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

[Malcolm_McLean]

…hmmmm, I think it is the other way about, Archbishop Levebre stayed within the boundaries of the Church as established by our Lord Jesus Christ and all not the other way about… so he disobeyed in ordaining 4 bishops OUT OF FEAR for what was and is still happening in the Church not out of some holier than thou attitude…what he most wanted to do was to live a quiet and contemplative retirement , God rest his noble soul!..OH yeah I attend an SPPX chapel, and pray for His Holiness Pope Benedict xvi daily.

In which case he would have offered Mass in Hebrew.

Trent tightened up liturgy in response to the needs of the the time, which was to respond to the Reformation. Reformers were invited to Trent to try to resolve the differences, but didn’t feel able to attend. At Vatican II the invitation was repeated, and this time many reformed Christians accepted. That meant that there was a wholly different situation. In any negotiation, you sometimes have to make concessions that you would rather not, but are not essential to your position.

I agree that Lefevre sincerely believed that he was taking a necessary action to preserve the church. However the church had to respond to secularisation somehow. It is by no means obvious that, had the second Vatican Council never taken place, we would be in a stronger position today.

 

[AJV]

From today’s Zenit mailing:

Q: “Quo Primum” is a papal bull decreed by Pope St. Pius V on July 14, 1570, which set in stone for all time the exactness of the holy sacrifice of the Mass to be said in the mother tongue of the Church. To quote his instruction: “*t shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; …” Another: “… which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.” Another: “In the case of those resident in other parts of the world it shall be excommunication ‘latae sententiae’ and all other penalties at Our discretion …” Finally: “Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” In the light of the foregoing: 1) Can an ancient papal bull be amended, changed, modified, abrogated, etc., by future popes? If yes, then what are the conditions? 2) Is the Mass of Pope Paul VI licit and valid? – A.D., Carindale, Australia

A: A papal bull . . . is a solemn instrument that popes use for various questions such as doctrinal decisions, canonizations, disciplinary questions, jubilees and the like. Only occasionally have they been used for the liturgy.

A bull’s influence on later popes depends on the nature of its content and not the legal force of the document as such.
The Quo Primum argument is never a good one when defending the TLM. I’m suprised the good Father did not bring up Quod a nobis when addressing the issue. It contains the same prescriptions “in perpetuity” for the reciting of the breviary especially “the formula of praying the psalms”, and presciptions against changing in either in whole or in part, also under the pain of the indignation of Almighty God and Ss. Peter and Paul a . Evidently, St. Pius X was not bound by this when he forbade the St. Pius V breviary.

 

[mercygate]

The Quo Primum argument is never a good one when defending the TLM. I’m suprised the good Father did not bring up Quod a nobis when addressing the issue. It contains the same prescriptions “in perpetuity” for the reciting of the breviary especially “the formula of praying the psalms”, and presciptions against changing in either in whole or in part, also under the pain of the indignation of Almighty God and Ss. Peter and Paul a . Evidently, St. Pius X was not bound by this when he forbade the St. Pius V breviary.

Right. That was exactly the point of the Zenit article. The article carefully delineates the extent to which those apparently “perpetual” clauses apply, noting that Pius the V would have excommunicated himself because he made changes that contradicted the “in perpetuity” clauses of Quo Primum…

 

[Anima_Christi]

However, when she left she exclaimed that she had never been to a Mass where everybody knew why they were there and even remarked that maybe her grandmother would give her and old mantilla to wear next time. That sentiment by her I think really sums it up for me. When I go to the Pauline Mass I often feel as many around me don’t really believe that Christ is present otherwise they wouldn’t behave as they do.
quote]
Can we put two and two together?
And why do so many claim we can never go back to the Tridentine but that we need some sort of hybrid between the New Order and the Traditional Mass? Why can’t we just go back where we left off in 1962 and let it develop organically from there, and drop the Novus Ordo?

 

[marcsababa]

INever once was it even implied by the OP that his “lovely traditionalist friends” were questioning the validity of the no. It was stated that a preference of rite can lead to sin.

Holy smokes, Mr. Logic!!!

I am a bit rusty and only took the first course anyways. I am sorry I did not back my conclusion of: “It leads to sin” with the proper premises. The reason I said it “leads to sin” is for one because my brother refuses to attend mass unless it is traditional which means that if his car breaks down he does not attend mass on a Sunday when he could walk to a valid NO mass. As you say the what if game is illogical.

Also, the loevly traditionalist friends like to make little negative commets about the pope. I had risen to the defense of what I felt was a disrespectful attitude towards the Holy Father and was told that he is only to be respected and listened to in matters of faith and morals. That to me means, that unless he is ex cathedra (SP?) we can speak of him in a derogatory superior fashion.

I am sorry but that really pisses me off to have a person (not you Dr. B,) who has always had everything in terms of freedom, love and material needs and is not nearly as holy and sacrificing as JP II speak of him with an arrogant superior attitude. That man’s faith was grown in much more suffering than we in this overly indulged generation of ignorant softies can properly imagine.

On that note (the one about sofies) in my mind, I often hear: We need a good war so wipe out this softness. We will not always have this luxurious situation where all of our physical needs are met all the time. We need to make great efforts to withhold things from ourselves so we can have a sense of doing without.

I pray I will be ready and have the graces I need to see my children and loved ones suffer.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

There is no TLM where they live and they don’t go if they can’t drive 2ish hours to the nearest one.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Right. That was exactly the point of the Zenit article. The article carefully delineates the extent to which those apparently “perpetual” clauses apply, noting that Pius the V would have excommunicated himself because he made changes that contradicted the “in perpetuity” clauses of Quo Primum…

Nobody has mentioned Quo Primum. Why is this even being brought up?

 

[bear06]

bear06;1621775:

Nice try. Those quotes don’t say what you claim they say. Why am I not surprised?

It appears my interpretation (of which I didn’t think was necessary) was correct.

 

[bear06]

On that note (the one about sofies) in my mind, I often hear: We need a good war so wipe out this softness. We will not always have this luxurious situation where all of our physical needs are met all the time. We need to make great efforts to withhold things from ourselves so we can have a sense of doing without.

This is an interesting thought and reminds me of when I spent a few months in jail with no Mass at all. I would have been happy to worship God at the most liberal of parishes at that point.

 

[Atreyu]

Wow. I guess you won’t like it when I and a couple of buddies of mine go to the local SSPX chapel sometime. I hope it doesn’t keep you awake at night. See, I can be caring and sharing too.

In the name of Ecumenism, I don’t find anything wrong with that. The sarcasm doesn’t help though.

And why would you not like to call it the novus ordo? That’s what the Church called it.

Can you prove this to me? I don’t believe the Church ever did call it the Novus Ordo, as in a proper noun. But if you can show me that she did, I am quite willing to concede the point.

I dread it for the same reason so many on this forum would dread going to a TLM. If it’s ok for them, it’s ok for me. I know some people get irritated when I apply the same standard to both Masses. But I’m cursed with an impeccably logical mind.

I find this paragraph quite haughty. I have no qualms with someone having a preference for the TLM or for the so-called Pauline mass. However, if someone were to dread attending an indult TLM mass, I would find this as disturbing as your own statement that you dread attending a Pauline mass. A preference is fine, even a strong preference. But dreading a mass - any mass - is worrisome, for me. Worrisome, but not necessarily something to lose sleep over.

What I do lose sleep over (metaphorically) is those people who don’t show what I consider to be enough fidelity to their God-ordained bishops. As Ignatius of Antioch said (it’s worth repeating):
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.
I consider those people (and I would use this as a definition of “radical” traditionalists) who deny the validity of the Pauline mass, out of a preference for the TLM, to be not showing enough fidelity to their bishops, nor to the Pope. Why would I lose sleep over it? Because like I said before, these people should know better. They are not ignorant “radical” liberals (here I’m using the word “ignorant” in its original sense, not as a derogatory label).

When you can see a problem in the Church and you want to help correct it, you have two options:

• Option 1 = Martin Luther: Leave the Church and form your own.
• Option 2 = Catherine of Siena: Appeal to the hierarchy (in her case, the Pope) in fidelity.

Which road did Archbishop Lefebvre take? Unfortunately, in disobeying an explicit instruction from the Pope, he took the first road. I pray that the traditionalists among us do not follow suit.

 

[AlexV]

Archbishop Lefebvre did NOT form a separate church. The curial office for Ecumenism has said the SSPX issue is an internal problem of the church, not an issue of “another” church.

As for the title “Novus Ordo Missae”, contrary to some claims, this name was NOT a “traditionalist” insult. It was the title given by Annibale Bugnini to his creation and stamped in gold letters on the cover of the first edition of the nice red hardcover copy of the Ordinary of the new Missal.

 

[marcsababa]

…hmmmm, I think it is the other way about, Archbishop Levebre stayed within the boundaries of the Church as established by our Lord Jesus Christ and all not the other way about… so he disobeyed in ordaining 4 bishops OUT OF FEAR for what was and is still happening in the Church.

No matter what the reason disobedience is disobedience.

If Levebre stayed with the church and everyine else who is not with him is outside the Church then that leaves our Pope’s seat vacant? Or is Bishop Levebre the Pope? Isn’t he dead?

I have heard this many times: Oh poor Levebre acted out of necessity, he acted out of fear, he acted out of love.

I stick with the Church because the “gates of hell will not prevail”. I canot save myself, I cannot administer myself the sacraments so I stick to Peter and his church.

By the way Bear06 you can’t have mass in prison? What country?

 

[Atreyu]

Archbishop Lefebvre did NOT form a separate church. The curial office for Ecumenism has said the SSPX issue is an internal problem of the church, not an issue of “another” church.

As for the title “Novus Ordo Missae”, contrary to some claims, this name was NOT a “traditionalist” insult. It was the title given by Annibale Bugnini to his creation and stamped in gold letters on the cover of the first edition of the nice red hardcover copy of the Ordinary of the new Missal.

By ordaining four bishops in direct violation of an explicit instruction from the Pope, Archbishop Lefebvre became excommunicated ipso facto. Whether or not this constitutes “another Church” per se has no relevance to the comments in my previous post. The point of my post was to say that you can act with fidelity, or you can reject the authority of the bishops. Please let’s not turn this into an SSPX thread; there are plenty of those already.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

In the name of Ecumenism, I don’t find anything wrong with that. The sarcasm doesn’t help though.

So I’ve been told. Repeatedly.

Can you prove this to me? I don’t believe the Church ever did call it the Novus Ordo, as in a proper noun. But if you can show me that she did, I am quite willing to concede the point.

Alex just did. Gold letters and everything.

I find this paragraph quite haughty. I have no qualms with someone having a preference for the TLM or for the so-called Pauline mass. However, if someone were to dread attending an indult TLM mass, I would find this as disturbing as your own statement that you dread attending a Pauline mass. A preference is fine, even a strong preference. But dreading a mass - any mass - is worrisome, for me. Worrisome, but not necessarily something to lose sleep over.

Now we aren’t allowed to have any feelings? I do dread a novus ordo which I know will feature numerous abuses, along with such “approved” irritants as girl altar boys and laymen reading and distributing Communion. Sorry you’re disturbed.

What I do lose sleep over (metaphorically) is those people who don’t show what I consider to be enough fidelity to their God-ordained bishops. As Ignatius of Antioch said (it’s worth repeating):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.

I have no problem showing fidelity to a God-ordained bishop. I just wish some God-ordained bishops would show some fidelity to the Holy Father and the teachings of the Church.

I consider those people (and I would use this as a definition of “radical” traditionalists) who deny the validity of the Pauline mass, out of a preference for the TLM, to be not showing enough fidelity to their bishops, nor to the Pope. Why would I lose sleep over it? Because like I said before, these people should know better. They are not ignorant “radical” liberals (here I’m using the word “ignorant” in its original sense, not as a derogatory label).

Again, no one is denying the validity of the novus ordo. Why does this red herring continue to be raised? I know why, actually. It’s a tactic some people use to dismiss Traditionalists out of hand. If they deny the validity of a Mass, the rest of their arguments don’t have to be dealt with. Very few Traditionalists deny the validity of the novus ordo. Just as very few Traditionalists believe that Quo Primum is perpetually binding on every Pope or that the See of Peter is vacant. Amazing that these issues are what people focus on, however, as if they are representative of all 120 million Traditionalists in the world.

When you can see a problem in the Church and you want to help correct it, you have two options:

• Option 1 = Martin Luther: Leave the Church and form your own.
• Option 2 = Catherine of Siena: Appeal to the hierarchy (in her case, the Pope) in fidelity.
  Which road did Archbishop Lefebvre take? Unfortunately, in disobeying an explicit instruction from the Pope, he took the first road. I pray that the traditionalists among us do not follow suit.

Yes, let’s not turn this into another SSPX thread. The Church will deal with this internal matter in her own time.

 

[Atreyu]

Again, no one is denying the validity of the novus ordo. Why does this red herring continue to be raised? I know why, actually. It’s a tactic some people use to dismiss Traditionalists out of hand. If they deny the validity of a Mass, the rest of their arguments don’t have to be dealt with. Very few Traditionalists deny the validity of the novus ordo. Just as very few Traditionalists believe that Quo Primum is perpetually binding on every Pope or that the See of Peter is vacant. Amazing that these issues are what people focus on, however, as if they are representative of all 120 million Traditionalists in the world.

I used this as a definition of a radical traditionalist. These are the people that I “lose sleep” over. I have no problem with traditionalists - none at all! In fact, I would probably count myself as a traditionalist.

I’m really not too sure why you continue to use sarcasm in your posts. It really doesn’t help.

 

[bear06]

No matter what the reason disobedience is disobedience.

If Levebre stayed with the church and everyine else who is not with him is outside the Church then that leaves our Pope’s seat vacant? Or is Bishop Levebre the Pope? Isn’t he dead?

I have heard this many times: Oh poor Levebre acted out of necessity, he acted out of fear, he acted out of love.

I stick with the Church because the “gates of hell will not prevail”. I canot save myself, I cannot administer myself the sacraments so I stick to Peter and his church.

By the way Bear06 you can’t have mass in prison? What country?

America. BTW, this was for Operation Rescue arrests (pro-life stuff).

They have Masses in some jails. I was in one for a week and they had one. I don’t really think it the prison system but the Church failing to provide. I was able to have Commuion when a priest was able to come but there simply was no set Mass program. If priests did not know I was there, I would have never seen one and because there was no set Catholic program in all but one of the jails I’ve been in, there was no Mass allowed. Catholics are rather poor in the jail ministry area from what I’ve seen. I’m sure their are some good areas. We basically did our own jail ministry but the sacraments would have been very helpful because we did run into some Catholics.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I used this as a definition of a radical traditionalist. These are the people that I “lose sleep” over. I have no problem with traditionalists - none at all! In fact, I would probably count myself as a traditionalist.

I’m really not too sure why you continue to use sarcasm in your posts. It really doesn’t help.

Then you are losing sleep over a very insignificant portion of the Church. If I were you, I’d lose a lot more sleep over the radical modernists who infest most chancerys in America and are in a position to inflict their radicalness on the rest of us. All that radical traditionalists can do is ankle bite and shake their fists. They aren’t being hired to fill important positions in the USCCB bureaucracy.

And there was nothing sarcastic in the portion you quoted.

 

[bear06]

Again, no one is denying the validity of the novus ordo.

Yes, the original poster’s friends. They were the topic of the thread.

If they deny the validity of a Mass, the rest of their arguments don’t have to be dealt with.

IT doesn’t seem the the OP actually had a problem with their other comments.

Very few Traditionalists deny the validity of the novus ordo.

Again - original thread topic.

Just as very few Traditionalists believe that Quo Primum is perpetually binding on every Pope or that the See of Peter is vacant. Amazing that these issues are what people focus on, however, as if they are representative of all 120 million Traditionalists in the world.

It would seem that these topics are brought up in response more often then an original post.

Yes, let’s not turn this into another SSPX thread. The Church will deal with this internal matter in her own time.

You could always skip the topics you don’t like.

 

[bear06]

Then you are losing sleep over a very insignificant portion of the Church. If I were you, I’d lose a lot more sleep over the radical modernists who infest most chancerys in America and are in a position to inflict their radicalness on the rest of us. All that radical traditionalists can do is ankle bite and shake their fists. They aren’t being hired to fill important positions in the USCCB bureaucracy.

And there was nothing sarcastic in the portion you quoted.

In the circles I travel in, I run into far less modernists and far more radical traditionalists. So, it’s a personal relationship I have with them and, therefore, worry over them more. I do have some raving liberal friends and I worry about them as much as my other friends.

This whole thread is about how to deal with friends not the Church at large. Dealing with friends is a little more touchy. I know how to deal with the others.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Yes, the original poster’s friends. They were the topic of the thread.

That was never said.

IT doesn’t seem the the OP actually had a problem with their other comments.

That’s my point. Do try to pay attention.

Again - original thread topic.

It would seem that these topics are brought up in response more often then an original post.

Again - that’s my point.

You could always skip the topics you don’t like.

EDIT