How to respond to traditionalist catholics about their attitude towards the new mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter marcsababa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

marcsababa

Guest
I attend the tridentine rite because it is an excellent mass and has a good community. I do not hate the new mass, though many current versions of it and the communities that attend it in my area are not as uplifting as my own. However I do like to defend the validity of the new mass and have used the example of the past pope who did celebrate the new mass. I assume the current pope also celebrates the new mass.

My irritatingly (yet lovely in other ways) traditionalist friends have brushed off my comments by saying that the Pope is only a leader in matters of faith and morals. If he chooses to celebrate the new mass, say my friends, that does not indicate that it is okay to attend.

I think that the mass one celebrates is a matter of faith and morals, but I can’t seem to get the argument on a good logical footing. I get mad because they shrug and turn away without willingness to continue the debate. I also get mad because they say they would never attend a new mass. This attitude, I know can lead to sin.

PLease help with a few pointers on this topic.
 
Howdie !!
I’d suggest that you gently continue to defend the validity of the New Mass, while acknowledging that it is done irreverently in certain parishes, which is true.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong or lacking in the New Rite.
The prayers of the Tridentine rite, however, are even more explicit in their mention/affirmation of certain distinctive Catholic beliefs, and this may be why your TLM friends don’t like the New Mass.

Still, the New Mass is valid and (as is the case with ANY rite of Mass), if done reverently, quite lovely.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
 
marcsababa said:
I attend the tridentine rite because it is an excellent mass and has a good community. I do not hate the new mass, though many current versions of it and the communities that attend it in my area are not as uplifting as my own. However I do like to defend the validity of the new mass and have used the example of the past pope who did celebrate the new mass. I assume the current pope also celebrates the new mass.

My irritatingly (yet lovely in other ways) traditionalist friends have brushed off my comments by saying that the Pope is only a leader in matters of faith and morals. If he chooses to celebrate the new mass, say my friends, that does not indicate that it is okay to attend.

I think that the mass one celebrates is a matter of faith and morals, but I can’t seem to get the argument on a good logical footing. I get mad because they shrug and turn away without willingness to continue the debate. I also get mad because they say they would never attend a new mass. This attitude, I know can lead to sin.

PLease help with a few pointers on this topic.
Click to expand...
Liturgy is important, it is not paramount.
It is better to attend a sloppy NO Mass in Communion with the church than a schismatic Tridentine one. It is better to be a member of your own parish than to go shopping around for a litury that you approve of. It is better to be charitable and humble than for minor points of protocol to become symbols of division.

The Pope speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals, so if he declares a mass to be a viald celebration of the eucharist, then it must be. He also has an ordinary responsibility for church disipline that doesn’t differ in nature from the responsibility of any leader of a large organisation, and like any leader he has the right to expect reasonable cooperation.
 
I suppose the crux of my problem is the barbs against the Holy Father. I feel insensed (sp?) when from within the most traditional relms of the church these attacks come that seem to rival the idiotic attacks of the liberal factions. I almost prefer the attacks form the liberals becaue they are often misinformed softies. These traditionalists pride themselves on their knowledge and I fear for them especially when they are my friends.
 
marcsababa said:
I suppose the crux of my problem is the barbs against the Holy Father. I feel insensed (sp?) when from within the most traditional relms of the church these attacks come that seem to rival the idiotic attacks of the liberal factions. I almost prefer the attacks form the liberals becaue they are often misinformed softies. These traditionalists pride themselves on their knowledge and I fear for them especially when they are my friends.
Click to expand...
It is ridiculous. Benedict is quite clearly the real Pope. He has actually made substantial moves towards restablishing the Tridentine Rite. But because he hasn’t given some people all that they want, when they demand it, a fringe are not happy.

An American traditionist friend I met in London told me that he didn’t agree with a lot of what Cardinal Hume did. But, he said “he is my bishop. I won’t criticise too much. Maybe he has some wisdom, which I lack”.
 
marcsababa said:
I suppose the crux of my problem is the barbs against the Holy Father. I feel insensed (sp?) when from within the most traditional relms of the church these attacks come that seem to rival the idiotic attacks of the liberal factions. I almost prefer the attacks form the liberals becaue they are often misinformed softies. These traditionalists pride themselves on their knowledge and I fear for them especially when they are my friends.
Click to expand...
I know exactly how you feel. Traditionalists should know better. I also find it hard to deal with them, for this very reason. One quote that I really like is from John Paul II:
“In the liturgy, above all that of the sacraments, there is an immutable part, a part that is divinely instituted and of which the Church is the guardian, and parts that can be changed, which the Church has the power and on occasion also the duty to adapt to the cultures of recently evangelized peoples.” (John Paul II, Vicesimus quintus annus, 16; cf. SC 21).
There can be no doubt that it is true that the Church has the power to change the mutable part of the mass, as the Church has done this time immemorial. Now if your friends insist that the changes of the 1969 Missale Romanum constitute a change to the immutable part of the mass, then the burden of proof is on them to show that this is true.

The other way I would tackle this issue is with a quote from Ignatius of Antioch:
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
  • Letter to the Smyrneans, chapter VIII
    (footnotes omitted, and all emphases mine)
    It is so much more important to be in Communion with the bishop than is the form of the mass you celebrate, so long as the mass is legitimate.
 
My church has the traditional mass and is in union with the bishop. I brought up the same issue to my parish priest. He said that the old mass is legitimate, but he often has to remind his parishoners that they should not see the traditional mass as the salvation of the church. Orders that have the traditional mass have a special charism like any other order. They are not to see themselves as superior in any way to other orders and they are not to see the traditional mass as superior to any other liturgy.

This conversation reasured me a great deal. There are a lot of people in my church who make the kind of comments you mention, but at least it is not comming from the pulpit. I decided to continue attending my parish because I know I can be a balancing influence to people with more extreem views. Like you say, they are wonderful people with a lot to offer, and the latin mass is beautiful and reverent.

When I am confronted with some negative comments, I usually let them go by, and try to turn the conversation to something good that the Pope said, or a good, reverent, and holy exprience I had in a NO mass. That way I am not arguing with them.

Ut
 
thechrismyster said:
i’d get a new set of friends.

people don’t change. they never will. they’ll always be as they are now.
Click to expand...
Come on man, don’t be so defeatist! It is good that he’s trying, and he should keep trying, so long as it doesn’t bother him too much.
 
Atreyu said:
Come on man, don’t be so defeatist! It is good that he’s trying, and he should keep trying, so long as it doesn’t bother him too much.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Though I did take that “get a new set of friends” a different way. I thought that I should just let it be, it is not worth the hastle and any new set of friends would have some other hangups.

By the way do I sound like a guy? 😉
 
Let me get this straight. It’s okay for some in the Church to declare that they’d never attend the Old Roman Rite, but it’s not okay for others to declare they’d never attend the novus ordo?

Hmmmm…there’s a thread of logic in there I’m failing to grasp. But I’m a traddy, so what do I know?

And, by the way, I’d never attend the novus ordo. Unless I had to. Like due to family obligations. I dread Christmas. 😦
 
marcsababa said:
Thanks. Though I did take that “get a new set of friends” a different way. I thought that I should just let it be, it is not worth the hastle and any new set of friends would have some other hangups.

By the way do I sound like a guy? 😉
Click to expand...
My bad!
 
Dr.Bombay said:
And, by the way, I’d never attend the novus ordo. Unless I had to. Like due to family obligations. I dread Christmas. 😦
Click to expand...
So long as you respect the decisions of the bishops to control the order of the mass, and so long as you go to TLM’s under indult, then I see no problem with this. I find it a little strange that you “dread” the one time of year you have to put up with (as it were) the newer missal (I don’t like to call it the “novus ordo”). Why would you dread coming into the presence of our Lord? Mass is about worship, it is not a spectacle.
 
Good stuff Atreyu!!!

Dr. Bombay!!! I get your point about preference for a type of mass, but you, along with my friends, exhibit this tendency of downplaying the reality of the true presence of Christ at all masses, as Atreyu kindly pointed out.

That is what bugs me!!! I just never was able to pin point the source of my ire.

As fellow strugglers, let us not take insult but proceed with examining this question in all charity.

I also have “dreaded” a certain family mass obligation that take the form of the Life Teen mass (the priest acts like a taljk show host.:o ). I tried so hard each time to focus on Christ and to keep my thoughts pure that I actually had a mass “experience” that was as uplifting as the glories of the Tridentine rite.
 
marcsababa said:
Steve Green,

Are you RC? Is that Fr. Maciel?
Click to expand...
That’s Archbishop Lefebreve.

I honestly think, in my heart of hearts, that “traditionalists” are only doing what I would do in their shoes: defend the Mass they love. I simply wish they could do it without disparaging the Mass of Paul VI.

I advise praying for them, and asking them to pray for you. But continue to defend the Mass.
 
I love to be in the presence of the Lord. What I dread about the N.O. service is that the Lord has to be subjected to it. And yes, I know the N.O. can be done reverently. I just wish it was done more so and in at least so many places that you had to take your shoes off the count them all.

As far as down playing the real presence of Christ, that is what the N.O. does. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The watered down prayers, lack of reverent gestures, communion in hand… etc… all lead to a watered down faith.
 
TradyDaddy said:
I love to be in the presence of the Lord. What I dread about the N.O. service is that the Lord has to be subjected to it. And yes, I know the N.O. can be done reverently. I just wish it was done more so and in at least so many places that you had to take your shoes off the count them all.

As far as down playing the real presence of Christ, that is what the N.O. does. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The watered down prayers, lack of reverent gestures, communion in hand… etc… all lead to a watered down faith.
Click to expand...
I agree, the NO is choppy and lacks sacred mystery.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
That’s Archbishop Lefebreve.

I honestly think, in my heart of hearts, that “traditionalists” are only doing what I would do in their shoes: defend the Mass they love. I simply wish they could do it without disparaging the Mass of Paul VI.

I advise praying for them, and asking them to pray for you. But continue to defend the Mass.
Click to expand...
One way of looking at the Latin Mass Society is as the steam engine preservation society.
Steam locomotives are smelly, polluting, and expensive. That’s why not a single major railway system in the world uses them for serious passenger services.
However it is pity to see the things consigned to oblivion, so, for example, the Worth valley railway, a short stretch of track from Keighley to Haworth, uses steam. A ticket costs ten pounds (twenty dollars) and the staff work voluntarily. However it is a nice attraction.

However most Latin Mass Society members would say that the movement goes beyond steam preservation, and is trying to resist a modern trend towards irreverence. That’s where things get difficult. By attending a Latin Mass, you necessarily disparage the new mass.

However I think this is legitimate, as long as Latin Mass people don’t overstate their case. Vernacular Mass is obviously a valid Mass. The vast majority of Vernacular Masses are offered without any liturigcal abuses, or with only the most trivial of violations.

There are obvious dangers in seeing the Tridentine Mass as a superior or “real” Mass. But there are also dangers in a superstitious attitude to infallibility and Vatican II.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top