The Real Traditional Latin Masses

In this show, AJ and Br. Bugnolo discuss the history of the Mass in the Roman Rite, and explain why the Traditional Latin Mass you are attended is probably not traditional, and is certainly not THE traditional latin mass.

4 thoughts on “The Real Traditional Latin Masses”

  1. Br. Bugnolo,

    I marvel at the depth of your knowledge and your ability to make it so easy to understand.

    I have to admit that in the past I have considered Catholic history and doctrine to be, for the most part, Byzantine (if you’ll pardon the expression), mumbo-jumbo.

    But the more I listen to you, the more I find the threads untangling and the reasons behind various actions making sense. Even more so, because as I grow older I become more experienced in the ways of God, the wiles of the devil, and the words of the Bible.

    I’m amazed at how often I agree with you, how often your words ring true with me. I really enjoy and admire your videos on Church history, and how those those past events affect the Church today and Christianity at large.

    Thank you.

  2. THANKYOU, Brother Alexis and AJ for this excellent presentation. As a liturgical organist who has been studying the 51 Offices of Charles Tournemire’s monumental “L’Orgue Mystique” [1927-32] for the past two decades, in conjunction with the 1952 Liber Usualis and, more recently, Dom Prosper Gueranger’s magnificent 15-volume “The Liturgical Year” [1841-75] I have had a particular interest in the various changes to the ‘Old Rite’ Missals from 1950 onwards. Yes indeed, the 1962 Missal is flawed in a number of respects even though it is the “approved” version since Vatican II. What did surprise me a few years ago was the discovery of the radical changes implemented by Pius XII in the 1950s…….but that is, of course, explained by the presence of notorious freemason Bugnini within the liturgical halls of the Vatican from 1948 onwards! So, the liturgical calendar I refer to most often is that published at http://www.traditio.com which is pre-1950. I am planning to purchase a 1945 St Andrew Missal which should be much more in line with my other resources than the 1962 one is. Having said that, one of the glories of the ’62 Missal is the extensive section of prayers, litanies & devotions etc, most of which have not been taught since Vatican II and therefore the vast majority of postconciliar Roman Catholics are ignorant of these treasures. A spiritual tragedy!! THANKS again for all your good work. Pax vobiscum.

    1. When discussing the enacting of a sacramental rite, rather than the Sacrament itself, one can speak of liceity, that is, whether a thing is done lawfully or virtuously. Canonically speaking a validly ordained priest can offer the mass whenever and wherever if he intends the Glorification of God, because he is God’s ambassador. But canonically speaking he can only do it licity, that is, lawfully, when he has faculties to offer the mass in that place, or permission of the local ordinary. This faculty cannot be restricted such that a priest of the roman rite be forbidden from offering the Roman Rite according to the Missal of St. Pius V, since the Bull Missale Romanum granted perpetual permission to do so. But the Bishop can forbid the mass for lesser reasons in private homes or certain churches, for the good order of the Diocese. However, when a Bishop by doing this would deprive the faithful of the Mass on a Sunday or of a Monastery of the Mass, and do so without cause, namely, the faithful are not under canonical sanction, he commits a grave sin, and a priest is not canonically or morally obliged to obey the Bishop. However, a priest might still decided to comply with the request of the Bishop to avoid being persecuted or of causing the faithful served to be more persecuted. That is his call.

      As regards the Novus Ordo, canonically it has the appearance of being approved, even though there is no actual document declaring it a Catholic rite. Paul VI only ordered the books containing it to be published. So I think it is doubtful that it can be licetly offered, though many by reason of custom claim it has the force of law. Nevertheless, there can be no custom against right morals, that is, there an be no appeal to custom as allowing something if the custom is based on vice, immorality, or unsound doctrine. So I think a priest has a strong canonical case to refuse to say the Novus Ordo, but I do not think the laity sin by receiving the sacrament there. Sometimes there are cases in which because of doubt, a priest can refuse a thing, without commiting moral fault, but still be subject to canonical penalties, unjustly. In this case, since the doubt regards the promulgation of the rite, and one must presume that it is not promulgated until one has a document certainly promulgating it, I believe that canoncially and morally a priest can refuse it, and that in the sight of God He has not approved it, since His providence has never moved His vicar to declare it Catholic. This can be seen in the papal decree, Summorum Pontificum, which appears to do this, but lacks the language of promulgation at the end, whereby those who contradict it are to be punished or cursed. I believe God inspired Pope Benedict XVI to omit that language precisely because the NO is an abomination in His sight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.