Latin Mass vs New Mass

[Chitchat]

The perception of divisiveness in others who observe a clear demarcation in terms of the characteristics of the mass is lamentable. The assessment that this question is a contentious one shows our lack of understanding as a Catholic community as to what is really happening in and to our mass.

A straightforward question deserves a straightforward answer. I prefer the Tridentine Mass. Let’s not kid ourselves, there are major differences. The mass of today is an innovation deserving the word “new”.

There are legitimate concerns as to where our mass is “heading” based on the notable differences in the quality of rubrics and prayers.

The mass of Pope Paul VI was good and, by far, a lot better than what we have now. But have you ever looked at how it’s changed since then? There is a terrible trend to cut our mass down to size and it’s getting worse. The new mass of Pope Paul VI HAS changed and is getting worse. Subtle, gradual omission of prayers like the Confiteor, under the pre-text of alternating the penitential rite with the Kyrie Eleison, using only Eucharistic Prayer II, the tabernacle put off on the side or in the back, the Leonine prayers omitted and so on. The new mass is horizontal-oriented and people-focused and oftentimes called a celebration. The Roman rite mass is vertical, God-focused and the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary.

If the new mass is just as good as the Roman Rite, then why are the sisters and fathers of EWTN making an effort to put Latin back in the mass? Why do they have a priest that occasionally faces the tabernacle with his back to the people? Why does Pope Benedict, prefer the Latin mass? Is he divisive? Why did Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci mourn the unnecessary changes in the mass when they wrote the Short Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass? Why did Pope John Paul II ask for widespread of use of Latin again?

The sense of the Mass as a sacrifice is virtually eliminated in the ICEL approach to translation. What is sacrificed, in these new texts, is beauty, tradition, sacral language, a sense of timelessness and transcendence-and too often even basic accuracy of translation. Ever notice how our missalettes print only positive readings such as God is good, he is our friend, brother, the Lord loves His people, everything is honky dory. It’s as if the controversial ICEL committee, or whoever does it, only picks the “positive” readings that will make you feel good and not think about hell too much. Even the priest of Mel Gibson’s film repented of being part of that committee. And yet our missalettes come from them!!?

When you go the Tridentine mass the readings are so much richer and broader. God’s justice is mentioned, sin, the devil etc…. In the new mass, the music is: we the people of God”, we, we we… In the Tridentine the music worships God who is Holy, Holy, Holy. In the missalettes the scriptures are changed. For example, in the old missals it’s: (Matthew 11:29) "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart; and you will find rest for your souls." In the new it’s: “…you will rest for yourselves.” In the old it’s: (Luke 9:55) But he turned and rebuked them, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are." In the new missalettes it’s: “Jesus rebuked them.” Why are they taking out any references to the words having to do with souls and spirit?

A person who occasionally attends a Tridentine mass or attends a mass with Latin in it will not understand the extreme differences in the mass unless they IMMERSE THEMSELVES in the Tridentine mass for at least 6 months. When they come back to the other mass, THEIR EYES WILL BE OPENED.

Unfortunately, the real reason why many Catholics don’t look into the Tridentine mass is because it’s name has become wrongly synonymous with schism, sedevacantism, self-righteous, divisive etc…But have we forgotten that the Roman Latin Mass is the mass of Padre Pio, St. Faustina, St. Margaret Mary, Cure of Ars, Sr. Lucia etc… Have we forgotten that it is our heritage? When something is of antiquity it is usually valued all the more. Why do so many Catholics want to sweep under the rug our past heritage of the mass? We rejoice in the oldies. Why is there no rejoicing of our past masses? Why the deafening silence about it? Why are we being encourage to wipe from our memories, the Latin mass? Why do we believe that mass of today is just as good as the one past. It is clearly not and anyone who says this is in denial, ignorance or perhaps outright conspiracy. Remember, Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices but only one was pleasing to God because Abel gave his very best. History repeats itself.

 

[mosher]

^^^ see what I mean JKirkLVNV

 

[TOME]

Chitchat, I ask you three questions, have you read Sacrosanctum
Concilium or the Preamble of General Instructions of the Roman Missal? If so, what about them do you find difficult in accepting their teachings. If not, why haven’t you?

 

[bear06]

Why does Pope Benedict, prefer the Latin mass?

By Latin, do you mean Tridentine? If so, I don’t believe you are accurate in this assumption. While he will say the Tridentine, he has worked tirelessly for the “Pauline Mass” to be said as it was intended by the council - not to restore the Tridentine.

Why did Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci mourn the unnecessary changes in the mass when they wrote the Short Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass?

Are you purposely leaving out the fact that after the promulgation of the Mass of Vatican II Cardinal Ottaviani said:

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)

…or could it be you didn’t know because you get your information from the wrong sources. I would avoid those sources who only print half truths.

A person who occasionally attends a Tridentine mass or attends a mass with Latin in it will not understand the extreme differences in the mass unless they IMMERSE THEMSELVES in the Tridentine mass for at least 6 months. When they come back to the other mass, THEIR EYES WILL BE OPENED.

Let’s see, many spent the first 30+ years of their lives with the Tridentine and they don’t see things your way. You seem to be hung up on the Latin part. I attended (and still often do) attend a Mass of Vatican II in Latin and I don’t agree with you. I’m just guessing that “she just doesn’t understand” is running through your head right now but trust me, I know exactly from where you are coming but I still don’t agree.

Unfortunately, the real reason why many Catholics don’t look into the Tridentine mass is because it’s name has become wrongly synonymous with schism, sedevacantism, self-righteous, divisive etc…But have we forgotten that the Roman Latin Mass is the mass of Padre Pio, St. Faustina, St. Margaret Mary, Cure of Ars, Sr. Lucia etc… Have we forgotten that it is our heritage? When something is of antiquity it is usually valued all the more. Why do so many Catholics want to sweep under the rug our past heritage of the mass? We rejoice in the oldies. Why is there no rejoicing of our past masses? Why the deafening silence about it? Why are we being encourage to wipe from our memories, the Latin mass? Why do we believe that mass of today is just as good as the one past. It is clearly not and anyone who says this is in denial, ignorance or perhaps outright conspiracy.

How shocking that you think there’s a conspiracy.

Remember, Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices but only one was pleasing to God because Abel gave his very best. History repeats itself.

History does repeat itself. In fact, this whole discussion is quite reminiscent of the Council of Trent and peoples’ reactions to it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

^^^ see what I mean JKirkLVNV

No, I could just as easily have said, “^^^see what I mean, Mosher?” More of the same! Endless round and round! None of that poster’s information is new. It’s repeated in other threads, over and over.

I always think it’s a hoot when TLMers mention the Leonine prayers. They go on about the TLM having been the Mass “of the Ages”, but hardly ever remember that it was not even 125 years ago that HH Pope Leo XIII added those prayers (surely if he can govern the liturgy, his successors can as well!).

 

[mosher]

the favor of Pope Benedict XVI is not for either. All his liturgical work emphasizes the need of a reform of the reform so that eventually the need for the two side by side will no longer be necessary, see “Spirit of the Liturgy” he also has many writings in other sources including his work on the Ecclesia Dei commission that have that same attitude which I think is great.

 

[Podo2005]

Chitchat:

The perception of divisiveness in others who observe a clear demarcation in terms of the characteristics of the mass is lamentable. The assessment that this question is a contentious one shows our lack of understanding as a Catholic community as to what is really happening in and to our mass.

The mass of Pope Paul VI was good and, by far, a lot better than what we have now. But have you ever looked at how it’s changed since then? There is a terrible trend to cut our mass down to size and it’s getting worse. The new mass of Pope Paul VI HAS changed and is getting worse. Subtle, gradual omission of prayers like the Confiteor, under the pre-text of alternating the penitential rite with the Kyrie Eleison, using only Eucharistic Prayer II, the tabernacle put off on the side or in the back, the Leonine prayers omitted and so on. The new mass is horizontal-oriented and people-focused and oftentimes called a celebration. The Roman rite mass is vertical, God-focused and the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary.

If the new mass is just as good as the Roman Rite, then why are the sisters and fathers of EWTN making an effort to put Latin back in the mass? Why do they have a priest that occasionally faces the tabernacle with his back to the people? Why does Pope Benedict, prefer the Latin mass? Is he divisive? Why did Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci mourn the unnecessary changes in the mass when they wrote the Short Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass? Why did Pope John Paul II ask for widespread of use of Latin again?

The sense of the Mass as a sacrifice is virtually eliminated in the ICEL approach to translation. What is sacrificed, in these new texts, is beauty, tradition, sacral language, a sense of timelessness and transcendence-and too often even basic accuracy of translation. Ever notice how our missalettes print only positive readings such as God is good, he is our friend, brother, the Lord loves His people, everything is honky dory. It’s as if the controversial ICEL committee, or whoever does it, only picks the “positive” readings that will make you feel good and not think about hell too much. Even the priest of Mel Gibson’s film repented of being part of that committee. And yet our missalettes come from them!!?

A person who occasionally attends a Tridentine mass or attends a mass with Latin in it will not understand the extreme differences in the mass unless they IMMERSE THEMSELVES in the Tridentine mass for at least 6 months. When they come back to the other mass, THEIR EYES WILL BE OPENED.

Unfortunately, the real reason why many Catholics don’t look into the Tridentine mass is because it’s name has become wrongly synonymous with schism, sedevacantism, self-righteous, divisive etc…But have we forgotten that the Roman Latin Mass is the mass of Padre Pio, St. Faustina, St. Margaret Mary, Cure of Ars, Sr. Lucia etc… Have we forgotten that it is our heritage? When something is of antiquity it is usually valued all the more. Why do so many Catholics want to sweep under the rug our past heritage of the mass? We rejoice in the oldies. Why is there no rejoicing of our past masses? Why the deafening silence about it? Why are we being encourage to wipe from our memories, the Latin mass? Why do we believe that mass of today is just as good as the one past. It is clearly not and anyone who says this is in denial, ignorance or perhaps outright conspiracy. Remember, Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices but only one was pleasing to God because Abel gave his very best. History repeats itself.

Why doesn’t anyone look on the tridentine mass anymore? Because It isn’t the norm anymore, Pope Paul VI obviously saw that the liturgy had to be changed and it was changed. Why can’t you accept that? The tridentine mass is forbidden to practice unless granted an indult. Have you ever thought that God wanted the new mass? What is wrong with using the 2nd eucharistic prayer? What is wrong with calling the mass a celebration when technically it is. Aren’t you rejoicing that Jesus died to save us on calvary?

Pope Benedict prefers the latin mass but hasn’t done anything to bring it back! My parish isn’t allowed to say it and thank God they aren’t! And why is having positive readings bad eh? Besides if you know that God is great, why would you want to turn away from him and go to hell?

I don’t understand many tradionalists but will continue to pray for them…

Podo
(Note this is my opinion so don’t ATTACK me because people have been to known to do that on this site…)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Chitchat:

The new mass is horizontal-oriented and people-focused and oftentimes called a celebration. The Roman rite mass is vertical, God-focused and the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. The “New” Mass is also the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. To say other wise, ie., to say that the priest doesn not thereby confect the Sacrifice, is heresy. It is the Mass promulgated to the Church by Paul VI, celebrated by him and by his three successors, and it is the normative Mass of the Church.

If the new mass is just as good as the Roman Rite, then why are the sisters and fathers of EWTN making an effort to put Latin back in the mass? No one hear has said that there shouldn’t be some Latin in the Mass. I doubt anyone here has a problem with the Mass at the EWTN folk celebrate it. Why do they have a priest that occasionally faces the tabernacle with his back to the people? “Occasionally?” Wow, is only occasionally good enough? How did Our Lord and the Twelve and the Ancient Father’s celebrate it? Why does Pope Benedict, prefer the Latin mass? As Bear points out, is he talking about the TLM or the Mass of Paul VI? Is he divisive? Why did Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci mourn the unnecessary changes in the mass when theywrote the Short Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass?** More of the Ottaviani conspiracy!** Why did Pope John Paul II ask for widespread of use of Latin again? To try to accomodate the people who wanted the TLM and to keep them out of schism with the SSPX?

The sense of the Mass as a sacrifice is virtually eliminated in the ICEL approach to translation. What is sacrificed, in these new texts, is beauty, tradition, sacral language, a sense of timelessness and transcendence-and too often even basic accuracy of translation. Ever notice how our missalettes print only positive readings such as God is good, he is our friend, brother, the Lord loves His people, everything is honky dory. It’s as if the controversial ICEL committee, or whoever does it, only picks the “positive” readings that will make you feel good and not think about hell too much. Even the priest of Mel Gibson’s film repented of being part of that committee. And yet our missalettes come from them!!? We must have a different missalette from you.** I come across quite a number of “hard sayings” in the one in my parish.**

When you go the Tridentine mass the readings are so much richer and broader. And you hear them twice: once in Latin and once in the vernacular. Why is that? Does God have to have them in Latin in order to understand them? Seems to defeat the idea of a noble simplicity.

A person who occasionally attends a Tridentine mass or attends a mass with Latin in it will not understand the extreme differences in the mass unless they IMMERSE THEMSELVES in the Tridentine mass for at least 6 months. When they come back to the other mass, THEIR EYES WILL BE OPENED. **I don’t think I’ll be going. I understand a bit of Latin, but I want to be able to understand the Mass in its entireity. I also want to be able to hear it. The Canon is said in silence from the Sanctus until the minor elevation. I wouldn’t like being able to hear the beauty of the consecration, albeit in the lesser language of English. As for “their eyes” being opened, many people who attended the pre-Vatican II Mass talk about people withdrawing into their own private devotions and saying the Rosary during Mass. Many of them actually LIKE the Mass of Paul VI. What is wrong with a dialog Mass? What is wrong with the congregation participating in the Mass, audibly (since I’m constantly told that TLMers “participate, but in silence”)? **

Remember, Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices but only one was pleasing to God because Abel gave his very best. History repeats itself. So are you saying that the Mass of Paul VI is not acceptable to God? Are you saying that the Sacrifice is not confected? Are you saying that a Council and 4 popes have lead the Church into error?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sorry for the typos above. I was irritated and typing fast!

 

[alterserver_07]

I prefer the Latin Mass, it is more fullfilling to me.

 

[severinus]

I like a reverent TLM and a reverent Novus Ordo; my preference is for the TLM, and not out of nostalgia (I was born in 1964). What I do not like, and what I view as divisive and uncharitable, is the fighting over the two rites.

Dissidence is dissidence, whether it takes the form of promoting the Bayside ‘apparitions’ because they correspond to your view that the Novus Ordo Missae was engineered by Freemasons, or it takes the form of regarding the GIRM as optional because it was written by patriarchal elitists.

Every liturgy should be celebrated with the reverence and care due the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. No approved rite has, and no approved rite ought to have, a monopoly on reverence.

 

[pnewton]

Chitchat:

A person who occasionally attends a Tridentine mass or attends a mass with Latin in it will not understand the extreme differences in the mass unless they IMMERSE THEMSELVES in the Tridentine mass for at least 6 months. When they come back to the other mass, THEIR EYES WILL BE OPENED.

This is so reminiscent of the Mormon “burning in the bosom” or the Life cereal, “try it, you’ll like it” (Hey, Mikey!)

Remember, Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices but only one was pleasing to God because Abel gave his very best. History repeats itself.

How horrible to compare the sacrifrice of Jesus represented in the Holy Mass, even if it not the one you like, to the sacrifice of Cain. Jesus is still just as real and His sacrifice just as great. That is the true reality behind the Mass.

Ironically, degrading the Mass based on things such as language, orientation, etc., instead of appreciating the Mass wherever it is sacrificed is focusing on the horizontal aspect in neglect of the verticle.

 

[Anima_Christi]

I usually attend the Novus Ordo Mass, but I prefer the traditional mass, especially a high mass. The atmosphere evokes the sacredness and transcendence of God more than the Novus Ordo, in my opinion.
I will probably attend the Traditional Mass much more often now that it is offered on a regular basis in my diocese.

 

[mosher]

severinus:

I like a reverent TLM and a reverent Novus Ordo; my preference is for the TLM, and not out of nostalgia (I was born in 1964). What I do not like, and what I view as divisive and uncharitable, is the fighting over the two rites.

Dissidence is dissidence, whether it takes the form of promoting the Bayside ‘apparitions’ because they correspond to your view that the Novus Ordo Missae was engineered by Freemasons, or it takes the form of regarding the GIRM as optional because it was written by patriarchal elitists.

Every liturgy should be celebrated with the reverence and care due the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. No approved rite has, and no approved rite ought to have, a monopoly on reverence.

Well said.

 

[johnnyjoe]

I note with interest that RC Traditional has not returned to this thread…

I once had a Fraternity of St. Peter priest say to my daughter, "Why would you want to go to McDonald’s when you could have a fine french meal?

That was his way of contrasting the Novus Ordo and the LTM.

Now this priest had really two extra crosses to carry…he was young and he was french, so we pray for his deeper conversion and the virtue of humility, but he was our introduction to the traditionalist mindset.

I have not heard those same words from the priest that replaced him, but the attitude is often part and parcel of the Traditionalist gestault, I am afraid.

 

[mosher]

I think that it is very important to address the points brought out in this post. There are a few things that I thinkk need further discussion.

Podo2005:

Why doesn’t anyone look on the tridentine mass anymore? Because It isn’t the norm anymore,

This is obviously not an accurate statement because those who attend the Tridentine Liturgy are increasing in numbers and not decreasing. While it is correct that it is not the “norm” there is nothing wrong with that. Prior to the establishment of the Novus Ordo there was a multiplicity of different liturgical rites in the Latin Church that all existed side by side since about the year 1000 and some older than that. Thus plurality of rites in a de juri Church is not a bad thing.

Podo2005:

Pope Paul VI obviously saw that the liturgy had to be changed and it was changed. Why can’t you accept that?

Paul VI never saw the need for the liturgy to be changed outright. His directive to the comission that developed the Novus Ordo was to help make the existing mass express the Patristic forms more fully in our modern age. Unfortunatelly due to some bad historical information and some agenda run issues the Novus Ordo was built in opposition to the Tridintine Liturgy and not necessarily as an organic outgrowth. I know members of the committee that lament this fact hence the constant revisions to help fix some of the problems. I think of it as a beta program that all the bugs have to be worked out over a period of time. The base program is good but there might be some things that can be made better.

Podo2005:

The tridentine mass is forbidden to practice unless granted an indult.

This definatelly not correct. Every priest has a right to celebrate the Tridentine Liturgy. This has been documented widely. The Church however has asked that the celebration be restricted to those parishes that the local ordinary gives his permission so that the liturgy can be celebrated reverently and properly. This is also the major issue in the Ecclesia Dei commission which has been discussing this very point for years.

Podo2005:

Have you ever thought that God wanted the new mass?

This is just silly.

Podo2005:

What is wrong with using the 2nd eucharistic prayer?

What I think is being refered to here is the problem with priests rushing through the liturgy only using the 2nd Eucharistic prayer when in fact the 1st and the 3rd are most fitting to the celebration of Sundays and Solemnities.

Podo2005:

Pope Benedict prefers the latin mass but hasn’t done anything to bring it back!

As Cardinal Ratzinger he was placed on the Ecclesia Dei commission and has been on the forefront of pushing the re-normalization of the Tridentine Liturgy until the day when the Novus Ordo is fixed. In fact, one of his first acts as Pope Benedict XVI is to institute the regular celebration of the Tridentine Liturgy at St. Peter’s Bascilica where it had been “forbidden” for decades. I would say that this is a large step in favor of supporting the Tridintine Liturgy.

Podo2005:

My parish isn’t allowed to say it and thank God they aren’t!

For those that take this position I would be very careful due to the fact that there is a possibility soon that the public celebration of the Tridentine Liturgy will be made general to all parishes. This is something that has been in the work for years. Therefore, I think that a more prudent approach would be to just express your desire to attend the Novus Ordo and not be so extatic that you are not in proximity to the Tridentine Liturgy.

Just my commentary because I thought that this post was prime to begin the discussion on a few tender points.

 

[buffalo]

Traditional Latin Mass is given a new lease of life

 

[mosher]

johnnyjoe:

I note with interest that RC Traditional has not returned to this thread…

I once had a Fraternity of St. Peter priest say to my daughter, "Why would you want to go to McDonald’s when you could have a fine french meal?

That was his way of contrasting the Novus Ordo and the LTM.

Now this priest had really two extra crosses to carry…he was young and he was french, so we pray for his deeper conversion and the virtue of humility, but he was our introduction to the traditionalist mindset.

I have not heard those same words from the priest that replaced him, but the attitude is often part and parcel of the Traditionalist gestault, I am afraid.

It is always unfortunate when the lack of humility of an individual gets in the way of such things. However, I think I understand his comparison no matter how vulgar it was. I have had the privledge to see what the Novus Ordo is capable of being. Not many have seen it celebrated in its highest possible expression. While at the ordination of my friend Fr. Al Temari of the Society of Saint John Cantius I was able to see the Novus Ordo translated from its usual novilty to something quite beautiful and sacred on par with the Tridentine Liturgy. I would agree with that young french priest that the manner in which the Novus Ordo is celebrated in some if not most parishes is troubling and a kin to liturgical fast food, however, I know that when proper care and diligence is taken to celebrate the Novus Ordo as it is intended in the docuements it is a thing of absolute beauty whos aesthetics can lift the soul to the same reverential heights as a Pontifical High Mass.

 

[bear06]

This is obviously not an accurate statement because those who attend the Tridentine Liturgy are increasing in numbers and not decreasing. While it is correct that it is not the “norm” there is nothing wrong with that. Prior to the establishment of the Novus Ordo there was a multiplicity of different liturgical rites in the Latin Church that all existed side by side since about the year 1000 and some older than that. Thus plurality of rites in a de juri Church is not a bad thing.

I’m a little confused here on a few things. First, Podo’s statement that the Tridentine is not the normative mass of the Church is accurate. It doesn’t really matter how many people attend. This doesn’t make it the normative mass of the Church.

Secondly, I don’t remember Podo saying that because it is not the normative mass that it was wrong. He simply showed that people focus more on the normative than the Tridentine.

Thirdly, while we have always had plural rites, did we have multiple normative liturgies in these rites?

Paul VI never saw the need for the liturgy to be changed outright. His directive to the comission that developed the Novus Ordo was to help make the existing mass express the Patristic forms more fully in our modern age. Unfortunatelly due to some bad historical information and some agenda run issues the Novus Ordo was built in opposition to the Tridintine Liturgy and not necessarily as an organic outgrowth. I know members of the committee that lament this fact hence the constant revisions to help fix some of the problems. I think of it as a beta program that all the bugs have to be worked out over a period of time. The base program is good but there might be some things that can be made better.

I’m pretty much in agreement with you here. I don’t think it was built in opposition but I think that it was run away with. If the Mass was as Vatican II called for, it would be perfect. That said, I have seen it said by the likes of Fr. Fessio, et. al., in a way quite consistent with VII.

This is just silly.

What exactly is silly about this? Do you not think God wanted the Mass intended by Vatican II? I can agree with you if you’re talking about the local abusive mass but I’d say I disagree with you if you are talking about an EWTN or Fr. Fessio style Mass.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

johnnyjoe:

I note with interest that RC Traditional has not returned to this thread…

I once had a Fraternity of St. Peter priest say to my daughter, "Why would you want to go to McDonald’s when you could have a fine french meal?

That was his way of contrasting the Novus Ordo and the LTM.

Now this priest had really two extra crosses to carry…he was young and he was french, so we pray for his deeper conversion and the virtue of humility, but he was our introduction to the traditionalist mindset.

I have not heard those same words from the priest that replaced him, but the attitude is often part and parcel of the Traditionalist gestault, I am afraid.

That’s actually a pretty good analogy, in my opinion.