How do I defend the Tridententine Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajpirc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
laszlo said:
The pope and through him the Church follows God who shines His Sun on everyone, and allows the two form together. Why do you want to convince anybody against the will of the pope, that the TLM is for everyone?

There are people who like the Mass far away in pedestal. It has its own value, they feel their sins and do not want to make the Mass dirty.

Other people understand that sins or not

Luke 22:15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer.

and want this closeness with Him, with their full senses. hear, feel, touch, understand.
Click to expand...
laszlo,
Yes. Could you please explain the distinction you’ve alluded to above? Your meaning is not clear to me.

Thank you.

Cordially,
pab
 
The_Old_Medic said:
You can not “defend” the Mass. The Mass in Latin is a beautiful thing, but your grandma is right. It was in a language that the VAST majority of the faithful could not understand, very few people did anything more than walk in, go to communion and walk out when the Mass ended.

I would ask YOU a question. Why do you, who obviously did not live during the era when the Tridentenine Mass was the only Mass used in the Latin Rite, prefer it to the Mass that the Church uses? I would bet that it seems more mysterious, because it is in a foreign language.

Having lived in the ear before Vatican II, and converting to the Catholic Church before Vatican II, I sincerely hope and pray that the next Pope will permanently outlaw the use of that Mass.

It’s about time that the “traditionalists” rejoin the church as it is, and stop trying to yank it back to the middle ages again.
Click to expand...
You mention that ‘few people did anything more than walk in, go to communion and walk out when the Mass ended.’ While this obviously occurred where you attended Mass, are you sure that this was the norm of behavior towards the Mass everywhere? I’d be interested to hear from others who attended Mass before Vatican ll, to see if this was the case where they attended, too.

Then again, I’ve sometimes wondered if God allowed the Latin Mass to go into relative obscurity because it was underappreciated - I don’t know. Certainly at the Latin Mass that I attend, it’s uncommon for anyone to leave after communion; so this, at least, has improved. There is a greater appreciation and respect now for the Latin Mass by those who attend it. On the other hand, when I attended an OF for two years before converting, the priest had to remind people (about once a month) not to leave after communion. It really bothered him when people did this. He said that we were supposed to remain until the end of the last hymn was sung.
 
thistle said:
“The fullness of the Catholic faith”???
Are you saying the fullness of the Catholic faith is not in the OF which is approved by the Church?
Click to expand...
thistle by that I was referring to the clarity of the Faith presented in the Tridentine Mass. I have issues with the “licitness” (for lack of a better word) with changing the liturgy, but that really isn’t what I’m driving at here.

I’m friends with an Anglican alter girl, she assists at the Anglican service (by a modern Book of Common Prayer), she has Catholic family so she also attends the OF on occasion, she has told me that she finds absolutely no difference between the two with the exception of the Anglican Our Father sounding nicer. According to her (and she should know) they are the same to any observer, I’ve heard the same for others. I also know people who are now agnostic (and were once Catholic) because of all of the changes. It’s hard to make the argument that the Tridentine Mass doesn’t provide a more clear and definitive expression of the Catholic faith.
 
I guess the best way to defend the Extraordinary form is by telling the truth about it.
The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is a GOD CENTERED MASS.
The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is a MAN CENTERED MASS.
 
khawk2 said:
I guess the best way to defend the Extraordinary form is by telling the truth about it.
The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is a GOD CENTERED MASS.
The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is a MAN CENTERED MASS.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why I side with Old Medic. And while there is no schism it really troubles me that there are two factions like this, with one so obviously full of zeal and prideful elitism.
 
The_Old_Medic said:
You can not “defend” the Mass. The Mass in Latin is a beautiful thing, but your grandma is right. It was in a language that the VAST majority of the faithful could not understand, very few people did anything more than walk in, go to communion and walk out when the Mass ended.

I would ask YOU a question. Why do you, who obviously did not live during the era when the Tridentenine Mass was the only Mass used in the Latin Rite, prefer it to the Mass that the Church uses? I would bet that it seems more mysterious, because it is in a foreign language.

Having lived in the ear before Vatican II, and converting to the Catholic Church before Vatican II, I sincerely hope and pray that the next Pope will permanently outlaw the use of that Mass.

It’s about time that the “traditionalists” rejoin the church as it is, and stop trying to yank it back to the middle ages again.
Click to expand...
The sad thing about that is the Council of Trent in a dogmatic declaration stated:

"Canon IX.-- If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

This is a dogmatic declaration and infallible there is no getting around it, the Roman Rite of the Mass must be in the liturgical language of the Roman Rite; ie. Latin. To say otherwise is heresy.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html
 
The_Old_Medic said:
You can not “defend” the Mass. The Mass in Latin is a beautiful thing, but your grandma is right. It was in a language that the VAST majority of the faithful could not understand, very few people did anything more than walk in, go to communion and walk out when the Mass ended.

I would ask YOU a question. Why do you, who obviously did not live during the era when the Tridentenine Mass was the only Mass used in the Latin Rite, prefer it to the Mass that the Church uses? I would bet that it seems more mysterious, because it is in a foreign language.

Having lived in the ear before Vatican II, and converting to the Catholic Church before Vatican II, I sincerely hope and pray that the next Pope will permanently outlaw the use of that Mass.

It’s about time that the “traditionalists” rejoin the church as it is, and stop trying to yank it back to the middle ages again.
Click to expand...
Wow. I guess you are not familiar with Pope Benedict XVI’s dictates about the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

Pope Benedict states that there is ONE MASS in TWO FORMS… the Ordinary form (Novus Ordo)- and the Extraordinary Form which you call Tridentine. The traditionalists (except for those who attend a SSPX parish) do NOT need to re-join the Church as they are in concert with the Church already (and God willing Pope Benedict will re-unite the SSPX with the Vatican very soon). Most dioceses offer the Extraordinary Form in at least one of their parishes (at the dictate of the late Blessed John Paul II) for those who wish to attend. Pope Benedict further states that a priest needs permission from NO ONE and can say either MASS. He thus insures that modernist liberal Bishop interference is eliminated.

You may wish to read Davies excellent book on the subject “Sacred Then and Sacred Now”.

This Pope has a very soft spot (thank you, God for the gift of Benedict as Pope) for the “Old Mass”. He also is a very CHARITABLE Pope and unlike some of the liberal modernist militants-- will do what is necessary to ensure that ALL CATHOLICS are allowed to worship BOTH OF THE FORMS OF THE ROMAN RITE.

A good 1962 Daily Missal will guide you through what is going on. The symbolism in the EF is almost breath taking.

I would humbly submit that those who walk in, receive Communion and walk out do the same thing in a NO MAss. Those who will not take the time to learn that the Mass is the Unbloody Sacrifice at Calvary rob themselves. The purpose for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is to GIVE GRACE. Just because the Mass is said in the Vernacular doesn’t mean that the participants who are puppeting the words are realizing that transubstantiation is taking place before their very eyes. Quite the contrary. Some feel that the NO is more akin to a Protestant Church Service.
One’s attitude is everything in this regard and although I have a strong preference for the EF I am CHARITABLE enough to accept all my fellow Catholics who do not. When on vacation when faced with going to no Mass I do attend a NO Mass if that is all that is available. And when I look to a side altar and see a potted plant where the Virgin Mother’s Statue once stood I almost weep.

I would remind you that Christ himself spoke in a foreign language. That never has kept him from me. The beauty of the Latin Mass is that I can go to any country and the Mass is the same.

As a convert you are probably more comfortable with the NO because it is much more akin to your original religious upbringing. My mother was a convert at twelve and agrees with you (except for the Eucharistic Ministers and their unconsecrated hands). Not me. As a cradle Catholic I grew up in a Church full of Statues, murals and Latin. And to say that the EF is solemn and Sacred is really and understatement. Covered heads, proper dress, kneeling, silence all show the proper respect and reverence for God. The bells rung sixteen times during Mass just add to the solemness of a profoundly moving Sacrifice. It was good enough for centuries and it is good enough for me.

No one is going backward. It is tradition and since Christ founded the Church we are continuing a tradition that was started 2000 years ago. Your new Mass is how old? Forty years? I guess a couple of hundred years is when Luther and Calvin broke away. It was Archbishop Bugnini - a freemason who would have been excommunicated had they known he was one and six Protestant theologians who crafted the Novus Ordo- NEW MASS in the sixties. It was just supposed to have been a translation of the Roman Rite into the vernacular but became so much more.
The removal of the high altar (which faced EAST for a reason… one of which was the RISEN CHRIST). The protestant table. No more six candles… two was enough. The stripping of the statues and the martyrs… our reminder that people DIED for their faith from the insides of churches. The removal of the altar rail where people kneeled to receive the Blessed Host. Communion in the HAND (Blatantly protestant).
So I think your apparent repulsion of the EF may have more to do with your religious roots in Protestantism than the EF itself.

I am glad that we have two forms and I trust Pope Benedict will do what is necessary to bring them more closely into line … and stop the abuses by the ad lib modernists who have desecrated the Novus Ordo.
 
Link0126 said:
Originally Posted by khawk2 View Post
I guess the best way to defend the Extraordinary form is by telling the truth about it.
The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is a GOD CENTERED MASS.
The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is a MAN CENTERED MASS.
Click to expand...
In my opinion it is far better to “side with” the Holy Father and magisterium of the Church who say that Both forms are God centered, and are legitimate, and licit and acceptable to God.

The extremes expressed here by “Old Medic” and “khawk2” are simply not conducive to peace and unity within the Church - Personally I reject both of these viewpoints and embrace both forms.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
 
Tell them its the mass that has been developed over the centuries and was the only was used until Vatican 2.
 
JRKH said:
In my opinion it is far better to “side with” the Holy Father and magisterium of the Church who say that Both forms are God centered, and are legitimate, and licit and acceptable to God.

The extremes expressed here by “Old Medic” and “khawk2” are simply not conducive to peace and unity within the Church - Personally I reject both of these viewpoints and embrace both forms.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Oh no. You misunderstand. This was EXACTLY the intent of the Vatican II.
To get the lay people more involved with the Mass. I do embrace both forms and attend both forms. It is not my intent to be a heretic in any way and it is the Holy Father that states very clearly that there is on Roman Rite in two forms. But one probably has a clear preference for one or the other. Pope Benedict wants to make sure that both are available.

God will judge me.
 
Link0126 said:
This is exactly why I side with Old Medic. And while there is no schism it really troubles me that there are two factions like this, with one so obviously full of zeal …
Click to expand...
Since when is zeal bad?
 
Warrenton said:
Since when is zeal bad?
Click to expand...
Zeal can be bad when not tempered with the virtues of charity and respect or if the person is in error. Have you never seen this in Christians of all kinds? It’s sadly all too common.

And Yes, I accept that both forms of the Mass are God-centered and trust in the Pope and the Church. Sadly though, some people just like to criticize and pretend that they know what is better for the vast majority of Catholics throughout the world.
 
This is a traditionalist forum yet I am getting the feeling that there are few traditionalists here.

Thank God for both forms of the Roman Rite. Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI.

God Bless you all.
 
Link0126 said:
Zeal can be bad when not tempered with the virtues of charity and respect or if the person is in error. Have you never seen this in Christians of all kinds? It’s sadly all too common.

.
Click to expand...
Perhaps at times one of the greatest forms of charity is honesty, if you know something to be an error (either in faith and morals) you are hardly doing anybody a service in being “charitable” (accommodating) over it. That said you also need to go about it in the right way, by presenting the facts in a polite and (as far as possible) loving way.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
Perhaps at times one of the greatest forms of charity is honesty, if you know something to be an error (either in faith and morals) you are hardly doing anybody a service in being “charitable” (accommodating) over it. That said you also need to go about it in the right way, by presenting the facts in a polite and (as far as possible) loving way.
Click to expand...
Oh, I meant if the zealful person is in error. Yes, we always need to present a reason for the hope that lies within with gentleness and respect.
 
Link0126 said:
Oh, I meant if the zealful person is in error. Yes, we always need to present a reason for the hope that lies within with gentleness and respect.
Click to expand...
My apologies then, I misunderstood your post.
 
khawk2 said:
Oh no. You misunderstand. This was EXACTLY the intent of the Vatican II.
To get the lay people more involved with the Mass. I do embrace both forms and attend both forms. It is not my intent to be a heretic in any way and it is the Holy Father that states very clearly that there is on Roman Rite in two forms. But one probably has a clear preference for one or the other. Pope Benedict wants to make sure that both are available.

God will judge me.
Click to expand...
If I misunderstood you - I apologize I merely responded to what was quoted…
I’m happy to know that you embrace both forms.

Peace
James
 
Interesting how those memebers who we’ve asked for an explanation to their post have not responded and I highly doubt they will. Trolin anyone?🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top