NON-traditional Tridentine Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Franciscum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fergal said:
***“if you react with rudeness, rudeness you will get in return.” ***Isn’t this a little too much departed from the demands of Christ?? To me it demonstrates very much a mind set of the Old Testament. Misericordie, I once thought I understood where you were coming from. Now I am confused again.

Would I be right in saying that fractions of the Old Testament attract you too? An eye for an eye maybe??

I wonder how you would have been if you were a Pharisee or Saducee in the time of Christ?? Would you have treated him with similar dismissal as he strove to change what was at that time the established church. I sincerely think that even his miracles would not be enough for you to recognise the validity of what vjriost was trying to Change.
God established the temple rite of sacrifice in the Old testament. God established the church rite of sacrifice in the New Testament. This was too much for the Jews and hence they remember the old covenant to this day and await the Messiah.
In your reasoning they are quite right to reject the New Covanent and remin in the old if change proves too much. Correct??

This change from Old Covenant to New Covenant was a massive change too. However the human heart recognises that God is always and everywhere in charge.

The Holy Spirit blows and acts where he wills.
There has only ever been and always will be the one true Mass.
Click to expand...

THE CATHOLIC teaching is NOT to be a pacifist. Actually, since you are so familiar with the New Testaments as all catholics should be, then you also realize not to pass rash judgement. However, you took the freedom to do just that by comparing me to a pharisee. Well, all have OPINIONS right?
 
40.png
Franciscum:
I am against ignorant people who cast a pall over the Church and the Tridentine Mass.
Click to expand...
Everyone so in Franciscum’s view all who speak beuty of TLM including the one who gave us the right to attend it after V.II(Pope John Paul II) are “ignorant people who cast a pall over the church and the Tridentine Mass.” This speaks volumes of a person’s ill informed not only liturgical formation and theological as well, but what’s worse is the lack of respect to all Traditional catholics. Fallacy, fallacy, and more fallacy .
 
Munda cor meum:
I think you may have mis-understood my post. I was responding to a previous post that indicated that the New Mass “brought the Church out of the Dark Ages”.

That being said, a change in liturgy over time is normal and expected in my opinion. Many of the early Church practices were borne out of necessity. Say, for example, receiving communion on the hand…

The changes brought about by Vatican II, on the other hand were sudden, drastic, and imposed almost as if by an external force. That is one of the reasons that I question the wisdom of the New Mass.

Finally, I would welcome a return to the “dark ages”. From all of the fairly recent historical studies, it seems to have been truly a wonderous time when Nations were subservient to and guided by God Himself.
Click to expand...
umm, i think you are quolting the wrong person?? I am as traditional as Pius XII. I would too rather return to the great middle ages when at leats there was reverence and respect in the church(oh yes, i am only 34 years old too).
 
40.png
Franciscum:
Take a close look at your comments above. It added absolutely zero value to the discussion.

Why did you even bother to make the above posting? Ego? Boredom? While this is certainly not a new experience for you (based on some of your other posting I have read), it would be nice if you tried harder to either make a contribution or refrain from posting in the future.
Click to expand...
“laughable” this comes from someone as yourself who has been (all can check those postings) disrespectful and personal with so many respectful and bright posters here.
 
40.png
MrS:
Franciscum, is a sad case… and not laughable. His agenda is his agenda… can’t change him…let him wallow in his views. Perhaps we should offer a TLM for all the posters here… those who don’t like it can offer a NO for all. It would be a win-win situation.

As for the moderators… I often think they just watch with amusement if they watch at all. Let’s not forget they are only moderators not orthodox theologians, so their (name removed by moderator)ut should only occur at “drastic” situations. I personally could care less if Fran makes himself look silly. He has an axe to grind…and he is only swinging with a short handle.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
Click to expand...
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_11.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_12.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_54.gif
 
Fransciscum, you seem so angry at the people here who may prefer something different than yourself, and how are they ignorant, I see you pulled something out of something I said and commented on it, but I cant seem to understand what you meant, but I do see that you seem to be against the Traditional Mass. History is History, and there are many great books on the history of the Mass, and the Traditional Mass was, in many part until the whole was put into place and asked to be said by a great Pope what got us through many hard years of abuse by the Protestants, who think in many cases they are above God, and that they can decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but I hope that they are the ones who come back to us and the Holy Father and NOT the other way around, as I feel that we have been compromising enough to them and others in reaching out. The new mass is fine, sort of like the short story you read as a kid or the cliff notes, but to get the true essence of the sacrifice our Lord made for us on Calvary, there is no equal to the Traditional Mass. I see you mention the Pauline Mass, but I must admit I know very little about that. Maybe you can start a string on that as I would be interested. Thanks!
40.png
Franciscum:
Take a close look at your comments above. It added absolutely zero value to the discussion.

Why did you even bother to make the above posting? Ego? Boredom? While this is certainly not a new experience for you (based on some of your other posting I have read), it would be nice if you tried harder to either make a contribution or refrain from posting in the future.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
misericordie:
THE CATHOLIC teaching is NOT to be a pacifist. Actually, since you are so familiar with the New Testaments as all catholics should be, then you also realize not to pass rash judgement. However, you took the freedom to do just that by comparing me to a pharisee. Well, all have OPINIONS right?
Click to expand...
Let me respond please:
  1. How many times does the word PEACE issue from the mouth of Christ? How many times the word PEACE uttered in the entire New Testament? Any Idea? Well it is in 115 verses. The most important??? ***Mt:5:9: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. ***
In fact I am very much reminded of the following verse throughout this discussion*** Mk:9:34 (9-33) But they held their peace, for in the way they had disputed among themselves, which of them should be the greatest. ***

On the questioin of judgement. you are right rash judgement is critisized by Christ. But this is only when making judgements on the spur of the moment. I am not calling you a Pharisee or Saducee for that matter. I simply asked what if you were a religious at the time of Christ in the then established religion.
Did Christ critisize all judging??? Well look here to what Christ said when Peter made a judgement. Lk:7:43 Simon answering, said: I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he said to him: Thou hast judged rightly.

So it is ok to judge when armed with enough information to make an informed decision. And God knows you have supplied plenty!!😉
 
40.png
MrS:
It reminds me of a child who has been feed fast food for forty years, and now balks at eating quality food with strange names even when a menu is provided for explanation.:banghead: And won’t consider an elders opinion that it just might be better for them… and they don’t need a bishop to return what has never been taken away.
Click to expand...
just hammering away at the wall someone put up between the TLM and NO.

We need Regan to say “Pope John Paul II, tear down the wall!”
 
40.png
Fergal:
To all interested in the debate please visit the following site:
jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm

You will be very suprised at what is contained within!
Click to expand...
His discussion in Part IV on “for all” is not sincere. He uses the same history of the church that Fr Fessio, for example, uses to say just the opposite.

When the intent of the Latin was to teach theology clearly, and the language is changed to English with its everchanging meanings to many words and expressions… we will have a problem.
[1]We need to understand that at times “for all” and “for the many” could mean the same thing.
[2]And at times they do not mean the same thing.

If [1] is true, no meaning is changed… but WHY change the words unless there is intent to change the meaning?
If [2] is true, we have need to discuss why the change

either way… why the change unless their was intent to change the meaning… which is what has happened.

On another note… The Credo has never changed in Latin. We precede it with “we adore”. “we praise”, “we glorify”. But then comes the time to say Credo…I believe. The shift from we to I is so important. I believe… not dependant on what you believe. But now we have English… how many of you now hear your celebrant lead us in the “new” Credo… “We believe…”

Perhaps your source has an excuse or reason for this too.

This is hardly a debate as you say… just his paper on the subject.
 
I think the site adds a huge amount of food for thought. It actually goes into other areas that I needed information on. It has cleared my mind from an awful load of rubbish found on this thread.

It may be good food but, Mr S, I do allow for those who suffer from allergies.
 
That is true, why change it from many to all, that has been a question thrown at me by many traditionalists, and I agree with them. Why not just change it back, if like the Novus Ordo defenders say that it means the same, then change it back. Maybe we can get the people who oppose the NO mass to come back. Just a silly thought here on my part
40.png
MrS:
His discussion in Part IV on “for all” is not sincere. He uses the same history of the church that Fr Fessio, for example, uses to say just the opposite.

When the intent of the Latin was to teach theology clearly, and the language is changed to English with its everchanging meanings to many words and expressions… we will have a problem.
[1]We need to understand that at times “for all” and “for the many” could mean the same thing.
[2]And at times they do not mean the same thing.

If [1] is true, no meaning is changed… but WHY change the words unless there is intent to change the meaning?
If [2] is true, we have need to discuss why the change

either way… why the change unless their was intent to change the meaning… which is what has happened.

On another note… The Credo has never changed in Latin. We precede it with “we adore”. “we praise”, “we glorify”. But then comes the time to say Credo…I believe. The shift from we to I is so important. I believe… not dependant on what you believe. But now we have English… how many of you now hear your celebrant lead us in the “new” Credo… “We believe…”

Perhaps your source has an excuse or reason for this too.

This is hardly a debate as you say… just his paper on the subject.
Click to expand...
 
I just read the link that you sent in defence of the New Mass, and I must say it is full of holes. First off, the author did not include the entire Papal Bull -Quo Primium, instead he cut and pasted and took words from the Bull out of context. One of his main arguments is that in the Bull, any mass that for 200 Years existed before1570, may be used with approval. As far as I can recall, the Novus Ordo mass was put into place in 1970, 400 YEARS AFTER the Bull. Also, the author seemed to purposly leave out the language at the end of the Bull which forbade any mortal to touch the mass.

Dont forget, as Saint Pope Pius V was writing this Bull, as was the intent of the Council of Trent, was to Re-Affirm Catholic teachings, which had been severely distorted by the Reformation and there were all sorts of missals and papers flying all over Europe. The Mass was not invented or revised at the Council by Pope Pius IV, but clarified by him and later codified by St Pius V, which is the intent of every Council, to clarify and expand on existing church teachings and doctrine, not to reinvent new doctrine, which can fall under heresy, which I am not in a position to say that Pope Paul VI is in or John XXIII for that matter.

The defence centers around trying to poke holes into Quo Primium and it fails at that. It then goes into the Ottavani Intervention, and the author states that he agrees with the Cardinal, but that the Cardinal was reading an unfinished draft of the mass in 1969. How much difference does that make and is it even true?

He then goes into the translations, which is sort of like talking about Bill Clinton and what the definition of “is” is. Why could not the translations have been done to the satisfaction of these Cardinals? Do they not have a say? I could sympathize with much of the anger some of these Traditionalist feel, even better after reading this defence, which I never read before and is full of holes.

This does not mean I do not follow what His Holiness says, as he is our Leader and we can not disobey, but I do think after reading this, that some serious questions need to be answered, some 40 years after the fact. Maybe our next Pope can unite the Left and the Right, because right now it seems as if only the Left has any voice.
40.png
kwitz:
Thanks Fergal. A very interesting site indeed. It answers questions that I wasn’t even smart enough to ask.

Kris
Click to expand...
 
40.png
terrcatholic:
I just read the link that you sent in defence of the New Mass, and I must say it is full of holes.

The defence centers around trying to poke holes into Quo Primium and it fails at that. It then goes into the Ottavani Intervention, and the author states that he agrees with the Cardinal, but that the Cardinal was reading an unfinished draft of the mass in 1969. How much difference does that make and is it even true?

He then goes into the translations, which is sort of like talking about Bill Clinton and what the definition of “is” is. Why could not the translations have been done to the satisfaction of these Cardinals? Do they not have a say? I could sympathize with much of the anger some of these Traditionalist feel, even better after reading this defence, which I never read before and is full of holes.

but I do think after reading this, that some serious questions need to be answered, some 40 years after the fact. Maybe our next Pope can unite the Left and the Right, because right now it seems as if only the Left has any voice.
Click to expand...
For someone born during the Vat II, you have good insight… were you born with your eyes open?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

(this is where you say, No, God has opened themhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif)
 
if the tlm was reintroduced tomorrow how would it’s supporters suggest the non latin speaking majority follow it? perhaps large screens for subtitles above the altar, if you want to retain todays and tomorrows catholics stop slagging off the n,o mass and stop trying to force what is rarely taught in most inner city schools onto people unless what you want is ‘the right type of people through your doors’
 
40.png
cainem:
if the tlm was reintroduced tomorrow how would it’s supporters suggest the non latin speaking majority follow it? perhaps large screens for subtitles above the altar, if you want to retain todays and tomorrows catholics stop slagging off the n,o mass and stop trying to force what is rarely taught in most inner city schools onto people unless what you want is ‘the right type of people through your doors’
Click to expand...
I would only wish for true “active participation”… which Vat II meant to mean Spiritual…not large screens, bands, lay intervention etc…

How do you feel about immigrants? Should they come to America, and then we must learn their language? Or should they be welcomed into America and encouraged (and trained) to learn this country’s language?

Same principle with the liturgy. or should we also consider now using the KJV for our readings, or a special version for those we are unwilling to help learn the Traditions.?
 
i’m not unwilling to learn latin, i dont have the time with 1 wife 3 children ( perhaps one more on the way) and 2 jobs to support them in between being the handy man at our parish, free time for learning is a luxury i dont have, i’m sure there are other young parents in the same situation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top