Deeply hurt by anti-Tridentine Mass homily

[Panis_Angelicas]

Jakub:

CCC Article 2 - # 1203

The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman Rite), but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite or those of certain religious orders, and the Byzantine, Alexandrian/Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In “faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way”. Sacrosanctum concilium 4.

Please stop persecuting those who prefer the Latin Tradition.

james

That’s all that needs to be said to this priest. He should never use the homily of the Mass to express any of his personal anti-Mass sentiments!
The TLM is equal in right and dignity to the Novus Ordo.

Some priests feel a great desire to stamp out any leanings toward the TLM. Perhaps they feel threatened because they’ve never been taught the beauty of the TLM, nor have they really learned Latin in their seminaries! Perhaps they fear that some in the pews might like to attend the TLM on the other side of town and want to throw a little mud in that direction…:tsktsk:

Many people use the tactic of putting others down to make themselves look good. Putting down the TLM doesn’t make the Novus Ordo appear “better than” the TLM, it just makes the priest look like an ignorant, pompous baffoon. (I attend Novus Ordo, btw)

About three weeks ago, I endured a similar homily by our deacon, and I’ve heard him express it before: we’re the educated, enlightened, post VII generation, while our grandparents – lowly, uneducated pre-VII immigrants – didn’t know what the heck was happening during Mass! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Enfuriating. Most of the folks in the pews (and parading around the altar) in my enlightened, educated, post VII parish don’t seem to have a clue what the Church teaches about any number of subjects, and don’t even know how to show reverence to the Blessed Sacrament. At least my poor Polish Gramma always exemplified undeniable Faith and never expressed dissent, in word or deed.

stepping off soapbox now

 

[WhiteDove]

1) who is persecuting anyone?

Yes, let’s not get a persecution complex. One priest gave an insensitive homily about his dislike of the Latin Mass, and suddenly it’s a Pogrom against the TLMers! Priests are humans, folks. Also, not everyone into the TLM is charitable also, as I’ve found from reading this forum. Some of them are pretty arrogent, IMO. And another thing, real persecution amounts to a lot more than having your feelings hurt by what someone said.

Personally, I think it’s nice to have the option of the Latin Mass for those who want it. Variety is the spice of life, I’d say.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

I would also add that the Byzantine Divine Liturgy has always been done in the Vernacular. So pointing to us in some way to defend Latin only is not going to work.

It’s not about the Latin. There was English used in the pre-Vatican II Mass also (eg. in the homily). The new post-Vatican II Mass is sometimes said in Latin (except the homily, etc.) also. I’ve read recently that PROTESTANTS were consulted when they changed the Mass … making the Mass more acceptable to Protestants does not seem like a wise thing to do … it seems utterly idiotic actually.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

It’s not about the Latin. There was English used in the pre-Vatican II Mass also (eg. in the homily). The new post-Vatican II Mass is sometimes said in Latin (except the homily, etc.) also. I’ve read recently that PROTESTANTS were consulted when they changed the Mass … making the Mass more acceptable to Protestants does not seem like a wise thing to do … it seems utterly idiotic actually.

For some it is not about the Latin, but many I have talked to it is about Latin.

You comment on the protestants is a misconception. There were people that where consulted, they were advisors. Yes some of them were protestants but they were used as advisors as they were experts in Liturgy and other fields, they were not used becuase they were protestants.

The Liturgy was not changed to make it more acceptable to protestants. This argument is used to muddy the waters,

 

[netmilsmom]

WhiteDove:

Yes, let’s not get a persecution complex. One priest gave an insensitive homily about his dislike of the Latin Mass, and suddenly it’s a Pogrom against the TLMers! Priests are humans, folks. Also, not everyone into the TLM is charitable also, as I’ve found from reading this forum. Some of them are pretty arrogent, IMO. And another thing, real persecution amounts to a lot more than having your feelings hurt by what someone said.

Personally, I think it’s nice to have the option of the Latin Mass for those who want it. Variety is the spice of life, I’d say.

While I do agree with you, dear friend, some of the people who prefer the TLM HAVE been persecuted in local parishes.
Being shunned for wanting the Holy Mass of one’s childhood is never fun. I’ve seen it happen. Luckily for these people, The Archdiocese of Detroit has finally gotten the Indult.

Also, I do not, nor will I attend a TLM at this point, but allowing other innovations while limiting the TLM is not fair at all.

 

[Jakub]

Maybe the term “persecute” was a bit harsh, I don’t have a problem with harass, be it by the laity or clergy.

Truly it is a sad day when it comes to the Missal 1962 vs Missal 1969, Latin vs the vernacular etc etc, it just creates more divisions. If people would read the actual Vat II documents they would discover that many of these new innovations and adaptations were not meant to be.

And David, maybe you should spend a little more time on the new revisions being proposed for the Byzantine Liturgy, I understand that there is a hint of inclusive language and a few other things.

james

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What’s happened to “The Church is not a democracy” ?​

Whether people like it or not, the Missal prescribed for the Roman Rite is the Pauline Missal of 1969. Not the so-called TLM: which is not nearly as old as the word “traditional” might imply.

Or to “What goes around, comes around” ?

People are often “hurt” in the Church - that’s life. There is no escaping it. Yesterday it is the “liberals” who get the rough treatment, today it’s the “traditionalists”, tomorrow it will be someone else. People are mean and unwise and illogical - but that’s nothing new. ##

 

[usqueadmortem]

ByzCath:

Yes, this is a fact that many of the Latin only crowd do not know.

From the time of Trent, there have always been dispensations to celebrate the Mass in the Vernacular in certain places.

I just do not understand the argument for Latin only as when the Church changed the language of the Mass from Greek to Latin, Latin was the Vernacualr.

Yes but apart from those dispensations, Latin had been used continually for around 1600 years in the Latin Church. Not to mention that Pope Pius XII strongly condemned the move to the venacular.

This has little to do with the Eastern Churches. The venacular is foreign to the Latin Church. If Latin was all of a sudden imposed on the Eastern Churches, you would be protesting just as strongly. The two traditions are distinct, and should remain that way.

Usque.

 

[usqueadmortem]

## W
People are often “hurt” in the Church - that’s life. There is no escaping it. Yesterday it is the “liberals” who get the rough treatment, today it’s the “traditionalists”, tomorrow it will be someone else. People are mean and unwise and illogical - but that’s nothing new. ##

What you fail to realize is that Liberalism and Catholicism are like water and oil. There are infallible anathamas prescribed by Pius IX and Pius X against it. Traditionalism and Catholicism are like water and water. The fact the the Church is coming down hard on traditionalism is that “self-destruction” which Paul VI spoke of.

Usque.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Jakub:

And David, maybe you should spend a little more time on the new revisions being proposed for the Byzantine Liturgy, I understand that there is a hint of inclusive language and a few other things.

james

James,
Just so you know, I have entered into discussions on the proposed new Divine Liturgy for the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Church but I have to say that I have not experienced it as I attend a Melkite parish.

With that and the fact that I am in the application phase of joining the Carmelites, there is not much for me there as I do not experience it on a regular basis.

That being said, I have not heard of the “inclusive language” issue brought up about it before. I have heard that in some of the books they will drop the word “men” from the “For us men” in the creed.

I do not have much issue with changing the horizontal language to be more inclusive. I am totally against changing the vertical langauge which I have not seen done.

The biggest issue I have is the fact that they are going to mandate certian parts of the Liturgy. This discussion would be lost on many here so I will not get into it. But suffice it to say that those who do a quick Divine Liturgy will not get away with that anymore. Those who do a more complete Divine Liturgy will continue to do so.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

usqueadmortem:

Yes but apart from those dispensations, Latin had been used continually for around 1600 years in the Latin Church. Not to mention that Pope Pius XII strongly condemned the move to the venacular.

This has little to do with the Eastern Churches. The venacular is foreign to the Latin Church. If Latin was all of a sudden imposed on the Eastern Churches, you would be protesting just as strongly. The two traditions are distinct, and should remain that way.

Usque.

But you can not take this “apart form the dispensations” as those are part of it too.

Please point where Pope Pius XII condemned the vernacular.

As for it being used for 1600 years, I am not sure if that is correct but it doesn’t matter as when the change occured it was a new thing. They changed a 400 year (by your count) tradition.

The point I am trying to make is that some who push Latin only seem to give the impression that Latin is some kind of holy mystical language (bordering on scrupulosity).

They ignore the fact that the use of Latin only in the Liturgy is not something Universial to the Church as a whole nor to the Latin Catholic Church.

I have nothing against the use of Latin only or the use of Latin along with English in the Mass. What I am against is those who argue for Latin only.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

usqueadmortem:

What you fail to realize is that Liberalism and Catholicism are like water and oil. There are infallible anathamas prescribed by Pius IX and Pius X against it. Traditionalism and Catholicism are like water and water. The fact the the Church is coming down hard on traditionalism is that “self-destruction” which Paul VI spoke of.

Usque.

Traditionalism has nothing to do with picking and choosing which disciplines of the Church one will follow.

The form of the Mass is a discipline and the Church can (and has many times in the past) change it.

 

[JNB]

ByzCath:

Traditionalism has nothing to do with picking and choosing which disciplines of the Church one will follow.

The form of the Mass is a discipline and the Church can (and has many times in the past) change it.

You know, I have seen you rail on people who prefer the Tridentine mass for months, and I find you have been obnoxious at times, but since you attend a non Latin rite parish, I say YOU HAVE NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT!

Very few people who prefer the TLM see Latin as the issue, its the reverence, as your rite still has. The only big changes to the Eastren Rites is they have adopted modern form of the vernacular, thats it. The rubrics have not changed. So there you are in your Eastren rite parish that, while in the modern vernacular, is free of the modern novolties. I dont hear of the Eastren rites having altar girls, EMHCs, Hugen and Haas hymns, liturgical dancing and so on. Sadly, all this is common place in the current version of the Latin Rite, and you know what, people are sick of it.

When the Eastren rite starts to turn around altars, have altar-ettes, start to have modern pop songs for liturgical music and a small army of EMHCs, then and only then would you be able to see things from the prespective from many who prefer the Traditional mass.

 

[usqueadmortem]

It [the Traditional Latin Mass] is virtually unchanged since the third century. --John Henry Cardinal Newman, “Callistus”

Pope Pius XII, a few days before his death:
The day the Church abandons Her universal tongue will be the day before She returns to the Catacombs.

For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time … OF ITS VERY NATURE requires a language that is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular. --Pope Pius XI, Officiorum Omnium, 1922

The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruptions of true doctrine.
–Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947, Sec. 60

Latin is the immutable language of the Western Church.
–Pope John XXIII

The Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be
noble, majestic, and non-vernacular. --Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia, February 22, 1962 (just eight months before the opening of
Vatican II), chap. 13

We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons … are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor and to do all We can to promote its study and use. The employment of Latin has
recently been contested in some quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided
to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained
and, where necessary, restored. --Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia, February 22, 1962 (just eight months before the opening of Vatican II),
chap. 13

The use of the Latin language … is to be preserved in the Latin rites. --Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium
(Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), para. 36.1

In accordance with the age-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the Divine Office. --Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium
(Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), para. 101.1

If the Church is to remain truly the Catholic Church, it is essential to keep a universal tongue. --Cardinal Heenan (1967)

The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of
piety… We must not hold in low esteem these traditions of your fathers, which were your glory for centuries. --Pope Paul VI, Sacrificium Laudis, August 15, 1966, Epistle to Superiors General of
Clerical Religious Institutes Bound to Choir, on the Celebration of the Divine Office in Latin

We cannot permit something that could be the cause of your own downfall, that could be the source of serious loss to you, and that surely would afflict the Church of God with sickness and
sadness… The same Church gives you the mandate to safeguard the traditional dignity, beauty, and gravity of the choral office
in both its language [Latin] and its chant… Obey the commands that a great love for your own ancient observances itself suggests… --Pope Paul VI, Sacrificium Laudis, August 15, 1966,
Epistle to Superiors General of Clerical Religious
Institutes Bound to Choir, on the Celebration of the Divine Office in Latin

 

[netmilsmom]

JNB:

Hugen and Haas hymns,.

I swear I read this as a Hagen Daas mass.
I thought, Geez they have really gone whacky on the matter in your mass.

But you KNOW I understand what you are going through.

 

[JNB]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I swear I read this as a Hagen Daas mass.
I thought, Geez they have really gone whacky on the matter in your mass.

But you KNOW I understand what you are going through.

Actually I do not attend a parish with abuses. I go to either the TLM or a mass similar to yours, that is mostly in English but with many Latin Hymns, and the English hymns used are English versions of old Latin hymns, no altar girls, no EMHCs and kneeling for communion. That said, I know I am lucky and in my diocese there are options many others do not have.

What just boils my blood is someone who is in another rite, a rite that has its liturgy intact, lectures Catholics who beg for tradition to be restored. Its the equivlent of of someone in a good neighborhood lectureing someone in a bad neighborhood to be tolerant of crime.

 

[netmilsmom]

JNB:

Actually I do not attend a parish with abuses. I go to either the TLM or a mass similar to yours, that is mostly in English but with many Latin Hymns, and the English hymns used are English versions of old Latin hymns, no altar girls, no EMHCs and kneeling for communion. That said, I know I am lucky and in my diocese there are options many others do not have.

What just boils my blood is someone who is in another rite, a rite that has its liturgy intact, lectures Catholics who beg for tradition to be restored. Its the equivlent of of someone in a good neighborhood lectureing someone in a bad neighborhood to be tolerant of crime.

I agree with you, my friend.
We are very blessed and it is a wasteland of modernism out there.
People like us are actually running to the Eastern Rite churches for this reason.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

usqueadmortem:

Catholic Nerd,
This is a sad reality my friend. People take shots at us left and right. But let me assure you that this priest has blatantly contradicted the most ingenious and revered liturgical experts of Holy Mother Church. Pope Saint Pius X, Dom Gueranger, Pope Pius XII. They flat out disagree with him. Let me assure you he doesn’t know what he is talking about, he just has an agenda. He is afraid the whole liberal establishment, (which judging from his words he is probably apart of), is going to come crashing down since Pope Benedict ascended the throne. It really comes down to fear.

That was my thought when I read the first post in this thread. These nitwits are in a cold sweat panic that their reign of error is about to come to an end.

Especially when I read this quote:

“Those of you who stubbornly and foolishly cling to the Latin Mass are making yourselves obstacles to the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church! The Spirit is in charge!”

Reminded me of an incident related on the Adoremus website. It seems a few months ago, some arrogant “liturgist” had the temerity to lecture Cardinal Arinze about the new English translation of the Mass and kept shouting at the good Cardinal, “Do not quench the spirit!” The swine always squeal loudest right before they’re slaughtered, or so I’ve heard.

Let the graybeard progressives whine like the brats they are. They’ve had their day in the sun for 40 years and they’re dying off. It’s our turn now.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

JNB:

You know, I have seen you rail on people who prefer the Tridentine mass for months, and I find you have been obnoxious at times, but since you attend a non Latin rite parish, I say YOU HAVE NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT!

I am first and fore most a Catholic so I think you are wrong on this.

I have not railed against those who prefer the old Mass. I have even attended it myself on occasion.

I will say it once again, the ones I “rail” against are those who not only prefer the old Mass but deny the current Mass as being vaild. I also “rail” against those who say Latin is the only language for the Mass.

Very few people who prefer the TLM see Latin as the issue, its the reverence, as your rite still has. The only big changes to the Eastren Rites is they have adopted modern form of the vernacular, thats it. The rubrics have not changed. So there you are in your Eastren rite parish that, while in the modern vernacular, is free of the modern novolties. I dont hear of the Eastren rites having altar girls, EMHCs, Hugen and Haas hymns, liturgical dancing and so on. Sadly, all this is common place in the current version of the Latin Rite, and you know what, people are sick of it.

I can see what you are saying but there is no such thing as “modern” vernacular. The vernacular is the language that people speak. But I do understand what you are getting at.

I would add though, that the abuses, of which liturgical dancing is one of, has nothing to do with the Mass. It can happen in the old Mass and would happen if it were to become the only Mass avalible.

When the Eastren rite starts to turn around altars, have altar-ettes, start to have modern pop songs for liturgical music and a small army of EMHCs, then and only then would you be able to see things from the prespective from many who prefer the Traditional mass.

We can not turn our altars around as they have been free standing for a long time and again here, you mix in abuse with discipline.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

ByzCath:

Traditionalism has nothing to do with picking and choosing which disciplines of the Church one will follow.

The form of the Mass is a discipline and the Church can (and has many times in the past) change it.

Dear ByzCath,

Earlier you requested a reference to Pope Pius XII’s “condemnation” (your word), of the vernacular. I hope the extensive quotes given by usqueadmortem suffice for that.

You will note, also in that post, that even John XXIII initially (and only shortly prior to Vatican II), required the maintenance of the Latin.

Now, for a moment let 's look at the rite. I think you will have a problem confirming that the Roman Eucharistic Rite has indeed been changed “many times” in the past. First you can again refer to the Newman quote in usque’s post. Additionally, if you research the subject further, you will find this most important part of the Mass has been unchanged for approximately 1500 years, possibly longer.

If you prefer, I will do the research for you, but will you then accept my data? Additionally, you will find that it is not by any means solely the use of Latin that confounds, but also the puzzle as to why the rite had to be changed and not just translated to the vernacular? Why?

The latter question holds the promise of far more exciting discoveries than the sometimes tiresome pro and con rehashing of Latin vs vernacular!

Still love your “Every evil screams just one message…”

Blessings,

Anna