Do you favor a return of the Traditional Latin Mass as the extraordinary form of the Latin rite?


Here is a question I haven’t seen asked. Do you favor a return of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal as the extraordinary form of the Latin rite? Do you think it will spur growth in the Church today? Do you think it will help deep peoples spirituality as well as love for the Mass?


It will deepen some people’s love for the Mass.
Did you mean to ask, people in general? Or everybody?


I’m not sure I understand your question. Isn’t it already the extraordinary form of the Latin Rite (the Pauline Mass being the ordinary form)? Are you asking if it would be good if the universal indult was given? If so, I say “yes,” but I thought that question had already been asked.


It is highly unlikely that I will have the opportunity in the extremely liberal diocese that I live in. HOWEVER I AM ALL FOR IT.

With that in mind I think it is likely that the TLM 1962 mass will be preserved intact. I hope the trads don’t worry that the Pope will somehow come out with a new Mass. I seriously doubt that the Novus ordo will have any “effect” on the TLM it would be a shame. WIth that in mind though Hopefully more TLMs around will have a profound “effect” on Novus ordo Masses.

If there is to be two types of Mass from here on out my dream scenario would be the unknown 1965 missal (never used) and the TLM. that would be awesome


I would have voted for the TLM as an ORDINARY form of the Latin rite. The question as stated is problematic for me so I voted no.


I understand the problematic nature of the question but this is what we should be expecting from H.H. Pope Benedict XVI. There is only one ordinary form and the modernists would never allow the 1962 missal to be the ordinary form. I’m afraid it will be a take it or leave it kind of thing and since this isn’t a democracy(Thanks be to God)we will just have to live with it.


It is exactly this kind of derogatory comment that so endears those proclaiming themselves to be “traditionalists” to those who happen to prefer the normative Mass of the Church, and creates such suspicion and division.

I’m sure there are a great many who prefer the N.O. Mass that will be very surprised indeed to learn that that defines them as “modernists”.

[Edited by Moderator] :frowning:


That’s exactly what I thought, too, so I didn’t vote either. I would LOVE for the TLM to be the ordinary form for all Masses. :smiley:


Sometimes people mistakenly use the term modernists when they really mean to say liberals or innovators. Modernism is a defined heresy, and most people here have learned not to use that term.


I believe it will happen, that the TLM once again becomes the Mass of the Church. It will happen very slowly, and probably not in our lifetime, but I think it will happen.


Ok, maybe it’s a semantics issue. The English Mass isn’t normative/ordinary either in the strict sense for it too is an indult that has to be approved by the bishop. In America that is indeed likely but in some foreign diocese it may not be.


In statistics, that would be a regression curve. :slight_smile:


Those who prefer what the Church herself gives us as the norm are just liberals and innovators rather than outright heretics. Gee, that’s much more consoling. :rolleyes: Is orthodox just not good enough any more?

There is yet another very disturbing air of superiority sweeping through. :frowning:


Read here, for the Church herself used the term some 100 years ago in September.

Please read it through, it does bear reading and believing today. Otherwise the heresy in our world will continue.


:crying: :crying:

WOW, no wonder you cannot see eye to eye, if there is a semantic gap of 100 years between you…
Cd you please use words as they are used today??


I’m quite familiar with what a modernist is. People who support the valid normative Mass of the Church don’t qualify as heretics.

Disagreeing with your preferences in worship style does make one a heretic.


That isn’t what I or anyone else said. The term modernism was questioned and I urged all to read what the Church teaches. Or do we outright reject this document because our “understanding” has changed.


There is only one ordinary form and the modernists would never allow the 1962 missal to be the ordinary form.

OK, so who are you referring to as “modernists” here? Anybody who does not favour the 1962 missal?


Just to clarify, when I said earlier

Otherwise the heresy in our world will continue.

I meant exactly that. I said nothing about heresy in the Church. Please don’t confuse the two. The heresy of Modernism runs rampant in our world today. In our educational institutions(especially public), in our society as a whole.


Sorry I bothered with an attempted explanation at why some people still say modernist. :rolleyes:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit