This isn't meant to be mean or hostile, I'm just expressing a fact: The boomer generation isn't immortal, even if they sometimes seem to think they are. I think the silver lining is this: Who wants to become a priest in this day and age anymore? Only people who really and truly believe with all their heart. This generation of priests will produce a pope one day.
In the context of this discussion, I don't see that as a path back to the TLM. The next generation of Popes could come, arguably should come, from Africa or Asia or South America. I'm not sure if these places are hotbeds of 'TLMers'.
You know, I am getting really tired of knock downs toward the "boomer" generation. What it really boils down to is disrespect for an older generation, due to being fed lies and exaggerations about a certain group of people born during a particular time period. In fact, I think this tendency to label groups of people born during certain times wrong in general.
@@joan8862 Of course it’s a generalization - but enough boomers have sufficiently terrible track records to warrant the generalization. Gifting the world with sexual revolution, for example (although I suppose the silent generation was involved in that one too). But to be fair, gen Z probably gets more criticism online than boomers.
Too real for me too. Pastor is from Poland and he’s pretty good with English, but the African and Spanish priests also at my parish I really struggle ton understand. When I go to daily mass I need to bring my own missal to follow the gospel.
They don't hate the traditional Latin liturgy because it is 'divisive.' They hate it because of what it represents: timeless, rock-solid Catholicism. They want unity, yes, but not as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of all time, but rather as some sort of 70s-era NGO. They know that the traditional liturgy is the key for unity. It's just that they don't want 'that kind' of unity.
And how the NO and the whole of vatican II a supposed "ecumenic" and "free" was (and is) shoved down peoples throat, it seems that everything is permitted, except the latin mass.
I don’t personally attend TLM, but from experience as a convert, I know that so many young people entering the Church crave tradition and the beauty of the TLM. Spending time with a religious community I’ll be entering soon, I had the opportunity to read some of Vatican II, and it’s a genuinely touching document, but to see the fallout from it is quite sad. We need to pray for the Pope and trust the Lord in this difficult time.
So you legitimately think the move to reduce the diversity of kinds of masses is a move to push people out of the church rather then keep them closer to the church?
No. The Council did not say: For the end-goal of unity we hereby reform the liturgy. That's a straw-man drawn up by populists. Looking back to the earliest descriptions of the mass and liturgical reforms in the first centuries, we see that there were always dissenters who wanted to have their own way, because that is what they have always done and liked. Even before Gregory the Great, Popes have adjusted the liturgy, introduced elements from the east (the Glory, the Kyrie) and smashed practices that cropped up in some areas - to the chagrin of many people who did not want innovations. Also the TLM has been changed several times since Trent, because the liturgy is a living thing, not a wine that becomes more precious with age (but which you can't drink anymore). What the tradition-loving people should do is teach the church how to reverently implement the one rite that the Latin church has, instead of living in the past.
I'm a recent convert, hearing the news I wanted to attend Latin mass before its done, went to an SSPX service, and the hole homily was pope bashing and history of bad popes, the end that was the whole thing, antictdotal sure but if scaled up I can see why.
If churches / parishioners choose then it exposes the debacle of the NO , they have pushed this for 60 years and it has failed . For the Latin mass to return as it should would show how incompetent and what a waste this was in so many ways. I often hear that you should seek out a reverent NO why are they all not reverent ?.
@@davidfunk6698these rad trads sound more like Orthodox except their too scared to say he do respect the chair of Peter when it a pope I don't like because it hurts my feels
The Orthodox Church stand to benefit from the Latin Mass ban. I'm not a TLM attendee, but I think there's something to be said about being the unchanging fixed point. In a world that chases the latest trend, being unapologetically willing to buck it is a sharp contrast. I think a big reason why the TLM remains is that those attend it like that it's old fashioned, they like it stands apart. If the rite is banned, I personally see the Orthodox scooping up those people. For the life of me, I really don't get why the Church would want to ban it. Would the Church go after the other rites in communion with the Catholic Church too? The Church is already in a contraction, why push out the more zealous devotees?
@evansmith2018 You raise a fair point, but the Ordinary Form has dissolved into a halfway house to the Protestant churches. For every convert the Church accepts, six will leave for Protestant churches. For many families, the Tridentine Mass is a safer harbor to keep your kids Catholic.
@@evansmith2018Is that a standard you're willing to apply evenly? Plenty of NO Catholics are willing to change religions if you actually preach the Catholic faith. Growing up, I remember our parish getting a new priest. He gave a homily on the immorality of contraception. Lots of people left the parish after that.
@@ulsterbenny495 I don't think the TLM is some silver bullet that will save Catholicism overnight. I just think the NO has failed to deliver the goals it was created to achieve. And in light of that, Catholics should have the ability to access the TLM. And if there's an organic growth of the TLM, the Vatican shouldn't stifle that.
@@ulsterbenny495 Most Catholics that leave the Church per capeta and in number are leaving from parishes that use the new liturgy. They either stop practicing religion all together or become evangelical protestants. I can't count how many former NO Catholics I've met that have abandoned the church. So it seems to me that Vatican II and the new mass have been very successful are working as intended.
I also am disappointed in the way he approached this issue, and I find that his explanations based on the road regulations is misleading and taking up too much time.
The Novus Ordo should be the one that gets reformed and eventually phased out. Its not about the numbers in the pews, its about the Faith. The TLM is the protector of orthodoxy in the Faith. The Novus Ordo has many issues and abuses and does not protect the Faith. Unity should be regained, in the TLM
I've actually never been to a TLM but I'm not sure why it's being made out as such a divisive thing by this pope. To my understanding, these masses are packed with young families, so what good comes from disrupting that? I find the key word is 'traditional.' Perhaps it is their disdain for all things traditional and their apparent lust to be accepted by a modern, cosmopolitan, and sick world that is at the core of it all.
Their problem is that every Latin Mass that is packed with young families is a testament to the failure of their revolution. It demonstrates that the whole thing was completely unnecessary. They are terrified of the fact that they destroyed the treasure of the Church and they lost so many faithful Catholics in the process, and it was all for nothing.
As I’m aware, the reason is because the allowances that JP2 and B16 made for celebrating the ‘62 missal were being “used in an ideological way,” rather than a genuine aesthetic and spiritual preference. For instance, the ‘62 missal sometimes fosters an antagonistic attitude toward this pontificate, toward V2, and toward the ‘69 missal, such that the mass is weaponized against the church, where people love the liturgy more than they do communion with Rome. It’s where some go because they resonate with the traditional form, and others go to make an ideological statement against the V2 reforms. At least that’s how Pope Francis perceived it. What reverent traditional Catholics needed to do was to prove him wrong, show that they are obedient and docile to the successor of St Peter, and arguably they have actually proven him right, though I do think plenty of these people are genuinely faithful to the church and don’t want to be roped in with the schismatics. The same Francis endorses fraternal organizations like FSSP and ICKSP.
@@killianmiller6107 yeah, but those reasons are rubbish. Even if it is the case that the old Missal was used for ideological reasons by some people, it doesn't justify suppressing it. Firstly, because the Liturgy itself is objectively good even if it is misused by some. If some people use the Bible for devious political reasons, it doesn't justify suppressing the Bible. Secondly, because it's unfair to the faithful who don't do that. The majority of people at the TLM are not twitter warriors. They're families with children who love Jesus. Moreover, there's no evidence that this was the case other than a few anecdotes and some examples online. The Vatican supposedly did a survey of bishops on the topic, but they never made the results public. The little that we know about the survey, most bishops seemed to agree that people in TLM parishes were good and faithful Catholics, and that having the TLM available was a good thing. Very few bishops had any complaints, and it should be noted that there's a correlation in bishops between heterodoxy and willingness to suppress the TLM. Lastly, if it was meant to be pastoral, it completely backfired. People who had no issues with Pope Francis now see him as the Pope who took away their Mass and their parish community. Many people who just love the Church and the Liturgy now find themselves unfairly accused of being bad people. You cannot come to the people and tell them "you cannot have the Mass that you love anymore because the Pope said that you're rigid" and expect them to just take it with a smile. I know because I'm one of these people. Far from encouraging unity, it has fostered disunity and resentment towards the Holy Father.
@@killianmiller6107But it's weird that the TLM is apparently the only liturgy that can be "used in an ideological way." When Fr James Martin has a pride Mass using the NO liturgy, that's not an indictment of the NO. When pro choice Catholics almost exclusively choose the NO, that's not reflective of the liturgy. When "progressive" Catholics criticize the Pope for his stance on IVF or gender ideology, no one associates their ideology with the NO. If the TLM is linked with "rad trads," why don't we draw similar links between "progressive" Catholics and the NO?
@@BrewMeister27 It's a fair comment. I wouldn't say no one associates lib ideology with the NO, just look at all the rhetoric about clown masses, liturgical abuse, lack of reverence, lack of vocations, lukewarmness, advocacy for changing doctrine, etc in the NO. I'm not gonna say that they don't need discipline, they do. Perhaps the difference is that everyone knows these catholics are in obvious dissent, but the dissent is more subtle among trads where people take their faith seriously, so it must be prevented all the more vigorously. Another reason for the discrepancy might be that the Church today ordinarily promulgates the NO (ordinary form) and permits the TLM (extraordinary form), such that the former is the standard where both those who take the faith seriously and those who don't both go there, but those who want to make a statement go to the TLM. Only to say that I don't see libs attaching their ideology to the NO over and against the church (they just put their ideology over the church), but rad trads do attach their ideology to the TLM over and against the church. Again, the libs should be disciplined too, but I think it's a slightly different issue with them. I heard recently that the diocese of Arlington VA was given permission to continue serving the '62 missal. So there still is openness with Francis to allow the TLM when there is obedience to the Holy Father's directives.
I'm a Protestant in OCIA. I have to drive an hour to get to the one Latin Mass in my whole state. It is what I have been looking for and I eagerly await the day I am a Catholic and can fully participate. No the Pope should not be taking the Latin Mass. It is beautiful, and ancient, and reverent compared to the NO.
When I watch the Pope's Masses on tv, it seems that he doesn't have to endure what the rest of us have to put up with. He gets to be in a Church that looks like a Church, and he has reasonable music. He never has to listen to someone BLARING into a microphone. He doesn't have to see the total erosion of faith and piety that the rest of us in the pews around us.
I do not understand the logic behind putting a BAN on TLM. Other than satan trying to shutdown the form of worship that truly bothers him and preserves souls from getting lost.
As I’m aware, it’s because the allowances that JP2 and B16 had for the ‘62 missal were, for some, being “used in an ideological way” as opposed to a genuine aesthetic and spiritual preference. It was a way for some to make a political statement that they opposed the V2 liturgical reforms. It is rather satanic to love the form of the liturgy more than communion with Rome.
This is also just so hard for Catholics like me who are just trying to be faithful, but don’t have an apologist’s understanding of the Church and the liturgy, and so just try to do our best, without understanding what goes on in Rome and Church politics.
@@absolutedefender2081 You either are misundestanding me or doing a strawman fallacy. I am merely saying that it is a bad decision that is best not taken, not that he has no right to take this decision
I don't know whether the analogy to early driving uses true driving facts but, contrary to some commenters here, it does help make your point. Personally, I do not think that any actual Latin Mass ban, if enacted, will outlive Francis. Banning an older version of mass that is still legitimate and valid does seem preposterous (and I happen to prefer the Novus Ordo) and even pointless. Reportedly, Francis fears that if the Latin Mass grows to rival the Novus Ordo, the Church may well become schizophrenic. That is patently untrue; just look at how many different Mass rites exist now. Any business CEO will teach Francis this simple lesson: Grow the business, without compromising your dogmas. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
New News Item: Pope allows Latin Mass at 8 churches in a diocese in Virginia. I guess the death of the Latin Mass in America is greatly exaggerated. Which, admit it, we all knew anyway.
You know the Novus Ordo which was drafted in 1967 is not the Mass of Vatican II. It was rejected in 1967 by the Vatican II fathers and was still promulgated in 1969 despite this. The approved Mass of Vatican II is the Mass of 1965 which was much more like the Mass of 1962 with some prayers removed and permission to say some portions in the vernacular. The Novus Ordo does not follow the real dictates of Vatican II.
In all charity, this is not a good way to look at it. The accidental and surface level properties of the mass are not your Catholic life. The eucharist is, Jesus is. This doesn't mean you should be ok with badly done liturgies, but don't take a good desire too far and abandon Jesus' church.
Remember that our Catholic faith centers on Jesus Christ, not just on a particular liturgy. If you feel if TLM gets banned your entire Catholic life will be ripped away from you, it might be helpful to reflect on whether your devotion is centered on the liturgy itself or on Jesus, who is the true focus of our worship.
I come from catholic roots going back over a thousand years. I fully understand how you feel; I too feel like my mother is being torn from me. Modern catholics have no clue. It's very, very painful. Don't lose the faith.
@@williamcifuentes3555 There's no such thing as "modern Catholics" or "traditional Catholics." There are only "Catholics." The people you call "modern Catholics" do not identify themselves as such. You alone choose to exclude yourselves by identifying as "traditional Catholics." Moreover, I find that this term implies that Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass have broken with the Church's tradition, which is not only incorrect but also disrespectful. Don't forget that our Pope doesn't attend the TLM.
This is a great video. Do you have a video on the structure of the TLM? I was attracted to Catholicism solely because I saw a TLM service on TH-cam. For them to try and ban it is just insane.
There is a terrible danger that people on both sides can fall into the trap of being a connoisseur of church services first and a Christian second. The same thing happens in the protestant churches as well, CS Lewis describes how the devil takes advantage of people's innate snobbery and sense of superiority in the Screwtape Letters. Saint Paul had similar nonsense going on in his day. I'm an ex protestant convert and I've seen something similar in most denominations. Right now I'm a bit weary of all of the nitpicking through liturgy, it is a huge distraction.
Do you think lack of reverence has any part in this ? look up the liturgical abuses in the NO and the obfuscation in defending those abuses. I have heard many times to find a reverent NO, why are they not all reverent ?. How about belief in the real presence ?, look at the levels of NO vs TLM on that.
I hear you. One of the glorious things about the TLM is that if you're going to it, there's no point in nitpicking there. There aren't a ton of options to have an opinion about. There's no need to get in conversations about how to reform the Rite, and what things should change to what. What ought to be done is defined and written down, with plenty of precedence to look at for minor details. It is what it is, you come, you kneel, you pray. It actually took me a while to figure this out, and just let the liturgy work on me. Humans are creative and can develop a sense of superiority over pretty much anything, generally over entirely unearned gifts from God. I'm fairly confident that someone, somewhere, has felt superior over others due to the shape of their nose. Sin is always stupid.
The answer is in "Quo Primum" by Pope St. Pius V, and the Council of Trent. Future popes have no authority to ban TLM or to create new rites as that document is binding "in perpetuity" and "until the end of time."
Yep, im reading now "they have uncrowned him" by Marcel Lefebre, he mentions having a conversation with a cardinal about the changes in the mass, at one point he asks the Cardinal: "What about Quo Primum What will we do with it? THe Cardinal dismisses it by answering : "the Pope today wouldnt have writen it"...
Brian, with all due respect, I think that your premise that Francis, et al give a rat's about unity is monumentally naive. No, what's afoot is that adherents to the traditional liturgy are also pretty much by definition adherents to traditional Church teaching, which Francis and his cynical cronies not only don't believe in, but are embarrassed about, for the traditional magisterium is in opposition to the diabolical secular world to which Francis, et al wish to accommodate the Bride of Christ.
This Catholic channel is one of the VERY few Catholic channels I will watch. It's consistent, concise, candid, wholesome, easy to digest, honest, intellectual, and rational. Michael Lofton tends to gaslight Catholics who *strongly* prefer to adhere to certain traditions that have kept the church intact for centuries.
Your not wrong , the one episode I point to is the one where he had an eastern rite cleric defending the profanation pacamamma, calling bad good is always a warning sign,
@@RickW-HGWT this is a slanderous accusation and one that is pretty obviously wrong. You should delete this comment. The priest in question was making the argument that the statue in question was not pacha mama. Maybe you think he's wrong but even if he was, that does not mean he's calling bad good or defending "profanation".
@xombozo So where were the Catholic elements in this ceremony ? , look at Fr. Mitch Pacwas take on this profonation, why was such an ugly thing there or being the center of attention ?. This evil thing was being justified by this idiot priest, if it is so innocuous why don't we celebrate this thing with holy cards , have children dress up like it or build shrines in front of churches honoring it ?. This thing is on the same level as the crucifix on the hammer and sickle bergoglio accepted. This thing was not our lady of the Amazon as some popesplainers have claimed, it was a pagan diety / demon , and it was honored in the Vatican, maybe you can justify the woman and the weasel depiction at that synod as well.
@sniperpronerfmods9811 OK so what was it , and why was it there ?, if it is good why do we not celebrate and venerate this profonation at all our church's ?. At the same synod there was a banner of a woman and a weasel how about that as a holy thing ?.
A parable from transportation: if you are travelling together with a lot of people, and suddenly realised that you have lost most of them, you have to stop going into that direction, look around and maybe go back to the point where you knew where were you going.
I recently went to a Mass where the priest said in the homily that people wanting Latin were living in the past. When I looked at the congregation, I thought that perhaps the priest should drop English and go with the first language of the people he was ministering to.
Friends, I can’t articulate this better than Brian, he does such a wonderful job, that’s why we are all here. I just want to make a note of encouragement, (not gaslighting) that most of our Catholic faith journey’s time occurs outside of the walls of our parish. Mass is at most 7-14 hours a week. Probably less. We are going through a time of upheaval, but much of it is out of our control. Cultivate devotions to the Saints, have an active prayer life, have good spiritual reading, evangelize… continue to receive valid sacraments and pray, and do our small part to help restore the church to what she once was. As bad as this is, we don’t have emperors hell-bent on exterminating us. Rely on Christ. He has not abandoned us, and He never will.
Latin is the language of The Church. I'm a newly confirmed Catholic (Sunday of the Most Holy Trinity 2024). Though I have sung in the parish choir for a few years now. I truly love when the Latin Rite is used. I understand why the Novus Ordo is both liked and disliked. When we say Lord have mercy; I say kyrie eleison. Many people have either forgotten or were never catechised. We allow ourselves to think we are of a specific parish, but that is the exact folley that Saint Paul tells the Corinthians they are participating in.
Good Lord! As someone who is not Catholic, the LM has always impressed me nonetheless as a strikingly beautiful mode of worship. It saddens me greatly that this is even in consideration.
@@matthewschmidt5069 because far too many of the claims of the Catholic Church are either demonstrably false, based upon the flimsiest of evidence or reason (or none at all), and openly contradict each other in ways for which the explanations are little more than ad-hoc excuses straining the limits of credulity. That’s the short version, lol.
Former Baptist here. I come from no liturgy, pop style contemporary Christian songs and ted type talks and all this watered down nonsense. The Latin Mass has completely changed my life and the thought of losing it feels like suffocating.
@timothy2794 Agree but the liturgy is one of the expressions of truth and the initial point of contact for many people. Then they discover that there is a lot more and that the EO has its own issues. Then they have to decide.
@@chase.23 The liturgy is the primary means by which the church transmits its teaching. The first thing that the Protestant reformers did was to change the Liturgy. If the liturgy is wrong then the church must be wrong. If you believe that the EO is wrong you need a sound basis for that conclusion.
The Pope should leave Latin Mass groups in peace. He should ban all the irreverent idiocies in english Masses, done by unfaithful priests, and parishioners who are de facto non-Catholic.
I really like your analogy. You brought up an aspect that I didn’t not consider about banning the Latin mass: many people coming to it for the protection of their own children. At all the traditional Latin masses I have been to, there have always been many young families. So I’m surprised that I never thought of that. But it really adds a new layer to this since people would go to any length to protect their children. Thanks for the video.
I am certain that the Eastern Rite Churches are worried that the Modernists, Wokists, Oriental Freemasons and the Alphabet prelates will be comming for them next.
@pmagrin the Latin rite was always being used along side other rites. When during the council of Trent they codified the Latin rite that was used for a thousand years they revoked rites less than 200 years old. They did this because there was a trend of rites popping up all over without oversight.
Excellent points. Im not even RC and I know that contemporary worship style, rewriting traditional liturgy, changing the rules of the mass, and a Latin mass ban is a bad idea.
First, your observations on the Council and the liturgy are spot on. Secondly the "official church" is not interested in unity. The Vatican while saying that TC is an effort to promote liturgical unity continues to promote acculturated liturgies, such as Zairian, the Mayan, the infamous Amazonian, and tolerates the Jesuits in India celebrating a Hindu infused "Mass" that many Catholics find divisive and offensive. All of these liturgies, with the Vatican's encouragement defy the supposed reason for which TC was proclaimed. Put simply the Vatican gaslights Catholics on liturgical matters with the same gusto it does on moral matters., think Fernandez, James Martin Francis coddled BFF or better yet Cardinal Hollerich. The major reason for the Vatican's suppression of the TLM is political not religious. Many European adherents of the TLM also happen to be political conservatives not very happy with Francis newfound role as the acolyte of the WEF . and globalism in general. Andrea Grillo, the liturgical expert from the Saint Anslem university in Rome, and whom many suspect ghost wrote TC, has accused the TLM communities of being the cradles of neo fascism, not in those exact words but his message is quite clear. We know that the Church is supine to the goals of both globalism and the WEF. The Church's response to the covid crisis shows how quickly we could be denied the sacraments on the orders of the "international" community. Francis brooks no opposition to his plans for the Church because he believes he is the church and his modernist sycophants have suddenly discovered that hyper papalism can be useful in crushing the "opposition." Furthermore, to discuss the development of the liturgy without insisting upon the intercession and historical influence of the Holy Spirit in what came to be or in the Spirit's role in the DOGMATIC Council Trent as opposed to the officially declared PASTORAL VII is to remove the Paraclete from His role in sustaining the Church. To believe that the TLM can be banned or that, as Roche has stated, it presents a defective ecclesiology is to sin against the Holy Spirit by removing His historical presence and protection in the Church's supreme act or worship. Sins against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven even if committed by popes. In addition, if the TLM is defective so are all of the Eastern rite liturgies which have the same ecclesiology as the TLM. If the TLM can be banned so can these and in fact they should, based on the same groundless theology. Because the Vatican is clueless and lacks self-awareness, the hypocrisy of lauding the Church's diversity as found in the glorious Eastern rites and then banning the TLM which has the same historical validity never crosses their bigoted, unenlightened minds. And so, the clown show continues. The solution to all of this is to recognize the TLM as yet another rite with its own bishops. If the NO when properly celebrated, is what its proponents claim it to be, and I do believe it is valid and has some very positive aspects, then they have nothing to fear. The fact that they refuse to do this means, in my book, me thinks the ladies doth protest too much and that they are using the NO as a cover for something else. What could that possibly be. Oh, wait we still have the synod on synodality to give us a clue...as if we didn't know already.
Interesting analysis mr John, and I have a little question for you. Did you know that Pope St Pius V, in about 1660 pronounced that there must never again be any more new rites? Your thoughts?
@@brianwayne3735 I was unaware of this. I suppose to comment I would have to know what form the pronouncement took. This would be interesting in the sense that the NO in spite of all the gaslighting that it is the Mass of the Council, or a reformed version of the TLM, it is in fact a new rite...its very name proclaims it to be so. Do you know what form his statement took?
Brain Pius V died in 1572 if you are speaking about Quo Primum then Pius did not state there can never be any new rites, however he did state that a priest could never be prevented ever again from celebrating the standard Roman liturgy that resulted from Trent. Tent did not create a new liturgy. Trent took what was already there and created a best practices version to defend the Mass against innovations.Trent permitted the continuance of other liturgies that were more that 200 years old.
@@JohnFDonovan-by1nt right interesting, okay 1560 probably then. Yes Quo Primum. See the NOVUS Ordo is a new rite like you know. But the mass of Pius the V is the old original rite. The other rites were 200 years old and he okay’d them. He abolished the other ones too.
@@brianwayne3735 Again, I am unaware that Pius actively abolished any other rites because most of the rites used the by Church at that time were more than 200 years old. In addition the argument could be made that there were regional differences but they did not amount to what we would call separate rite. Even in the diverse middle ages the similarities between the different rites were astounding.
I love the TLM. But we can fall off the tightrope of orthodoxy on the left and on the right. I was saddened by traditiones custodes. But since then I’ve seen schism, disobedience and dissent against the Magisterium only increase on the “right”. Yes, those on the “left” who are guilty of countless scandal need to be dealt with. However I’ve never see traditionalist Catholics call out other traditionalist Catholics who overstep the line. And we need to be better about it. To me it’s seems like the Pope is deciding to be a firmer parent with us. Pray for the Pope and the Church.
The SSPX recently published a statement rejecting Archbishop Vigano's schism and sedevacantism. Fr. Chad Ripperger is a traditionalist priest with a fair number of conferences on youtube, including discussions of problems in traditionalism like unforgiveness, immoderate speech, and disrespect toward clergy (and also regarding the problems of being canonically irregular). FSSP pastors have a marked tendency to rebuke their flocks regarding problems they've noticed in their particular parish, something I've never experienced at a NO. I've been to a traditional Catholic retreat in which the priest repeatedly discussed "bitter zeal", and how to avoid falling into it. It's not a weekly occurrence, but that's likely due to St. Paul's line about "Fathers do not provoke your children, lest they lose heart."
It would be best to let things continue as is, with the Novus Ordo coexisting with the TLM. Over time the inferior nature of the Novus Ordo would become ever more apparent in terms of decining participation, while the TLM would continue to steadily grow in adherence. But this is exactly what this pontificate fears the most, as it would reveal the utter folly of the liturgical "reform". Their pride will not stand for this, so I am sure that they will suppress the TLM in stages. But the TLM will survive underground and in various places...
It's really interesting looking at this from the evangelical perspective: among Protestants it was the more liturgically conservative traditions that went theologically liberal and morally relativistic in the latter half of the 20th century, and the more liturgically innovative traditions that stayed the course. (Most of the "mainline" protestant denominations are barely recognizable as proclaiming an Abrahamic, key alone Christian, faith). But interestingly, the same secular liberalism that infected the "high church" side of Protestantism seems to have infected the "low church" side of Catholicism. Many of the individual features of the modern vernacular mass are things that a theologically educated evangelical will argue strenuously for, but the spirit in which it seems to have been developed as a whole is distressingly familiar. From where I'm sitting, the form of the current mass is not nearly as important as the forces behind it.
Hi Brian, I am a fan of your channel and appreciate your perspective. I hope you will take the following comment in a spirit of fraternal charity and as a constructive suggestion for your development as a thinker. The second half of this video was very helpful. The first half of the video struck me, however, as a very good example of a tortured metaphor. Good analogies lead an audience from understanding something known to understanding something unknown. Your example did not make an argument or elucidate your point.
Brian, I see what you're saying. Yet when i come to your comments I see people claiming that the Holy Father, the Church (or some facsimile of it, so they say) has done this on purpose; that they actually desire to lead people away from Christ and that the Latin Mass is The Answer that will solve all of our problems, as if modernity simply played no role. I am a new Catholic, was previously a Southern Baptist. I've been attending mass since last September and have gone through RCIA but I've yet to be confirmed. My NO parish is wonderful, the laity are faithful and kind, the clergt diligent, insightful, and very faithful. Though smaller, they do work to keep the liturgy revenant. However, when i first became convinced of catholicism I found your channel, among PWA, Taylor Marshall and others like you first. I found a long and hard debate about the liturgy and many online asserting that the Church had been infiltrated or that the most recent Pope was just a freemason's pawn. I encountered those who argued very convincingly that the Chair is empty and that the true church is found only in the TLM. I found purity spiral inside purity spiral and it nearly stopped my conversion dead in it's tracks. Now, i desire beauty and reverence as much as anyone, but even the worst NO mass I've been to was more reverent than any Protestant service I've attended, and worlds above my Baptist Church. I suspect that if it wasn't for Vatican II, I probably would have never been able to jump the gap to Mother Church. Just something to consider
The celebration of the traditional right was enshrined forever by Pope Pious V. Anyone who forbids or attempts to remove the traditional form of the Latin Mass is in direct disobedience to the church and to the Lord
That the popesplaining often has contempt for that valid argument is telling. The obfuscation and hostility is off the charts, you can sense the fear in them.
Yes. Yet one Cardinal claimed recently that whatever Pope Francis does will be irreversible. That being the case then so is Quo Primum irreversible. They are getting caught in their own deceit and lies.
Quo Primum itself implies that the mass can be altered, as Pope Pius V himself did, and the reason he did it was to limit the liturgical variety of the time. Later competent authorities (ie the pope) can further alter it if they see fit; not regional ministers, not patriarchs, not cardinals, but the pope. Quo Primum has no intention of binding a future pope. So do you go by the ‘62 missal? Isn’t that edited from Pius V’s directives?
@@killianmiller6107 there's a difference between altering something and banning it. So what's your point? The question was; 'Should the Pope ban The Latin Mass'! There is nothing in that question about alter. In fact Quo Primum set in stone that nothing to do with The Latin Rite as decreed in The Infallible Council of Trent could be touched from then on. Pope Paul 6th fully understood this and that's why he introduced a whole new Rite, The Novus Ordo to run alongside The TLM rite as it could not be cancelled or banned or touched in any way. This was confirmed by every Pope since Vatican 2 except Pope Francis who has no right to put restrictions on something that is protected by the Last 2 Councils.
After seeing how the authoritarian stripping away of the Tridentine Mass in the 70s went, and the damage it did to peoples' faith, and the souls that fled or fell from the Church, why would you want to repeat the exercise by banning the Novus Ordo?
No, he should not ban the TLM. There should also be a move to normalize the Novus Ordo in Latin. It isn't the particular liturgy that is most important. It is the reverence behind it.
Yes, but aren’t we expected to submit to Church authority? We either believe in the keys or we don’t.. obedience / humility/ submission to authority is paramount in the church…
Excellent analogy, Brian. Thank you for making this observation. I’ve said the same thing for years about the new rite needing to be reformed in a way that incorporates the old rite more. And while I agree that it may not be the best option, reverting completely to the old rite temporarily would not be a bad second option. It should definitely not be banned. God bless.
One small, but capital detail of the history here summarized was ommitted: Cardinal Lefebvre engaged in an open act of schism. Much of the reason why the traditional mass faces great resistence today is exactly the association with schism.
The great thing about the ban is that more people will realise the profoundness of the crisis we´re in and come to the sspx, the only living branch of the Church.
Noone should leave the Church of Jesus Christ for a schismatic group. Even if they have smells and bells. Sad to see the spirit of schism not being fervently challenged here.
@@davidlarsson7555 We are schismatics for praticing catolicism? 🤔 So how is Aquinas or Saint Augustin not Schismatic then? Because we are praticing the same faith they where...
@@BPGM1989The SSPX do not fully practice Catholicism since they set up a rival altar to that of the Church of Jesus Christ (their own tribunals, their utter disregard for episcopal authority as sent by the Church etc etc). The same kind of argument that you make is made by every schismatic, you are just "preserving"? The Eastern Orthodox, the Jansenists, the Donatists, all of them could say the exact same thing as you and they also point to saints that we all agree are saints. You suffer the same ecclesial fate as they do, because you are severed from the head of the Church. Your disputes are unresolvable. And if taken to its logical conclusion, this line of reasoning ends up in a rejection of the promises of Christ to the Church.
That's a bad analogy. Driving on the roads is inherently dangerous, but going to Mass isn't. The road rules needed to be changed for the safety of travellers. The Mass rules didn't.
You said yourself that the "new law" did not ban many of the practices and forms of the "old law". This means those practices can all be brought back even if we no longer use the 1962 missal. I think, this year especially, I have seen in my local parishes a renewed respect for the mass, even more so than when i was a child in the 90's. Why have a division over this matter, when we can unify and refine what is shared? I hope I don't sound confrontational, I am just trying to offer some helpful thoughts.
You asked a question at the end of the video and i will answer it here, to best of my ability. You phrase the question in a way that assumes the necessity of restraining the organic process, as Benedict put it, of the evolution of our form of worship we call the Mass. Is it not a bit reductive to say that we should firmly adhere to the older form when there are even older forms of the mass that we no longer practice today? We must be open to follow the Church as it guides us. We should not have changed so radically, I think we can all agree. It would be a mistake however to step backwards so radically either. Let us meet in the middle and not create a church of two minds but of one.
Good analysis, we are dealing with a hierarchy that is incompetent and does not have our best interests in mind. Look at the heretics, perverts and traitors he surrounds himself with, they don't see the failures the v2 has wrought, to do so would be to admit this was a failure.
In the first place, because there are many parts of the TLM that cannot be brought into the NO (at least not without rewriting the missal and lectionary). In the second place, because regardless of the fact that many practices (ad orientem, reception of Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling, Gregorian Chant, use of Latin, etc.) *can* be brought back, in practice, priests who actually try to bring them back get slapped down by either their bishop or their parishioners, or both. TLM parishes often contain a lot of people who tried to encourage traditional practices at their original NO parish, but found no welcome for such things. TLMers are perhaps a percent or two of Sunday-Mass-going Catholics, and we've been congregating where traditional practices are welcomed, encouraged, and taught (because we don't initially know them) for decades. I don't think you sound confrontational at all. But I think your thoughts have already been proven not to work for several decades. There's nothing stopping NO parishes from adopting our shared heritage, except themselves, and if they choose to adopt it now, I'll be delighted. But why should I leave what works and is beautiful to go to what might work itself into something reasonable in a few years, IF everyone there starts embracing things they've resisted before? The traffic analogy does break down at one key point: The Latin Church has been a Church of many Rites about as far back as history can see. Before the Tridentine Rite was codified there was the Mass that became the Tridentine Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, the Rite of Braga, the Sarum Rite, the Gallican Rite, and many religious orders had their own, like the Dominicans, Carthusians, etc. There was even a small region that celebrated the Tridentine Rite partly in the vernacular, back in the Middle Ages. Liturgical diversity was never seen as divisive. I see no reason for it to be so now either, and the Eucharistic Conference's welcome of different Rites seems an object lesson in doing the same in modern times.
I honestly take issue with what is said here. The problem was never the expression of the mass. The problem is the TLM participants who use the TLM to disparage the Novus Ordo and use it as a means to create disunity within the church. Is it all TLM participants? No. However, there is enough of them. While I do enjoy your perspectives, I think this is one topic I would have liked you to have a more neutral positioning, in light of the fact Pope Francis already said he wasn't going to ban the Tridentine Mass. I think the issue is those small groups of participants who disparage a valid Liturgy and use it as means to injure their brothers and sisters in The Body. I apologize if my remarks seem offensive. This is an issue I get passionate over, because I think many people overlook a key issue in this worn discussion.
I agree - all it takes is a look through the comments here to see the real problem. The real problem is a lot of the people who favor TLM do so as an expression against Vatican II and the legitimacy of the Pope. When the rite has become infected with (and possibly predominated by) sedevacantists, the church needs to take some form of action. Lots of the comments here are basically “I’m a traditional Catholic and don’t listen to the Pope at all”. At some point the church needs to correct them and let them know that if they hold that position, they are not Catholic - and it’s time to either accept the leadership of the church or formally become schismatic Protestants that they are already in their hearts.
How is the TLM participants who create disunity in the church when the TLM that we attend was promulgated in the 16 century precisely to bring unity to the catolic church and avoid diferent local rites? How is it our fault that sucessive Popes decided to disobey their predecessors when they had specific orders not ot do it? Even worse is when those changes are done in a effort to appease the world, catolic teaching says that the 3 main instigators of sin are the body, the Devil and THE WORLD, so how is it this on us? Im sorry but i have to side with sspx here, either Christ left us intemporal truths and a Church that is to be a santuary against the world, or if the teachings of the church are to be adapted with time then it is not true. Im not sure how this is going to be solved and returned to a place of coherence but until it isnt the sspx will guard the tradition.
There are limits to Papal authority. Precedence is essential in the Church after all the traditio of the Church is to be found in the Gospels, New Testament and apostolic father' early Church father. The Roman liturgy and Mass is ancient. The Pope can't abrogate the traditional Mass. However the loophole the powers that be use is to attempt to limit the traditional Mass and Sacraments. There are many apostolic Churches and Rites of Mass and Sacraments so apostolic variety is normal and legitimate. There is a 1965 pre Bugnini edition of the Mass and Sacraments that mirtirs what the Council envisaged. The Bugnin books of the Mass and Sacraments should be abrogated and thrown out.
look the old mass never was abbrogated and can not be, Pope Bennedict 16 stated that, what is holy remains so, and for centuries the old mass grew organicly and grew from slow revelation, the Vatican 2 was to give pride of place to latin chant and traditional devotions with the option of the folk language and regretibly changed things because they thought people wanted to take a more active part, but most of all it was people like buggninni that pitted the two sides against on and other and lied about what each had said saying to the pope the council said this even if it had not or to the council the pope said this and this, and shaped the whole thing in his own image and those in league with him.
Imagine being a CEO of a company, the most successful sector of your company is growing, makes more profits, generates more products. And then you have another sector, which is slowly starting to generate less and less profit, makes lower quality products, doesn't listen to the CEO as much on the company rules, dissrespects the founding CEO of the company. And then the CEO bans the sector that is fruitful, in order to make sure, that the failing sector isn't offended by its own failure.
Great analogy, the church is a business, that is not bad , the only explanation is the ceo is incompetent and cares nothing for the company or customers.
You missed the part where the "growing" part of the company has some rogue actors playing for several different competing companies (EO, sedes, SSPX, R&R occult schismatics) and very few in that sector call that out when they see it. Somehow, I don't think a CEO should overlook that sort of poaching. No matter if "someone else is worse". I think the rad trads are a bigger problem than you want to admit.
Pope: We need to find a way to get young people back in the Church. The Church: The young people really like the TLM. Pope: Anything but that! I need some useful ideas.
Before acting to strip something away, one must ask why is that something there as it was. It seems an opportunity for incorporation of a bit of modernism was beheld then pursued, and the result was due to eager anticipation instead of careful reflection.
Even if I never attended a Traditional Latin Mass, I think it should be a valid rite as well as the Novus Ordo should remain a valid rite in the Catholic Church. It´s sad to see how the direction of celebration or the language are misused for ideology. For example, I think that with smaller groups (maybe 15 people max) in a small chapel a mass where the priest celebrates with the back to the people is fine. Then the idea that the priest celebrates with the parish comes really to life. But with bigger masses I think it´s better that the priest celebrates in the direction to the parish.
We cannot forget we have the Eucharist! The rite, while being critical to this, is a means to an end. It cannot by itself be an end. Good Liturgy: YES. but always remember: Jesus is fully present in the Ordinary for or the Extraordinary form of Mass!
One of the problem with the TLM crowd is that a few vocal individuals have weaponized it against the Church itself. They may be few, but they are loud and other TLM attendees remain silent about them.
I don't think they are a few. The whole SSPX was basically born out of disobedience to the pontiff and the bishops got excommunicated. They are the majority of churches that offer the tridentine Latin mass and are even not allowed to do so by pope Francis which prohibition they disregarded, unlike the FSSP who also offers the Latin mass, which broke off from the SSPX for the reason they went against the pontiff.
The roots of the church would be apostolic times, not medieval. V2 argued for certain reforms for the ‘69 missal precisely to restore some of those apostolic traditions, like allowing communion under both kinds and reception in the hand.
I think the movement of the second Vatican council to reach out to the world in the languages spoken today is obviously a good move. But I agree that there must be a sense of continuity and organic renewal in what emerges. I would of course not ban the celebration of the Latin Rite, but I do believe we are being called forward to serve the people of the world.
I don't think he should, but the complaint from the other side is that there are many in the LTM community who use it to attack the NO. I have seen this lunacy from one particular individual in my parish who over 30 years has turned up from time to time to berate us in mass. Punishing the LTM community for the sins of individuals does seem nuts though. Also the actual rubrik for the NO is not as dissimilar as it would appear from the practice, there needs to be more discipline in the NO.
I'm sad to hear about this one individual on the TLM side doing this. This actually shows how little of this goes on in reality. I haven't seen it myself attending The TLM, but I have heard NO people berate TLM goers as being discriminatory. They just don't get it that it's a choice, just like Communion in the hand or kneeling and on the tongue.
Do you think if diocesan ‘62 masses are further restricted, will the faithful migrate to the ‘69 missal? I sure would hope so (rather than leaving the church) because the ‘69 missal could genuinely need traditionally minded people to restore the original intent of SC.
@@killianmiller6107 I do not know. I like that the NO has more readings in its cycles. I would like to see much more reverence available in each parish but with flexibility across different masses for the form of music.
@@killianmiller6107 no I think it will go underground as there should be no restrictions on it in the first place. Neither Vatican 2 or Pope Paul 6th called for any restriction or bans on The TLM rite. They were to co-exist just like Communion on the tongue and kneeling or in the hand. By restricting The TLM or banning it Pope Francis is putting himself in direct opposition to the very council that he says everyone must obey as The True Magisterium. The very council that never restricted, abrogated or banned in any way The TLM. He can't as Pope just dictate this or that, otherwise he could say something like, " we are going to introduce pagan Masses", for example! Would we have to attend them instead of The Novus Ordo or TLM. CERTAINLY NOT! If he starts to dictate and attack instead of protecting Liturgies then he is insulting the Office of Saint Peter and The Holy Trinity. It is not within his remit to do so. The first precept of The Catholic Church is the salvation of souls, all souls. Anything that affects that precept is not allowed even by a Pope. If his actions and statements hurt in any way the faithful, or, causes them to be in schism or depart from the church then he simply has no rite to The Keys of Saint Peter. Don't forget almost half a million left the church in Germany under this pontificate. Shouldn't he be concerning himself with trying to get those lost souls back into the church rather than restricting what the faithful finds keeps them in the church in the first place? To restrict the TLM is simply destructive and causing disunity!
You know if the NO was made MORE REVERENT, no TLM movement would ever have happened. If the NO was MORE in line with tradition rather than less, then we would have no TLM left to restrict. The NO is honest to goodness inferior. It is inferior ONLY because it is less reverent, less organized and less in line with tradition. Good on you Brian, you nailed this. For me and my family we CANNOT attend Novus Ordo because it is not doctrinally safe.
The Latin Mass belongs to Catholic communion on the tough not in the hand prodestant.Hands of our Latin Mass.The beauty of the Latin Mass. The prist faces jesus with the people and we are adoring the Body and Blood of our Beautiful jesus when the prist raises the Holy bread My lord and My God that's what we witnessed Our Beautiful jesus 🙏 ❤
This isn't meant to be mean or hostile, I'm just expressing a fact: The boomer generation isn't immortal, even if they sometimes seem to think they are.
I think the silver lining is this: Who wants to become a priest in this day and age anymore? Only people who really and truly believe with all their heart. This generation of priests will produce a pope one day.
In the context of this discussion, I don't see that as a path back to the TLM. The next generation of Popes could come, arguably should come, from Africa or Asia or South America. I'm not sure if these places are hotbeds of 'TLMers'.
You know, I am getting really tired of knock downs toward the "boomer" generation. What it really boils down to is disrespect for an older generation, due to being fed lies and exaggerations about a certain group of people born during a particular time period. In fact, I think this tendency to label groups of people born during certain times wrong in general.
why are dont they leave the latin mass alone they wont cause a schism freedom of religion.
@@joan8862 Of course it’s a generalization - but enough boomers have sufficiently terrible track records to warrant the generalization. Gifting the world with sexual revolution, for example (although I suppose the silent generation was involved in that one too).
But to be fair, gen Z probably gets more criticism online than boomers.
@@joelgiampaola5740 Freedom of religion? The Catholic Church? LOL
The church bans Latin mass, yet my entire life I've been burdened with priests that barely speak my language.
Too real for me too. Pastor is from Poland and he’s pretty good with English, but the African and Spanish priests also at my parish I really struggle ton understand. When I go to daily mass I need to bring my own missal to follow the gospel.
Indeed.
@@AWSKAR -- Pray for priestly vocations!
@@AWSKAR
It's because your countrymen have become degenerates... the foreign priests are a gift that bring the sacraments - not a "burden".
Yes, it can be challenging, but not difficult to overcome.
It’s a no-brainer…The Pope “should not” ban the Latin Mass. Even a cave man can figure that out!!!
Lifelong bachelor here I am basically a caveman and I agree completely, good post, God bless.
They don't hate the traditional Latin liturgy because it is 'divisive.' They hate it because of what it represents: timeless, rock-solid Catholicism. They want unity, yes, but not as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of all time, but rather as some sort of 70s-era NGO. They know that the traditional liturgy is the key for unity. It's just that they don't want 'that kind' of unity.
Big time facts here my friend.
I think the reason why the TLM is so divisive is because of how far the abuses of the NO has gone and continues to go.
And how the NO and the whole of vatican II a supposed "ecumenic" and "free" was (and is) shoved down peoples throat, it seems that everything is permitted, except the latin mass.
My heart longs for the TLM.
It reminds me of the saying, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
I don’t personally attend TLM, but from experience as a convert, I know that so many young people entering the Church crave tradition and the beauty of the TLM. Spending time with a religious community I’ll be entering soon, I had the opportunity to read some of Vatican II, and it’s a genuinely touching document, but to see the fallout from it is quite sad.
We need to pray for the Pope and trust the Lord in this difficult time.
Brian, NO he shouldn’t….
I totally agree with you. Brian is so delusional on this topic. I am appalled.
Seems like the end-goal isn't "unity" at all...!
So you legitimately think the move to reduce the diversity of kinds of masses is a move to push people out of the church rather then keep them closer to the church?
"Purge," is more like it.
No. The Council did not say: For the end-goal of unity we hereby reform the liturgy. That's a straw-man drawn up by populists.
Looking back to the earliest descriptions of the mass and liturgical reforms in the first centuries, we see that there were always dissenters who wanted to have their own way, because that is what they have always done and liked.
Even before Gregory the Great, Popes have adjusted the liturgy, introduced elements from the east (the Glory, the Kyrie) and smashed practices that cropped up in some areas - to the chagrin of many people who did not want innovations. Also the TLM has been changed several times since Trent, because the liturgy is a living thing, not a wine that becomes more precious with age (but which you can't drink anymore).
What the tradition-loving people should do is teach the church how to reverently implement the one rite that the Latin church has, instead of living in the past.
Why ban it at all? Whats wrong with letting churches choose?
I'm a recent convert, hearing the news I wanted to attend Latin mass before its done, went to an SSPX service, and the hole homily was pope bashing and history of bad popes, the end that was the whole thing, antictdotal sure but if scaled up I can see why.
If churches / parishioners choose then it exposes the debacle of the NO , they have pushed this for 60 years and it has failed . For the Latin mass to return as it should would show how incompetent and what a waste this was in so many ways. I often hear that you should seek out a reverent NO why are they all not reverent ?.
@@davidfunk6698these rad trads sound more like Orthodox except their too scared to say he do respect the chair of Peter when it a pope I don't like because it hurts my feels
@@davidfunk6698SSPX is not in communion with the Holy See, as they reject the Holy Father.
@@Catholic64they dont reject the holy father, they reject the second vatican council. VERY different
The Orthodox Church stand to benefit from the Latin Mass ban. I'm not a TLM attendee, but I think there's something to be said about being the unchanging fixed point. In a world that chases the latest trend, being unapologetically willing to buck it is a sharp contrast.
I think a big reason why the TLM remains is that those attend it like that it's old fashioned, they like it stands apart. If the rite is banned, I personally see the Orthodox scooping up those people.
For the life of me, I really don't get why the Church would want to ban it. Would the Church go after the other rites in communion with the Catholic Church too? The Church is already in a contraction, why push out the more zealous devotees?
If these trads are so susceptible to changing religions if the Pope makes them go to a different liturgy, maybe he’s right to be suspicious of them…
@evansmith2018 You raise a fair point, but the Ordinary Form has dissolved into a halfway house to the Protestant churches. For every convert the Church accepts, six will leave for Protestant churches. For many families, the Tridentine Mass is a safer harbor to keep your kids Catholic.
@@evansmith2018Is that a standard you're willing to apply evenly? Plenty of NO Catholics are willing to change religions if you actually preach the Catholic faith. Growing up, I remember our parish getting a new priest. He gave a homily on the immorality of contraception. Lots of people left the parish after that.
@@ulsterbenny495 I don't think the TLM is some silver bullet that will save Catholicism overnight. I just think the NO has failed to deliver the goals it was created to achieve. And in light of that, Catholics should have the ability to access the TLM. And if there's an organic growth of the TLM, the Vatican shouldn't stifle that.
@@ulsterbenny495
Most Catholics that leave the Church per capeta and in number are leaving from parishes that use the new liturgy. They either stop practicing religion all together or become evangelical protestants. I can't count how many former NO Catholics I've met that have abandoned the church.
So it seems to me that Vatican II and the new mass have been very successful are working as intended.
I am sorry Brian, but I totally disagree with you on that point. The TLM must be kept intact and not reformed to integrate the new rite.
I also am disappointed in the way he approached this issue, and I find that his explanations based on the road regulations is misleading and taking up too much time.
In the end, we win. All will turn out well in the end, trust in God!
Foolish opptomism.
@@davidpritchard604 -- Far superior to the alternative!
@@davidpritchard604 optimism*
@@padraicbrown6718 Apologies. The poor spelling is the product of writting messages in a dark room while lying on my back while sick in bed.
The Novus Ordo should be the one that gets reformed and eventually phased out. Its not about the numbers in the pews, its about the Faith. The TLM is the protector of orthodoxy in the Faith. The Novus Ordo has many issues and abuses and does not protect the Faith. Unity should be regained, in the TLM
I've actually never been to a TLM but I'm not sure why it's being made out as such a divisive thing by this pope. To my understanding, these masses are packed with young families, so what good comes from disrupting that? I find the key word is 'traditional.' Perhaps it is their disdain for all things traditional and their apparent lust to be accepted by a modern, cosmopolitan, and sick world that is at the core of it all.
Their problem is that every Latin Mass that is packed with young families is a testament to the failure of their revolution. It demonstrates that the whole thing was completely unnecessary. They are terrified of the fact that they destroyed the treasure of the Church and they lost so many faithful Catholics in the process, and it was all for nothing.
As I’m aware, the reason is because the allowances that JP2 and B16 made for celebrating the ‘62 missal were being “used in an ideological way,” rather than a genuine aesthetic and spiritual preference. For instance, the ‘62 missal sometimes fosters an antagonistic attitude toward this pontificate, toward V2, and toward the ‘69 missal, such that the mass is weaponized against the church, where people love the liturgy more than they do communion with Rome. It’s where some go because they resonate with the traditional form, and others go to make an ideological statement against the V2 reforms. At least that’s how Pope Francis perceived it. What reverent traditional Catholics needed to do was to prove him wrong, show that they are obedient and docile to the successor of St Peter, and arguably they have actually proven him right, though I do think plenty of these people are genuinely faithful to the church and don’t want to be roped in with the schismatics.
The same Francis endorses fraternal organizations like FSSP and ICKSP.
@@killianmiller6107 yeah, but those reasons are rubbish. Even if it is the case that the old Missal was used for ideological reasons by some people, it doesn't justify suppressing it. Firstly, because the Liturgy itself is objectively good even if it is misused by some. If some people use the Bible for devious political reasons, it doesn't justify suppressing the Bible. Secondly, because it's unfair to the faithful who don't do that. The majority of people at the TLM are not twitter warriors. They're families with children who love Jesus.
Moreover, there's no evidence that this was the case other than a few anecdotes and some examples online. The Vatican supposedly did a survey of bishops on the topic, but they never made the results public. The little that we know about the survey, most bishops seemed to agree that people in TLM parishes were good and faithful Catholics, and that having the TLM available was a good thing. Very few bishops had any complaints, and it should be noted that there's a correlation in bishops between heterodoxy and willingness to suppress the TLM.
Lastly, if it was meant to be pastoral, it completely backfired. People who had no issues with Pope Francis now see him as the Pope who took away their Mass and their parish community. Many people who just love the Church and the Liturgy now find themselves unfairly accused of being bad people. You cannot come to the people and tell them "you cannot have the Mass that you love anymore because the Pope said that you're rigid" and expect them to just take it with a smile. I know because I'm one of these people. Far from encouraging unity, it has fostered disunity and resentment towards the Holy Father.
@@killianmiller6107But it's weird that the TLM is apparently the only liturgy that can be "used in an ideological way." When Fr James Martin has a pride Mass using the NO liturgy, that's not an indictment of the NO. When pro choice Catholics almost exclusively choose the NO, that's not reflective of the liturgy. When "progressive" Catholics criticize the Pope for his stance on IVF or gender ideology, no one associates their ideology with the NO. If the TLM is linked with "rad trads," why don't we draw similar links between "progressive" Catholics and the NO?
@@BrewMeister27 It's a fair comment. I wouldn't say no one associates lib ideology with the NO, just look at all the rhetoric about clown masses, liturgical abuse, lack of reverence, lack of vocations, lukewarmness, advocacy for changing doctrine, etc in the NO. I'm not gonna say that they don't need discipline, they do.
Perhaps the difference is that everyone knows these catholics are in obvious dissent, but the dissent is more subtle among trads where people take their faith seriously, so it must be prevented all the more vigorously.
Another reason for the discrepancy might be that the Church today ordinarily promulgates the NO (ordinary form) and permits the TLM (extraordinary form), such that the former is the standard where both those who take the faith seriously and those who don't both go there, but those who want to make a statement go to the TLM. Only to say that I don't see libs attaching their ideology to the NO over and against the church (they just put their ideology over the church), but rad trads do attach their ideology to the TLM over and against the church. Again, the libs should be disciplined too, but I think it's a slightly different issue with them.
I heard recently that the diocese of Arlington VA was given permission to continue serving the '62 missal. So there still is openness with Francis to allow the TLM when there is obedience to the Holy Father's directives.
I'm a Protestant in OCIA. I have to drive an hour to get to the one Latin Mass in my whole state. It is what I have been looking for and I eagerly await the day I am a Catholic and can fully participate. No the Pope should not be taking the Latin Mass. It is beautiful, and ancient, and reverent compared to the NO.
When I watch the Pope's Masses on tv, it seems that he doesn't have to endure what the rest of us have to put up with. He gets to be in a Church that looks like a Church, and he has reasonable music. He never has to listen to someone BLARING into a microphone. He doesn't have to see the total erosion of faith and piety that the rest of us in the pews around us.
I do not understand the logic behind putting a BAN on TLM. Other than satan trying to shutdown the form of worship that truly bothers him and preserves souls from getting lost.
As I’m aware, it’s because the allowances that JP2 and B16 had for the ‘62 missal were, for some, being “used in an ideological way” as opposed to a genuine aesthetic and spiritual preference. It was a way for some to make a political statement that they opposed the V2 liturgical reforms. It is rather satanic to love the form of the liturgy more than communion with Rome.
This is also just so hard for Catholics like me who are just trying to be faithful, but don’t have an apologist’s understanding of the Church and the liturgy, and so just try to do our best, without understanding what goes on in Rome and Church politics.
No, and that's a stupid question.
Agreed!
Why are you telling what the Pope can do.
@@absolutedefender2081 We aren't talking about what the Pope CAN do, but what about what he SHOULD do
@@igorlopes7589 You can't tell the Pope what he should do. Unless your a Protestant.
@@absolutedefender2081 You either are misundestanding me or doing a strawman fallacy. I am merely saying that it is a bad decision that is best not taken, not that he has no right to take this decision
The "Latin Mass" is better called "The Roman Rite" - or "The Liturgy of St. Peter".
Sounds like that would exclude the NO from being “the Roman rite”
As a fact, TLM is actually synonymous with Tridentine mass or Roman missal of 1962
It is more accurately called "The Latin Rite".
@@braemtes23 The Latin Church has more than one rite in Latin - Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Lugdunensis Rite, and rites of orders -such as the Dominican.
No.
Would really be bad if the Traditional Catholic Mass was banned in the Latin Church. Why should we be the only Rite with no ancient liturgy?
A tree is known by it's fruits.
I don't know whether the analogy to early driving uses true driving facts but, contrary to some commenters here, it does help make your point. Personally, I do not think that any actual Latin Mass ban, if enacted, will outlive Francis. Banning an older version of mass that is still legitimate and valid does seem preposterous (and I happen to prefer the Novus Ordo) and even pointless. Reportedly, Francis fears that if the Latin Mass grows to rival the Novus Ordo, the Church may well become schizophrenic. That is patently untrue; just look at how many different Mass rites exist now. Any business CEO will teach Francis this simple lesson: Grow the business, without compromising your dogmas. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Francis doesn't care about dogma. He is a ruthless political animal only.
Good analogy!
New News Item: Pope allows Latin Mass at 8 churches in a diocese in Virginia. I guess the death of the Latin Mass in America is greatly exaggerated. Which, admit it, we all knew anyway.
You know the Novus Ordo which was drafted in 1967 is not the Mass of Vatican II. It was rejected in 1967 by the Vatican II fathers and was still promulgated in 1969 despite this.
The approved Mass of Vatican II is the Mass of 1965 which was much more like the Mass of 1962 with some prayers removed and permission to say some portions in the vernacular.
The Novus Ordo does not follow the real dictates of Vatican II.
So how did it end up being what it is today?
The Latin mass is all I've known, if it gets banned my entire Catholic life will be ripped away from me
In all charity, this is not a good way to look at it. The accidental and surface level properties of the mass are not your Catholic life. The eucharist is, Jesus is. This doesn't mean you should be ok with badly done liturgies, but don't take a good desire too far and abandon Jesus' church.
Remember that our Catholic faith centers on Jesus Christ, not just on a particular liturgy. If you feel if TLM gets banned your entire Catholic life will be ripped away from you, it might be helpful to reflect on whether your devotion is centered on the liturgy itself or on Jesus, who is the true focus of our worship.
I come from catholic roots going back over a thousand years. I fully understand how you feel; I too feel like my mother is being torn from me. Modern catholics have no clue. It's very, very painful. Don't lose the faith.
become Orthodox.
@@williamcifuentes3555 There's no such thing as "modern Catholics" or "traditional Catholics." There are only "Catholics." The people you call "modern Catholics" do not identify themselves as such. You alone choose to exclude yourselves by identifying as "traditional Catholics." Moreover, I find that this term implies that Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass have broken with the Church's tradition, which is not only incorrect but also disrespectful. Don't forget that our Pope doesn't attend the TLM.
This is a great video. Do you have a video on the structure of the TLM? I was attracted to Catholicism solely because I saw a TLM service on TH-cam. For them to try and ban it is just insane.
Novus Ordo is a scourge.
That type of rhetoric does not make your case.
There is a terrible danger that people on both sides can fall into the trap of being a connoisseur of church services first and a Christian second. The same thing happens in the protestant churches as well, CS Lewis describes how the devil takes advantage of people's innate snobbery and sense of superiority in the Screwtape Letters. Saint Paul had similar nonsense going on in his day. I'm an ex protestant convert and I've seen something similar in most denominations. Right now I'm a bit weary of all of the nitpicking through liturgy, it is a huge distraction.
Do you think lack of reverence has any part in this ? look up the liturgical abuses in the NO and the obfuscation in defending those abuses. I have heard many times to find a reverent NO, why are they not all reverent ?. How about belief in the real presence ?, look at the levels of NO vs TLM on that.
I hear you. One of the glorious things about the TLM is that if you're going to it, there's no point in nitpicking there. There aren't a ton of options to have an opinion about. There's no need to get in conversations about how to reform the Rite, and what things should change to what. What ought to be done is defined and written down, with plenty of precedence to look at for minor details. It is what it is, you come, you kneel, you pray. It actually took me a while to figure this out, and just let the liturgy work on me.
Humans are creative and can develop a sense of superiority over pretty much anything, generally over entirely unearned gifts from God. I'm fairly confident that someone, somewhere, has felt superior over others due to the shape of their nose. Sin is always stupid.
It’s not just Liturgy. Liturgy communicates Theology. Many in the church want a new theology, a theology that the TLM opposes.
TLM doesn't exist, you know. It's a misnomer.
@@matthewschmidt5069 how so?
@@TheGringoSalado It's the Missal of 1962. The Missal of 1969 is traditional and can be in Latin.
The answer is in "Quo Primum" by Pope St. Pius V, and the Council of Trent. Future popes have no authority to ban TLM or to create new rites as that document is binding "in perpetuity" and "until the end of time."
Bingo
Yep, im reading now "they have uncrowned him" by Marcel Lefebre, he mentions having a conversation with a cardinal about the changes in the mass, at one point he asks the Cardinal: "What about Quo Primum What will we do with it? THe Cardinal dismisses it by answering : "the Pope today wouldnt have writen it"...
Brian, with all due respect, I think that your premise that Francis, et al give a rat's about unity is monumentally naive. No, what's afoot is that adherents to the traditional liturgy are also pretty much by definition adherents to traditional Church teaching, which Francis and his cynical cronies not only don't believe in, but are embarrassed about, for the traditional magisterium is in opposition to the diabolical secular world to which Francis, et al wish to accommodate the Bride of Christ.
This Catholic channel is one of the VERY few Catholic channels I will watch. It's consistent, concise, candid, wholesome, easy to digest, honest, intellectual, and rational. Michael Lofton tends to gaslight Catholics who *strongly* prefer to adhere to certain traditions that have kept the church intact for centuries.
Your not wrong , the one episode I point to is the one where he had an eastern rite cleric defending the profanation pacamamma, calling bad good is always a warning sign,
@@RickW-HGWT this is a slanderous accusation and one that is pretty obviously wrong. You should delete this comment. The priest in question was making the argument that the statue in question was not pacha mama. Maybe you think he's wrong but even if he was, that does not mean he's calling bad good or defending "profanation".
@@RickW-HGWTit was not pachamama your were brain washed by TM
@xombozo So where were the Catholic elements in this ceremony ? , look at Fr. Mitch Pacwas take on this profonation, why was such an ugly thing there or being the center of attention ?. This evil thing was being justified by this idiot priest, if it is so innocuous why don't we celebrate this thing with holy cards , have children dress up like it or build shrines in front of churches honoring it ?. This thing is on the same level as the crucifix on the hammer and sickle bergoglio accepted. This thing was not our lady of the Amazon as some popesplainers have claimed, it was a pagan diety / demon , and it was honored in the Vatican, maybe you can justify the woman and the weasel depiction at that synod as well.
@sniperpronerfmods9811 OK so what was it , and why was it there ?, if it is good why do we not celebrate and venerate this profonation at all our church's ?. At the same synod there was a banner of a woman and a weasel how about that as a holy thing ?.
A parable from transportation: if you are travelling together with a lot of people, and suddenly realised that you have lost most of them, you have to stop going into that direction, look around and maybe go back to the point where you knew where were you going.
I recently went to a Mass where the priest said in the homily that people wanting Latin were living in the past. When I looked at the congregation, I thought that perhaps the priest should drop English and go with the first language of the people he was ministering to.
I'd have no objection to a service entirely in Spanish for those who don't speak Latin or English.
Haha! Oh the irony!
Friends, I can’t articulate this better than Brian, he does such a wonderful job, that’s why we are all here. I just want to make a note of encouragement, (not gaslighting) that most of our Catholic faith journey’s time occurs outside of the walls of our parish. Mass is at most 7-14 hours a week. Probably less.
We are going through a time of upheaval, but much of it is out of our control.
Cultivate devotions to the Saints, have an active prayer life, have good spiritual reading, evangelize… continue to receive valid sacraments and pray, and do our small part to help restore the church to what she once was.
As bad as this is, we don’t have emperors hell-bent on exterminating us. Rely on Christ. He has not abandoned us, and He never will.
Youdaman!
Latin is the language of The Church.
I'm a newly confirmed Catholic (Sunday of the Most Holy Trinity 2024). Though I have sung in the parish choir for a few years now. I truly love when the Latin Rite is used. I understand why the Novus Ordo is both liked and disliked.
When we say Lord have mercy; I say kyrie eleison.
Many people have either forgotten or were never catechised.
We allow ourselves to think we are of a specific parish, but that is the exact folley that Saint Paul tells the Corinthians they are participating in.
Thank you for your work! It is appreciated! 🙏TLM🙏
Good Lord!
As someone who is not Catholic, the LM has always impressed me nonetheless as a strikingly beautiful mode of worship.
It saddens me greatly that this is even in consideration.
Why aren't you Catholic friend?
@@matthewschmidt5069 because far too many of the claims of the Catholic Church are either demonstrably false, based upon the flimsiest of evidence or reason (or none at all), and openly contradict each other in ways for which the explanations are little more than ad-hoc excuses straining the limits of credulity.
That’s the short version, lol.
Former Baptist here. I come from no liturgy, pop style contemporary Christian songs and ted type talks and all this watered down nonsense. The Latin Mass has completely changed my life and the thought of losing it feels like suffocating.
You might need to move to the EO, but these churches also have their issues
@timothy2794
Agree but the liturgy is one of the expressions of truth and the initial point of contact for many people. Then they discover that there is a lot more and that the EO has its own issues. Then they have to decide.
@@physiocrat7143 the issues in EO pale in comparison to RC in my personal experiences.
@@physiocrat7143 I believe Catholicism is true, liturgies aside, and I remain faithful to Rome. I strongly believe EO is wrong.
@@chase.23
The liturgy is the primary means by which the church transmits its teaching. The first thing that the Protestant reformers did was to change the Liturgy. If the liturgy is wrong then the church must be wrong.
If you believe that the EO is wrong you need a sound basis for that conclusion.
The Pope should leave Latin Mass groups in peace. He should ban all the irreverent idiocies in english Masses, done by unfaithful priests, and parishioners who are de facto non-Catholic.
Nice video Brian.
I really like your analogy. You brought up an aspect that I didn’t not consider about banning the Latin mass: many people coming to it for the protection of their own children. At all the traditional Latin masses I have been to, there have always been many young families. So I’m surprised that I never thought of that. But it really adds a new layer to this since people would go to any length to protect their children. Thanks for the video.
Thank you.
God Bless you.
Another question should the Pope then ban the Ambrosian rite or the Capotic rite or the Syro Malabar rite?
I am certain that the Eastern Rite Churches are worried that the Modernists, Wokists, Oriental Freemasons and the Alphabet prelates will be comming for them next.
They are also in the Vatican's sights.
When the TLM was introduced many rites throughout Europe were formally banned
@pmagrin the Latin rite was always being used along side other rites. When during the council of Trent they codified the Latin rite that was used for a thousand years they revoked rites less than 200 years old. They did this because there was a trend of rites popping up all over without oversight.
Excellent points. Im not even RC and I know that contemporary worship style, rewriting traditional liturgy, changing the rules of the mass, and a Latin mass ban is a bad idea.
First, your observations on the Council and the liturgy are spot on. Secondly the "official church" is not interested in unity. The Vatican while saying that TC is an effort to promote liturgical unity continues to promote acculturated liturgies, such as Zairian, the Mayan, the infamous Amazonian, and tolerates the Jesuits in India celebrating a Hindu infused "Mass" that many Catholics find divisive and offensive. All of these liturgies, with the Vatican's encouragement defy the supposed reason for which TC was proclaimed. Put simply the Vatican gaslights Catholics on liturgical matters with the same gusto it does on moral matters., think Fernandez, James Martin Francis coddled BFF or better yet Cardinal Hollerich.
The major reason for the Vatican's suppression of the TLM is political not religious. Many European adherents of the TLM also happen to be political conservatives not very happy with Francis newfound role as the acolyte of the WEF . and globalism in general. Andrea Grillo, the liturgical expert from the Saint Anslem university in Rome, and whom many suspect ghost wrote TC, has accused the TLM communities of being the cradles of neo fascism, not in those exact words but his message is quite clear. We know that the Church is supine to the goals of both globalism and the WEF. The Church's response to the covid crisis shows how quickly we could be denied the sacraments on the orders of the "international" community. Francis brooks no opposition to his plans for the Church because he believes he is the church and his modernist sycophants have suddenly discovered that hyper papalism can be useful in crushing the "opposition."
Furthermore, to discuss the development of the liturgy without insisting upon the intercession and historical influence of the Holy Spirit in what came to be or in the Spirit's role in the DOGMATIC Council Trent as opposed to the officially declared PASTORAL VII is to remove the Paraclete from His role in sustaining the Church. To believe that the TLM can be banned or that, as Roche has stated, it presents a defective ecclesiology is to sin against the Holy Spirit by removing His historical presence and protection in the Church's supreme act or worship. Sins against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven even if committed by popes.
In addition, if the TLM is defective so are all of the Eastern rite liturgies which have the same ecclesiology as the TLM. If the TLM can be banned so can these and in fact they should, based on the same groundless theology. Because the Vatican is clueless and lacks self-awareness, the hypocrisy of lauding the Church's diversity as found in the glorious Eastern rites and then banning the TLM which has the same historical validity never crosses their bigoted, unenlightened minds. And so, the clown show continues.
The solution to all of this is to recognize the TLM as yet another rite with its own bishops. If the NO when properly celebrated, is what its proponents claim it to be, and I do believe it is valid and has some very positive aspects, then they have nothing to fear. The fact that they refuse to do this means, in my book, me thinks the ladies doth protest too much and that they are using the NO as a cover for something else. What could that possibly be. Oh, wait we still have the synod on synodality to give us a clue...as if we didn't know already.
Interesting analysis mr John, and I have a little question for you. Did you know that Pope St Pius V, in about 1660 pronounced that there must never again be any more new rites? Your thoughts?
@@brianwayne3735 I was unaware of this. I suppose to comment I would have to know what form the pronouncement took. This would be interesting in the sense that the NO in spite of all the gaslighting that it is the Mass of the Council, or a reformed version of the TLM, it is in fact a new rite...its very name proclaims it to be so. Do you know what form his statement took?
Brain Pius V died in 1572 if you are speaking about Quo Primum then Pius did not state there can never be any new rites, however he did state that a priest could never be prevented ever again from celebrating the standard Roman liturgy that resulted from Trent. Tent did not create a new liturgy. Trent took what was already there and created a best practices version to defend the Mass against innovations.Trent permitted the continuance of other liturgies that were more that 200 years old.
@@JohnFDonovan-by1nt right interesting, okay 1560 probably then. Yes Quo Primum. See the NOVUS Ordo is a new rite like you know. But the mass of Pius the V is the old original rite. The other rites were 200 years old and he okay’d them. He abolished the other ones too.
@@brianwayne3735 Again, I am unaware that Pius actively abolished any other rites because most of the rites used the by
Church at that time were more than 200 years old. In addition the argument could be made that there were regional differences but they did not amount to what we would call separate rite. Even in the diverse middle ages the similarities between the different rites were astounding.
I love the TLM. But we can fall off the tightrope of orthodoxy on the left and on the right. I was saddened by traditiones custodes. But since then I’ve seen schism, disobedience and dissent against the Magisterium only increase on the “right”. Yes, those on the “left” who are guilty of countless scandal need to be dealt with. However I’ve never see traditionalist Catholics call out other traditionalist Catholics who overstep the line. And we need to be better about it. To me it’s seems like the Pope is deciding to be a firmer parent with us. Pray for the Pope and the Church.
The SSPX recently published a statement rejecting Archbishop Vigano's schism and sedevacantism. Fr. Chad Ripperger is a traditionalist priest with a fair number of conferences on youtube, including discussions of problems in traditionalism like unforgiveness, immoderate speech, and disrespect toward clergy (and also regarding the problems of being canonically irregular). FSSP pastors have a marked tendency to rebuke their flocks regarding problems they've noticed in their particular parish, something I've never experienced at a NO. I've been to a traditional Catholic retreat in which the priest repeatedly discussed "bitter zeal", and how to avoid falling into it.
It's not a weekly occurrence, but that's likely due to St. Paul's line about "Fathers do not provoke your children, lest they lose heart."
they could only limit the use.... not even satan can ban TLM
It would be best to let things continue as is, with the Novus Ordo coexisting with the TLM. Over time the inferior nature of the Novus Ordo would become ever more apparent in terms of decining participation, while the TLM would continue to steadily grow in adherence. But this is exactly what this pontificate fears the most, as it would reveal the utter folly of the liturgical "reform". Their pride will not stand for this, so I am sure that they will suppress the TLM in stages. But the TLM will survive underground and in various places...
Thank you, Brian. I love your metaphor and your tone was quite spot on!
Thank you for making this. I always appreciate your take on things.
It's really interesting looking at this from the evangelical perspective: among Protestants it was the more liturgically conservative traditions that went theologically liberal and morally relativistic in the latter half of the 20th century, and the more liturgically innovative traditions that stayed the course. (Most of the "mainline" protestant denominations are barely recognizable as proclaiming an Abrahamic, key alone Christian, faith).
But interestingly, the same secular liberalism that infected the "high church" side of Protestantism seems to have infected the "low church" side of Catholicism. Many of the individual features of the modern vernacular mass are things that a theologically educated evangelical will argue strenuously for, but the spirit in which it seems to have been developed as a whole is distressingly familiar.
From where I'm sitting, the form of the current mass is not nearly as important as the forces behind it.
I couldn’t agree more with a position that recognizes the legitimacy and value of the TLM.
Hi Brian, I am a fan of your channel and appreciate your perspective. I hope you will take the following comment in a spirit of fraternal charity and as a constructive suggestion for your development as a thinker. The second half of this video was very helpful. The first half of the video struck me, however, as a very good example of a tortured metaphor. Good analogies lead an audience from understanding something known to understanding something unknown. Your example did not make an argument or elucidate your point.
Good One Brian. True true true. Well said.
Brian, I see what you're saying. Yet when i come to your comments I see people claiming that the Holy Father, the Church (or some facsimile of it, so they say) has done this on purpose; that they actually desire to lead people away from Christ and that the Latin Mass is The Answer that will solve all of our problems, as if modernity simply played no role.
I am a new Catholic, was previously a Southern Baptist. I've been attending mass since last September and have gone through RCIA but I've yet to be confirmed. My NO parish is wonderful, the laity are faithful and kind, the clergt diligent, insightful, and very faithful. Though smaller, they do work to keep the liturgy revenant. However, when i first became convinced of catholicism I found your channel, among PWA, Taylor Marshall and others like you first. I found a long and hard debate about the liturgy and many online asserting that the Church had been infiltrated or that the most recent Pope was just a freemason's pawn. I encountered those who argued very convincingly that the Chair is empty and that the true church is found only in the TLM. I found purity spiral inside purity spiral and it nearly stopped my conversion dead in it's tracks.
Now, i desire beauty and reverence as much as anyone, but even the worst NO mass I've been to was more reverent than any Protestant service I've attended, and worlds above my Baptist Church. I suspect that if it wasn't for Vatican II, I probably would have never been able to jump the gap to Mother Church. Just something to consider
The celebration of the traditional right was enshrined forever by Pope Pious V. Anyone who forbids or attempts to remove the traditional form of the Latin Mass is in direct disobedience to the church and to the Lord
That the popesplaining often has contempt for that valid argument is telling. The obfuscation and hostility is off the charts, you can sense the fear in them.
It's called the Council of Trent.
Yes. Yet one Cardinal claimed recently that whatever Pope Francis does will be irreversible. That being the case then so is Quo Primum irreversible.
They are getting caught in their own deceit and lies.
Quo Primum itself implies that the mass can be altered, as Pope Pius V himself did, and the reason he did it was to limit the liturgical variety of the time. Later competent authorities (ie the pope) can further alter it if they see fit; not regional ministers, not patriarchs, not cardinals, but the pope. Quo Primum has no intention of binding a future pope.
So do you go by the ‘62 missal? Isn’t that edited from Pius V’s directives?
@@killianmiller6107 there's a difference between altering something and banning it. So what's your point?
The question was;
'Should the Pope ban The Latin Mass'!
There is nothing in that question about alter.
In fact Quo Primum set in stone that nothing to do with The Latin Rite as decreed in The Infallible Council of Trent could be touched from then on.
Pope Paul 6th fully understood this and that's why he introduced a whole new Rite, The Novus Ordo to run alongside The TLM rite as it could not be cancelled or banned or touched in any way.
This was confirmed by every Pope since Vatican 2 except Pope Francis who has no right to put restrictions on something that is protected by the Last 2 Councils.
I say keep the Tridentine Mass and ban the Novus Ordo.
After seeing how the authoritarian stripping away of the Tridentine Mass in the 70s went, and the damage it did to peoples' faith, and the souls that fled or fell from the Church, why would you want to repeat the exercise by banning the Novus Ordo?
He has no right to ban what was right and holy for centuries, pope or not. Latin is the language of the church
Benedict XVI. loved the TLM, there is no reason to change it!
No, he should not ban the TLM. There should also be a move to normalize the Novus Ordo in Latin. It isn't the particular liturgy that is most important. It is the reverence behind it.
Yes, but aren’t we expected to submit to Church authority? We either believe in the keys or we don’t..
obedience / humility/ submission to authority is paramount in the church…
If the pope adds twerking to the liturgy, are you gonna obey?
Excellent analogy, Brian. Thank you for making this observation. I’ve said the same thing for years about the new rite needing to be reformed in a way that incorporates the old rite more. And while I agree that it may not be the best option, reverting completely to the old rite temporarily would not be a bad second option. It should definitely not be banned. God bless.
One small, but capital detail of the history here summarized was ommitted: Cardinal Lefebvre engaged in an open act of schism. Much of the reason why the traditional mass faces great resistence today is exactly the association with schism.
The great thing about the ban is that more people will realise the profoundness of the crisis we´re in and come to the sspx, the only living branch of the Church.
Noone should leave the Church of Jesus Christ for a schismatic group. Even if they have smells and bells. Sad to see the spirit of schism not being fervently challenged here.
@@davidlarsson7555 We are schismatics for praticing catolicism? 🤔
So how is Aquinas or Saint Augustin not Schismatic then? Because we are praticing the same faith they where...
@@BPGM1989The SSPX do not fully practice Catholicism since they set up a rival altar to that of the Church of Jesus Christ (their own tribunals, their utter disregard for episcopal authority as sent by the Church etc etc). The same kind of argument that you make is made by every schismatic, you are just "preserving"? The Eastern Orthodox, the Jansenists, the Donatists, all of them could say the exact same thing as you and they also point to saints that we all agree are saints. You suffer the same ecclesial fate as they do, because you are severed from the head of the Church. Your disputes are unresolvable. And if taken to its logical conclusion, this line of reasoning ends up in a rejection of the promises of Christ to the Church.
That's a bad analogy. Driving on the roads is inherently dangerous, but going to Mass isn't. The road rules needed to be changed for the safety of travellers. The Mass rules didn't.
Yeah it's a pretty bad analogy
You said yourself that the "new law" did not ban many of the practices and forms of the "old law". This means those practices can all be brought back even if we no longer use the 1962 missal.
I think, this year especially, I have seen in my local parishes a renewed respect for the mass, even more so than when i was a child in the 90's. Why have a division over this matter, when we can unify and refine what is shared? I hope I don't sound confrontational, I am just trying to offer some helpful thoughts.
You asked a question at the end of the video and i will answer it here, to best of my ability.
You phrase the question in a way that assumes the necessity of restraining the organic process, as Benedict put it, of the evolution of our form of worship we call the Mass. Is it not a bit reductive to say that we should firmly adhere to the older form when there are even older forms of the mass that we no longer practice today? We must be open to follow the Church as it guides us. We should not have changed so radically, I think we can all agree. It would be a mistake however to step backwards so radically either. Let us meet in the middle and not create a church of two minds but of one.
Good analysis, we are dealing with a hierarchy that is incompetent and does not have our best interests in mind. Look at the heretics, perverts and traitors he surrounds himself with, they don't see the failures the v2 has wrought, to do so would be to admit this was a failure.
In the first place, because there are many parts of the TLM that cannot be brought into the NO (at least not without rewriting the missal and lectionary). In the second place, because regardless of the fact that many practices (ad orientem, reception of Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling, Gregorian Chant, use of Latin, etc.) *can* be brought back, in practice, priests who actually try to bring them back get slapped down by either their bishop or their parishioners, or both. TLM parishes often contain a lot of people who tried to encourage traditional practices at their original NO parish, but found no welcome for such things. TLMers are perhaps a percent or two of Sunday-Mass-going Catholics, and we've been congregating where traditional practices are welcomed, encouraged, and taught (because we don't initially know them) for decades.
I don't think you sound confrontational at all. But I think your thoughts have already been proven not to work for several decades. There's nothing stopping NO parishes from adopting our shared heritage, except themselves, and if they choose to adopt it now, I'll be delighted. But why should I leave what works and is beautiful to go to what might work itself into something reasonable in a few years, IF everyone there starts embracing things they've resisted before?
The traffic analogy does break down at one key point: The Latin Church has been a Church of many Rites about as far back as history can see. Before the Tridentine Rite was codified there was the Mass that became the Tridentine Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, the Rite of Braga, the Sarum Rite, the Gallican Rite, and many religious orders had their own, like the Dominicans, Carthusians, etc. There was even a small region that celebrated the Tridentine Rite partly in the vernacular, back in the Middle Ages. Liturgical diversity was never seen as divisive. I see no reason for it to be so now either, and the Eucharistic Conference's welcome of different Rites seems an object lesson in doing the same in modern times.
@@duathellto1460 thanks for the thoughtful answer.
Great video as always
I honestly take issue with what is said here. The problem was never the expression of the mass. The problem is the TLM participants who use the TLM to disparage the Novus Ordo and use it as a means to create disunity within the church. Is it all TLM participants? No. However, there is enough of them.
While I do enjoy your perspectives, I think this is one topic I would have liked you to have a more neutral positioning, in light of the fact Pope Francis already said he wasn't going to ban the Tridentine Mass. I think the issue is those small groups of participants who disparage a valid Liturgy and use it as means to injure their brothers and sisters in The Body.
I apologize if my remarks seem offensive. This is an issue I get passionate over, because I think many people overlook a key issue in this worn discussion.
Its the otherway around, you guys are paranoid and think that just because there are a few schismatics that justifies persecuting us
I agree - all it takes is a look through the comments here to see the real problem. The real problem is a lot of the people who favor TLM do so as an expression against Vatican II and the legitimacy of the Pope. When the rite has become infected with (and possibly predominated by) sedevacantists, the church needs to take some form of action.
Lots of the comments here are basically “I’m a traditional Catholic and don’t listen to the Pope at all”. At some point the church needs to correct them and let them know that if they hold that position, they are not Catholic - and it’s time to either accept the leadership of the church or formally become schismatic Protestants that they are already in their hearts.
How is the TLM participants who create disunity in the church when the TLM that we attend was promulgated in the 16 century precisely to bring unity to the catolic church and avoid diferent local rites?
How is it our fault that sucessive Popes decided to disobey their predecessors when they had specific orders not ot do it?
Even worse is when those changes are done in a effort to appease the world, catolic teaching says that the 3 main instigators of sin are the body, the Devil and THE WORLD, so how is it this on us?
Im sorry but i have to side with sspx here, either Christ left us intemporal truths and a Church that is to be a santuary against the world, or if the teachings of the church are to be adapted with time then it is not true.
Im not sure how this is going to be solved and returned to a place of coherence but until it isnt the sspx will guard the tradition.
Simple answer NO
They should also make the Vatican City 2 official languages
Italian and Latin
There are limits to Papal authority. Precedence is essential in the Church after all the traditio of the Church is to be found in the Gospels, New Testament and apostolic father' early Church father. The Roman liturgy and Mass is ancient. The Pope can't abrogate the traditional Mass. However the loophole the powers that be use is to attempt to limit the traditional Mass and Sacraments. There are many apostolic Churches and Rites of Mass and Sacraments so apostolic variety is normal and legitimate. There is a 1965 pre Bugnini edition of the Mass and Sacraments that mirtirs what the Council envisaged. The Bugnin books of the Mass and Sacraments should be abrogated and thrown out.
look the old mass never was abbrogated and can not be, Pope Bennedict 16 stated that, what is holy remains so, and for centuries the old mass grew organicly and grew from slow revelation, the Vatican 2 was to give pride of place to latin chant and traditional devotions with the option of the folk language and regretibly changed things because they thought people wanted to take a more active part, but most of all it was people like buggninni that pitted the two sides against on and other and lied about what each had said saying to the pope the council said this even if it had not or to the council the pope said this and this, and shaped the whole thing in his own image and those in league with him.
The pope should ban Novus Ordo Mass.
Great video, sir.
Imagine being a CEO of a company, the most successful sector of your company is growing, makes more profits, generates more products. And then you have another sector, which is slowly starting to generate less and less profit, makes lower quality products, doesn't listen to the CEO as much on the company rules, dissrespects the founding CEO of the company. And then the CEO bans the sector that is fruitful, in order to make sure, that the failing sector isn't offended by its own failure.
Great analogy, the church is a business, that is not bad , the only explanation is the ceo is incompetent and cares nothing for the company or customers.
You missed the part where the "growing" part of the company has some rogue actors playing for several different competing companies (EO, sedes, SSPX, R&R occult schismatics) and very few in that sector call that out when they see it. Somehow, I don't think a CEO should overlook that sort of poaching. No matter if "someone else is worse". I think the rad trads are a bigger problem than you want to admit.
Praying for the Restoration of Traditional Latin Mass
Pope: We need to find a way to get young people back in the Church. The Church: The young people really like the TLM. Pope: Anything but that! I need some useful ideas.
Perfectly said. I will also be making a video about this soon
Before acting to strip something away, one must ask why is that something there as it was.
It seems an opportunity for incorporation of a bit of modernism was beheld then pursued, and the result was due to eager anticipation instead of careful reflection.
nuanced
Even if I never attended a Traditional Latin Mass, I think it should be a valid rite as well as the Novus Ordo should remain a valid rite in the Catholic Church.
It´s sad to see how the direction of celebration or the language are misused for ideology. For example, I think that with smaller groups (maybe 15 people max) in a small chapel a mass where the priest celebrates with the back to the people is fine. Then the idea that the priest celebrates with the parish comes really to life. But with bigger masses I think it´s better that the priest celebrates in the direction to the parish.
We cannot forget we have the Eucharist! The rite, while being critical to this, is a means to an end. It cannot by itself be an end. Good Liturgy: YES. but always remember: Jesus is fully present in the Ordinary for or the Extraordinary form of Mass!
One of the problem with the TLM crowd is that a few vocal individuals have weaponized it against the Church itself. They may be few, but they are loud and other TLM attendees remain silent about them.
I don't think they are a few. The whole SSPX was basically born out of disobedience to the pontiff and the bishops got excommunicated. They are the majority of churches that offer the tridentine Latin mass and are even not allowed to do so by pope Francis which prohibition they disregarded, unlike the FSSP who also offers the Latin mass, which broke off from the SSPX for the reason they went against the pontiff.
Archbishop Vigano, the hero of Taylor Marshall and other trad influencers, is a prime example. Well said
This analogy is brutally effective.
I thought thr latin mass was more in line with the roots of the church...why would anyone eliminate it
The roots of the church would be apostolic times, not medieval. V2 argued for certain reforms for the ‘69 missal precisely to restore some of those apostolic traditions, like allowing communion under both kinds and reception in the hand.
Yes, it was THE Mass until the late 1960s.
@@NPC999 starting when?
@@kreatillion1718 the last supper.
@@NPC999 The latin rite was THE mass since the last supper?
Now it's clearer than ever Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre was indeed right.
I need to know the Gregorian chant that you use in your videos
I think the movement of the second Vatican council to reach out to the world in the languages spoken today is obviously a good move. But I agree that there must be a sense of continuity and organic renewal in what emerges. I would of course not ban the celebration of the Latin Rite, but I do believe we are being called forward to serve the people of the world.
The mass is the mass no matter what language.
The language is not the main issue. The Mass is an action based on a theology.
Nobody cares about it being in latin, otherwise we would just go to latin novus ordo masses....
Well said. Thanks. 🙏
I haven't watched the video but having watched your videos for some time now for some reason I have a feeling the answer is "no...."
I don't think he should, but the complaint from the other side is that there are many in the LTM community who use it to attack the NO. I have seen this lunacy from one particular individual in my parish who over 30 years has turned up from time to time to berate us in mass. Punishing the LTM community for the sins of individuals does seem nuts though.
Also the actual rubrik for the NO is not as dissimilar as it would appear from the practice, there needs to be more discipline in the NO.
I'm sad to hear about this one individual on the TLM side doing this. This actually shows how little of this goes on in reality.
I haven't seen it myself attending The TLM, but I have heard NO people berate TLM goers as being discriminatory.
They just don't get it that it's a choice, just like Communion in the hand or kneeling and on the tongue.
Do you think if diocesan ‘62 masses are further restricted, will the faithful migrate to the ‘69 missal? I sure would hope so (rather than leaving the church) because the ‘69 missal could genuinely need traditionally minded people to restore the original intent of SC.
@@killianmiller6107 I do not know. I like that the NO has more readings in its cycles.
I would like to see much more reverence available in each parish but with flexibility across different masses for the form of music.
@@killianmiller6107 no I think it will go underground as there should be no restrictions on it in the first place.
Neither Vatican 2 or Pope Paul 6th called for any restriction or bans on The TLM rite. They were to co-exist just like Communion on the tongue and kneeling or in the hand.
By restricting The TLM or banning it Pope Francis is putting himself in direct opposition to the very council that he says everyone must obey as The True Magisterium. The very council that never restricted, abrogated or banned in any way The TLM.
He can't as Pope just dictate this or that, otherwise he could say something like, " we are going to introduce pagan Masses", for example! Would we have to attend them instead of The Novus Ordo or TLM.
CERTAINLY NOT!
If he starts to dictate and attack instead of protecting Liturgies then he is insulting the Office of Saint Peter and The Holy Trinity.
It is not within his remit to do so. The first precept of The Catholic Church is the salvation of souls, all souls.
Anything that affects that precept is not allowed even by a Pope. If his actions and statements hurt in any way the faithful, or, causes them to be in schism or depart from the church then he simply has no rite to The Keys of Saint Peter. Don't forget almost half a million left the church in Germany under this pontificate.
Shouldn't he be concerning himself with trying to get those lost souls back into the church rather than restricting what the faithful finds keeps them in the church in the first place?
To restrict the TLM is simply destructive and causing disunity!
Pretrt sure those who want to attack will attack.
For 100s of yars the latin mass was right. Then 60 years ago it became wrong.
No, especially for its Orthodoxy
The car example is poignant.
What do you think of the Missal of 1965?
If the rumours are true, this is not the approach of the father of the Prodigal Son.
You know if the NO was made MORE REVERENT, no TLM movement would ever have happened. If the NO was MORE in line with tradition rather than less, then we would have no TLM left to restrict. The NO is honest to goodness inferior. It is inferior ONLY because it is less reverent, less organized and less in line with tradition. Good on you Brian, you nailed this. For me and my family we CANNOT attend Novus Ordo because it is not doctrinally safe.
The Latin Mass belongs to Catholic communion on the tough not in the hand prodestant.Hands of our Latin Mass.The beauty of the Latin Mass. The prist faces jesus with the people and we are adoring the Body and Blood of our Beautiful jesus when the prist raises the Holy bread My lord and My God that's what we witnessed Our Beautiful jesus 🙏 ❤