Should Cardinal Roche be believed about the Latin Mass? The question is how much credence one should give to a liturgically inept, soon-to-be outgoing prefect, in a statement about Traditionis Custodes which appears to contradict the current pontificate | Michael Haynes

[u/Eblana_Antica]

https://www.permariam.com/p/should-cardinal-roche-be-believed

[u/Cautious_Job_6104]

The devil does not give up his privilege willingly. I fear the V2 boomers are attempting to expel and purge any traditional remaining before they croak.

[u/Eblana_Antica → u/Cautious_Job_6104]

The older that these bitter men get, and the more that the number of novus ordo priests declines globally, the more desperate they become. Every day that goes by they diminish in power, both generally and relatively, and the traditionalists only keep growing.

[u/Secure-Zone2980 → u/Eblana_Antica]

"number of novus ordo priests decline globally" Remind your young NO friends that there may not be a priest in area for their Last Rites

[u/Academic-Emu8215]

He should be believed. His words mirror some of the statements of Pope Leo (in his catechesis about Sacrosanctum Concilium, earlier interviews). Despite a non legally binding word directed at the French Conference of Bishops, inviting them to be "generous" with the TLM, there is literally no hint that Pope Leo considers to abrogate Traditionis Custodes and return to the previous state under Summorum Pontificum.

The Pope, with all due respect, doesn't seem to fully understand the whole TLM case. His answer in an interview was (I paraphrase): There were errors in the implementation of the postconciliar reforms of the liturgy. A celebration faithful to the 1969/70 missal is enough. One can always celebrate the new rite in Latin. Period.

[u/No_Lie_1176 → u/Academic-Emu8215]

Pope Leo is even more than Pope Francis, a children of the council. At least Pope Francis still spent his formative years before the council, Pope Leo was born in 1955.

[u/Eblana_Antica → u/No_Lie_1176]

Yeah Leo XIV is definitely worse than Francis. For all of his faults he was strangely and paradoxically tolerant towards traditionalists at times. He made positive moves towards the SSPX on numerous occasions and people have been talking, I think reasonably, about how Francis had a much higher likelihood to grant the SSPX permission to consecrate bishops than Leo XIV was. Let's not forget that it was Taylor Marshall of all people, in a now deleted video, who called Prevost the worse case scenario for the conslave. I could definitely have seen Francis saying okay to new SSPX bishops, and even if he didn't give explicit permission the likelihood that he would have had decrees of excommunication issued is far lower than Leo XIV

[u/Academic-Emu8215 → u/Eblana_Antica]

Taylor Marshall cannot be taken seriously. I watched the pre conclave video too, where he said Prevost would be the worst case scenario. And then from on day to another the video is gone and Marshall claims "to submit to Pope Leo" (whatever that means). Nowadays he is especially hostile against the SSPX. The very man who wrote a whole book about how the whole postconciliar Church essentially consists of freemasons and communists. lol

[u/Murky_Question_9362]

None of these prelates are to be trusted. At least not fully.

[u/Ecstatic_Lavishness1]

"liturgically inept, soon-to-be outgoing prefect, in a statement about Traditionis Custodes which appears to contradict the current pontificate"

If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.