Pope set to bring back Latin Mass that divided the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter b_justb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LittleRose said:
This is ridiculously alarmist. He is just extending an indult already issued by Pope John Paul II. Tridentine masses performed under indult have already been happening for years, and are old news, and it’s not like anyone’s throwing the Novus Ordo out of the window.

Media. Sheesh.
Click to expand...
Do you meen even after the failures of the Novus Ordo it still “won’t be thrown out the window”? uh, no.👍
 
I think it would be wise if we all waited for official word from the Vatican. How many times have we seen headlines stating " Pope set to do something about Lating Mass"?

I’ve seen it many times. I say we take a wait and see approach. Though - I do hope this is true.
 
thechrismyster said:
the TLM and NO Masses didn’t divide the Church.

The folks who cower at change and who were disobedient to the Second Vatican Council, they divided the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you have to give some credit to those who took the liberty to make their own changes not envisioned by the council. But your point remains. It is people that are the root, not the Mass. The Mass is just ane easier, impersonal scapegoat.
 
I agree with Adonis lets waite and see if this is true!
My only regret is that I wish B16 would issue something stronger than an indult, because you know as well as I do that if its left up to the Bishops, many won’t allow it because a) they don’t understand it b) they’re afraid of it and c) they can’t speak Latin !
Only the handful of Bishops faithful to Rome will allow it.
 
I suppose mandatory Gregorian Chant will be added to the TLM. Can’t hardly wait for that!
 
tunemiester said:
I agree with Adonis lets waite and see if this is true!
My only regret is that I wish B16 would issue something stronger than an indult, because you know as well as I do that if its left up to the Bishops, many won’t allow it because a) they don’t understand it b) they’re afraid of it and c) they can’t speak Latin !
Only the handful of Bishops faithful to Rome will allow it.
Click to expand...
I agree…

I think the Bishops here will resist for the reasons you stated.
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
One more point.

Neither the Latin Mass, nor the change in the liturgy, “divided the church.” What caused division was the false (perhaps Satanic) notion that there was one Church before Vatican II, and another Church after Vatican II, and the notion of some that the latter was free to change anything in the former, or of others that nothing at all could be changed at all from the former.

There was no former or latter Church, and any interpretation of Vatican II that does not take that into account is simply not Catholic. However, the liturgical changes were highly visible, and people on both sides of the error rallied to either the new (plasticized) liturgy or the old (Latin) one

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
Gerry, I agree with most of what you have said. The question I have is your reference to “plastic” / “plasticized”. Do you personally think that the NO is plasticized or are you saying that is what others/groups of others think of it? Why would anyone think that? It is the Mass.

Thanks and peace.
 
I’m with Gerry 100%, if I understand him right.

IMO there is nothing wrong with the NO mass inherently. What is wrong is the army of lousy liturgists who have implemented it so badly in so many places. I have been to many amazing masses where the NO was celebrated reverently in a manner that treats the miracle of the Eurcharist approriately and worshipfully. But sadly, it is rare to find in the average parish.

The Latin version of the NO or the Tridentine mass is rarely screwed up because the people doing the screwing up have no interest in them!
 
I sure hope bishop Weisgerber will allow the TLM in his diocese. As a fellow Winnipeger myself, I can truly say that there are many people, both young and old (I’m 31) who would be excited about the possiblity of having the TLM celebrated here again.

Pax Tecum,
Rocco
 
The title (taken from Reuters) says it all about the bias of the popular media.
 
We have asked our Bishop here for an Indult. He has steadfastly refused. I can honestly see him go so far as to forbid it.

Please pray for a softening of his heart.
 
Will some Bishops refuse to allow the TLM? You bet some will. I mean, they are in defiance on many issues right now. If you think they won’t rebel at something this HOT. Pity the poor priest that takes his vows in a Diocese that refuses to obey the Indult. He’ll wind up supervising the soup kitchen in Zambia or maybe even China.

There will be many successful parishes and many cooperative Dioceses. Just hope one is closer than my 90+ mile each way drive to a TLM right now.

But at least a priest will be free to chose, if allowed to by his Bishop.

Hopefully, B16 will lift the excommunications on the SSPX Bishops. Time will tell.
 
I pray that this will happen, and I pray that my bishop will promote the Latin Mass in his diocese. While I agree that a properly celebrated Novus Ordo Mass is reverent and certainly fruitful, it is very difficult to compare the two in terms of richness and reverence. The Novus Ordo is a fast-food burrito, the Latin Mass is a banquet. Both are nourishing, only one is a feast for the heart, the soul and the senses. IMHO.
 
pnewton said:
Two things in the article seemed contradictory. One was that this is the Mass used for 1500 years and the other is that parts of the Mass date back to the 6th century. My question is: how far back did the TLM date since the last change? Any TLM fans have the answer? Thanks.
Click to expand...
I think if you give this a little more thought you will discover that the 6th century (the 500 years), were 1500 years ago. It does get confusing.

Anyway, the Eucharistic Prayer goes back that far, and Annabale Bugnini the fellow who micro-managed the Big Change, would have you believe in his book, “The Reform of the Liturgy”, that changing it was the very last thing they intended. Presumably, wayward bishops all about the world were constructing their own Eucharistic Prayers, and order had to be established. Thus, we ended up with four, plus other odd ones all over the world. In fact, I attended a Mass last week in which the priest either wrote his own beforehand, or adlibbed the whole thing.

There were also people who objected to keeping any part of the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer #1), and were placated to some extent by eliminating the emphasis on sacrifice from Eucharistic Prayer #2. Where I live, the Roman Canon (EP#1) is seldom said by any priest and never, never by some priests!!!

Anyway, I think that’s the oldest prayer part of the Mass to be changed. The English translation of the Latin EP#1 is very beautiful, but it leaves no doubt that what is going on is a sacrifice and not just a happy community get-together with Jesus. This is undoubtedly a disappointment to some people.

Blessings,

Anna
 
hosemonkey said:
I pray that this will happen, and I pray that my bishop will promote the Latin Mass in his diocese. While I agree that a properly celebrated Novus Ordo Mass is reverent and certainly fruitful, it is very difficult to compare the two in terms of richness and reverence. The Novus Ordo is a fast-food burrito, the Latin Mass is a banquet. Both are nourishing, only one is a feast for the heart, the soul and the senses. IMHO.
Click to expand...
Charming…and charitable, this way of refering to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It’s attitudes like this that will keep me clinging to my “burrito.”
 
hosemonkey said:
I pray that this will happen, and I pray that my bishop will promote the Latin Mass in his diocese. While I agree that a properly celebrated Novus Ordo Mass is reverent and certainly fruitful, it is very difficult to compare the two in terms of richness and reverence. The Novus Ordo is a fast-food burrito, the Latin Mass is a banquet. Both are nourishing, only one is a feast for the heart, the soul and the senses. IMHO.
Click to expand...
Not sure I would put it this way. I love the Latin Mass when well done. I love the Novus Ordo when it is well done. Both can be done properly and bring the sacrifice of the Mass to the parishioners.

On the other hand I have not ever been to a Latin Mass that included a polka, guitar music, dancing etc.

I love Mass no matter which one as long as it is done respectfully and with reverence. I prefer the Latin, but, that is my preference.
 
thechrismyster said:
the TLM and NO Masses didn’t divide the Church.

The folks who cower at change and who were disobedient to the Second Vatican Council, they divided the Church.
Click to expand...
I accept that you genuinely believe this. But I wish to differ with you on all three points:
  1. Since most of the people who attended the TLM before are now dead, and since the overwhelming majority of Catholics have never attended one, the only people who can be accurately describe as “opposing change” are those who oppose allowing the TLM. To young people, who seem now to be the majority of those favoring the TLM, return to the TLM is, indeed, “change.”
  2. It was never disobedient to the Council to attend the TLM. To be sure, some interpreted the “spirit of Vatican II” (not what it really said) as intending a broad destruction of all traditional forms of everything and a remaking of the Church to be more consistent with the thinking and mores of the time. That was never true. But even if it was, there is a lot of difference between the thinking and mores of the mid 1960s and today. It is very difficult for the Church to be “relevant” to the ways of the world in which we now live, without giving up virtually all morality and belief.
  3. I lived through the whole business. People accepted the changes fairly well, by my observation. But eventually, dioceses and parishes became encrusted with immovable bureaucracies for whom only one vision of the Church was permissible, notwithstanding Vatican IIs approval of, and encouragement of changed as well as traditional forms. It requires quite a stretch of the imagination to suppose that the quiet, accepting and patient Catholics in the pews “divided the Church” while everything they believed in and wanted for their children and grandchildren was being denigrated for, lo, these 40 years by the “progressives”, whose innovations eventually just ran aground.
At some point, all new ideas run their course. Since an entire generation and more knows nothing about the traditional form, it may well serve the Church’s purpose to allow more liturgical diversity than has previously been allowed by many diocesan bureaucracies which, themselves, are intensely resistant to change.

I think it is well that the TLM is being more greatly encouraged. All these years, the powers that be in U.S. diocese have been trumpeting “diversity” “diversity”. Greek, Maronite, Ukrainian and other rites are scrupulously respected. Masses highly Hispanicized or Africanized are touted. This is all ok with me. But when the TLM of the Latin Rite is the only thing that is not tolerated, it tells me that the power structure in the U.S. Church looks upon those other forms as an indulgence to “the quaint little people, such as Africans or Ukrainians” who don’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, or that they simply hate western culture and everything that reminds any of us that we have profoundly strong roots in Greece, Rome and Latin Christendom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top