Noticing alot of opposition to the Tridentine Mass

[ReConverted]

And again, I don’t disagree with you as long as we recognize that what you say is true of both sides. There are those on both sides of the TLM preference who are proclaiming things that are outside what the Church teaches.

I do disagree though about the division in this case not being a bad thing. When people are saying, from either side, that a valid liturgy of the Church (either one) is better/worse than another one–when the Church has bluntly stated that to not be true in Sacrosanctum Concilium–the division that is created in causing people to take sides against their fellow Catholics is indeed a very bad thing.

1 Corinthians 11:17-19

“[17] In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. [18] In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. [19] No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”

 

[lak611]

You really can’t get lost as the words are right in front of you and they are in the vernacular as well as Latin. It doesn’t matter is you get ahead of the Priest or behind him as you can always slow down or speed up. You see its all up to you.

The only time I got lost was when I went to a daily Mass. The priest said the prayers so fast I could not follow along. That was the only TLM I was disappointed with. In my parish, the NO is only about 15 minutes long for daily Mass. The priest says the English almost as fast as an auctioneer and there is no homily. I thought I would try a daily TLM. It was just as short (15 minutes, no sermon), only since the priest sped through the Latin, I couldn’t follow it. I’m still looking for a better daily Mass, either TLM or NO.

 

[mshealy]

You really shoud read the book entitled Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Gamber.

In his preface, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XI) called Gamber “the one scholar, who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church.”

It’s a great book and I think it would do a lot to help clear up many of the misconceptions that you have just shown in your post.

Well, this just goes to show that being a Pope is very different from being a Cardinal beyond what is simply obvious. If Pope Benedict still believes that to be the case, he would not be considering (if it is even released) an indult; he would be promptly issuing an Apostolic Constitution at a minimum to alter the whole Mass. Since no one thinks he is going to abolish the NO, it is fair to say the Pope no longer believes as he did when he was a Cardinal. Correct?

 

[mshealy]

Well, if what I said were really misconceptions we wouldn’t still be waiting for the indult, and, more importantly, it wouldn’t be an indult at all but an Apostolic Constitution at a minimum. I admire Pope Benedict as much as the next person, but it is clear that he realizes it was one thing to be a Cardinal it is another to be Pope.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Well, this just goes to show that being a Pope is very different from being a Cardinal beyond what is simply obvious. If Pope Benedict still believes that to be the case, he would not be considering (if it is even released) an indult; he would be promptly issuing an Apostolic Constitution at a minimum to alter the whole Mass. Since no one thinks he is going to abolish the NO, it is fair to say the Pope no longer believes as he did when he was a Cardinal. Correct?

No, if I remember correctly at the end of the book Gamber argues that the Roman Rite, with some adaptations, should be restored to equal dignity along with the Novus Ordo, which would be retained for now ad experimentum, not that the NO should be abolished.

Hence the reason I recommended that you should read the book.

 

[mshealy]

No, if I remember correctly at the end of the book Gamber argues that the Roman Rite, with some adaptations, should be restored to equal dignity along with the Novus Ordo, which would be retained for now ad experimentum, not that the NO should be abolished.

Hence the reason I recommended that you should read the book.

Two Masses = two Churches !! Thus, the problem with the indult. The indult, not the lack of the TLM could be the beginning of the end for on one of the four marks of the Church, namely that the Church is ONE. The opposition has a point, and that is their point. I am familiar with Gamber’s book. You are correct when you say that “Gamber argues that the Roman Rite*, with some *exceptions,…” be restored to “equal dignity” to the NO. Think about it, a Roman Rite with “some exceptions”!!! Good heavens! Whole new blogs and websites will be spawned instantly moaning, carping, and griping about these “exceptions.” This is not a solution, just a new problem.

 

[BobP123]

The only time I got lost was when I went to a daily Mass. The priest said the prayers so fast I could not follow along. That was the only TLM I was disappointed with. In my parish, the NO is only about 15 minutes long for daily Mass. The priest says the English almost as fast as an auctioneer and there is no homily. I thought I would try a daily TLM. It was just as short (15 minutes, no sermon), only since the priest sped through the Latin, I couldn’t follow it. I’m still looking for a better daily Mass, either TLM or NO.

No disrespect intended, lake, but aren’t you looking for some kind of special show that would edify you? It seems as if you are ignoring the theology and significance of the Mass altogether. I don’t think you can gain full graces by doing that.

The Mass is what it is, whether it’s said in 5 minutes or 3 hours. Your participation isn’t necessarily limited to the same amount of time. If you feel that you didn’t get your money’s worth, come earlier or stay later. Geesh.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Two Masses = two Churches !! Thus, the problem with the indult. The indult, not the lack of the TLM could be the beginning of the end for on one of the four marks of the Church, namely that the Church is ONE. The opposition has a point, and that is their point. I am familiar with Gamber’s book. You are correct when you say that “Gamber argues that the Roman Rite*, with some *exceptions,…” be restored to “equal dignity” to the NO. Think about it, a Roman Rite with “some exceptions”!!! Good heavens! Whole new blogs and websites will be spawned instantly moaning, carping, and griping about these “exceptions.” This is not a solution, just a new problem.

We have more than that now. Are we not one with all the other rites? I am sorry but your argument doesn’t hold any water. I still doubt that you have actually read this book.

 

[ReConverted]

Two Masses = two Churches !! Thus, the problem with the indult. The indult, not the lack of the TLM could be the beginning of the end for on one of the four marks of the Church, namely that the Church is ONE. The opposition has a point, and that is their point. I am familiar with Gamber’s book. You are correct when you say that “Gamber argues that the Roman Rite*, with some *exceptions,…” be restored to “equal dignity” to the NO. Think about it, a Roman Rite with “some exceptions”!!! Good heavens! Whole new blogs and websites will be spawned instantly moaning, carping, and griping about these “exceptions.” This is not a solution, just a new problem.

 

[ncjohn]

1 Corinthians 11:17-19

“[17] In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. [18] In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. [19] No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”

Am I to read this as implying that one “side” or the other has the “preferable” liturgy “approved by God”, to the exclusion of the other? And that one “side” or the other is approved by God and the other “side” is not, and that disdain for a fellow Catholic over which liturgy they prefer is an acceptable division?

If so, I will reiterate that the Church states exactly the opposite and that this is far outside of Church teaching.

If I am misreading what you’re saying, I apologize up front.

 

[mshealy]

We have more than that now. Are we not one with all the other rites? I am sorry but your argument doesn’t hold any water. I still doubt that you have actually read this book.

It’s not my argument, it’s the attitude of those opposed to the NO and their posts. I take it you haven’t read them carefully. The TLM folks come within a hare’s breath of calling the NO heresy, some do. Some of the NO folks are just as bad. We have other rites, but the principal Mass is the NO. We will not remain one Church for long with two Masses of "equal dignity" (your quote from Gamber) runing side by side in the same diocese. This is just painfully obvious.

 

[mshealy]

Thanks for the article. You have made my day and MY POINT!!!

 

[E.E.N.S]

It’s not my argument, it’s the attitude of those opposed to the NO and their posts. I take it you haven’t read them carefully. The TLM folks come within a hare’s breath of calling the NO heresy, some do. Some of the NO folks are just as bad. We have other rites, but the principal Mass is the NO. We will not remain one Church for long with two Masses of "equal dignity" (your quote from Gamber) runing side by side in the same diocese. This is just painfully obvious.

You are painting with a wide brush, don’t you think? There are FEW “TLM’ers” would would say such about the NO, no istead what is usually said is that 99% of NO Masses are not being celebrated in accordance with what the Second Vatican Council called for.

As for being “painfully obvious”, allow me for a moment to use a friend of yours.
Oh, here he is →

---

Note: I do find it interesting that a Protestant, such as yourself, thinks you know better than the likes of Catholics (such as Msgr. Gamber, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XI…and myself of course.)

 

[lak611]

Two Masses = two Churches !! Thus, the problem with the indult. The indult, not the lack of the TLM could be the beginning of the end for on one of the four marks of the Church, namely that the Church is ONE. The opposition has a point, and that is their point. I am familiar with Gamber’s book. You are correct when you say that “Gamber argues that the Roman Rite*, with some *exceptions,…” be restored to “equal dignity” to the NO. Think about it, a Roman Rite with “some exceptions”!!! Good heavens! Whole new blogs and websites will be spawned instantly moaning, carping, and griping about these “exceptions.” This is not a solution, just a new problem.

What would be wrong with it? The Eastern Churches are fully Catholic but have different liturgies.

 

[Rykell]

EENS:

You are painting with a wide brush, don’t you think? There are FEW “TLM’ers” would would say such about the NO, no istead what is usually said is that 99% of NO Masses are not being celebrated in accordance with what the Second Vatican Council called for.

You probably have not read as many posts as the rest of us who are not exaggerating when they make the statements alluded to by mshealy. If you have any doubt, mention it here and I will PM you with the links.

My deep hope and belief is that there are a few, maybe even a majority of TLM people who simply want to worship God in their preference. But there are others who blatantly band together and denigrate the NO every chance they can, even on personal blogs. You will find posts depicting the most abject points in a light that intends to influence others that this is the norm in most of the NO masses and churches, and that all should simply go to the TLM, which is the “true Mass of ages!”

And I echo your smilie →

 

[BobP123]

And the simple truth is, people often fear what they don’t understand.

Now you know what Catholics went through during Vatican II. Yes, fear and lots of it. More probably from the fear of the unknown, though.

 

[Walking_Home]

You are painting with a wide brush, don’t you think? There are FEW “TLM’ers” would would say such about the NO, no istead what is usually said is that 99% of NO Masses are not being celebrated in accordance with what the Second Vatican Council called for.

As for being “painfully obvious”, allow me for a moment to use a friend of yours.
Oh, here he is →

---

Note: I do find it interesting that a Protestant, such as yourself, thinks you know better than the likes of Catholics (such as Msgr. Gamber, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XI…and myself of course.)

---

I Just checked his/her profile----it does put a different perspective on this persons contributions here.

 

[Indyann]

You probably have not read as many posts as the rest of us who are not exaggerating when they make the statements alluded to by mshealy. If you have any doubt, mention it here and I will PM you with the links.

My deep hope and belief is that there are a few, maybe even a majority of TLM people who simply want to worship God in their preference. But there are others who blatantly band together and denigrate the NO every chance they can, even on personal blogs. You will find posts depicting the most abject points in a light that intends to influence others that this is the norm in most of the NO masses and churches, and that all should simply go to the TLM, which is the “true Mass of ages!”

Thanks Rykell. Excellent link!

tcrnews2.com/gengen2.html

 

[mshealy]

You are painting with a wide brush, don’t you think? There are FEW “TLM’ers” would would say such about the NO, no istead what is usually said is that 99% of NO Masses are not being celebrated in accordance with what the Second Vatican Council called for.

As for being “painfully obvious”, allow me for a moment to use a friend of yours.
Oh, here he is →

---

Note: I do find it interesting that a Protestant, such as yourself, thinks you know better than the likes of Catholics (such as Msgr. Gamber, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XI…and myself of course.)

Let’s see, when you can’t come up with more reasons or facts you just call people “Protestant”? Nice way to try and divert attention, when you’re out of arguments go ad hominem – though I am actually Catholic. A Catholic who thinks the true issue here is obedience to the Church, which so far has proclaimed the NO as it’s principal Mass around the world. As a former Protestant, I can say you are behaving much more like Luther than I am.

But, to the point: last I checked Paul VI was Catholic, though when you read the contributions of many TLM’ers you’d think he was a heretic. (I guess you only defer to the Pope when you agree?) Oh, Paul VI is great when we’re talking about abortion, contraception, or birth control, but when it’s the Mass we can beat him up all we want. In addition, last I looked John Paul II was a pretty solid Catholic, but never revised the NO. That should be something in it’s favor. After all, JPII had a long time to fix it if he thought it was really that bad. As for Pope Benedict, well, if we believe some of the latest reports (per Cardinal Bertone) the “document” on the TLM is on the way VERY soon. I hope so, but I don’t think it will end this, unfortunately. Those like you should read it very carefully and think about its logic. After all, if he really agrees with you and you are right, then there is only one choice, that is, issue a Papal Bull and put things aright NOW: reinstate the TLM. If the Pope does less the NO will remain. I think Pope Benedict is quite wise, but he will not put an end to the NO because, in the end and despite some difficulties, you are wrong and Paul VI, JPII, and most Bishops, Cardinals, and theologians have established that. By the way, there is a big world of scholarship beyond Msgr Gamber, though I do respect his opinion.

Oh, your friend says hello –

 

[goofyjim]

As I have said before let’s keep both the TLM and the NO. That way everyone is happy.