@a_f_hawkins
The London Oratory would not be a good choice as you will be comparing a TLM low Mass against a Latin Sung Mass with world class choir. The big question we need to ask is are their Sung Latin N.O. Masses following the GIRM? or are they a hybrid of the two forms.

The big question we need to ask is are their Sung Latin N.O. Masses following the GIRM? or are they a hybrid of the two forms.

The weekday and Sunday masses on EWTN are the closest I've been able to find for NO Latin like what I remember when I was growing up and my time singing in the choir. Last nights Friday 7-30-2021 evening mass was very beautiful. I didn't see a video of the whole mass online just the readings and homily.

@CatherineS - I recall a musician writing that he had been annoyed at a concert by someone behind him unwrapping sweets(candies US) and remonstrated with him between items. He received the reply "If you were listening to the music, you would not have noticed". He had to admit to himself that that was true.
As a PIP at Mass I need to focus on what we are doing, not how we are doing it. For sure, that is easier if the liturgy is done well, but Screwtape can distract me by pointing out how well done it is. (Compare Augustine on music)

I have heard that the Mass according to the Sarum Use / Rite has never been under any restrictions and thus could be used when the TLM is prohibited. True?

@Ken
I have a letter, yes we can use the Sarum, but we should ask the Ordinary for permission. Of course any layman can use any Divine Office, anytime. As the Sarum is not a strictly geographical Use it could be used anywhere.

@Arthur: The letter is SO sloppily written that one wonders who shoved it under Francis' nose for signature (see, e.g., "Radar" in M.A.S.H.) It appears to be unenforceable as written and likely the same 'as received.' Perhaps it was the Holy Spirit!

Ora, see the commentary Arthur discusses above, for a canon lawyer's explanation of what the document says and doesn't say.

Not if it has not been in a continuous custom of Roman Catholic use in those pink-bits places on that map.

The document was first published in Italian and in English translation; this seems to imply (according to secular formal logic) that Italian was the original...
Portugese? You didn't mean to say Esperanto?

Why should [Sarum] not be used in the British Dominions and British Commonwealth as well?

Is there any place in the Dominions or the Commonwealth where it could plausibly have been used in the past? To find a history of Sarum use outside Britain, I suppose we would need to find a colony or former colony in which diocesan clergy who had used Sarum had come to serve Catholic settlers. Was Sarum still used in Britain during the eras of colonial settlement (to North America, to the Caribbean, to Australia and New Zealand)?

hand-written manuscript

Is there some misunderstanding about what motu proprio means? It doesn't refer to the manuscript: it just means that the letter was written at the Pope's initiative, and not in relation to some event (synod, council, etc.)

@chonak

Is there any place in the Dominions or the Commonwealth where it could plausibly have been used in the past? To find a history of Sarum use outside Britain, ...

The letter does not mention a geographical limit, so I would consider that we should not either. My diocese, and the churches I go to have never (as far as I know) celebrated the Sarum Use, although a handful of Anglican places within a few miles celebrated the Use on the site of their church. Would it really be a problem for say an American Parish to offer the Sarum Use?
The Sarum Use has not been in normal use since good queen Mary, while I am sure that a handful of priests have celebrated the Use as well as plenty of Anglicans, over the last few centuries, I can't see how this is helpful to our argument. The question is does the local Ordinary approve and if he does just get on with it.

"Would it really be a problem for say an American Parish to offer the Sarum Use?"

Most of the USA was never part of the English empire. So while it would not necessarily be a "problem", it would at least be a curiosity without historical rootedness; it would not be traditional in a meaningful sense.

Elmar, when Francis wrote:

sloppiness and the rush through without crossing t's and dotting i's, etc.,

that's not something to take literally. It's an expression about carelessness, not a complaint about poor orthography.

So if this is meant as an even remotely serious argument ("might not hold up as a legal doc") please inform us at least where this piece of information comes from.

Again, the weaknesses of the document are described above in the short article Arthur mentioned, written by a canon lawyer and professor.

that's not something to take literally. It's an expression about carelessness, not a complaint about poor orthography.

Thank you for the explanation, I was not familiar with this nice English expression!
(mistaking the post as presenting additional argument/information to the sloppiness criticism, which is elaborated in the interesting article you mention, recommended by Arthur)

Just judging by His Creation He seems a God who loves attention to detail, beauty, elaboration, ornament, music and so on. Look at the amazing variety and beauty He made! The singing of birds is astonishing. And He gave us such diverse skills for arts.

Catherine,

What a heart-warming sentiment. Thank you!

There is an informational article about the history and usage of the Sarum Use at this website:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Sarum_Use

Sad to say, I get the impression that the Anglicans and convert Orthodox who adopted it did so as an expression of their anti-Roman approach.

Is there any place in the Dominions or the Commonwealth where it could plausibly have been used in the past?

I did some Internet research.

The dying of Sarum (timeline 1 | timeline 2) corresponds roughly to the rising of English colonization. Might some vestigial Sarum priest have landed during the murky early history of the Americas, if not saying the old Mass in public then at least saying the old Office or using an old Ritual?

1559 - Matthew Parker's invalid episcopal consecration
1559 - Sarum rite abolished officially for the CoE - after this date, a CoE priest saying the Sarum Rite would be doing so illicitly.
1576 - Sarum rite stops being taught for Catholic seminarians at Douai
ca. 1600 - "The actual celebration of Mass ad usum Sarum could have disappeared
entirely by the end of the sixteenth century" - James Joseph, p. 175
1632 - Last Catholic Sarum manual reprint published at Douai

As with extinct animals, there were rumors, of course. Fortescue had heard that Sarum was used during the reign of James II, but was unable to find a source. A 19th Century historian, Cox, claimed that during the 1745 Jacobite Rising, recusants in Derbyshire were alleged to be accustomed to a modified form of Sarum and surprised at Roman rituals being celebrated by French priests associated with the Bonnie Prince, but his source has not been found.

Meanwhile, English colonial history (outside of the British Isles and France):

1497 - John Cabot's expedition to Newfoundland - Italian Augustinian chaplain presumably celebrated the Roman Rite
1576 - Martin Frobisher's expedition to Baffin Island, Canada - CoE service held
1577-79 - Sir Francis Drake to Cape Horn, South America and California - CoE (Rev. Francis Fletcher)
1583 - Humphrey Gilbert to Newfoundland - was initially a Catholic expedition but Catholic support fell apart before the voyage
1584 - Roanoke Island - no mention of chaplain or priest
1592 - Sir James Lancaster VI, expedition to India - no mention of a chaplain or priest
1595 - Raleigh to South America
1607 - Jamestown, start of permanent North American colonization. A recent theory based on slim evidence holds that one Gabriel Archer (1574-1610) was a clandestine Catholic priest, but again he would have been too old to learn Sarum at Douai.
1620 - Calvert purchases land in Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland - first attempt at Catholic colony
1632 - Calvert granted a charter for Maryland - Fr. Andrew White, SJ, educated at Douai from 1597-1605, celebrated the first Mass, presumably therefore Roman Rite.

Very interesting timeline, Chrism. I've learned much just from reading it, and hope to find out more.

Hawkins,

Anglicans aren't wrong all the time!

It is simply inconceivable that this document, which affects so many Catholics around the world, was drafted and then reviewed/edited by genuine experts in church history and liturgy. On the contrary, [Traditionis custodes] gives the distinct impression that it was composed by only a single individual who (to be perfectly frank) didn't know what he was writing about, and didn't bother even to check the internet to make sure he got the historical facts straight - and then failed to seek the comments/input of officials in the appropriate Vatican offices (in this case the Congregation for Divine Worship, as well as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, particularly its section comprising the former Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei). In short, it looks to be the work of some writing in a hurry, someone who isn't accustomed to writing with precision. We can only wonder what the history of this document really is.

To me, the best explanation of this document is that the Holy Father was really wondering if he was going to come though his colon operation. It has been said that that explains the hastiness of the document, it's awkward arguments and contradictions. It is not the result of a long discussion and contemplation of the issues, but a quick statement of someone who was not sure of his future, and who needed to state something immediately.

I have a letter, yes we can use the Sarum, but we should ask the Ordinary for permission.

Longer term, the trouble with using Sarum to escape the restrictions of TC is that Sarum too falls under Sacrosanctum Concilium #3:

Among these principles and norms there are some which can and should be applied both to the Roman rite and also to all the other rites. The practical norms which follow, however, should be taken as applying only to the Roman rite, except for those which, in the very nature of things, affect other rites as well.

So just as there have been reforms of the other Rites, if Sarum rises from the ashes and develops a following, eventually they will come to Sarum and demand a revision of some kind, following the conciliar principles. Perhaps that reform would be splendid, but I think what would also be nice is some sort of universal historical/educational/diversity exception which applies to all rites equally, including the Roman, allowing the celebration of the pre-conciliar forms according to the principles laid down in Summorum Pontificum.

Another interesting piece at NLM today, “Traditionis Custodes, or Competing Concepts of Unity” — Guest Article by Dr. Tomasz Dekert. Dr. Dekert describes how the traditional liturgy constitutes a common experience of multiple peoples, classes and epochs. Although the meaning of the liturgy to these diverse participants is itself diverse, even unarticulable, the common experience is deeply unifying. The liturgical reform broke this connection of the liturgy to the tradition.

As a result, a new face of “unity” was obtained, which is not rooted in the organic totality of the traditional ritual – this is practically non-existent in the reformed liturgy – but which is based on trust and obedience to the ecclesiastical authority (especially the Pope) and the post-conciliar liturgical order introduced by it. ... Opposition does not simply arise from disobedience, ... but from a different understanding of the fundamental principle of unity itself. And the fact that there has been a radical change in this area and the controversy it sparked was not caused by “traditionalists,” but by the post-conciliar reform itself. ...

Traditionis Custodes consciously operates within the strictly narrowed framework of the above-mentioned new face of “unity,” which it elevates to the rank of absolute, central value. The projects of the “post-conciliar” Church and liturgy, precisely because of their foundation in acts of power, are understood here as a reality without alternative – ultimately (“in due time”, as Francis puts it in his letter to the bishops), one who will not accept them ... has no right to be in the Church and call himself Catholic – even if he or she was baptized, believes in all dogmas, leads a full prayer life and sacramental life, tries to do works of mercy and live the gospel.

Nothing AFAIK would inhibit Catholics from attending a Sarum Mass celebrated by Orthodox (Western Rite) clergy. Or have I missed something?

Francis did nothing, as you say, to straighten out the issue. I think he made it worse.