I'd prefer a serene read 1662 BCP service with the priest celebrating on the North end of the table, than the flurry of pointless activity and the overly dramatic reading of liturgical texts by the priest praying at the people that happens at many N.O. Masses today.

dad29, I'm not saying the EF is going to implode in on itself, I'm saying that it looks like Rome is going to drop the bomb on the EF.

The Holy See is gearing up to enforce canonical penalties against those stoking disobedience.

Does anyone remember when people who hated him called Cardinal Ratzinger the PanzerKardinal, for his heavy-handed approach with prophetic voices within the people of god?

I posted this as commentary on a relevant article in a Catholic-left journal. It is pretty much my summary of my position:

I love the Mass in all its Rites and ritual forms, I love the Catholic Church, and one day I hope I’ll begin to love the Lord Jesus as He deserves. Recognizing that this poor sinner does not even deserve the gift of the most poorly celebrated liturgy imaginable (reader: imagine for yourself, according to your lights), nevertheless I’ve met Him and meet Him in the Latin Mass in a very special way, and I would be sad to lose it.

For a TLM Midnight Mass of Christmas, the choir were rehearsing an old Ordinary setting found in the deep archives in the loft. On the cover of one of the octavos, written with a fountain pen, was “Organ: Christmas, 1944”.

One of the basses remarked, when I showed them that score at rehearsal, “That means they were singing this *while* the Battle of the Bulge was going on.” There was an incredible quiet in the loft as we all took that in. Communion of the saints can be a visceral thing sometimes.

Then, one of the old-timers started to tell stories about the ladies, long gone, who used to sing the Benedictus of that Mass. There they were, with us again.

At a very rural TLM quasi-parish (FSSP), built in the late 1800s, the charming eccentric of a pastor did entirely without electricity once for a sung weekday Mass. We sang an Ordinary found in the parish archives, from 1905 or thereabouts. The organ (I was playing) was even hand-pumped. For more than a moment I wondered whether Benedict XVI or Benedict XV was being commemorated in the Canon. The simple beauty and dignity of an unamplified, sung dialogue between priest and choir filled the room with loveliness, breathing fresh life into ancient texts, and the silence outside and in made space for His Presence. Time was gone, and Eternity was there. I am still there, when I recollect it.

My heart sings with every beat and gesture of the Old Rite, and dances to its rhythm and easygoing flow. May the Lord accept my sacrifice of praise!

If we are speaking of unjust canonical penalties being rescinded years later, I can think of one good French bishop whose case seems rather prescient…

Nathan....

I'm saying that it looks like Rome is going to drop the bomb on the EF.

True. There, I used your phrasing to refer to others on this thread who have been saying--for YEARS--that the EF is going away, that fewer and fewer attend it, (etc.) You can find the same sentiments on the original TC thread, just as you can find the 'You VILL OBEY und LIKE IT!!' on both.

Another topic: regarding "obedience" there is a parallel in the vaccination debate. The Pope and various Bishops have said that Catholics have a moral obligation to take the vaccine--but Catholic teaching is very clear: a Catholic must follow his (well-formed) conscience in such matters, and does not have any obligation to follow the instructions of the Pope/Bishops. This is not a perfect analogy, of course, but it's worth considering.

Archbishop Roche answered the question about different rites in the Church:

Q: Many traditional faithful have no problems with the reformed liturgy or Vatican II but prefer the traditional form. Why, therefore, can the traditional form of the Roman Rite not be accepted as other differing traditional forms of the Roman Rite are accepted, such as the Ambrosian, Gallican, Dominican or the Anglican (Ordinariate) rites?

Roche: With respect, your determination of rites is not entirely accurate. There is only one Roman Rite, just as there is only one Ambrosian Rite and one Mozarabic Rite. The Gallican Rite disappeared many centuries ago, although many of its prayers have been incorporated into various current liturgical books. The others are not rites but usages — adaptations or inculturation of the Roman Rite, which has received approval by the Apostolic See for specific reasons.

He also obliquely addressed the matter of Ecclesia Dei institutes:

Q: Your Excellency, does the Responsa apply to the ex-Ecclesia Dei Institutes, especially with regard to ordinations in the traditional form of the Roman Rite, or are such ordinations permitted to continue in those institutes, as they weren’t specifically mentioned in the Responsa?

Roche: First of all, allow me by way of introduction to some of these questions to state an important point. The universal law regarding the antecedent liturgy prior to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council has now been established by the Motu Proprio, Traditionis Custodes of 16 July 2021, which supersedes all previous legislation.

Roche continues: The Responsa ad dubia of 4 December 2021, published by the Congregation of Divine Worship & Discipline of the Sacraments, is an authoritative interpretation of how this law is to be applied. The Congregation for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life has competency over the particular Institutes you mention. This Congregation has not made any statement about these Institutes. However, the principle has been established that ordinations in the Latin Church are conferred as directed by the Rite approved by Apostolic Constitution in 1968 [New Rites of Sacred Ordination issued by Pope St. Paul VI].

Full interview here, dated December 22, so after the Responsa were published:
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/archbishop-roche-on-traditionis-custodes-and-its-guidelines-the-liturgical-possibilities-are-in-place

And now we have an ideological pope who, true to his Jesuitical formation, expects absolute obedience 'like a corpse' from the entire Church. Go ahead and excommunicate me.

I didn’t agree with everything tomjaw said, but the “Thanks” were because of:

It is amusing that one moment Rome tells us we have two forms of one Rite, then two Rites and now one Rite. They don't seem to be able to make up their minds.

As Tom mentioned, and as Jeff Ostrowski also shows, Roche's commentary seems to change a bit, depending on who he is supposed to be appeasing.

Sounds sort of like Cdl Richelieu in The 3 Musketeers, "Kings (popes even?) come and kings go, but one thing remains the same; and that is me."

And how long do kings' or popes' or clerics' words matter? Just until someone with a more relevant-to-me position comes along?

About the conflicting messages from Church authority:

I think the Church put herself in an impossible position, going back to the first indults that permitted the celebration of the preconciliar rite after the reformed liturgy had been promulgated, by attempting to maintain the two forms of the Roman Rite, pre and post-conciliar, simultaneously. No explanation of how that was possible was ever satisfactory once the initial few indults were broadened.

What was at first a very limited indult to celebrate the preconciliar rite -- hence, no formal abrogation of the preconciliar rite -- became under JPII a more expansive indult as a gesture of reconciliation to the Lefebvrites and other Catholic traditionalists. Then it became a general permission under BXVI with the unprecedented explanation that there is a single Roman Rite that has two forms. Now under Francis there is a reassertion that the reformed rite is the sole postconciliar form of the Roman Rite, with the apparent trajectory that concessions to celebrate the preconciliar rite will be granted out of compassion for now, given current circumstances in which people have become attached to that form, but those concessions will eventually be eliminated so that the Roman Church will have a Roman Rite with a single authorized liturgical form: the reformed rite.

The attempt to maintain two forms of one Roman Rite simultaneously seems to have inevitably produced confusion and inconsistent explanations about how it was possible for the Church to do that, because it doesn't really make sense for the Church to have broadened permissions to authorize both the unreformed and the reformed rites for parallel celebration. As a gesture of compassion, I get why it was done. But it doesn't make liturgical sense.

MarkB - The Church can get on perfectly well with two or more rites, as shown in northern Italy. The Ambrosian rite has a different Calendar, different fasting rules, ... maintained for over 1500 years. And is capable of translating prelates, even Patriarchs, between them without catastrophe.
And anyway, I accept Paul VI's statement that 1969 is just a revision of the Roman Rite.

The attempt to maintain two forms of one Roman Rite simultaneously seems to have inevitably produced confusion and inconsistent explanations about how it was possible for the Church to do that, because it doesn't really make sense for the Church to have broadened permissions to authorize both the unreformed and the reformed rites for parallel celebration. As a gesture of compassion, I get why it was done. But it doesn't make liturgical sense.

Tell that to the Anglican Ordinariates.

Should there be two Roman rites?

What I was taught distinguishes one rite from another are three things: the offertory, the canon/eucharistic prayer, and the Communion of the priest. By this line of reasoning, the Novus Ordo actually constitutes at least 4 different rites in the same book. Should this be so? Honestly, I'm personally so past caring at this point. I just want to be left alone to live my life in peace with the Traditional Roman Rite. If someone else wants something different, fine. But, don't impose it on me and my family. Under SP, a live and let live approach was totally possible. Now, the proverbial ant hill has been stirred up.

About the conflicting messages from Church authority:

I think the Church put herself in an impossible position, going back to the first indults that permitted the celebration of the preconciliar rite after the reformed liturgy had been promulgated, by attempting to maintain the two forms of the Roman Rite, pre and post-conciliar, simultaneously. No explanation of how that was possible was ever satisfactory once the initial few indults were broadened.

What was at first a very limited indult to celebrate the preconciliar rite -- hence, no formal abrogation of the preconciliar rite -- became under JPII a more expansive indult as a gesture of reconciliation to the Lefebvrites and other Catholic traditionalists. Then it became a general permission under BXVI with the unprecedented explanation that there is a single Roman Rite that has two forms. Now under Francis there is a reassertion that the reformed rite is the sole postconciliar form of the Roman Rite, with the apparent trajectory that concessions to celebrate the preconciliar rite will be granted out of compassion for now, given current circumstances in which people have become attached to that form, but those concessions will eventually be eliminated so that the Roman Church will have a Roman Rite with a single authorized liturgical form: the reformed rite.

The attempt to maintain two forms of one Roman Rite simultaneously seems to have inevitably produced confusion and inconsistent explanations about how it was possible for the Church to do that, because it doesn't really make sense for the Church to have broadened permissions to authorize both the unreformed and the reformed rites for parallel celebration. As a gesture of compassion, I get why it was done. But it doesn't make liturgical sense.

It is a blessing, in a way. For decades, trads have been crying that there were two rites, two theologies, two faiths. Everyone poo-pooed them and said they were overreacting. Then BXVI came along and said, "two halves of the same coin". This comforted some people, but true hardliners were never pacified...

But now, here we are: TC drops, and all of the sudden, Rome admits what the trads have been shouting from the rooftops for years: there ARE two rites. There ARE two schools of theological thought. There ARE two groups of catholics. ...there are, in essence, two faiths.

This is why they are now suddenly trying harder than ever to suppress the old rite. As long as it lives, the old Faith lives too, and that is muy problemático for them.

I very strongly object to the claim that Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo lack the authentic Catholic faith. When is it ever ok to stereotype like this? If you actually mean what you wrote, I can only presume that you think that I, as a Catholic who attends the Novus Ordo, lack the Catholic faith. It makes me very sad if you indeed think this.

Yes, survey data says that Catholics attending the Novus Ordo in aggregate have low fidelity to the teachings of the Church. But if you attend a Novus Ordo, you will also find lots and lots of Catholics who deeply hold and profess all of what the Church teaches. There are also a lot of problems with interpreting these surveys, as fidelity to the Magisterium is much much higher when you control for who actually attends every Sunday. There are also issues of self-selection of already devout Catholics into TLM communities. That is all to say, that I don't think that the data in any way supports a one-to-one linkage between possessing the Catholic faith and liturgical preference. And to illustrate this with an example, I think we all know that if we surveyed the student body at Franciscan University of Steubenville, that we would see extremely high rates of fidelity to the Magisterium, despite Steubenville being the epicenter of a liturgical style that many who post here find intolerable.

In regards of claims about "two faiths", I can very easily turn the tables here. I do not in any way believe that Pope Francis is shutting down the Latin Mass because he objects to too many Catholics actually believing Catholicism - that's a pretty dark thing to believe about the Pope, and strikes me as being implausible to the point to being ridiculous. That being said, none of us can know the inner thoughts of the Pope, so I guess we can't know for sure. I have another interpretation to provide though, that I think has the advantage of taking Pope Francis' claims at face value:

That is, that the Church was happy to accommodate a minority liturgical preference for the TLM. Perhaps the Church would have always preferred that everyone in the Western Church attend the same liturgy, but really, making an allowance for a minority is no big deal. However, along the lines of what MarkB wrote, these allowances have been taken as carte blanche to claim that the Church lacks the authority to revise the Roman Rite, that the EF is an objectively superior liturgy, that one earns more grace and is a more devout Catholic (or has the real Catholic faith!) if one attends the EF, so on and so forth. To the extent that there are "two faiths" going on here, it's a real problem that I as a Novus Ordo Catholic think that your preferred liturgy is a legitimate option, but you do not share the same opinion about the liturgy that that Church has over and over again proclaimed to be the normative expression of the Roman Rite.

Denying the authority of the Pope is a really fast way to get yourself in trouble with the Pope. I don't feel like this aspect of the situation has been given due attention on this thread. It seemed inevitable to me that with all the efforts to deny the authority of the Church to revise the liturgy and deny the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, that the Pope was going to shut this open and organized dissent down.

And to make sure I'm clear, if I were Pope, I would be very happy to make allowances for people who prefer to the TLM. Generally speaking, I think that people ought to be able to seek out their liturgical preferences as they see fit. It becomes a real problem though, when you change from saying "please give us, the minority, access to our liturgical preference" to "our minority liturgical preference is in fact the objectively best liturgy, and anyone who disagrees with us is bad Catholic, and we demand that the entire Church change to our liturgical preference." Obviously, this latter tactic is a recipe for division and a recipe to draw the ire of the Vatican.

"How about a rite for this group or that group who want to celebrate mass my way or their way? Does this not constitute a house divided?"

Is this not precisely what the optionality of the NO creates within itself, separate rites aside? One parish has Latin and ad orientem worship and only male servers, and the next parish over has hippies playing the tambourine in the sanctuary.