That should be, "I wondered if the FAST before Mass were the one hour it currently is..."
The Chicken

I would like a definitive answer to this, as well (Jimmy, Ed...?), because I have sometimes gone to a TLM church and I wondered of the fat before Mass were the one hour it currently is or the three hours it was back in 1962. I was told by a deacon that current regulations apply. If that is the case, then I would assume that Saturday TLM Masses count as well. Satisfying the Sunday obligation pre-supposes a valid Mass, only, I suspect. What satisfies the obligation is an extra-Mass decision.
The Chicken

I have a question relative to the EF and the Sunday obligation. In our diocese there is only one church which is regularly offering the EF (although the bishop has celebrated it several times in various places). The only place that offers it weekly offers it at 4 P.M. on Satuday. Does that satisfy the Sunday obligation? I know that before Vatican II vigil Masses on Satuday did not satisfy the Sunday obligation, but vigil Masses of the NO do satisfy it now. The question has arisen at our house as to whether a vigil Mass of the EF would satisfy the Sunday obligation since properly the liturgy for the vigil would not be the same as the liturgy for Sunday.

So, I wonder if these bishops who are worried that the Pope is going against VII and wants to make the "extraordinary form" the only one in use are actually from other places in the world, or if it's just the usual gang of idiots from liberal U.S. metropolitan dioceses...

Maybe it will help some to have it even more spelled out. (although I thought the motu proprio clear at the time)

Latest update...
New Vatican document to clarify Summum Pontificum
To All, Merry Christmas and Holy New Year!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

close link

Vatican preparing follow-up document on motu proprio
Very interesting.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Thank you, anon. Amen.

Giacinto, the extraordinary use would likely follow the liturgical calendar and lectionary of 1962. So no, wouldn't change to the three year (ABC) lectionary.

Thanks, Esau! I appreciate it!
Sorry for not responding sooner, but I only just now saw your reply (I'm afraid that I often can't read my own comboxes!).

Jimmy Akin,
I really appreciate your ministry and apologetics.
Although, I gotta admit I still have much to learn.
For example, learning to live Christian charity as you clearly do yourself.
God bless you, brother!
(P.S. For anybody out there who might take offense at my using the word "ministry", I use that in connection with anybody who faithfully spreads the Gospel of Christ, which Jimmy Akin clearly does by word and deed.)

Esau wrote:
Jimmy Akin,
Out of my deepest respect for you, I shall try my very best to cease from engaging John in this manner.
God bless you always for your goodness and patience!
Thanks, Esau! I appreciate it!
Sorry for not responding sooner, but I only just now saw your reply (I'm afraid that I often can't read my own comboxes!).

Can. 518 As a general rule, a parish is to be territorial, that is, it is to embrace all Christ’s faithful of a given territory. Where it is useful however, personal parishes are to be established, determined by reason of the rite, language or nationality of the faithful of a certain territory, or on some other basis.
Did you not feel the first part was germaine? Apparently a personal parish is a type of parish and some have been erected for exclusive celebration of the TLM however when the MP speaks of a parish is it restricting itself to the general usage or is it including the exception? Further:
"A Society of Apostolic Life is a kind of religious order within the Roman Catholic Church, whose members do not profess religious vows, unlike members of an Institute of Consecrated Life. This type of orgainization is defined in the Code of Canon Law under canons 731-755.
While a society has some community life, the mission of the community is given emphasis; members of a Society for Apostolic Life can be reassigned among the various communities of the society as needed, and this lack of community stability distinguishes this kind of society from some religious orders, such as the Benedictines.
A community needs the written approval of a Bishop to operate within his diocese. Clerics of a society, however, are incardinated into the society and not the diocese, unless specified otherwise in the Society's constitution. Each community has a right to its own oratory.
Members of a Society of Apostolic Life are allowed to own their own property, but must live in community.
These societies are regulated by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.
Societies of Apostolic Life
Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest
Maryknoll
Missionaries of the Precious Blood
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
Society of Saint-Sulpice
Oratory of Saint Philip Neri"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Apostolic_...

Bill,
Indeed, without having a Latin liturgy, the Quakers were able to denounce all slavery
Whatever you think "subsistit" means, it doesn't mean that the Quakers opposition to slavery means their erroneous religion is salvific. "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salas" properly understood, is the eternal doctrine of the Church and nothing, including Vatican II contradicts this.
More discussion on this wonderful document
here
Michael,

True but what diocesan parish is devoted to the older form presently? Those are indeed oratories, no? Ordinary parishes are limited by the MP to a single celebration a day.

Paragraph 10 of the MP says:
Art. 10 The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

God Bless,
Matt

Jimmy Akin,
Out of my deepest respect for you, I shall try my very best to cease from engaging John in this manner.
God bless you always for your goodness and patience!

Will the readings in the Tridentine Mass follow the old way or will they be changed to follow the year ABC system? Anyone know?

Thank you Sir
And you are correct in some of your assumptions
I dont want to argue with Esau or anyone just engage in civil discourse and sharing and learning about our faith
God bless you Jimmy

Esau, be careful. We don't know that John is plagiarizing. The name used by the poster on the other forum may be one of John's handles.
Also, calling someone a "Rad Trad/Plagiarist" is not helpful. From what I've seen, John has been making a good faith effort to comply with the rules.
Please keep the discussion polite.

Esau posted
He posted the following:
"As usual, the Rad Trad/Plagerist John has copied somebody else's opinion and posted it as his own.
If anybody is interested in seeing the original, please visit the following website where the comments of his above post actually came from"
In his continued antagonism of myself as a devout catholic against the continued deterioration of morals and beliefs, seems to be obssessed with me
In charity and obeying Jimmys rulz and not to be accussed of thread stealing, I shall not respond to Esau. Jimmy-there seems to be a double standard going on here and why is Esau not warned??
Good Catholics, we shall rejoice as we are starting to see our enemies come out of the woodwork. The ADL is against the TLM. Why would that be? Because it promotes true Cathoilic faith and morals? Are they really concerned about the Good Friday prayer for conversion or is it much more? What about their Talmud and teachings. Try reading what is said there about Our Lord
What I posted is my opinion and is not something that is "rad trad" but common knowledge
John Paul II had to issue an encyclical because of the loss of belief in the presence in Ecclessia Dei Eucharista.
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/_INDEX.HTM
I will not Novus Ordo bash, but it is clear that change is taking root, it has taken 20 years since we have had something to be happy about and probably another 20 before something else, but the restoration is begining
God bless B16!!

Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI!.He is truely a Pastoral Pope that loves and cares for his Flock and respects His Predecessor Popes and Pope Pius V.He has reunited the Church with her glorious past and reunited a divited Flock in his time.For many many happy and blessed years Your Holliness!!!Congratulations!!!

As usual, the Rad Trad/Plagerist John has copied somebody else's opinion and posted it as his own.
If anybody is interested in seeing the original, please visit the following website where the comments of his above post actually came from:
Another Website John the Plagerist Rad Trad Copied from
Alls you need to do is search for:
"Secularism impinges on the sacred by seducing individuals into believing they cannot discern evil or distinguish it from good."

Publicus posted:
"It seems the root problem for some traditionalists is not the Council or the Liturgy or the Pontificate of John Paul II but rather the notion of the development of doctrine
Actually, they seem to have a problem with the development of anything."
Please expand on your statement as to what you consider "development". Do you consider constant ever changing masses and innovations desirable changes, changes that are acceptable and can possibly compromise the validity of the mass itself and the graces one is bestowed upon attending mass and the sacrifice offered, which if the sacrifice itself is not valid the mass is null?
Having said this, Rome has admitted that many masses said over the past 40 years have indeed been questionable, so much so that JPII had to issue instructions once again with another revised GIRM because the abuse has been so rampant. If as a church we cant even get the mass correct-what else do you expect Catholics to believe in and follow let alone convert the world to our faith as Jesus instructed the Apostles to do?
As everyone here on this blog knows, for a mass to be valid it must have:
Valid form
Valid matter
Valid priest
Valid intent
Secularism impinges on the sacred by seducing individuals into believing they cannot discern evil or distinguish it from good. The loss of the sense of the sacred, and the loss of the sense of sin are both products of the moral relativism of secularism.
The loss of reverence through improvisation at Mass by well meaning priests adding their individual personality has brought about the loss of faith in the Real Presence by some Catholics.
If becoming ONE through ecumenical discourse was easy, all the fractured denominations would be in full communion. . . yesterday, with many Catholics believing the Eucharist is symbollic.
God works in non-Catholic Christian communities and is present where they gather. However, we as Catholics believe that the fullness of Truth resides in the Catholic Church. The Real Presence is not a Doctrine that can be abandoned for the sake of unity.
The reasons above make it clear why a full return to the traditional mass with no innovations whatsoever are the only recourse the church can take for it to survive the next 2000 years

"Well, the homily in the ordinary use is to be be drawn from the readings for the day. But that is not a rule in the extraordinary use, so I imagine that the flexibility of the extraordinary use with regard to homiletic subject may be helpful in that regard..."
The 1962 missal was restored, not the myriad customs of days gone past. The 1962 missal says nothing about the content of the homily. So the relevant parts of Sacrosanctum Concilium apply, that is, that the homily must be drawn from the readings. The old missal does not exist in a vaccum. It is still subject to Sacrosanctum Concilium and other legislation. As Benedict said, there is one Roman rite. It would be a mistake to assume that the new missal wil henceforth only be governed by the norms of the Council of Trent and immune from any subsequent rules.

It seems the root problem for some traditionalists is not the Council or the Liturgy or the Pontificate of John Paul II but rather the notion of the development of doctrine
Actually, they seem to have a problem with the development of anything.

Mark,
I agree with you. From BXVI's statements over the last 20 years, it seems integration and thus true 'organic development' is the ultimate goal. I hope traditionalists, like some modernists, can make that leap of faith with charity.

Let me clarify my statement that quasimodo is partially correct. He is correct that the MP implies the Pian Form will evolve but incorrect that change is necessarily negative.
It seems the root problem for some traditionalists is not the Council or the Liturgy or the Pontificate of John Paul II but rather the notion of the development of doctrine ...

quasimodo does not provide a rationale for his statement but he is partially correct. The Holy Father seems to envision an interplay between the two Forms which implies the organic development of both. Those who expect the Pian form to remain static will likely be disappointed. quasimodo seems to anticipate the changes will impoverish rather than enrich the Latin Mass but we must remember Our Lord promised "I will be with you always until the end of time" and "The Spirit of Truth will guide you into all truth":
"For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

One man's opinion ...
this is the death knell of the Tridentine Mass.
quasimodo,
What rationale are you using to justify the statement?
My opinion is that very little will happen in the next two to three years, then an every so slight increase in the Mass of Blessed John XXIII. After that, there will be a new Roman Missal issued that will incorporate elements of the current Novus Ordo. It will be a true reform of the reform.

There are indeed some diocesan parishes (though obviously not many) devoted to the 1962 books; they are usually administered by the FSSP or another traditional group.
And those are typically established as oratories...without geographrical boundaries...so anyone can attend. Either that or they are allowed to operate as guests of a parish. There may indeed be a true neighborhood parish which exclusively uses the old rite somewhere in the world today but the existence of such a parish today would truly be remarkable.

There are indeed some diocesan parishes (though obviously not many) devoted to the 1962 books; they are usually administered by the FSSP or another traditional group.

Does not describe a diocesan parish but a religious community celebrating Mass in their own oratory.
True but what diocesan parish is devoted to the older form presently? Those are indeed oratories, no? Ordinary parishes are limited by the MP to a single celebration a day.

Mary Kay
Well, the homily in the ordinary use is to be be drawn from the readings for the day. But that is not a rule in the extraordinary use, so I imagine that the flexibility of the extraordinary use with regard to homiletic subject may be helpful in that regard...
Michael
Well, one thing that might be taken as a "princpled" stand against the ordinary usage might be a refusal to participate in diocesan-wide liturgies like the Chrism Mass or ordinations and the like or to refuse Communion from hosts consecrated in the ordinary use.

One man's opinion ...
this is the death knell of the Tridentine Mass.

A practical consideration for parishes with both ordinary and extraordinary: Two liturgical calendars means different readings means two homilies?
Given that that doesn't happen now when the Vigil readings differ from the Day readings, I just wonder.

"Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right
Does not describe a diocesan parish but a religious community celebrating Mass in their own oratory.
Check Canon Law (Cann. 731 - 755) for a description of those communities.

The situation of parishes specially devoted to the former use are handled under a different provision in the document
I could not find any provisions for parishes devoted to the older form in the MP document. I was also surprised to see this in the accompanying letter:
The relevent provision is Article 3.
"Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specifice decrees and statutes."
This seems to allow organizations such as FSSP and ICKSP as well as more conventional religious communities to exclusively celebrate the TLM within their own environments. The document does seem to allow their local ordinary to require these organizations to be willing to celebrate the NO in diocesan liturgies as a sign of unity. This might actually be an issue of contention for some.

Though I don't know how the Motu Proprio will be carried out in practical terms, the message sent by the very FACT of the MP may be the most important aspect of it, at least in the short term.
It is another clear signal to those who have assumed that the Church has "moved on" from tradition to modernism that they have been badly mistaken.
Just a little more bad news for modernistas.

The situation of parishes specially devoted to the former use are handled under a different provision in the document
I could not find any provisions for parishes devoted to the older form in the MP document. I was also surprised to see this in the accompanying letter:
Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

As to the calendar, I am of the opinion that somehow harmonizing the calendars will do a lot to alleviate fears of a split in the Church. I imagine that this will be part of the Ecclesia Dei study looking into adding more recently canonized saints and newer prefaces into the 1962 Missal. A shared calendar would be good - but that could be an issue almost as contentious as the rite of Mass. As it stands now, Masses according to the 1962 Missal must continue to use the calendar found in that Missal, though the option to use approved vernacular readings is conceded.
As to the question about transferred Holy Days in the NO Calendar, I think it depends on your diocese. If Ascension Thursday is not a Holy Day of Obligation in your diocese, i.e., it is transferred to the following Sunday, there is no problem - you attend the TLM on Thursday if you can, and you'll be in Church on Sunday anyway. But if in your diocese the Solemnity is observed on Thursday, then the obligation to assist at Mass binds for Thursday. I think that since the NO is the "ordinary" usage, the days of obligation will reflect that calendar, unless subsequent legislation changes this.

StubbleSpark
The MP is a liturgical document. It does not affect how precepts of the Church under canon law are fulfilled. Just as you may fast for 1 hour and receive Communion at the TLM, so too you are not bound more strictly by the TLM calendar in terms of holyday or Sunday observance: you can fulfill your Sunday obligation yet on Saturday evening, et cet. I've read numerous canonists opining to this effect.

Conspicuously absent are norms regarding the differences in the liturgical calendars.
If I miss the Tridentine Acension Thursday Thursday can I make up for it by attending the Novus Ordo Acension Thursday Sunday (or vice versa)?
Will the calendars change? I cannot imagine they could stay the same. The whole point of having a particular holy day is because it is set off from the rest of the calendar as a specific day. Having more than one version of a pariticular feast or holy day kind of eats at the whole significance of having a holy day in the first place.
This could run counter to the original intention of MP -- which is to restore respect and reverence for our holy traditions.

+J.M.J+
Yes, Deo Gratias! Finally!
In Jesu et Maria,

...with our Pope 80 years old, what is to prevent the next pope from doing away with the above Moto?

The Holy Spirit.

This is wonderful, and I the only way people will come to understand and appreciate this is if EWTN shows a TLM and the Pope himself celebrates such so all can see and this can catch on like wildfire, as "Joe sixpack" and his family in the pew knows nothing about Vatican II, a TLM or even what a "Novus Ordo" means.
He is a courageous man. Question though-Can a pope after B16 retract this? I would have to answer yes to this, as even Papal Bulls such as Quo Primum of 1570 have all but been discarded and or "read" the way one desires to where I have no problem understanding:
"And into perpetuity We grant and permit that they may all means use this Missal in singing or reciting mass in any church....We grant and permit this forever".
And "No one is allowed to go contrary to this letter which expresses Our Permission, statute, regulations, mandate, precepts, grant, indult, declaration, or will.....But if anyone would presume to attemt this let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of Saints Peter and Paul, His Apostles"
So with the above totally discarded by the liturgical reformers and with the "norm" something other than the Tridentine Rite-with our Pope 80 years old, what is to prevent the next pope from doing away with the above Moto?
Pray for him and his health. We need him

Josh,
Very good points made, thanks. Luckily for me, I have friends whose brother is a LM Preist, and my Priest has already said he would be thrilled for TLM to be offered, so there's not much of a problem for me personally, I just wondered how it would play out for others.
With the whole "holier than thou" attitude, I am sure that some Traditionalists suffer from this, just as some N/O Catholics do. But I think that some of the differences in TLM make it SEEM this way, when it really is not. An example would be A Traditionalist gets up from mass, leaves without a word (ideally) many N/O people will talk to them, in the sancuary, so if they ignored them, out of reverence for God, then it could be seen this way, even if it was intended differently.
I think both Traditionalists, and N/O Catholics, will really have to take some big steps to make this work well and easily.
One other note, there have been "workshops" cropping up in the past year for Priests to learn to practice the LM. Coincidence? I guess the Latin required for the mass, is only that which is needed, so a Priest wouldn't need to be totally fluent in Latin to attain enough grasp on the language to offer the mass. Merely speculation here, but interesting to think about and relevant to M.P.

Mark
The CDF document will not contradict Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism which states in I-3:
"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
Indeed, without having a Latin liturgy, the Quakers were able to denounce all slavery several hundred years prior to our really excluding even just titled slavery (which we kept after the Papal bulls against the trade) which just titled slavery appeared as late as 1960 in one of our moral theology book's fifth printing...Theologia Moralis by Tommaso Iorio.
My point is that the fullness of the means to salvation are only in the Catholic Church but outside of MEANS and in the area of morals or conduct, God saw fit to have others as leaders on various topics. Calvin had our answer on usury in 1545 not in the 19th century like us (Luther went stricter than us on the issue). And Quakers led on slavery because our theologians were very tied to inherited Roman law on such matters and continued to justify slavery of someone born to a slave mother even after repeated papal bulls against the trade while the Quakers had English law that was not as supportive of slavery as Roman law. God has arranged it so in order that one group...us... should not vaunt itself as best in everything....means and moral record.

Ed,
It is a testament to Catholic Answers that I recognized most of the references in that little ditty. :P
In MP news, TIME magazine has an online article about the MP and, predictably, has about 75% of their facts wrong.

There is a report of "another shoe" about to drop. Now that the Church's ancient liturgy is restored, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will shortly release a document stating the unique character of the Catholic Church and that Protestant churches are not churches in the narrow sense. The topic will be the sentence "Ecclesia subsistit in Ecclesia catholica" (The Church of Christ subsists in/is realized in the Catholic Church) from the Vatican II document Lumen gentium.
http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=17223
There may be more fallout from this document than from the MP ...
The Holy Father must be a Sopranos fan; first "ba da boom" and now "ba da bing" ...

Sir,
3000 traditional catholics came from Australia and New Zealand on October 24,1998, who had come to Rome for the 10th anniversary of Ecclesia Dei and to ask for the TLM. On that day Cardinal Ratzinger said that,"Traditionalists may look for judicial solutions, he said, but they must also seek ways to be better understood by their bishops. The bishops can be very closed to the idea of allowing a TLM, and sometimes bishops abuse their discretionary power, and do not respect the rights of the faithful".
For the reasons stated above, the faithfuls who are depending on their modernised bishops and Latin knowing priests. Only the pre 1970 seminarians are knowing the Latin, they are very low in numbers.
Therefore,the Holy Father has no other option except to issue a balanced MP SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM. As per canon 392, all the bishops are faithfully follow the MP and to give more TLM masses in their dioceses. If any grievences against the bishops , the faithfuls are liberty to approach the Ecclesia Dei.
Anyhow the TLM RETURNED.
DEO GRATIAS
AVE MARIA
St.JOSEPH PRAY FOR US.

JoAnna, you would like an uproariously funny ditty by Fr. Paul Mankowski about seminarians set to this tune. I remember a snip of it:
I am the very model of a modern seminarian,
My Calvin Kleins are faded to a color vaguely Marian,
My theology is Arian, my counselling Rogerian,
I am the very model of a modern seminarian.