Debate: Novus Ordo vs. TLM; Traditional vs. Traditionalist

[Brennan_Doherty]

These threads always amaze me! How so many who profess to be Traditional Catholics, and in part of that tradition was always to follow the teachings of the Magisterium, will now question so deeply the very teachings they profess to follow because now is not like it use to be or because they don’t like the changes.
What is even more amazing is that these discussions continue, and this push to go back to the “good old days” is on going. Of all lost causes, this has to be the one of the biggest.
**Of the people I know, who grew up pre vatican II, they do not want to go back to the days were they were seperated from being part of the mass and the body of Christ on so many levels. **
There is certainaly tradition in our church. It is from which we have such a rich faith. But there are also many things that were part of the church in the past, that have been left by the wayside because of our continuing enlightenment through the Holy Spirit. We are all on a pilgrimage together, but each of us find our own connection with Christ in a different ways. I can respect and understand those who like the TLM, but for me it leaves me wanting. The Novus Ordo speaks to me on many levels and allows me to have a personal connection with my savior. Pope Benidict, as I see it, recognizes the same. In allowing the TLM, it did not mean he was turning back the clock. It instead was to give the faithful another way to be closer to Christ allow another path to be open.
Instead of this vs that, the discussion should be on how we can fullfill Christ mission as a faithful people. “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not stand” Mark 3:25

Peace,
FAB

Yes, apparently quite a number people were so overjoyed at the changes to the liturgy that the ecstasy they experienced destroyed the synapses in their brain which stored the directions on how to get to Mass.

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

“If a house is divided against itself, that house will not stand” Mark 3:25

Peace,
FAB

As stated above the “house is divided”, not because of anything to do with Traditional Catholics, but because of Vatican II and the FACT that any Diocese can do whatever they want with the “Mass” based on what each Pastor thinks is best. It is no longer a “House” at all, it is a disparate group who call themselves the Catholic Church, but all do different things based on how they feel…Vatican II allowed this to happen, and until it is done away with things will only get worse…there is NO UNITY whatsoever…I watched a “Mass” from St Peters Square yesterday, by the Pope to the Priests and Nuns…the Pope received a 5 minute standing ovation in the bascilica like he was a rock star…A true disgrace and affont to our Lord, that the Bascilica is treated like a stadium and the Pope like a Rock star…oh my…Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa…Pray for the Church…Read about the Visions of Pope Leo XIII…Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

[roncriss]

That is the problem w Vatican II, there are no longer any rules, only guidelines. Each Diocese does what they want. An abuse to one person is just dandy to another. We are supposed to be ONE Holy Catholic Church. With no set rules, and only guidelines we have , well, a big mess… …The mass should be the same no matter where on the planet you go, unfortunately it’s not the same with churches down the street from one another…truly a desperate state we are in…

Suggesting that V2 is illegitimate because some don’t follow it is like saying the Bible is unbinding for the same reason.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

The ones who “carried it out” were and are the ecclesiastical magisterium…which we Catholics are bound to follow. The rule of faith for a Catholic is the proximate one…that is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium…which are the Bishops and their auxiliaries.

Do you see the problem?

SFD

Yes, I see the problem. You, like the progressives who distorted the reform by their abuses, are not submissive and obedient to the Magisterium.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

Vatican II …was an “anti-council”, because the council and various other statements of doctrine contradicted Church teaching on many points, and they led the clergy and the faithful to think that they could freely doubt anything that suited them.

So, you see where traditionalism leads? To the suggestion that an ecumenical council approved by the Pope can err against doctrine. In other words the suggestion that the Pope and the Magisterium teach heresy. Traditionalism leads to schism and, in essence, protestantism. Catholicism without the Pope is Catholicism in name only.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

Ron Criss:

Answer this, O arrogant one.

Am I disobedient to the Pope because I attend the so-called Tridentine Mass every Sunday and Holy Day?

Yes or no. No prevarication, no obfuscation, no periphrasis.

Yes or no.

(We’ll leave out the unbelievable arrogance of how your post to me implies I’m not Catholic. Guess what: you don’t get to decide that).

I leave out the unbelievebale arrogance of you misrepresenting my words and answer your question. No, you are not disobedient to the Pope who conceded that you may attend a legitimate (that is a Catholic and non-schismatic) TR on Sunday. But, to return to my actual point, you are in essence disobedient to the HS and the council when you cling to the TR they said needed reformed and resist that reform. Got that now?

Ron

 

[roncriss]

These threads always amaze me! How so many who profess to be Traditional Catholics, and in part of that tradition was always to follow the teachings of the Magisterium, will now question so deeply the very teachings they profess to follow because now is not like it use to be or because they don’t like the changes.
What is even more amazing is that these discussions continue, and this push to go back to the “good old days” is on going. Of all lost causes, this has to be the one of the biggest.
Of the people I know, who grew up pre vatican II, they do not want to go back to the days were they were seperated from being part of the mass and the body of Christ on so many levels.
There is certainaly tradition in our church. It is from which we have such a rich faith. But there are also many things that were part of the church in the past, that have been left by the wayside because of our continuing enlightenment through the Holy Spirit. We are all on a pilgrimage together, but each of us find our own connection with Christ in a different ways. I can respect and understand those who like the TLM, but for me it leaves me wanting. The Novus Ordo speaks to me on many levels and allows me to have a personal connection with my savior. Pope Benidict, as I see it, recognizes the same. In allowing the TLM, it did not mean he was turning back the clock. It instead was to give the faithful another way to be closer to Christ allow another path to be open.
Instead of this vs that, the discussion should be on how we can fullfill Christ mission as a faithful people. “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not stand” Mark 3:25

Peace,
FAB

Ron

 

[AlexV]

Nice of you not to make sense, Ron Criss.

You “concede” (how generous of Your Lordship) that I may attend a Tridentine Mass in communion with Rome (we leave out your detail that I can do this on “Sunday”, as if daily Masses are somehow disobedient and Sunday ones aren’t).

You say I am “disobedient” if I “cling” to such a Mass.

Trying to have it both ways?

How exactly does one “cling” to a Mass?

Am I required to attend a Novus Ordo Mass every so often to “prove” my obedience to your satisfaction?

Define “clinging” to a Mass, please. “Disobedience” is a serious charge. You like to throw around serious charges. You’d better start substantiating those charges lest people think you a provocateur troll.

Grow up, in short. Or are all the communities of priests set up to celebrate the Tridentine Rite “in essence disobedient”?

You like that accusation. Start defending it with evidentiary documentation. WHERE DOES ROME SAY WE ARE ESSENTIALLY DISOBEDIENT IF WE ATTEND THE TRIDENTINE RITE EXCLUSIVELY?

 

[roncriss]

Yes, apparently quite a number people were so overjoyed at the changes to the liturgy that the ecstasy they experienced destroyed the synapses in their brain which stored the directions on how to get to Mass.

The argument that Mass attendance is down because of the NO falls on its face. It presumes that people who prefer the TR are more likely to skip Mass than those who like the NO. In essence it implies traditionalists are more likely to apostatize. The implication is that if the TR was re-instated as the norm all these people would flock back to the Church. Well, have all these people flocked to the TR since SP? Nope. People quite going to church on Sunday because of a general decline of Christianity in our culture. It started long before V2. Weak Catholics would only be driven off in greater numbers if forced to sit thru the TR every Sunday. Traditionalists are alot like Trekkies. Theirs is a rare taste to which they are fanatically devoted. They simply can’t understand why the rest of us prefer to watch the news or read a book.

Ron

 

[FAB]

“If a house is divided against itself, that house will not stand” Mark 3:25

Peace,
FAB

As stated above the “house is divided”, not because of anything to do with Traditional Catholics, but because of Vatican II and the FACT that any Diocese can do whatever they want with the “Mass” based on what each Pastor thinks is best. It is no longer a “House” at all, it is a disparate group who call themselves the Catholic Church, but all do different things based on how they feel…Vatican II allowed this to happen, and until it is done away with things will only get worse…there is NO UNITY whatsoever…I watched a “Mass” from St Peters Square yesterday, by the Pope to the Priests and Nuns…the Pope received a 5 minute standing ovation in the bascilica like he was a rock star…A true disgrace and affont to our Lord, that the Bascilica is treated like a stadium and the Pope like a Rock star…oh my…Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa…Pray for the Church…Read about the Visions of Pope Leo XIII…Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

So that there is no misunderstanding, You, as a traditionallist feel that you are correct over a duely and rightfully called council, which looked and found that the practices of the church were not meeting the needs of the faithful is wrong and your doctrine should be used instead. That the Pope and bishops, with a line of successtion leading back to Peter, charged with the duty and obligation to stear the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirt are in error.
As far as applause for the Pope in the Bacilica. Is the Pope not Christ represenative on earth? If Christ were to walk into the Bacilica would there not be profound excitment? How is recognizing the Pope as the leader of the Church, the successor to Peter and represenative of Christ, evil?

Peace,
FAB

 

[AlexV]

Apostasy. Fanaticism. Schism. Disobedience.

It is YOU, Ron Criss, who are the fanatic. You have no other purpose on these fora than to slander those who prefer a legitimately approved, LIVING part of our Roman Rite.

Not a mere concession, not a dirty secret, not something to be defended or ashamed of or justified.

 

[roncriss]

Nice of you not to make sense, Ron Criss.

You “concede” (how generous of Your Lordship) that I may attend a Tridentine Mass in communion with Rome (we leave out your detail that I can do this on “Sunday”, as if daily Masses are somehow disobedient and Sunday ones aren’t).

You say I am “disobedient” if I “cling” to such a Mass.

Trying to have it both ways?

How exactly does one “cling” to a Mass?

Am I required to attend a Novus Ordo Mass every so often to “prove” my obedience to your satisfaction?

Define “clinging” to a Mass, please. “Disobedience” is a serious charge. You like to throw around serious charges. You’d better start substantiating those charges lest people think you a provocateur troll.

Grow up, in short. Or are all the communities of priests set up to celebrate the Tridentine Rite “in essence disobedient”?

You like that accusation. Start defending it with evidentiary documentation. WHERE DOES ROME SAY WE ARE ESSENTIALLY DISOBEDIENT IF WE ATTEND THE TRIDENTINE RITE EXCLUSIVELY?

You delight in putting words in my mouth. I said you are in essence disobedient to the HS who required reform when you cling to the TR and resist reform. This is just simple logic. Evidently you see the logic of it since you find it necessary to misrepresent me. Let me reiterate:

The HS mandated reform of the liturgy through the decrees of V2. To cling (look it up in the dictionary) to the TR which the HS and the Magisterium said needed to be reformed is logically disobedient to their instructions. Simple logic.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

Apostasy. Fanaticism. Schism. Disobedience.

It is YOU, Ron Criss, who are the fanatic. You have no other purpose on these fora than to slander those who prefer a legitimately approved, LIVING part of our Roman Rite.

Not a mere concession, not a dirty secret, not something to be defended or ashamed of or justified.

Wrong, Alex. I have no other purpose than to defend the Catholic faith and its Magisterium. What you call “fanaticism” is obedience and submission to the HS and His Church. If only every Catholic were so “fanatical”!

Ron

 

[Walking_Home]

You delight in putting words in my mouth. I said you are in essence disobedient to the HS who required reform when you cling to the TR and resist reform. This is just simple logic. Evidently you see the logic of it since you find it necessary to misrepresent me. Let me reiterate:

The HS mandated reform of the liturgy through the decrees of V2. To cling (look it up in the dictionary) to the TR which the HS and the Magisterium said needed to be reformed is logically disobedient to their instructions. Simple logic.

Ron

---

Your logic is corrupted. You in essence are saying the Holy Father is being disobedient to the Holy Spirit and Vat II for issuing the MP and allowing the the two forms of the Mass side by side.

 

[AlexV]

A good point. There is an element here of double-speak that doesn’t compute. Obviously it’s not “disobedient” to desire and attend the Tridentine Mass. If it were, there’d be no MP. The Pope didn’t say, “Okay, this is borderline schismatic or disobedient or whatever, but if it keeps you happy, fine.” That’s exactly what Ron Criss and others of his ilk would have us believe. Where it gets especially excessive is when you start throwing around words like “apostasy”.

 

[SFD]

SFD:

The ones who “carried it out” were and are the ecclesiastical magisterium…which we Catholics are bound to follow. The rule of faith for a Catholic is the proximate one…that is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium…which are the Bishops and their auxiliaries.

Do you see the problem?

SFD

Yes, I see the problem. You, like the progressives who distorted the reform by their abuses, are not submissive and obedient to the Magisterium.

Ron

Ron,

The “the progressives who distorted the reform by their abuses, are not submissive and obedient to the Magisterium” …THEY ARE THE MAGISTERIUM!

The LIVING ecclesiastical magisterium ARE THE BISHOPS AND THEIR AUXILIARIES.

SFD

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

As far as applause for the Pope in the Bacilica. Is the Pope not Christ represenative on earth? If Christ were to walk into the Bacilica would there not be profound excitment? How is recognizing the Pope as the leader of the Church, the successor to Peter and represenative of Christ, evil?

Peace,
FAB

No, FAB I would not Clap and cheer and hoot at him, I would be on my knees…Can you imagine pre Vatican II Popes allowing that nonsense in a House of Worship to a mortal…Novus Ordo they cheeer at weddings and all kinds of things…cheering man in a house of God, I for one can never justify such behavior, the NO apparently loves man and encourages it…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The argument that Mass attendance is down because of the NO falls on its face. It presumes that people who prefer the TR are more likely to skip Mass than those who like the NO. In essence it implies traditionalists are more likely to apostatize. The implication is that if the TR was re-instated as the norm all these people would flock back to the Church. Well, have all these people flocked to the TR since SP? Nope. People quite going to church on Sunday because of a general decline of Christianity in our culture. It started long before V2. Weak Catholics would only be driven off in greater numbers if forced to sit thru the TR every Sunday. Traditionalists are alot like Trekkies. Theirs is a rare taste to which they are fanatically devoted. They simply can’t understand why the rest of us prefer to watch the news or read a book.

Ron

I am making no such assumption. How many people who have left the Church are even aware there may be a TLM somewhere (if at all) in the vicinity?

You mean like all the artists and intellectuals (and even a number of non-Catholics) who practically begged Pope Paul VI to allow the TLM to continue:

“We are not at this moment considering the religious or spiritual experience of millions of individuals. The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts - not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians. In the materialistic and technocratic civilisation that is increasingly threatening the life of mind and spirit in its original creative expression - the word - it seems particularly inhuman to deprive man of word-forms in one of their most grandiose manifestations.”

unavoce.org/articles/2001/english_indult.html

Or the French and Italian artists and intellectuals who recently wrote the Pope encouraging him to issue the MP for much the same reasons? Are these all Trekkies with rare tastes?

There was a large decline that “just happened” to start in 1965 and continued into the 1970’s and beyond when the reforms of Vatican II were being implemented and affected just about every measurable aspect of Church life.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

You delight in putting words in my mouth. I said you are in essence disobedient to the HS who required reform when you cling to the TR and resist reform. This is just simple logic. Evidently you see the logic of it since you find it necessary to misrepresent me. Let me reiterate:

The HS mandated reform of the liturgy through the decrees of V2. To cling (look it up in the dictionary) to the TR which the HS and the Magisterium said needed to be reformed is logically disobedient to their instructions. Simple logic.

Ron

Hi Ron,

I am going to repost this and invite you to address it since you keep on insisting that a prudential decision to reform the liturgy was a decision of the Holy Spirit, and thus, by implication, something Catholics need to (practically speaking) treat as if it is a matter of Faith and Morals. Your entire argument seems to hinge on this. Here are the quotes:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

I agree that the liturgy is quite important as it transmits the Faith to the people (along with catechesis). However, the decision to reform the liturgy is not a teaching concerning Faith and Morals which is where infallibility applies. It is a prudential decision. Now, you can argue that it was a wonderful decision, and that’s fine. However, it is not correct to say that we must believe that the decision to reform the liturgy was done by the work of the Holy Spirit or that it has anything of the nature of infallibility attached to it as it is not even a teaching, (or a definition), much less a teaching on Faith and Morals.

Fr. Parsons makes the logical point that if one wants to take the prudential decisions of Councils as works of the Holy Spirit then we need to take other decisions of Councils as works of the Holy Spirit as well:

“It is only a false ecclesiology and a false pneumatology that can lead to the exorbitant assertion that a council is “the voice of the Holy Spirit for our age”. Are we really obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit demanded the launching of a Crusade at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215? And must we hold that in 1311 the Holy Spirit dictated the Council of Vienne’s rules regulating the use of torture by the Inquisition? And is it *de fide *that when Alexander IV ordered those suspect of heresy to be tortured to confess their guilt, this was what “the Spirit was saying to the churches” on 15 May 1252?”

christianorder.com/featur…nus_dec01.html

However, this does not mean a prudential decision can be disobeyed. The Council decreed a reform of the liturgy and it was carried out. Needless to say as infallibility (or a work of the Holy Spirit) does not apply to a decision to reform the liturgy, it certainly does not apply to the way it was carried out by Archbishop Bugnini’s committee.

 

[FAB]

As far as applause for the Pope in the Bacilica. Is the Pope not Christ represenative on earth? If Christ were to walk into the Bacilica would there not be profound excitment? How is recognizing the Pope as the leader of the Church, the successor to Peter and represenative of Christ, evil?

Peace,
FAB

No, FAB I would not Clap and cheer and hoot at him, I would be on my knees…Can you imagine pre Vatican II Popes allowing that nonsense in a House of Worship to a mortal…Novus Ordo they cheeer at weddings and all kinds of things…cheering man in a house of God, I for one can never justify such behavior, the NO apparently loves man and encourages it…

Perhaps you just have a problem with this Pope. As far as pre Vatican II popes, it’s had to say, the communications of TV was not there for us to see. I do know personally, that when John Paul entered to Basillica, there was clapping. You see it as a sign a disrespect for a building, I see it as a sign of respect and acceptance to the leader of our Church.
Peace,
FAB

Peace,
FAB