Pope Benedict XVI signed papal act on 3/30 "freeing" the TLM [rumor]

  • Thread starter Thread starter whosebob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
A.Pelliccio:
Out of personal prefrence the priest should face ad orientum, not beucase he is facing the crucifix (which is just a symbol), its becuase he would be facing Christ present in the tabernacle. Now they we play hide and go seek with the Lord, man has put himself at the center of attention.

I really and truely hope and pray that such an annoucnment would come soon.

Blessed be God forever!
Click to expand...
What Ham said.

But… the reason for the priest to face ad orientum is to face the same way as the people. He is leading the laity in worship.

Sometimes I get the feeling that some priests feel that they are performing for the laity.
 
if John Paul had ordered that we do jumping jacks during the Consecration, he would do them out of “obedience”.
Click to expand...
Clearly the Pope is not always right, or prudent, or a good person. His statements on faith and morals are infallible when proclaimed ex cathedra, but obviously he can politically or aesthetically or administratively make many mistakes and there can be a respectful critique.

The “papalotry” discussed can be a problem, and I think it is one of the things that turns the Eastern Orthodox off and makes them bitter and resentful. Even an infallible Pope probably wouldn’t be so bad for them…if the Church was more decentralized. If the local bishops did have more autonomy in things. If the Curia did not micromanage everything. In the earlier Church, when communication and transportation were not as good…Rome often had to just leave things to the local church…now the Pope appoints every bishop! Now, I think this is a fine model, and especially for the Western (Latin Rite) Church…but I think the Eastern Orthodox would want, especially in the East, more decentralization and autonomy…which is pretty much the attitude the Church has taken with the Eastern Rites…the Pope however, dogmatically, is the still the supreme authority even in merely administrative and disciplinary matters.

That being said, however, If a pope ordered, as a disciplinary measure, everyone to do jumping jacks during the consecration, I certainly would.

I would not obey a Pope if he attempted to order us to sin. But jumping jacks are a morally neutral act…and though it may not fit our personal or cultural standards of reverence to do it…well, neither did eating the body and blood of Christ meet the religious standards of the Jews…

The point is, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about the jumping jacks…and in some strange culture that gesture might even be a sign of reverence…and the Pope is full well within his authority to command it…so I would.
 
40.png
batteddy:
Clearly the Pope is not always right, or prudent, or a good person. His statements on faith and morals are infallible when proclaimed ex cathedra, but obviously he can politically or aesthetically or administratively make many mistakes and there can be a respectful critique.

The “papalotry” discussed can be a problem, and I think it is one of the things that turns the Eastern Orthodox off and makes them bitter and resentful. Even an infallible Pope probably wouldn’t be so bad for them…if the Church was more decentralized. If the local bishops did have more autonomy in things. If the Curia did not micromanage everything. In the earlier Church, when communication and transportation were not as good…Rome often had to just leave things to the local church…now the Pope appoints every bishop! Now, I think this is a fine model, and especially for the Western (Latin Rite) Church…but I think the Eastern Orthodox would want, especially in the East, more decentralization and autonomy…which is pretty much the attitude the Church has taken with the Eastern Rites…the Pope however, dogmatically, is the still the supreme authority even in merely administrative and disciplinary matters.

That being said, however, If a pope ordered, as a disciplinary measure, everyone to do jumping jacks during the consecration, I certainly would.

I would not obey a Pope if he attempted to order us to sin. But jumping jacks are a morally neutral act…and though it may not fit our personal or cultural standards of reverence to do it…well, neither did eating the body and blood of Christ meet the religious standards of the Jews…

The point is, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about the jumping jacks…and in some strange culture that gesture might even be a sign of reverence…and the Pope is full well within his authority to command it…so I would.
Click to expand...
Well isn’t that has been occuring? Some of our bishops have taken it upon to do things as they like. And this should become the norm. Yea, were are in great shape.
 
40.png
arch_angelorum:
Did Vat 2 actually mandate that the altar should be facing the people? It just creeps me out to see the priest sacrificing towards the people. The notion of sacrifice would be futher hightened if it was not facing the people, as the facing of the people creates a very conciliar, groupish atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Why do you ask if the documents of Vatican 2 madate the moving of the altar? The changes in rubrics are not limited to a Council, and there is nothing in Church documents that indicate that it must be limited to a Council. Vatican 2 documents intitiated changes in a number of areas, but none of the documents were written as if they were a complete guide to each and every change that could or would be made. It was anticipated that other changes would flow out of the documents of Vatican 2. Anyone reading the relevant documents with an open mind would, I believe, agree that the comments in the documetns concerning the liturgy show that changes that were made subsequently went further than the documents themselves did. However, there seems to be an unspoken charge that the changes to the Liturgy were to be somehow limited by the Vatican 2 documents, and they themselves do not say that, nor is there any other documents which would hold that changes could only be made to the extent set out in the Council.
 
EWTN News has a list of Holy Week celebrations presided by the Holy Father. Here is Holy Thursday’s schedule:
THURSDAY, April 13: Holy Thursday. In St. Peter’s Basilica at 9.30 a.m., the Holy Father will preside at the concelebration of the Chrism Mass with cardinals, bishops, and diocesan and religious priests present in Rome, as a sign of the close union between the pastor of the Universal Church and his brothers in the priestly ministry. The Easter Triduum of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection will begin in the Basilica of St. John Lateran at 5.30 p.m. with the Mass of Our Lord’s Last Supper. The Holy Father will preside at the concelebration of the Mass. After the homily, the rite of the washing of the feet of 12 priests will take place. During this rite, those present will be invited to give alms for the victims of landslides in Maasin, Philippines. The sum collected will be given to the Holy Father at the presentation of the gifts. At the end of the celebration the Blessed Sacrament will be transferred to the chapel of reposition.
Click to expand...
Forgive my ignorance if I am wrong, but I wasn’t aware that the Traditional Latin Mass could be concelebrated by two or more clergy, at least in the same sense that the Novus Ordo is concelebrated today.

If that is correct, would that rule out Holy Thursday for a surprise Papal TLM because the Masses on the day are planned to be concelebrated with “cardinals, bishops, and diocesan and religious priests present in Rome”?
 
I have been praying so vigorously that these rumors are true. I would love if the Pope supports tradition, the traditional movement has picked up a lot of steam the last few years and this will be an impetus for a full charge in years to come. The vocations are already knocking down the doors of FSSP seminary. Imagine, the more TLM offered in this country, the more traditional vocations produced (because like it or not, the TLM produces vocations), slowly but surely increasing the numbers of the traditional movement.

By the way, I notice that during the summer I see about 4 or 5 seminarians regularly at the TLM (we have about 28 seminarians in my diocese). The young, both laity and the priests and seminarians, are much more traditional than the previous generation. Give us a little bit longer and these young awesome priests will be our Bishops.

I wonder what’s going to happen in the Diocese of Orange if this happens, Bishop Brown has not been very generous to the traditionalists in his Diocese.
 
40.png
proud2bcatholic:
the TLM produces vocations
Click to expand...
Reverence, orthodoxy, prayer, and a strong sense of faith and devotion produce vocations. These things are found more in Latin Mass communities because a larger proportion of the people take their faith very seriously- most go out of their way to be there. I love the Tridentine Mass, but I don’t think it, in itself, is the reason for vocations.
 
40.png
m134e5:
Reverence, orthodoxy, prayer, and a strong sense of faith and devotion produce vocations. These things are found more in Latin Mass communities because a larger proportion of the people take their faith very seriously- most go out of their way to be there. I love the Tridentine Mass, but I don’t think it, in itself, is the reason for vocations.
Click to expand...
As witnessed by the dwindling numbers of the SSPX…
 
40.png
proud2bcatholic:
I would love if the Pope supports tradition, the traditional movement has picked up a lot of steam the last few years and this will be an impetus for a full charge in years to come.
Click to expand...
It bothers me that those who have a preference for a certain style of the Mass, of a discipline that can and does change, have taken the word “traditionial” upon themselves and exclude all others.

Tradition is more than just the liking of an old style/discipline. Tradition also lies in obedience to the Church, the Bishops, and the current norms/disciplines.
 
David frequently talks about “normative” liturgy, “current norms”, etc., etc.

A history lesson.

In 1969, a new Missal was introduced in part. That Missal only had an Ordinary. It had to be withdrawn for doctrinal reasons (when did that ever happen before?) and corrected. The final version of the complete Missal was published in 1970.

In 1974, Annibale Bugnini asked for a specific decree that the 1962 Missal had been abrogated. His request was denied.

In 1984, an Indult was issued for the 1962 Missal under very restrictive conditions. That Indult was considerably loosened in 1988.

Since then, multiple religious communities have flourished that are dedicated to the 1962 liturgical rubrics. An Apostolic Administration has been established in Brazil. And, in 2003, in the Basilica of St. Mary Major, the pope’s spokesman for matters relating to this liturgy stated that the 1962 liturgy “cannot be considered extinct”.

Bugnini must have turned over in his grave. He wanted that liturgy dead and obliterated.

Clearly, the current situation can’t exist indefinitely. Part of the reason for that is the phenomenal success of the Indult. John Paul opened the stable door, tentatively in 1984, firmly in 1988. The horse is gone.

So the liturgical establishment is furious…but so are the neoconservative papolaters who think EWTN represents the sublime height of Western liturgy.

The liturgy wars must end. They won’t end if some people ignore Church tradition on liturgy and agree that what happened in 1969 was perfectly normal operating procedure. Cardinal Ratzinger himself denied this. What happened in 1969 was NOT the Church’s normal way of revising/reforming liturgy. A committee was given wide latitude to interpret Vatican II. Paul VI intervened on some specific points (without him, for example, the Roman Canon would have been mutilated, the Orate Fratres cut entirely). But for the first time in liturgical history, a form of liturgy of hoary antiquity was, for all intents and purposes, banned.

Not surprising. Some people really hate the Tridentine liturgy. It’s hard to sell ecumenically, after all. All that sacrifice reference.

“Traditional” is a convenient adjective for the pre-conciliar liturgy. David isn’t entirely comfortable with the idea of further liberalization of the Tridentine liturgy. That’s fine. He can stay in his Rite and ignore Western liturgy.

But take heart, traditionalists. Things in 2006 are far better than they were in, say, 1976. Bugnini wanted this Mass dead. He didn’t get his way.

And if you prefer this Mass, you have a “rightful aspiration”.
 
40.png
AlexV:
David frequently talks about “normative” liturgy, “current norms”, etc., etc.

A history lesson.

In 1969, a new Missal was introduced in part. That Missal only had an Ordinary. It had to be withdrawn for doctrinal reasons (when did that ever happen before?) and corrected. The final version of the complete Missal was published in 1970.

In 1974, Annibale Bugnini asked for a specific decree that the 1962 Missal had been abrogated. His request was denied.

In 1984, an Indult was issued for the 1962 Missal under very restrictive conditions. That Indult was considerably loosened in 1988.

Since then, multiple religious communities have flourished that are dedicated to the 1962 liturgical rubrics. An Apostolic Administration has been established in Brazil. And, in 2003, in the Basilica of St. Mary Major, the pope’s spokesman for matters relating to this liturgy stated that the 1962 liturgy “cannot be considered extinct”.

Bugnini must have turned over in his grave. He wanted that liturgy dead and obliterated.

Clearly, the current situation can’t exist indefinitely. Part of the reason for that is the phenomenal success of the Indult. John Paul opened the stable door, tentatively in 1984, firmly in 1988. The horse is gone.

So the liturgical establishment is furious…but so are the neoconservative papolaters who think EWTN represents the sublime height of Western liturgy.

The liturgy wars must end. They won’t end if some people ignore Church tradition on liturgy and agree that what happened in 1969 was perfectly normal operating procedure. Cardinal Ratzinger himself denied this. What happened in 1969 was NOT the Church’s normal way of revising/reforming liturgy. A committee was given wide latitude to interpret Vatican II. Paul VI intervened on some specific points (without him, for example, the Roman Canon would have been mutilated, the Orate Fratres cut entirely). But for the first time in liturgical history, a form of liturgy of hoary antiquity was, for all intents and purposes, banned.

Not surprising. Some people really hate the Tridentine liturgy. It’s hard to sell ecumenically, after all. All that sacrifice reference.

“Traditional” is a convenient adjective for the pre-conciliar liturgy. David isn’t entirely comfortable with the idea of further liberalization of the Tridentine liturgy. That’s fine. He can stay in his Rite and ignore Western liturgy.

But take heart, traditionalists. Things in 2006 are far better than they were in, say, 1976. Bugnini wanted this Mass dead. He didn’t get his way.

And if you prefer this Mass, you have a “rightful aspiration”.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but if you’re in any way questioning the normative status of a Rite of Holy Mass that is celebrated by 98.5% of the world’s Catholic population, then you’re tilting at windmills.

You want the TLM, fine, there are places to go that are in legitimate communion with Rome. If you don’t like that idea, well, there is a nice Orthodox Church you can attend too.

But they’re schismatic!
 
Oh please. Did I say the 2002 Missal wasn’t normative for many in the Church? No. I didn’t.

First off, however, “normative” is a word of VERY recent provenance in the liturgy wars. It first appeared in 1967, when Bugnini dubbed his test run of his new Missal the MISSA NORMATIVA. Bad Latin, not to mention the fact that for the first time in Church history a liturgy was “tested and tried out” before a selected audience (which included Rembert Weakland). They solicited audience opinions, as if a Mass can be fabricated.

Ratzinger, by the way, concurs that it was “fabricated”. Pretty hard to deny if you’ve read Bugnini’s own book.

So what does “normative” mean? Does it mean it’s required? Nope. The Tridentine Indult proves that.

But let’s get even more technical. The vast majority of American Catholics do not follow the 2002 Missal. Why? For the same reason they use a 1971 Breviary. The American bishops can’t get translations approved.

The Breviary was significantly revised in 1985. Over twenty years ago. American Catholics are deprived of it. Where’s the Martyrology? I won’t hold my breath for it in English. The Sacramentary is now 21 years old. The 20-odd saints John Paul added to the universal calendar don’t have English offices yet because the bishops are more worried about kneeling at Communion than about translating liturgical texts.

So if you want to lecture traditionalists about norms, straighten out your own Novus Ordo house first. The normative Missal is the 2002 one? Fine. Show me an American parish that uses it. One of the great ironies of post-conciliar worship is that UNLIKE the old days, when texts were practically instantly disseminated worldwide, the current system of translation is so stultifyingly slow in America (and other countries) that we’re using 20 and 30 year old liturgical books trapped in the 70s and early 80s because nobody can come up with an approved translation.

Laughable, were it not so sad.
 
Tradition is more than just the liking of an old style/discipline. Tradition also lies in obedience to the Church, the Bishops, and the current norms/disciplines.
Click to expand...
nobody, except schismatic/sedevacantist groups, are advocating disobedience. and what i can’t understand is that you, a byzantine rite catholic, care that some people are attached to an older liturgical form in the latin rite? one of the the biggest critics of the reform was cardinal ratzinger–our pope, why don’t you complain about him too?

if the same liturgical reforms affected the byzantine rite so that the iconstasis was removed, the priest faced the people, laity distributed communion in the hand, the mass is said out loud to ensure active participation, with the mass translated by the icel to bring about that noble simplicity, maybe then you could brag about being so very obedient.

enjoy the normative mass for what it offers–i do, but i enjoy all rites of the catholic church, old or new, and i respect people’s opinion of preference in the matter. liturgical diversity is a good thing.
Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.
Click to expand...
while it does say that the rites are to be preserved, it also calls for their reform where necessary. the two, preservation and reform, are not mutally exclusive. i think that a reform in the roman rite was necessary, but that it was carried out poorly, and that a universal indult could bring about an authentic reform of the roman rite by retaining those elements which enter the faithfull more fully into the pascal mystery.
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
To simply make an unsubstantiated claim like this does not make it so.
Click to expand...
Actually I have no idea if what was said is true or not but I would hope it was. Why would anyone like to see increasing numbers of a schismatic group whose members and supporters would be subject to excommunication. I would hope numbers were dwindling by people coming back to the bosom of the Church and submitting to the authority of Rome.
 
Alex V,

You had some very good posts.

Let me suggest that you start a new thread, or bring up an old one (if there is one), to discuss this futher. The reason for my suggestion is that this thread will inevitably be shut down for straying “off topic.” This thread was meant to discuss the following topic: Pope Benedict XVI signed papal act on 3/30 “freeing” the TLM [rumor], not to tell why some are against the TLM, or to disparage the TLM, or for us to have to defend why we are for the TLM.

I am not saying you were the one that originally strayed off topic because you were not. But your responding to those that did will cause the Moderators to lock this thread.

Perhaps if there is a thread dedicated to discussing this further, we can discuss it without fear of the thread being locked, provided of course we refrain from insults and name calling geared toward each other.
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
See: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104626&page=2

Post# 173
Click to expand...
You can read the whole Ecclesia Dei
by John Paul II in the website at the bottom of the post but I have extracted paragraph c) for you.

The bottom line is that I believe the Pope before any Cardinals or Bishops!!

QUOTE
c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
UNQUOTE

www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
 
Lefebvre took a solemn oath, as all Latin Catholic Bishops do, to submit to the Roman Pontiff.

No Bishop has any canonical right to ordain any man a Bishop with Roman approval. Lefebvre broke his pledge of communion and Fellay and Williamson are culpable in their actions for what they did.

We Latins would brand Cerularius as a schismatic and he was the Patriarch of Constantinople! (I’m not in any way excusing what he did with excommunicating Humbertus and the rest). But some treat Abp Lefebvre if he was a martyr.
 
oat soda:
nobody, except schismatic/sedevacantist groups, are advocating disobedience. and what i can’t understand is that you, a byzantine rite catholic, care that some people are attached to an older liturgical form in the latin rite? one of the the biggest critics of the reform was cardinal ratzinger–our pope, why don’t you complain about him too?
Click to expand...
Is this just another way to tell me to shut up and that my opinion does not matter becuase I am a byzantine Catholic.

Bolded that because in essence I am a Catholic, period. You do not see me running around touting that the Byzantine Tradition is the only Traditional way as many of those with a preference for the old Mass do.

Also, if you know anything about me you would know that I am a seminarian in a Latin Church religious order, so I do have a stake in this discussion.

I am not complaining about the old Mass nor about those to prefer it. What I complain about is their attempt at ownership of the term “traditional” and the exclusion of those who do not prefer it.

If this is the definition of “traditional” then no on can lay a claim to it as until the Council of Trent the old Mass was only the Mass of Rome, so those who prefered their dioceses Mass over the Mass of Rome are the true traditionals.

As for the rest, it just seems you want to start a fight with me. I never have bragged about being obedient. If you have issues with me I suggest you send me a private message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top