There are only a very small number of recalcitrants.

Communion in the hand.
Girl Altar Boys.
Guitars.

The number of agitators for these was --- TINY-- and yet, somehow, the numbers of agitators (recalcitrants) didn't matter.

In short, I think it's a temporary disciplinary measure to ensure that acceptance of the Novus Ordo Mass includes acceptance of the legitimacy of a posture and stance that TLM groups might be resistant to accept.

I'm not sure what your point is, Mark. I don't believe it to be necessary that a group embrace the equal legitimacy of every single option in the 1970/2011 Missal when the vast majority of the church is clearly not held to that same standard. On the contrary - what should be demonstrated is that the Missal is clearly accommodating of those liturgical practices habitually associated with the 1962 Missal and that the change-over does not have to be a rupture.

Well.....so long as someone wishes to quote SC, let's get the important stuff, too!!

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

Not very "Vat II-like" to dump Latin in '67, was it?

Frankly, I doubt that TC and its implementation by Cong. Rites will survive more than 2 years beyond the day that Francis assumes room temperature. And in the meantime--with some exceptions such as Cd. Cupich--most Bishops will quietly ignore it. Romanita can be played by more than one party.

Those pensions are often in the form of annuities. There are no guarantees with annuities.

@markb : legitimate option

There's nothing quite laying saying, "you may only use this one legitimate option, and not that legitimate option" to show that you want someone to understand how equality of options work...

Interestingly enough, all these quotes NWM is using" for... whatever result about personal conscience would make it seem like Francis, Cupich, et al are going against these priests' consciences with these insane mandates.

As I previously explained, I suspect the requirement to celebrate Novus Ordo Masses versus populum is a temporary disciplinary measure intended to ensure that TLM groups that are being transitioned to the Novus Ordo Mass do not use ad orientem as a proxy expression of resistance to the predominant way that the Novus Ordo is celebrated.

If I were Cupich, I don't think I would have insisted on that pre/proscription, but he did and I'm trying to understand his rationale.

Look on the bright side: priests may still wear Roman/fiddleback chasubles and birettas when they celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass. Cupich said nothing about that.

Charles, as I said above, you can't turn it around without the glaring observation that many/most "Trads" do go to NO Masses at times. Feel free to guess at whether or not most non/anti-trad(Mass)s attend or offer the TLM for any reason, at all.

Look on the bright side: priests may still wear Roman/fiddleback chasubles and birettas when they celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass. Cupich said nothing about that.

I don't see purple or any other indication that you're being sarcastic.

How does one enrich that which came into existence by impoverishment, for the purpose of impoverishing others?

A comment I saw on the Catholic Culture site tells a different story:

"I am not a TLM advocate, but as did many of my contemporaries, I learned the Latin Mass by heart and am reasonably competent in classical Latin. I fully accept the Novus Ordnung [sic], as imperfect as it is. What I cannot accept is the vindictiveness behind the current suppression of the TLM, contrary to prior popes AND Vatican II. My sister, who has not had an easy life, takes great comfort in the TLM. What kind of man would deprive her and others of the comfort the TLM?"

I would love if Cdl. Cupich could write to this woman, giving her the "pastoral" reasons why he's depriving her of what she loves, and what was for centuries considered the apex of Catholic life and culture. If he's worried it's being hijacked by disobedient radicals, let him oppose them and their ideas. Instead he deprives people like this woman of what she loves and what is fully Catholic.

If the authorities are serious about fulfilling the mandate of TC, they should provide a replacement Latin Mass said ad orientem using the 2011 Missal for every community that currently uses the 1962. Then we can judge who merely wished for an oasis away from liturgical nonsense, who has serious issues with the revision of the Missal as promulgated, and who outright rejects the mandate for liturgical reform. I would wager it is a small minority of those attending the "TLM" who quibble with the difference in Missals; for most of them, it is the use of the Latin language, liturgical solemnity and awareness, properly ecclesiastical music, and the guarantee that all of the above are not subject to the whims of a new priest that draw them to these communities. None of these are necessarily exclusive to the 1962 Missal, and their use on celebrations of the 2011 would do much to mend the rift between the two liturgical factions.

Unfortunately, I question if this will happen when and where it should.

If the authorities are serious about fulfilling the mandate of TC, they should provide a replacement Latin Mass said ad orientem using the 2011 Missal for every community that currently uses the 1962. Then we can judge who merely wished for an oasis away from liturgical nonsense, who has serious issues with the revision of the Missal as promulgated, and who outright rejects the mandate for liturgical reform. I would wager it is a small minority of those attending the "TLM" who quibble with the difference in Missals; for most of them, it is the use of the Latin language, liturgical solemnity and awareness, properly ecclesiastical music, and the guarantee that all of the above are not subject to the whims of a new priest that draw them to these communities. None of these are necessarily exclusive to the 1962 Missal, and their use on celebrations of the 2011 would do much to mend the rift between the two liturgical factions.

Schoenbergian,

The mandate of TC is the extermination of any form of the Roman Rite older than the most progressive reforms of Bugnini. '65 and '67 are simply non-starters.

The good Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago won't permit ad orientem because it is, really, ad Deum.

he did and I'm trying to understand his rationale.

The rationale is pure spite. There is no 'rational' explanation at all.

To state that "some people lie" is sorta like saying "the sun rises in the East."

Well, they did lie. One person I charitably call a nut, swore to the then bishop he fully supported the NO mass and the reforms following Vatican II. This was the guy who objected when "a Novus Ordo" cookie was used for Benediction instead of a host consecrated at a TLM. I will say again what I have often said, obnoxious behavior on the part of TLM goers is largely responsible for the negative reactions they are now receiving.

The sun rises in the east - the direction we are all, both priest and people, should be traditionally facing during mass. Not some so-called "liturgical east" which is actually west. Get your directions straight.

Never in my 74 years have I seen a clown mass. I suspect I never will. "Clown mass" is like the word "racist" that liberals use when they have no better arguments to offer.

Heresy from the pulpit? You could have heard it 1500 years ago as well as any time since. The TLM is no defense against heresy.

Nevermind.

Get your directions straight.

Mine is just fine. YOU are the Eastern here. /snark

I almost exclusively tend the Novus Ordo, and yet, I am what most in my area (Western MA) would call a "Trad". As a liturgical construct I prefer the Vetus Ordo, because of its ancientness (yes, it goes back beyond the council of Trent), and its "given-ness": That is, you know exactly what you are getting.

There are some things in the N.O. that I do think are improvements:
1) Getting rid of the lengthy Psalm at the 'lavabo';
2) Adding ferial readings to the lectionary;
3) The 34 weeks of Ordinary Time are a much more elegant solution to the problem of the shifting date of Easter rather than the resumed "Sundays after Epiphany";
4) Placing the Solemnity of Christ the King as the culminating feast of the Liturgical Year on the Sunday Next Before Advent.

Then there are reforms that really don't make much difference to me at all: like saying the Canon aloud. I prefer it said sotto voce so that I have time to contemplate the mystery taking place, and so that I am not distracted by the often overly-dramatic way in which it is said by the priest.

Then there are reforms that I really don't understand or care for, and yes, some of these go back to the first Modern revision of the Missal in 1955:
1) I am not a fan of the six overlapping cycles of the lectionary: 3 Sundays, 2 weekdays, and 1 sanctoral: A one-year cycle, in my opinion, is good enough.
2) Do we really need 10+ Eucharistic prayers? I thought that Bugnini was against "useless repetitions"?
3) Was it truly necessary to suppress Septuagesimatide or the Ember Days or the Rogation Days? Every serious Catholic I know seems to say every year that Ash Wednesday snuck up on them: Septuagesimatide would be a good way to get people out of the December/January "Christmas Mode" and remind them that Lent cometh. We're supposed to be thinking more about being "good stewards of the ecology" or whatever the phrase is, so why not re-introduce the special days of penance at the commencement of the Four Seasons (Ember Days), or the days connected with planting (Rogation Days).
4) If we're supposed to "go back to the early Church", why suppress really ancient things like folded chasubles for lesser ministers in penitential seasons?
5) If Pentecost is the "Birthday of the Church" and "Roman Catholics Don't talk about the Holy Spirit enough", why suppress the Octave of Pentecost? (Even Paul VI can't answer that one!)
6) Why get rid of the Commemoration of Our Lady of Sorrows on Friday of the Passion Week (the Fifth Week of Lent)? Or the commemoration of the instruments of the Passion on the Fridays of Lent?
7) Why move Corpus Christi (a recapitulation of Holy Thursday) to Sunday, and suppress the Octave?
8) Why truncate the Kyrie?
9) Why suppress the priest's preparatory prayers? At the very least the prayer said while ascending the steps and the prayer said while venerating the altar should have been retained: I mean, the priest still needs to enter the sanctuary and still needs to venerate the altar, what harm would their retention have been?.
10) Why change the offertory? What we had was sublimely beautiful, AND formed the priest's intention in a way that the new ones do not.
11) The Three options (without any reason why to use one or another at different times) for the memorial acclamation is dumb: How can the people make a response in unison if none of them know which one another is going to say?

I have often thought about putting together a "Missa Normativa" of what my ideal "reformed" Mass of Vatican II would be: But basically the Ordinariate has already done that. Much of the reform seems to me to have been based on the principle: Something needs to change, this is different, therefore we must do it. The one thing in Sacrosanctum Concilium that seems to have been overlooked by Bugnini & Co. is the clause: "No changes are to be made unless the good of the people genuinely requires them."

If the authorities are serious about fulfilling the mandate of TC, they should provide a replacement Latin Mass said ad orientem using the 2011 Missal for every community that currently uses the 1962. Then we can judge who merely wished for an oasis away from liturgical nonsense, who has serious issues with the revision of the Missal as promulgated, and who outright rejects the mandate for liturgical reform. I would wager it is a small minority of those attending the "TLM" who quibble with the difference in Missals; for most of them, it is the use of the Latin language, liturgical solemnity and awareness, properly ecclesiastical music, and the guarantee that all of the above are not subject to the whims of a new priest that draw them to these communities. None of these are necessarily exclusive to the 1962 Missal, and their use on celebrations of the 2011 would do much to mend the rift between the two liturgical factions.

Unfortunately, I question if this will happen when and where it should.

Is there a market for this? I am all for such a mass existing. My parish at one time had a Latin, ad orientem Novus Ordo weekday daily Mass. It was not as well attended as our other weekday daily Masses. It seemed to me that it wasn't what the trads wanted and wasn't what the Novus Ordo folks wanted. My parish moved it to a Saturday morning and now I'm not sure about the current attendance.

I enjoyed this Mass and would like to have more access to such a liturgy. I wish that trads would spend their energy pushing for a Latin, ad orientem Novus Ordo.

Real question: how many of you on here would be equally satisfied with a chanted, Latin, ad orientem Novus Ordo as you would be with a TLM? Or at least sufficiently satisfied?

I second Hawkins on the Eucharistic prayer. EP1 is one of the most beautiful pieces of prose in the liturgy. When the priest gets to the words "In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty," I actually get chills down my spine.

The GIRM restricts the usage of the organ and other instruments during Advent, Lent, and the Triduum in the OF.

And then there are very mainstream left-wing(?) sites like America Magazine... which do you think has more followers?
Surely, Fr. Zuhlsdorf and ChurchMilitant and OnePeterFive still don't equate to the amount of people getting bad, anti-Traditional, sometimes anti-Catholic-teaching information as what is found at America or National catholic Reporter?!

Anyone have hard data on this? I think the trad blogs have a larger audience than the National Catholic Reporter for sure and probably competitive with America.

I think this because I frequently see content from trad blogs posted on social media, rarely content from America, and almost never content from the Reporter.

I have followed this thread for some time now and, in all honesty, I'm put off by the uncharitable language and fierce stances that some people put forward here. I've hesitated to add anything to the discussion, doubtful it would be useful, but I feel that a necessary point of view is still missing.

I would like to propose a hermeneutic of pastoral care when it comes to reading documents like Ecclesia Dei afflicta, Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis custodes. Every one of these documents had in mind the special pastoral care of a small portion of the faithful (‘in favorem omnium fidelium id petentium adhiberent’). For them the celebration of the 1962 liturgical books was granted as an exception, for their particular spiritual well-being and for the good of the Church as a whole.

The 1962 Roman Missal has never been abrogated
No, not as an absolute. Whenever a new typical edition of a liturgical book is promulgated, its former edition becomes void. The 2008 editio typica tertia emendata replaces the 2002 editio typica tertia, which in turn replaced the 1975 editio typica altera, etc. There is no need for a decree to explicitly state that, promulgation has that effect automatically. The 1962 Roman Missal was supplanted by the 1970 Roman Missal by the decree Celebrationis eucharisticae of March 26 1970.
For the continuous use of the 1962 Roman Missal it's the other way around: for pastoral reasons its use was explicitly granted as an exception to the regular liturgical life of the Church for a small number of faithful still adhered to the previous liturgical expression. It's a gift, a provision out of pastoral care. That was the case with Ecclesia Dei afflicta, Summorum Pontificum and, for that matter, Traditionis custodes.
In no way was this pastoral provision ever intended as an admonition to a wider use in general of the 1962 Roman Missal or a promotion of the former rites. There have never been two rites (or two forms of a single rite) that were equal to each other or interchangeable or competing with each other. The 1970, 1975, 2002 and 2008 editions of the Roman Missal have subsequently been the unique expression of the Roman rite, the 1962 edition was from 1970 onwards allowed by way of exception, out of pastoral care, under varying conditions. It is in this sense that Summorum Pontificum stated that the 1962 Roman Missal was never abrogated.

What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.
This quotation of Joseph Ratzinger is usually taken out of its context. The two times Ratzinger used these or similar words (Salz der Erde (1996), p. 144 and letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum (2007), 7), they were always part of his particular wish that the former rites be more generously granted to faithful that still adhered to it. It's not harmful to celebrate the 1962 rites, yes, just as it cannot be spiritually harmful to celebrate according to the Ordo Romanus I. These words of Ratzinger are a defense or a rationale of the pastoral provision given by Summorum Pontificum. They explain how a small group of faithful can legitimately celebrate according to already superseded liturgical books (so, in an aberrant way) without losing the spiritual goods and the grace of the sacraments celebrated.

Whenever a pastoral act makes you feel angry or insurgent, or seems unfair or harsh to you, it's time for introspection and reflection.

>> “It's not harmful to celebrate the 1962 rites,”
No, but there are those who maintain that this is so.

>> it cannot be spiritually harmful to celebrate according to the Ordo Romanus I.”

Well.. this will take some time but I hope you will scroll up and read again of all the devastations since the lex orandi was changed, and try honestly to judge by the fruits,