EF Mass Preferers now demand "right" of all sacraments under "old form"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan_64 said:
If people wish to receive the older forms of the sacraments, then I can’t really see what the problem is.

I only ocasionally attend TLM, but I can see where people are coming from on wanting to form communities. The reverence displayed by these people, the behaviour of their children at Mass, how they value their faith, their whole attitude seems different. In these communities there seems to be a certain protection from secular liberal influences.

I’m not a traddie, but I do understand the attraction of such communities.
Click to expand...
And it’s not different from the Chinese wanting their own parish in Philadelphia (which they do) or a group of Vietnamese in Philadelphia wanting their own parish (which they do), or from several groups of Italians in Philadelphia wanting their own parishes (and they do).

The only language group that typically does not receive their own parish is Spanish. That’s often because (regardless of what English speaking Americans think) Hispanics are not really one, united culture. They only really share a language and the fact that they were once a colonial belonging to Spain.

Calling all Hispanic peoples one culture would be like calling all English speaking people one culture. Both statements are ridiculous.

NOTE: with this said: there are Cuban Parishes in south Florida (esp Arch of Miami) and Mexican Parishes in CA, AZ, NM, and Texas. And I believe there is at least one Puerto Rican Parish in NYC (but I could be wrong about that)
 
Last edited:
JanSobieskiIII said:
previously valid form without insinuating that they weren’t valid.
Click to expand...
Not quite.

The Council of Trent did it, St. Pope Pius X did it, many other Pontiffs and Councils did it.

The traditional way things worked in the Roman Rite, was that when a new form of the Divine Office or Liturgy was promulgated, the old form within that Rite was suppressed.

Multiple Rites routinely existed and do exist (e.g. the Byzantine Rite, the Ambrosian Rite and the Roman Rite, etc.), but various usages of the same Rite existing is almost unprecedented in the Church - at least since the Council of Trent, anyway. The current paradigm of having both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Form Usages of the Roman Rite existing side by side is an innovation which is clearly fostering division in the Church.
 
Last edited:
I see, I was under the impression that for the most part the EF was the manner codified by Trent and had been in place for a long time for the most part before then.
 
It was, but the Rite was reformed at Trent as well as multiple times after Trent, and each time it was reformed, the new version was promulgated and older usages of the Rite were suppressed.

It wasn’t about saying the older form was invalid or wrong, it was about imposing liturgical unity within the Roman Rite.
 
Last edited:
This is false. Trent only formalised what was already the mass that had been used for centuries. This was to prevent Protestant infiltration.
The changes to the mass after that did not change anything non-trivial. Adding prayers or feast days or such like.
The changes post Vatican 2 were completely unique in the church’s history.
 
Also, when Blessed Pope Paul VI promulgated the Pauline Mass, he did not envisage that there would be two usages of the Roman Rite in use afterwards. He simply assumed things would work how they had the past 500 years, and the old usages would give way to the new.

It was only because of the obstinacy of certain people that the Church allowed the older form to be used alongside the new form, in an attempt to prevent schism from occuring. Well, the schism is still here, and it’s growing.

Which is why I’d like to see a reform of the Pauline Mass bringing it closer to the Tridentine Mass, and then see that promulgated and suppress both the older forms.
 
Last edited:
That is a severely over simplified view of liturgical history.

I strongly suggest you do some research into how the Liturgy of the Church has changed and evolved through the centuries.
 
Was or was not the Tridentine mass in use before the council of Trent?
 
whyeyeman said:
Tridentine mass in use before the council of Trent?
Click to expand...
The phraseology of that question should answer itself.

Say that out loud: “was the Tridentine Mass in use before the Council of Trent?”

No, it was not. The various pre-Tridentine forms of the Roman Rite Mass were in use before the Council of Trent.
 
The Missal of 1570 is virtually indistinguishable from that of 1474 (the first printed edition).
 
Last edited:
Yes it was. The name of the mass is not the mass itself. The mass was exactly the same before the council of Trent as after it.
 
Last edited:
They just suppressed a few new forms of the mass that couldn’t prove they had ancient roots.
That tells you something very special about the Tridentine mass - it developed naturally from the days of old.
The Paul VI mass, on the other hand, was designed by some ‘committee’ and spring up out of nowhere.
 
Last edited:
No. But people often say something along the line of " The council of Trent changed the mass, so why can’t Vatican 2?"
Which is a complete lie.
 
Last edited:
Here’s a very brief synopsis of changes between the eighth and sixteenth centuries:

Towards the end of the eighth century Charlemagne ordered the Roman rite of Mass to be used throughout his domains. However, some elements of the preceding Gallican rites were fused with it north of the Alps, and the resulting mixed rite was introduced into Rome under the influence of the emperors who succeeded Charlemagne. Gallican influence is responsible for the introduction into the Roman rite of dramatic and symbolic ceremonies such as the blessing of candles, ashes, palms, and much of the Holy Week ritual.

The recitation of the Credo (Nicene Creed) after the Gospel is attributed to the influence of Emperor Henry II (1002–24). Gallican influence explains the practice of incensing persons, introduced in the eleventh or twelfth century; “before that time incense was burned only during processions (the entrance and Gospel procession).” Private prayers for the priest to say before Communion were another novelty. About the thirteenth century, an elaborate ritual and additional prayers of French origin were added to the Offertory, at which the only prayer that the priest in earlier times said was the Secret; these prayers varied considerably until fixed by Pope Pius V in 1570. Pope Pius V also introduced the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, previously said mostly in the sacristy or during the procession to the altar as part of the priest’s preparation, and also for the first time formally admitted into the Mass all that follows the Ite missa est in his edition of the Roman Missal. Later editions of the Roman Missal abbreviated this part by omitting the Canticle of the Three Young Men and Psalm 150, followed by other prayers, that in Pius V’s edition the priest was to say while leaving the altar.

From 1474 until Pope Pius V’s 1570 text, there were at least 14 different printings that purported to present the text of the Mass as celebrated in Rome, rather than elsewhere, and which therefore were published under the title of “Roman Missal”. These were produced in Milan, Venice, Paris and Lyon. Even these show variations. Local Missals, such as the Parisian Missal, of which at least 16 printed editions appeared between 1481 and 1738, showed more important differences.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. I think the key point (as I see it) is that the mass is permitted to change under the direction of the leadership of the church. Step changes are fine too.
 
whyeyeman said:
. The mass was exactly the same before the council of Trent as after it.
Click to expand...
No, it was not.

You seem not to have a very good understanding pertaining to the history of the Liturgy.

Stop reading traditionalist propaganda and start reading scholarly studies.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top