The Vatican restricts Traditional Latin Mass and suppresses private Masses at St. Pet

[newenglandsun]

Could someone explain what the alarm is about? Do we want more private Masses in accordance with the rite of St. Gregory the Great or do we want more Masses of this rite with the active participation of the laity? Aside from all of the "spirit of Vatican II" heretical nonsense, the active participation of the laity in Mass was something that was actually sound.

Strongly disagree.  Lay participation is the reason the NO Mass sucks.  I don't want to see old Boomers in their slacks and polos and pantsuits usurping the role traditionally reserved for the priest.

It's gay, there I said it.  It's extremely gay to hear Dan Schutte music and watch a bunch of old farts shuffle around and do the hand gestures and treat the Mass like a Protestant tent-revival while the priest sits off to the side like a jerk. It's gay and it sucks!

That was one take on the active participation and an abusive one at that.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident]

Could someone explain what the alarm is about? Do we want more private Masses in accordance with the rite of St. Gregory the Great or do we want more Masses of this rite with the active participation of the laity? Aside from all of the "spirit of Vatican II" heretical nonsense, the active participation of the laity in Mass was something that was actually sound.

The "active participation" of the new Mass is superficial.

Christians participated in the Mass just fine for 1900-someodd years prior to the new Mass.

[TruthWhichIsChrist]

From 1 Feb 2021, NCR: francis-no-concession-those-who-deny-vatican-ii-teachings

"Please, no concession to those who seek to present a catechesis that does not accord with the magisterium of the church," he [Pope Francis] told the catechists.

I think the pope may believe that the pre-1960 form of mass is in effect a concession. Maybe he thinks that there is too much overlap between those who want the pre-VII mass liturgy and those who doubt the 1960s council in some way.

"I think often about a group of bishops who, after Vatican I, left … to continue the 'true doctrine' that wasn't that of Vatican I," said the pontiff.

"Today, they ordain women," the pope continued, adding: "The severest attitude, to guard the faith without the magisterium of the church, brings you to ruin."

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident]

CM interviewed at least one person who doesn't think the decree is valid, anyway:

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/arti...ate-masses

[austenbosten]

That was one take on the active participation and an abusive one at that.

No more abusive then the crap we the laity had to out up with this horrid NO.

Do you like receiving Communion standing from some lady in a low cut blouse? Or have to sit through some guy whose tone-deaf trying to eek out the Psalms?

[J Michael]

CM interviewed at least one person who doesn't think the decree is valid, anyway:

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/arti...ate-masses

As soon as I read, from the 2nd paragraph of the article, "The unsigned order...", my first thought was "how can it be valid without a signature?"   Paragraph 7, "A top Rome-based canonist questioned the validity of the document: "If the author cannot be identified, the decree is invalid because it is lacking an essential element of a juridical act."  "Then the article, in the 8th paragraph says, "The text is signed by an unidentifiable, unnamed individual,..."  

And I'm not even a lawyer, let alone a canon lawyer!

I wonder what would happen if those priests wanting to celebrate a private Latin Mass in the various side altars of St. Peter's just carried on as if no "decree" had been issued?  After all, the very validity of the decree is highly questionable.

[Marmot]

But in Catholicism, priests have, for centuries, offered a mass by themselves--or anyone nearby could kneel if they wanted--as part of the morning prayer routine.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Celebration with no assistants at all (missa solitaria) has continually been forbidden, as by the Synod of Mainz in 813.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm



It seems saying Mass alone (that is, no server and nobody else present besides the priest) was forbidden prior to the 20th century, except for being able to give the Viaticum, or exceptional cases such as

during an epidemic,  when it is difficult  to find a server and when the priest would otherwise have to abstain from celebrating for a notable  time

(Instruction from Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, 1949. http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/11/11.4/11.4.6.pdf).


At some point during the 20th century, not sure when, the legislation changed and all priests could say Mass alone. This happens sometimes when there are many priests at the same place who have to say Mass.



(If you can call that "alone"...)


Of course, there was never a rule that there has to be a layman present (the ordinary server is a cleric, and it is perfectly normal to say Mass with only a server present).

[newenglandsun]

Could someone explain what the alarm is about? Do we want more private Masses in accordance with the rite of St. Gregory the Great or do we want more Masses of this rite with the active participation of the laity? Aside from all of the "spirit of Vatican II" heretical nonsense, the active participation of the laity in Mass was something that was actually sound.

The "active participation" of the new Mass is superficial.

Christians participated in the Mass just fine for 1900-someodd years prior to the new Mass.

I concur! Though some Easterns will think this cultural suicide of the TLM from the Vatican moves us further East, all we're really doing is Prostitutizing...I mean Protestantizing.

[jovan66102]

From 1 Feb 2021, NCR: francis-no-concession-those-who-deny-vatican-ii-teachings

"I think often about a group of bishops who, after Vatican I, left … to continue the 'true doctrine' that wasn't that of Vatican I," said the pontiff.

"Today, they ordain women," the pope continued, adding: "The severest attitude, to guard the faith without the magisterium of the church, brings you to ruin."

He lies! Of course it's not the first time. Not a single Bishop left the Church over Vatican I to continue the 'true doctrine', which is why the Priests who DID leave, von Döllinger, et. al., had to go to the Jansenist heretics in Utrecht to get Episcopal Orders.

[newenglandsun]

From 1 Feb 2021, NCR: francis-no-concession-those-who-deny-vatican-ii-teachings

"I think often about a group of bishops who, after Vatican I, left … to continue the 'true doctrine' that wasn't that of Vatican I," said the pontiff.

"Today, they ordain women," the pope continued, adding: "The severest attitude, to guard the faith without the magisterium of the church, brings you to ruin."

He lies! Of course it's not the first time. Not a single Bishop left the Church over Vatican I to continue the 'true doctrine', which is why the Priests who DID leave, von Döllinger, et. al., had to go to the Jansenist heretics in Utrecht to get Episcopal Orders.

I know not a single Catholic who does not affirm all 100% of the anathemas of Vatican II.