My problem with "Tradition"...

[maurin]

I’ll start by saying that if any of you want to promote your Tridentine agenda, stop posting. The more you post, the more people are running from Tridentineism.

My problem with the Tridentine Mass is 1. it’s make believe. You’re pretending the Vatican 2 liturgical reforms, which were mandatory and obligatory, just never happened. Fantasy land. 2) You wouldn’t be going to the Tridentine Mass unless you had a problem with the regular Mass. And if you have a problem with a Mass a council and a pope approved and made mandatory, you have a serious problem.

I recommend for Lent you stop being divisive and rejoin the mainstream.

I have a huge problem with your first statement. I know that there are many of us that do not take a hardline approach, no matter how we feel inside.

I also have a huge problem with your second statement. If you have a problem with a form of the Mass that JPII granted an indult for, and Pope Benedict XVI is considering granting wider access to, then it seems the serious problem is yours, and not ours.

I recommend for Lent that you allow the Pontiff to pontificate, and find a better way to express your disappointment in the tone of some of the posters here. Your disappointment in this tone is shared by some of us Traditionalists, by the way.

Sincerely and in Christ’s Holy Wounds, maurin

 

[ctos]

My problem with the Tridentine Mass is 1. it’s make believe. You’re pretending the Vatican 2 liturgical reforms, which were mandatory and obligatory, just never happened. Fantasy land.

Yes, I’m afraid this may indeed be true.

The reply one normally hears is that the Novus Ordo is full of clown masses, pink priests, invalid sacraments by voided intention, and so on: I think things like this must be as rare as a nine-leafed clover. At least in most places. The correct observation is that in the Novus Ordo there is an excessive tendency to sentimentalize the faith. The clergy are your pals, who are too far from really warning you about hell and advising you about heaven.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Why do Traditionalists love to name abuses as if they were established norms? Isn’t that the same tactic anti-Catholics use who point out immoral Popes as disproving infallibility? Just because there are abuses doesn’t mean the abused is a bad thing.

I think the wider issue is that Traditionalists, of which I myself am one, tend to view the Second Vatican Council as the staging point for the hijacking of the Church by modernism. This is not my opinion, but in a more vague understanding of the liberal/progressivist position, it’s not surprising that the Council garners more than it’s fair share of vitriol. It’s pointless to decry the Novus Ordo, now nearly forty years after the fact, but given that modernist invokes the Council for its misuse (or more importantly grave abuse in those cases where the formulæ render Eucharistic consecration invalid), and uses this as ammunition for resistance against that rite. Are such abuses common? I wouldn’t think so. But is the possibility for abuse easier in the NO? Very much so. The rubrics of the Tridentine Ordo are of such rigor that innovation really is impossible.

 

[ctos]

I don’t see why the existence of more extensive rubrics in a given rite of Mass means that rite is less open to abuses. (In a manner of sophistry, it is actually open to more abuses.) If one wants to abuse a Mass, one can simply ignore the rubrics. This can be done in any rite of Mass.

Presently, among TLM communities, what you find is a degree of self-selection. Priests especially devoted to the TLM say the TLM. Their devotion to it determines their adherence to its rubrics.

 

[puzzleannie]

first let me say frankly I have not read the debate here because I am so sick of the topic I could spit. the Mass as the rites and rubrics exist is the Mass of the Church. Period. Dissent from this fact is founded in disrespect for the authority of the papacy. If that is your position you are more or less in a state of schism and your first priority should be a humble, contrite heart, loving obedience and submission. It is quite true as we have all experienced ad nauseum many times the Mass, the GIRM, the rubrics are abused, even to the sad point of illicit rites and invalid sacrament. This pope can be trusted to address that. It is also a fact that the Mass may be celebrated in Latin at any time, in fact that is always the preferred language, with readings and homily in the vernacular.

My point is this: What is the reason why, when both JPII and Benedict clearly are open and willing to a generous indult allowing the Tridentine Mass (which is your real issue, not Latin per se) has it been slow to come? The reason is the very dissent, appalling disobedience and scandalous schism that resulted from the childish petulance of SSPX and similar groups and bishops. Had these persons decided to stay within in the Church, submit humbly to what changes were required and are beneficial (revised lectionary for instance), eschewed those changes which were Never in the V2 documents, continuing to offer a reverent Mass properly, all those whom they led astray would never have broken unity with the Church, and would have had a constant 40 year tradition and experience of the Mass as it should be. they could have been a force within the Church, setting an example by which to compare the inevitable abuses which accompanied the initial period of experimentation and implementation. They could have spoken out as loyal sons against real abuses that came in response to the agenda-pushers, and provided a steady voice in favor of retaining the best of the past. There would have been a steady, unbroken, percentage of people who retained the use of Latin responses and chant, classic hymns, devotions and reverence (none of which were abrogated by any V2 doc).

Instead, these so-called pastors led their flocks astray by abusing the very Unity which Christ, when he gave us the Mass at the Last Supper, pleaded for, and which he made clear is the purpose of the sacrifice. The very people who should have been the source of reason and common sense in implementing the reforms that were mandated, that could have from a position of strength, unity and loyalty protested abuses when they did occur, and helped “nip it in the bud” were not here. WhY? They isolated themselves in their own chapels in their own little churches. What scandal. What disobedience. What a pity, that in doing so, they lost forever whatever credibility they had for very legitimate protests and warnings.

do you really think any Pope is going to be quick to confirm them in their obstinancy and obduracy, and to reward disobedience? I truly believe reverent NO Masses, retaining chant, Latin, good music, proper rubrics, and respect for the sensibilities of the faithful would have been the norm had those who could have been this influence remained in the Church. I also believe the Tridentine indult would have been far more widely available, had not its most outspoken adherents been so obstinant. The real scandal in their actions is that an entire generation that could have known what they knew, and been taught what they remember has been deprived of that privilege, because those who could have taught did not do so.

The sooner the schism is resolved and the unity Christ desired is restored, the sooner we will see the restoration of all that was good in the traditional Mass. As long as the rebellion continues, bishops have a very good excuse for not encouraging the dissent that it breeds.

Any person or party who uses the Mass to push a personal agenda and who uses that agenda as an excuse to disrupt the unity that is supposed to be the fruit of the Mass betrays such a colossal lack of understanding of the very nature of the sacrifice, that they have absolutely no standing in making any pronouncements about it at all.

 

[TNT]

I just realized you have excceded 10,000 posts single handedly!

 

[oneseeker]

he was joking! Didn’t you see the smiley, winking face? Calm down.

oneseeker

 

[RNRobert]

(By the way, the trend among altar servers here is to wear black leather shoes; I never see sneakers, at least, not white ones. )

I’ve not only seen sneakers, but flip flops!

 

[SnorterLuster]

The reason is the very dissent, appalling disobedience and scandalous schism that resulted from the childish petulance of SSPX and similar groups and bishops. Had these persons decided to stay within in the Church, submit humbly to what changes were required and are beneficial (revised lectionary for instance), eschewed those changes which were Never in the V2 documents, continuing to offer a reverent Mass properly, all those whom they led astray would never have broken unity with the Church, and would have had a constant 40 year tradition and experience of the Mass as it should be. they could have been a force within the Church, setting an example by which to compare the inevitable abuses which accompanied the initial period of experimentation and implementation. They could have spoken out as loyal sons against real abuses that came in response to the agenda-pushers, and provided a steady voice in favor of retaining the best of the past. There would have been a steady, unbroken, percentage of people who retained the use of Latin responses and chant, classic hymns, devotions and reverence (none of which were abrogated by any V2 doc).

PuzzleAnnie,

Let me see if I have this straight. The entire cause of disunity in the Latin Rite is the responsibility of the SPXII. I know little of their history, but having lived through the times, it seemed to me that they were the only ones keeping the flame of tradition flickering. Since you seem to be assigning 100% blame on one group, let me ask you if any of the following also bear some responsibility.

Let’s start with Pope Paul VI. He had the N.O. written, he approved it, and then commanded that it be implemented in what, a little over 18 mos.? At the same time, he completely suppressed the TLM, tossing it and other old masses into the circular file. Would a reasonable man expect that the faithful could absorb all the changes in such a short time. At least in my diocese, there was no lead up or anything approaching instruction on the whys or advantages of the new missal. Our only instruction was that the Pope and Vatican II demanded the changes. Yet you would not place any responsibility on Pope Paul VI.

So the Bishop and Priests start implementing the changes, and some pet changes of their own–like completely doing away with Latin in the Mass, tearing out the altar rails, giving Communion in the hands, and any other pet theory they had while telling us stupid parishoners that if we are loyal Catholics we should obey without question. If we couldn’t get with the program, then maybe we should move on down the road. Since every parish (and every Mass in our parish) was different, maybe we would find one we would like. But those priests and bishops bear no responsibility, just a lone Archbishop in Switzerland.

So then we come to the people on the pews. A great number of them wanted more experimentation & changes than even Vatican II allowed. Power to the people! Move all decisons down to the parish level. We would no longer be ruled by old single Italian men living in luxury in Rome. The Mass would be a mass of the people. Honor and sacrifice to God is so old Testament. It is time for a New Covenant, of a God who tolerates the sins and foibles of his children. They captured the parish committees and implemented their crazy ideas, with no crackdown by priests or bishops. Just one of those things, huh?

And finally, we come down to people like me. People who spent twenty or more years trying to swallow all the changes that were demanded of us. We were obedient, but with heavy hearts. We went to a Mass that we didn’t recognize in a parish that thought it was more important to reach out to the nearby protestant churches than it was to reach out to those of us that were in crisis due to the changes. Advice to us–Get with it or get out. So many of us got out. Quit going to Mass. Quit fighting the battle. We lost. We couldn’t go on. Time to admit defeat and that there was no place for us in the “Universal” church. And in your view, along with the SPXII, the division is our fault.

I am thankful that the indult came to my area. I now attend a Mass that I love and am in a Parish that welcomes Catholics of all stripes who want to worship God. It is parish made up of whites who have lived here for generations, recent immigrants. Mexicans, both long time citizens and recent arrivals. Eastern and Oriental Catholics are members of my parish. Many American Indians likewise find the TLM to their liking. Regardless of background, regardless of culture, we are a united community–united in the worship of God.

So, in my humble opinion, there is plenty of blame to go around. And the schismatic? While I could have never joined them, I recognize they kept tradition in the game. Wilthout them I doubt that we would have ever gotten the indult, which is saving many of us from Hell.

 

[AlexV]

I have avoided commenting on this thread, since it’s the usual (pointless) verbiage. These threads always end up the same way.

But indeed, blaming the SSPX for anything major is quite funny. I mean, except in France they are a small, small minority of the Catholic population. (In France they are a majority, together with the Indulters, of those who actually attend Mass on Sunday).

I remember sitting in a church and hearing the pastor say “Vatican II required” that we wreckovate our church.

I remember sitting in a church and hearing a bishop say “Vatican II asked for” Communion in the hand, received standing.

I remember sitting in a church and hearing a priest say that “Vatican II demanded” the vernacular.

I remember sitting in a church and hearing a priest say “obedience to the Council requires” lay Eucharistic Ministers.

Those quotes come from the late 70s through the late 90s.

They come from four different churches, in four different states.

I suspect my experience was not unique.

With such appalling catechesis, from a movement that claimed greater understanding of the liturgy as a main rallying cry…it’s no wonder the state of the liturgy is a disaster.

Were lies necessary in order to promote the “renewal”?

 

[timjp77]

There’s been no response to any of these posts by the original poster, Catholic36.

The post appears to be another “hit and run” attack on traditional Catholics.

 

[AlexV]

I think it’s important to remember that we are indeed seeing a sea change in Roman Catholicism’s liturgy.

Back in, say, 1977…thirty years ago…every Roman official you interviewed in the Congregation for Divine Worship/Sacraments would have told you the Tridentine Mass was forbidden, except for the very specific circumstances of the “Agatha Christie Indult” of 1971 (which was NOT for the 1962 Missal, I might note) and the case of PRIVATE Mass for sick and aged priests.

Even in private Masses, the new Missal was obligatory.

The ONLY hierarchical voice raised in defense of the earlier Missal was Marcel Lefebvre, along with Antonio de Castro Mayer, who refused to implement the new Missal in his diocese in Brazil (until his retirement in 1981, there was no Novus Ordo in the whole diocese).

Note: no Roman document actually said the old Missal was “abrogated”. Annibale Bugnini pleaded for such a document, but he was refused. Still, documents can be shown that say the new Missal was “mandatory”…in other words, you have to use the new, but the old isn’t abrogated. Sound weird? It was. Bugnini and I agree on something…he admitted it was weird/bizarre.

Now, in 2007, more than once Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, the pope’s official spokesman for Tridentine liturgy, has asserted that the old Missal was NEVER forbidden or banned, and “retains its right and citizenship among the Church’s rites.”

In other words, Lefebvre was right about one thing: the old Missal was NEVER banned.

Now things are still strange (as they were thirty years ago), since Cardinal Castrillon has said it was “never banned”, when any half-alive person knows it was banned, and still is banned, in plenty of locales.

Strange times!

 

[Adonis33]

There’s been no response to any of these posts by the original poster, Catholic36.

The post appears to be another “hit and run” attack on traditional Catholics.

I’ve noticed the same thing. The things said in the OP were so outrageous - I think it was a “hit and run”.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is now closed.