The following excerpt was copied and pasted from the following webpage on the *Corpus Christi Watershed* website: [More on the subject of “Mutual Enrichment”](https://ccwatershed.org/2020/06/23/more-on-the-subject-of-mutual-enrichment/) : > **A letter of Pope Benedict XVI to bishops, given at Saint Peter’s (7 July 2007), said:** > > > “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. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, **the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage**. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being **celebrated with great reverence** in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.” I am curious what was meant by the first sentence: "The two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: ... some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal." What was meant by "some of the new Prefaces" - I rarely attend the new mass, but when I do, I have not noticed any "preface" lacking from the old.

I attend the Ordinary form of the Mass. In it the entrance hymn is sung more often than the Gregorian introitus. I've been thinking about the reasons for this. In the Extraordinary form we find no entrance hymns, I think. But the entrance hymn seems to fit the Ordinary form very well. It really does, although I have even been to Requiem Masses in the Ordinary form in which the Gregorian introitus was sung. It *also* worked very well. Personally, I found that Gregorian chant works very well in the OF. Therefore, I don't know why in the Ordinary form people often choose the entrance hymn rather than the introitus in the OF. **What has been the argument for the entrance hymn in the Church? What does the Church officially say about this?**

How do the 1962 Holy Week ceremonies, initiated by Pius XII's 1955 Holy Week reforms, compare to the 1954 ones? cf. FIUV 's - PP 14: Holy Week Reform of 1955, Part I - General Comments - PP 14: Holy Week Reform of 1955, Part II - Liturgies

I would think it's a natural transition for Catholics who prefer the [Traditional Latin Mass](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass) (TLM) to go to the [*Novus Ordo* mass](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI) celebrated under [General Instruction of the Roman Missal](https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal) (GIRM) rubric **in the Latin language** while preserving as much non-GIRM-prescribed elements from TLM as much as possible, so they can be part of the post Vatican II church fully along with the vernacular *Novus Ordo* faithfuls. Yes, there will be differences from TLM, but I would think it's a much smaller price to pay for both the faithfuls and the Vatican committed to implement Vatican II. Does it even make sense? And if so, are there parishes who do this? It would also be helpful for the answer to include a brief listing of the differences.

I was reading a 1952 missal and wondering about some of the customs, one notable one I saw was that there was a particular commemoration that is supposed to be celebrated on the 3rd, 7th and 30th day after a funeral. Is there any particular significance in these days in Scripture or Tradition? How would someone go about getting a Mass said like this? Assuming there are funerals every other week in an active parish, wouldn't every other Mass wind up being this kind of commemoration?

I'm trying to figure out whether it is a good idea to attempt to get my kids confirm in the Extraordinary Form, while it lasts, or go through the regular parish way of doing things. My family and I attend a Traditional Latin Mass and I missed the prior chance to have a few of my kids get confirmed that way. However, I see a lot of merit in the normal catechetical process and formation. It seems almost sneaky or in some way disobedient to go out of my way to circumvent the process that my parish and diocese has in place, even if I do need my pastor's sign off on it. And yes, I'm going to ask a priest, I'm just wondering what the benefits that some Traditional Latin Mass going Catholics see in doing the EF Confirmation over and above doing it the normal way with their parish.

It's pretty clear that the Cardinal from Chicago has an appetite for allowing [random and illicit things](https://www.ncregister.com/news/the-city-of-big-shoulders-and-liturgical-confusion-chicago-faithful-flummoxed-by-inconsistent-liturgy-policy) to happen under the guise of Vatican II. And he has clamped down on Traditional Latin Mass and _Ad Orientum_ Masses because of the _moto proprio_ _Traditiones Custodes_. So, what, other than their conscience, is preventing priests in the Diocese of Chicago from celebrating Mass according to whatever customs they desire (replacing bubbles and a pogo-stick with turifers and the aspergillum)? Why wouldn't celebrating TLM just be considered yet another liturgical abuse allowed as a means to connect with the faithful?

As G.K. Chesterton put it, it's useless to say you can't put back the clock, that's literally the function of the clock, to be able to put it back.. that is. So who is Pope Francis to say that liturgical reform (which millions of well meaning, highly educated Catholics are rightly skeptical of) are unable to reverse liturgical reforms? > https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/36674/for-pope-francis-the-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible When all the present Novus Ordo backers die off, leaving a vague Protestant Catholic Church and the recognizable Catholic Church favoring Liturgical Tradition over Liturgical Innovation, won't the _Vox Populii_ take over and the liturgy will automatically "unreform" itself?

In my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80702/are-catholics-allowed-to-believe-that-the-ef-is-objectively-better-than-the-of?noredirect=1#comment220807_80702 someone mentioned two terms reverence and imparting grace. I had to ask a new question. How can something be less reverent but impart the same graces? A Sacrament can be done/celebrated in a less reverent way but still impart the same grace(s). This confuses me. It seems to make Sacraments something that has nothing to do with what the faithful do and how they participate. Some have even said that in order to be forgiven of your mortal sins outside of Confession you need perfect contrition but in the Sacrament itself imperfect contrition is enough. I confuses me. I am only talking about cases in which a person cannot attend Confession eg. being either a non-Catholic or not being able to find a Priest. Catholic Dictionary say this about reverence: "The virtue that inclines a person to show honor and respect for persons who possess some dignity." Wiktionary: "1. Veneration; profound awe and respect, normally in a sacred context." catholic.org says this about imparting grace: "The sacraments impart grace, but, in addition, the very act of celebrating them disposes the faithful most effectively to receive this grace in a fruitful manner, to worship God rightly, and to practice charity."

Since we'll probably never have a TLM Mass at my parish for any of the Easter celebrations, I wanted to ask what the differences would be, but the differences seem to be too many to enumerate so I guess I'd like to concentrate on what the similarities are (i.e. if you time-travelled to 1962 what would you recognize). The main points of the Easter Triduum celebrations as far as I see it are (in the NO) Holy Thursday: 1. Washing Feet on Thursday 2. Moving Jesus out of the tabernacle to an altar of repose Good Friday: 3. Passion on Good Friday 4. Lots of standing and kneeling during intercessions 5. Veneration of the Cross Holy Saturday: 6. Lighting of the Easter Candle and procession in 7. Easter Proclamation 8. Readings in the Dark 9. Very happy Gloria with lots of Bells and Candles 10. Baptisms, Confirmations etc.. 11. Renewal of Baptismal promises If there's anything important I missed, please add it to your answer and I'll put it in the question as well. What I want to know is, are there movements in the Mass that have been taken out, added or adapted in the Novus Ordo and how do they compare to their traditional counterparts.

In a [Missa Solemnis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solemn_Mass) there is a celebrant, a deacon, and a subdeacon. However, the [minor order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_orders) of subdeacon was suppressed by Pope Paul VI in the *motu proprio* *Ministeria Quadem* in 1972. Nevertheless, since the reform of the Mass in 1969, the Tridentine Mass has been celebrated at different times, still having a subdeacon at all Solemn Masses. So, after the minor orders were abolished, how is it that these groups can still have a subdeacon for Solemn Masses?

Cardinal Cupich ordered no TLM Masses on several days of the year: > The new policy also prohibits the celebration of Traditional Latin Masses on the first Sunday of every month, Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost Sunday. https://www.ncregister.com/cna/cardinal-cupich-issues-new-restrictions-on-traditional-latin-masses Other than spreading confusion and chaos, what reason could he have for preventing TLM to be celebrated on First Sundays? I've heard of First Fridays, I've heard of First Saturdays, but First Sundays are new to me.

*In light of Traditionis Custodes, is the TLM celebrated by a well known schismatic Priest an invalid Mass?* The recent motu proprio of Pope Francis spoke more on ***"disunity"*** rather than the liturgy of celebrating the Holy Mass. This can be seen from ***Pastor Aeturnus*** , citing unity is vital in celebrating Holy Mass. > 11. The unity of the Church, which the ministry of Peter's Successor serves in a unique way, reaches its highest expression in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the centre and root of ecclesial communion; this communion is also necessarily based on the unity of the Episcopate. Therefore, ***"every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people. Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it"***,43 as in the case of the Churches which are not in full communion with the Apostolic See. - The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church Perhaps, the subject of validity is more focus on the consecration of the "bread and wine". Since Art.5 in Traditionis Costudes stated the priestly faculties status quo is not supplied unless a Bishop grant the priest permission to celebrate the TLM. This specific question or scenario must be answer. *If Art.#5 of Traditionis Custodes stated, the priest have no supplied faculties to celebrate the TLM, will the Holy Spirit descend on a restricted celebration and will the Holy Spirit sanctifies the bread & wine tainted with disobedience? If the Holy Spirit do not descend, does it mean the consecration was not confected, therefore invalid?* >Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty. No Authorization means No Faculties. No Faculties to celebrate the TLM, will it also means no faculties to consecrate the bread and wine? Just like when Pope Francis had not yet supplied the faculties to SSPX priest administer Sacrament of Confession to absolve sins? https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html Other Source(s): [Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes is for the Sake of Unity](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/07/pope-francis-traditionis-custodis-is-for-the-sake-of-unity.html)

The last point that the Bishops got in response about ***Traditionis Custodes*** was: > A parish priest or chaplain who is authorized to celebrate the traditional Mass but must also celebrate the ordinary form of the Mass during the week cannot then also celebrate the traditional Mass on the same day (binate). https://www.ncregister.com/news/traditions-custodies-vatican-responses-to-11-dubia My parish priest has three Weekend Masses a Novus Ordo vigil Mass in English, a Novus Ordo morning mass in English, followed by a TLM Mass, followed by a Novus Ordo Mass in Spanish. Does this mean that a priest can't celebrate two different liturgical forms of the Mass on the same day?

When exactly are the faithful supposed to approach the Communion rail? Immediately after the priest genuflects after receiving the Host, immediately after he genuflects after receiving the Precious Blood, at the second _Confiteor_, immediately after the _Misereatur vestri_, or immediately after the _Ecce Agnus Dei…Domine non sum dignus_? I've seen choristers approach it immediately after he genuflects after receiving the Precious Blood, elderly people approach it immediately after the _Misereatur vestri_ (because it takes them longer to walk to the rail), and all other parishioners immediately after the _Ecce Agnus Dei…Domine non sum dignus_. Surely there are rubrics on when the faithful should approach the rail, aren't there? John Nolan commented on a ["Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: The Roman Rite of 1965" blog post](https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-roman-rite-of-1965.html#c1198683246131737317) : > No-one ever approached the rail until after the _Ecce Agnus Dei_. From 1967, when the _Ecce_ preceded the priest's Communion (as in the *Novus Ordo*) a bell was rung to signal the people to approach the rail. That is probably why some people nowadays interpret the three bells at the priest's _Domine non sum dignus_ (wrongly) as a signal to come forward.

Is there a consensus among some traditionalists in the Catholic Church that it is not licit to receive communion at a Novus Ordo mass? Even an otherwise solemn Mass proclaimed by the Bishop of the diocese? Will they receive communion at a Novus Ordo Mass proclaimed entirely in Latin? Will they avoid TLM masses from Priests who have no problem with either rite?

I was reading [Fr. Raymond de Souza's article on the Pickle that Cardinal Gregory is in](https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/pope-francis-motu-proprio-places-new-burden-on-bishops-particularly-on-cardinal-gregory) and it reminded me of something I thought of when reading [Traditionis Custodes](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html) , it would seem as if the final point: > Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated. Suggests that all the accretions in the _Novus Ordo_ mass, (i.e. the Kumbayah stuff that TLM goers often object to) is abrogated as well. In fact, it seems if: > The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. is what Pope Francis wants us to go with, then all congregations who fail to observe the rite properly are just as out of sync with the Motu Proprio as any TLM community. Or is this not how _Motu Proprios_ work?

In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (the so-called "Tridentine Mass" or "Latin Mass") the words of the consecration are said in a low tone. In the Ordinary Form they are said in what I think is called vulgar tone. Why does the Priest say the words of the consecration in a low tone at the Extraordinary Form when Jesus probably did not say it in a low tone?

This bullet point in [Tradionis Custodes](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html) has me super confused: > Art 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated. And I can't watch enough Dr. Taylor Marshal podcasts to find this out. I went to two Latin Masses this weekend for a Troops of St. George Assembly and noticed that the two different priests closed the Mass differently. Which got me thinking, if something like Pope Leo XIII's St. Michael Prayer is customarily prayed in some parishes or a few Hail Mary's or anything of the sort, are this customs canned in favor of strict adherence to the 1962 missal (except the part where the readings are in the vernacular)?

On 14 July 1570, Pope St. Pius V promulgated *Quo Primum* , abrogating rites less than 200 years old: >This new rite alone [the Tridentine Liturgy] is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. Which rites were less than 200 years old in 1570?
Was he referring to Protestant or other liturgies lacking "confirmation of the church by Apostolic See"?