If the SSPX is reconciled, will all Latin Rite Traditionalists be under the SSPX?

There have been recent rumblings about the Society of Saint Pius X being reconciled to Rome.

I am wondering, if that happens, will all Tridentine Mass devotees then be “subjects” of the reconciled SSPX?

Some of the things that the SSPX has said, especially about the validity of “Novus Ordo” sacraments, and other things, are so troubling to me, that I would rather have no Tridentine Mass, than be under the SSPX.

I am afraid that if the SSPX is reconciled, there will be a number of their adherents who will have a triumphalist “See? I told you so!” attitude. I am afraid that loyal Traditionalists might be subject to extremism.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Thank you!:slight_smile:

[quote=GoLatin]There have been recent rumblings about the Society of Saint Pius X being reconciled to Rome.

I am wondering, if that happens, will all Tridentine Mass devotees then be “subjects” of the reconciled SSPX?

Some of the things that the SSPX has said, especially about the validity of “Novus Ordo” sacraments, and other things, are so troubling to me, that I would rather have no Tridentine Mass, than be under the SSPX.

I am afraid that if the SSPX is reconciled, there will be a number of their adherents who will have a triumphalist “See? I told you so!” attitude. I am afraid that loyal Traditionalists might be subject to extremism.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Thank you!:slight_smile:
[/quote]

I don’t think so because if they are reconciled then they will no longer be a separate entity as it is now. As it is there are several orders or institutes, I think around 20 or so within the Latin Rite such as the Norbertines, Institute of Christ the King and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter that celebrate the indult Mass and that are in full communion woth Rome. The SSPX would merely take their place with the ranks of the others.

The problem that would develop as I see it is that a LOT of the people who attend their masses and apparently some of their clergy, totally reject Vatican II and the authority of the Holy Father. The SSPX itself does not reject the authority of Rome per se, and in fact have consistently stated they accept the aithority of the Pope, but somehow not the authority and the reforms of Vatican II. A very strange and sad situation indeed.

Many traditionalists such as I, would not hear Mass at a SSPX Chapel, even though many say it is OK to do so if no indult is available. I hope that they are reconciled, but I do think a lot of their followers wouldn’t come back even if they were.

No. This is because there are traditionalists of several orders (such as Benedictines), those part of priestly fraternal societies, and those who are just part of a diocese (indulters). There is also an Apostolic Administration in Campos Brazil which is traditionalist. The SSPX being regularized will affect the SSPX, but it won’t affect the others: especially the orders and fraternal societies. They will still be under their own lawful leadership. It won’t affect the Indult priests either since they will remain under the authority of their Ordinary.

The two places where it would affect these groups:

  1. Members of one group under severe restrictions (like Indult priests only allowed to offer one Mass a month or a week according to the TLM) may wish to join the SSPX because of the greater freedom to offer the Traditional rites they would experience under an autonomous apostolic administration (e.g. a fraternal society with its own Bishops),
    and
  2. There might be greater freedom for diocesan priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass (e.g. Quo Primum might be acknowledged to have never been abbrogated).

I hope that reconciliation takes place very soon. :slight_smile: It’d be nice!

As far as the original question, I think it has been answered satisfactorily. The SSPX will probably be one traditionalist priestly fraternity or prelature among many.

At one time I became interested in the SSPX, I got over it pretty quickly though. There was so much bitterness, so much suspicion and anxiety in the pews it was a huge turnoff.

Perhaps I just didn’t meet the right people, the priest was great, he was from Argentina but his English was excellent and his sermons were very pastoral.

I cannot imagine most of the people I met at the time would be reconciled to Rome, unless they have mellowed considerably some of them would be ready to split and follow any priest who doesn’t go along. Then there is the issue of the property, who gets what?

I think that the SSPX should be encouraged to work in regular parishes and if possible close their ‘chapels’, if they don’t there could be trouble down the road.

+T+
Michael

Yeah, I can just imagine how that conversation would go…

“Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King…yes, thanks for being loyal to the Holy See all these years. Do you remember those guys we excommunicated almost 20 years ago? Yeah, those guys. Well…they’re you’re boss now.” :eek:

Not very likely, if you ask me. And you did ask me. :tiphat:

[quote=GoLatin] I am wondering, if that happens, will all Tridentine Mass devotees then be “subjects” of the reconciled SSPX?
I am afraid that if the SSPX is reconciled, there will be a number of their adherents who will have a triumphalist “See? I told you so!” attitude. I am afraid that loyal Traditionalists might be subject to extremism.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Thank you!:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Its not very likely at all that Latin devotees will be “subject” to a reconciled SSPX at any point in time.

But what definitely is likely is that the some of the reconciled SSPX laity will be in attendance and participating in local indult masses, and in large numbers in some places.

Here in Pittsburgh, for example, there is an SSPX chapel, but according to the SSPX website,but no resident SSPX priest here. The gentlemen drives in each Sunday from out of town to say mass. Its difficult to fathom that kind of situation continuing if the chapel is successfully reconciled.

So you will have to sit in the pews with SSPX people, and some of them may have a triumphalist attitude, but if you don’t like it, attendance at Latin mass is optional.

There will most definitely be a split in the SSPX if Bishop Williamson accepts everything given to him.

From what I hear Bishop Williamson will accept the proposals already discussed, yet a few others not mentioned will not accept.

Ken

Not us. My parish is under the Diocese of Camden. We are very unique as we are the only fully fledged “traditionalist” Latin Mass parish staffed by a Diocese.

100 percent TLM every day.

Ken

[quote=totustuusmaria]No. This is because there are traditionalists of several orders (such as Benedictines), those part of priestly fraternal societies, and those who are just part of a diocese (indulters). There is also an Apostolic Administration in Campos Brazil which is traditionalist. The SSPX being regularized will affect the SSPX, but it won’t affect the others: especially the orders and fraternal societies. They will still be under their own lawful leadership. It won’t affect the Indult priests either since they will remain under the authority of their Ordinary.

The two places where it would affect these groups:

  1. Members of one group under severe restrictions (like Indult priests only allowed to offer one Mass a month or a week according to the TLM) may wish to join the SSPX because of the greater freedom to offer the Traditional rites they would experience under an autonomous apostolic administration (e.g. a fraternal society with its own Bishops),
    and
  2. There might be greater freedom for diocesan priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass (e.g. Quo Primum might be acknowledged to have never been abbrogated).
    [/quote]

I do not gree with 1 as there are already a handful of orders that offer only the Mass according to the 1962 Missal yet there does not seem to be a flocking to those orders. While it might grant a greater freedom for the individual priest to celebrate that Mass they still require faculties from the local bishop to celebrate Mass for the public (that is for people other than for their own religious order) within a diocese.

2 is also off as the Mass was abbrogated by the promulgation of the new Missal. I don’t think the Vatican will ever give in on that one.

[quote=kleary]There will most definitely be a split in the SSPX if Bishop Williamson accepts everything given to him.

From what I hear Bishop Williamson will accept the proposals already discussed, yet a few others not mentioned will not accept.

Ken
[/quote]

Even if all of the bishops were to accept it, all of the priests and all of the SSPX faithful certainly wouldn’t.

Particularly as many of the SSPX faithful are of the opinion that the vernacular mass and sacraments are not entirely copasetic, yet in any reconciliation, that idea would have to be abandoned.

Some of the faithful would undoubtably not accept it and seek other groups.

Others of the SSPX faithful would accept it, and some of those would head back to their own local geographical parishes as for them attendance at the SSPX chapel wasn’t one of “preference” but necessity. Once they are satisfied that the mainstream mass is satisfactory , there isn’t any reason for them to continue elsewhere.

:slight_smile: 'Lo!

In March of 2003, when rumours of this reconciliation business between the Society of Saint Pius X and Rome really got going, yours truly invested in the expense of sending a fax to the then-Secretary of the American Bishops’ Conference – or whatever it’s called – who at that time was still Bishop Wilton Gregory.

My own knee-jerk reaction was that no diocesan bishop should have his hands tied by Rome in the event of a reconciliation.

More, that each bishop should be the ultimate judge as to whether or not the individual St. Pius X Society priests in his diocese were truly orthodox or not.

Why?

Because beautiful as it is, the Tridentine Mass is in itself no “magical guarantee,” that the individual priest saying it is not a so-called Neo-Cathar or Albigensian.

That is, a believer in an ancient dualistic concept of God.

One in which women and girls are held in absolute and total contempt for having been created by the Lesser god, while men and males in general, are creatures of the Greater god.

One way to tell this is to carefully watch a St. Pius X Society priest performing a baptismal ceremony of a Saturday morning. Note carefully how he does it when the baby is a) male, and then how he does it when the baby is b) female. Little things like that can tell you a lot.

Is he offering it to God the Creator? Or is he offering along a different axis, some point, say, midway between the main altar and the nearest statue to the right, as we face the front?

If the child is female and he has been carefully inculcated at some seminary or the other with the so-called Secrets of the Old Religion, he’ll pick the mid point between altar and statue, any and every time.

If he is orthodox, he should dedicate any infant in exactly the same way.

Another thing: be on the lookout for open contempt for Our Lady of Guadalupe’s portrait and that of Christ at the Last Supper. In one Pius X Society establishment we were able to carefully document with 35 mm photos the placement of Our Lady of Guadalupe’s portrait in a unisex public bathroom facing an open toilet.

We then carefully checked with a female writer on Hispanic affairs with internaitonal repute and she assured us she had never heard of any such so-called “authentic traditional Mexican Catholic custom,” much less seen the portrait of Our Lady of Guadalupe displayed in such a manner in all her travels in Latin America.

There is more to this, as many of us well know.

Why?

Because in ancient Mexico, the Aztecs had a certain goddess who was the patroness, so to speak – to put it politely – “of latrines and STDs.” In the case of the Last Supper, the young St. Pius X Society brother whose self-appointed task it was to see to all this boasted that he’d placed that portrait in the brothers dormitory toilet, in spite of objections from some of the older members of the fraternity. Basically he glibly claimed he was inspired by what he had read of St. Jerome’s opinions on the subject. :rolleyes:

However, in all honesty we did not ever gain access to this second example, so were never able to document it.

Thus, all we have is the young brother’s boast, so most likely that would all be blown off as so much self-serving hearsay. :rolleyes:

When it comes to so-called “traditionalists” be on the alert! :wink:

:thumbsup: Aurelio :thumbsup:

[quote=Aurelio]Because beautiful as it is, the Tridentine Mass is in itself no “magical guarantee,” that the individual priest saying it is not a so-called Neo-Cathar or Albigensian. That is, a believer in an ancient dualistic concept of God. One in which women and girls are held in absolute and total contempt for having been created by the Lesser god, while men and males in general, are creatures of the Greater god.
[/quote]

[right]JMJ + OBT[/right]

That is a very serious charge, and you should be careful when slinging that kind of mud around. I have no involvement with the SSPX (nor any other schismatic or approved TLM movement/community), and have little sympathy for their gross disobedience. That being said, I do consider myself on the traditional end of the Catholic spectrum, and now you have my curiosity piqued.

Where are you getting this stuff? Can you be more specific about your sources?

One way to tell this is to carefully watch a St. Pius X Society priest performing a baptismal ceremony of a Saturday morning … Is he offering it to God the Creator? Or is he offering along a different axis, some point, say, midway between the main altar and the nearest statue to the right, as we face the front? If the child is female and he has been carefully inculcated at some seminary or the other with the so-called Secrets of the Old Religion, he’ll pick the mid point between altar and statue, any and every time. If he is orthodox, he should dedicate any infant in exactly the same way.

There is no reason to be cryptic – are you saying that the priest seems to orient the offering towards a statue of the Blessed Mother?

I don’t know anything about such a practice, and cannot speak to its origins nor licity, at present or in the past.

But I must ask you whether or not you consider the Total Consecration to the Blessed Virgin Mary as preached by St. Louis de Monfort (e.g. in the saint’s book True Devotion to Mary) to also be part of this “old religion?” What about having a bride place a boquet-offering in front of a statue/icon of the BVM as part of a Catholic wedding ceremony?

If the priest’s motives are along those lines when he employs the offering-variation you speak of, then I don’t see any real cause for alarm. If you could please provide additional information on this matter, I would appreciate it.

Another thing: be on the lookout for open contempt for Our Lady of Guadalupe’s portrait and that of Christ at the Last Supper. In one Pius X Society establishment we were able to carefully document with 35 mm photos the placement of Our Lady of Guadalupe’s portrait in a unisex public bathroom facing an open toilet. We then carefully checked with a female writer on Hispanic affairs with internaitonal repute and she assured us she had never heard of any such so-called “authentic traditional Mexican Catholic custom,” much less seen the portrait of Our Lady of Guadalupe displayed in such a manner in all her travels in Latin America. There is more to this, as many of us well know … Because in ancient Mexico, the Aztecs had a certain goddess who was the patroness, so to speak – to put it politely – “of latrines and STDs.”

My guess would be that the picture is there as a help to safeguarding chastity! NOT some perversion nor as an act of disrespect to Our Lady! I think you’ve “jumped the gun” on this one.

By the way who’s “we” and “us” in the previous paragraph?

In the case of the Last Supper, the young St. Pius X Society brother whose self-appointed task it was to see to all this boasted that he’d placed that portrait in the brothers dormitory toilet, in spite of objections from some of the older members of the fraternity. Basically he glibly claimed he was inspired by what he had read of St. Jerome’s opinions on the subject. :rolleyes:

What are you talking about? It’s not clear at all what you are trying to tell us in that paragraph? St. Jerome’s opinions on what?

However, in all honesty we did not ever gain access to this second example, so were never able to document it. Thus, all we have is the young brother’s boast, so most likely that would all be blown off as so much self-serving hearsay. :rolleyes:

Who’s “we?” And what are you doing snooping/investigating SSPX seminaries?

When it comes to so-called “traditionalists” be on the alert! :wink:

No offense, but I think the readers of this message need to be “on the alert” for those who are willing to spread all sorts of nonsense with an air of righteousness and condescension.

Again, I am no SSPX member, fan, or promoter. But it sounds to me like your pushing a load of something smelly.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

I second with whosebob,

Where is Aurelio digging up all of this stuff? And can he prove any of it has any basis in reality???:confused:

I am no SSPX member or advocate either, but these accusations of his seem a little out there if you ask me.

[quote=Aurelio]:slight_smile: 'Lo!

In March of 2003, when rumours of this reconciliation business between the Society of Saint Pius X and Rome really got going, yours truly invested in the expense of sending a fax to the then-Secretary of the American Bishops’ Conference – or whatever it’s called – who at that time was still Bishop Wilton Gregory.

My own knee-jerk reaction was that no diocesan bishop should have his hands tied by Rome in the event of a reconciliation.

More, that each bishop should be the ultimate judge as to whether or not the individual St. Pius X Society priests in his diocese were truly orthodox or not.

Why?

Because beautiful as it is, the Tridentine Mass is in itself no “magical guarantee,” that the individual priest saying it is not a so-called Neo-Cathar or Albigensian.

That is, a believer in an ancient dualistic concept of God.

One in which women and girls are held in absolute and total contempt for having been created by the Lesser god, while men and males in general, are creatures of the Greater god.

One way to tell this is to carefully watch a St. Pius X Society priest performing a baptismal ceremony of a Saturday morning. Note carefully how he does it when the baby is a) male, and then how he does it when the baby is b) female. Little things like that can tell you a lot.

Is he offering it to God the Creator? Or is he offering along a different axis, some point, say, midway between the main altar and the nearest statue to the right, as we face the front?

If the child is female and he has been carefully inculcated at some seminary or the other with the so-called Secrets of the Old Religion, he’ll pick the mid point between altar and statue, any and every time.

If he is orthodox, he should dedicate any infant in exactly the same way.

Another thing: be on the lookout for open contempt for Our Lady of Guadalupe’s portrait and that of Christ at the Last Supper. In one Pius X Society establishment we were able to carefully document with 35 mm photos the placement of Our Lady of Guadalupe’s portrait in a unisex public bathroom facing an open toilet.

We then carefully checked with a female writer on Hispanic affairs with internaitonal repute and she assured us she had never heard of any such so-called “authentic traditional Mexican Catholic custom,” much less seen the portrait of Our Lady of Guadalupe displayed in such a manner in all her travels in Latin America.

There is more to this, as many of us well know.

Why?

Because in ancient Mexico, the Aztecs had a certain goddess who was the patroness, so to speak – to put it politely – “of latrines and STDs.” In the case of the Last Supper, the young St. Pius X Society brother whose self-appointed task it was to see to all this boasted that he’d placed that portrait in the brothers dormitory toilet, in spite of objections from some of the older members of the fraternity. Basically he glibly claimed he was inspired by what he had read of St. Jerome’s opinions on the subject. :rolleyes:

However, in all honesty we did not ever gain access to this second example, so were never able to document it.

Thus, all we have is the young brother’s boast, so most likely that would all be blown off as so much self-serving hearsay. :rolleyes:

When it comes to so-called “traditionalists” be on the alert! :wink:

:thumbsup: Aurelio :thumbsup:
[/quote]


Who in the world is feeding you this stuff - Aurelio?

:slight_smile: Hola, amigos!

Now, for los hechos , otherwise known as “facts!”

1)Personally I’ve roughly 28 years of consecutive experience with a variety of the Traditionalist movements, both in this country and in Mexico: from September, 1975 to the end of May, 2003.

And by personal contact with priests, and at least one near relative, familiar with the situation among traditionalists in both Brazil and Argentina, I have secondary knowledge of both countries, going back to at least 1975… This includes a leisurely talk back in around late July, 1996 with the then-priest, now-bishop Fernando Rifan of “Campos” fame. Father Rifan spoke with us in slow, impeccably-accented Spanish.

  1. “We” used here is a generic expression that includes masses and masses of bi-lingual, bi-cultural people. We cross from one culture and language to the other at will.

  2. The location was/is the so-called “Chapel of Jesus and Mary,” El Paso, Texas.

  3. The time frame is from August 2002 to the end of May, 2003.

  4. The brother’s name is/was “Gabriel.”

  5. One dissenting priest, relative to the portrait of Our Lady of Guadalupe was one Fr. Katzaroff (sp?). Moreover, he is a priest with his own hard-earned academic credentials, two undergraduate degrees from one of California’s Ivy League universities, “hard” science," as well as “soft science.”

  6. Priest in charge? Father Paul Tague SSPX. He was quietly pulled aside and warned that this whole situation could lead to trouble. It did.

  7. Brother Gabriel’s immediate supervisor? Fr. Pffeifer, head of the Brother’s Novitiate. Not to be confused with his brother, spiritual head of the St.Pius X Retreat Center in South Phoenix, Arizona. THAT brother went to the American Pius X Seminary, and is both strict and very orthodox. Although a former seminary “Dorm Father” subsequently set out to be “crowned Pope Pius XIII” with really impressive online ceremony. I know. I have it archived on my own email server files. All open and above board. Which, who knows? May have made it difficult for Pope-elect Cardinal Ratzinger to have picked “Pius” for himself.

  8. “What does St. Jerome have to do with this?” It’s pretty complicated. :rolleyes: Look up the Brother’s Noviate in the El Paso, Texas directory, and rap to 'em! :wink:

  9. Violently dissenting priest, to the mere idea of a portrait of Our Lady of Guadalupe being abused this way?? A former PSSX priest from Argentina, with whose family mine has long since maintained at least a spiritual parentesco, in fact his mother and mine were very good friends, though of different generations: the legendary Padre Alberto Gonzalez! .

  10. “Chastity?” Yes, if you wish to clearly identify yourself as perhaps unwittingly a follower of a certain Bishop Jansen!

  11. “Snooping, spying?” Why bother? There were several of us “key janglers” on the payroll, fulfilling a function roughly equivalent to that of a “roadie” in a rock and roll band, and about as spiritually inspiring! Why? Because all such religious sects and cults desperaely need seasoned “enforcers” to keep the “natives (or in rock and roll, the groupies) in check!” Were the priests aware that – “more than one we” held them in complete and total contempt? You bet! Did they care? Oh, no, why should they? We were hired guns. Pure and simple.

Ah, good people! “Escape from those so-seductive Ivory Towers.” Why? Because this is wherethe rubber meets the road! :wink:

  1. So, how about Fr. Schmidberger’s visit to “us,” according to my own field notes, “1/19/2002” – or whenever? – we carefully wrote out well in advance a question or two for the good father, one along these lines: “If here in America, the Tridentine Latin Masses offered by the Society of St. Pius X amount to maybe 20% of the total, how are to say that the Society can represent all traditional Catholics in America?” This led to some quiet grins among my fellow “natives,” but the good father didn’t miss a beat: “The Society of St. Pius X has no need to ask Rome for permnission to say Mass, at any place or time.” Or at least this seemed to be the substance of what he was telling us, in a lesurely two hour meeting, with a mere handful of (mostly!) “young males only.”.

  2. “The Society of St.Pius X has no need…” to likewise ask Rome’s permission to set up a parallel diocesan structure, whereby “catholics” can have their marriages “annulled” and be “remarried in the REAL DEAL Catholic Church.”

But why say more?

Thanks!

Aurelio :thumbsup:

totustuusmaria,

“indulters” or “indulterers” is a perjorative (and offensive) term coined by the SSPX to describe those who are loyal to Rome and who have a lawful preference for the 1962 Latin liturgy of Mass. It is almost synonymous with “adulterers” - and reflects the early SSPX attitude of the post Vatican II Sacramental Rites being invalid.

I remember the early 1970’s when the first Australian SSPX seminarian, Gerard Hogan (who would become the first SSPX Superior of the Australian District - and who would quit the SSPX TWICE!) accompanied Archbishop Lefebvre and met with Sydney and melbourne Committee members (including myself) preparatory to the establishment of the SSPX in Australia.

Fr. Hogan called the newly ordained Fr. Peter Elliott: Deacon! - because he did not believe his ordination to be valid! Now Monsignior Peter Elliot is widely respected in the Catholic Church circles - and Fr. Hogan is a vagrant excommunicant.

Secondly, Church Laws (such as “Quo Primum”) may be treated in three differing ways - “abrogated”, “derogated” or “obrogated.”

Most Catholics theologians will agree that “Quo Primum” was never “abrogated.” Most will also state that it may have been “obrogated” , but it was certainly “dregogated” - which means that the Liturgy was “replaced” (by lawful promulgation and by the Will of the Supreme Pontiff and law Maker) as the normative liturgy of Mass for the Roman Rite by the so-called “Novus Ordo”.

It is pointless uttering the mantra that “Quo Primum was not abrogated” - when it is meaningless and matterless! The Latin Mass is permitted by Indult - and NOT by right. Personally, I hope for it’s wider use.

[quote=ByzCath]I do not gree with 1 as there are already a handful of orders that offer only the Mass according to the 1962 Missal yet there does not seem to be a flocking to those orders. While it might grant a greater freedom for the individual priest to celebrate that Mass they still require faculties from the local bishop to celebrate Mass for the public (that is for people other than for their own religious order) within a diocese.

2 is also off as the Mass was abbrogated by the promulgation of the new Missal. I don’t think the Vatican will ever give in on that one.
[/quote]

I would have to disagree with you on both accounts. First, the Holy See issued a statement in recent years stating that the indult communities (such as the FSSP) could not forbid it’s members from celebrating the Novus Odo Missae. If you remember, this caused quite a stir among members and followers alike.

Also, indult communities must obtain the permission of the local ordinary to work within a specific diocese. The SSPX does not, nor will it, if an agreement is reached.

Secondly, the so-called Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated. A recent letter from the CDW said exactly that. I am looking for the online pdf copy of this letter that I read about a month or so ago.

[quote=Dr. Bombay]Yeah, I can just imagine how that conversation would go…

“Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King…yes, thanks for being loyal to the Holy See all these years. Do you remember those guys we excommunicated almost 20 years ago? Yeah, those guys. Well…they’re you’re boss now.” :eek:

Not very likely, if you ask me. And you did ask me. :tiphat:
[/quote]

Or it could go,

“Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King… we are bringing back into the fold the group which caused you to come into existance…”

This is an unknown. It is certianly what the SSPX is holding out for but I do not think the Holy Father will blacken the eye of every bishop in the world. The SSPX will be be created as its own Church. How could this be done without harming the FSSP and the other “traditional” religious orders? I think it is a pipe dream.

Secondly, the so-called Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated. A recent letter from the CDW said exactly that. I am looking for the online pdf copy of this letter that I read about a month or so ago.

As Sean says above. It doesn’t matter as the old Mass was replaced with the current one. The Mass we have today is the normative Mass of the Latin Catholic Church and the old one is offered only under the Indult which requires the consent of the local ordinary. I doubt that will change much. If it does, then it does, but I follow what the Church Teaches today, not what I hope for in the future.

No one has a right to the old Mass, all we have a right to is the Mass, the current one.

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