Tridentine Mass never rescinded?

Read this then comment:

In the spring of 1989, a report appeared in the June/July issue of The Fatima Crusader stating that a Papal Commission of nine Cardinals determined that the Traditional Mass has never been suppressed.

The report declared that in 1986, the Holy Father appointed a commission of nine Cardinals to examine the legal status of the traditional rite of Mass, commonly known as the “Tridentine Mass”. The commission of Cardinals included Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palaz-zini, and Tomko was instructed to examine two questions:

  1. Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional Mass?

  2. Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private without restriction, even against the will of his bishop?

The Commission, the account stated, unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the traditional rite of Mass.

Regarding the second question: The Commission stated that priests cannot be obligated to celebrate the new rite of Mass; the bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private.

The Commission also recommended that the Pope issue a Papal decree based on the Commission’s findings and it was the Pope’s intention to issue this decree in November of 1988, but the decree was never issued, due to pressure placed on the Pope from opposing Cardinals.

The Fatima Crusader is a publication of the Fatima Network and Fr Gruner who is a known dissenter and schismatic.

I would not believe anything read in that rag.

Then read what Pope John XXIII said:

There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by
former Councils. That is enough. --Pope John XXIII (apud Fr. Yves

    Pope John conceived the Council as an eminently pastoral event.  

–Pope John Paul II, October 27, 1985, Angelus

    When, during the rebellious first session of the Council, he [Pope 

John XXIII] realized that the papacy had lost control of the process, he
attempted, as Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster later revealed, to
organize a group of bishops to try to force it to an end. Before the
second session opened he had died. --Anne Muggeridge, The Desolate
City (revised & expanded ed./1990), p. 72; letter from Fr. Joseph W.
Oppitz, C.S.s.R. in “America” magazine of April 15, 1972

    He used to say at the end:  "This is no longer my council."  After 

the first session he knew that the antiforce had taken over… And from
then on he knew the Council was going down. Physically, then, the carcinoma
was eating away at his vitals, and he was already over eighty. And he simply
physically didn’t have the strength. --Fr. Malachi B. Martin, “The Storm
Breaks,” 1995.

    **"Stop the Council; stop the Council."**  --Pope John XXIII, on his 

deathbed, quoted in Kevin Haney, “The Stormy History of General
Councils,” The Latin Mass, Spring 1995, attributed to Jean Guitton (ob. March
21, 1999), the only Catholic layman to serve as a peritus at Vatican II.
Also reported by Michael Davies in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

    Pope John XXIII expected the Council to end in three months, just 

like the Italian Synod that preceded it, which issued, at the Pope’s
direction, very traditional decrees, such as the full retention of Latin.
The pope said: “We will come together for three months with all the Bishops
of the entire world. We will begin on October 13 [1962]. Then everything
will be over with between December 8 and January 25. Everybody will go home,
and the Council will be over and done with.” Little did he predict how wrong
he would be!

    Cardinal Heenan, the Cardinal Primate of England, who knew Pope John 

well, wrote in his work entitled “Crown of Thorns” in 1974: "The bishops
were under the impression that the liturgy had been fully discussed [at the
Second Vatican Council]. In retrospect it is clear that they were given the
opportunity of discussing only general principles. Subsequent changes were
more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the
decree on the liturgy. His sermon at the end of the first session shows that
Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts."
The Cardinal Primate had already written in 1968: “Jesus wept over
Jerusalem, and Pope John would have wept over Rome if he had foreseen what
would be done in the name of his Council.”

Hasn’t Fr. Gruner been suspended from the priesthood?

The Fatima Crusader is not a good source of information - it is a source of dissent from the Church and a forum to attack our pope - the successor of Peter.

If it comes from Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Crusader it is not reliable


First of all, let’s get terms right.

The so-called “Tridentine Mass” is akin to a “nick-name.”

The normative Mass of the Roman/Latin Rite is contained in The Roman Missal; there is nothing therein which describes it as being The Tridentine Mass. Prior to the Vatican II Council, the Roman Mass was as mandated as at 1962. After the Council, the normative Mass for the Roman Rite was that of 1969.

Names of the many authorized Rites may be viewed at many sites, including HERE and HERE

Neither a “Commission of Cardinals” NOR “The Fatima Crusader”, NOR 1000 fully functing theologians possess the Power of the Keys which Popes John XXIII through John-Paul II possess.

Whether one likes it or not - Pope Paul VI was technically able to abrogate, derogate, or obrogate the Quo Primum of St Pius V. Further, as history shows, he was not limited to what the Council might have authorised - he was able to promote or suppress whatever pre-Conciliar, Conciliar or post-Conciliar measures he might deem fit. Furthermore, whatever one might think of the propriety, aptness, goodness or deficiency in any regard of the Order of Mass of Pope Paul VI , it was certainly within his authority to promulgate a new rite. Attitudes, which tend to believe that all decrees of past popes are irreformable and still totally applicable to today’s situations are, I think, immature and false. The so-called “Tridentine Mass” - or more correctly, the 1962 Roman Rite of Mass was lawfully obrogated by Pope Paul VI and replaced by the 1969 “Roman Rite of Mass” – the so-called (but by now out-of-date term) “Novus Ordo.”

It was within the “Power of the Keys” for Pope John Paul II to issue an Indult – which is what he did. This is a Disciplinary Matter.

This kind of technical argument really holds no weight. The facts are that the English mass has supplanted the Latin mass in actuality, a visit to any of thousands and thousands of parishes this morning verifies that factoid.

This little piece of paper from the* Fatima Crusader *is analogous to those here in the US who sometimes argue that the 16th Amendment (income tax, 1913) was never properly ratified. The facts are that the income tax has been promulgated , the 1040 in your mailbox in January verified that, and the English mass as well as been promulgated, hypertechnicalities aside.

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