The Church actually did do that (effectively) at one point. It was called the “transition mass.”
My wife has various disabilities and when people speak a foreign language around her she gets upset. If she walked into a Church with the priest speaking entirely in Latin, she probably would have started sobbing and asking to leave.
If the Mass was totally in Latin she wouldn’t have become Catholic.
She is now a devout Catholic who came from a Protestant background (her dad was a pentecostal minister).
I am forever in debt to the Church for her wisdom to allow vernacular in the Liturgy.
Pope St John Paul II created the society in response to the illicit consecrations done by the SSPX in 1988. It was initially made up of former SSPX priests who sought to reconcile with Rome, but it has seen new vocations in recent years. They are a traditionalist society in full communion with the Holy See, so supporting them would not be a problem at all.
There is a reason why the Ordinary form is called Ordinary. It is the Normative rite, whereas the Tridentine is extraordinary. To regard ANY rite approved by the Church–particularly that celebrated by the vast majority of Catholics, including the Holy Father–as “novel” is denigrating, in my opinion. You have a right to prefer the Extraordinary Form, but it is not “better” or “higher” in the mind of the Church.
It is interesting that to mention the hierarchy of Masses is now considered heresy in light of the fact that this was once considered the norm, taught, and encouraged.
Before the Novus Ordo, the Church freely taught there was a hierarchy: the Solemn High Mass, High Mass or Missa Cantata, and Low Mass. In addition, not only was it taught, but people were encouraged to choose the highest Mass that was available to them. Why?
The higher the Mass, the more efficacious and a source of more potential graces. Does six candles or two candles give more glory to God? Six, of course, even though the two gives glory. Does the Gregorian chant propers or spoken propers give more glory to God? The chanted, of course, even though the spoken gives glory. And so on and so forth…
Saint Piux X was deeply concerned about the “Low Mass culture” and was instrumental in making sure the seminaries had choirs and spent sufficient time in teaching chant. It gave a little bump to the attendance at High Masses for a while, then it slumped. So, in the 50’s, it was permitted that the Ordinary could be chanted at Low Masses. But here’s the kicker. It was done in hopes that it would encouraged people to come back to the High Mass. Boy, that really backfired.
So, my point here, is that while the Church teaches that all Masses are equal in validity and licity, and even intrinsic efficacy, it has never taught an equality in potential external efficacy. The silence on this point over the last 60 years has given the wrong impression.
To JHFamily and MattBalkus: You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The same is true of the claim by ONE priest in the FSSP, who is hardly an infallible authority on anything. Frankly, I would prefer to listen to the Holy Father. I am not going to discuss this further, except to say that I have not criticized your (or anyone’s) right to prefer one form of the Mass to another, and I simply ask that–like the Magisterium–you accord the same respect to others, and to differentiate between fact and opinion.
I respect the Holy Father as the Holy Father. However, I’d also like to remind you that he has fled from traditional Catholic teaching of the catechism on several occasions during his pontificate thus far. You can call this priest’s extensive study on the new Mass vs. the old Mass an opinion, but it’s an opinion backed by many more facts than you could ever come up with in regard to the New Mass being more efficacious. I’m saying that this is a trustworthy source, and you may agree with the Holy Father, however one could say he is the epitome of modernism, the poison that has entered the Church. However, he is still the Pope, and deserves the respect I give him. Also, the Extraordinary Form has produced almost all of our greatest saints, has nourished their lives, and had the Church pews filled to the brim. Ever since the institution of the modern Mass, Mass attendance, seminary applicants, vocations in general, have all decreased, and Catholic institutions and schools have closed. These facts are undeniable.
Somehow, I feel both more confident and safer regarding the Holy Father as a definitive authority on Catholicism than some person I’ve never met who pontificates (pun intended) on the internet. I do call that priest’s “extensive study” an opinion. He has a right to it, and you have a right to agree with it. But, as a scholar, I also know that the preponderance of Catholic theologians today would disagree, not to mention the authorities of the Magisterium. If you want to disagree, that is your right, but to establish an alternative standard for what constitutes authoritative teaching is generally known as Protestantism. I know many holy Protestants. But they are not Catholic.
That you respect a singular FSSP priest more than the Holy Father is, in my view, highly telling. And what you assert as a factual claim that Pope Francis has “fled from Catholic teaching” is both dubious and hardly something that the vast majority of Catholics would agree with. To put this another way, you may regard yourself confidently as “more Catholic than the Pope,” but I do not have that overweening confidence. And now I will withdraw from a discourse that clearly is going nowhere.
Just a note that Fr. Ripperger is no longer an FSSP priest and now leads an order of exorcists.
I think you are missing the point @MattBalkus is trying to make.
Cardinal Arinze was referring to the fact that there is no valid reason for Catholic Churches with kneelers to remove the kneelers. When removing kneelers (instead of replacing them) you send the message that kneeling is optional. Many people who kneel with a kneeler will not kneel on the floor.
The good Cardinal mentioned this as part of a Q&A in the United States several years ago, it was a question asked of him by a Lay person. The Q&A was tapped and can be found on YouTube. If I find it again, I will post.
If one simply glances at history for a brief moment it’s obvious to see many popes were in error. What your saying should be held to popes who safeguard the faith. It should not be used in regard to those who don’t. (Note I am Not expressing my opinion of any pope in this reply). Catholics aren’t bound to follow every word a pope says unless it holds true to the faith and is better for the universal Church. One cannot simply just stick with the pope. If this happened in history we wouldn’t have many Saints who we have today. The pope is the vicar of Christ and so he deserves all our respect and prayers. But this doesn’t mean we must follow him blindly. It’s okay to disagree (unless it is an infallable teaching).
I partly agree with this post. However, I would word it like this.
A more solemn OF Mass would potentially have more efficacy than a less solemn OF Mass.
Just like a High EF Mass would potentially have more efficacy than a Low EF Mass.
However, I would not compare and contrast OF Mass vs EF Mass in this way.
Even though both the OF and EF are both forms of the same Roman Rite, it’s best to treat them as different Liturgies. For example: it would not be proper to say the Extraordinarily Form of the Roman Rite is better than one of the Eastern Rites.
But who gets to decide when “popes were in error”? Who gets to determine which popes “safeguard the truth”? An anonymous internet post-er? A random writer who in turn differs from 90+% of Catholic theologians? Of course we are not obliged to agree with everything a pope says. But that is why it is important to differentiate not only between infallible teachings and others (although we ARE expected to assent to the ORDINARY Magisterium, right?), but also between fact and opinion. Someone can find the Tridentine Mass more nurturing to THEM. Fine. Well and good. But to say it is categorically “better” is not a Catholic teaching.
Lol - you talk as if tradition doesn’t always prevail. I’m sorry if I offended you. Modernism is poison. It’s ruining the Church. That’s all I’m saying.
The best thing is to go on a retreat with the order; see what they are about and what their charisms are
And that IS an opinion, not a fact (apart from the fact that “modernism” is a term you have not defined–except as, apparently, stuff you disapprove of). Byeeeeee.
The statistics that show that the Catholic involvement and population overall has decreased since these new modernist, more Protestant versions of Catholicism came about after Vatican II, and ever since the introduction of the New Mass, are indeed facts. I’ve remained respectful to you this entire time and have presented you with facts. I’m not sure why you’re trying to offend me.
How incredibly arrogant of you.
You know nothing.