Greetings! I've been posting on the "End-Times Speculation" for about 10 years, starting with Catholic Answers Forum, and when that died, moved over to St. Isadore's Lounge. The End-Times thread is in it's XXIV'th iteration -- when it got full, we'd just start a new one. Here are the conversations over there regarding the new rules on offering the TLM. Names have been removed for privacy. A few days ago I posted this on the thread after listening to Raymond Arroyo's comments on EWTN with some priest/Vatican watchers: I started thinking about this while listening to Raymond Arroyo on EWTN talking with a pair of priests/Vatican watchers. Apparently efforts are underway to extend the restrictions on the Latin or traditional rites (baptism, etc.) that have been imposed on the priests in the Vatican diocese (and which are MUCH more restrictive than the current restrictions on public celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass), are to be extended to the Universal Church during Christmas week. Reportedly, these plans have been in the making for some time and with the current rumors about Francis not making it through 2022 (due to alleged ill health), the schedule was sped up, which is why they’re being promulgated during this year’s Christmas week. I got a reply: What would this mean for us in the US ? Forgive me for all the questions Here's what I posted in reply: The questions are fine; I just hope I can give you answers that are honest and true. If I understand correctly, while the recent decision of the Pope severely restricted the celebration of the TLM worldwide, there are many places where the TLM has become a fixture over the past decade, and the local bishops have used their own prudential judgement to allow those to continue. This would remove the rights of the bishop to allow those TLMs. The effect is no matter what else the documents might say, the permission to celebrate the TLM must be given by the Vatican. There are certain places and organizations where the current restrictions don’t apply, such as FSSP parishes and Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. These organizations are structured so that they don’t come under the direct supervision of the local bishop, so they’ve been able to do the TLM regardless of what the Vatican says. The new rules MAY be set out to remove that loophole. The problem is, the way these two groups are structured, any such restrictions placed on them would violate Canon Law. Also, IIRC there were no such restrictions placed on using the Latin rituals for baptism, etc. The old baptism ritual had 3 different exorcisms and also used not only holy water but blessed oil and blessed and exorcised salt. These new rules will prohibit the use of these old rituals. All in all, we’ll just have to pray, wait, and see.
The next day I wrote this: Well, ask and you shall receive. Sat down at my computer after dinner and immediately on the “Sensus Fidelum” FB page were links to 3 different articles about this subject: A Christmas Gift for "the Good of the Faithful"? New Restrictions from... VATICAN--The head of the Congregation for Divine Liturgy, Archbishop Arthur Roche, has published a series of answers to "dubia" surrounding Pope Francis' latest Motu Proprio, Traditionis Custodis. A synopsis of this response could include confirming... This is the text of the head of the Congregation for Divine Liturgy, Archbishop Arthur Roche’s reply to questions (or “dubia”) about Pope Francis’ Moto Proprio. This next one is a piece from Catholic Family News: The Second Atomic Bomb Has Exploded: CDW Issues Directives Banning... 2 The predicted document of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) extending... And this third one is a (rather scathing) piece from 1Peter5: A Supreme Moment of Decision, Courtesy of “Divine Worship” - OnePeterFive 1 By Peter Kwasniewski, PhD - Traditionis Custodes was the first atomic bomb. This is the second. To summarize, Pope Francis has put a time limit on the use of the 1962 Roman Missal, by forbidding any further seminary instruction in using the TLM or the sacramental rituals used pre-V2; no further priests are to be ordained using those rituals, and the new priests cannot use the TLM. The congregations that were set up to preserve the TLM such as Ecclesia Dei now have no reason to exist. With no new priests being ordained with the ability to celebrate the TLM, no bishops will be created that can use or even know how to use and ordain new priests with these rituals. The document says that the intent is not to marginalize those Catholics who want to experience the TLM, but those who do cannot advertise or promote the fact that the TLM is available, and with no new priests being ordained as such, the TLM will simply fade away. Looking back on what I just wrote, I can say that these rules violate Canon Law. In 1570, Pope St. Pius V – in his Papal Bull Quo Primum – said that priests could use the Tridentine rite forever, “without scruple of conscience or fear of penalty”. In doing so in this way, he made it so no popes after him could ever revoke that rule. V2 did not outlaw the TLM, but it did restrict it. These new rules, again, do not outlaw the TLM, but they will choke it to death. I’m going to say this plainly: if Francis does die next year in 2022 (and if so, may he die in God’s grace) and the next pope does NOT revoke these rules, those clergy in the Vatican so intent on destroying the TLM and its mindset will make schism inevitable.
One member replied: It’s late here, so I might ramble … I’m a convert (obviously by all my questions) way, way, way after Vatican II. I went through RCIA in an unusual way. My spiritual director/priest always made me feel at ease regarding all bc he would say what I might lack in knowledge of things like this- I had more in other areas than many cradle Catholics. However, there is much I don’t know. … So, if I understand correctly - the next pope could change this if they wanted to? I would think that currently, any priests continuing with TLM would be under much scrutiny just bc that seems to be the way it goes… I realize this is prob a bad analogy, but the only one I can think of - is this sort of similar to whenever they took away or decided the long fo St. Michael prayer could no longer be said? I don’t like like anything that has been in effect so long to be canceled… I understand it’s easier for people to understand what I call reg mass.( I don’t know the proper names )and they changed the directions they face. I don’t know much more than that, but I don’t think I like the direct this is going…. My reply: Your analogy is not far off the mark. The Prayer to St. Michael was never part of the liturgy. Pope St. Leo XIII purportedly had a vision/locution between two voices he identified as G_D and Satan. He then composed this prayer and ordered that it was to be said after the Mass had ended but before any exit hymns. In modern terms, as soon as the priest says, “The Mass is ended, let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord” (or whatever variation your priest uses) and the people reply “Thanks be to God”, then BOOM! The Mass is over. Thus, the Prayer to St. Michael is not part of the Mass, and for whatever reason, during Vatican II the requirement to pray it was removed. (Personal note: back when I was a sophomore in high school – early 70’s – I was in a small town in northwestern Iowa. One of the major cities, about 70 miles away, had an event, involving the murder of three teen-aged boys and the gang rape of the 12-yo girlfriend of one of the murder victims. The perpetrators were soon captured, and eventually imprisoned. I bring this up because at the time, this was front-page news. The local bishop reacted by ordering that the Prayer to St. Michael be re-instituted after every Mass. This was done for almost 10 years until a new bishop was installed, who had the practice stopped. Both bishops could do this because the prayer was not part of the liturgy, it was something done after the Mass had ended.) In 1962 , Pope John XXIII inserted the name of St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass, immediately after that of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This was a major thing – the Litany of the Saints in the Canon of the Latin Mass had been unchanged for hundreds of years, and Pope John had to overcome a lot of internal opposition in the Vatican to make this addition. These new rules are a case of playing fast with the rules. The TLM has NOT been “abrogated” (technical term), it CAN be said, provided the priest has the proper permission of the Vatican. The question is if any TLMs offered now without the express permission of the Vatican are licit, and if the priests offering these Masses are subject to excommunication and/or having their priestly faculties removed (i.e., laicization). Remember that the Papal Bull I quoted earlier said that the Tridentine Mass could be used by ANY priest FOREVER without fear of penalty. If said priests are penalized for saying the Tridentine Mass without permission, I believe that these penalties would be null and void as they violate the rules put down by Pope St. Pius V; and that any priest or Vatican official who passes down these punishments has violated Canon Law and is subject to punishment. (Not a Canon lawyer so just my opinion.) This is what I mean when I say that the Vatican is opening itself up to an active schism. I should note that until now, Vatican II has been the ONLY Ecumenical Council that did not result in the formation of a schismatic sect. With Vatican 1 (where the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined) the resulting sect was called the Old Catholics. They originally claimed apostolic succession (with some validity) and adherence to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church with the exception of Papal Infallibility; within a few decades they drifted away from that and were the source of several schismatic sects, such as the American Catholic Church, which finds no sin in birth control and supports the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Another member posted: And the difficulty will be frankly in determining whether the schismatic group is the one resisting the changes, or the ones mandating and continuing the changes. I believe that Pope Francis may be relying too heavily on advisors who have an agenda, and I’ll even believe that they may truly, honestly think that agenda is one of the Holy Spirit (though we know that evil spirits can be deceiving and that the Holy Spirit will never contradict himself). I’m reminded of President Biden, who is constantly credited or discredited on all sorts of policies that arise that he in fact has little to do with (gas prices being a fairly prominent one). We really don’t know how much Pope Francis actually has to do with much of these changes and how they’ve been ‘spun’ to someone who has admitted that he himself does not personally view or hear any kind of news sources/media in decades. Most of us have our preferred sources but are careful to check out ‘the opposition’ as well now and now. I cannot imagine how I might act if what I ‘knew’ was based at its best on what I may have personally heard and believed 30 years ago (prior to the Internet availability), were I in the Pope’s situation then. What if the people I knew and trusted to keep me informed only spoke of one side? How would I then know any differently? Imagine being in the Pope’s situation —so lonely, really—with his Jesuit upbringing, with his own personal beliefs formed in a climate foreign to most of us in North America and even in late decades foreign to Europeans and ‘non-Argentinians’, and then being trust into high-profile situations and only hearing ‘one thing’, something that had been drilled into him for decades? It is not surprising that he says and does these things. But it is grossly unfair to all of us that any Pope is put into such a situation and then presented as ‘this’, lionized by some media and excoriated by others. My reply: Good points. And I should like to point out that all of the officials in charge of various dicasteries (departments) of the Vatican, especially Archbishop Arthur Roche, head of the Congregation for Divine Liturgy, were active in Vatican 2 and during the council frequently expressed their desire (to various journalists) to replace the TLM with one more acceptable to our Protestant brethren.
The key is if the Vatican officials involved (including the Pope) have the INTENTION of eliminating the TLM not by actively prohibiting it but by making it impossible for validly ordained priests and validly created bishops to maintain and continue the use of the TLM. If this is the case, then I believe (i.e., just opinion here) all of the officials involved are guilty of heresy. The reason for this charge goes back to the Papal Bull “Quo Primum” issued by Pope St. Pius V. In doing so, he (through the doctrine of Papal Infallibility – not yet defined but still operating) made his rule about the ability of priests to offer the Tridentine Mass forever, “without scruple of conscience or fear of penalty”, a part of Catholic Dogma – an article of faith. This is why V2 did not abrogate the TLM: as an article of Faith, they COULD NOT do so. The situation is similar to that of Pope Vigilus (died 555 AD). He was posthumously declared a heretic due to his personal support of the heresy of Monophysitism. His example was used in Vatican 1 as proof of the dogma of Infallibility, as while he was PERSONALLY a heretic, he never TAUGHT (using his Papal authority) this heresy. It’s also similar to the situation going on with the Greek Orthodox Church in Constantinople, where the Church laws regarding who can be Patriarch require the Patriarch to be of Greek heritage and taught in a Greek Orthodox seminary. The only acceptable seminary in Turkey was closed by Turkish authorities almost 2 decades ago. Unless the Turkish government re-opens the seminary, when His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I, the worldwide Greek Orthodox Church will be without a patriarch. The Turks are NOT “outlawing” the Greek Orthodox Church (tried it once, didn’t work), they’re just making it impossible for it to continue. We will soon see cases where priests are “cancelled” for celebrating the TLM without Vatican or their local bishop’s approval, and the resulting trials under Canon Law as to whether these cancellations are valid.
For more on these questions, I refer you to this article from 2014, Can the Church Depose an Heretical Pope? “Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation…” - John of St. Thomas “The... I want to bring up something that I’ve written about at different times over the past almost 10 years in being active on this topic: the very real possibility that the next pope after Francis will not be an anti-pope, but a FALSE pope, i.e., invalidly elected. The previous anti-popes we read about (where there were two or even 3 claimants to the papal throne) were all validly elected under the rules in place at the time. As soon as the situation was sorted out and a valid pope (Martin V) was crowned, he issued a rule stating that a new election of a pope can take place only after the death (and later, resignation) of the current reigning pope. HOWEVER … The current Apostolic Constitution states that that the election of a new pope MUST begin NO LATER THAN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE OLD POPE. The Conclave MUST be held in the Sistine Chapel, or, if that’s not available, within Vatican City. At least half of the eligible Cardinal Electors MUST be present for there to be a quorum. If ANY of these conditions are not met, A VALID CONCLAVE CANNOT BE HELD! So, some speculation here: In the past I speculated on Muslim rioting preventing the Conclave from beginning within 20 days, or from being held in the Vatican. (I’m still trying to find out if Castel Gandolfo would count as “within Vatican City” for the purposes of the Conclave.) Nowadays, though, it could be that Cardinal Electors would not be permitted to travel to Italy if they didn’t have a valid vaccine passport, or if they were admitted, they would have to quarantine themselves for 14 days, possibly missing the beginning of the Conclave. It could be that without a vaccine passport, they might be prohibited from entering Vatican City. Note that these rules about when the Conclave can start are fixed in the Apostolic Constitution, and specifically cannot be changed or altered while the papal throne is vacant. So if the Conclave is delayed, or not enough electors arrive, some officials may tell the public that they’ll go ahead with what they have at a certain date which is outside the 20-day window. If so, it may walk like a Conclave and talk like a Conclave, but it will not be a valid conclave and anyone “elected” there-by will be a false Pope. If that is the case, then tradition aside, Rome will NOT be the seat of the Church. Effectively, Church governance will cease to exist. The day-to-day operations will be able to continue, and bishops will be able to administer their own dioceses, but the Church will not have a pope again until a world-wide synod of bishops will be able to assemble and re-constitute the Church.
One last note: I recall a prophesy (can’t find it now, sorry) that said during such a synod, Saints Peter and Paul will appear to the bishops to declare who the new Pope will be. It may be that this pope will be the Angelic Pope described in other prophesies, who, with the new French Monarch, will defeat the Muslims and restore the Catholic Faith throughout the world. I’ll leave it to others to provide links to the prophesies or descriptions of both the new French Monarch and the Angelic Pope.
The position of the TLM proponents ultimately are resting their case on: In 1570, Pope St. Pius V – in his Papal Bull Quo Primum – said that priests could use the Tridentine rite forever, “without scruple of conscience or fear of penalty”. In doing so in this way, he made it so no popes after him could ever revoke that rule. V2 did not outlaw the TLM, but it did restrict it. Because of this, tightening restrictions will cause The TLM to go underground. Will a Pope then excommunicate them? Time will tell. Such an uncharitable decision does not affect the validity of a Novus Ordo Mass, but would such a situation fulfill Alphonsus Liguori's prediction that the suppression of Holy Mass would reveal the Abomination of Desolation? I don't know. But it appears that we are progressing to such a point. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Do we know that Pope Pius V meant forever, as in, forever through future popes even if a future pope restricted it? Or did he mean forever in his reign as pope? I would love to be super clear on this. I wonder if a virtuous pope of that time could even conceive of a future pope coming along that would so blatantly contradict tradition.
By "forever", he meant "until the end of time." Keep in mind that 1570 was at the height of the Protestant Rebellion. Also, the Council of Trent, which had "codified" and regularized the Mass as the Tridentine Mass, had just finished up just 7 years earlier. One reason it was called was to deal with (what amounted to) regional variations in the Mass. The Council established the form and rituals that needed to be used throughout the Universal Church in the Latin Rite for the consecration to be licit. As with all reforms, there was pushback, and Pope Pius V was making a statement regarding those who wished to punish priests for using this "innovation".
Hmm, yes, I understand the historical context, but I'm not convinced that he meant no future pope would ever have the authority to prevent a priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. I'm hoping to be convinced of this. But again, I'm wondering how he could have the authority to bind what a future pope could do. Why would he have that authority and a future pope would not have the same kind of authority?
I also have a question about your above bolded statement. If this is true, and it applied for all time, wouldn't it make the Novus Ordo illicit? But the Novus Ordo IS licit, as has been confirmed by Eucharistic miracles. So the Council of Trent had the authority to establish the form and rituals that the Mass had to have to be licit... But that could change later. A later council could have the authority to establish new rituals for the Mass that are licit. It doesn't mean it was a good idea to do so, but God obviously accepted their authority to do so. There are just so many aspects to all of this that make it hard for me to pin down what is truly valid or forbidden. Which is part of why I believe I should default to obedience to our current pope.
I understand your question. I think, if Pope Pius V had intended to only bind himself, this would have been an unnecessary act which does not make sense. In other words, by "forever" he really meant forever.
I think this would amount to saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true one in that they have kept the traditional liturgy in various forms like the divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom John; I believe that Paul VI's Mass toppled the wall against liturgical abuses but still bloodlessly updates the sacrifice of Christ.
Now, within the above document it states: With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God’s help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper – for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass – We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible... We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal. Here is my question. If we take the above statements at face value, then there appears to be no wiggle room for the Novus Ordo. Yet who in 1969 came out and said the Novus Ordo was illegal, let alone invalid; there is a distinction between the two? Safe in the Barque of Peter!
We currently only attend a diocesan TLM but have no hang ups at this point with SSPX. During lockdown we traveled more than three hours each way to attend FFSP. Our bishop is not restricting the TLM over this nonsense. In fact, he is showing himself to be a man of good measure and boldness, and offering the TLM HIMSELF, for our community next week (as a sign of support). This may pit Bishop against Bishop, but we have some wiggle room before it’s underground. Now, the world is rapidly locking down again, so will we see all Masses suppressed? I don’t know. It’s clear we are at war but I think these are still early battles...it’s going to get way uglier than this
