Does The Church Have An Obligation To Promote The Latin Mass ?

According to the second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

                          I'm greatful that Pope Benedict has called for wider use of the Latin Mass, but I believe he desperately needs the support of Bishops and priests in this matter.

Yes, the Church has an obligation to promote the Mass of All Time (the TLM). Eventually the Novus Ordo will be gotten rid of entirely, because it was invented in the 60s by a committee, and does not come from Apostolic Tradition.

He certainly needs the support of priests, but the bishops are the most important from what you said. They are the ones who can discipline wayward priests.

Furthermore, in my opinion, the Pope himself should celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass in order to really encourage it.

Yes, the Church has an obligation to promote the Mass of All Time (the TLM).

**The Extraordinary Form is NOT the Mass of All Time, because there was a time when it did not exist.

It’s no more the “Mass of all time” than any authorized Eucharistic rite of the Church.

According to Vatican 2, ALL rites of the Church (including the Pauline Mass) are to be honored, respected, and fostered.**

You are not being very charitable.


At the time of Vatican 2, there was no Pauline Mass. There weren’t any requests nor orders nor blank checks for a new Mass.

Yes, it is. It existed in the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great (6th c.). And *where *did he get it? Oh my, I wonder… Did he have a committee invent it??

Of course not! He got it from his forefathers in the Church, and they got it from their forefathers, etc., etc. all the way to the Apostles. Yes in the first 2 centuries it was predominantly in Greek, but the words and rites and ceremonies were almost unchanged (organic development). The same is true of the Eastern rites, those come from this venerable apostolic Tradition.

However, the Novus Ordo Missae is a valid Mass invented by a committee in the 1960s, and as someone already pointed out, was not even the Mass said during the Second Vatican Council! That Mass cannot be the Mass of All Time, because it has not been in existence since the Church first started. This title, “Mass of All Time” is a title that theologians and priests have used to describe it with great affection and esteem, which is most definitely deserves.

You should not deny reality.

Some Dioceses, like Chicago for instance, look encouraging for the TLM, but many others which have just one location, need to start providing for the faithful. No one should have to travel long distances for the TLM.

I believe that each parish (if possible architecturally speaking) should provide the TLM every Sunday morning and for every Holy Day of Obligation at a minimum.

I think it does, out of consideration for its faithful. If it were available, I would go to Mass as much as I could.

Seriously, the protestants literally helped invent the Novus Ordo Missae. There were 6 of them from various protestant churches who helped out. The Concilium also said it themselves, that they wanted to do whatever was in their power to bring unity between non-Catholics and Catholics. Just sayin’.

But yeah, I think that for the Catholics such as myself who are disgusted with banal guitars and piano in the liturgy, liturgical dancing, innovation, and the overall “vibrancy”, in charity we should not be subjected to it.

I think it is sad that it has come down to the point that the Mass which St.Pius V said was the only Mass a priest is obliged to say, is now simply another “preference” and “style of worship”. Indeed, relativism is alive in the Church as well!

Depends on what you mean by “Latin Mass”

If you mean the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, the Church has the obligation to follow what the Pope authoritatively taught in Summorum Pontificum. I couldn’t find anywhere there that Benedict taught that the Church must “promote” the Rite according to the 1962 Missal, but rather he was making it more available under certain very specific conditions. Read it for yourself it that would help:

If you mean the Latin language, instead of the Rite according to the 1962 Missal, then the Church has the obligation to do just what the Vatican II Council taught as you quoted, i.e. ensure that Latin is preserved in the Latin Rites.

Actually, you’re wrong here. He does make it obligatory; it’s just a bit subtle, much to the chagrin of the modernists, liberals, and Novus Ordo sympathizers:

*Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage.

We have an obligation to obey our bishops, who have it within their power and authority to regulate the divine things of the Church, such as the Mass.


We also have the right to appeal to the Holy Father if the Bishops are unsympathetic to our requests.

Actually, according to your (Latin) canon laws, you don’t. At least not in this matter. According to your canon laws, you can appeal to Rome on a penal matter (i.e., you were displined by your bishop and you believe the penalty was unjust), or a matrimonial case. But on the matter of Liturgical praxis, your bishop and/or the episcopal conference is your last court of appeal.


Yes but that is different than promoting something. If there is a stable group that wants it, that is one thing, but it does not call for people to go out trying to convince people that the Ordinary Form in wrong and the Extraordinary Form should be in every parish, even if no one really wants it.

Generally that’s true, but in this case there is an avenue of appeal: Cardinal Castrillon’s office. Of course, whether or not the appeal is heard would depend on the particular circumstances and merits of the individual case.

I’m an ignoramus on the “Who’s Who” in the Latin Church. Who is Cardinal Castrillon, and what is his function (aside from being a Cardinal, of course:D)?


I’m not much on the “who’s who” either, but this one I do know: Dario Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos is head of Ecclesia Dei. :wink:

The ecclesiastical structure of the Latin Church is pretty complex, huh?:smiley:


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