Jimmy - what do you mean by "career limiting move"?
I have a career too - not in the church - but in the business world. And I do what I know to be right, without worrying about it limiting my career. Why would a priest be any different?

Hi J.R. Stoodley. I was definitely not trying to make yours sound dumb. I either did not read yours, or i did not read it carefully. I was shooting from the hip, to a bunch of people who are out of my league in history and rubrics. I'll get off now...

Have a wonderful Easter everyone. How beautiful the Easter Vigil is, in the "Novus Ordo."
Yes, still quite beautiful and imparting a sense of the sacred. Lets not dismiss what is good about the liturgy today or the fact that in it is still much that has come down to us from past centuries.
by the way, is it not humorous that I spelled "dumb" wrong? Sorry, inarticulus.

Inarticulus,
I am not sure if you are supporting my (not really mine but suggested by others) basic idea or trying to make it sound dumn. In any case perhaps better than sticking parts of the "Tridentine" mass into the "Novus Ordo" I would think of it as revising the Roman Missal.
We have had many missals in the last several centuries of the Church. The missal of 1570 was created as an effort to unify the Roman rite and bring it back to the liturgy of the Fathers (it did not but they apparently thought it did). Later missals of 1604, 1634, 1884, 1920, 1955, and 1962 were only slightly different from that of 1570. The 1970 missal made massive changes, and those of 1975 and 2002 made minor changes from that.
Now, as we near the 40th anniversary of the revolutionary 1970 missal, it may be time to reevaluate the goals of the changes made, and the fruits born of those changes. In light of such a reevaluation a new missal may be in order. One that will, like that of 1570, have as a goal the unification of the Roman rite and an expression of the liturgical heritage of the West. This I think is how we should view the situation, not a "combining" of the "NO" and the "Tridentine mass," though the end result may seem a bit like that.
This is my perseption of the situation. Still, this is ultimately not an issue for us to decide, but the Vatican, and particularly the Pope.

If i were to surmise a solution to this "mass-confusion" issue...(if i were pope) I would ask Cardinal Arinze to "hibrid" the novus ordo and the tridentine. The apparent contrast, between the "priest who offers sacrifice", facing east, bending down and whispering, etc, and the "presider" for today's mass, standing at the "table" praying the Lords Prayer, toward the community, while the "communit" holds each others hands, "smiling." (exagerated imagery, obviously. It seems like less of an evolution of tradition, and more of a space-time warp. How did we get from the tridentine to the mass we have now... In this case it seems like the tridentine "stopped," and then Novus Ordo "Began"--that would not be how i envision "the evolution" of ritual over time.
So I think they should take the important doctrinal "parts" of the Tridentine" and stick 'em in the Novus ordo.

Bugnini did not like this. No, not one bit.
"Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that our Lord and God would be pleased to rescue them from their errors; and recall them to our holy mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Let us pray. Let us kneel. (Arise.)
Almighty and eternal God, Who savest all, and wouldest that no one should perish: look on the souls that are led astray by the deceit of the devil: that having set aside all heretical evil, the hearts of those that err may repent and return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, through all endless ages. Amen."
Perhaps heresy and schism can now only be found on the right?

Is it just me or is there a majorly disproportionate number of converts (and similar) including Jimmy himself, who post stuff on the website? I wonder what the cause is?

J.R. Stoodly,
Welcome Home!
I also went through a very un-orthodox RCIA program in 1997. I was technically a revert having been baptized Catholic but never catechized in anyway.
"Of course we must also pray for unity, which I believe will not happen until the liturgical situation is settled, and in a way that respects tradition."
Amen.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Michael and Jim Roche,
I, like Ryan C, am a recent convert from Protestantism (2 years ago for me). I converted from the United Methodist Church in part because of the idea that truth does not change.
Having converted in a very liberal area I had a nasty RCIA and have since seen just about every abuse in the book, and heard all kinds of heresy preached from the pulpit (or rather from the area in front of the alter where the priest in the nearest church walks back and forth).
So believe me, I agree whole heartedly that the Church does not need to constantly change for the sake of change. Least of all should it be "modernizing" or "updating" itself. The truth of the matter though is that the 1962 missal was in general use in the Church for less than a decade, and is still less than 50 years old. I see no reason why it suddenly would become sacrosanct in every respect. Perhaps for practical reasons it should not be revised while the NO is in place, lest even good changes disillusion even more traditionalists. Probably the real reason for opposition to any change is distrust of the Church to set liturgical norms. I will not be so pessimistic, especially under B16.
As I wrote, having two current missals instead of one current missal and one old but still permited missal would be essentially a split of the Roman rite into two rites. I still think a new missal for everyone that would combine good aspects of previous missals would be the best thing for the church. Sure it would anger a lot of liberals, but I can't bring myself to care very much. Some liberals would take it and go to the "Benedictine" mass. Others would break away into liberal versions of SSPX. The end result would look much better to me than the current situation. Meanwhile allowing the 1962 missal for those who want it sounds good, but it seems only a temporary solution. Ultimately I suspect the Roman rite must be definitively united or split.
I'll never get elected pope with my general lack of concern for the politics of the Church, and my general willingness for dissenters who will not repent to just leave the church, but since I have no aspirations to high church office I will venture to be an idealist.
Of course we must also pray for unity, which I believe will not happen until the liturgical situation is settled, and in a way that respects tradition.

The important qualifier is a "well-formed" conscience. If one's conscience leads one to disobey the Magisterium, or leads one into schism, it's obviously not well-formed.

"Does that prayer or anything like it exist in the post-conciliar liturgy? If not then the Church has either given up on heretics and schismatics or given up on the concept. I think we all know which."
From today's general intercession: "Let us pray for all our brothers and sisters who share our faith in Jesus Christ, that God may gather and keep together in one Church all those who seek thetruth with sincerity.
Almighty and eternal God, you keep together those you have united. Look kindly on all who follow Jesus your Son. We are all consecrated to you by our common baptism. Make us one in the fullness of faith, and keep us one in the fellowship of love. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen."
Even if there was no prayer like the one you cited it would be a hasty conclusion that it therefore follows that the Church has given up on heresy and schism.
As a former Protestant who entered the Church last year and as a friend of others in RCIA I can state that that's certainly not the case in my experience as well. What primarily lead me to the Church were the friends and family members I knew who witnessed to me and encouraged me once I had made my decision. Now we go to mass together and it's a wonderful thing.

Jim Roche,
I know the Church has not given up on heresy and schism or the concept though I know some Catholics have. Because both sides appeal to "conscience" we see how important obedience, faith, hope and charity are today and always.
You remain in my prayers, please keep me in yours. John 18:37
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

"...to rigidly lock yourself into 1962 just seems like nonsense."
The idea that things need to constantly change or even evolve is what is nonsense and, frankly, is not Catholic. What changes occur to the faith, or even the liturgy occur slowly. It is a, dare I say, modernistic idea that things need constant changing. No, to touch the 1962 Missal after seeing it preserved through all the tempests of the last several decades would be a catastrophe.

JRS
I don't object to your idea in principle but I don't think that is a practical suggestion given the state of the Church. It is one thing to allow the Traditional Mass to those who want it but to effectively abolish the NO would cause huge controversy.
And Traditionalists want to hold fast to the 1962 Missal because of the disaster that the liturgical reform brought. Until the "smoke of satan" is cleared from the Church then the Tridentine liturgy must remain as a guarantee against abuse.
Inocencio
I thought of you today when we sung The Great Intercessions.
Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that our Lord God would be pleased to rescue them from all their errors; and recall them to our holy mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church
Let me be clear that I do not suggest it applies to you My point is a different one. Does that prayer or anything like it exist in the post-conciliar liturgy? If not then the Church has either given up on heretics and schismatics or given up on the concept. I think we all know which.

Why would any changes to the Traditional Mass be a disaster? Significant changes were made several times just in the 20th century, as well as the 19th and 17th centuries. I can see well how many would not like the massive changes of 1970, which so simplified the Mass and made it loose much of its sense of mystery, etc., but to rigidly lock yourself into 1962 just seems like nonsense.
The only problem I can think of would be that having two simultaneously evolving missals in the Roman rite would be a pretty definative split into two rites.
I therefore stand by the idea of coming out with a new missal combining the good points of the newer and older ones and then repressing all the previous ones. If SSPX et al. don't like it, well too bad. It's one thing to be uncomfortable with a greatly simplified, somewhat Protestantized liturgy, but another thing to refuse any change at all.

"There are some great minds working on it and we should trust them."
Trust them and be obedient to the proper authority.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Mark
There are no victories or defects. Relief and gratitude will be the proper response from Trads.
I can understand that a lot of people who stayed with the NO Mass despite many misgivings my feel a bit like the Prodigal son's older brother in all this. But we know the father's wisdom was greater.
Roger
People who (SSPX-style) refuse to submit to the Church will not be satisfied with the envisaged indult.
There are two conditions the SSPX say are necessary for serious negotiations. One is the lifting of the decrees of excommunication and the recognition that every Priest has the right to say the Tridentine Mass.
The Society has been utterly clear about their position so there is no reason for anyone to expect them to consider any universal indult an end to the issue.
It may with the help of God be the beginning of the end.
The Mass be opened up to changes. That would be a disaster which has no support in the Traditional Movement. Even in granting the indult Pope John Paul II insisted on the 1962 Missal. That will have to remain or there will be chaos.
They are, to my mind, simply Protestant, i.e., choosing the moment in Church history that they favor and refusing to budge.
I have to say that comments like that from either side are in no way helpful. If this is going to work on the ground then we all have to act and speak in a charitable and responsible way.
Unity will be a process rather than an event. There are some great minds working on it and we should trust them.

People who (SSPX-style) refuse to submit to the Church will not be satisfied with the envisaged indult. They are, to my mind, simply Protestant, i.e., choosing the moment in Church history that they favor and refusing to budge.
As a sympathizer with those who prefer the Missal of John XXIII (as we should properly call the "Tridentine Rite" now being celebrated) and having a lot of good experience of it, I have a problem that is not about that ordo. Current regulations insist that it be celebrated entire and without admixture -- thus nothing that came from the most wholesome reforms may infect it. Thus we lose the reformed kalendar (Christ the King is not on the Last Sunday of the Year, e.g.) and we lose such things as the Rite for the Christian Initiation of adults -- which had been lost by the time of Trent and of John XXIII but have since been restored.
So, by all means let's celebrate the Trent version of the Roman Rite (since there is only ONE Roman Rite, several Uses). But let's not be bound by the limitations of the years between Trent and the good things that came out of the late Council.

Maybe I am missing something. Would a universal idult solve anything? There would still be the arguments over which rite is valid. Division would still occur , if not persist. Traditionalist would see this as a victory that Vatican 2 was wrong and would see this as an admission to the fact. SSPX would be given fuel to gather more to their cause ( I can see the headline now: Pope says our mass is valid..we are not in schism) The post Vatican 2 people would scream that they are betrayed and say Rome compromised..OH YEAH..Just imagine the anti-catholic groups..The Pope changed his mine..so much for infallability. Sorry for being so negative. I would love to see unity of the Rite. I think if you look at the History of the Tridentine Mass. Its purpose was to unify the Rite with one liturgy. Recognizing 2 liturgies in one Rite seems chaotic and confusing.

It may not be an indult. It may be a public and demonstrable assertion that the mass of Pius V was never abrogated and therefore is okay for any priest to say anywhere without anyone's permission.
I too, believe that this new attitude towards the Mass of Pius V is coming, perhaps as a step in a "reform of a reform" which will reconsider some of the horrible decisions that have been made in the past.
In any case, if the situation you describe comes to pass, it will be up to laypeople (to some extent surely, but still) to confirm the old mass by preferentially turning up at that one and making it difficult for "business as usual" to bury it.
We do have priests here who can say it because we have some foreign priests with good educations. If it becomes more common here, it will be all I will attend, since I will go out of my way to do it.

Read about our Lady of Fatima,La Sallette, Lourdes and other approved apparitions and you will see what has been done since the disaster of the second vatican council and its NO mass. Our Lady has been warning the world and the Church about this for a while and especially since second vatican council." Pray the Rosary everyday and do penance"

I think Fr Phillip's first question (looooong way above) is pretty important. What would it actually mean?
For example, surely the bishop would consider he had the responsibility to ensure that there are "sufficient" masses in the N.O. rite each Sunday at each parish, to meet the needs of the congregation.
And so, couldn't he command his priests to continue the same number of vernacular Masses?
That done, many if not most priests are already saying more than the "once a day" provided for by Canon Law, (which can be increased - by the bishop - "for a good reason"). Wouldn't that effectively give the bishop as much veto power as he could want?

Sorry about the massive typos in the first real line of my last post. Not sure how that happened. I was saying IN CASE Fr. Stephanos does not get back to us... I didn't mean to step in for you too much father.
Anyway, God bless you for both your priestly and monastic vocations. I frequently pray that there be more vocations to both.
I felt like adding, it seems more and more to me that if Pope Benedict has signed this thing, he will announce it tomorrow, Holy Thursday. What better day if the indult was to be granted any time this spring. If there is no official announcement, it could be a long wait if it ever happens.

Will there be more Tridentine-only parishes created on the model of Mater Ecclesiae Mission of the Diocese of Camden?
See http://www.materecclesiae.org/ for more about them (one or more 1962 Masses every day and no others at any time).
The more common face of the "indult" right now seems to be adding a 1962 Mass to those celebrated at an otherwise-Novus-Ordo parish.

"A friend of mine used to say that he was opposed to the Tridentine mass because 'I believe in the unity of the Roman rite.' It seems to me there's something to that, even if there might also be factors on the other side."
Practically, there are as many NO rites as there are vernacular translations. Inculteration was intended to create rites specific to each culture. My brother lived in Japan for a number of years and mass was essentially unavailable to him as he could not even hope to follow the Japanese NO. As the number of foreign speakers goes up, dioceses are struggling to provide mass in the language of the immigrant populations. This might be way Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln recently observed in an interview that we are witnessing the "disintegration of the Latin rite."
Surely if there is a place for the Tridentine rite it is as a normative, universal, and unifying rite in the Latin Church.

I am Father Stephanos.
I had and have NO intention of DIScouraging the Tridentine indult. I'm fine with the possibility of the Tridentine indult being universalized.
As for the "Novus Ordo", what I want is for it to be offered correctly, and I want to see the Holy See reiterate by way of COMMAND that every priest keep the resolution he publicly affirmed when he DARED to receive ordination from the Church. That resolution is as follows.
[During the Rite of Priestly Ordination, but before the sacrament is actually conferred, the bishop asks the candidate]: Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ faithfully and religiously as the Church has handed them down to us for the glory of God and the sanctification of Christ's people?
[The candidate responds]: I am.
That is the context in which to understand my earlier comment.
As St. Benedict wrote, ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus.
.

Clarification:
Fr. Stephanos can ideed speak for himself, but doesn't get back to us...
I should have said that nothing in his comment suggested there was anything wrong with the Tridentine mass itself. If he holds any such position, he didn't mention it. The concern hinted at, which I think is a legitimate one, is that it would not always be prudent to switch any given parish over to the Tridentine rite. Sometimes a more moderate path may be better.

Clearly, Fr. Stephanos can speak for himself, and I hope he'll have the chance to get back to the thread and clarify, but looking at his comments at face value (and as someone who appreciates the Latin Mass -- both Novus Ordo and Tridentine) I think he may have a point that it could be wise to increase the general level of Latin in the Novus Ordo masses while allowing the Tridentine rite to come back to whatever level seems appropriate gradually. We know from the experience of the past forty years that liturgical whiplash can have very bad consequences, and although I heartily believe that the Latin Mass (in either the old or the new rite) is a far superior expression of teaching and worship than the folksy masses that quickly became the norm after 1968, I think that there could be pastoral problems with making a lot of sudden changes without educating the laity.
J. R. Stoodley brings up an interesting point about seeking a happy medium between the too-far-reformed Novus Ordo and the Tridentine which, for all it's virtues, is perhaps more opaque than necessary. I think that having the Novus Ordo cycle of readings, and doing them in the vernacular, would be a clear plus. Also, having the people say the responses (though in Latin) as was becoming more common with the 'dialogue mass' that Sheed and others supported before the council would I think be a benefit. Finally, there might be (and I don't have a detailed enough knowledge of the theology of liturgy to know for sure) some benefit in have the priest speak some of the silent prayers aloud so that the congregation can follow the rite audibly as well as in their missals.

From the blog Off the Record:
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf has neatly summarized the circumstantial evidence pointing to the likelihood that the Holy Father will soon confirm the right of every priest to use the 1962 Missal. To his impressive collection of evidence, let me add this: the Congregation for Clergy is still leaving open the possibility that Pope Benedict will issue a statement on Holy Thursday-- which is now less than 36 hours away!
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/04/the-tridentine-sign...

J.R.,
What makes you so "sure Fr. Stephanos was not implying that there was anything wrong with the Tridentine mass"?
He started his first three paragraphs stating "It is legitimate," "It is also legitimate," and "It is also legitimate," in referring to simply using Latin in the NO Mass. He starts his last statement by saying it seems "healthy and holy" to add more Latin. Then he adds "... without going so far as requesting or implementing the privileges of the indult for the Tridentine rite." This leaves the exact opposite impression to which you are "sure" about.
I asked for a clarification because I am not sure Fr. Stephanos was implying that there was anything wrong with the Tridentine mass. I think he was, but I'm not sure.
I know nothing about Fr. Stephanos, which is why I am seeking clarification. I will admit to being sensitive to how priests, even those who consider themselves friends of Latin, react to whatever His Holiness provides, if anything, tomorrow. I pray they keep an open mind to requests for the Tridentine Mass and not prejudge them.
As for the variety of Masses within a parish, I suspect some parishes may find it useful to encourage Spanish, and perhaps even Vietnamese, parishioners to attend the Indult Latin Mass. Over time a good number of traditional N.O. participants will start attending the Indult as well. Then some parishes will be left with just the Indult Latin Low and High Mass, the teen and the vigil.

The cite should have been to the Catholic News Agency, NOT the Catholic News Service. Big difference.

What do you all think of the idea of combining the old and new masses into something else? For instance, I imagine something like the Tridentine mass but with readings allowed in the vernacular, perhaps the second reading, certainly the more comprehensive lectionary (or a slightly revised one esp. if it is decided the second reading does more harm than good... or does something like this already exist for indult masses?) and probably some other pieces taken from the Novus Ordo. Then get rid of both the NO and the Tridentine masses and have a united Roman rite.
This would make the ultra-traditionalsist purists angry but I don't care, if the liturgy itself is good. Some people will not be satisfied by anything other than the Tridentine until the end of time, and as for groups like SSPX, I am not a fan of people with schismatic tendencies being brought back into the Church without their repenting and changing their position. Least of all heretical priests.
On the other hand if post-NO mass were done badly and then the Tridentine suppressed it would be a disaster. If B16 were overseeing the process I would not be very worried about that, but what if he were to start it and then a new Pope finished the task?

I am sure Fr. Stephanos was not implying that there was anything wrong with the Tridentine mass.
I agree that in parishes where the laity are not willing to have a Tridentine mass but are open to some Latin, the use of Latin for the Ordinary and some other parts of the mass could be useful. Something like what is televised on EWTN. It is my understanding that this kind of hybrid language liturgy is in more keeping with the original directives of Pope Paul VI, who wanted the Liturgical reforms implemented in such a way that the laity still knew their responses in Latin.
In some parishes this kind of thing could also be used as a transition from the NO to the Tridentine rite. This would help people get accustomed to Latin and learn their responses before the bigger switch.

after a point it becomes like "Mass shopping" in one's own parish.

Bingo. A friend of mine used to say that he was opposed to the Tridentine mass because "I believe in the unity of the Roman rite." It seems to me there's something to that, even if there might also be factors on the other side.

I really appreciated attending Mass in Cyprus and being able to follow along, even with my scant knowledge of Greek. It really made me grateful for the rubrics, and made me wonder what it would be like if every Mass in the world were said in the same language. Wouldn't it tend to pull us together as Catholics?

It would be like our own secret code... how cool is that?

I hafta admit, I think the same thing every time I see a movie set in the pre-vernacular period where Catholics of different nationalities and languages easily assist at Mass side by side.
Most recent example: Joyeux Noel (Merry Christmas) (now in theaters), about the WWI Christmas truce in 1914, which depicts German, French and Scottish soldiers all responding in Latin during a battlefield Christmas eve Mass.
Example #2: One Man's Hero, which depicts the Irish San Patricios of the US army crossing battle lines during the Mexican-American war (what the Mexicans call the "War of Northern Aggression"!) into Mexican territory and joining in the Latin mass without skipping a beat. That really tickled me: Irish immigrants to the US crossing into Mexico and participating in Mass with Spanish-speaking natives of mixed American Indian / mestizo descent, all in the same language they've heard in the Mass all their lives!

How many parishes use gregorian chat or latin in various parts of the liturgy? Not much and I echo Mr. Akin's thoughts on that this will immediately change little. However, what may change more quickly than dicoese priests will be where religious orders have their own parishes. Typically more religious orders are not as concerned about the liturgy as the average dioscese office. If Franciscans help man several parishes in a dicoese and Franciscan priest John Smith starts saying the liturgy in Latin, the local bishop isn't likely to say anything in fear that the Franciscan's will pull ALL their priests out of the diocese due to ingratitude.

Father Stephanos,
Do you mean to suggest that it would not be a "healthy and holy thing" to go "so far as requesting or implementing the privileges of the indult for the Tridentine rite"? If so, then I ask what makes requesting the Tridentine rite not healthy and holy? Surely not the rite itself since so it seemed to be plenty healthy and holy for so long. Many Saints used this rite to their benefit. Is it merely the request that is not healthy and holy? If so, why?

I have to axe the same question as Paul.
Why not implement the indult, Father?
Though, I have to say I understand Steven G. when he says;
"...I can't help wondering whether a further multiplicity of liturgical options, even of increased access to traditional ones, is necessarily a good idea... I think there's something to be said for the Mass being the same everywhere..."
In this sense, yeah, I think our parish would then (with the addition of an indult Mass) have something like 5 different Masses: Indult Latin, Life Teen N.O., traditional N.O., Hispanic Mass, Saturday Vigil...
We even have a Vietnamese Mass once a month.
Now, maybe the foreign language Masses don't count, but even so, after a point it becomes like "Mass shopping" in one's own parish.
I really appreciated attending Mass in Cyprus and being able to follow along, even with my scant knowledge of Greek. It really made me grateful for the rubrics, and made me wonder what it would be like if every Mass in the world were said in the same language. Wouldn't it tend to pull us together as Catholics?
It would be like our own secret code... how cool is that?
Sursum Corda!

OOOps..my bad..Fr forgive me..I thought you had ask what the difference was....Its gonna be a loooooooooooooooooonnnnnngggg day

"It would seem to me a healthy and holy thing for parish churches to explore this way of incorporating (more) Latin in the Mass that they are already celebrating ... without going so far as requesting or implementing the privileges of the indult for the Tridentine rite."
Why?

It is legitimate to celebrate the present Mass (the one most Catholics already know in their own language), but to do so in Latin.
It is also legitimate to celebrate the Mass with some parts in Latin and some parts in the language of the people (especially the readings.
It is also legitimate to have the entire Mass in the language of the people, but to chant or say the "Ordinary" in Latin (the "Ordinary" being: "Lord, have mercy", "Glory to God in the highest", "Holy, holy, holy", "Lamb of God".)
It would seem to me a healthy and holy thing for parish churches to explore this way of incorporating (more) Latin in the Mass that they are already celebrating ... without going so far as requesting or implementing the privileges of the indult for the Tridentine rite.

Mark-
the poster's name is AFTER the post. So, the priest wasn't asking the question. It is kind of confusing. I wish it would be more clear as to who is posting which comment.

Mark: "diference"? I think you're going to have one of THOSE days.

Jeff, Diana,
If you want a copy of the text of the Latin for the current Missal (Novus Ordo), I have one. Some time ago I put together a booklet of the Latin of the Novus Ordo for my parish, which, incidentally, is blessed with both a Tridentine and Novus Ordo Mass on each Sunday. The full URL is: http://www.preces-latinae.org/Libelli/extrahere.ht... The booklet for the Novus Ordo is at the bottom of the page.
Pax Christi semper vobiscum omnibus! (southern form)

I'm sorry, Mark, but I just have no idea what you are talking about.

Mark, are you referring to Jeff's question about the difference between the Tridentine Mass and the Latin Novus Ordo? AFAIK, Jeff is not ordained. (Is that the slap you were expecting? ;-) )

Let me say that AGAIN~.."A Priest doesnt know the diference?" ( I feel a 3 Stooge's slap coming ) Ohhhhhhhhh wise guy huh?

A priest doesnt no the difference???????????

Thanks for the great answer, Jimmy! Your insights are always good food for thought.

Jeff:
You ask,
"Is a Novus Ordo Mass in Latin the same thing as a Tridentine Mass?"
No, it isn't. The Tridentine Mass is somewhat more complicated, and the current mass texts aren't a direct translation of the Tridentine ones. I've attended Latin liturgies in both the old and new rites, and they are both lovely, profound experiences. The use of Latin adds majesty and "oomph" to the Mass, and reminds us of the history of our faith.
A link to the Tridentine order of Mass can be found here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/ord.htm
The current rite, in Latin, is printed in my missal (the Daily Missal from Our Sunday Visitor) and in the official parish missal as well. I couldn't find a link to it on the Web in a few minutes of looking, but maybe someone else will post one.

It's difficult to see how the universal indult would have much effect in our diocese in the short term. The priests are run ragged already, and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't feel like taking on another Mass right away.
Over time, though, with enough gentle pleading by a large enough group of people, I think we could see a Tridentine Mass in our parish. I know our pastor remembers it, even if he would have to brush up.
It just occurred to me that if the universal indult is true and is made public soon, some priests may be confronted by people DEMANDING the Latin Mass, and that this would likely make them even less disposed to initiate such a Mass in their parish.
So, if it is true, and a universal indult is granted... take it easy, people. Pray about it, and remember who is the sheep and who is the shepherd.