Latin Mass vs New Mass

[bear06]

pnewton:

I have no idea what a Bob and Tom show is, but I have noticed no one claiming invalidity for Traditional Catholics or posting undocumented pictures to ridicule traditional Catholics. The same is not true of the reverse.

If you could perhaps show an example of where this riducle you claim occurred, it would help.

Well, I’m guessing he means this: bobandtom.com/gen3/index.htm

So, in other words, findinghumility is being a little hypocritical and I doubt he could come up with very many examples of the “Novus Ordo” MASS supporters ridiculing TLM Catholics. You just dropped this little post right down in the middle of a thread which shows absolutely no evidence of what you are suggesting. This is more of the “say it enough times and it’ll be true” mentality. If you’ll notice, rarely does a “Novus Ordo” type even start these threads pitting one faction against another. We’re simply here to defend the normative Mass, not to attack the TLM. Yes, I think we all have our preferences but you won’t find me mocking the TLM.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

findinghumility:

What I find amusing about the supporters of the Novus Ordo service is how they mock Traditional Catholics in a style that would fit very well on the Bob and Tom show…

Patently absurd. That’s the point I was trying to make much, much earlier in this thread. Those who attend the Mass of Paul VI and who post on these threads do not mock traditional Catholics. Do a search with the forum search engine (top of page, says “search”) and see who initiates these cat-pan stirring threads like, “The NO Mass: Is It Even Valid?” or “The Ottavini Conspiracy.” It’s all folks who favor the TLM! Not all folks who favor the TLM on these threads mock and abuse the Mass of Paul VI, but those who do mock and abuse said Mass generally support the TLM.

Demonstrate that I’m wrong. And even if there is ONE radical NO supporter who heaps scorn on the TLM, weigh it against the threads mocking or questioning or implying something against the TLM.

 

[PreVatII]

I will first state that I am not a member of the SSPX, and I do not call into question the validity of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), but I only attend Mass at an indult Traditional Latin Mass.

I believe that the liberal highjacking of Vatican II and the misguided reform of the liturgy of the Roman Rite has lead to the massive problems we have today, on every level effecting Holy Mother Church.

I believe that some day, the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his four bishops will be lifted. I also believe that, like many formally excommunicated men before him who were later canonized, Lefebvre will some day be lifted to the altar as a saint.

Were it not for Archbishop Lefebvre’s work to hold onto Tradition, call into question the novelties following Vatican II and leading the way for a return to the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass of the ages, the “most beautiful thing this side of Heaven,” the indult, the FSSP, et al, would never have seen the light of day, and the Traditional Latin Mass would have died on the “spirit of Vatican II.”

God bless Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!

 

[Tracy1974]

Hello, all.

    I'm kinda new here, and I don't know much about the faith in terms of details and doctrine.  But I'll tell you what I was taught.  I was taught that the reason the Pope allowed Mass to be said in languages other than Latin was to make it easier to come to Mass and to win converts easier.  It makes me wonder if Jewish people would have more converts if they decided to waive their requirement to learn Hebrew.  That would be not-so-great for us, but still, it's a good example.  I voted for the New Mass for this reason.  The Church always needs new people.  Any small, acceptable thing we can do to make that easier, I say let's do it.  I've never attended a Latin Mass, and I'm sure it's beautiful.  But I wouldn't understand anything.  I go to Mass not just to pray, but to be educated, too.  I saw a few comments about the Mass going "too new."  Yeah, that's unfortunate.  Just change the language and maybe the music, you can be a *little* creative with, but the actual liturgy itself needs to stay the same.

Tracy from NC

 

[Curtiss]

I voted for the Latin Mass. There is absolutly nothing ‘wrong’ with the ‘new’ post-Vatican II Mass. It is as valid as the ‘old’ Latin Mass! In fact, as long as we have the Consecration, we have the Mass!

The issue is that there was nothing wrong with the Latin Mass either! I was an adult at the time of Vatican II and I am a witness to the fact that there was no opposition to the Latin Mass before the Council. It was not an obstacle to becoming Catholic - back in the '50’s Protestants were flocking to the Church! The Council confirmed the position of Latin as the ancient and beautiful language of the Church but gave local bishops the right to opt for a vernacular Mass. When the Council ended, the US bishops fairly stampeded across the Atlantic to impose this on Catholics who never wanted it - never even dreamed of it!
The Latin Mass was one of the great unifying elements of the Catholic Church. I remember how impressed I was by this in grade school when a Nun told us that this same Mass was being said all around the world. And in some countries with mulitple national languages, the Latin Mass was quite literally a God-send!

The readoption of the Latin Mass would be the single most important element in bringing back a host of fallen-away Catholics to the Church - and we would lose absolutely nothing by doing it!

Keep the Faith,
Curtiss

 

[hollingsworth]

JKirkLVNV:

The Mass of Paul VI, promulgated by him as Vicar of Christ on Earth, and celebrated by four popes now. I also didn’t vote. I see polls/threads like this as more stirring of the cat’s litter pan, more of a widening of division in the Church, which surely cannot be Our Lord’s good Will.

I beg to differ. The more that an attempt is made to bring the the New Mass and Old Mass together and to harmonize them, the more disturbed I become. Let there be a clear distinction between the Mass of all ages approved and enjoined upon the faithful by the saintly Pius V and that stripped down, mongrel rite whipped up by the arch-Mason Bugnini and his Protestant friends and foisted deceptively upon the entire Church as normative. Humbug! The more divisiveness on this matter the better. I applaud and promote this kind of division and will do so until death! Thank you.

 

[severinus]

hollingsworth:

I beg to differ. The more that an attempt is made to bring the the New Mass and Old Mass together and to harmonize them, the more disturbed I become. Let there be a clear distinction between the Mass of all ages approved and enjoined upon the faithful by the saintly Pius V and that stripped down, mongrel rite whipped up by the arch-Mason Bugnini and his Protestant friends and foisted deceptively upon the entire Church as normative. Humbug! The more divisiveness on this matter the better. I applaud and promote this kind of division and will do so until death! Thank you.

All right; I’ve heard about how the Freemasons and Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo Missae. Were the Illuminati involved too? How about the House of Rothschild?

I agree with you that you are becoming more disturbed.

You have my prayers (in Latin, so that God hears them).

 

[pnewton]

hollingsworth:

that stripped down, mongrel rite whipped up by the arch-Mason Bugnini and his Protestant friends and foisted deceptively upon the entire Church as normative.

This sort of language is inflammatory, offensive, inappropriate, unsubstantiated and slanderous. I will serve however as an indication of why many Catholics here have found arrogance in the attitude of the fringe element of Traditionalists.

 

[thistle]

I’ve just read all the posts in this thread and its not really clear to me what the problem is? Are the supporters of Mass being in Latin saying that the 99.99% of the 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide who do not speak or understand Latin have no right to fully understand and participate in a Mass in their own language?

 

[hollingsworth]

Dr. Bombay:

As a first step in the reconcilliation process, I propose attempting “Gather Us In” in Gregorian Chant.

Who’s with me???

Dr. Bombay, you are a breath of fresh air in the midst of all the resident Novus Ordo ‘flower children.’ As I am one familiar with Gregorian chant and square notes etc. I find the invitation to set “Gather Us In” to chant delightfully ludicrous. LOL

 

[pnewton]

hollingsworth:

the midst of all the resident Novus Ordo ‘flower children.’

A little name-calling, now. Very constructive. As an orthodox Catholic who attends the standard Mass, I do not car for flowers, nor am I a child.

Still I will resist the fallacy you have fallen for and not paint all traditionists with the stereotype that is presented by an occasional new poster.

 

[mosher]

Thinking about it, I have rarely in in the presence of lay catholics who ridicule or defame in any manner the “traditional catholics” (quotes on purpose) for attending the Tridentine Rite of mass or desiring the other sacraments to be celebrated under the previous Titles. What I think is the greater problem that is found, and why those who prefer the sacraments under the old Titles have so much anamosity to vent in these threads is that there is much criticism given them by clergy. Bishops and priests tend to be the largest group of defamers on this issue and because of that single fact those to attend the Tridentine Rite of Mass feel as if they are treated like unwanted step-children and such a wound leads to the attitude that many here find as hostile and negative. There exists much pain among these people and that pain leads to anamosity and hence the defense mechanism of anger that is found here and in other places when this discussion is made.

 

[bear06]

there is much criticism given them by clergy

.

Sorry. I don’t buy it. I’ve had heaps of criticism both from radical Traditionalists and liberal clergy. It’s the mindset that makes you go off half-cocked. People need to get over the martyr mentality. Nothing we’re endured has compared to Christ’s sufferings. Since this is supposedly focused on far more at the TLM than the Novus Ordo (a point on which I disagree) then you would think the radical tradtionalists would move out of the “I’ve been so injured” mentality. If you are faithful, chances are you’ve been defamed. Let’s put it this way. If you are faithful you should be defamed or you ain’t doing it right!

the Tridentine Rite of Mass feel as if they are treated like unwanted step-children and such a wound leads to the attitude that many here find as hostile and negative.

Look, my bishop continues to allow the TLM. In fact, he brought in the Institute for Christ the King just for them and yet the radical traditionalists stilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll complain. They’ve been treated like anything but unwanted step-children by my bishop.

There exists much pain among these people and that pain leads to anamosity and hence the defense mechanism of anger that is found here and in other places when this discussion is made.

I think that they need to realize that they are not the only people who treated poorly. Many people have pain for many reasons but they don’t lash out at people. Look how horribly St. Therese was treated by her superiors and yet she had peace. This is what I notice is missing from most radical traditionalists.

Besides, you know very well that these discussions very rarely start with supporters of the Novus Ordo. If they don’t want to get angry they shouldn’t start the argument. Wouldn’t you’d think it would count as a near occasion of sin?

 

[mosher]

Bear06,

Before entering into a discussion on your response to my previous post I would first want to know what you mean by “radical traditionalists.” In my mind a “radical” traditionalist is a person who patrons a SSPX chapel or the like. Those who attend a licit Tridentine Rite mass are far from radical and it is those persons that my comment was directed. My experience has placed me in many situations in the Church left and right and you are right that attacks against orthodoxy is made by those on the left with vigor especially these days after the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. However, my expereince is that even the so called “moderates” make rigorous attacks against those who prefer the rites under the old titles. This issue does in many way flesh out even mild modernism. So, in a sense I a curious as to what you mean by the term “radical traditionalists.”

 

[TNT]

mosher:

Bear06,

Before entering into a discussion on your response to my previous post I would first want to know what you mean by “radical traditionalists.” In my mind a “radical” traditionalist is a person who patrons a SSPX chapel or the like. …So, in a sense I a curious as to what you mean by the term “radical traditionalists.”

Speaking for Mama Bear:
I AM A Edit Edit EditTRADITIONALIST.
Defined as follows:
One who submits fully to the Encyclicals of:
Pius IV
ST Pius V
Gregory XVI
Benedict XIV
Benedict XV
Pius IX
Leo XIII
ST Pius X
Pius XI
And who at the same time reject all ambiguity in any Teaching of the Faith.
Including:
Subsists in…
Multis somehow = ALL
Judaism has not been rejected as salvational.
Heretic systems are a means of Sanctifying grace and salvation.
Hell may be empty.
Ecumenism is not equal to returning to the Catholic Church.
Edit
Heretics and those with the distinct odor thereof maintain their authority in the hierarchy.

Well, that outa do it for now.

 

[bear06]

mosher:

Bear06,

Before entering into a discussion on your response to my previous post I would first want to know what you mean by “radical traditionalists.” In my mind a “radical” traditionalist is a person who patrons a SSPX chapel or the like. Those who attend a licit Tridentine Rite mass are far from radical and it is those persons that my comment was directed. My experience has placed me in many situations in the Church left and right and you are right that attacks against orthodoxy is made by those on the left with vigor especially these days after the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. However, my expereince is that even the so called “moderates” make rigorous attacks against those who prefer the rites under the old titles. This issue does in many way flesh out even mild modernism. So, in a sense I a curious as to what you mean by the term “radical traditionalists.”

Well, I’d say it’s hard to pin down. They don’t all believe the exact same thing. I don’t limit it to the SSPX only. I know some that attend our indult who are radical traditionalists. It’s just the only Tridentine around for them. What it isn’t is someone who simply prefers the Tridentine. Nothing wrong at all with that. I have friends that are attached to it that I would in no way call radical traditionalists. I do fear that I would call most Remnant adherents radical traditionalists. Their readership contains those who go to the chapels as well as those who go to the indult. People who attack those who simply have an attachment or a preference for the Tridentine stink. Basically, it’s not a group, it’s a mindset.

 

[bear06]

TNT:

Speaking for Mama Bear:
I AM A Edit Edit EditTRADITIONALIST.
Defined as follows:
One who submits fully to the Encyclicals of:
Pius IV
ST Pius V
Gregory XVI
Benedict XIV
Benedict XV
Pius IX
Leo XIII
ST Pius X
Pius XI
And who at the same time reject all ambiguity in any Teaching of the Faith.
Including:
Subsists in…
Multis somehow = ALL
Judaism has not been rejected as salvational.
Heretic systems are a means of Sanctifying grace and salvation.
Hell may be empty.
Ecumenism is not equal to returning to the Catholic Church.
Edit
Heretics and those with the distinct odor thereof maintain their authority in the hierarchy.

Well, that outa do it for now.

Gee T, having a bad day?
Come on now, you know for a fact that I believe and adhere to everyone of the Popes encyclicals and I’m not a radical traditionalist. It’s interesting that you left out all the rest of the popes. I happen to follow the encyclicals of the who bunch, not just a select few.

As for your rejection list…we’ve been over all of these topics at one time or another so I’d suggest to the other readers that they just search for them. Been there, done that. I love the way some think that the modern popes have been teaching heresy for 40+ years now.

 

[mosher]

bear06:

Well, I’d say it’s hard to pin down. They don’t all believe the exact same thing. I don’t limit it to the SSPX only. I know some that attend our indult who are radical traditionalists. It’s just the only Tridentine around for them. What it isn’t is someone who simply prefers the Tridentine. Nothing wrong at all with that. I have friends that are attached to it that I would in no way call radical traditionalists. I do fear that I would call most Remnant adherents radical traditionalists. Their readership contains those who go to the chapels as well as those who go to the indult. People who attack those who simply have an attachment or a preference for the Tridentine stink. Basically, it’s not a group, it’s a mindset.

I think that you are correct in the sense that you say that it is more messy than just being able to pin it down to a few simple propositions. However, I think that that is a good place to start in defining who is an Uber-Trad as I call them. From what TNT has posted I wouldn’t place him in the Uber-Trad group because he seems to believe what the Church believes. I think that he has a legitimate complaint when it comes to the politics of the Church obfuscating the issue of high placed individuals that would publically declare some questionable things such as Cardinal Kasper and the like. However such complaints are well within the bounds of what could be considered legitimate criticism of the Hierarchs.

In my various battles with Uber-Trads it seems that there is a general missunderstanding of Doctrine or rather a shallow understanding of Doctrine. For instance a good example is the de fide dogma of Extra Ecclesia Non Solus which a hard line translation (and incorrect translation) would be “There is no salvation outside the Church” which lends to the thought that none save those who wear the nametag of Catholic can have a possibility of salvation however, the translation of the Dogma is better done as “There is no salvation apart from the Church” which seems to be the constant understanding of the Church considering there is a feast day on the Calander for the Patriarchs of the Old Testament and the deeper understanding of the Dogma which is given in the VII documents.

Another argument that is usually given is that of a missread of Pius XII and of Leo XIII when they equate modernism with those who formulate theological propositions in a confusing way so that there could be an admixture of truth and heresy melded together but cannot be grasped well by the average person. The missread usually centers around the use of personalistic and other more modern forms of philosophy other than systematic forms akin to Sts. Thomas, Bonaventure & Scotus. Because they are unable to grasp the proposition given they calim that it is modernism or at least leaning to modernism.

Perhaps it stems from a false simplisity of the faith and a tacit belief that the organic growth of the Church’s understanding of the Sacra Doctrina is really a cover for heterodoxy.

 

[PreVatII]

TNT:

Speaking for Mama Bear:
I AM A Edit Edit EditTRADITIONALIST.
Defined as follows:
One who submits fully to the Encyclicals of:
Pius IV
ST Pius V
Gregory XVI
Benedict XIV
Benedict XV
Pius IX
Leo XIII
ST Pius X
Pius XI
And who at the same time reject all ambiguity in any Teaching of the Faith.
Including:
Subsists in…
Multis somehow = ALL
Judaism has not been rejected as salvational.
Heretic systems are a means of Sanctifying grace and salvation.
Hell may be empty.
Ecumenism is not equal to returning to the Catholic Church.
Edit
Heretics and those with the distinct odor thereof maintain their authority in the hierarchy.

Well, that outa do it for now.

TNT,
Outstanding as usual! Go to the head of the class.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Iohannes:

Cite a case where abuse occured in latin.
How is it simpler to abuse a Mass in Latin>

In all charity, you might not be old enough to have attended the seven-minute (or shorter) TLM some priests could exectue on a Sunday morning. They were about as reverent as the morning chow line in boot camp. They were not limited to the low Masses, but also high Masses. If some priests could have gotten the communicants to open their mouths wider, I am almost positve the Sacred Host would have gone sailing like a frisbee into mouths. The dialogue between the priest and server sounded like that guy who does the super-speeded voice on commercials. I am not trying to be disrespectful. I am merely stating the truth. This could happen again, nothing to prevent it from happening again.

It is simpler to abuse a Mass in Latin because not everybody is exactly sure what is supposed to happen, and also because the possibility of anybody questioning Father on his actions is remote.

Those two points having been made:

Why oh why oh why can’t people just be happy with the Mass they have as long as it is not performed in a slap-dash manner, follows GIRM, and doesn’t try to force one’s (priest’s, liturgist’s, musician’s) political (how they think the Church should be istead of relying on dogma and discipline) view on anybody, but worship Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity? It is not as if there is isn’t enough variety out there now.