I have no reason not to believe the veracity of this artificial intelligence’s summary. Do you?
Here it is:
In a recent interview shared by
Matt Fradd, Bishop Athanasius Schneider recounted a conversation with Pope Leo XIV regarding the Traditional Latin Mass.According to Bishop Schneider, the Pope shared that numerous young people have approached him to testify that their conversion to the Catholic faith occurred through the Latin Mass.
Key Details from the Interview
- The Pope's Observation: Pope Leo XIV reportedly acknowledged that the ancient liturgy is a significant driving force for modern conversions among the youth.
- Proposed Resolution: During their meeting, Bishop Schneider proposed that the Pope issue an Apostolic Constitution to "free" the Latin Mass and establish "pacific co-existence" between the traditional and modern forms of the Roman Rite.
- Context of Restrictions: This dialogue occurs as many traditionalists hope for a reversal of restrictions placed on the Latin Mass by the previous papacy.
Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born Pope (elected May 8, 2025), has shown some early signs of openness to traditionalists, such as permitting a Latin Mass celebrated by Cardinal Raymond Burke in St. Peter's Basilica.
38 comments:
I don't doubt that Leo has heard this and has "seen" it. That said, I believe he is struggling both internally and with the likes of Cupich, Tobin, McElroy, Marx and others who are rabid anti-tradition. At some point, hopefully sooner than later, Leo is going to have to take a stand of consequence, one way or the other on this issue. It will require a lot of courage on his part. Pray for our Holy Father!
Cupich, Tobin, McElroy are all old...this generation will soon be gone...Pope Leo hopefully sees this and is looking forward to the future of the church. The FSSP church in Phoenix where I live is the fastest growing parish in the diocese. They started out as a small mission. The diocese then gave them a bigger parish/campus. Now they are building a big new church. It is almost entirely young families. Our good bishop (who would not be labeled as traditional by any means) appears to see this and lets the traditional parishes and the not so traditional parishes live in harmony. Kudos to him.
Your bishop’s way is the way and how it was everywhere until TC! God willing we’ll get back to before TC!
This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.
The argument against the old Mass has always been one based on authority, that the Church has the right to change the liturgy. But this argument fails to address the principle that authority must always be tempered by justice, and in the case of the Church, by charity. What just and charitable reasons can there be to restrict the form of worship that Catholics of the Roman Rite have used for nearly 2000 years? Even Vatican II said that the changes in the liturgy had to be required, not just beneficial. Can any really make the argument that the changes that went beyond the 1965 reform and produced the new Mass were required?
"The argument against the old Mass has always been one based on authority, that the Church has the right to change the liturgy."
Not correct by half, as in the exchange you and I had a while back.
You don't obey Christ and His Church - you vote for Abortion as Healthcare
What just and charitable reasons can there be to restrict the form of worship that Catholics of the Roman Rite have used for nearly 2000 years?
From Crozier to Cathedra: The Installation of Westminster’s 12th Archbishop - video from behind the scenes
We thought you died!
He has risen! Alleluia!
Anthony, see our previous lengthy exchange regarding your false claim that "The argument against the old Mass has always been one based on authority."
You are dodging the question. And yes, you always come back to " we do not have to do what we have always done; the Church has the authority to change the liturgy." You do this for your own parish. So I ask you again, what just and charitable reasons can there be to restrict the form of worship that Catholics of the Roman Rite have used for nearly 2000 years? Why cannot the ancient form of the Roman Mass be allowed to exist alongside the new Mass, just as all those eastern rites do, or even the newer Zaire Rite or the proposed Amazonian Rite?
Amen Anthony. The logic is simple and sound. Francis and his cohort was and remains bitter, intractable and fighting a battle which is not necessary. Leo can break this if he wants. Will he? Sadly, I doubt he will
Anthony - You made a false assertion: "The argument against the old Mass has always been one based on authority, that the Church has the right to change the liturgy." And now you dodge being corrected OR showing that the statement is factual.
What reasons did the Father of Vatican Two give for their call for reforms? Maybe you think their reasoning was uncharitable and/or unreasonable. Or maybe, like Fr. James Jackson, FSSP, you think that there was "nothing superfluous" in the old mass.
You seem to believe that those who want the old mass with its superfluities, its cultural accretions are justified in their wants. Not all agree. Maybe you think that the old mass fostered full, conscious, and active participation. No all agree. Maybe you think that using a language not spoken/understood by the congregation is preferable. Not all agree.
Is it reasonable to encourage participation in a mass that contains various superfluous elements, that limits full, conscious, and active participation, and that that is said in a language not understood by the congregation. I and many others say, "No, it is not."
First, we have to start with the admission that the new Mass has gone well beyond anything envisioned by the Council. It is time to stop this dishonesty of defending everything that happened after the Council by falsely claiming that it was a product of the Council.
Second, my question is not about justifying the reforms, but about restricting the old Mass. There are many rites in the Church. In the new rite we have the Zaire rite and a proposed Amazonian rite. Thus the cry that we need uniformity falls apart. So my question again is, what just reason can there be to restrict the old Mass rather than allow it to coexist along side the many rites that exist in the Church?
Surely you don’t expect intellectual honesty from our leftwing clergy?
Anthony - No, "we" don't have to admit anything. "You" reject the work of the Concilium, "I" do not. The NO mass is the product of the Council and its approved extension, the Concilium.
Were I to ask for a regularly scheduled parish mass to be celebrated using the 1973/1985 translation of the Roman Missal because I have a deep attachment to that translation and a deep spiritual need for that translation to foster my relationship with God and His Church, you would be the first in line to decry any refusal as uncharitable and unreasonable, right?
Careful here - don't rely on the authority argument to say that that translation is no longer approved for use...
FALSE EQUIVALENCY ALERT ‼️ 🚨 🔔
Lol! From Abortion as Healthcare! You’re bats
The Concilium was not the Council. My point is proven. I am not asking what you would do in your parish. I am asking what just reason can be given to having global restrictions on the old Mass, especially given that there are many rites in the Church. Why should other pastors and priests not have the same freedom to exercise their judgment as you do?
Anthony - That the Consilium was not the Council doesn't have to be proved.
Now, tell us, under whose authority did the Concilium operate and who approved their work?
And, since you desire to give people what they SO desperately want, why can't we have, in every parish, a mass that uses the 1973/1985 translation of the Roman Missal since so many truly require it for the salvation of their souls?
The Consilium worked under the authority of Pope Paul VI and he approved their work. If you want to accuse me of rejecting the decisions of Pope Paul VI, feel free. But what the Consilium produced and what Pope Paul approved went way beyond what Vatican II called for and in many ways apposed to it. Has Latin been preserved? Does Gregorian Chant have pride of place? Stop hiding behind the mantle of Vatican II. It is dishonest.
You still have not provided a just reason for restricting the old Mass.
Anthony - Ah, yes, everything was approved - but not by you it seems.
You have still not accepted correction for your false assertion, to wit, "The argument against the old Mass has always been one based on authority, that the Church has the right to change the liturgy."
Nor have you offered your full-throated support for those who, for decidedly spiritual needs, want mass celebrated using the 1973/1985 translation of the Roman Missal.
OK, you cannot give a reason for the restrictions on the old Mass other than they were approved. My point made. Have a good day.
On the question of the translation, it was simply a horrible translation. In many places it was more of a paraphrase than a translation. Many theological points were deliberately glossed over. It was right to change it. I do not know why anyone would honestly prefer it. And finally, it did not carry the weight and authority of nearly 2000 years of use. Is that enough of an explanation?
Anthony - You "explanation" is completely insufficient.
Your dismissive "I do not know why anyone would honestly prefer it" shows that you are not truly concerned about the desires of those who request a particular form of worship UNLESS you happen to agree with them
My point is made.
No. The old translation was objectively poor. Nor does it represent a different rite. Your analogy fails. But back to the original point: the only argument you have for restricting the old Mass and not allowing it to exist side-by-side with the new Mass is authority, i.e., because we said so.
Anthony - "Objectively" by whose standards? There is not one model of translation, there are many. There's literal, free, audiovisual, literary, specialized, interpreting, transcreation, and localization. Several should (must?) be employed when a serious translator sits down to work.
I would recommend "Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language" by Douglas R. Hofstadter. If I recall, Hofstadter likened a translator to a camera lens; it presents an accurate representation of the object photographed, but always changes it in some way/ways during the process.
Back to the original point - your statement, ""The argument against the old Mass has always been one based on authority, that the Church has the right to change the liturgy." That statement is false.
Check the archives of Fr. Z's Blog for detailed explanations of how bad the old translation was. But let us leave it at that and not get into a debate about the translation.
If my statement is false, give a just reason why the old Mass, one that existed for over a thousand years, cannot exist alongside all the other rites of the church that is not based on mere authority.
Anthony - I am well aware of Fr. Z's take on the old translations. And I am well aware of the narrowness of his approach to translation and to liturgy in general.
You false statement, "The argument against the old Mass has always been one based on authority, that the Church has the right to change the liturgy" stands apart from your question about just/charitable reasons why the old mass cannot exist alongside all other rites.
No, the two are the same. When implementing the new Mass there was no just reason for restricting the old, and the same holds today. There have always been many rites in the church. Before the new Mass a number of religious orders had their own proper rites that existed alongside the Roman Rite. There is no just reason to restrict the celebration of the old Mass and your inability to state one exemplifies this. The only reason that has been given is: "Because we say so."
There have been many rites.
When have there been, to use Pope Benedict's phrase, two forms/usages of the one Roman rite?
You will give no reasonable and charitable reason for disallowing the valid request of some for the use of the 1973/1985 translation of the Missal, other than you don't like and Fr. Z says it's baaaad. So....
Also, Benedict said "what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too." The 1973/1985 translation fits nicely, don't you think?
He, he, he! Great material for a belly laugh. 😂
K lack of solid grounding in Latin makes his statement about translations laughable
I dont get it, he went to a pre-Vatican II seminary in the post Vatican II era.
Fr. Kavanaugh, you have repeatedly accused me of making a false claim. When I asked for the basis for that accusation you have only replied with a feeble tu quoque defense. Do you really want to compare a flawed translation that was used for only 28 years with the form of the liturgy that was highly regarded and used 1500+ years?
And no, I am not relying on Fr. Zuhlsdorf's opinion. I am knowledgeable enough in Latin (something that is required in Canon Law for all priests) to know that the 1975 was terrible. It glossed over many things in the Latin. In many ways it was more of a paraphrase than a translation.
K doesn’t have a working knowledge of Latin so he wouldn’t know the difference.
Post a Comment