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

[Margita]

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.

margita:

nothing taken away, only added to or modified as reason and wisdom allows.

 

[Steadfast]

I like TLM as an option, but then I think the Anglican Rite should be an option as well as the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Just to clarify what you said
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,

You got me there John, so I stand by my earlier statement and will take the “flak”, as it may be from you guys.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Ignorance, of the Mass, of the Latin language is no excuse. We are told that because we didn’t know the speed limit that was no excuse for us driving 80 mph in a 55 mph zone etc. This is known was Ignorantia juris non excusat in times past and comes from Roman law. This holds true with the Mass. Just because one doesn’t understand what each individual word means, doesn’t make it any less efficacious.

We worry to much about how we feel, or how we perceive things. I know this because I am human just like everyone else and this comes to us as a consequence of original sin. We can not worship ourselves or our feelings. We must remember God is our first beginning and last end. We as human beings do not have the power to create anything. It is only by the grace of God that we breathe, live and do anything and apart from Him, we are and can do NOTHING.

 

[Margita]

Ignorance, of the Mass, of the Latin language is no excuse.

What do we need excuses for?

 

[mgrobertson79]

What do we need excuses for?

For disapproving of the Traditional form of the Mass It was in response to and should have quoted this post.

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.

 

[Margita]

I don’t think it is “disapproving” of it - yes, the poster used the term “aversion”, but that is not disapproving of it in principle, just a statement of personal preference. The person in question (the poster’s mother) is uncomfortable at a Latin mass. After a lifetime of going to an English service, I would not blame her.

If she stopped going to Mass altogether because the only available service would be the Latin one, that would be different. But to choose what is most conducive for her spiritual development is okay, esp. since her choice is perfectly legitimate and orthodox (approved by the Church). So I don’t think there is any need for an excuse - explanation, perhaps, but no excuse necessary.

 

[BobP123]

And are you saying that Vatican2 ignored those 2000 years of tradition, but you know better???

If you read those documents, you will find that Vatican 2 agreed with a lot of traditional Catholic values. The abuses came as a result of some manufactured “spirit” of Vatican 2. And toleration or coercion of those abuses is a whole lot different than actual approval, so you need to make that distinction when you go to your so-called “orthodox” church.

 

[Joysong]

MgRobertson:

That isn’t what I or anyone else said. The term modernism was questioned and I urged all to read what the Church teaches. Or do we outright reject this document because our “understanding” has changed.

Many of us who have read the document could interpret it differently than you. Several portions of it, in my opinion, refer to the radicalism of traditionists. No doubt about it.

I think it behoves the Church to apply labels on who or who does not espouse modernism, rather than traditionists.

 

[Joysong]

BobP123:

The abuses came as a result of some manufactured “spirit” of Vatican 2. And toleration or coercion of those abuses is a whole lot different than actual approval, so you need to make that distinction when you go to your so-called “orthodox” church.

Bob, I have observed many of your posts that continually point to the new mass in this deplorable light. To answer the OP’s question then, I would definitely say that the return to the TLM will further fracture the unity that Christ earnestly desires in the church … simply because of this elitist attitude that sneers at a holy sacred rite that even the Pope uses! The Mass is the sacrifice of Christ in any manner of celebration; it is not a simulated stage production.

Yes, there have been abuses, in BOTH liturgies, lest you keep your head in the cloud about the TLM. Hopefully, for the sake of those attending either liturgy, these will be dealt with through the Magisterium. And many have been already!

It truly amazes me how traditionists expect anyone whomsoever to be attracted to this rite when their charity and love exists only for those who are a traditionist?

 

[Ace86]

I favor a return, but I voted no because I don’t like the terms “extraordinary” and “ordinary”.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Many of us who have read the document could interpret it differently than you. Several portions of it, in my opinion, refer to the radicalism of traditionists. No doubt about it.

I think it behoves the Church to apply labels on who or who does not espouse modernism, rather than traditionists.

This is n.38 from PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS, It was written to be read literally, not however the individual desired to interpret it.

The Modernist as Reformer

1. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, some idea may be gained of the reforming mania which possesses them: in all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. Reform of philosophy, especially in the seminaries: the scholastic philosophy is to be relegated to the history of philosophy among obsolete systems, and the young men are to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. Reform of theology; rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be for the future written and taught only according to their modern methods and principles. Dogmas and their evolution are to be harmonised with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been duly reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, or at least steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. Ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic parts. Its spirit with the public conscience, which is not wholly for democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy, and even to the laity, and authority should be decentralised. The Roman Congregations, and especially the index and the Holy Office, are to be reformed. The ecclesiastical authority must change its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political and social organization, it must adapt itself to those which exist in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, both in the estimation in which they must be held and in the exercise of them. The clergy are asked to return to their ancient lowliness and poverty, and in their ideas and action to be guided by the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, echoing the teaching of their Protestant masters, would like the suppression of ecclesiastical celibacy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed according to their principles?

By the way, if you wish you apply a label to me, that is ok. I choose to stand with the Saints who have gone on ahead and with them I will make my stand.

 

[Margita]

If you read those documents, you will find that Vatican 2 agreed with a lot of traditional Catholic values. The abuses came as a result of some manufactured “spirit” of Vatican 2. And toleration or coercion of those abuses is a whole lot different than actual approval, so you need to make that distinction when you go to your so-called “orthodox” church.

Please refrain from the use of “so-called” here - you have no right to indicate that its orthodoxy is in any way questionable, or a matter of dispute.

The only distinction I made when I went and served in that church was that between those who humbly and with true devotion prayed that the sacrifice may be accepted at the pastor’s hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all His Church, and those who were sitting there watching my movements to discover some fault. I didn’t like the old ladies who, after I accidentally missed their pews when carrying the collection plate around, came into the vestry after mass to give their coins to the priest collectively, emphasizing that I made a grave mistake and that colection is such an importan part of the mass for them etc. etc. I was 14 years old then - happy to serve at the altar, and without the least intention to offend them.

There is something in their uncharitable attitude that reminds me of the hair-splitting controversy that is going on here. That is all I want to say and the last word you shall read from me in this thread. I can only blame myself for jumping into a debate which is so detrimental to my peace of mind, and so contrary to everything Christ has taught about patience, charity, humility, and loving-kindness, and which is filled with intellectual pride, a sin I am trying to rid myself of every day. I sincerely, from my heart, apologize if I have offended you, or anybody else here. Peace be with you all.

 

[ncjohn]

By the way, if you wish you apply a label to me, that is ok. I choose to stand with the Saints who have gone on ahead and with them I will make my stand.

It seems to be you who is applying labels rather than anyone applying them to you. It is the labels you are applying, given their meaning, that people are questioning.

Given your unapolagetic stance in referring to those who support the normative Mass as “modernists”, could you perhaps answer a couple straightforward questions? I’d actually be interested to hear BobP123’s answers also,since the continual theme of the NO Mass being “manufactured” seems to imply that it isn’t considered valid.

Do you believe that the teachings of Vatican II are valid and that we have a valid Pope? Do you believe that the Church, and the Pope as its head, has the authority to modify the liturgy of the Mass, so long as its essential elements are preserved?

In a recent thread, Gorman had the honesty to admit to being a sedevanctist, which at least gives people the opportunity to assess his statements in that light. I do not condemn anyone for that stance, as one will believe what one is led to believe and I believe God will honor them for standing up for what they believe. But it is only fair that one not masquerade as being faithful to the Church, as it is currently composed and led, to try to influence others on Church teaching, if that is not one’s true position.

I’m not making any accusations, but simply asking the question because of the content of arguments being made on some of these topics and the labeling being done and criticisms being leveled, which seem to be outside the stated position of the Church.

Peace,

 

[paramedicgirl]

It seems to be you who is applying labels rather than anyone applying them to you. It is the labels you are applying, given their meaning, that people are questioning.

Given your unapolagetic stance in referring to those who support the normative Mass as “modernists”, could you perhaps answer a couple straightforward questions? I’d actually be interested to hear BobP123’s answers also,since the continual theme of the NO Mass being “manufactured” seems to imply that it isn’t considered valid.

Do you believe that the teachings of Vatican II are valid and that we have a valid Pope? Do you believe that the Church, and the Pope as its head, has the authority to modify the liturgy of the Mass, so long as its essential elements are preserved?

In a recent thread, Gorman had the honesty to admit to being a sedevanctist, which at least gives people the opportunity to assess his statements in that light. I do not condemn anyone for that stance, as one will believe what one is led to believe and I believe God will honor them for standing up for what they believe. But it is only fair that one not masquerade as being faithful to the Church, as it is currently composed and led, to try to influence others on Church teaching, if that is not one’s true position.

I’m not making any accusations, but simply asking the question because of the content of arguments being made on some of these topics and the labeling being done and criticisms being leveled, which seem to be outside the stated position of the Church.
Peace,

It’s amazing the way traditionalists are suspected of being sedevacantists!

The concern is for innovations that have NOT been approved by Rome, that are forced on the people in the pews, for heaven’s sake. Of course the teachings of VII are valid. Of course we have a valid Pope. It’s the way some people have thrust their “Spirit of Vatican II” innovations and mentality on the whole Church that is the issue here. If everyone in the pews and in lay ministries in the Church were to be obedient to the Pope and to the Church documents, every Mass would be reverent, with no liturgical abuses. Is that too much to ask for?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is now closed.