No, it's a matter of liciety, not of validity. The Church can set up rules for specific expressions and instantiations of things without it bearing upon validity. For example, the fact that the Church bans the ordination of married men in the Roman Rite (with the narrow exceptions for converting married priests with the Ordinariate) does not mean that all of the married priests that have ever existed were never actually ordained at all. Disallowing an expression or instantiation is not the same thing as annulling it, which is what it sounds like you are describing.
I see what you're saying--and sacramentally speaking, you're definitely right that the language and orientation of the priest (and all the other particular factors that differentiate rites from one another) do not bear upon the validity and reality of the Sacrament.
But that does not mean that banning a particular expression or ritual format of the Sacrament (i.e. making it 'illicit') makes it also non-real (i.e. making it 'invalid'.)
I think you're conflating the Church's regulatory authority with its dogmatic authority. As others have pointed out, the Church regulates plenty of things that are matters of custom, not dogma. Sacramental liceity (as opposed to validity) is one of them. A Mass is valid if celebrated by a validly ordained priest with the proper matter and form, regardless of rite. However, doing so may be illicit, for example because the priest has been laicized or hasn't been authorized to celebrate a particular rite outside of their own. And, insofar as they take vows of obedience, priests have a moral obligation to obey the laws of the church, including the merely ecclesiastical ones. You may or may not think that restricting the TLM is a good idea, but doing so isn't a declaration of invalidity, and not even the most strident critics of the TLM (eg, Cardinal Roche) have suggested as much.
Maybe if you imagine flipping the scenario, it's easier to see why the Church has liturgical laws that go beyond validity: "The Eucharist is the Real Presence. What does it matter if a priest celebrates it in a t-shirt and flip-flops?". Not wearing appropriate, prescribed liturgical vestments doesn't affect validity - a priest who doesn't still really says Mass, really confects the Eucharist - but of course it matters! The Church realizes that there is a real good of souls promoted by requiring priests to dress formally, in a way steeped with symbolism, and therefore requires it, although it does not affect validity.
You might say that the difference is that requiring vestments is good for souls; and limiting the use of the TLM is bad for souls; but that's basically a question of whether you think TC was a *good* act of governance from a prudential judgement perspective, not whether it's *possible* for a Pope to limit (or ban, although TC did not go that far) use of a liturgical rite for reasons other than validity.
This is pretty significant. A few things stand out to me (a non-EO goer but aesthetically a slightly traditional-leaning person.)
«Il est préoccupant que continue de s’ouvrir dans l’Église une douloureuse blessure concernant la célébration de la Messe, le sacrement même de l’unité. Pour la guérir, un regard nouveau de chacun porté sur l’autre, dans une plus grande compréhension de sa sensibilité, est certainement nécessaire ; un regard pouvant permettre à des frères riches de leur diversité de s’accueillir mutuellement, dans la charité et l’unité de la foi. Veuille l’Esprit Saint vous suggérer des solutions concrètes permettant d’inclure généreusement les personnes sincèrement attachées au Vetus Ordo, dans le respect des orientations voulues par le Concile Vatican II en matière de Liturgie.»
I am particularly struck by:
1. The characterization of the liturgical divide *itself* as a «douloureuse blessure», a painful wound.
2. «Pour la guérir, un regard nouveau...est certainement necessaire»: "To heal [the wound], a new perspective/look/pass-over is certainly necessary." This is the big one to me. There is in this sentence the sense that "the previous way of handling this is not working to heal the division, so the expectation is a different direction."
3. «des frères riches e leur diversité» "Brothers rich in their diversity", pertaining to liturgical expression. This is similar language used with eastern rite discussions and mutual enrichment there.
4. «d’inclure généreusement les personnes sincèrement attachées au Vetus Ordo». Two things here. "To include generously"--generously is actually carrying a lot of weight here. It's demanding something substantial, rather than lip service. And "Persons sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo". This is a wording I have primarily seen used by folks sympathetic to the Extraordinary Form, even by those who are Extraordinary Form attenders themselves, specifically because it highlights the earnestness and faith behind the attachment, and abandons the polemic or negative strawman often employed by those hostile to the EO.
5. «dans le respect des orientations voulues par le Concile Vatican II en matière de Liturgie.» Tying the reality of liturgical diversity to the norms of Vatican II, clearly framing the "generous inclusion" as being not opposed to Vatican II but in fact an authentic expression of its guidelines. Massively contradicts the more bullyish interpretations of TC, with regards not only to the EO but to traditional-ish practices like prie-dieux.
It's not splashy, it's not TNTing the last 10 years of handling of this issue. But there is a *lot* of attitudinal and tonal work going on in this language.
And finally, notably, despite how any English translation may or may not sound, this is *not* labyrinthine, bureaucratic, buzzwordy French. The French feels very clear and actually astonishingly direct in its communication of these ideas.
It is certainly nothing like the language or attitude of TC.
I appreciated the part where healing the wound was not taken to mean forced unity of rite, but rather a unity with diversity in charity and generosity.
I grew up in the novus ordo with a charismatic slant. As a teen I lead a music ministry playing electric guitar and rock music during mass.
As an adult we went through a period of stagnation where we almost lost our faith. I prayed that God give me a desire to attend mass and the will to lead my family that way.
During COVID I was introduced to the Latin mass and my family quickly became attached to it. It was not born out of animosity toward anyone or to my past. We are drawn to it and have what Id call a sincere attachment. It is home.
The divide in the Church over this issue is nonsensical in my opinion. It reminds me of my first encounter with the Latin mass. We had a visiting priest who would occasionally say the mass in Latin or ad orientem following the regular masses. I remember our pastor and my father speaking of it in a derogatory manner. Why was that the default?
I think "attached to the Vetus Ordo" is a stock phrase from various documents, and "sincerely" is doing a lot of work in a similar manner to "generously." It leaves open a door to confronting problem cases but also acknowledges "sincerity" as a positive attribute shared by many who prefer the Extraordinary Form.
Agreed. The 'sincerely' part was felt the most notable to me for the reason you mentioned, that it acknowledges the earnest and good foundations of many EF-preferring folks. It even possibly casts it as normative, i.e. that the prevailing attitude of this document is to assume the sincerity and goodwill of EF-goers as the default, and then handle the situations where that has devolved into something problematic accordingly.
If that reading is right, I think it's a very good dispositional development, specifically because it 1. reidentifies the "archetypical" EF-goer as having goodwill and sincerity (as opposed to the general negative archetype painted during the last pontificate); and 2. it redefines the very real instances of problem cases as *deviations* from the normal EF-goer, as opposed to constituting the imagined *norm* of an EF-goer.
This goes beyond the scope of this document, but my next thought following from these is that it is really, really important that we recognize that in the situation of problem cases in EF-adherence (which could look a number of ways, for example, illicit ordinations, rejections of the papacy, firebrand or heterodox preaching/theology, cults of personality or emotional manipulation, etc etc), in a very real way the people most hurt by them are the non-problematic, sincere majority of EF-goers, who are A. more likely to be manipulated by the problem cases and B. end up being swept into a blanket punishment unjustly! The authorities must take great care not to associate, punish or admonish the sincere EF goer in a lump target with the problem instances, and likewise, EF goers would benefit from taking great care to distance themselves from the problem cases as non-representative.
The Catholic Church under Pope Francis tried to get rid of the TLM. That didn't work. How about we go back to the way it was before the failed experiment that was TC, and call it a day.
A “new perspective” on the liturgy. Also known as . . . Summorum Pontificum. It seems that the Holy Father wants to nuke a lot of Francis’s major decisions without saying that’s what he’s doing.
I think there is a level of holiness about "nuking" decisions without explicitly stating such. A decorm and virtue lacking greatly in perception of Americans.
While I generally agree, when someone has done something so harmful to those he has care for, I think there is a place for a successor to make clear that the previous harm was exactly that. Otherwise, the successor is tacitly saying that the old policy “wasn’t really that bad.” And this also makes it easier for future leaders to just revert to the harmful policy. Like in a marriage, if a husband is uncharitable toward his wife, it’s not always good enough for him to say he won’t do it again. But instead, an apology might reasonably be expected.
Of course, this all depends on how bad one thinks T.C. actually was because the Pope shouldn’t go around publicly condemning every disagreement he has with his predecessor. But to my mind, T.C. is/was pretty bad, and the good people most affected (like those in Charlotte) really do deserve an apology from the hierarchy not just a “new perspective.”
If a Pope "nukes" a policy, I'd say it's a pretty bad policy.
I do think we need to separate your comment into two separate issues, because, honestly, they are.
1. Access to the TLM/VO/UA-whatever you choose to call it.
This is what the Pope has changed.
2. The hurt and pain from its prohibition caused by Pope Francis.
This is a different issue than the above and doesn't apply to everyone who was impacted by TC. Perhaps he's attempting to figure out the differences and the impact. It seems you're grasping or hoping even to regain your faith in the hierarchy, but maybe what you need to find that peace is in understanding that the Church is made up of broken men, and we put our faith in Jesus- Truth and Love Incarnate- alone. When we put our faith in those who claim to be His followers we will always be let down and disappointed. Fight to regain to what you've lost access and never give up on that fight, but in regards to trusting the diocese, the hierarchy, etc, sinful people will let you down.
Chesterton said something to the effect of: Never expect anything so you can always be pleasantly surprised.
A justice was corrected, bask in the joy and pleasant surprise!
I am of course very grateful for the new perspective. But I think one can be grateful for what he gets and have long-term faith in the Church but still think more can be done. And I think on the merits (even if I don’t think or expect it’ll actually be done) that it would be a good thing for the Church if Pope Leo made crystal clear that T.C. was bad and unjust.
I don't know how you define long-term faith in the Church. If this means anything other than the Sacraments will help me get to Heaven, then I disagree you should hold that position. Look at Saints who lived in bad times and completely had Sacraments withheld for political reasons.
I'm not saying the hurt isn't there or that it won't be addressed, but that is a separate issue than access.
And the church is full of cruel people so access to the Sacraments will probably be restricted like they were during the COVID scandals.
All that being said, if the church is looking to heal hurt, the Vatican China deal and COVID lockdowns (and Zoom "anointings") should definitely come first.
What I mean by long-term faith is that the Church will endure, there will always be a visible hierarchy, that there will always be Sacraments, etc. But I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying who should be apologized to first or what our interior dispositions should be in bad times. What I am saying is that the holier option for the hierarchy isn’t always to let bad policy go quietly into the night but that sometimes it is a good idea to be clear that mistakes were made. And you bring up good examples of where this is acknowledgement is probably also necessary. Finally, I would observe that the more forceful Leo is now, the harder it will be for a Francis II to just repeat T.C.
I would say even Summorum Pontificum is excluded from the "new" perspective, unless we are talking specifically about the encouragement to mutual enrichment. It seems from the context that the functionally parallel churches established by SP are the problem, and the "new perspective" may well be aiming towards a unified liturgy, marked by the mutual enrichment finally coming to full fruition.
I'm not sure practically how you don't just return to S.P. while having "generous inclusion" for the TLM. I think that's especially true if you think having "parallel churches" is a big problem because the only real solution (barring a whole new missal) is to have St. John Cantius type parishes where the same pastor celebrates both forms, which I take as being a large part of S.P.'s goal. As I mentioned in another comment—and as you seem to suggest Fr.—one could imagine a completely new missal that blends the vetus with novus ordines. But I think that risks making everyone unhappy.
And I think at the end of the day we have to admit that there are relatively few people who genuinely want to regularly celebrate/attend both forms. So at a certain level no matter what you do, if you allow both rights you get parallel church situations, either within the same parish or you have people self-selecting by parish.
I'll admit, my prayer is fully for a new Missal - one that preserves far more of the patrimony while also taking Sacrosanctum Concilium seriously. I have found the Anglican Use Mass to be very close to my ideal.
How to get there? That's where your points are well taken. And where we will need direct papal leadership on the issue.
"France has historically been one of the epicenters of communities attached to the preconciliar liturgy, sometimes known as Traditional Latin Mass, Vetus Ordo, or extraordinary form of the Roman Rite."
This rings true, but can anyone help me understand why it's true? There is the infrastructure of it: SSPX and later FSSP and ICKSP are all French-inflected plus there's Fontgombault and the Solesmes Congregation in general. But these are all fruits of a prior attachment. Why was France their birthplace as opposed to any number of other places? And why are France, the UK, and the USA places of particular TLM attachment?
It was a dodgy monarchist/fascist organisation condemned by the Church in 1926. Kind of the SSPX of its day. Not sure what relevance it had to this discussion, but whatever.
Lefebrve was French. As was Dom Calvet. Its not that deep. The tlm thrives in America because the movement around tlm is lay dominated. And the US has laity and money.
We apparently gotta do some history. The "Agatha Christie Indult" came from a lot of UK laity and as a result the UK had a very experienced lay trad movement.
Same with Detroit in the US, which grew out of one of the few pre-1988 indults. From there it was attraction and persuasion?
I would venture a guess that in the USA and the UK, as majority Protestant countries with strong historically anti-Catholic leanings, many Catholics are especially well catechized and attached to their unique expressions of the Christian faith. So to have something you have clung to quite passionately, with deep conviction, and in the face of general opposition, taken away from you by your own Church leaders has been a source of real angst that many devoted Catholics have recoiled from. It makes sense that Americans and Britons would want to retain a heritage that had traditionally been denied them by society more broadly.
I think France’s situation has much more to do with the overall ping-ponging between traditional and right-wing “Ancien Régime”-coded values and cultural influences and modernist, revolutionary “Enlightenment” values and culture. There’s a subset of French society that has been cleaving to fairly hardline Catholicism since Louis XVI was beheaded. Add to that the morally rigorous “Jansenist” undercurrent of much of French Catholicism, it’s not too hard to see why Tradition-with-a-Capital-T is wrapped up with a certain understanding of French identity as well as faith.
That might have a lot to do with + Lefebvre. He was a Frenchman and a bishop/missionary in Africa, I'd guess mostly French-speaking Africa. It is *one* of the epicenters, not the only one, but he was kind of a big deal.
I've long thought it was our paired versions of secularism. The American Revolution and French Revolution were very different events, with long-term similar results. I find the factors that push people towards the TLM are very much reactions against secularism run amok. In France and the US, you have militant secularism paired with strong religious cultures (and, in many senses, freedoms). In most other countries, you either have the strong religion or the strong secularism, but not both nor the freedom to choose from a variety of religious expressions.
I wonder if there will be any efforts to rein in bishops in France who are ill-disposed toward TLM, like the bishop of Valence, who kicked the FSSP out of his diocese last summer. One of the FSSP priests who worked there was Fr. Bruno Stemler, chaplain at St. Gregory's Academy in Elmhurst, PA many years ago, one of the most dedicated priests I've encountered.
When Pope Benedict gave generous licence to priests with SP he also wrote to bishops explaining why, but said " Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books." So if a priest refuses to celebrate the Chrism Mass with the diocesan bishop he is justified in believing that that priest is not in "full communion" with him, and consequently not entitled to celebrate Mass in his diocese.
I agree that Ecclesia Dei priests should celebrate the Chrism Mass with the bishop, to show that they're in communion with him. It's undoubtedly one of the most solemn NO Masses.
I’ve always found this view puzzling. Do you think priests who say “I think the novus ordo is valid, that my bishop is the actual bishop, etc.” are lying? Also, if this is the case, shouldn’t we make all diocesan priests celebrate at least one Latin mass a year to show they think it’s a valid rite? Also—besides the various Roman rite forms like the Ambrosian, Dominican, etc.—there’s five main eastern rites in use by the eastern Catholic churches. Do those priests need to show up to the Roman chrism mass or vice versa?
I think this perspective is fully rooted in Benedict XVI's own language and perspective. If one version of the Mass is referred to as the "Ordinary Form" and the other the "Extraordinary Form", then they are not equal. The major, unifying liturgies of a diocese (Chrism Mass being the most prominent) ought to be celebrated according to the Ordinary Form.
There was one year that I could not concelebrate the ordination Mass in my archdiocese because I had two additional weekend Masses that evening and that would have put me on the wrong side of Canon 905. So I don't think we should be judging every priest who does not concelebrate. But the pattern is concerning. The FSSP priests in my diocese refuse to concelebrate the major liturgies every year, and will often be praying their Office during the Mass. That is a clear statement that they do not consider the Ordinary Form to be Ordinary, and that they will not recognize it as normative even at the premier moment of a priest's unity with his local bishop.
Your point is well taken Fr. And if that’s your view of the two forms of the mass, it makes sense why you would want FSSP concelebration. That being said, at least in my view, I don’t see why the faithful or FSSP priests—who by constitution are attached to the TLM—need to see novus ordo as ordinary. Has the Church ever had that situation in Her history apart from the last fifty years?
Moreover, one might say that the standard liturgy of the hours is the "ordinary" office but even today, if I understand right, many monastic orders have their own variations. Does that mean that the local Benedictine abbey needs to use the standard liturgy of the hours for one day to show that they acknowledge that it is the ordinary form?
Ordinary and Extraordinary is certainly core to the debate. My main contention is that this distinction was requested explicitly by BXVI when he published Summorum Pontificum. If we see SP as the model, then we should accept its philosophy along with its permissions.
This does not apply to the priests celebrating the NOM themselves, but rather accepting it as valid and licit. Hence the use of "in principle". The FSSP and ICKSP and other communities whose approved charism is to exclusively celebrate the TLM did exist when pope benedict wrote SP, and they did not change their charism.
The use of the Chrism Mass as a litmus test for priests pretending to accept the NOM is ridiculous, particularly given that Vatican 2 does not allow for any sort of requirement that a priest concelebrate EVER.
If you really REALLY have to have some way to ferret out schismatic priests try a requirement to assist in choir (meaning, being present in a non-ministerial capacity) at any NOM of their choice.
Agreed there is no general requirement to concelebrate (apart from ones ordination Mass?) but VII, in a text accepted by Abp Lefebvre, approves wider concelebration. What SC does say is
57.
1. Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:
1.
a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.
b)... c)...
2.
a)... b)...
2.
1. ...
2. Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord's Supper.
The Chrism Mass is an objectively bad test. I do not think it is acceptable for Pastors to cancel Masses so they can concelebrate a Mass with their bishop. *Eye roll*
If Rome wants to do this, allow for 3 Masses to be celebrated by every priest on the day of the Chrism Mass and Ordinations.
I've only had this be an issue once, when I was assigned to a parish with a 5:00pm and a 7:00pm Mass on Saturday night.
Otherwise, most American parishes have only one Mass on Saturday evening and ordinations are held on Saturday morning, keeping everyone perfectly in line with Can. 905. If they have a morning Mass on Saturday, that would have to be canceled anyway just to physically be at the ordinations.
Chrism Mass is even easier. Rubrically, it is supposed to happen the morning of Holy Thursday, and those rubrics are clear that both Masses (Chrism and Holy Thursday) are allowed, and that there should not be any other Masses that day.
In my diocese, we celebrate the Chrism Mass the week before, on Thursday. But I've only got the one daily Mass, and I'm certainly not putting funerals on that day, so it is super easy to stay within Can. 905 limits.
Is anyone celebrating the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday anywhere in the USA? I actually didn’t know that it was supposed to be celebrated that morning.
Also, you’d refuse a funeral the week before Holy Thursday simply because they requested a Mass? I mean, the 2 Masses allowance exists not for a Chrism concelebration, but for pastoral need, most notably funerals. I would argue that you should celebrate your daily Mass and the funeral and sit in choir at the Chrism Mass, but I guess that isn’t the politically popular choice.
In New Zealand, we have both the SSPX and FSSP. I know of people attending one or the other. I have a lot of time for the TLM mass attendees but only attend TLM at most once a year for Rorate Caeli mass. I can see the great benefit of this to welcome back a number who attend SSPX to the FSSP. The hermeneutic of continuity is of utmost importance for the barque of Peter.
The FSSP is also of great benefit for the people who left the Church entirely after/due to the changes in 1970, who might outnumber the SSPX. Diocesan TLMs would be good for that too.
Though we also have the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer who have persistently refused to leave the Christchurch diocese despite being formally expelled by the bishop nearly two years ago (a decision upheld by the Vatican) and, regrettably, have now become borderline sedevacantists. Sadly not all sunshine and roses when it comes to the TLM here.
This is probably the first time in 10-14 years we've heard leadership in Rome say something genuinely caring and compassionate and positive towards Catholics who attend (or even enjoy indirectly in any capacity) the TLM. I was (rhetorically) beaten with rods for 14 years. I am still gravely wounded by everything that's transpired since TC, but this is very heartening to hear being spoken.
As a comical aside: I read elsewhere today "Generous inclusion of the 'Vetus Ordo'? This guy has some schismatic undertones going on - the Novus Ordo is the sole expression of the Roman Rite! Whoever this guy is, he needs to get in line with the Vatican!"
First it was (the nuncio telling, as I recall) the British (E&W or E&W&S? I don’t recall) bishops, and now the French bishops get this letter. Will the American bishops be allowed/told to lighten up soon? Maybe the ICKSP on the South Side could be allowed to celebrate Mass with the public assisting again? Then again, ordinary changes might help as well.
I'm only speculating, but since this topic is a uniquely charged third rail in the United States with high stakes for fallout, I imagine that the Vatican is kind of testing the waters, using this slightly softer but still clear articulations where the stakes are not quite so high and the charge is not quite so volatile than in the US. If these corrections/adjustments/recommendations are taken and integrated pretty smoothly in the UK and France, that will be a shot in the arm to the Vatican's confidence in continuing down this path and in frying some bigger fish (namely, this issue in the US.)
I think that’s plausible, and part of his motivation seems (so many people think and seems not unlikely to me from what I can see) to be to get everyone (or at least most bishops) willingly rowing in more or less the same direction according to the texts (hurray) of VII.
The key factor for the forced resignation of Msgr Rey is the fact that a secret and illegal ordination took place in a traditional priory under his jurisdiction (Rumors say Msgr Vigano performed it, but who knows ? ), and not primarily the fact that he welcomed many traditionalist communities (among others).
I wonder if Pope Leo is considering a merged vetus-novus ordo. In other words, a Latin mass with an approved vernacular translation using the new calendar but retaining many of the 1962 ordo’s distinctives that were removed by Bugnini.
I think the message seems clear that the desire is for those with certain attachments to make full use of all of the options available in the current order of the Mass.
I think to be fair though, there is quite a long list of things completely missing from the novus ordo even if celebrated as "trad" as possible. So I don't think there is a lot of daylight between T.C. and Latin novus ordo in reality. Or in other words, this solution isn't a via media but heavily slanted toward one side.
I understand. There are options to use the Roman Canon (EPI), fiddleback vestments, all the incense one's heart desires, receiving communion on the tongue, prayers after Mass for the Conversion of Russia etc. but some will not be satisfied and make the case it does not deliver in their minds even a middle ground from what they desire.
OTOH, with 99% of the faithful preferring Mass in the vernacular, the 'via media' of the faithful would seem not to run in between the Tridentine Mass and the current Roman Missal but in a very different place.
1% is no small number (and rapidly growing). Also I would point out many bishops positively restrict restrict their priests from using those options. But incase you're not convinced, here’s a brief list of things found in the 1962 missal and office that are nowhere to be seen today:
-Whole Psalms removed from breviary
- Prime removed
- Many other things removed from the breviary
-Hundreds of saints removed from the general calendar
-Septuagesemia suppressed
-Passiontide suppressed
-Octave of pentecost suppressed (and many other octaves if you count 1955 changes)
-Suppressed commemorations
-References to fasting and hell were categorically removed from collects (especially during lent) and many collects omitted all together
-Many essential bible readings (such as consuming christ’s body unworthily) are missing or optional
- Vesting prayers optional before mass (and I believe reduced) and completely removed after mass
-Biretta and maniple removed
-Subdiaconate removed (and every special liturgical function he had)
- Pontifical and papal massed removed (and all the many special things they had)
-Asperges essentially removed (and I believe reduced when done)
- Very many signs of the cross and genuflections throughout mass were removed
- Prayers at the foot of the alter, completely removed
- Confietor truncated and made optional (and done only once instead of three times)
- Kyrie truncated
- Gloria suppressed in weekday masses and chanted gloria suppressed
- Gradual and tract essentially suppressed (technically still an option)
- Procession of missal from epistle to gospel side, removed
- Procession and special proclamation of epistle and gospel at a high mass, removed
- Chanting of the credo essentially suppressed
- Offertory completely removed and replaced
- The Roman Canon is rarely used, and when it is used, can be truncated, and mysterium fidei put in the wrong place
- Prayers for the priest’s communion are suppressed
- Full prayer over the communicant and making the sign of the cross with the eucharist, suppressed
- Commununion prayer I believe is suppressed
-Many of the ways the priest purified the sacred vessels were suppressed
I deleted my response in regards to this issue. I don't mean to be confrontational or criticize the Church. I don't celebrate the TLM, however, this whole thing still irks me as being a serious point of contention when most of Church history deemed it wasn't.
This is the first I've heard the term "Vetus Ordo". Is that the preferred Vatican term now, rather than other terms such as "Traditional Latin Mass" and "Extraordinary Form"?
The Church regulates tons of things liturgically that don't affect validity.
No, it's a matter of liciety, not of validity. The Church can set up rules for specific expressions and instantiations of things without it bearing upon validity. For example, the fact that the Church bans the ordination of married men in the Roman Rite (with the narrow exceptions for converting married priests with the Ordinariate) does not mean that all of the married priests that have ever existed were never actually ordained at all. Disallowing an expression or instantiation is not the same thing as annulling it, which is what it sounds like you are describing.
A Latin Catholic priest needs special permission to celebrate in the Coptic rite.
I see what you're saying--and sacramentally speaking, you're definitely right that the language and orientation of the priest (and all the other particular factors that differentiate rites from one another) do not bear upon the validity and reality of the Sacrament.
But that does not mean that banning a particular expression or ritual format of the Sacrament (i.e. making it 'illicit') makes it also non-real (i.e. making it 'invalid'.)
I think you're conflating the Church's regulatory authority with its dogmatic authority. As others have pointed out, the Church regulates plenty of things that are matters of custom, not dogma. Sacramental liceity (as opposed to validity) is one of them. A Mass is valid if celebrated by a validly ordained priest with the proper matter and form, regardless of rite. However, doing so may be illicit, for example because the priest has been laicized or hasn't been authorized to celebrate a particular rite outside of their own. And, insofar as they take vows of obedience, priests have a moral obligation to obey the laws of the church, including the merely ecclesiastical ones. You may or may not think that restricting the TLM is a good idea, but doing so isn't a declaration of invalidity, and not even the most strident critics of the TLM (eg, Cardinal Roche) have suggested as much.
Maybe if you imagine flipping the scenario, it's easier to see why the Church has liturgical laws that go beyond validity: "The Eucharist is the Real Presence. What does it matter if a priest celebrates it in a t-shirt and flip-flops?". Not wearing appropriate, prescribed liturgical vestments doesn't affect validity - a priest who doesn't still really says Mass, really confects the Eucharist - but of course it matters! The Church realizes that there is a real good of souls promoted by requiring priests to dress formally, in a way steeped with symbolism, and therefore requires it, although it does not affect validity.
You might say that the difference is that requiring vestments is good for souls; and limiting the use of the TLM is bad for souls; but that's basically a question of whether you think TC was a *good* act of governance from a prudential judgement perspective, not whether it's *possible* for a Pope to limit (or ban, although TC did not go that far) use of a liturgical rite for reasons other than validity.
It's frustrating that this always seems to lead to tea-leaf reading and such all over the place. This seems encouraging, that's all I've got.
This is pretty significant. A few things stand out to me (a non-EO goer but aesthetically a slightly traditional-leaning person.)
«Il est préoccupant que continue de s’ouvrir dans l’Église une douloureuse blessure concernant la célébration de la Messe, le sacrement même de l’unité. Pour la guérir, un regard nouveau de chacun porté sur l’autre, dans une plus grande compréhension de sa sensibilité, est certainement nécessaire ; un regard pouvant permettre à des frères riches de leur diversité de s’accueillir mutuellement, dans la charité et l’unité de la foi. Veuille l’Esprit Saint vous suggérer des solutions concrètes permettant d’inclure généreusement les personnes sincèrement attachées au Vetus Ordo, dans le respect des orientations voulues par le Concile Vatican II en matière de Liturgie.»
I am particularly struck by:
1. The characterization of the liturgical divide *itself* as a «douloureuse blessure», a painful wound.
2. «Pour la guérir, un regard nouveau...est certainement necessaire»: "To heal [the wound], a new perspective/look/pass-over is certainly necessary." This is the big one to me. There is in this sentence the sense that "the previous way of handling this is not working to heal the division, so the expectation is a different direction."
3. «des frères riches e leur diversité» "Brothers rich in their diversity", pertaining to liturgical expression. This is similar language used with eastern rite discussions and mutual enrichment there.
4. «d’inclure généreusement les personnes sincèrement attachées au Vetus Ordo». Two things here. "To include generously"--generously is actually carrying a lot of weight here. It's demanding something substantial, rather than lip service. And "Persons sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo". This is a wording I have primarily seen used by folks sympathetic to the Extraordinary Form, even by those who are Extraordinary Form attenders themselves, specifically because it highlights the earnestness and faith behind the attachment, and abandons the polemic or negative strawman often employed by those hostile to the EO.
5. «dans le respect des orientations voulues par le Concile Vatican II en matière de Liturgie.» Tying the reality of liturgical diversity to the norms of Vatican II, clearly framing the "generous inclusion" as being not opposed to Vatican II but in fact an authentic expression of its guidelines. Massively contradicts the more bullyish interpretations of TC, with regards not only to the EO but to traditional-ish practices like prie-dieux.
It's not splashy, it's not TNTing the last 10 years of handling of this issue. But there is a *lot* of attitudinal and tonal work going on in this language.
And finally, notably, despite how any English translation may or may not sound, this is *not* labyrinthine, bureaucratic, buzzwordy French. The French feels very clear and actually astonishingly direct in its communication of these ideas.
It is certainly nothing like the language or attitude of TC.
I appreciated the part where healing the wound was not taken to mean forced unity of rite, but rather a unity with diversity in charity and generosity.
Thank you for your contributions here.
I grew up in the novus ordo with a charismatic slant. As a teen I lead a music ministry playing electric guitar and rock music during mass.
As an adult we went through a period of stagnation where we almost lost our faith. I prayed that God give me a desire to attend mass and the will to lead my family that way.
During COVID I was introduced to the Latin mass and my family quickly became attached to it. It was not born out of animosity toward anyone or to my past. We are drawn to it and have what Id call a sincere attachment. It is home.
The divide in the Church over this issue is nonsensical in my opinion. It reminds me of my first encounter with the Latin mass. We had a visiting priest who would occasionally say the mass in Latin or ad orientem following the regular masses. I remember our pastor and my father speaking of it in a derogatory manner. Why was that the default?
I think "attached to the Vetus Ordo" is a stock phrase from various documents, and "sincerely" is doing a lot of work in a similar manner to "generously." It leaves open a door to confronting problem cases but also acknowledges "sincerity" as a positive attribute shared by many who prefer the Extraordinary Form.
Agreed. The 'sincerely' part was felt the most notable to me for the reason you mentioned, that it acknowledges the earnest and good foundations of many EF-preferring folks. It even possibly casts it as normative, i.e. that the prevailing attitude of this document is to assume the sincerity and goodwill of EF-goers as the default, and then handle the situations where that has devolved into something problematic accordingly.
If that reading is right, I think it's a very good dispositional development, specifically because it 1. reidentifies the "archetypical" EF-goer as having goodwill and sincerity (as opposed to the general negative archetype painted during the last pontificate); and 2. it redefines the very real instances of problem cases as *deviations* from the normal EF-goer, as opposed to constituting the imagined *norm* of an EF-goer.
This goes beyond the scope of this document, but my next thought following from these is that it is really, really important that we recognize that in the situation of problem cases in EF-adherence (which could look a number of ways, for example, illicit ordinations, rejections of the papacy, firebrand or heterodox preaching/theology, cults of personality or emotional manipulation, etc etc), in a very real way the people most hurt by them are the non-problematic, sincere majority of EF-goers, who are A. more likely to be manipulated by the problem cases and B. end up being swept into a blanket punishment unjustly! The authorities must take great care not to associate, punish or admonish the sincere EF goer in a lump target with the problem instances, and likewise, EF goers would benefit from taking great care to distance themselves from the problem cases as non-representative.
I have enjoyed your literary analysis. I sincerely(!) hope this letter & similar gestures bode well for the peace & enrichment of the whole Church.
Same, brother.
The Catholic Church under Pope Francis tried to get rid of the TLM. That didn't work. How about we go back to the way it was before the failed experiment that was TC, and call it a day.
A “new perspective” on the liturgy. Also known as . . . Summorum Pontificum. It seems that the Holy Father wants to nuke a lot of Francis’s major decisions without saying that’s what he’s doing.
I think there is a level of holiness about "nuking" decisions without explicitly stating such. A decorm and virtue lacking greatly in perception of Americans.
While I generally agree, when someone has done something so harmful to those he has care for, I think there is a place for a successor to make clear that the previous harm was exactly that. Otherwise, the successor is tacitly saying that the old policy “wasn’t really that bad.” And this also makes it easier for future leaders to just revert to the harmful policy. Like in a marriage, if a husband is uncharitable toward his wife, it’s not always good enough for him to say he won’t do it again. But instead, an apology might reasonably be expected.
Of course, this all depends on how bad one thinks T.C. actually was because the Pope shouldn’t go around publicly condemning every disagreement he has with his predecessor. But to my mind, T.C. is/was pretty bad, and the good people most affected (like those in Charlotte) really do deserve an apology from the hierarchy not just a “new perspective.”
If a Pope "nukes" a policy, I'd say it's a pretty bad policy.
I do think we need to separate your comment into two separate issues, because, honestly, they are.
1. Access to the TLM/VO/UA-whatever you choose to call it.
This is what the Pope has changed.
2. The hurt and pain from its prohibition caused by Pope Francis.
This is a different issue than the above and doesn't apply to everyone who was impacted by TC. Perhaps he's attempting to figure out the differences and the impact. It seems you're grasping or hoping even to regain your faith in the hierarchy, but maybe what you need to find that peace is in understanding that the Church is made up of broken men, and we put our faith in Jesus- Truth and Love Incarnate- alone. When we put our faith in those who claim to be His followers we will always be let down and disappointed. Fight to regain to what you've lost access and never give up on that fight, but in regards to trusting the diocese, the hierarchy, etc, sinful people will let you down.
Chesterton said something to the effect of: Never expect anything so you can always be pleasantly surprised.
A justice was corrected, bask in the joy and pleasant surprise!
I am of course very grateful for the new perspective. But I think one can be grateful for what he gets and have long-term faith in the Church but still think more can be done. And I think on the merits (even if I don’t think or expect it’ll actually be done) that it would be a good thing for the Church if Pope Leo made crystal clear that T.C. was bad and unjust.
I don't know how you define long-term faith in the Church. If this means anything other than the Sacraments will help me get to Heaven, then I disagree you should hold that position. Look at Saints who lived in bad times and completely had Sacraments withheld for political reasons.
I'm not saying the hurt isn't there or that it won't be addressed, but that is a separate issue than access.
And the church is full of cruel people so access to the Sacraments will probably be restricted like they were during the COVID scandals.
All that being said, if the church is looking to heal hurt, the Vatican China deal and COVID lockdowns (and Zoom "anointings") should definitely come first.
-someone personally hurt by TC
What I mean by long-term faith is that the Church will endure, there will always be a visible hierarchy, that there will always be Sacraments, etc. But I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying who should be apologized to first or what our interior dispositions should be in bad times. What I am saying is that the holier option for the hierarchy isn’t always to let bad policy go quietly into the night but that sometimes it is a good idea to be clear that mistakes were made. And you bring up good examples of where this is acknowledgement is probably also necessary. Finally, I would observe that the more forceful Leo is now, the harder it will be for a Francis II to just repeat T.C.
I would say even Summorum Pontificum is excluded from the "new" perspective, unless we are talking specifically about the encouragement to mutual enrichment. It seems from the context that the functionally parallel churches established by SP are the problem, and the "new perspective" may well be aiming towards a unified liturgy, marked by the mutual enrichment finally coming to full fruition.
I'm not sure practically how you don't just return to S.P. while having "generous inclusion" for the TLM. I think that's especially true if you think having "parallel churches" is a big problem because the only real solution (barring a whole new missal) is to have St. John Cantius type parishes where the same pastor celebrates both forms, which I take as being a large part of S.P.'s goal. As I mentioned in another comment—and as you seem to suggest Fr.—one could imagine a completely new missal that blends the vetus with novus ordines. But I think that risks making everyone unhappy.
And I think at the end of the day we have to admit that there are relatively few people who genuinely want to regularly celebrate/attend both forms. So at a certain level no matter what you do, if you allow both rights you get parallel church situations, either within the same parish or you have people self-selecting by parish.
I'll admit, my prayer is fully for a new Missal - one that preserves far more of the patrimony while also taking Sacrosanctum Concilium seriously. I have found the Anglican Use Mass to be very close to my ideal.
How to get there? That's where your points are well taken. And where we will need direct papal leadership on the issue.
I love the Anglican Use and would be perfectly happy attending such a parish (I think I actually prefer it to the TLM in many ways).
I love the Anglican Use, too.
"France has historically been one of the epicenters of communities attached to the preconciliar liturgy, sometimes known as Traditional Latin Mass, Vetus Ordo, or extraordinary form of the Roman Rite."
This rings true, but can anyone help me understand why it's true? There is the infrastructure of it: SSPX and later FSSP and ICKSP are all French-inflected plus there's Fontgombault and the Solesmes Congregation in general. But these are all fruits of a prior attachment. Why was France their birthplace as opposed to any number of other places? And why are France, the UK, and the USA places of particular TLM attachment?
Action Française
Which is? And why did such an organization form in France as opposed to elsewhere?
It was a dodgy monarchist/fascist organisation condemned by the Church in 1926. Kind of the SSPX of its day. Not sure what relevance it had to this discussion, but whatever.
Lol
Lmao even.
Lefebrve was French. As was Dom Calvet. Its not that deep. The tlm thrives in America because the movement around tlm is lay dominated. And the US has laity and money.
And the explanation for the UK which hasn’t much in the way of laity or money?
We apparently gotta do some history. The "Agatha Christie Indult" came from a lot of UK laity and as a result the UK had a very experienced lay trad movement.
Same with Detroit in the US, which grew out of one of the few pre-1988 indults. From there it was attraction and persuasion?
I would venture a guess that in the USA and the UK, as majority Protestant countries with strong historically anti-Catholic leanings, many Catholics are especially well catechized and attached to their unique expressions of the Christian faith. So to have something you have clung to quite passionately, with deep conviction, and in the face of general opposition, taken away from you by your own Church leaders has been a source of real angst that many devoted Catholics have recoiled from. It makes sense that Americans and Britons would want to retain a heritage that had traditionally been denied them by society more broadly.
I think France’s situation has much more to do with the overall ping-ponging between traditional and right-wing “Ancien Régime”-coded values and cultural influences and modernist, revolutionary “Enlightenment” values and culture. There’s a subset of French society that has been cleaving to fairly hardline Catholicism since Louis XVI was beheaded. Add to that the morally rigorous “Jansenist” undercurrent of much of French Catholicism, it’s not too hard to see why Tradition-with-a-Capital-T is wrapped up with a certain understanding of French identity as well as faith.
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
This was very thoughtful--thank you!
That might have a lot to do with + Lefebvre. He was a Frenchman and a bishop/missionary in Africa, I'd guess mostly French-speaking Africa. It is *one* of the epicenters, not the only one, but he was kind of a big deal.
I've long thought it was our paired versions of secularism. The American Revolution and French Revolution were very different events, with long-term similar results. I find the factors that push people towards the TLM are very much reactions against secularism run amok. In France and the US, you have militant secularism paired with strong religious cultures (and, in many senses, freedoms). In most other countries, you either have the strong religion or the strong secularism, but not both nor the freedom to choose from a variety of religious expressions.
I wonder if there will be any efforts to rein in bishops in France who are ill-disposed toward TLM, like the bishop of Valence, who kicked the FSSP out of his diocese last summer. One of the FSSP priests who worked there was Fr. Bruno Stemler, chaplain at St. Gregory's Academy in Elmhurst, PA many years ago, one of the most dedicated priests I've encountered.
When Pope Benedict gave generous licence to priests with SP he also wrote to bishops explaining why, but said " Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books." So if a priest refuses to celebrate the Chrism Mass with the diocesan bishop he is justified in believing that that priest is not in "full communion" with him, and consequently not entitled to celebrate Mass in his diocese.
I agree that Ecclesia Dei priests should celebrate the Chrism Mass with the bishop, to show that they're in communion with him. It's undoubtedly one of the most solemn NO Masses.
I’ve always found this view puzzling. Do you think priests who say “I think the novus ordo is valid, that my bishop is the actual bishop, etc.” are lying? Also, if this is the case, shouldn’t we make all diocesan priests celebrate at least one Latin mass a year to show they think it’s a valid rite? Also—besides the various Roman rite forms like the Ambrosian, Dominican, etc.—there’s five main eastern rites in use by the eastern Catholic churches. Do those priests need to show up to the Roman chrism mass or vice versa?
I think this perspective is fully rooted in Benedict XVI's own language and perspective. If one version of the Mass is referred to as the "Ordinary Form" and the other the "Extraordinary Form", then they are not equal. The major, unifying liturgies of a diocese (Chrism Mass being the most prominent) ought to be celebrated according to the Ordinary Form.
There was one year that I could not concelebrate the ordination Mass in my archdiocese because I had two additional weekend Masses that evening and that would have put me on the wrong side of Canon 905. So I don't think we should be judging every priest who does not concelebrate. But the pattern is concerning. The FSSP priests in my diocese refuse to concelebrate the major liturgies every year, and will often be praying their Office during the Mass. That is a clear statement that they do not consider the Ordinary Form to be Ordinary, and that they will not recognize it as normative even at the premier moment of a priest's unity with his local bishop.
Your point is well taken Fr. And if that’s your view of the two forms of the mass, it makes sense why you would want FSSP concelebration. That being said, at least in my view, I don’t see why the faithful or FSSP priests—who by constitution are attached to the TLM—need to see novus ordo as ordinary. Has the Church ever had that situation in Her history apart from the last fifty years?
Moreover, one might say that the standard liturgy of the hours is the "ordinary" office but even today, if I understand right, many monastic orders have their own variations. Does that mean that the local Benedictine abbey needs to use the standard liturgy of the hours for one day to show that they acknowledge that it is the ordinary form?
Ordinary and Extraordinary is certainly core to the debate. My main contention is that this distinction was requested explicitly by BXVI when he published Summorum Pontificum. If we see SP as the model, then we should accept its philosophy along with its permissions.
This does not apply to the priests celebrating the NOM themselves, but rather accepting it as valid and licit. Hence the use of "in principle". The FSSP and ICKSP and other communities whose approved charism is to exclusively celebrate the TLM did exist when pope benedict wrote SP, and they did not change their charism.
The use of the Chrism Mass as a litmus test for priests pretending to accept the NOM is ridiculous, particularly given that Vatican 2 does not allow for any sort of requirement that a priest concelebrate EVER.
If you really REALLY have to have some way to ferret out schismatic priests try a requirement to assist in choir (meaning, being present in a non-ministerial capacity) at any NOM of their choice.
Agreed there is no general requirement to concelebrate (apart from ones ordination Mass?) but VII, in a text accepted by Abp Lefebvre, approves wider concelebration. What SC does say is
57.
1. Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:
1.
a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.
b)... c)...
2.
a)... b)...
2.
1. ...
2. Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord's Supper.
The Chrism Mass is an objectively bad test. I do not think it is acceptable for Pastors to cancel Masses so they can concelebrate a Mass with their bishop. *Eye roll*
If Rome wants to do this, allow for 3 Masses to be celebrated by every priest on the day of the Chrism Mass and Ordinations.
I think the issue is those avoiding it because they object to it, not those with scheduling conflicts.
Great, but it's already an issue, and if it's becoming a test, then free up the issues.
I've only had this be an issue once, when I was assigned to a parish with a 5:00pm and a 7:00pm Mass on Saturday night.
Otherwise, most American parishes have only one Mass on Saturday evening and ordinations are held on Saturday morning, keeping everyone perfectly in line with Can. 905. If they have a morning Mass on Saturday, that would have to be canceled anyway just to physically be at the ordinations.
Chrism Mass is even easier. Rubrically, it is supposed to happen the morning of Holy Thursday, and those rubrics are clear that both Masses (Chrism and Holy Thursday) are allowed, and that there should not be any other Masses that day.
In my diocese, we celebrate the Chrism Mass the week before, on Thursday. But I've only got the one daily Mass, and I'm certainly not putting funerals on that day, so it is super easy to stay within Can. 905 limits.
Is anyone celebrating the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday anywhere in the USA? I actually didn’t know that it was supposed to be celebrated that morning.
Also, you’d refuse a funeral the week before Holy Thursday simply because they requested a Mass? I mean, the 2 Masses allowance exists not for a Chrism concelebration, but for pastoral need, most notably funerals. I would argue that you should celebrate your daily Mass and the funeral and sit in choir at the Chrism Mass, but I guess that isn’t the politically popular choice.
In New Zealand, we have both the SSPX and FSSP. I know of people attending one or the other. I have a lot of time for the TLM mass attendees but only attend TLM at most once a year for Rorate Caeli mass. I can see the great benefit of this to welcome back a number who attend SSPX to the FSSP. The hermeneutic of continuity is of utmost importance for the barque of Peter.
The FSSP is also of great benefit for the people who left the Church entirely after/due to the changes in 1970, who might outnumber the SSPX. Diocesan TLMs would be good for that too.
Though we also have the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer who have persistently refused to leave the Christchurch diocese despite being formally expelled by the bishop nearly two years ago (a decision upheld by the Vatican) and, regrettably, have now become borderline sedevacantists. Sadly not all sunshine and roses when it comes to the TLM here.
This is probably the first time in 10-14 years we've heard leadership in Rome say something genuinely caring and compassionate and positive towards Catholics who attend (or even enjoy indirectly in any capacity) the TLM. I was (rhetorically) beaten with rods for 14 years. I am still gravely wounded by everything that's transpired since TC, but this is very heartening to hear being spoken.
As a comical aside: I read elsewhere today "Generous inclusion of the 'Vetus Ordo'? This guy has some schismatic undertones going on - the Novus Ordo is the sole expression of the Roman Rite! Whoever this guy is, he needs to get in line with the Vatican!"
First it was (the nuncio telling, as I recall) the British (E&W or E&W&S? I don’t recall) bishops, and now the French bishops get this letter. Will the American bishops be allowed/told to lighten up soon? Maybe the ICKSP on the South Side could be allowed to celebrate Mass with the public assisting again? Then again, ordinary changes might help as well.
I'm only speculating, but since this topic is a uniquely charged third rail in the United States with high stakes for fallout, I imagine that the Vatican is kind of testing the waters, using this slightly softer but still clear articulations where the stakes are not quite so high and the charge is not quite so volatile than in the US. If these corrections/adjustments/recommendations are taken and integrated pretty smoothly in the UK and France, that will be a shot in the arm to the Vatican's confidence in continuing down this path and in frying some bigger fish (namely, this issue in the US.)
I think that’s plausible, and part of his motivation seems (so many people think and seems not unlikely to me from what I can see) to be to get everyone (or at least most bishops) willingly rowing in more or less the same direction according to the texts (hurray) of VII.
The key factor for the forced resignation of Msgr Rey is the fact that a secret and illegal ordination took place in a traditional priory under his jurisdiction (Rumors say Msgr Vigano performed it, but who knows ? ), and not primarily the fact that he welcomed many traditionalist communities (among others).
I wonder if Pope Leo is considering a merged vetus-novus ordo. In other words, a Latin mass with an approved vernacular translation using the new calendar but retaining many of the 1962 ordo’s distinctives that were removed by Bugnini.
I think the message seems clear that the desire is for those with certain attachments to make full use of all of the options available in the current order of the Mass.
But I think Pope Leo must know that a Latin, ad orientem, novus ordo isn't going to satisfy trads.
For some, yes. But not every desire needs to be satisfied.
I think to be fair though, there is quite a long list of things completely missing from the novus ordo even if celebrated as "trad" as possible. So I don't think there is a lot of daylight between T.C. and Latin novus ordo in reality. Or in other words, this solution isn't a via media but heavily slanted toward one side.
I understand. There are options to use the Roman Canon (EPI), fiddleback vestments, all the incense one's heart desires, receiving communion on the tongue, prayers after Mass for the Conversion of Russia etc. but some will not be satisfied and make the case it does not deliver in their minds even a middle ground from what they desire.
OTOH, with 99% of the faithful preferring Mass in the vernacular, the 'via media' of the faithful would seem not to run in between the Tridentine Mass and the current Roman Missal but in a very different place.
1% is no small number (and rapidly growing). Also I would point out many bishops positively restrict restrict their priests from using those options. But incase you're not convinced, here’s a brief list of things found in the 1962 missal and office that are nowhere to be seen today:
-Whole Psalms removed from breviary
- Prime removed
- Many other things removed from the breviary
-Hundreds of saints removed from the general calendar
-Septuagesemia suppressed
-Passiontide suppressed
-Octave of pentecost suppressed (and many other octaves if you count 1955 changes)
-Suppressed commemorations
-References to fasting and hell were categorically removed from collects (especially during lent) and many collects omitted all together
-Many essential bible readings (such as consuming christ’s body unworthily) are missing or optional
- Vesting prayers optional before mass (and I believe reduced) and completely removed after mass
-Biretta and maniple removed
-Subdiaconate removed (and every special liturgical function he had)
- Pontifical and papal massed removed (and all the many special things they had)
-Asperges essentially removed (and I believe reduced when done)
- Very many signs of the cross and genuflections throughout mass were removed
- Prayers at the foot of the alter, completely removed
- Confietor truncated and made optional (and done only once instead of three times)
- Kyrie truncated
- Gloria suppressed in weekday masses and chanted gloria suppressed
- Gradual and tract essentially suppressed (technically still an option)
- Procession of missal from epistle to gospel side, removed
- Procession and special proclamation of epistle and gospel at a high mass, removed
- Chanting of the credo essentially suppressed
- Offertory completely removed and replaced
- The Roman Canon is rarely used, and when it is used, can be truncated, and mysterium fidei put in the wrong place
- Prayers for the priest’s communion are suppressed
- Full prayer over the communicant and making the sign of the cross with the eucharist, suppressed
- Commununion prayer I believe is suppressed
-Many of the ways the priest purified the sacred vessels were suppressed
- Last gospel, suppressed
- Leonine prayers, suppressed
No. 1962 missal as approved by then. That's the deal, according to each bishop's benevolence.
I deleted my response in regards to this issue. I don't mean to be confrontational or criticize the Church. I don't celebrate the TLM, however, this whole thing still irks me as being a serious point of contention when most of Church history deemed it wasn't.
This is the first I've heard the term "Vetus Ordo". Is that the preferred Vatican term now, rather than other terms such as "Traditional Latin Mass" and "Extraordinary Form"?
I was wondering the same!