Sunday, July 18, 2021


...The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.--Pope Benedict XVI, July 7, 2007

My Comments: My entire priesthood has revolved around making sure the Missal of Paul VI is celebrated with dignity and the same "sacrality" as is evident in the 1962 Roman Missal.

As we move forward in a new era of a single rite for the vast, vast, vast majority of Catholics who attend Mass, let us move forward by following the rubrics and General Instruction of the 2011 Roman Missal in the vernacular English and experience "the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal." Priests who have up until now also celebrated the EF Mass can certainly direct their energies in this fashion and in fact already have.


Anonymous said...


The issue with the N.O. since 1970 has been that a careless or modernist priest with no regard for liturgical piety can breeze thru a Mass, with a homey attacking church teaching, using any of the countless options to a background noise of twanging guitars, female altar servers and electors, faithful in pews with hands raised in the "orans" posture-and holding hands too....and it is still a valid mass.This has been my experience over the last 50 years both in Canada, the US and the UK.In contrast,I found the transcendent in the TLM.

Anonymous said...

Not going to happen. Didn’t you think that the “glorious” new translation of the Missal help stem liturgical abuse. No it didn’t. It’s just as sloppy and irreverent as ever except now you have priests that can’t read English making more of a mess.

Fr Martin Fox said...

One of the "sins" of which those who love the Traditional Latin Mass -- and for which now they must be punished for this "sin" -- is that they don't love the 1970 Mass of Paul VI.

But guess what? Most Catholics don't love the 1970 Missal! Don't believe me?

Then why is it that so many priests refuse to offer the new Mass as it calls for in the rubrics? They are always "improving" it; they obviously don't like it as it is.

Vatican II made clear that the reformed Mass was to include Latin; how many Catholics want significant portions of Sunday Mass to be in Latin? Gregorian chant was to be included -- is it? The Mass propers, where are they? They are thrown out, and hymns are substituted.

Most people don't like the Mass of Paul VI.

Pierre said...

Father Fox,

You make excellent points, but the Markbot will soon appear with his long list of non sequiturs!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"Vatican II made clear that the reformed Mass was to include Latin...

Vatican Two also made it clear that bishops' conferences would have the authority to determine when and where Latin would be used or not used. Exercising that authority, they have done so.

Regarding Gregorian chant, by the same authority, Gregorian chants may be used OR "In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting;..." GIRM 61.

"In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Communion chant:..." GIRM 87

A person's preference for Gregorian chant does not supercede the legitimate options that the CHurch, in its wisdom, allows.

Anonymous said...

What if the next thing Francis does is declare the current English translation of the Roman Missal must be reverted back to the previous translation, or to approve the previously failed 1998 ICEL translation?

Anonymous said...

Is it possible to celebrate the mass in a different rite that is similar to the TLM, such as the Carmelite Rite or Ambrosian? Seems this was directed specifically at the TLM not other Rites of masses.

Mark Thomas said...

In regard to Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical peace plan per Summorum Pontificum:

Speaking generally...

-- Liberals and "traditionalists" have trashed Summorum Pontificum as a flawed, muddled document.

-- Liberals and "traditionalists" have insisted that Pope Benedict XVI concocted nonsense to advance the flawed notion that two very different Masses (that is the claim) could coexist with each other peacefully.

-- Liberals and "traditionalists" have insisted that the OF and EF are not two forms of the one Roman Rite.

-- Liberals and "traditionalists" agreed that there is a rupture between the Novus Ordo and the Latin Church's liturgical tradition.

-- Liberals and "traditionalists" agreed that Pope Benedict XVI's reform in continuity is nonsense.

-- Liberals and "traditionalists" have long rejected Pope Benedict XVI's claim that Vatican II is in line with Holy Tradition.

Liberals and "traditionalists" have insisted that liturgical peace is impossible as the OF and EF are imbued with very different aspects in regard to ecclesiology, and spirituality.

Liberals and "traditionalists" would have us believe that the TLM belongs to the "old" Church, pre-Ecumenical Movement Church...the Novus Ordo belongs to New Church, New Rome, the post-conciliar Church.

Liberals and "traditionalists" agree that we must side with one Mass in question...again, the Novus Ordo, and TLM, are incompatible (supposedly) with each other.

Traditionalists believe that the Novus is an "imposter" (Peter Kwasniewski's term) Mass that is dying, must be destroyed, and will be replaced by the TLM. Liberals reject that as nonsense.

Liberals and "traditionalists" are at war with each war with each side's preferred Mass.

Is liturgical peace even possible in light of the above?

Was Summorum Pontificum flawed, muddled...filled with unsustainable fictions concocted by Pope Benedict XVI?


Mark Thomas

Peter Kwasniewski, in regard to Summorum Pontificum:

"The motu proprio reflects and reinforces false principles of ecclesiology and liturgy that led to the very crisis to which it was a partial response.

"Indeed, Benedict XVI’s work is often characterized by an Hegelian dialectic method that wishes to hold contradictories simultaneously..."

Victor said...

Fr Fox:
On thing though from my experience: try to introduce Latin and some people are ready to leave and never come back. They are the ones who reject Vatican II!

Tom Marcus said...

I believe you Father Fox.

Pierre said...

Mark Thomas,

You never disappoint - you take the bait and respond with a list of non sequiturs!

Do you know what Hegelian didactic is?

Pierre said...

The liturgical reforms were only to be made for the good of the people! Some good, attendance at Sunday Mass collapsed since the “reforms” were introduced. Veterum Sapientia was ignored so hopefully this motu propria will be ignored too

R.T. said...

Father, thank you for your posts the last few days. Many laity have been told for years that they can go to the TLM if they want this or that historic practice and lack of abuse. Now they should insist on it in their parishes.

NH said...

One of the things that disturbed me about Pope Francis letter regarding the TLM is that it was issued not that many years after that traditional Mass began to gain a following. The point made was that Summorum Pontificum was flawed at that it allowed for liturgical abuses, particularly that the TLM was often the preference of the priest and not the parishioner (clericalism?) The other issue was that it was divisive to the Church as a whole. The part that I don't understand is that there was not any similar concerns about the liturgical abuses that occurred with the Novus Ordo. Pope Benedict did mention that much of what was being done with Novus Ordo was not in keeping with the reforms of Vatican II. He tried to improve that mass with the Benedictine Altar arrangement, and by requesting that at least a small amount of Latin be used in the Mass. My personal observation was that Latin was used once or twice, and the Benedictine altar was outright rejected. To my mind the concern of those that had the popes ear was the observation that the TLM attracted people who followed a traditional form of Catholicism, and who probably lived (and voted conservative. That was in contrast, and likely threatening, to the more liberally minded devotees to the Novus Ordo. The perceived swift silencing of the traditionalist mimics the MSM silencing of conservatives. Granted, I tend to see most everything through a political lens. Finally, has anyone noticed that Novus Ordo is abbreviated NO! Prophetic? I don't know

Chip said...

Mark Thomas,

"Yeah. Right. Whatever. Now back to reality."

Holy People of God, Holy Mark Thomas



Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."What if the next thing Francis does is declare the current English translation of the Roman Missal must be reverted back to the previous translation, or to approve the previously failed 1998 ICEL translation?"

Then obey Pope Francis.

"Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


Pope Venerable Pius XII, Mediator Dei:

44. "Since, therefore, it is the priest chiefly who performs the sacred liturgy in the name of the Church, its organization, regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority."

58. "It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."


Mark Thomas

"The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church..."

— Pope Venerable Pius XII.

Tom Marcus said...

Sacrosanctum Concilium
Introduction, Paragraph 4

"Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."

So much for Vatican II.

Steve S said...

I grew up with the mass of Paul VI and have watched half of my family leave the Church over the last forty years. Luckily I've found the TLM. There is no comparison.

Tom Marcus said...

This from Peter Cardinal Erdo, Archbishop of Budapest, Primate of Hungary:

"The Primate of Hungary has a right by a letter of privilege from the Apostolic See in 1347, which has never been abrogated. It states that the Primate is free to decide on liturgical matters within the territory of all Hungary and over all Hungarians. The motu proprio of 16 July, 2021 does not mention any limitation of the aforementioned privilege. This gives me the right, according to the norms of the Code of Canon Law, to regulate the question of 'forma extraordinaria' of the Holy Mass, by my own discretion. By this present decretum, I declare that, by virtue of the privilege given to my office, I will continue to regulate the celebration of the Tridentine Liturgy on the basics of the practice as it has been (since 2007), which is the same as that provided for in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum."
+Petrus, Card. Primas, Archiepiscopus

Now the bad news: James Martin S.J. just became the top candidate to become the next archbishop of Budapest.

Anonymous said...

Steve S, you are 100% correct in just under 50 years Mass attendance was at 75% in the United States prior to the council,now it is at 10%! For the last three day's here we have gone back and forth with TLM and Novus Ordonarians Catholics bringing up facts about each rite and yes I know I will hear oh but they are the same, well no they are not exactly the same. First the TLM is 1,500 years old and the man-made Novus Ordo is only 50 years old, the saints would never recognize a Novus Ordo Mass. The purge has already began the Bishop of Little Rock Anthony Taylor has just ordered only two churches in all of Arkansas can offer the TLM both are run by the F.S.S.P. and NO Diocesan churches can have a TLM. Dr.Taylor Marshall of course is keeping us up to date on what is going on and it is going to be nasty out there. Rorate is already compiling a list of closed TLM's nationwide, if Francis thinks this going to be about unity well Lord have mercy it is going to be the opposite. He knows exactly what he is doing he is no dummy, he is an Jesuit and a South American to boot. Francis is a man concerned about the Covid cult, Global warming,Islamic immigrants pouring into Europe changing the demographics forever, the German Catholic Church on the verge of collapse just reported today that over 250,000 Germans have left the Catholic Church last year and he is worried about the rise of the Traditional Latin Mass with huge families, seminaries with waiting lists of young men to become priests. With all do respect Father you have this dream of the Novus Ordo somehow becoming something it is not, it has been over 50 years and you and others are still trying to say it is working well it's not. Giant puppets, altar girls, lay lectors both male and female handing out communion in the hand, drums, guitars, bongos, banal Protestant hymns, kiss of peace, hand holding, clapping, girls and effeminate men wearing leotards prancing around the altar, nuns with incense bowls acting like vestal virgins from ancient Rome,shorts, tank tops, sandals, felt banners, ugly vestments, women waving their hands at a lectern TRYING to make Catholics sing silly songs, CLOSED seminaries, convents, churches, schools, all that has been stated is true it cannot be denied facts are facts. The New Springtime was a complete and utter failure, a new Mass that was created by Annibale Bugnini a known Free Mason and yes six Protestant ministers. There have always been bad popes in our history and Francis is no exception, as Rorate said on Friday Francis will die but the TLM will always live and behold it has for over 1,500 years

Patrick R said...

Now is your big chance traditionalists to show you are truly loyal to the Vicar of Christ with your words and your deeds. A wonderful opportunity to show the next Pope who you really are.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis writes, in the letter, says Una Voce International’s representative Dr.Joseph Shaw,that the use of the 1962 Missal is

often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”.

This is true. I agree with Pope Francis.However he is not aware that Vatican Council II has to be interpreted with a rational premise, inference and conclusion otherwise, with the common false premise, it has to be a betrayal of Tradition and the « true Church ». Since with the false premise, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q,27Q) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Jesuits in the 16th century are rejected.So a false Church is created.
(from the blog Eucharist and Mission -Lionel's blog)

Anonymous said...

A papal Document which interprets Vatican Council II with a rational premise, inference and conclusion would be Magisterial. It would be in harmony with the Magisterium of the Church Fathers and the Medieval Fathers.Traditionis Custode with its unethical interpretation of the Council with a false premise, to create a rupture with ‘Tradition’ and ‘the true Church’ is unethical and dishonest.It cannot be Catholic. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and then reject the Magisterium of the centuries.
This document has what Pope Benedict calls the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition, the popes and saints and Magisterium of the past.
It is a political document approved by the Italian President Sergio Mattarella, the Comunists and Masons.
Satan would not like Catholics to pray. He would not want priests to offer Holy Mass.
Nicole Winfield, correspondent of the Associated Press and Heidi Schlumf, editor of the National Catholic Reporter(NCR) still interpret Vatican Council II with the fake premise instead of the rational premise, which does not produce a rupture with Catholic Tradition, the ‘true Church’.
Even Michael Sean Winters when commenting on Traditionis Custode in the NCR, knows that the Council can be interpreted rationally but does not do so. He knows that if LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are seen as only hypothetical and theoretical cases in 2021, then there is no conflicT with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.Now he and his family still go for the Novus Ordo Mass and interpret Vatican Council II irrationally to create a heretical version of the Creeds and Catechisms in a paralled Church which is not Catholic, not the ‘true Church’.
Traditionalists could object to Micheal Winter’s going for Mass while he rejects the Athanasius Creed and reinterprets other Creeds, with the false premise, needed to put aside Tradition.His rejection of the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past Catechisms is a rupture with the popes and saints of the past, who did not use a falsehood to deny the Deposit of the Faith, for political-left reasons.
What is positive about TC is that it indicates that we still have the Mass in the vernacular which we can offer with the exclusivist ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century and no one will object and take away this Mass .There would be the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc) when Vatican Council II is accepted and interpreted with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.
(From the blog Eucharist and Mission- Lionel's blog)

John Nolan said...

'Vatican II also made it clear that bishops' conferences would have the authority to determine when and where Latin would be used or not used' (Fr Michael J Kavanaugh)

Not so. SC 36 allowed competent territorial ecclesiastical authorities to determine whether and to what extent the vernacular could be used. This did not prejudice the use of Latin, either wholly or in part.

And if this is not bad enough as an attempt to mislead, Fr K comes up with the following: 'A person's preference for Gregorian chant does not supercede (sic) the legitimate options which the Church in its wisdom allows.'

In point of fact it's not a question of an individual's preference but the preference of the Church (SC 116, repeated in Musicam Sacram and in all editions of the GIRM) but Fr K chooses to ignore this.

NB 'Supercede' for 'supersede' is a common misspelling made by those unaware of its Latin derivation (super + sedere, to seat above). It's not the mistake, it's the vistas of ignorance which it opens up.

Chip said...

OOPS...posted to wrong blog entry.

Anonymous said...

Appendix to Lumen Gentium (signed by the Secretary General of the Second Vatican Council):

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding."

There are no conciliar propositions declared by the Council that are binding.
None.The endless "reforms" of Vatican II are not about faith and morals. The committee-designed Mass is a matter of liturgical discipline, not faith and morals (save for its tract record of eroding both).

The documents admit it. It's right there in black and white.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

John - You are attempting to say, "It is allowed, but it is not allowed." If the Church gives Bishops' Conferneces the right to "determine whether and to what extent the vernacular could be used," and then those conferences do just that, you can't turn around and complain.

Well, YOU can, but it is pointless.

The Church may prefer Gregorian chant, but, again, the Church offers the option to use other forms of music. It may not be your preference, but the option is legitimate.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Is it not clearly the case that only under specified circumstances are statements of the pope infallible and unchangeable?

Therefore, those statements and actions of the pope outside those specified circumstances are not certainly infallible, and are not such that might not be subject to change. Right?

And if this is the case, then a faithful Catholic can, after having listened to the pope, wish that he would change some decision that is not irreformable? Right?

Meanwhile, was not Vatican II a pastoral, rather than a dogmatic council? Meaning, that while it certainly repeated and reaffirmed dogmas previously held, it defined no new dogma. Is this not the case?

And yet, now the pope has seemed to say that it is forbidden for any Catholic to question anything that was said or done by the Second Vatican Council, or to wish that any of those statements or actions of the Council might ever change.

When did the Church ever define that all actions of an ecumenical council are infallible and irreformable? And if they aren't, then why are Catholics who think something could be improved with Vatican II, bad Catholics?

Pierre said...

Father Fox,

You are trying to make sense of bitter, old men, who instead of looking at the "product" they created which drove millions away, they decide instead to suppress the "competition." Sounds to me like they can't handle the competition and have little confidence in their product.

Daniel said...

The vistas of ignorance abound.

According to Merriam-Webster, "Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing."

Now, is is savior or saviour, color or colour, flavor or flavour?

John Nolan said...

Mike - Do you actually read what I write? I was not complaining that the Bishops' Conferences allowed the widespread use of the vernacular. It was clearly within their competence to do so, subject to the approval of the Holy See. I was taking issue with your contention that they were given the authority to decide when and where Latin (not the vernacular) would be used and not used, which is simply untrue.

As for music, you concede that the Church has a preference for Gregorian chant but allows other forms of music. Has anyone suggested otherwise? And since the Church maintains that in the context of the Roman liturgy Gregorian chant 'primum locum obtineat' it quite literally 'supersedes' other forms of music. Personal preference doesn't come into it.

But then, if you read my post you will now understand the etymology (and the correct spelling) of the verb 'supersede'.

John Nolan said...

Mike - You are not living in the 17th century when English spelling often varied from individual to individual. Even in the 18th century aristocratic correspondence is often littered with gross misspellings - and these were otherwise educated people. The spelling and usually the strict meaning of a word is dependent on its etymology, and I can assure you that there is no Latin word 'supercedere'; it wouldn't make sense anyway.

Abusus non tollit usum. If a journalist wrote 'supercede' it wouldn't get past the copy editor, and in a serious publication the proofreader would correct it.

The suffixes '-or' and '-our' were used more-or-less interchangeably in the early 19th century. For some reason the Oxford lexicographers preferred '-our' which sent their American counterparts scurrying in the opposite (and arguably more correct) direction. The difference between British and US spelling is a product of national rivalry, and is rarely a matter of right and wrong. Compare 'skeptical' (US) with 'sceptical' (British). Both are correct, but the former is derived from the original Greek, the latter from the Latin.

Anonymous said...

John - I am living in 21st century America.

How words were spelled in the 20th or 19th or 18th or even the first century is an interesting study, but "The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there."

If the way words were spelled 300 years ago determines your spelling today, have at it. "Derived from" is an on-going process, one that can and does introduce on-going changes to many things, including how words are spelled.

Supercede is, today, and for many generations now has been, a perfectly acceptable spelling. And, much to your dismay, so is supercede. "Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing."

Please, don't read any publication, serious or otherwise, that spells ANY word or words in a way that does not suit your preferences.

Pierre said...

Another comment from Anonymous k - this is getting tiresome, just like Markbot. Bee was right

Anonymous said...

"And, much to your dismay, so is supercede."

Rather, "And, much to your dismay, so is supersede."

Anonymous said...

Well, since we're nitpicking about spelling, I'll beat you to the punch and note that I somehow typed "tract record", when I should have typed "track record".

Mea culpa, mea culpa...

John Nolan said...

Mike - If 'supercede' is 'a perfectly acceptable spelling' I would have expected Chambers to have included it. It does not. On-line sources which do list it categorize it as a misspelling, and even Merriam-Webster concedes it is 'disputed' and 'continues to be widely regarded as an error'. You didn't quote that bit, since even you would find it hard to reconcile this with its being 'perfectly acceptable'.

'If the way words were spelled 300 years ago determines your spelling today, have at it'. In some instances the spelling of Addison, Pope and Swift differs from modern spelling, but no-one would replicate it unless they were consciously attempting parody. Would it be too much to ask you to engage with propositions I have actually made, rather than attribute to me a nonsensical position of your own devising? The fact that you have been doing it for years doesn't mitigate its fundamental dishonesty.

I am not in the least dismayed or surprised that you choose to advertise your ignorance of Latin by writing 'supercede'. The noun form would have to be 'supercession' and I can tell you that no such word exists in the English language. Merriam-Webster confirms this, which strongly suggests that 'supercede' is indeed a misspelling.