New Mass ? Old Mass ? Dilemmas!

[Conservative]

I’ve posted and read regarding the TLM and NO. I grew up attending first TLM mostly - later NO. My dilemma is that word, “anethema” (spelling unsure).

I know all the arguments about Canon of the Mass words, various areas changed significantly - and the Latin versus vernacular.

HELP ! Are we anethema if we attend or receive at the NO? I think this would require replies from both Traditional and “moderate” clergy - and I don’t always get a quick answer in Apologetics. There has to be a limit and an answer to all this.

I’m not looking to set up battleground camps for discussion - just a solid answer.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I’ve posted and read regarding the TLM and NO. I grew up attending first TLM mostly - later NO. My dilemma is that word, “anethema” (spelling unsure).

I know all the arguments about Canon of the Mass words, various areas changed significantly - and the Latin versus vernacular.

HELP ! Are we anethema if we attend or receive at the NO? I think this would require replies from both Traditional and “moderate” clergy - and I don’t always get a quick answer in Apologetics. There has to be a limit and an answer to all this.

I’m not looking to set up battleground camps for discussion - just a solid answer.

How can one be anethema attending or receiving at the Mass determined by B16 to be the ordinary form of the Mass for the Holy Mother Church?

 

[Conservative]

How can one be anethema attending or receiving at the Mass determined by B16 to be the ordinary form of the Mass for the Holy Mother Church?

?? Eilish Maura ??
Are you speaking of an ordinary form that Pope Benedict has returned to? Even if so, is that what’s being used in all parishes? Has it gone back to a traditional form? I haven’t followed much of Pope Benedict’s recent statements, so I’m feeling rather dumb here.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I’ve posted and read regarding the TLM and NO. I grew up attending first TLM mostly - later NO. My dilemma is that word, “anethema” (spelling unsure).

I know all the arguments about Canon of the Mass words, various areas changed significantly - and the Latin versus vernacular.

HELP ! Are we anathema if we attend or receive at the NO? I think this would require replies from both Traditional and “moderate” clergy - and I don’t always get a quick answer in Apologetics. There has to be a limit and an answer to all this.

I’m not looking to set up battleground camps for discussion - just a solid answer.

As both the forms of the Mass are valid by decree Pope Benedict we are not nor have we been anathema in the No or the Tridentine Mass

 

[Unitas]

HELP ! Are we anethema if we attend or receive at the NO?

Heavens, no!

Pope Benedict XVI recently liberated the TLM so it can be more widely accessible. The TLM is referred ot as the Extraordinary Form, and the NO as the Ordinary Form.

If you prefer the TLM you can look up where to find one where you live here:

ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm

 

[Conservative]

Heavens, no!

Pope Benedict XVI recently liberated the TLM so it can be more widely accessible. The TLM is referred ot as the Extraordinary Form, and the NO as the Ordinary Form.

If you prefer the TLM you can look up where to find one where you live here:

ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm

Many thanks for that clarification - I’d been reading “EF” and “OF” recently here and was wondering what those abbreviations were.

As to the anethema reference, my concern was that I believe in Pope St. Pius V’s stringent orders were regarding the Tridentine Mass. It’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed it, but recall something about anyone changing it, etc. (won’t go into the long wording here) were “anethema”. I’d never heard the word until years back when reading - and it sure is strongly put.

As to where to attend TLM - No problem there. I have it available - though not as close as neighborhood parishes. I much more prefer TLM and attend but had this question bothering me re NO. Thanks for the link.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

As to the anethema reference, my concern was that I believe in Pope St. Pius V’s stringent orders were regarding the Tridentine Mass. It’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed it, but recall something about anyone changing it, etc. (won’t go into the long wording here) were “anethema”. I’d never heard the word until years back when reading - and it sure is strongly put.

Pope Pius was not able to prevent another pope from taking such an action.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

?? Eilish Maura ??
Are you speaking of an ordinary form that Pope Benedict has returned to? Even if so, is that what’s being used in all parishes? Has it gone back to a traditional form? I haven’t followed much of Pope Benedict’s recent statements, so I’m feeling rather dumb here.

Have you NOT heard of the Moto Proprio issued last year by B16?

It was not all that recent.

 

[cam100]

As to the anethema reference, my concern was that I believe in Pope St. Pius V’s stringent orders were regarding the Tridentine Mass. It’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed it, but recall something about anyone changing it, etc. (won’t go into the long wording here) were “anethema”. I’d never heard the word until years back when reading - and it sure is strongly put.

What you’re referring to is the papal bull Quo Primum issued Pope Pius V. Here’s an explanation of it that I’m copying from one of my prior posts:

The issue of Quo Primum does get mentioned frequently here.
The bottom line is, however, that Quo Primum is not an infallible pronouncement of a revealed truth, but a disciplinary document. It issued a command to celebrate mass according to a certain missal. Disciplinary laws are subject to the pope’s authority. All popes have equal authority, so a pope can alter, dispense from, or abrogate a previous pope’s disciplinary laws.

Quo Primum uses strong language to make the point that everyone under the pope, no matter what rank, was bound to obey this document, which had no “expiration date”. If you are familiar with such documents, you will see that he was not intending to bind future popes, as some people today mistakenly think. Phrases such “in perpetuity” mean that the document is valid indefinitely, that is, it will never expire on its own. This does not prevent a future pope from altering or abrogating it, however.

For those who are still skeptical, they should look at the papal bull Quod a Vobis, also issued by Pope Pius V. It used the same type of strong language to order clergy to use the revised breviary. It issued the same condemnations to those who refused. But Pope Pius X abrogated this document with Divino Afflatu, when he promulgated a new breviary.

Some people think that Quo Primum still binds, and that’s why Pope Benedict said that the TLM was never abrogated. That’s incorrect - the actual document Quo Primum was abrogated by Pope Paul VI, but not the mass itself. He did not abrogate the traditional mass, nor did he intend to, he just put restrictions on its use when he promulgated the new mass - restrictions later lifted by Pope Benedict.

 

[misterbee]

What you’re referring to is the papal bull Quo Primum issued Pope Pius V. Here’s an explanation of it that I’m copying from one of my prior posts:

The issue of Quo Primum does get mentioned frequently here.
The bottom line is, however, that Quo Primum is not an infallible pronouncement of a revealed truth, but a disciplinary document. It issued a command to celebrate mass according to a certain missal. Disciplinary laws are subject to the pope’s authority. All popes have equal authority, so a pope can alter, dispense from, or abrogate a previous pope’s disciplinary laws.

Quo Primum uses strong language to make the point that everyone under the pope, no matter what rank, was bound to obey this document, which had no “expiration date”. If you are familiar with such documents, you will see that he was not intending to bind future popes, as some people today mistakenly think. Phrases such “in perpetuity” mean that the document is valid indefinitely, that is, it will never expire on its own. This does not prevent a future pope from altering or abrogating it, however.

For those who are still skeptical, they should look at the papal bull Quod a Vobis, also issued by Pope Pius V. It used the same type of strong language to order clergy to use the revised breviary. It issued the same condemnations to those who refused. But Pope Pius X abrogated this document with Divino Afflatu, when he promulgated a new breviary.

Some people think that Quo Primum still binds, and that’s why Pope Benedict said that the TLM was never abrogated. That’s incorrect - the actual document Quo Primum was abrogated by Pope Paul VI, but not the mass itself. He did not abrogate the traditional mass, nor did he intend to, he just put restrictions on its use when he promulgated the new mass - restrictions later lifted by Pope Benedict.

You win the internet. I’ve never had that explained to me in such easy-to-understand terms. Thank you.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve posted and read regarding the TLM and NO. I grew up attending first TLM mostly - later NO. My dilemma is that word, “anethema” (spelling unsure).

I know all the arguments about Canon of the Mass words, various areas changed significantly - and the Latin versus vernacular.

HELP ! Are we anethema if we attend or receive at the NO? I think this would require replies from both Traditional and “moderate” clergy - and I don’t always get a quick answer in Apologetics. There has to be a limit and an answer to all this.

I’m not looking to set up battleground camps for discussion - just a solid answer.

Are you referring to one of the canons of Trent perhaps? Trent used a lot of anathemas.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
How can one be anethema attending or receiving at the Mass determined by B16 to be the ordinary form of the Mass for the Holy Mother Church?**

**You mean "ordinary form of the mass for the Roman Rite.

Holy Mother Church is omniritual.**

 

[bear06]

Many thanks for that clarification - I’d been reading “EF” and “OF” recently here and was wondering what those abbreviations were.

As to the anethema reference, my concern was that I believe in Pope St. Pius V’s stringent orders were regarding the Tridentine Mass. It’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed it, but recall something about anyone changing it, etc. (won’t go into the long wording here) were “anethema”. I’d never heard the word until years back when reading - and it sure is strongly put.

As to where to attend TLM - No problem there. I have it available - though not as close as neighborhood parishes. I much more prefer TLM and attend but had this question bothering me re NO. Thanks for the link.

I believe that you are speaking of Quo Primum. Here’s a good article dealing with Quo Primum and how it effects future popes.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM

Also, it would be good to note that changes came far before the OF was introduced.