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.
One of the best ways to respond to Traditionalists is to understand their concerns. Probably the best talk I have heard about the Tridentine Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo was given by the late Dr. William Marra who was a devout Catholic and taught at Fordham University. He affirmed the validity of the Novus Ordo and actually did attend quite a number of them. However, he is very clear about the objections most Traditionalists have about the Novus Ordo. You can download the talk called “The Pope, The Council And The Mass” here:

http://www.keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=479

It only costs $1.00 to download. I can’t recommend it enough. At least it can help people understand Traditionalists’ concerns when talking with them.
 
The excommunications of 1988 apply BY NAME only to Lefebvre, his co-consecrator, and the four bishops they consecrated.

The Church has never defined what “formal adherence to the schism” means, and - because we do not know the intentions of men’s hearts - while we can be “all but certain” about an SSPX priest, for instance, we are NOT certain they are excommunicated.

In any case, it’s an internal problem of the Catholic Church. And it’s a complicated problem.

As for jumping jacks at the Consecration…the point is exposing the erroneous notion that we owe total obedience to prelates except in matters of sin.

Where, oh where, is the sensus fidelium that is such a great hallmark of Catholicism? When did some begin to turn Catholicism into a game of checking what a document said to determine every possible eventuality of our religious life?
 
As for jumping jacks at the Consecration…the point is exposing the erroneous notion that we owe total obedience to prelates except in matters of sin.

Where, oh where, is the sensus fidelium that is such a great hallmark of Catholicism? When did some begin to turn Catholicism into a game of checking what a document said to determine every possible eventuality of our religious life?
But as I asked you (at the close of another thread), what are we supposed to do? Certainly, we should protest against abuses. But against the Mass itself? Become educated on the issues so that we arrive at the same conclusions? We’d have to buy into a lot of conspiracy theories we’re just not able to believe. To denounce the Novus Ordo would be to go against our consciences. I’m certain I’ll be told that my conscience isn’t properly formed anyway, since I converted post VII, but that begs the question about the traditionalist groups, who’ve splintered up, the sedevacanteists vs. SSPX, Pope Pius XIII vs. Pope Michael out in Kansas. I’m sure if you ask them, they’re only undertaking the dictates of their consciences. And all of them, to one degree or another, have removed themselves from communion with the Apostolic See. So when the popes and their lawfully appointed bishops, our shepherds, say,“This is the Mass,” what do you reckon we should do, esp. those of us who rather like it that the bulk of the Mass is in the vernacular, who think the responses should be made by the congregation itself, rather than by some little fourth grade altar boy, and who are attached to the idea of a “noble simplicity”?

As for sensum fidelium, I think it’s to be found IN the Church, in communion with the successor of Saint Peter.
 
Well today the whole game has become more complicated…and interesting.

The Cardinal Archbishop of Bordeaux has thrown down the gauntlet in his opening address to the French Episcopate at Lourdes.

France, eldest daughter of the Church, where the Novus Ordo Mass attendance rate is among the lowest in the West (better than Holland, I’ll admit, where the Church is in serious collapse)…France, where the traditionalists could compete numbers-wise quite easily with the non-traditionalists…
 
They’re just ignoring the Excommunication Decree.
Challenge?!?!!

Hey, we are all one Body, this is more than just cyber space virtual stuff we ARE UNITED.

SO, (because I can’t do this live with my physical friends as it is too intense face to face) Dr. BOMBAY, DROPPER, and others.

PLEASE take up the challenge and refute what Kirk, Bear06 and I and others have been quoting, Please explain how you are not ignoring the decree.
 
Well today the whole game has become more complicated…and interesting.

The Cardinal Archbishop of Bordeaux has thrown down the gauntlet in his opening address to the French Episcopate at Lourdes.

France, eldest daughter of the Church, where the Novus Ordo Mass attendance rate is among the lowest in the West (better than Holland, I’ll admit, where the Church is in serious collapse)…France, where the traditionalists could compete numbers-wise quite easily with the non-traditionalists…
And what lesson shall they learn from Archbishop Lefebreve and his bishops and priests? If you go into schism, you’ll eventually get your way? Not the way to treat the Body of Christ or His Vicar. But I suppose that’s blind, knee-jerk sheepish obedience…baaaaaaaa!
 
The excommunications of 1988 apply BY NAME only to Lefebvre, his co-consecrator, and the four bishops they consecrated.
The Church has never defined what “formal adherence to the schism” means, and - because we do not know the intentions of men’s hearts - while we can be “all but certain” about an SSPX priest, for instance, we are NOT certain they are excommunicated.
Again, Alex, according to the exommunication decree, we really have no certainty on the excommunications of the priests although we can assume. In the decree which has been quoted several times, one only has to support the SSPX to incur ipso facto excommunication. No where did I say that we are certain. I only said that it’s pretty darn hard to be an SSPX and not have incurred the ipso facto excommunication.
 
“Assume” when the topic is as grave as excommunication?

Sorry, count me out.

We don’t “assume” anything when it comes to excommunication.

Time and again people on these fora have warned us that we can’t “assume” plenty of things…the same holds true for the grave issue of excommunication.

I could assume the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles is excommunicated for a long list of things…but that would be grossly inappropriate.

I assume no one is excommunicated…this is too serious a charge to go beyond names the Church releases publicly, and offenses the Church CLEARLY DEFINES.

As for being disobedient to get your way in the end…gee, Communion in the hand after Vatican II? Altar girls?
 
Boy, the majority of threads on the liturgy pages seem to come down to the Tridentinists vs. the Pauline Mass argument.

Here are my thoughts, for what it’s worth:
  1. If the pope has the right to determine the liturgy, the Missal of 1970, or 2000, of whatever is current, MUST be obeyed.
  2. There are 1962 Masses because Pope John Paul the Great allowed them as a pastoral judgment, and his successor has allowed them to continue. But they’re not the norm. A person who doesn’t grow up in the SSPX, or who wasn’t alive before the Council, would, I think, have little reason to identify with this form of worship.
  3. I really can’t see how anyone would attend the 1962 Mass without feeling some problems with the Pauline Rite. And that’s the source of the problem here.
In my experience, the people who want the 1962 Mass the loudest have missed the point of liturgy. They are interested in aesthetics, whether Latin, or music, or art, or plain old antiquarianism.

The Pauline Mass IS traditional. It’s also the law. I’ll follow the pope before I follow an excommunicated Swiss bishop anyday. And the pope uses the 2000 Missal, because it’s 2006, not 1962.
 
Boy, the majority of threads on the liturgy pages seem to come down to the Tridentinists vs. the Pauline Mass argument.

Here are my thoughts, for what it’s worth:
  1. If the pope has the right to determine the liturgy, the Missal of 1970, or 2000, of whatever is current, MUST be obeyed.
  2. There are 1962 Masses because Pope John Paul the Great allowed them as a pastoral judgment, and his successor has allowed them to continue. But they’re not the norm. A person who doesn’t grow up in the SSPX, or who wasn’t alive before the Council, would, I think, have little reason to identify with this form of worship.
  3. I really can’t see how anyone would attend the 1962 Mass without feeling some problems with the Pauline Rite. And that’s the source of the problem here.
In my experience, the people who want the 1962 Mass the loudest have missed the point of liturgy. They are interested in aesthetics, whether Latin, or music, or art, or plain old antiquarianism.

The Pauline Mass IS traditional. It’s also the law. I’ll follow the pope before I follow an excommunicated Swiss bishop anyday. And the pope uses the 2000 Missal, because it’s 2006, not 1962.
Ooops. 5…4…3…2…1…
 
The excommunications of 1988 apply BY NAME only to Lefebvre, his co-consecrator, and the four bishops they consecrated.

The Church has never defined what “formal adherence to the schism” means, and - because we do not know the intentions of men’s hearts - while we can be “all but certain” about an SSPX priest, for instance, we are NOT certain they are excommunicated.

In any case, it’s an internal problem of the Catholic Church. And it’s a complicated problem.

As for jumping jacks at the Consecration…the point is exposing the erroneous notion that we owe total obedience to prelates except in matters of sin.

Where, oh where, is the sensus fidelium that is such a great hallmark of Catholicism? When did some begin to turn Catholicism into a game of checking what a document said to determine every possible eventuality of our religious life?
Thank you this at least gives me something to try and understand.

There are two points in Alex’s comment that I want to respond to:
  1. If the Pope said we must absolutely do jumping jacks at mass I would, unless someone could explain to me how doing a jumping jack is a sin. Perhaps it could be a reverent jumping jack!!! But if there was a mass in the church that I could go to with the pope’s blessing and not have to do jumping jacks I would.
I would do it under obdience: I think much of the staying power of the Church, on a natural level, comes from the OBEDIENCE its members have in general. A battle ship would never make it through a battle if most people on it were not obedient. The disobedient on this ship HAVE to be shut away because their actions can endanger everyone’s lives. I think one reason why the other Christian churches fall apart is that they do not have obedience (not to mention the Holy Spirit).
  1. In reference to what we cannot know about the hearts of men: I did not realize that being in schism was such an interior matter of what is in a man’s heart. I thought that if the SSPX’s founder is declared in schism then all his adherants are as well. WHy is this such a complex issue? The truth should always be simple. No matter when I question anybody on this matter, almost without fail these words are spoken: It is comlicated. I do not believe anything of God is COMPLICATED.
 
True colors are always eventually shown.

Would someone do jumping jacks at the Consecration if ordered? Yes. Oh, reverently, to be sure. But yes.

This is unmitigated nonsense. This is not the Catholic understanding of obedience.

Paul resisted Peter to the face. An important lesson.

As for schism, it is simple. We don’t know for sure if a priest of the SSPX is excommunicated or not. Similarly, we can’t say if a given soul is in hell or not. God reads the intentions of hearts. Not men.

I will add something. Deus providebit. God works things out for his own ends.

If it had not been for Marcel Lefebvre, would there be a flourishing Tridentine Indult today? Perhaps.

If it had not been for Marcel Lefebvre (who was the most significant figure in the development of the Church in French Africa in the 20th century), would there be any traditionalist issue today in the Church? Perhaps.

When Cardinal Silvio Oddi visited Econe, Switzerland, he prayed at the grave of Lefebvre. He rose from his prayers and said “Merci, Monseigneur.”
 
In my experience, the people who want the 1962 Mass the loudest have missed the point of liturgy. They are interested in aesthetics, whether Latin, or music, or art, or plain old antiquarianism.
.
Yes, aesthetics is a big reason for going to the TLM. Our appreciation of all things beautiful and our ability to create beauty is part of what makes us like unto God.

However, as the sole reason for attending any mass should not be anything other than seeking Christ. I know of a man who loved beauty too much and fell away from the church taking some of his parishioners with him. This is not Levebre but another priest today. I hope he is being brought back into the fold. He is a great man whose sermons bring the supernatural to our plane.
 
Paul resisted Peter to the face. An important lesson.

But YOU are no Paul nor am I. We are the sheep of His Pasture (baaaaa), NOT the shepherd nor among the shepherds. Unless you are claiming some prophetic mandate from God (which you better be able to prove), I would submit that this merely continues to be what I said in a previous post: a persistent nagging at the Church.

I will add something. Deus providebit. God works things out for his own ends. **Amen. And until we see that final result, we ought to trust in God and obey those whom He has set over us, esp. in this. You haven’t answered my question: what are we supposed to do, chant “not valid” at the consecration? Kick an EMHC? **
You mentioned sensum fidelium. Do you genuinely believe that the Holy Father, casting his mind over the whole Church and listening to the whole Church, is going to get rid of the Mass of Paul VI? Restore the Tridentine as the sole Mass of the Latin Rite? Set his preference against that of most of the bishops? Personally, I doubt it.
 
Peter was the shepherd, and Paul was one of his sheep. Baa indeed.

As for trust, I’ll trust in the liturgy of the centuries. I’ll leave you to figure out how to make sense out of your chaotic liturgy.

As for the bishops, I’ll also leave them to sort out their own problems. In the case of some American ones, that means fiscal disaster and the abuse scandal they largely allowed to fester and erupt in their territories. They have bigger fish to fry than worrying about the liturgy. In the case of some French ones, they should be wondering why their churches are empty.
 
I agree that excommunication is a VERY serious thing. Wouldn’t it be better to assume you will be excommunicated, stop supporting SSPX and be wrong than to assume you’re not excommunicated for supporting SSPX, keep doing it and be wrong? I think that option A is the choice the FSSP made.

The excommunication decree makes it very hard to say they are not excommunicated. At this point, I think they probably are, hope they are not and pray for their return. By the way, I’m not making a charge, I am making an assumption. The Church would make the charge. I can only make a guess and I think my guess, in most cases of these priests, is correct.
 
Remind me someone what is the score in the liturgy/SSPX/TvsN wars? I’m losing count.

P.S. In the likely event that the Pope issues a Motu Proprio commanding an addition to GIRM number 150 and an insertion into IV, IV regarding jumping jacks to be performed, the defenders may wish to resort to Malachi 4:2 and Acts 3:8 to defend the practise. 😉
 
Peter was the shepherd, and Paul was one of his sheep. Baa indeed.

As for trust, I’ll trust in the liturgy of the centuries. I’ll leave you to figure out how to make sense out of your chaotic liturgy.

As for the bishops, I’ll also leave them to sort out their own problems. In the case of some American ones, that means fiscal disaster and the abuse scandal they largely allowed to fester and erupt in their territories. They have bigger fish to fry than worrying about the liturgy. In the case of some French ones, they should be wondering why their churches are empty.
Paul was an Apostle, in the College of Bishops. What would Paul have done if Peter had rendered a different judgement? Hived off and formed his own church?

“MY” liturgy doesn’t vary from Sunday to Sunday any more than “YOURS” does. Most literate people have no trouble keeping up with it, so your label of chaotic is merely (and typically) histrionic. You’ve essentially accused the abuse of being the norm, which anyone with a degree of maturity and experience knows is patently false. Cardinal Mahoney’s antics do not constitute an indictment of an entire rite, but that’s not what you would have us to believe.

Finally: that’s just it: you don’t leave it to the bishops. You keep poking at it and poking at it, implicitly urging disobedience and doubt in the faithful. You just won’t do it explicity by answering my question: What would you have us to do?
 
Archbishop Lefebvre was also a member of the College of Bishops.

The Anglican “archbishop” of Canterbury wasn’t, though he received episcopal treatment from Paul VI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top