Is the TLM the Mass of Vatican II?

[BobP123]

I would say that the Mass of Vatican II was the 1965 Missal (here- coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/). This followed the letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and allowed for the vernacular in parts and removed the Last Gospel.

I still can’t see how removing much of Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel complies with the Vatican II documents.

 

[palmas85]

I still can’t see how removing much of Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel complies with the Vatican II documents.

I can’t see how the Pauline Rite does either for that matter.

 

[Titus]

I still can’t see how removing much of Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel complies with the Vatican II documents.

There is an interesting riposte here: traditionalromanmass.blogspot.com/
You need to scroll down to the entry for September 30 2005. That sums up my position, too.

 

[BobP123]

There is an interesting riposte here: traditionalromanmass.blogspot.com/
You need to scroll down to the entry for September 30 2005. That sums up my position, too.

And Psalm 42, the Last Gospel and the Solemn Mass tradition of the subdeacon holding the paten were removed as being of little advantage (SC, 50).

I know there were other reasons given for removal of these prayers but one can poke holes at any part of the Mass (other than the consecration) and say it’s of little advantage or whatever. Before you know it, you’ve removed everything.

Why take out scripture if you’re going to turn around and say there’s not enough of it, as some proponents of the Pauline Mass have stated as they point to the added readings, which is not a bad thing.

If anything, the 1965 Missal should have ADDED prayers and/or gestures, not used reasons to strip them off the 1962 Missal one by one. Yes, singing the Introit sometime confuses the servers reciting Psalm 42, but then maybe the choir could wait also. And if the Last Gospel shouldn’t follow the “final” blessing, then maybe the Last Gospel can precede it. I find the arguments in that article very flimsy at best.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I know there were other reasons given for removal of these prayers but one can poke holes at any part of the Mass (other than the consecration) and say it’s of little advantage or whatever. Before you know it, you’ve removed everything.

My point was going to be along similar lines, that when you issue a document whose wording leaves the implementation entirely up to the subjective opinions of those delegated to carry it out, you’ve really only basically said “we’re going to put someone in charge of changing things however he/they decide.”

A hardcore traditionalist could implement only those things explicitly demanded by the council and then say “all the rest of the Mass is there to great advantage and the good of the Church demands no further change.” A hardcore progressivist could say “basically this whole rite is to no advantage and the good of the Church requires changing everything.” I certainly don’t think the latter was the will of the council, but I also think the council was open to more than the former, too. The world will simply never know.

 

[threebells17]

TLM is the Mass of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Church. It is that simple.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please remember that all rites of the Church are legitimate, so we are not going to compare one rite against another in this thread or in this forum.

 

[BobP123]

The world will simply never know.

You’re entirely correct. But what we do know is that Pope John XXIII ADDED words to the Mass. In that spirit you would think that the Council, which he convened, would have also added to or preserved most, if not all, the Mass. At least it appears that way in the documents.

 

[jmcrae]

TLM is the Mass of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Church. It is that simple.

So are all the other approved Masses.

 

[Titus]

TLM is the Mass of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Church. It is that simple.

No it really isn’t. Is the NO? Is the Mass of 1965? [Edited by Moderator] Is an SSPX Mass?

 

[kleary]

What do you think, is the TLM in full accord with Vatican II?

At Mater Ecclesiae, where I usually attend Mass, it most certainly seems to be so.

In FACT, I cannot see what in the world was needed with any changes after 1962. My attendance at the TLM for several years has proved that to me. My three year old son responding in Latin to the parts pertaining to the people has proved that to me also. He knows the Latin parts of the responses at Mass by heart almost- from hearing them over and over again- not just at Mass on Sunday but from daily Mass on EWTN.

Ken

 

[scylla]

It is definitely the Mass of Vatican II as it is the Mass that Vatican II talked about.
The NO hadn’t been invented yet.

Now I have never been to a TLM Mass and I believe the NO is valid, yet I have never seen a NO Mass done reverently except on TV. (EWTN)

I heard a recording which compares it this way…
The NO can be done nice and would be nice if done correctly much like communism is nice if done correctly.

Just because it is valid doesn’t mean that it is well designed, I am sure many non-catholic converts love it. There is nothing offensive about the NO it is not “too Catholic” for converts so it is easy.
From what I have read of the TLM it is really Catholic in it’s design and I can see where it can make non-catholics with prejudices uncomfortable. Just like statues of Mary make non-catholics uncomfortable sometimes.

The TLM is the Mass of Vatican II, yet we have the NO and it is valid, and we must live with the decisions the Bishops make. No matter if the decisions are foolish, we must focus on our own salvation. No one said that all Bishops are infallible, some are incredibly evil in their actions. Yet this is still the Catholic Church and we must stand up for what is right, charitably.

In Christ,
Scylla