NEWSFLASH: Pope Francis 'Attacks' the TLM

On Friday 7/16/21, Pope Francis 'stunned & attacked' tradition-minded Catholics with his Motu Proprio (ironically named 'Traditionis Custodes', Latin for 'Guardians of Tradition'). The document was also accompanied by an explanatory letter. In essence, Pope Francis 'cancelled' (or abrogated) Pope Benedict XVI's 7/7/07 Motu Proprio 'Summorum Pontificum', leaving decisions about the availability of the ancient Mass up to individual bishops, plus he has introduced more restrictions & seemingly has as his goal the eventual shifting of all tradition-minded Latin Rite Catholics away from the Traditional Latin 'Tridentine' Mass to the 1960's Novus Ordo Mass. For more information, try here.

[7/17/21]

MCS Newsflash: More MyCatholicSource.com Article Reprints Now Available in Paperback & Kindle Book Formats!

These two new MyCatholicSource.com article reprints are now available in Kindle & paperback formats: "The Traditional Latin ('Tridentine') Mass vs. the New (Novus Ordo) Mass" Plus Companion Article: "'Tridentine' Vs. Novus Ordo: Some Pictorial Comparisons". Visit MyCatholicSource.com/Media for more details.

[8/18/17]

'The phenomenon of liturgical disobedience'

The following are some highlights from a recent article by Fr. Mauro Gagliardi, consultor of the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff and professor of theology at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome....

* "Vatican Council II ordered a general reform of the sacred liturgy. The [Novus Ordo Mass] was effected after the closing of the Council, by a commission commonly called, for reasons of brevity, the Consilium. It is known that, from the beginning, the liturgical reform was the object of criticisms, at times radical, as well as exaltations, in certain cases, excessive. It is not our intention to pause on this problem. We can say instead that it is generally agreed that an increase of abuses can be observed in the celebratory field after the Council."

* "...a great number of priests believe that ultimately the space left to 'creativity' must be enlarged, which is expressed above all with the frequent change of words or whole phrases in relation to those fixed in the liturgical books, with the insertion of new 'rites' often completely foreign to the liturgical and theological tradition of the Church and even with the use of vestments, sacred vessels and decorations that are not always appropriate and, in some cases, even fall into the ridiculous."

* "The phenomenon of 'liturgical disobedience' has extended in such a way, because of the number and in certain cases also because of the gravity, that the mentality has been formed in many by which the liturgy, with the exception of the words of the Eucharistic consecration, can be subject to all the modifications 'pastorally' considered suitable by the priest or the community... Particularly significant in this text is the appeal to the right of the faithful to have a liturgy celebrated according to the universal norms of the Church, in addition to stressing the fact that the transformations and modifications of the liturgy - even if done for 'pastoral' reasons - in reality do not have a positive effect in this field; on the contrary, they confuse, disturb, and tire and can also make the faithful abandon religious practice."

* "The problem indicated, however, subsists and it is important that the solution of the same begin with the priests, who must commit themselves first of all to know in a profound way the liturgical books and also to put faithfully into practice their prescriptions. Only knowledge of the liturgical laws and the desire to hold oneself strictly to them will avoid further abuses and arbitrary 'innovations' that, if at the time might perhaps move those present, in reality soon end by tiring and disappointing. Saving the best intentions of those who commit them, after forty years of 'liturgical disobedience' it does not in fact build better Christian communities, but on the contrary it puts in danger the solidity of their faith and of their belonging to the unity of the Catholic Church."

* "The more 'open' character of the new liturgical norms cannot be used as pretext to pervert the nature of the public worship of the Church"

Source: Zenit

Related: The Traditional Latin ('Tridentine') Mass vs. the New (Novus Ordo) Mass| Why the Latin Mass?

[7/10]

TLM: 'Tridentine' or "Extraordinary"?

On the RemnantNewspaper.com website, the editor of The Remnant Newspaper, Michael J. Matt, has weighed in on the debate regarding whether to call the TLM the "Extraordinary Form". He says, in part...

"Yes, I know, we’re not supposed to call [the 'Tridentine' Mass] that anymore. Now it’s the 'Extraordinary Form', which makes some sense, I suppose, given the sheer ordinariness of the New Mass. But why this insistence on 'Extraordinary Form'? God knows. Perhaps a new name was needed for the old Mass - one that doesn’t imply allegiance to the clarity of Trent over the ambiguity of Vatican II. Perhaps suggesting two forms of one Rite provided cover for the bizarre spectacle and abrupt rupture of an entirely New Mass. I don’t know. Whatever it is, for many of us the traditional Mass will always be the Tridentine Mass. This is so for a variety of reasons... It was codified at Trent by the same sainted pontiff who’d codified the 15-decade traditional rosary - St. Pius V, spiritual general of Lepanto, and the great pope who’d saved Europe from both Islam and Protestantism... ['Pioneer Traditionalists'] knew very well that important components of [the TLM] predated Trent by some 1500 years. But by referring to it as the 'Tridentine Mass' they lashed themselves to the mast of Catholic Tradition - the dogmatic Council of Trent, Quo Primum and the flagship of the Catholic fleet that would preserve the Faith of the Ages against the onslaught of Novelty, Protestantism and a burgeoning Novus Ordo Seclorum... The Extraordinary Form? Sure, but one day it will again be the only form of the Roman Rite"

One might also add that using the terms "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" may favor the idea that the differences between the two are insignificant or of little consequence. It may imply that both are equally good. Remember that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci did not seem to agree that the differences were insignificant, of little consequence, or that both were equally good when they stated that the NO "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, which, by fixing definitively the 'canons' of the rite, erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery" or when they stated that the NO liturgy "teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith". The Protestants who rejected the Traditional Mass but who accept the New Mass also illustrate that the differences between the two are quite significant. Further, terms such as "ordinary" and "extraordinary" seem to automatically relegate the "extraordinary form" to be used only "extraordinarily" (otherwise it would be "ordinary"), at least in the minds of the general Catholic population.

Finally, such terms tend to promote the idea that both really are two forms of the SAME rite. Without wishing to open a can of worms, one might ask: If they really are two forms of the SAME rite, what exactly then would it take to make them two different rites? Already we know that the history of development is different, the emphasis is different, the rubrics are different, the language (of typical use, not promulgation) is different, the readings are different, the calendar is different, the options are different, the gestures are frequently different, the prayers have many differences, the Bible translation is different, the architecture is typically different, the participants in the sanctuary are typically different (e.g. lectors, 'lay ministers' of Holy Communion, female 'altar boys', etc.), the priests' direction is typically different, the music is typically different, distribution of Communion is different, etc., etc. What exactly is left to officially consider the two "different" rites? And, if the TLM and the NO were officially considered different rites, wouldn't tradition-minded Catholics have more "rights" since they could choose the TLM as their rite and would then automatically be entitled to it - without needing to "jump through hoops" (e.g. Can. 214: "The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church")? Not only that, but if the two were officially considered different rites, wouldn't it be the NO adherents who had effectively changed rites, rather than those attached to the immemorial TLM? Just a thought.

Related: The Traditional Latin ('Tridentine') Mass vs. the New (Novus Ordo) Mass | Latin Mass Updates: 7/07 & Later

[6/8]

Disobedience brewing over new Mass translation

A liberal magazine has published an article which calls for disobedience with regard to the proposed new (Novus Ordo) Mass translation. The new translation - which is said to be more faithful to the authoritative Latin text - finally clears up some decades-old translation errors. Liberals hoped protests from a certain bishop (who "tried mightily to stop the new translation train") might convince the bishops to reject the more accurate translation, but their hopes were shattered when the bishops approved the proposed new translation at their meeting in November.

Now, faced with the prospect of a new, more accurate Mass text, certain liberal minded persons are considering what "strategies" might save them from (God forbid!) having to use the more accurate translation. One liberal writer has publicly issued a call to disobedience stating that...

"This leads me to pose a question to my brother priests: What if we were to awaken to the fact that these texts are neither pastoral nor ready for our parishes? What if we just said, 'Wait'?"

He admits that this might "smack of insubordination to talk this way" but says "it could also be a show of loyalty and plain good sense - loyalty not to any ideological agenda but to our people, whose prayer the new translations purport to improve, and good sense to anyone who stops to think about what is at stake here."

Yea, right, he has no "ideological agenda" whatsoever. He just wants to "save" the people from a more accurate Mass translation. Oh, what a hero he is! Saving Catholics everywhere from accuracy! What a lofty goal that is, eh?

But wait, there's more. Just after the above, he references the "Jesuit Refugee Service [which] affirms to accompany, serve and defend the rights of vulnerable and often forgotten people." As if saving Catholics from what he complains are "clumsy" translations (read: more accurate translations) is akin to "defend[ing] the rights of vulnerable and often forgotten people." And, the cherry on the cake: He claims that what is at stake "is nothing less than the Church’s credibility." Oh please!

In his article, the writer also writes (whines) about...

* "the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the council’s decree [on the liturgy]" (So a more accurate translation of the Mass from the original Latin "dismantles" the Council's decree? How exactly does that happen?)

* "recent instructions from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that have raised rubricism to an art" (You wouldn't want to have to follow any rules, now would you?)

* "the endorsement, even encouragement, of the so-called Tridentine Mass" (Oh no, anything but that!)

* "the liturgy, the prayer of the people, is being used as a tool - some would even say as a weapon - to advance specific agendas" (But your using the liturgy as a weapon/tool to advance a liberal agenda for the last 40 years was to be praised, right? And, how exactly does making a translation more accurate make the liturgy a "tool" to advance an agenda?)

He also says...

* "Before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program that will attempt to put a good face on something that clearly does not deserve it" (Hmm... an accurate translation of the Novus Ordo doesn't deserve a "good face"? Now if a tradition-minded Catholic had said that very same thing, wouldn't there be talk of schism?)

* "The veterans who enthusiastically devoted their best creative energies as young priests to selling the reforms of the council to parishioners back in the 1960s will be asked to do the same with regard to the new translations. Yet we will be hard put to do so." ("Selling" the reforms? I thought Catholics had embraced them with such joy)

* "We can see the present moment only as one more assault on the council and, sadly, one more blow to episcopal collegiality" (wah, wah, wah... we shouldn't have to make the Mass translation accurate... no, please not that! wah, wah, wah...)

* "Further, the council also wisely made provision for times of experimentation and evaluation ...something that has been noticeably missing in the present case" (Wisely? Polka masses, clown masses, Satan costumes... Oh PLEASE let this be "noticeably missing"!)

* a supposed need exists to "defend our people from this ill-conceived disruption of their prayer life" (If only you had felt this need 40 years ago!)

He tries to make his point against the new translation by referencing a recent dinner conversation with his friends, some of which were "quite angrily" aware of the "impending changes." He says the ones who were not aware of the changes reacted "somewhere between disbelief and indignation" upon learning of them. [Gee, what a surprise that your (presumably) like-minded friends would agree with you. Alert the press.]

He also claims some newly translated words made a group of Catholics laugh, which he said "should make us all tremble." So he thinks laughter by some people to the phrase "Joseph, spouse of the same virgin" (wow, that's funny) is a matter for trembling, while (presumably) applauding the experimental polka / clown / etc. Masses which have occurred over the last 4 decades. Hmm... interesting. Does he really think that these people in a conference room who supposedly "laughed" at these few words would actually laugh during Mass? Um...nevermind, it's not uncommon for liberals to actually encourage laughter at Mass (gulp!)

He also tries to find support for his position by claiming that some persons in the diocese of South Africa gave the new translation "a chilling reception", and that it "met almost uniformly with opposition bordering on outrage." Doesn't he see a bigger problem here if the - oh so humble - Catholics of that area were truly "outraged" by a more accurate Mass translation?

And, irony of ironies, he appeals for disobedience - the same stick the liberals used against tradition-minded Catholics is now apparently something to be praised if it means sparing Catholics from something that (he thinks) "in the end, [will] actually bring discredit to the Church and further disillusionment to the people." Irony of ironies, is it not? The main difference is, however, that many (but not all) tradition-minded Catholics never were disobedient to begin with. They were just accused of being disobedient.

But, the ironies don’t end there. He has made some "proposals" that he almost certainly would have rejected 4 decades ago if tradition-minded Catholics of that time would have suggested them (e.g. consulting with the people, "market testing"). He knows perfectly well that if these steps had been taken 40 years ago there would have been little chance of the Novus Ordo Mass ever taking hold of mainstream Catholicism. But now, liberals will willingly suggest such measures since things aren't going their way. They will try any desperate attempt possible to save their "sinking ship". In fact, an entire website has been set up so that fellow liberals, "empowered Catholics", and an assortment of misguided Catholics can "have their voice heard", with the hopes that poor Catholics can be spared the horrible disaster of a more accurate Mass translation.

The best irony of all would be if the site was inundated with millions comments such as the following: "I wholeheartedly agree with you - please stop the new Mass translations. Just bring back the traditional Mass."

But that would probably kill the liberals. Literally.

[12/4]

Solace for Traditional Catholics

Attention traditional Catholics: Don't miss the amazing "bombshell interview" with the Maestro Perpetuo ("director for life") of the Sistine Chapel, Monsignor Domenico Bartolucci, which is linked to on our site (see "Selected News Links"). In this interview, you may find jewels such as...

* The fact that he has celebrated the TLM "without interruption" since his ordination, and has found it "difficult" to celebrate the Novus Ordo

* Regarding modern (shall we say "festive"?) funerals, he asks if the people have ever read the Gospel (referencing how Jesus cried over the death of Lazarus)

* He says liturgists have been made who "know nothing about theology"

* He worries that people in the future - even the priest - may not understand what transubstantiation is

* He says "twisting the liturgy" became "kind of fashion" where "everybody was trying to be like popes"

* He says young generations of priests while "full of good feelings" may "lack in education"

* He says the liturgical problem is "serious" and says the Novus Ordo has "deficiencies" that are now "becoming evident for everybody"

* He warns about hybrid liturgical measures with compromises "that make God sad and the enemy happy"

Note that Msgr. Domenico Bartolucci has served under five popes.

[8/19]

Holy Communion Under One Species

Once again, concern over the recent flu outbreak has prompted parishes to curtail offering Holy Communion to the laity under the species of wine. (Note: This refers to Communion practices at Novus Ordo Masses only - not to 'Tridentine' Latin Masses, which already bar this practice by default). Therefore, it seems a fitting time to remind visitors of some facts concerning Holy Communion...

* It is not necessary to receive Holy Communion under both species. As the Council of Trent states: "If any one saith that the precept of God or by necessity of salvation all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist: let him be anathema."

* Introduction of Communion under both species for lay persons in the 20th century began as a result of disobedience to the Pope. It has contributed to irreverence, desecration, and sacrilege. It has caused some Catholics to erroneously (and heretically) believe that it is necessary to Communicate under both species or that they receive Christ "more fully" if they receive Holy Communion under both species. It has also led to the widespread proliferation of 'Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist' (lay persons dispensing Holy Communion), a practice always condemned by the Church.

* Holy Communion under both species may be allowed only under certain conditions. And, even this limited toleration was extracted from the Holy See due to widespread disobedience on the part of certain of the faithful (e.g. liberals / modernists, feminists). Therefore, in many cases, it is an abuse.

* There are "numerous and weighty reasons" that the Church has adopted the practice of Communion under one species (click here for more information).

* There are serious concerns over widespread distribution of Holy Communion under the species of wine [e.g. danger of spillage & profanation, confusion of teaching regarding the Real Presence in one species (e.g. thinking Christ is not received fully and entirely under one species alone), sanitary issues, danger of infection / spread of disease, inability to tolerate species of wine, interference of species of wine with medication, etc.].

* Communion under both species may be seen as conforming to "Protestant sensibilities" - "Communion under both kinds is accepted as the Protestant symbol of true Bible Christianity in contrast to Romish corruptions." (Davies) [Note: While Protestants may receive bread & wine, theirs is simply that - bread and wine. They have no power of orders and cannot confect a valid Eucharist.]

* Communion under both species was not commanded by the Second Vatican Council.

* The faithful are never required to Communicate under both species - "The holy council, guided by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of godliness (see Isa. 11:2), and following the custom and the judgment of the Church itself, teaches and declares that the laity and clerics who are not celebrating are not bound by any divine command to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species. And faith leaves no possibility of doubting that Communion under one species is sufficient for salvation." (Council of Trent)

* Christ is contained fully and entirely under one species and is not received "more fully" under both species than under one species.

Note: For more information on this topic, please click here. For a free flier on this topic that you may print & distribute, please click here.

[6/25]

More Faithful Translation of Novus Ordo: A "systematic and well-managed dismantling of the vision, theology and ecclesiology of Vatican II"?

It's hard not to scratch one's head over comments such as "Critics say the new, more literal word-for-word translation [of the Novus Ordo] is part of an attempt to roll back the progress made decades ago" and over concerns that the more faithful translations might "alienate" persons from the Church. One priest finds it troubling that the Pope isn't listing to "critics" and is concerned that the Pope may suffer "another major embarrassment" by correcting Mass mistranslations. Things are surely backwards when making a translation more accurate could be construed as a major embarrassment that might alienate persons from the Church. Should not these persons rather have been alienated when the less accurate translations were "forced on the people in the pews" (as the above mentioned priest refers to the introduction of these more accurate translations)? Further, should the Pope be more concerned about "critics" or faithful sons and daughters of the Church who are entitled to accurate and orthodox translations of the Missal? Was St. Paul nervous about what his critics might think? Was Jesus? [3/17]