S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Correct! Bugnini couldn’t have used those marks because the NO Mass was man-made.
- Status
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Well I’m surprised the Vatican hasn’t tried to make them saints. It seems like these days the Vatican is canonizing more saints, maybe more than they should. The NO is not a wonderful creation though, so Paul VI and Bugnini are not worthy of canonization.
T
Timothysis
Guest
uhhh…wasn’t the EF “man-made,” or was it discovered on a set of gold tablets like the Book of Mormon?
P
ProVobis
Guest
The argument could be made that both HV and the NO were damage control to contain the tumultous social, political, and liturgical period following the council, which Paul VI certainly had to take at least some responsibility for. Unfortunately, JPII and now BXVI have had to take most of the heat for it.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
That’s OK. I do think that what Satan mostly likes is division and strife, whereever he can work it in. Injecting fear is an excellent way to ferment strife.
I was teaching a religious education class the other day, and we looked forward a few weeks to this passage:
“The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid.” (from John 14:23-29, 6th Sunday of Easter)
I asked them if they knew what an advocate was. They did not. An advocate is a defense attorney!! The word Satan, OTOH, means “the accuser” or “the adversary”. Satan is the prosecutor. And I reminded them of the passage “The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.” Rev. 12:9-10
My point was this: the Holy Spirit will lead you to the truth. He may very often tell you to plead guilty, to throw yourself on the mercy of the Court. He is not a man on a payroll, who is going to help you find dishonest loopholes. He will not lie, but he will also not accuse. He will not seek to throw you away from God. He will always lead you to be reconciled to the truth, to be reconciled with God.
When we deal with each other, we have to remember that each of us is one for whom Christ thirsts. It is not enough to win the argument, to defeat a misconception with a truth, but to be estranged from each other in doing it. We have to be on the side of the Advocate.
It is not my worry what form of the Mass someone likes, only this: that every Mass is valid and reverent (which is only to say that it reflects the truth) and that every Mass brings souls closer to God and to each other. I could hate Latin myself, and yet still want the TLM to be available to those who love it for right reasons. I could be bored silly by every NO Mass I had ever been to, but would defend valid and reverent versions of it for those who love it, too. The Mass is the source and summit of the Christian life. Every Mass that serves the end that God intended the Mass to serve deserves defense, whether or not it has accidental things about it that I don’t happen to like.
I used to tell my nieces and nephews that they ought not marry a person for whom they would not be willing to live in an ugly house, for the sake of their spouse. If a particular Mass truly is a safe shelter, truly is what a Mass is meant to be, then I need to tolerate it, for the sake of those whom I am bound to love, who love that Mass.
When we stray from fraternal correction and into accusation–and I do it myself, I must admit it–I think we stray into Satan’s tool chest. I think we have to be very careful about avoiding that. There is no better demonstration of the worth of any particular rite of the Mass than the Christian virtues exercised by those who frequent it.
There is so much to like about the EF, even from a purely aesthetic standpoint. There is so much in the depth of the texts of its prayers that highlight what the OF is, as well. Even if the TLM does not become extremely popular, it would do the Church a world of good if it became extremely well-understood and widely-understood. I think that even that would be a great service to the entire Church. I think that if the TLM is explained in terms of “understand the TLM, and it will bring meaning to the NO that you can hardly imagine” then the barriers of fear can come down. Minds will open up. I really think that is the way to go.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
I figured I’d get a response like this since I forgot to clear up what I mean by “man-made”. Allow me to elaborate.
Now, the TLM dates back to when Pius V was Pope. It’s true that a man (Pius V) created the Mass, therefore making it appear man-made. However, every part of the Mass has a meaning towards it. The canon, for instance, reflects on Christ right before His crucification. Meanwhile, parts like that were removed during Vatican II, thus why you’ll never see anything like that at a Novus Ordo Mass. The TLM was man-made in the sense that it still reflected greatly on reverence, the Holy Sacrifice, and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, focuses more on the Last Supper than the Holy Sacrifice. So we can say both Masses were man-made, but what one focuses on Christ and the Holy Sacrifice more, the other focuses on Christ, but more on man (the people) than anything else.
G
gospel_life
Guest
Beautifully put!!
Unfortunately there seem to be far too many with a “superiority” of attitiude and a belief that they have the only “one right way” while simultaneously having an inferiority of understanding and inability to grasp that God calls different people in different ways.
I grew up with the TLM but have few fond memories of it because of the ways the ones I attended were abused. I was actually planning to take my mother to one this Sunday to see how those things might have improved but the attitudes I am reminded of in reading posts here make me realize that I will not be able to attend with an open mind because of all the vitriol dripping from many I encounter here. So I’ve decided to just skip the whole thing.
So much for making the TLM “attractive”.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Please don’t feel like that! Those priests who choose to say the TLM today have a devotion and sincerity to it that some in the “old” days may not have had. The TLM is a part of the Traditions of the Church that should and must be preserved. Don’t let the naysayers here discourage you; there are more than enough here who know better to offset their superiority complex.Beautifully put!!
Unfortunately there seem to be far too many with a “superiority” of attitiude and a belief that they have the only “one right way” while simultaneously having an inferiority of understanding and inability to grasp that God calls different people in different ways.
I grew up with the TLM but have few fond memories of it because of the ways the ones I attended were abused. I was actually planning to take my mother to one this Sunday to see how those things might have improved but the attitudes I am reminded of in reading posts here make me realize that I will not be able to attend with an open mind because of all the vitriol dripping from many I encounter here. So I’ve decided to just skip the whole thing.
So much for making the TLM “attractive”.
T
Timothysis
Guest
The TLM dates back much farther than Pope Pius V. Its earliest elements date to (probably) the 3rd century and it developed up until the days of Pope Gregory the Great *c. 600 * and eventually became codified at the Council of Trent.
The OF is "man-made in the sense that it still reflected greatly on reverence, the Holy Sacrifice, and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist," too, regardless of your ignorance. Any irreverence is due on the part of the celebrant, not on the liturgy itself. Have you ever seen a papal Mass? It is an OF, and mighty reverent, too.
And this mantra of the OF being focused “*more on man (the people) than anything else”*is nothing but your own bigotry and ignorance. The Church Herself said of the OF that it is:
"*Hence, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at the same time and inseparably:
- A sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated
- a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said “do this in memory of me” (Lk. 22:19).
- a sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ. *(Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Eucharisticum Mysterium, #C1."
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Maybe you should give them the benefit of the doubt, and let them disappoint you in person, rather than in theory?Beautifully put!!
Unfortunately there seem to be far too many with a “superiority” of attitiude and a belief that they have the only “one right way” while simultaneously having an inferiority of understanding and inability to grasp that God calls different people in different ways.
I grew up with the TLM but have few fond memories of it because of the ways the ones I attended were abused. I was actually planning to take my mother to one this Sunday to see how those things might have improved but the attitudes I am reminded of in reading posts here make me realize that I will not be able to attend with an open mind because of all the vitriol dripping from many I encounter here. So I’ve decided to just skip the whole thing.
So much for making the TLM “attractive”.
Seriously, though, there are so many traditional Catholics whose simplicity and devout attitude is just a delight, no matter what the Mass is at which you run into them. Even if someone looks a little like they should back off on sucking the lemons, that doesn’t really reflect on the TLM, does it? Those people probably look like they’re on an all-vinegar diet no matter where they go, whether it is the TLM or the hardware store. They may even have something real to feel sour about, shingles or gout or just general discontent with life or something like that, and are doing better with that cross than we could, we never know.
Go for the Mass, especially if you think your mom might like it. After all, if they let us in, well, we know already that nobody is going to vouch for the quality of the crowd!
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
1.- Please don’t call me ignorant, it’s a violation of forum rules.
2.- I know the TLM goes way back to the beginning, I meant the TLM officially began with Pius V, just like how the Novus Ordo can be traced back to the start of Vatican II but didn’t begin officially until 1969.
3.- I have seen a papal Mass, but I’m talking about the Novus Ordo in general. Of all the Novus Ordo Masses in the world, how many are truely reverent?
4.- When you say the Church Herself said that, do you mean the Church before Vatican II, or the Church after? I’ve got a pretty good hunch you mean the one after, in which case it doesn’t matter if it says there is nothing with focus on the Lord’s Last Supper. The Holy Sacrifice and Last Supper are two different things.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
In keeping in line with the thread- ***Attracting people to the TLM, ***it is this attitude that keeps me away.
I did not realize that there were 2 different Church’s-
one pre-VII and one post-VII-
I thought we were suppose to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic church?!
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I read through this whole thread to see if there is a reason I should consider the EF. The people who like the EF are really passionate about it and we are blessed that they get to have their choice. Personally, I like many things about the OF. I love the venacular, I love the music, etc. Some people don’t like these things, but then again some people don’t like chocolate ice cream. In a church as diverse as ours, we get to have our own flavors, which seems to be pretty cool.
I
Indyann
Guest
Divide and conquer ------------------Tool of the devil.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Apparently that went the way of the Tower of Babel.I thought we were suppose to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic church?!
L
Lamentabili
Guest
Actually, it would be incorrect to say that Pius V “created” the Tridentine Mass.
Here is a great reference for the Mass’ development and history.
latin-mass-society.org/msshst.htm
I’ve quoted a relevant portion below…
latin-mass-society.org/msshst10.htm
L
Lamentabili
Guest
I was listening to Relevant Radio today. It is a very orthodox Catholic radio station, not “Traditional” (in the sense of exclusively promoting the EF, supporting the SSPX) by any means. There was a show on called “Go Ask Your Father”. It is hosted by 3 priests.
relevantradio.com/Page.aspx?pid=1296
I’m not sure which priest was hosting today, but he said the following (I’m paraphrasing):
1.) Nowhere in VCII did it call for the priest to face the people. Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger even expressed reservation about abandoning the traditional position of the priest facing the East as the East has signified Christ’s Rising since the early centuries.
2.) The architect of the New Mass (he couldn’t remember his name, but it was Archbishop Bugnini) seemed to want a “lowest common denominator” Mass out of a sense of false ecumenism and in doing so he “Protestantized” the Mass. (Protestantized is a direct quote). He said there are those who think there was more to it than this (conspiracy, etc) but that he didn’t necessarily think it went that far.
My reason in conveying this is that one does not need to be a “radical Traditionalist” to admit that Archbishop Bugnini and the commission that designed the OF Mass had ecumenical intentions, even though they may have been very sincere, which lead to the Protestantization of the Mass. The priest who said this was very mild mannered, thoughtful, intelligent, and respectful. He was not polemical in any way.
When he said “Protestantized” I’m certain he did not mean to convey that the OF is not a Catholic Mass. What he no doubt meant was that some of the changes in the OF made it less “explicitly” Catholic than the EF. He certainly didn’t mean the OF is “Protestant” per se. If so the OF would have to be “explicitly” Protstant and state some Protestant belief. “Protestantized” doesn’t believe the OF isn’t valid, that it’s a sin to assist at it, etc etc.
I thought it was nice to see a conservative Catholic priest clearly and without polemic simply state this opinion, which is entirely Catholic.
relevantradio.com/Page.aspx?pid=1296
I’m not sure which priest was hosting today, but he said the following (I’m paraphrasing):
1.) Nowhere in VCII did it call for the priest to face the people. Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger even expressed reservation about abandoning the traditional position of the priest facing the East as the East has signified Christ’s Rising since the early centuries.
2.) The architect of the New Mass (he couldn’t remember his name, but it was Archbishop Bugnini) seemed to want a “lowest common denominator” Mass out of a sense of false ecumenism and in doing so he “Protestantized” the Mass. (Protestantized is a direct quote). He said there are those who think there was more to it than this (conspiracy, etc) but that he didn’t necessarily think it went that far.
My reason in conveying this is that one does not need to be a “radical Traditionalist” to admit that Archbishop Bugnini and the commission that designed the OF Mass had ecumenical intentions, even though they may have been very sincere, which lead to the Protestantization of the Mass. The priest who said this was very mild mannered, thoughtful, intelligent, and respectful. He was not polemical in any way.
When he said “Protestantized” I’m certain he did not mean to convey that the OF is not a Catholic Mass. What he no doubt meant was that some of the changes in the OF made it less “explicitly” Catholic than the EF. He certainly didn’t mean the OF is “Protestant” per se. If so the OF would have to be “explicitly” Protstant and state some Protestant belief. “Protestantized” doesn’t believe the OF isn’t valid, that it’s a sin to assist at it, etc etc.
I thought it was nice to see a conservative Catholic priest clearly and without polemic simply state this opinion, which is entirely Catholic.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
The Church was hijacked during Vatican II, just as Vatican II was hijacked. It’s still the same Church but with different beliefs, therefore why Traditionals go by what the Church taught before Vatican II most of the time.In keeping in line with the thread- ***Attracting people to the TLM, ***it is this attitude that keeps me away.
I did not realize that there were 2 different Church’s-
one pre-VII and one post-VII-
I thought we were suppose to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic church?!
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
What’s your point here? Care to elaborate?
G
gospel_life
Guest
That is the most ludicrous thing I have seen yet. Clearly you have not studied either the documents or the history of the council beyond probably reading some of the outrageous dissident websites. Even such a recognized source as The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, as conservatively biased as it is, doesn’t make any such claims.
Every one of the documents were signed by an overwhelming majority of the 2400 or so voting members with usually only a small handful of votes on any given document against. Even Archbishop Lefebvre signed all or nearly all of them.
I applaud your youthful enthusiasm and devotion but your unquestioning support of misstatements by groups outside of communion with the Church is very disturbing. The rabid support of such views by so many “traditionalists” is one of the things that makes anything having to do with traditionalism so unattractive to so many who truly love the Church.
It also makes it hard for those of us who do support the EF, even if we don’t prefer it ourselves, as far too many are now associating the TLM with fringe extremists. Certainly not the way to make it “attractive”.
- Status