Do you favor a return of the Traditional Latin Mass as the extraordinary form of the Latin rite?

[mgrobertson79]

OK, so who are you referring to as “modernists” here? Anybody who does not favour the 1962 missal?

To figure out who the modernist are, read the encyclical.

 

[paramedicgirl]

To figure out who the modernist are, read the encyclical.

It’s even written in the language of today.

 

[BobP123]

I’m quite familiar with what a modernist is. People who support the valid normative Mass of the Church don’t qualify as heretics.

But the people who contemn the handed-down and approved rites of the Church are anathema, per Trent.

 

[Margita]

But the people who contemn the handed-down and approved rites of the Church are anathema, per Trent.

I haven’t seen anybody condemn / treat with contempt (depending on what you mean) the handed-down and approved rites of the Church here - but I hope we understand that Vatican 2 decisions and the NO and everything the Church has approved ever since are “handed down and approved rites”, too.

Everything approved by the Church is part of her tradition, regardless whether it was approved today, yesterday, or 100 years ago.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Here is a question I haven’t seen asked. Do you favor a return of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal as the extraordinary form of the Latin rite? Do you think it will spur growth in the Church today? Do you think it will help deep peoples spirituality as well as love for the Mass?

Yes to all of your questions.

 

[BobP123]

I haven’t seen anybody condemn / treat with contempt (depending on what you mean) the handed-down and approved rites of the Church here - but I hope we understand that Vatican 2 decisions and the NO and everything the Church has approved ever since are “handed down and approved rites”, too.

Sorry, a manufactured rite is not handed down. And furthermore Trent disallowed any new rites. In fact, Vatican II didn’t approve of any new rites either. But that’s all I’m going to say. You can draw your own conclusions.

 

[ncjohn]

But the people who contemn the handed-down and approved rites of the Church are anathema, per Trent.

I haven’t seen anyone here doing any such thing, and I am on record in numerous places here supporting the ready access to the TLM.

Was your statement meant to refer to someone in particular here since that topic hasn’t been brought up?

 

[Margita]

Sorry, a manufactured rite is not handed down. And furthermore Trent disallowed any new rites. In fact, Vatican II didn’t approve of any new rites either. But that’s all I’m going to say. You can draw your own conclusions.

And who did the manufacturing? Are you going to say that whatever new came after Trent should be done away with?

 

[ncjohn]

Just to clarify, when I said earlier …
I meant exactly that. I said nothing about heresy in the Church. Please don’t confuse the two. The heresy of Modernism runs rampant in our world today. In our educational institutions(especially public), in our society as a whole.

Just to clarify what you said

mgrobertson79:

There is only one ordinary form and the modernists would never allow the 1962 missal to be the ordinary form.

the implication is quite clear that those who believe the current Mass should remain the norm are “modernists”. There is no reference here to anyone “outside” the Church as no one outside the Church would have any say about what Mass the Church considers its norm.

You are certainly welcome to have a preference for the TLM, and I support you in your right to have it readily available. I am not the least bit encouraged though by this attitude that those who don’t share that preference are somehow inferior, and that implication runs pretty steadily through your comments.

As Margita noted: Everything approved by the Church is part of her tradition, regardless whether it was approved today, yesterday, or 100 years ago. If one wants to claim to be a “traditionalist” it would be nice if they might be able to recognize all the Church’s traditions, even if they have a preference for a particular one.

I won’t bother any further with this as I’m not here to change minds; only to try to bring the conversation to a civil level where we can work together to build up the Kingdom instead of trying to rain down fire on those who might not be part of our “band”. Jesus had some pretty harsh things to say to the Apostles when they tried that approach.

Peace,

 

[paramedicgirl]

And who did the manufacturing? Are you going to say that whatever new came after Trent should be done away with?

This might explain some of the “manufacturing” as you put it.

Here are some passages from the VII document Sacrosanctum Concilium that are commonly not implemented:

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established…3. Therefore, no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

36.1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

54…steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

115…Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
2. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.
3. The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.

124…Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.

 

[BobP123]

This might explain some of the “manufacturing” as you put it.

Here are some passages from the VII document Sacrosanctum Concilium that are commonly not implemented:

Most trads I know follow these simple Vatican II rules. What do they call those that don’t follow their own rules, again?

 

[Margita]

This might explain some of the “manufacturing” as you put it.

Don’t quote the term from me, I quoted it from someone else, too. And wondered what he referred to. If he meant “newfangled things which are not in line with Vatican II”, I don’t see why we need Trent to put things right - seems to me all we need is a better enforcement of VAtican II. But then, Vatican II does not exclude girls serving at the altar, whereas many of TLM-fans do… - but this is just one of many unclear points.

I really don’t get it why we need anything else beside or beyond what Vatican 2 approves of. If we do, who are we accusing of “manufacturing”? Are the practices in line with V2 “manufactured”?

 

[paramedicgirl]

Don’t quote the term from me, I quoted it from someone else, too. And wondered what he referred to. If he meant “newfangled things which are not in line with Vatican II”, I don’t see why we need Trent to put things right - seems to me all we need is a better enforcement of VAtican II. But then, Vatican II does not exclude girls serving at the altar, whereas many of TLM-fans do… - but this is just one of many unclear points.

I really don’t get it why we need anything else beside or beyond what Vatican 2 approves of. If we do, who are we accusing of “manufacturing”? Are the practices in line with V2 “manufactured”?

Altar girls started as an abuse and were eventually tolerated by the Vatican. And the truth does not change, so VII is not the be all end all of all councils. It’s most certainly NOT all we need. What about the 2000 years prior to VII? Are you saying they don’t matter?

 

[Margita]

Altar girls started as an abuse and were eventually tolerated by the Vatican. And the truth does not change, so VII is not the be all end all of all councils. It’s most certainly NOT all we need. What about the 2000 years prior to VII? Are you saying they don’t matter?

Are you saying that V2 tolerated an abuse??? Ex cathedra??? And are you saying that Vatican2 ignored those 2000 years of tradition, but you know better???

 

[paramedicgirl]

Are you saying that V2 tolerated an abuse??? Ex cathedra??? And are you saying that Vatican2 ignored those 2000 years of tradition, but you know better???

I really don’t understand your post. You stated that “I really don’t get it why we need anything else beside or beyond what Vatican 2 approves of.” My post was in response to your statement. I was simply trying to show you that the Church does indeed need more than VII. That’s what history is.

 

[Margita]

I really don’t understand your post. You stated that “I really don’t get it why we need anything else beside or beyond what Vatican 2 approves of.” My post was in response to your statement.

And my post is in response to what you said about the Vatican tolerating the “abuse” of altar girls. I wonder why you would state that the Vatican tolerates an abuse. Pretty hard charge.
You said Vatican 2 is not all we need because there are 2000 years of tradition prior to V2. I would assume V2 includes all those traditions, that is, if you keep to V2, you essentially keep to the 2000 years. I would say “truth” is cumulative in this sense - nothing taken away, only added to or modified as reason and wisdom allows.

PS: I’m sure you have your own reasons why you think altar girls are an “abuse” - just a sidenote, I used to be one of them, in a pretty orthodox church… I somehow don’t see why it is an abuse, but this is really off-topic here.

 

[paramedicgirl]

And my post is in response to what you said about the Vatican tolerating the “abuse” of altar girls. I wonder why you would state that the Vatican tolerates an abuse. Pretty hard charge.
You said Vatican 2 is not all we need because there are 2000 years of tradition prior to V2. I would assume V2 includes all those traditions, that is, if you keep to V2, you essentially keep to the 2000 years. I would say “truth” is cumulative in this sense - nothing taken away, only added to or modified as reason and wisdom allows.

PS: I’m sure you have your own reasons why you think altar girls are an “abuse” - just a sidenote, I used to be one of them, in a pretty orthodox church… I somehow don’t see why it is an abuse, but this is really off-topic here.

I said that altar girls started out as an abuse, and that eventually, the Vatican tolerated them. If you look at the language for altar servers, you will see that boys are encouraged and girls are permitted, or tolerated. I have some documentation on this that I will try to find.

Again, I repeat that we cannot ignore, nor does the Church ignore, the dogmas, traditions and history that precede VII. You seem to think, and even said, that VII is all we need. Do you think that every previous council is negated when a new council takes place? VII did not encompass or replace every previous council that ever took place.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I did NOT say that VII tolerated an abuse. You should read more carefully. I said that altar girls started out as an abuse, and that eventually, the Vatican tolerated them. If you look at the language for altar servers, you will see that boys are encouraged and girls are permitted, or tolerated. I have some documentation on this that I will try to find.

Again, I repeat that we cannot ignore, nor does the Church ignore, the dogmas, traditions and history that precede VII. You seem to think, and even said, that VII is all we need. The Church does not believe that, so why are you expecting me to?

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Here is a question I haven’t seen asked. Do you favor a return of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal as the extraordinary form of the Latin rite? Do you think it will spur growth in the Church today? Do you think it will help deep peoples spirituality as well as love for the Mass?

This is going to sound uneducated because I don’t know the terms, but I like the English mass with Latin parts (or Greek) - like the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and the Kyrie.

The only problem with more Latin is that few people know it anymore, even with those parts there are many who don’t know what it means. My mother didn’t know that the Ave Maria was the Hail Mary in Latin until she heard it sung on Fantasia. Because she never knew what the words meant she has a strong aversion to the Latin Mass.

If Latin is going to be included there need to be translations and there also needs to be masses without Latin for those who have previous biases or just prefer English.

Since I didn’t quite know which way to vote for this option - so I voted “no”.

 

[paramedicgirl]

This is going to sound uneducated because I don’t know the terms, but I like the English mass with Latin parts (or Greek) - like the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and the Kyrie.

The only problem with more Latin is that few people know it anymore, even with those parts there are many who don’t know what it means. My mother didn’t know that the Ave Maria was the Hail Mary in Latin until she heard it sung on Fantasia. Because she never knew what the words meant she has a strong aversion to the Latin Mass.

If Latin is going to be included there need to be translations and there also needs to be masses without Latin for those who have previous biases or just prefer English.

Since I didn’t quite know which way to vote for this option - so I voted “no”.

You’re in luck if you want to learn the basic prayers in Latin with audio for proper pronunciation. I just did a blog post called Learning Latin, and there are six links to St Peter’s Helpers for the basic prayers.