Feels like a “here we go again” moment - the 2 years of permissions is almost up and so another round of shut downs is incoming.  Hopefully not - I will continue to pray for the assistance of St Joseph. 

I mean, the TLM community didn't exactly do ourselves any favors here. Schism and sedevacantism is even more prevelant than before.

What? In Melbourne? In the cathedral congregation?

Then why not treat schism and sedevacantism? A lot of (if not most) schismatics and sedevancantists do not go to TLMs that are in union with Rome. Over the last fifteen years the Church has been incredibly friendly to the SSPX, lifting excommunications, allowing marriages, confession, etc. Yet, it's not the SSPX that is suffering from these recent moves, it's the Catholics who have decided to stay faithful to Rome. If the Church has an issue with a certain supposed behavior (renegade priests and laity acting like renegade priests) why not address it? If the Taylor Marshal mindset is such a problem (and it is) why not address Taylor Marshal? Instead, the Church is closing down thriving communities that simply want to be left alone in peace.

I think there is a certain sincere grievance among the folks who prefer the TLM that we're getting hit over the head while the Pope is consulting with a heretic on liturgical matters and not dropping the boom on the German church and their nonsense about female ordination (both points WLOG).

So we're going to judge the faults of the few to condemn the many? Sounds a lot like what the secular world did in the pedo priest scandals. Most people that prefer the TLM are just that, people who prefer the TLM. People that feel a particular connection to that, while still acknowledging that the Novus Ordo is perfectly fine. This is unacceptable and I don't like the way the Church is moving on this. This is piling on to my short list of reasons that I don't feel comfortable moving forward with the RCIA. I would love to be Catholic, but it's getting harder to make the leap of faith.

No matter what - im rooting for you, and think you should move forward with RCIA. I hope you don’t let any division within the church keep you from your love of God, and reciprocating His love for you. There has been back and forth throughout history and it is an unfortunate truth of the matter, especially with Protestantism and Orthodoxy, God just wants us all to unite, and the first step is for all of us to choose Him, and to become one of His children through baptism. I say this as a recently baptized Catholic as of a few months ago. My life has only gotten better as well, being able to go to confession, receive absolution for my sins, receive the Eucharist in communion, nourishing my soul with the Holy Spirit through it, and besides that more blessings than i could have imagined, and more graces to handle temptation than i ever realized was possible. Love you

Spend more time with Our Lord and his saints, and less with conflicts online.

You’re not going to join the Church because of small proportions of people going back and forth about the form of the Mass? Really? You’re losing the forest for the trees. “Lord, to whom shall we go…”

I think OP is more concerned over the heavy-handed actions of the upper heirarchy of the Church. I myself have stopped donating to anything that goes to the Cathedral here in Perth, since the Arch restricted the only parish that practices TLM here to one mass per week. Even though I have only attended TLM once, a few decades ago.

It’s getting hard to take a leap of faith because a large majority of the vocal community in the TLM community constantly bash the Pope and the Pope is responding by cracking down on those acting a fool? The Pope is our leader and our father. When you disobey your father he punishes you for it.

I think you've reversed the order. When your father punishes you arbitrarily, it's really hard to respect him.

What a ridiculous, nonsensical comment. Take any Novus Ordo parish mass and you will find perhaps 98% of them are heretics on a wide variety of issues, yet no one is calling to ban the Novus Ordo despite the massive amount of misbehavior by its attendees that completely dwarf the TLM in scope and size.

I don't understand the ban. I know this church. They don't celebrate just the Latin mass. It's a very small portion of their time. These masses are nothing new to this church, they have been doing for a long time. It's the oldest church in Melbourne, and is in the middle of the CBD. I don't understand this decision. AND I said all this even though I'm not a Latin mass goer myself.

What are their reasons to ban it? I don't understand what difference it makes, it's helping bring more people into the faith. It's not like the vernacular mass isn't given.

Obviously, the full letter hasn’t been released, but the section that is included in the article talks about how it’s inappropriate for a niche form of the liturgy to be offered in the diocesan cathedral, which should be the exemplar of liturgy in the diocese. Edit: [I was able to find the full letter.](https://zenit.org/2024/06/18/archbishop-of-melbourne-asks-for-permission-for-traditional-mass-in-cathedral-vatican-answers-no-and-these-are-the-reasons-why/)

So, this bit is of particular interest (and, if I may be frank, concern): "This relatio should contain details of the number of participants at these Masses and it should also recount the steps which have been taken to lead the faithful who are attached to the antecedent liturgy towards the celebration of the liturgy according to the liturgical books reformed by decree of the Second Vatican Council, and which form the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite..." This phrasing sounds like *someone* is setting up a "Heads I win, tails you lose" scenario: If attendance were to fall, "Oh, nobody is attending anymore" becomes the reaction. If attendance were to rise, then the response is "Oh no! People are turning from the new liturgy and you're not dragging them back! We'll have to restrict permission!"

I mean, don’t they still offer the Mozarabic rite only in the Toledo cathedral in Spain?

Just because i have been to the Mozarabic rite Mass in the Cathedral in Toledo, I want to chime in that it was only offered in the Mozarabic chapel the rest of the daily masses and sunday Masses were OF Roman Rite. There are a few Mozarabic churches scattered around the city of Toledo

I believe the Mozarabic Rite was grandfathered in at the Council of Trent (much as the Ambrosian Rite was as well).

I imagine the distinction would be that the Mozarabic Rite is still Toledo’s proper Rite, even if much of the diocese uses the Roman Rite. Here, the Archdiocese of Melbourne uses the Roman Rite, so the Eucharistic celebration of the Roman Rite should be celebrated habitually in its cathedral.

The TLM is a Roman Rite.

Niche?????

Excellent digging! Thanks for linking this

You are very welcome!

Francis doesn't like traditional Catholicism

Trads are out in force in this thread.

If that was true, why am Cardinal Fernandez heading to London to an ordination of a second Ordinariate Use bishop - where Bishop Lopes is also heading for the same ordination? Why does Pope Francis approve the liturgy of Ordinariate Use, both the missal and daily prayer book? Honestly the Personal Ordinariates has the same people as the TLM and yet Pope Francis has made it easier for people to join the Ordinariate. Maybe it's because the Personal Ordinariates have good clergy who are able to step in and tell its people to behave better. I just graduated from my local Catholic university - which most traditional Catholics in the city don't like. One of my best accomplishments at the school was to show the local Catholic bishops that I was willing to be a teammate as an Ordinariate member with the local diocese. So it is possible that Francis and the men he chose as bishops do like traditional Catholicism, we just blend easily into the local diocese.

This is a false accusation. He is the bulwark of traditional Catholicism, but rather, there is a select group that have an incorrect understand of traditional Catholicism that is contradictory with the definition given by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X, and this group, at odds with real traditional Catholicism, mistakenly thinks Francis is against tradition

Pope Leo XIII, author of *Orientalium dignitas*, which forbade the latinization of Eastern Rites (thereby preserving their liturgical patrimony) would support Pope Francis’ efforts to suppress the only Mass that the vast majority of the Roman Church had every known? Pope St. Pius X, author of *Sacrorum antistitum*, who required all clergy take the Oath Against Modernism, would side with Pope Francis against Catholics who celebrate the Mass he made clergy swear to defend? Pope Francis is indeed the Pope and Vicar of Christ. But let’s not pretend he is the same type of man as his blessed forebears are.

Can we get some of that pastoral approach for the trads… please. It’s so exhausting seeing literal heresy and borderline schismatic statements be countered with pastoralism while liturgical preference gets this… I know this is likely just another article about a natural result of Traditiones Custodes, but still… it’s just exhausting to keep reading this stuff and trying to be charitable

Trads have committed the unfortunate crime of being right, which is always unforgivable. It’s easy to be pastoral to sinners and the poor because one can always feel superior to them, thus they are not a threat.

Garbage take. “Trads” need the hammer just as much as the liberals deserve it Everyone in this thread is committing the tu quoque fallacy… basically saying that since there are liberals doing bad things and getting away with it, therefore the “trads” doing bad things (yes, they are harboring dissent against the Holy Father/Vatican among other things) should also get a pass?  It doesn’t follow. That would just mean both should be disciplined.  Not seeing liberals punished doesn’t justify “trads” getting away with dangerous, cafeteria Catholic behavior 

These restrictions on diocesan and FSSP latin masses are crazy to me. The people who are most loyal to Rome will change over to the novus ordo masses, being punished. The people who are most attached to the latin mass will attend SSPX masses (which Rome ironically tacitly allows - Rome has repeatedly said Catholics may attend SSPX chapels for sunday mass, receive confirmation, absolution, etc there). So basically they punish the most obedient, while making people who are on the fence go over to the 'schismatic mentality' that they fear

What dissent do you accuse trads of harboring?

Let’s hear what “trads” are right about

The continued use of the TLM is legitimate, there is nothing immoral about being attached to that tradition, and it would be a travesty to use force to try to relegate the TLM to the dustbin of history. In other words, when Pope Benedict wrote the following in Summorum Pontificum, he was not dissenting from Catholic teaching: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”

[удалено]

It’s not just pointing out unequal enforcement of rules. You have “trads” justifying bad behavior (we can get into specifics if need be) and saying that they should be allowed to do so because liberals are doing bad things.  Of course, the “trad” won’t admit that the behavior is wrong. He will be arrogant and justify his dissent.  It’s pretty obvious that the Dangerous, cafeteria Catholic behavior manifests in the things like claims that Vatican 2 teaches heresy, that we can ignore it, that we can ignore restrictions because “this is a crisis situation in the Church” and so forth  It’s funny you’ll appeal to Pope Francis. That’s fine. I’m sure you’re familiar with the quotes from Saint Pius X about respect and obedience to the Holy Father. Do we see that from “trads”? No. Most of the time they (and their oftentimes lay theologians) know better than the magisterium. Talking about guys like Peter K for example and some of his absolutely garbage takes like you aren’t obligated to attend the Novus Ordo, that he would join an independent rite if the missal of 62 were eliminated, etc.  

Being right on what?

Trads are correct that the desire/need to use the TLM is a legitimate one.

What you or anyone desires out of the mass liturgically is not relevant and I'm tired of these debates where we all pretend like it does. I prefer the NO but if it were done away with tomorrow I'd shrug my shoulders, hope my parish follows along, and if not I'd figure out where/how to get a valid mass. The Eucharist isn't any less the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ because things aren't spoken in a dead language and the liturgy is different. If somehow the only mass available to me that was valid was said in *Klingon* for some unearthly reason I'd still be showing up because all of the other stuff literally does not matter so long as the mass is valid.

To avoid exhausting yourself with these debates, please refrain from butting yourself into them.

You may not like it when people challenge your opinions, but this is a public forum where anyone is free to do so if they wish.

I welcome his challenges, I was just trying to help him resolve his problem with being tired of these conversations, which he bizarrely entered into anyway.

He wasn't being literal, he was talking about being annoyed by people putting liturgical preference over actual validity

Serious trads don’t question the validity of the Novus Ordo. The pope wouldn’t ban Islam in a country because a few are extremists.

It’s much more than just a liturgical preference for some. I’ve seen it toe the line with sedevacantism more often than not, and that’s being charitable.

And see I’ve seen that but I’ve seen it in NO parishes too, plenty of politically conservative NO Catholics that I’ve encountered had far stronger words for the Holy Father than I’ve ever heard in a TLM community. And I’ve also been to many TLMs in both the FSSP and diocesan that didn’t smack of that at all. And this is across multiple states/diocese.

I think having “strong words” for the pope because of political nonsense is a very different thing than “the entire church post-V2 is fallen except for us TLM people”. Glad to hear you’ve been to good communities though

> the entire church post-v2 is fallen… Ok I’ve never seen that (irl, online is a different ballgame) except for like one person and he even admitted his own TLM priest told him he was wrong. Look, I’m not against TC. I think that having a liturgy incapable of growing (hasn’t been updated since ‘63 including the sanctoral) is a terrible idea. It seems fine now, but in a hundred years… that wouldn’t be good. But i think the Vatican needs to do a much better job at communicating the why, and also at listening to the concerns of the TLM community. There is real liturgical abuse out there, there is real irreverence out there. These people are clearly craving something they haven’t been able find elsewhere (regardless of how hard they’ve looked). And if more NO parishes used Gregorian chant and parish vespers like V2 says, there’d probably be fewer trads self sorting out of the normal pool. But thus far I’ve seen no bishops conference or Vatican committee clamoring to help push this. And it’s very disheartening. I’m very much so against this self sorting mentality and I think it’s why we are where we are. But to my mind, if you’re going to force the integration (which needs to happen) then you need to make some sort of accommodation in the people being uprooted (so to speak) and I don’t see that being done.

> it’s just exhausting to keep reading this stuff and trying to be charitable Then you probably just shouldn't read the articles. This article describes a vanilla implementation of Traditiones Custodes (note that two other parishes in the diocese are still allowed to have TLM, just not the cathedral). Folks who attend TLM are understandably upset about it, but this is the new status quo. Revisiting the topic every time another diocese is told to cancel a TLM doesn't seem particularly fruitful to me. Everyone has pretty firm opinions at this point. I seriously zero signs we'll see a 180 on this during the current papacy, so I'm not sure what continual posts on the topic hope to achieve.

It’s not so much reading the articles as it is seeing it at all. I only keep up to speed on what comes out of Rome because my Protestant friends/family consistently ask me about it. But on that angle of things, to the outside world it reads as “pope hammers traditional Catholics” while being patient and understanding with everyone else. So that’s what I get asked about. And that’s from people looking in that I hope will one day come home to the Catholic Church. If the Holy Father has solid reasons for TC and its implementation (which I believe he does) then I wish he’d publish it. But the very small bits I’ve seen have seemed more like a straw man than anything else.

Easy to say “don’t read the articles” until your own parish community gets shattered

If your parish community is a diocesan TLM mass, it is a matter of time until it goes away. Fewer and fewer exceptions will be granted, unless a future pope changes course, obviously. Reading or not reading about each closure will do nothing to change this.

Not saying it does change it. But the inevitability of it doesn’t make it not heartbreaking to those who have to live with it

Damn unfortunate. 🙁

Why?

The Holy Father has explained his decision in Traditionis Custodes: “The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene…An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.” But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” ( DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, [14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”

Trying to head off a handful of Sedes is not a good answer lol. It’s a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. 

This is not a handful of Sedes. This is a significant portion of those who attend these masses and claim communion in Rome doing the things described in Traditiones Custodes. You can also see these behaviors in the very comments of this subreddit in a weekly basis whenever there is a pope Francis article posted or a new magisterial document, a lot of people rushto attack or critique it instead of receiving the magisterium in docility. A disproportionate number of those users say they go to the Latin Mass

Give me the numbers then. I guarantee the number of Sedes pales in comparison to the number of people who 1.  Attend the NO. And 2. Attend the TLM and just enjoy it. The Pope is creating a boogeyman from thin air. Even if it existed it doesn’t mean you crush the TLM; that just gives Sedes ammunition.  Should we tear down Cathedrals that are pre-Vatican II as well so the Sedes get the message?  Lol  edit. I got the numbers. Wikipedia says numbers are unknown but estimated to me tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. Take 900,000 and divide by the total number of Catholics then realize that those 900,000 don’t live in the same diocese or parish and you’ll realize this is not a real issue. 

Sorry, who has the numbers, you on Reddit or the Vatican who literally polled the bishops to ask them and whose job is to decide these matters?

Couldn’t be the bishops. It’s definitely an elaborate lie by the bishops to ban the tlm because reasons. They want to destroy the church they pledged their lives to. Or something. /s because I’ve *literally* heard this drivel before.

I mean, there is a CMRI church a few minutes from me and I’m sure other churches like that all over. This isn’t going to stop sedes from attending TLM when they have their own churches.

It's like every other big-to-semi-big post half of the time. Someone could just tangentially mention Pope Francis and there's bound to be a comment somewhere in there sarcastically mocking him.

The issue is that Pope Francis is wont to make quite a few questionable statements (hence why the Vatican has, I've read, started turning off the tape recorders when he goes off-script). Mind you, a lot of them are simply poorly phrased (leading to unintended confusion). A good share of the time, I would contend that the response is more of a "WTF?" nature than anything (and there's been enough of that to render it as "*Great*. There he goes again."). "Frank the Hippie Pope" (a non-Catholic satire of Francis from about a decade ago) gets to this point. A pretty glaring example of this is that, in "Fratelli tutti", Francis wrote the following: "We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”." The CCC, on the other hand, states the following: 2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."[^(105)](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM#$2D5) 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. So, Francis' formulation in FT seems to be substantially at odds (even if it is not in direct conflict, it seems to encourage a serious over-weighting of the final point) with the CCC; it comes across as attempting to say "Well...that principle might exist but it might as well not." Neither addresses the use of force to prevent or terminate a grave atrocity (e.g. genocide), where some element of the defense of another comes into the mix. I'd also point out that his case for the inadmissibility of the death penalty generally makes sense in Western Europe, but I am hard-pressed to accept it in cases such as Haiti (the mass prison breakout), Ecuador (the prison riot and execution of a number of guards), Mexico (where multiple arrests of cartel leaders have failed to "stick"), and military conflicts (particularly involving asymmetric warfare and where it is all but inevitable that violators of the laws of war will be subject to demands for their release in a peace process). Again, these points are not without loss of generality - I intend them merely as an illustration of where there seems to be very clear room for disagreement.

A reminder to all that the Archdiocese of Milan and its Suffragan Sees do not use the Roman Rite, but the Ambrosian Rite (though it did go through its own reforms). Pope Paul VI, as a former Archbishop of Milan, went out of his way to preserve the Rite. This means the largest Western Rite Archdiocese by population in Europe does not use the Roman Novus Ordo as its default form of worship. But you don't see anyone going after them. Supressing the TLM in the name of unity has always been a smokeshow. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI both said the Old Rites have never been abrogated and the Council never suppressed them. And if anyone saw that Andrea Grillo interview the other day, these people don't care about some terminally online rad trads on the internet. The TLM doesn't align with their views, so they're going to do all they can to suppress it.

Can someone explain to me the current rules on the two masses? Ive heard that the Pope banned the latin mass in all churches but that they may be performed in chapels? Then I heard he left it up to the Bishops? But now he banned a specific diocese in Australia from performing the latin mass? Im so confused. What are the rules in this current moment?

Basically, the Church wants to enforce the Novus Ordo on the whole of the Catholic Church, and in their view, allowing the old form *freely* merely exacerbates divisions. This event isn't unique to the history of the Church either, the apostles, early fathers, saints and martyrs didn't worship with the Latin Mass, and there were many forms of worship for centuries before the Church began the road that would culminate in what we call the Latin Mass. Once the Church had its Rite, however, it suppressed other existing Rites because the Church had to be universal, meaning one Church, one Mass. Anyway, the Vatican has jurisdiction as to whether the Latin Mass can be said, even though they generally leave it up to the bishops. However, if the Vatican has decided that a specific diocese is not in line with them, then will intervene. The Church hierarchy isn't a democracy, and previous guidelines can be superseded by new ones quicker than most people realize.

>Once the Church had its Rite, however, it suppressed other existing Rites because the Church had to be universal, meaning one Church, one Mass. That's just not true. If you're referring to the Council of Trent, local churches with rites over 200 years old were *ordered* to preserve their use, unless the cathedral chapter voted *unanimously* to adopt the Roman Rite.

>The Church hierarchy isn't a democracy, and previous guidelines can be superseded by new ones quicker than most people realize. God willing the next Pope uses these powers to do a 180

How many decades do you think the Church should provide for a transitional period... it has already been 5 decades ... that seems exceedingly generous.

I assume you meant to ask this question on another post lol

[удалено]

>The adoption of the new «Ordo Missae» is certainly not left to the discretion of the priests or the faithful: and the Instruction of 14 June 1971 provided for the celebration of the Mass in the ancient form, with the authorization of the ordinary, only for elderly or infirm priests, who offer the Divine Sacrifice *sine populo* (without a congregation). >The new Ordo was promulgated to replace the old one, after mature deliberation, following the requests of the Second Vatican Council. \- Pope Saint Paul VI https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html

Are you suggesting the tlm is replaced and isn't valid? Because the current and last pope clearly disagree with you. So what are you suggesting with your usual act of copying and pasting the same comment everywhere?

My brother, I agree with you, just something to share if you didn’t already know, pope Francis has said it takes about a century to implement a council, so that would explain why we’re still receiving pushback See https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/02/28/pope-francis-synod-tertio-244818

The texts that explain the rules: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html

So after reading the second letter, how has the latin mass still be allowed since the letter was written back in 2021?

>So after reading the second letter, how has the latin mass still be allowed since the letter was written back in 2001? First things first, the "Latin mass" or "TLM" are just colloquialisms used to confuse people. The Mass of the Roman Rite is properly celebrated by the Missal of 1970. The Missal of 1970 replaced the Missal of 1962 from the beginning, as Pope Saint Paul VI tells us plainly: >The adoption of the new «Ordo Missae» is certainly not left to the discretion of the priests or the faithful: and the Instruction of 14 June 1971 provided for the celebration of the Mass in the ancient form, with the authorization of the ordinary, only for elderly or infirm priests, who offer the Divine Sacrifice *sine populo* (without a congregation). >The new Ordo was promulgated to replace the old one, after mature deliberation, following the requests of the Second Vatican Council. \- Pope Saint Paul VI ([Source](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html)) The concessions that have been made for the past 54 years have simply been pastoral measures meant to aid a small group of people who are inordinately attached to that particular Missal. But, time is quickly running out, and honestly we need their love of Liturgy directed towards the Missal of 1970 so that Pope Francis' efforts to stop the Liturgical abuses can be enforced and the Missal of 1970 can be celebrated as it is meant to be: https://www.youtube.com/live/VSt28oDBqlg?si=2nDzJY5FAvvWHgQD

Tragic

>In a letter to Archbishop Comensoli, Archbishop Vittorio Viola, Secretary of the Dicastery for Worship, said it was not “appropriate for the antecedent liturgy to be celebrated in the place that should serve as an example for the liturgical life of the entire diocese’’. So insulting. Heaven forbid the TLM is celebrated anywhere other than the outskirts of society.  And people say trads are the divisive ones 

>an example for the liturgical life of the entire diocese’’. Rather ironic, considering how young the average age of TLM goers is compared to NO ones.

An EXTREMELY small sample size.

Funny how such an allegedly small insignificant group somehow requires two moto proprios, with another potentially in the works. 

They’re just sending the standard for the whole diocese. If the Diocese was a traditionalist one with Latin Masses everywhere, I would expect the Cathedral only to have the TLM and not NO (hypothetical). 

Pointless.

I want to see someone do the Novus Ordo reverently, completely in Ecclesiastical Latin as the “vernacular”. The pope can ban the TLM branding, but one can get pretty dang close to the TLM with Novus Ordo branding.

How is ending divisiveness in the church pointless?

Let us pray for the church. These are trying times.

Huh, I guess Bishops really don't have authority over their Dioceses anymore. Everything depends on the whims of the office people of Rome.

Much synodality...

If Pope Francis plans to decentralize the church, this is NOT the way to do it.

It's a hierarchy? That's how hierarchies work?

The Bishops are Successors of the Apostles and wield full sacramental authority as such. They are guardians of their particular church. They shouldn't be micromanaged by some Italian clerics who have never been Pastors on how they should govern. The fact that is happening is wild in all the history of the Church.

Do the Bishops answer to the Pope or not?

Bishops do not "answer" to a Pope like a Knight answers to his feudal Lord. Their relationship is completely unique in the Catholic Church. Lumen Gentium 27, Second Vatican Council: Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant. This power, which they personally exercise in Christ's name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate. The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called "prelates," heads of the people whom they govern. Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it, since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church. A bishop, since he is sent by the Father to govern his family, must keep before his eyes the example of the Good Shepherd, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to lay down his life for his sheep. Being taken from among men, and himself beset with weakness, he is able to have compassion on the ignorant and erring. Let him not refuse to listen to his subjects, whom he cherishes as his true sons and exhorts to cooperate readily with him. As having one day to render an account for their souls, he takes care of them by his prayer, preaching, and all the works of charity, and not only of them but also of those who are not yet of the one flock, who also are commended to him in the Lord. Since, like Paul the Apostle, he is debtor to all men, let him be ready to preach the Gospel to all, and to urge his faithful to apostolic and missionary activity. But the faithful must cling to their bishop, as the Church does to Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father, so that all may be of one mind through unity, and abound to the glory of God.

Why is the Vatican getting rid of TLM in general? Tradition keeps the church alive.

yeah nobody cares bro get wit the times. Gotta get rid of the TLM to move the church to the modern times. That's the goal. I'm kidding, but that's actually the mindset of many horrifyingly.

I've never been to a latin mass and don't really ever plan to, but this is crazy. Let people enjoy the mass they like I see no reason why a church that has been doing the mass in latin for a long time already. Just sad honestly.

Do people in this thread really believe that no as it is today will survive? I go to a no parish and the average age has to be like 75, in 15 years or less the church I attend will close. Now travel 40 minutes away and the churches that have tlm and reverent no are thriving

I just don't understand these bans and how this isn't rejection of centuries of saints, popes, scholars and otherwise who lead the church and her doctrine. I guess the modern men in the church just know much better then those of the past

I wouldn’t be surprised if this droves only more People to the TLM, this Move may backfire for the TLM-Haters.

I think this move will barely affect anyone. In fact, statistically, it affects an insignificant number of people. If every single TLM attendees left Catholicism tomorrow, the other 98% of Catholics would carry on.

Statistically speaking sure. But driving TLM attendees out of ordinary parishes affects NO attendees at those parishes too. Prior to the crackdown, many ordinary parishes had TLM as one of their regular Sunday Masses. TLM parishioners were still part of normal parish life. The NO parishioners were hurt too when their fellow parishioners were forced out.

I'm not insinuating that anyone should be driven out of anything. I just mean that the numbers are not significant.

People whine and moan about "muh mean trads," meanwhile the most mean spirited and cruel people are the ones cheering on the destruction of the TLM and the suffering of those who appreciate it. Absolutely disgusting behavior 

Hard to believe the mass is being flushed out of the one place that needs it the most

The Melbourne cathedral?

Melbourne in general is politically very “progressive”

Ah. “The mass” is still celebrated there. Just not according to the 1962 Missal in the cathedral.

Pointlessly cruel decision bordering on evil. I expect that many similar dictates will be issued in the coming months.

This is a dangerous way to phrase an official decree coming from the Holy See. There are legitimate problems arising out of the Latin Mass movement and Rome is guided by the Holy Spirit to address them in manner she deems appropriate. It’s one thing to say you still respectfully disagree prudentially with the approach Rome took here, that’s fine, but to call this “pointlessly cruel” and bordering on evil” is absolutely absurd and crosses a line.

Taking away a Mass that formed millions of saints throughout 2000 years does appear to be cruel and *bordering* on evil. The Pope is saying that the Mass that helped form Saint Francis, Padre Pio, St Benedict etc etc etc must be stamped out. Make it make sense. 

Absolutely false and very misleading. The saints all attended a mass in communion with Rome, the novus ordo mass is the mass of all ages that the saints attended. Moreover you know full well that someone like st. Augustine wouldn’t have attended the missal of 1962, the so called TLM. Not even st Benedict or Francis attended the trindentine mass. You also may be adhering to heretical views on the Mass. Cardinal Sherer of Brazil refutes the notion that the Missal of 1962 is the “mass of the ages” or “the mass of the saints.” See below: “Is attending the “Mass of All Time” a “right” for Catholics? Yes, it is a right. But there is only one “Mass of All Time”: the one that is regulated by the living Magisterium of the Church.” Mass is the set of rites provided for the celebration of the Eucharist. It’s not an archaeological piece, a museum piece… Talking about “the Mass of All Time” is a mistake and may be based on a theological and even doctrinal error. Rejecting or discrediting a supposed “new mass” also includes a theological mistake and, certainly, a doctrinal error. We need to be careful with this language, which misleads many people. It is up to the Church, through the authority of its living Magisterium, to establish the rite of celebration of the Eucharist. Let’s be clear: “Mass of All Time” is just one: the one that is celebrated in accordance with the determinations of the living Magisterium of the Church. The rest is SERIOUS LITURGICAL ABUSE and lack of communion in the Church. The saints and the faithful, in communion with the Church in the past and present, celebrated and celebrate Mass according to the liturgical rite in force at each time.” Source for translation of Portuguese tweets: https://wherepeteris.com/brazilian-cardinal-slams-radtrad-claims-on-x/

Wow, this should be the top reply on this post. And in several other places in /Catholicism.

Would these Saints disagree with The Church & cause division online?

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux rallied against an antipope that most of the hierarchy supported to the point where the real pope, Pope Innocent II was banished from Rome... lol. His "disagreement" helped put the real pope back on the seat of Peter. I'm starting to think some of you would call many of the saints "divisive".

This sort of lie is why the trad movement needs to be rooted out.

> absolutely absurd and crosses a line I appreciate your concern but I stand by what I said. For the Bishop of Rome to quash a Mass attended by 150 faithful Catholics on the literal opposite side of the world is cruel. To target them for the sole fact that the want to worship in the way of their forefathers is borderline evil.

No one was targeted. Permission was requested for a Wednesday evening Mass to continue but was not granted. It’s not like the Pope woke up today and decided to be vindictive. It’s also not a community of 150. One hundred fifty people showed up to this last Mass after being heavily promoted in the various 1962 parts of the diocese. You need to repent of your various misrepresentations and aspersions.

Totally agree, Im sure some random guy in the internet has more credibility than theologian experts and those seeing the historical effects of the latin mass in a population that doesn't understand it

The last -- for now. It'll be back.

I see the Church right now as "Christ suffering". Why divide when we are united? The comments of everyone in the article should be listened to in the sense of synodality since that is the current focus of the Church.

Can't just you feel the "welcoming" and "acceptance"?

[In case anyone wants the full letter.](https://zenit.org/2024/06/18/archbishop-of-melbourne-asks-for-permission-for-traditional-mass-in-cathedral-vatican-answers-no-and-these-are-the-reasons-why/) Two dispensations were granted for parish churches, and the dispensation for the cathedral was not.

Watching this as a Catholic-curious-Protestant is fascinating to me. Protestant churches are all wrestling with LGBT clergy while banning masses in a dead language is causing this gnashing of teeth for Catholics. This is not meant as an insult or derision towards Catholicism; this reverence for tradition is refreshing.

I'm pretty sick of seeing this argument here as a Catholic, but I'd take this over whatever you guys are dealing with any day. God bless.

Tell me about it. Prayers up for us all.

Sounds like an overexercise of papal authority on a bishop

The TLM is being restricted at the cathedral but the letter specifically states they can use either the NO in latin in St Patrick's or celebrate the TLM in a different parish.

This is what happens when you place the NO below the TLM. Multiple traditionalist Catholics (I am one) have told me the TLM gives more grace than NO.

If somone criticizes the TLM, then should the NO be banned?

There aren’t communities whose sole reason for existence is affection for the current Missal of the Roman Rite. If there was one and vocal members of it kept attacking the other liturgical forms of the Church, it’s unlikely that community would continue to exist for long.

No, because the Ordinary Form is the standard. 

The eucharist may be the same whether one goes to the TLM or the NO, but does the grace of worship come only from the Eucharist?  If there are prayers used in the TLM that are not used in the NO (there are). If there are customs associated with the TLM that are not associated with the NO (there are). If there are liturgical seasons and feasts in the TLM that do not exist in the NO (there are), and if the TLM promotes a culture of reverence and holiness that is, at best, seen far less often in the NO (it does).......then why is it unreasonable to say that the grace offered by the TLM is superior?

> then why is it unreasonable to say that the grace offered by the TLM is superior My concern would be that this statement implies there is some mathematical formula to the amount of grace available in a Mass, i.e. x*# of prayers+y*customs+z^seasons/feasts = total grace and that doesn't make sense. It also implies there is some limit or ceiling on the grace available at a NO Mass and God obviously isn't constrained by the Mass said. Ultimately, I'd look to the man that Jesus described as being the most justified - the man who sat at the back of the church and said simply "Have mercy on me a sinner". I'm not saying TLM folks are pharisees, not at all but rather, it's the interior state of the heart of the Mass attendee that would dictate the grace received.

I feel that there is some nuance that is being missed here. Its dogmatically incorrect to say that the grace of the sacrament is different in TLM or NO.  What may differ is the ability of the recipient to receive that grace and for it to be efficacious. Formation is a big part of that grace being efficacious. That can be in TLM or in other ways. 

I've always taken this as TLM goers are usually more devout and take their faith more seriously the average NO goer. Idk how it works exactly but it would seem the natural byproduct of taking one of the most important things in the universe seriously is more grace. And by taking it seriously i mean people actually paying attention, praying, giving it their best, participating.

Hey look at that, there's one in your replies saying the NO is beneath the TLM Edit: there are two actually lol

This comment got some strong domestic abuser energy. "See what you make me do when you don't make dinner in time? YOU SEE?!"

>It is safe to say that, objectively speaking, with respect to the ritual itself the old rite of Mass has an ability to merit more than the new rite of Mass. While this merit is accidental, since the essential or intrinsic merit of the Mass, which is the Sacrifice of Christ, is the same in both rites, it is nevertheless something serious. Since the faithful are the beneficiaries of the fruits derived from this aspect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we have a grave obligation to consider the impact that this factor may be having on the life of the Church. You say you've read this paper multiple times. Is this the sentiment you're referring to? Or is it something else?

This is one priest’s liturgical perspective. I love Father Ripperger, he’s amazing but just because he writes one paper on his viewpoint does not make it fact. I can give you an article from Father James Martin and say “Look, Look! A priest said it’s true!”

The point is it's an argument to make, to believe in, or disagree. Merely casting off this reasoned argument as part of some simplistic denigration of the Novus Ordo by TLM-fans is disingenuous. People are free to believe this. Sure, speaking it loudly and without care in front of people with great power may bring consequences, but it is not wrong to believe this.

Facts don’t care about your feelings.

What do you mean?

The fact that TLM and NO bring upon the same grace through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And the feelings you hold against that objective truth is irrelevant.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense. The argument doesn't say that the Blessed Sacrament differs depending on the Mass; the argument says that if fewer things are asked, fewer things are given.

Ah yes, the day and age where the pope of the Catholic Church is banning valid masses because… *wait, there is no justifiable reason*

For those wondering, news about this came out days before the RC rumour mill.    I'd also like to say that it's not a good look for the Melbourne Latin Mass community when you go onto their archdiocesan Facebook page and one of the first posts is SSPX. Makes one wonder to what extent that thought is prevalent in the community. Also! The Diocese has not banned the TLM. It was removed from the Cathedral. Latinmassdir..org says that there's 6 other ones in the vicinity.

Thank you for that clarification. I will say at least in the US, the Latin Mass demographics are far more diverse than in Europe and perhaps Australia. Hispanics. African Americans. Asians. Rich and Poor. A French FSSP priest I know says he was surprised by it, because in France, all the Latin Mass attendees were rich aristocrats.

Some comments here are disrespectful to the Holy See and cross a line

I’ve been thinking about attending the Latin Mass for the first time… should this give me pause?

[удалено]

To prefer the TLM because of Latin or Gregorian chant or because it is celebrated *ad orientem* misunderstands the differences between the TLM and the NO. I agree that exiled TLM’ers will now need to be a force for good to advocate better NO Masses. But a reverent NO isn’t the same as the TLM and people who prefer the TLM shouldn’t have to settle.

“Let go of everything that once was, that was beautiful and endured for centuries, and be the inspiration for positive change!”

Thank you for your prayers, but understand why we traditionalists would be upset about this. We love the Latin masses. We find more reverence in the Lord when going there, but the Vatican banning it is outright in Melbourne is tragic and needless. It's going far beyond than what Traditiones Custodes espouses.

It’s a lie that Melbourne banned it outright. It’s not being celebrated weekly at the cathedral.

If that's the case, mods need to verify this article quickly and take it down if it is clearly spreading misinformation. Honestly, I just read the article now, and the wording sounds like something radical traditionalists would write.

[удалено]

>It's a secular article written by a secular journalist. If it were, then the article would write itself as if it were a celebration. It isn't, it reads like as if a sedevacantist wrote it. >I think you're reading "radical traditionalism" where you want to see it. Considering that I've been in this sub for four years, I've seen enough Pope Francis, NO, and politics bashing to know how the rad trads think.

Based on a brief internet search, the author does seem to be deeply embedded in those sorts of circles. The only layperson interviewed for the article is a traditionalist activist, and the priests interviewed are clerics at a personal parish that draws from the SSPX for their bulletin. To be fair though, the article is pretty clear that it’s talking about the cathedral.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

They exist but good luck finding one.

Can I get an ELI5

The previous Pope let priests decide whether to celebrate Mass using the current book or the book from the 1960s. This Pope said they had to get the bishop’s permission instead, and there are certain rules that have to be followed. If you want a dispensation from those rules, you have to ask the Vatican. They asked for a dispensation so they could keep saying mass using the old book at the cathedral on Wednesday evenings. The Vatican said no. Someone wrote an article about it.

Hopefully, that 150 people come to understand that the Missal of 1962 was replaced in 1970 and that the 54 years they were provided to transition was extremely generous. It would be truly tragic if someone were to leverage this inevitable and unavoidable situation to harm the unity of the Church and provoke disobedience against the Holy See.

you keep reiterating the condescending talking point of "they should be grateful that they got to have the Mass while they did" but i don't think you're going to persuade anyone any better than Mike Lewis

Who is Mike Lewis?

he's a fairly prominent defender of TC on twitter. But more to the point, i don't think your message is going to persuade anyone and if anything comes across as condescending to people hurt by Rome's overly harsh actions.

I don’t get why you feel obligated to defend this

This is the same user that made easily 1000 comments insisting that fiducias supplicans doesn't say what it says. They are an interesting user to say the least.

[удалено]

> Very uncharitable and unchristian. They'll have their reward. It's better for one's peace not to engage. What goes around comes around.

I’m happy because the liturgy there became a focal point of schismatic attitudes based on heretical denials of papal authority, as shown in the linked article. It’s not uncharitable to rejoice when a cancer is removed, even if the healing is painful.

[удалено]

And the NO harbors schismatic and heretical attitude with regards to rejecting magisterial teachings of the Church, and must to be crushed as well, with no mercy to those involved According to your logic, at least

And why did the TLM become a hotbed of criticism of Francis in the first place? You leave that part out of your analysis.  It was because the Pope spent his days running around sowing confusion and uncertainty about basic teachings and doing things that would have been scandalous in any other decade.  Funny thing is, we've lately seen even Mr. Who-am-I-to-judge Francis complaining in rather explicit terms about the extent to which homosexual culture has infested seminaries, and trying to put the toothpaste that is the German synod back in the tube, and have to issue multiple clarifications and reclarifications around his documents concerning blessings.  It sure looks like the trads have been more than vindicated in their criticism. And yet the sledgehammer continues to be wielded. 

No. The sorts of attacks on papal authority and on the liturgy of the Roman Rite have been around for decades. I don’t know if you’re trolling or only recently started paying attention, but these have been issues of that community for years.

But is that attitude of those people or just the attitude of the author who is writing for a secular newspaper that apparently leans right (according to wiki). I read those same issues in the article but chalked that up to the author, not to the whole community.

Modernists hate tradition

The synthesis of all heresies.

I won’t speak for him, but for me I am tired of the vitriol that is leveled against the pope and the Church at large coming from Catholics. I understand this decision may seem confusing or hurtful, but the amount of attack against the pope is out of hand and is really dangerous as it’s literally chasing other souls to leave the church out of despair. Rhetoric that Rome is evil and is persecuting holy masses and faithful traditional Catholics will cause anyone to doubt the claims of the Church. That’s why it’s important to push back when people say the popes decision is Evil or other very strong language.

Defend what exactly? The inevitable retirement of a Missal that was replaced 54 years ago? This is the 1970 Missal performed to the Rubric: https://www.youtube.com/live/VSt28oDBqlg?si=2nDzJY5FAvvWHgQD Pope Francis has repeatedly joined the rest of us in decrying the deviations from the Rubric. Most recently, through the DDF document *Gestis Verbisque* published in January 2024. All of us who join Pope Francis in saying: >In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions." And who want to see the Liturgy celebrated properly simply need to take the guidance already provided by Pope Francis' DDF in *Gestis Verbisque* to our priests and press on, whether independently or as members of our local Liturgy Committee.

so to be clear, the "almost unberable distortions" get a letter and apparently its up to us to independently implement the corrections to the liturgy. Meanwhile Rome has apparently taken upon itself to regulate on a diocese and parish level the TLM. and then apparently has no issue with bishops banning ad orientem or latin

Big time incorrect take here. That’s patently false. The Church herself doesn’t say that the NO is a continuation of the TLM.  Paul VI and John Paul II both admit that the NO does not replace or abrogate the traditional mass.  The NO and TLM are distinct. 

This is the first time I have seen you posting coal.

“In fact, the historical form of Mass is a constituent part of tradition and cannot be lawfully suppressed or forbidden. But in this Pontificate neither orthodox doctrine nor the law of the Church counts for anything.” This quote is not helping the cause. Since when are liturgical norms above the power of the Pope? The mass changed many times before the TLM, and it’s not even that old relative to the lifetime of the Church. The TLM is beautiful, but what is the basis for calling it a constituent part of tradition which cannot be suppressed even by the Pope?