Anyone else think the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass is not coming?

[BobP123]

actually you were the one to bring up Church approval, and it seems its only valid when you want it to be. I dont think it works that way my friend. You cant have it both ways.

I will use whatever comes out of Rome to my spiritual advantage, you bet.

 

[BobP123]

I think many posters here would be better place in the SSPX.

This is really an uncalled-for comment.

LAtin, Latin, let Scripture and V2 be hanged, is that it?

Wrong. I suggest you read V2 for yourself and don’t let anyone interpret it for you.

The vernacular only makes sense, is only based in scripture( as I have posted and NOONE has addressed it, though I am not surprised).

Pentecost doesn’t mean spreading vulgarity into more vulgarity. Look up the meaning of vernacular before you go around quoting Scripture.

What is troublesome is that it seems the opinion is if it isnt in Latin, it isnt really as “good” or as “worthy”.

Who said this?

In essense, it isnt as pleasing to God.

God will be the judge of what’s pleasing to Him.

So anything the Church puts forth that isnt agreed with is a Church mistake.

This is a ridiculous statement and you know it.

 

[bear06]

I think many posters here would be better place in the SSPX.

Well I certainly hope that doesn’t include me. Besides, there are many here that are and it might be due to statements like this.

LAtin, Latin, let Scripture and V2 be hanged, is that it?

Sigh! Scripture did not dictate that the Church could not have an official language. Scripture did not dictate that the Mass should be in the native tongue. If you’ve got a quote, please show it. To say that Scripture dicates this, you’d have to be declaring several popes/saints to be in error. Are you actually doing this? You have to understand that this is YOUR interpretation of Scripture, not this Magisterium or many others who actually has the authority to interpret Scripture.

Next, I LOVE VII. I’d just like it to be followed. Can you show me a quote from Vatican II that supports your position? I think a few of us have given you a quote that supports my position.

The vernacular only makes sense, is only based in scripture( as I have posted and NOONE has addressed it, though I am not surprised).

Again, to claim this one would have to claim that the Church was in error for years.

What is troublesome is that it seems the opinion is if it isnt in Latin, it isnt really as “good” or as “worthy”.

This is silly. It’s a language. The important thing here is that the CHURCH has declared it the official language and many popes have talked of its unifying power. It’s important to speak a common language to have unity.

So anything the Church puts forth that isnt agreed with is a Church mistake.

What?!! The Church has put forth that Latin is the language of the Church.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I think many posters here would be better place in the SSPX. LAtin, Latin, let Scripture and V2 be hanged, is that it? The vernacular only makes sense, is only based in scripture( as I have posted and NOONE has addressed it, though I am not surprised). What is troublesome is that it seems the opinion is if it isnt in Latin, it isnt really as “good” or as “worthy”. In essense, it isnt as pleasing to God. So anything the Church puts forth that isnt agreed with is a Church mistake.

I don’t understand your agenda, coach. I looked up actual VII documents and posted what they require for maintaining Latin in the Church, and you come back with a comment that we would be better off in the SSPX? Come now, where’s your charity? And what do mean VII be hanged? I didn’t say that; I actually showed you what VII DID say about maintaining the use of Latin. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but that’s what’s actually in the document.

 

[TNT]

Originally Posted by thecoach forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*

I think many posters here would be better place in the SSPX. Latin, Latin, let Scripture… be hanged, is that it? …

Umm, What does your Scripture say about headcovering??
I mean, are we gonna be selective on Scripture here?
In addition, your VATII says noting at all about dissing headcovering nor does the '83 Canon Law.
The Tradition of the church from time immemorial prescribes headcovering as it aligns clearly with your Scriptures…and lots of it.
So, do you promote or do your female relatives at the NOM wear headcoverings? If not then is the above quote an act of cafeteria Scripture and VATII application?

*For what it’s worth, VATII documents have more get-home-free holes in it than old Swiss cheese, so you really can’t use it much for firm definitive teaching. The “neverthelesses”, “howevers”, “particular law”, “local ordinary overrides” and “inculturations” make just about nothing firm except the exceptions.

 

[TNT]

Originally Posted by thecoach forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

             *

Umm, What does your Scripture say about headcovering??
I mean, are we gonna be selective on Scripture here?
In addition, your VATII says noting at all about dissing headcovering nor does the '83 Canon Law.
The Tradition of the church from time immemorial prescribes headcovering as it aligns clearly with your Scriptures…and lots of it.
So, do you promote or do your female relatives at the NOM wear headcoverings? If not then is the above quote an act of cafeteria Scripture and VATII application?
*
For what it’s worth, VATII documents have more get-home-free holes in it than old Swiss cheese, so you really can’t use it much for firm definitive teaching. The “neverthelesses”, “howevers”, “particular law”, “local ordinary overrides” and “inculturations” make just about nothing firm except the exceptions.

 

[thecoach]

I will use whatever comes out of Rome to my spiritual advantage, you bet.

as will I, remembering that the NO came out of Rome

 

[thecoach]

This is really an uncalled-for comment.

Wrong. I suggest you read V2 for yourself and don’t let anyone interpret it for you.

Pentecost doesn’t mean spreading vulgarity into more vulgarity. Look up the meaning of vernacular before you go around quoting Scripture.

Who said this?

God will be the judge of what’s pleasing to Him.

This is a ridiculous statement and you know it.

Does not vernacular mean in the native language of the person? So what is the confusion? What exactly is the difference between your stand and SSPX? And as far as you said this, the tenor of the posts as to TLM as opposed to NO clearly denotes this.

 

[Like]

Coach, correct me if I’m reading you wrong. But it sounds like you are basing you opinion on this statement you made from scripture…

“On this Pentecost, remember the first sign of the decent of the Holy Spirit was for the crowd to hear the Apostles, “each in his own language”.”

My understanding of this is the Holy Spirit gave this power to the Apostles so they would be able to immediately go out to all nations to preach the word of Christ so that all languages would understand them.

But I don’t think this has anything to do with the language of the Mass.

 

[BobP123]

Coach, correct me if I’m reading you wrong. But it sounds like you are basing you opinion on this statement you made from scripture…

“On this Pentecost, remember the first sign of the decent of the Holy Spirit was for the crowd to hear the Apostles, “each in his own language”.”

My understanding of this is the Holy Spirit gave this power to the Apostles so they would be able to immediately go out to all nations to preach the word of Christ so that all languages would understand them.

But I don’t think this has anything to do with the language of the Mass.

Glad you brought it up. I think if properly administered each TLM will be understood by all attending in their own language, whatever it may be. Now if you can have everyone in the world understand with the English Mass, I’d support that idea, but I don’t think you’ll get any majority. You need a liturgical language which is politically neutral and everyone can understand or at least understand a few prayers and theology.

I don’t see any contradiction with the TLM and Pentecost. In fact, I see the TLM as reinforcing it.

 

[Like]

Glad you brought it up. I think if properly administered each TLM will be understood by all attending in their own language, whatever it may be. Now if you can have everyone in the world understand with the English Mass, I’d support that idea, but I don’t think you’ll get any majority. You need a liturgical language which is politically neutral and everyone can understand or at least understand a few prayers and theology.

I don’t see any contradiction with the TLM and Pentecost. In fact, I see the TLM as reinforcing it.

I only brought that up because coach kept mentioning it in most of his posts. To me it appeared that this was he’s reason for believing the Mass should be in English. Also, I believe the sole reason for Latin is because it is a dead language, meaning no new words can be added. Isn’t that the reason for pharmacist, lawyers & physicians needing to know Latin?

 

[TNT]

I only brought that up because coach kept mentioning it in most of his posts. To me it appeared that this was he’s reason for believing the Mass should be in English. Also, I believe the sole reason for Latin is because it is a dead language, meaning no new words can be added. Isn’t that the reason for pharmacist, lawyers & physicians needing to know Latin?

In addition, the physicians have to be able to write prescriptions in pig latin.

 

[thecoach]

Glad you brought it up. I think if properly administered each TLM will be understood by all attending in their own language, whatever it may be. Now if you can have everyone in the world understand with the English Mass, I’d support that idea, but I don’t think you’ll get any majority. You need a liturgical language which is politically neutral and everyone can understand or at least understand a few prayers and theology.

I don’t see any contradiction with the TLM and Pentecost. In fact, I see the TLM as reinforcing it.

Ah! now your making sense!! Now, to delve a bit deeper, it is my undertanding that in the TLM, the laity has very little participation. Isnt that lazy spirituality, in that you, in essense, sit back and let the priest do it for you? Whats your take?

 

[Walking_Home]

Ah! now your making sense!! Now, to delve a bit deeper, it is my undertanding that in the TLM, the laity has very little participation. Isnt that lazy spirituality, in that you, in essense, sit back and let the priest do it for you? Whats your take?

---

Actually that is not true. True interior participation does not necessarily entail outward signs. It is the uniting of the heart, mind and soul to our Lord in the Mass that counts. It could be said that the innovations and manipulations done to the NO are actually the result of a misguided sense of participation.

 

[bear06]

Ah! now your making sense!! Now, to delve a bit deeper, it is my undertanding that in the TLM, the laity has very little participation. Isnt that lazy spirituality, in that you, in essense, sit back and let the priest do it for you? Whats your take?

I might suggest that you read up on the millions of posts on this subject. It has little to do with the topic of the thread.

BTW, you also seem to be skipping the fact completely that the CHURCH has called for more Latin even in the Novus Ordo Mass I love.

 

[Like]

Ah! now your making sense!! Now, to delve a bit deeper, it is my undertanding that in the TLM, the laity has very little participation. Isnt that lazy spirituality, in that you, in essense, sit back and let the priest do it for you? Whats your take?

I believe your understanding is not correct. The laity are suppose to participate in the Mass. Missals of 1962 have the translation into English on the opposite page of the Latin, and it take only a few times of attending TLM Mass to pick up on it. And in short order, you won’t even need your Missal just as now in the NO Mass. The readings are in English & so is the homily. Of course there is much more to the TLM Mass than just language. The 1st. time you attend a TLM, the reverence shown to God from the priest, alter servers & laity as well, you feel to the point that your spine tingles almost bringing you to tears. The last time I was able to attend a TLM was in 1971 as it was not offered anywhere I lived since then. If the NO was celebrated in the way Vat.II directed I would not have anything against it. Not even the language, if bishops & priest were not to keep adding or subtracting to or from it & they and laity would only follow the GRIM.

 

[BobP123]

Ah! now your making sense!! Now, to delve a bit deeper, it is my undertanding that in the TLM, the laity has very little participation. Isnt that lazy spirituality, in that you, in essense, sit back and let the priest do it for you? Whats your take?

I don’t know what you’re talking about. In the Masses I attend, people do make the responses that are supposed to be reserved for the servers. What’s really to stop them? And no one tells them what to say either or when to say it. No one to tell us when to stand or sit. Imagine that? Lazy spritually? I don’t think so.

 

[Manfred]

Just a hunch. The delays now are almost a joke. I think the Vatican realizes if they tried this they would meet such opposition from western Bishops it would make Humane Vitae look like nothing. The bishop here has made it clear there will be no Trientine Masses in his diocese.

IMO it comes down to the Vatican wanting to continue to pretend it has control over the church. If they liberalize the Tridentine Mass availability and most bishops refuse it would basically confirm what some of us suspect.

I don’t think it is going to happen.

Just like the Vatican backed down over communion to those who support abortion, I think it is a lost cause now. And I am not even a traditionalist.

As much as I, too, would like to think you’re being pessimistic, I do believe you are correct in that the MP will not be issued. Too many dates where the issuance was “imminent” have come and gone.

 

[paramedicgirl]

---

Actually that is not true. True interior participation does not necessarily entail outward signs. It is the uniting of the heart, mind and soul to our Lord in the Mass that counts. It could be said that the innovations and manipulations done to the NO are actually the result of a misguided sense of participation.

…and not conducive to the interior participation that one should experience in the Mass.

 

[bear06]

…and not conducive to the interior participation that one should experience in the Mass.

I think we may be straying into the forbidden territory because I’m finding the need to be contrary.