How To Bring Back The Tridentine Mass In Your Parish


I have attended both myself; I’m fortunate to have both available in my area. That said, I only occasionally go to the Extraordinary Form (what we properly use to refer to the TLM), and primarily go to the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo), which is my preference. I know that preference is shared by most of my parish, or else we’d all be attending the parish down the street.

I encourage you to continue your efforts for educating people about the EF; just know that there are plenty of us out there that are well aware of both and prefer the OF anyway.


I don’t think the demand for it is that great, among mainstream Catholics.


Mary, just a thought-- you might focus your efforts on the parish with the most Millennials, and younger. They’re the ages that are hungriest for tradition. The TLM parish in our diocese is probably one of the youngest, parishioner-wise.


Only 30 minutes? I’m not seeing the problem here.


I find myself driving 30 minutes one way multiple times a week for various church functions.


It is not a simple as you appear to think it will be.
Pope Benedict XVI laid down conditions in his Motu Proprio SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.

Here is one of them:

“Art. 5, §1 In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal. He should ensure that the good of these members of the faithful is harmonized with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.”

The Pope did not define “stable group” in terms of percentage of parishioners or actual numbers.

In PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI which is the follow up to SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM on how it is to be applied it is made clear that it is not sufficient for a priest to learn the Latin prayers by heart but he must have a working knowledge of Latin. There are few priests globally who have that ability nowadays and many seminaries no longer teach Latin.


I think any effort to expose people to this ancient treasure of the faith is worth it.

Michael Davies has a great article on the importance of the ancient liturgy:


How long exactly is “over 30 minutes”?


And this kind of attachment to the Tridentine Mass is what is dividing clergy and the faithful on this site and it started with Marcle Lefevre. Eric F is write- be greatful for the Mass. And thank God for the padre you do have with out seeing one Eucharist as better or more important than another form.


Why do you put parentheses around the term ‘Novus Ordo’?

And why are you surprised that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is predominantly offered? Pope Benedict through Summorum Pontificum allowed the Extraordinary Form to be more widely celebrated through a legal loophole and it is meant to bring those with a preference for the Extraordinary Form closet to the Church as many had separated themselves from the Church do to their attachment to that form of the rite. It was a great act of mercy.

I must say that I am very put off by those who seek to use money and media pressure to force their preferences on others, let alone the Church


Learning Latin always required serious effort. It took hundreds of hours of practice in the 1600’s. It took hundreds of hours in the 1960’s. It took hundreds of hours in 2016. The amount of effort has never changed.


But what I mean is, up until 1970 Masses were in Latin. Seminaries taught Latin. The priests learned Latin. The documents of the council (Vatican 2) called for Latin. The priests even today on ordination are supposed to sign and testify to being ‘fluent in Latin’.

All those seminaries must by definition have contained, at that point, sufficient teachers who themselves were proficient in Latin.

What happened to them?

How was it possible that all the people required for priests to 'spend hundreds of hours learning Latin and the Mass and all appurtenances thereto suddenly disappeared? Wouldn’t there have been left a gaping hole in the curriculum? When and how did this happen when, again, what the council fathers voted for and agreed to was a maintenance of Latin in the liturgy as well as the need for the people to learn more? The teachers in the seminary should have been mobbed with the need to get more involved, not just with priest candidates, but with deacons, and with theologians and above all laity.

But instead, a critical requirement for the education of priests seems to have disappeared, such that today instead of every seminary being equipped sufficiently for the Latin necessary for the EF, something common to every seminary and every educational institution for instructing priest candidates for centuries. . .there remain a handful.

How did this happen?

Who was responsible?


You do realize that the EF is a perfectly valid rite that was never abrogated. It is not attachment to a valid rite of Mass which divides people. . .it is the attempt to scapegoat one rite as ‘divisive’.


Though I grew up with Mass said in Latin, I am not a fan.


It takes not only more training for the priest, it also takes more money to get the right vestments, and a stable number of parishioners to support it. Then and only then, the bishop decides. With the priest shortage, it may be a burden to take a priest away from the ordinary form.

Not discouraging you, just make sure you are very clear as the the details that are needed. One just can’t ask for it, and expect it to happen


I often hear, “well there would be more TLM’s offered, if more people wanted it.” That logic may apply to baby boomers. Not sure it’s the best logic, where people who might actually prefer the TLM–mostly younger–have no opportunity to experience it.

Younger generations can be introduced to the Traditional Latin Mass via social media and other avenues. Those who love the TLM can inform others of its reverent beauty, glorious music, sacred silence, etc. without pushing it as “superior” to the OF.


Many baby boomers, not all, but many, do not want or understand the attraction to the TLM by younger generations.

I say not all because I am one who is on the very, very tail end of the baby boomer generation and have a very strong attraction to the TLM.

I think it is the desire for the sacred and the beauty of the TLM. It is difficult when there isn’t an opportunity to experience it.

I think this is what is happening. The internet and social media has opened up ways for people to see what has been lost over the recent years.


Nothing had been lost by having Mass said in English and other languages.
God’s words are as good today as they ever were in the past.
Since few of us are fluent in Latin, why have the Mass said in Latin?


We could also say that we do not know Latin because we no longer have it available to us. Though, with the increase of the TLM being said, people are learning Latin, at least to be able to say the responses at Mass.


I’m a boomer as well. And I remember almost nothing of Mass when I was a small child. But I sure love the TLM now.

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