Pope's Latin mass plans spark concern

[rpp]

JPII took over the Church and as a consequence we got the priest scandal? I see no connection. Not even the most liberal bishops applauded the incidents of molestation.

No one accussed Pope John Paul II of conplicity in the sex-abuse scandal on this thread.

Yet, there is a correlation in time with the liberalization of many diocese and the instance of sex-abuse, such as Los Angelos. There is also an anti-corelation in those diocese who generally did not adopt liberal theology, such as Lincoln, Nebraska, which has one of the the lowest claiment to parishoner ratios and is also considered one of the most conservative.

That there is a correlation between liberal theological and moral teachings and the incidence of sux abuse allegations is clear. Now, whether there is a relationship is obvious to anyone who uses common sense. However, some continue demand scientific or statistical “proof”, rather than rely on their own brains. These are usually the same people who like the new liberal morality. Those who do not like liberal theology see the connection in the same way as a father figures out which of his children has been paying with matches. He looks at the one with the burned hands.

 

[tequilamac]

Yet, there is a correlation in time with the liberalization of many diocese and the instance of sex-abuse, such as Los Angelos. There is also an anti-corelation in those diocese who generally did not adopt liberal theology, such as Lincoln, Nebraska, which has one of the the lowest claiment to parishoner ratios and is also considered one of the most conservative.

QUOTE]

You have not one shred of proof of this. The only correlation you can honestly make is that time wise there were more instances of KNOWN sex abuse occurring with the liberalization of diocese.
As to whether there was more or less sex abuse in the past twenty years as opposed to 1850, or 1700, 0r 1200, you have no way of honestly making that claim. There is no way to know whether there was more sex abuse before Vatican II than after, or more sex abuse during the time of Latin Mass than after. All you can claim is the knowledge of more REPORTED sex abuse. Period.

 

[rpp]

Some have said that introducing the Tridentine Mass would be divisive.

Here are divisions as ***I ***see them today. These are my opinions based on my personal obervations. If I am wrong, please point out my factual errors. Also, by the versy nature of this, many things are glossed over. This is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis. Just me shooting from the hip.

1. Traditionalists who like to worship in the same way to the same Mass and Liturgy as St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Augustine, St. Therese and St. Athanasius. They feel the Novus Ordo is fine, but not for them.
2. The Novus Ordo **Faithful **who don’t have anything against the TLM but prefer the flow the NO Mass or are somehow put off by a Mass they have probably never seen. Most in this group are made of converts either from other Churches or from Group 4 (below).
3. Traditionalists Who Reject the Novus Ordo, claiming it is not valid or make similar statements. Some claim a priest is not faithful if they even consent to say a Novus Ordo Mass.
4. Cafeteria Catholics who may or may not tolerate the TLM and believe the Church must “modernize”. As the name implies, as individuals, they are not in full communion with the Church on important issues, usually in the areas of sexuality, contraception, abortion, or male priesthood.

Now let me pull this together.

Getting along
Groups 1 and 2 get along just fine. They represent I think about 1/3 of all those who call themselves Catholic in America. Group 1 is probably less than 5%.

Group 3 will get along with Group 1, but with reservations. They will not get along with Group 2 very well and they will deny Group 4 altogether. This represents a tiny, but very vocal, fraction of a percent of those in the Church.

Finally Group 4 will claim to get along with everyone, but in reality deny the right to exist to Groups 1 and 3. They shake their heads at Group 2 thinking they are poor, deluded, uneducated or some other reason why they cannot understand that the Church must move with the times. There is often a note of contempt and/or intellectual superiority in their pronouncements. This is the largest group and represents the majority of Catholics.

Vocations
Group 1 generates the greatest number of vacations per capita, far in excess of the other groups.

Group 2 has the largest count of vocations.

Group 3 also results in a large number of vocations, but again, they are a very small group to begin with.

Group 4 produces the fewest vocations per capita and the fewest by raw number, despite being the largest group.

Coming and Going
Groups 1 and 3 have the fewest number of people who fall away and later reject the Church. Group 3 has a higher rate of falling away, but often these people move to group 1 or 2. They also bring in new people by evangelization and conversion. Conversion of children approaches 100%. They have the highest birth rate. Divorce is negligible.

Group 2 does have a larger number fall away than Groups 1 and 3. They have the largest number of genuine conversions (Catholic > 5 years). Conversion of children is very high. Their birth rate is high. Divorce, though not rare, is not common.

Group 4 have a non-sustainable rate of those who fall away and later reject the Church. They have few genuine conversions. Conversion of children is low. Their birth rate is at or below national averages, lowering childhood conversions further. Divorce is as common, or perhaps, more common as the national average, particularly among couples where one has converted to Group 2 and the other has not. This group will ultimately self-destruct, but they will do what they can not to go down alone.

New Divisions?
With these divisions already existent, I do not see that how things could get worse. I do see them getting better as group 4 shrinks due to attrition and natural selection. Clearly Groups 1 and 3 would welcome the indult. Some in Group 2 would be curious, but not divisively so. The real divisive influences are Groups 3 and 4. They are already present and vocal. Neither will change their rhetoric.

 

[rpp]

rpp;1640217:

Yet, there is a correlation in time with the liberalization of many diocese and the instance of sex-abuse, such as Los Angelos. There is also an anti-corelation in those diocese who generally did not adopt liberal theology, such as Lincoln, Nebraska, which has one of the the lowest claiment to parishoner ratios and is also considered one of the most conservative.

You have not one shred of proof of this. The only correlation you can honestly make is that time wise there were more instances of KNOWN sex abuse occurring with the liberalization of diocese.
As to whether there was more or less sex abuse in the past twenty years as opposed to 1850, or 1700, 0r 1200, you have no way of honestly making that claim. There is no way to know whether there was more sex abuse before Vatican II than after, or more sex abuse during the time of Latin Mass than after. All you can claim is the knowledge of more REPORTED sex abuse. Period.

Thank you for pointing this out. I would also like to complete the quote.

That there is a correlation between liberal theological and moral teachings and the incidence of sux abuse allegations is clear. Now, whether there is a relationship is obvious to anyone who uses common sense. However, some continue demand scientific or statistical “proof”, rather than rely on their own brains. These are usually the same people who like the new liberal morality. Those who do not like liberal theology see the connection in the same way as a father figures out which of his children has been paying with matches. He looks at the one with the burned hands.

Emphasis not in original.

 

[Unfinished]

Some have said that introducing the Tridentine Mass would be divisive.

Here are divisions as ***I ***see them today. These are my opinions based on my personal obervations. If I am wrong, please point out my factual errors. Also, by the versy nature of this, many things are glossed over. This is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis. Just me shooting from the hip.

1. Traditionalists who like to worship in the same way to the same Mass and Liturgy as St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Augustine, St. Therese and St. Athanasius. They feel the Novus Ordo is fine, but not for them.
2. The Novus Ordo **Faithful **who don’t have anything against the TLM but prefer the flow the NO Mass or are somehow put off by a Mass they have probably never seen. Most in this group are made of converts either from other Churches or from Group 4 (below).
3. Traditionalists Who Reject the Novus Ordo, claiming it is not valid or make similar statements. Some claim a priest is not faithful if they even consent to say a Novus Ordo Mass.
4. Cafeteria Catholics who may or may not tolerate the TLM and believe the Church must “modernize”. As the name implies, as individuals, they are not in full communion with the Church on important issues, usually in the areas of sexuality, contraception, abortion, or male priesthood.

Now let me pull this together.

Getting along
Groups 1 and 2 get along just fine. They represent I think about 1/3 of all those who call themselves Catholic in America. Group 1 is probably less than 5%.

Group 3 will get along with Group 1, but with reservations. They will not get along with Group 2 very well and they will deny Group 4 altogether. This represents a tiny, but very vocal, fraction of a percent of those in the Church.

Finally Group 4 will claim to get along with everyone, but in reality deny the right to exist to Groups 1 and 3. They shake their heads at Group 2 thinking they are poor, deluded, uneducated or some other reason why they cannot understand that the Church must move with the times. There is often a note of contempt and/or intellectual superiority in their pronouncements. This is the largest group and represents the majority of Catholics.

Vocations
Group 1 generates the greatest number of vacations per capita, far in excess of the other groups.

Group 2 has the largest count of vocations.

Group 3 also results in a large number of vocations, but again, they are a very small group to begin with.

Group 4 produces the fewest vocations per capita and the fewest by raw number, despite being the largest group.

Coming and Going
Groups 1 and 3 have the fewest number of people who fall away and later reject the Church. Group 3 has a higher rate of falling away, but often these people move to group 1 or 2. They also bring in new people by evangelization and conversion. Conversion of children approaches 100%. They have the highest birth rate. Divorce is negligible.

Group 2 does have a larger number fall away than Groups 1 and 3. They have the largest number of genuine conversions (Catholic > 5 years). Conversion of children is very high. Their birth rate is high. Divorce, though not rare, is not common.

Group 4 have a non-sustainable rate of those who fall away and later reject the Church. They have few genuine conversions. Conversion of children is low. Their birth rate is at or below national averages, lowering childhood conversions further. Divorce is as common, or perhaps, more common as the national average, particularly among couples where one has converted to Group 2 and the other has not. This group will ultimately self-destruct, but they will do what they can not to go down alone.

New Divisions?
With these divisions already existent, I do not see that how things could get worse. I do see them getting better as group 4 shrinks due to attrition and natural selection. Clearly Groups 1 and 3 would welcome the indult. Some in Group 2 would be curious, but not divisively so. The real divisive influences are Groups 3 and 4. They are already present and vocal. Neither will change their rhetoric.

Let’s hear it for group number one! Woooooooooo!

Actually, I am quite suprised at how acurate this sounds right off the top of my head. Kudos.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi rpp,

Interesting analysis, and amazingly accurate IMO…did you come up with this yourself?

I converted from Protestantism in California (Group 4 HQ ). As I informed my conscience and deepened my faith, I switched groups. I see more and more of that happening (i.e. Group 2 is growing). I have not experienced a Tridentine Mass, but I have no problem with the indult.

By the way, I would argue that Group 3 includes many who have “left the Church.” Rejecting the Pope and an Ecumenical Council isn’t much different than a Cafeteria Catholic, is it?

I pray for Group 3 and 4 to join the rest of us…since they are the ones in error.

God bless,

Robert

Some have said that introducing the Tridentine Mass would be divisive.

Here are divisions as ***I ***see them today. These are my opinions based on my personal obervations. If I am wrong, please point out my factual errors. Also, by the versy nature of this, many things are glossed over. This is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis. Just me shooting from the hip.

1. Traditionalists who like to worship in the same way to the same Mass and Liturgy as St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Augustine, St. Therese and St. Athanasius. They feel the Novus Ordo is fine, but not for them.
2. The Novus Ordo **Faithful **who don’t have anything against the TLM but prefer the flow the NO Mass or are somehow put off by a Mass they have probably never seen. Most in this group are made of converts either from other Churches or from Group 4 (below).
3. Traditionalists Who Reject the Novus Ordo, claiming it is not valid or make similar statements. Some claim a priest is not faithful if they even consent to say a Novus Ordo Mass.
4. Cafeteria Catholics who may or may not tolerate the TLM and believe the Church must “modernize”. As the name implies, as individuals, they are not in full communion with the Church on important issues, usually in the areas of sexuality, contraception, abortion, or male priesthood.

Now let me pull this together.

Getting along
Groups 1 and 2 get along just fine. They represent I think about 1/3 of all those who call themselves Catholic in America. Group 1 is probably less than 5%.

Group 3 will get along with Group 1, but with reservations. They will not get along with Group 2 very well and they will deny Group 4 altogether. This represents a tiny, but very vocal, fraction of a percent of those in the Church.

Finally Group 4 will claim to get along with everyone, but in reality deny the right to exist to Groups 1 and 3. They shake their heads at Group 2 thinking they are poor, deluded, uneducated or some other reason why they cannot understand that the Church must move with the times. There is often a note of contempt and/or intellectual superiority in their pronouncements. This is the largest group and represents the majority of Catholics.

Vocations
Group 1 generates the greatest number of vacations per capita, far in excess of the other groups.

Group 2 has the largest count of vocations.

Group 3 also results in a large number of vocations, but again, they are a very small group to begin with.

Group 4 produces the fewest vocations per capita and the fewest by raw number, despite being the largest group.

Coming and Going
Groups 1 and 3 have the fewest number of people who fall away and later reject the Church. Group 3 has a higher rate of falling away, but often these people move to group 1 or 2. They also bring in new people by evangelization and conversion. Conversion of children approaches 100%. They have the highest birth rate. Divorce is negligible.

Group 2 does have a larger number fall away than Groups 1 and 3. They have the largest number of genuine conversions (Catholic > 5 years). Conversion of children is very high. Their birth rate is high. Divorce, though not rare, is not common.

Group 4 have a non-sustainable rate of those who fall away and later reject the Church. They have few genuine conversions. Conversion of children is low. Their birth rate is at or below national averages, lowering childhood conversions further. Divorce is as common, or perhaps, more common as the national average, particularly among couples where one has converted to Group 2 and the other has not. This group will ultimately self-destruct, but they will do what they can not to go down alone.

New Divisions?
With these divisions already existent, I do not see that how things could get worse. I do see them getting better as group 4 shrinks due to attrition and natural selection. Clearly Groups 1 and 3 would welcome the indult. Some in Group 2 would be curious, but not divisively so. The real divisive influences are Groups 3 and 4. They are already present and vocal. Neither will change their rhetoric.

 

[tequilamac]

Thank you for pointing this out. I would also like to complete the quote.

Emphasis not in original.

“Originally Posted by rpp
That there is a correlation between liberal theological and moral teachings and the incidence of sux abuse allegations is clear. Now, whether there is a relationship is obvious to anyone who uses common sense. However, some continue demand scientific or statistical “proof”, rather than rely on their own brains. These are usually the same people who like the new liberal morality. Those who do not like liberal theology see the connection in the same way as a father figures out which of his children has been paying with matches. He looks at the one with the burned hands.”

Again I disagree with you. It does not require common sense, but any sense of history will tell a person that sex abse in any institution simply did not begin with liberation theology. Not only has sex abuse and child abuse of any kind changed with the world in the last two thousand years, so has the definition and the acceptability of such. The Greeks in the time of Christ frequently had young male lovers, ones as young or younger than any child molested today. Young male orderlies were very available for the officers at Valley Forge. And do I really need to go into anything remotely connected with young female chambermaids over the centuries. OUr clergy did not just become human beings in the last century.To make the claim that sex abuse in the Church began with liberation theology simply means that you, at least, are living in an historical timewarp.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Fine.

If you have such a fine collection of head coverings, Kathleen, why would you ever rely on a hankie?

In my Polish parish in Brooklyn, the young women tended to wear hats, the older ladies babushkas.

The term “hankie” was used generically. In my humble opinion when it was used in the original post I quoted I felt it was used as a derogatory form.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

S1. Traditionalists who like to worship in the same way to the same Mass and Liturgy as St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Augustine, St. Therese and St. Athanasius. They feel the Novus Ordo is fine, but not for them.

I see a big problem here.

First, the old Latin Mass of today is the 1962 Missal so it is in no way the same (as in identical) to the original Tridentine Mass from the Council of Trent.

Also, St Francis, St Dominic, St Augustine, and St Athanasius worshiped at that Liturgy as they were dead by the time the Council of Trent mandated the Tridentine Rite for the whole Latin Catholic Church.

Council of Trent 1545 - 1563
St Francis 1181 - 1226
St Dominic 1170 - 1221
St Augustine 354 - 430
St Athanasius 296 - 373

St Therese (1873 - 1897) is the only one and that is provided that her convent was not served by a Carmelite friar.

I say that because the Franscians, Dominicians, and Carmelites did not celebrate the Tridentine rite, each order had their own rites.

This seems to be an issue that many have, the old Latin Mass is not 2000 years old, at best it is a bit over 500 years old.

 

[tequilamac]

I see a big problem here.

First, the old Latin Mass of today is the 1962 Missal so it is in no way the same (as in identical) to the original Tridentine Mass from the Council of Trent.

Also, St Francis, St Dominic, St Augustine, and St Athanasius worshiped at that Liturgy as they were dead by the time the Council of Trent mandated the Tridentine Rite for the whole Latin Catholic Church.

Council of Trent 1545 - 1563
St Francis 1181 - 1226
St Dominic 1170 - 1221
St Augustine 354 - 430
St Athanasius 296 - 373

St Therese (1873 - 1897) is the only one and that is provided that her convent was not served by a Carmelite friar.

I say that because the Franscians, Dominicians, and Carmelites did not celebrate the Tridentine rite, each order had their own rites.

This seems to be an issue that many have, the old Latin Mass is not 2000 years old, at best it is a bit over 500 years old.

Excellent post thank you. And for what it’s worth, why not have the old Carmelite rite back? The Rite of Carmel is so incredibly rich compared to the Tridentine. Even today, the liturgy is fabulous with Carmelites even in Novus Ordo.

 

[jmcrae]

A LOT of non-schismatic women wear them too. Every single one at my indult parish.

Edit: Excuse me, I forgot that there is one lady who wears a hat.

I have gone to TLM bareheaded and in jeans, on a weekday after work.

No one made me feel unwelcome - in fact, two priests came up to me to say “Hello,” and to make sure I had a Latin Missal and a bulletin to follow along with. I thought they were very kind.

 

[Unfinished]

I have gone to TLM bareheaded and in jeans, on a weekday after work.

No one made me feel unwelcome - in fact, two priests came up to me to say “Hello,” and to make sure I had a Latin Missal and a bulletin to follow along with. I thought they were very kind.

Yeah, we get a lot of visitors. Many people just want to come by and check it out. Usually, if they continue coming, that is when they start to pick up the traditional habits such as wearing the veils.

But, there is also a basket of veils right in front of the holy water font so that if you are visting you won’t feel “out of place” if you didn’t bring one.

 

[LilyM]

Yeah, we get a lot of visitors. Many people just want to come by and check it out. Usually, if they continue coming, that is when they start to pick up the traditional habits such as wearing the veils.

But, there is also a basket of veils right in front of the holy water font so that if you are visting you won’t feel “out of place” if you didn’t bring one.

I personally would feel more out of place wearing a headcovering with jeans than being bareheaded and jean-clad. And I wouldn’t wear a veil that had probably been on someone else’s head! :bigyikes:

 

[rpp]

“Originally Posted by rpp
That there is a correlation between liberal theological and moral teachings and the incidence of sux abuse allegations is clear. Now, whether there is a relationship is obvious to anyone who uses common sense. However, some continue demand scientific or statistical “proof”, rather than rely on their own brains. These are usually the same people who like the new liberal morality. Those who do not like liberal theology see the connection in the same way as a father figures out which of his children has been paying with matches. He looks at the one with the burned hands.”

Again I disagree with you. It does not require common sense, but any sense of history will tell a person that sex abse in any institution simply did not begin with liberation theology. Not only has sex abuse and child abuse of any kind changed with the world in the last two thousand years, so has the definition and the acceptability of such. The Greeks in the time of Christ frequently had young male lovers, ones as young or younger than any child molested today. Young male orderlies were very available for the officers at Valley Forge. And do I really need to go into anything remotely connected with young female chambermaids over the centuries. OUr clergy did not just become human beings in the last century.To make the claim that sex abuse in the Church began with liberation theology simply means that you, at least, are living in an historical timewarp.

I cannot respond or defend what I did not write or say. Thus there is little I can say to you. Before you respond yet again, please go back and read what I wrote.

Also, I made no comment about Liberation Theology, only liberal theology; the two are generally unrelated.

It is, at best, rude to castigate me on issues I which I have been silent. Nor is it particularly polite to claim what you have erroneously claimed I wrote.

 

[rpp]

I see a big problem here.

First, the old Latin Mass of today is the 1962 Missal so it is in no way the same (as in identical) to the original Tridentine Mass from the Council of Trent.

Also, St Francis, St Dominic, St Augustine, and St Athanasius worshiped at that Liturgy as they were dead by the time the Council of Trent mandated the Tridentine Rite for the whole Latin Catholic Church.

Council of Trent 1545 - 1563
St Francis 1181 - 1226
St Dominic 1170 - 1221
St Augustine 354 - 430
St Athanasius 296 - 373

St Therese (1873 - 1897) is the only one and that is provided that her convent was not served by a Carmelite friar.

I say that because the Franscians, Dominicians, and Carmelites did not celebrate the Tridentine rite, each order had their own rites.

This seems to be an issue that many have, the old Latin Mass is not 2000 years old, at best it is a bit over 500 years old.

Let me help with a little history.

Many use the statement the the Tridentine Mass came from the Council of Trent as a reason why the Novus Ordo should be used to suppress it. This is incorrect.

The Tridentine Mass was not developed at the Council of Trent. It was first codified by Pope Gregory in the 400s. It was based on the Traditional liturgy from Apostolic times and was codified Pope Gregory in a manner which did not really change it. Mainly he translated it into Latin (from mostly Greek and Aramaic sources), the Lingua franca of the day. Pope Pius V further codified it at Trent, but he most certainly did not invent or develop it.

Thus, when you attend a Tridentine Rite, you are participating in pretty much the same liturgy that the saints and doctors I mentioned did. While there has been some updating, such as the readings, and some of the responses, little has, in fact changed since the first century.

While I do appreciate you looking up the lifetimes of the saints, they all attended a Mass that was essentially Tridentine (Okay, St. Athanasius probably attended a Coptic liturgy). Even St. Augustine, who proceeded Pope Gregory, attended what we would recognize as a Tridentine Mass.

The 1962 missal has updates that reflect changes to the liturgical calendar. These changes have been continually made as feast days (for saints generally) are added to the calendar. So while the 1962 missal is different that what came from Trent, the differences are not significant.

Carmelites, Franciscans and Dominicans, etc. do not have their own Rites. They all prayed the Tridentine Mass. What they have is their own liturgical calendar. This affects the readings used, color of vestments, whether a High Mass should be celebrated, and so on. It does not affect the Rite itself. (Confusing Rite (upper case) and rite (lower case) is a common mistake.) So what might be a memorial or optional memoial for the overall Church may be a feast day for Franciscans becasue the saint was an important Franciscan for example. An example of the is the feast day for St. Francis, October 4. For most of the church, this is a feast, but for Franciscans (and Dominicans, as St. Francis and St. Dominic were both contemporaries and friends) it is a solemnity.

 

[OriginalJS]

Excellent post thank you. And for what it’s worth, why not have the old Carmelite rite back? The Rite of Carmel is so incredibly rich compared to the Tridentine. Even today, the liturgy is fabulous with Carmelites even in Novus Ordo.

I concur fully. There have been constant changes in the Mass over the 2000 years. Some of what we now think of as traditional may be only a century or so old, and much more recent than that. Read some 2nd and 3rd century reports by sympathetic non-Christians about their observations of Christian worship and you will see that much has changed and been added.

 

[LilyM]

Let me help with a little history.

Many use the statement the the Tridentine Mass came from the Council of Trent as a reason why the Novus Ordo should be used to suppress it. This is incorrect.

The Tridentine Mass was not developed at the Council of Trent. It was first codified by Pope Gregory in the 400s. It was based on the Traditional liturgy from Apostolic times and was codified Pope Gregory in a manner which did not really change it. Mainly he translated it into Latin (from mostly Greek and Aramaic sources), the Lingua franca of the day. Pope Pius V further codified it at Trent, but he most certainly did not invent or develop it.

Thus, when you attend a Tridentine Rite, you are participating in pretty much the same liturgy that the saints and doctors I mentioned did. While there has been some updating, such as the readings, and some of the responses, little has, in fact changed since the first century.

While I do appreciate you looking up the lifetimes of the saints, they all attended a Mass that was essentially Tridentine (Okay, St. Athanasius probably attended a Coptic liturgy). Even St. Augustine, who proceeded Pope Gregory, attended what we would recognize as a Tridentine Mass.

The 1962 missal has updates that reflect changes to the liturgical calendar. These changes have been continually made as feast days (for saints generally) are added to the calendar. So while the 1962 missal is different that what came from Trent, the differences are not significant.

Carmelites, Franciscans and Dominicans, etc. do not have their own Rites. They all prayed the Tridentine Mass. What they have is their own liturgical calendar. This affects the readings used, color of vestments, whether a High Mass should be celebrated, and so on. It does not affect the Rite itself. (Confusing Rite (upper case) and rite (lower case) is a common mistake.) So what might be a memorial or optional memoial for the overall Church may be a feast day for Franciscans becasue the saint was an important Franciscan for example. An example of the is the feast day for St. Francis, October 4. For most of the church, this is a feast, but for Franciscans (and Dominicans, as St. Francis and St. Dominic were both contemporaries and friends) it is a solemnity.

Excuse me, what about the many many saints among our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters - doubt that a one of 'em would have ever attended a Tridentine Rite Mass. Are they somehow less saintly for their method of worship?

As for saying that Popes didn’t develop the Mass - doubtful to say the least. The form of the Mass certainly went through massive changes in the first few centuries of Christianity, the shift from Greek to Latin being just one.

Yet we are to assume that all of a sudden all change ceased and the form was then preserved in pristine unchanging purity for well over 1500 years? Improbable and close to inconceivable.

 

[Richardols]

1. Traditionalists who like to worship in the same way to the same Mass and Liturgy as St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Augustine, St. Therese and St. Athanasius. They feel the Novus Ordo is fine, but not for them.

There’s no problem having both rites, and even other rites available (in NYC, one can attend Melkite and Maronite Rite Masses, too). I attend both TM and NO Masses, though I tend to prefer NO.

The only thing I see as unrealistic is the notion by some Traditionalists that if we just switch back to the TM, everything will go right with the Church, the seminaries will be full, the churches packed, the confession lines long, etc., etc.

The TM should flourish, but will always be the “junior partner” among the Masses. Just go to a Traditional Mass - enthusiastic worshippers, but not many of them. I’ve yet to attend a TM where the church was even a third full.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Let me help with a little history.

Many use the statement the the Tridentine Mass came from the Council of Trent as a reason why the Novus Ordo should be used to suppress it. This is incorrect.

Never said that the Tridentine Mass was created at the Council of Trent, what I said was that it was mandated for the whole Latin Catholic Church at the Council of Trent.

While I do appreciate you looking up the lifetimes of the saints, they all attended a Mass that was essentially Tridentine (Okay, St. Athanasius probably attended a Coptic liturgy). Even St. Augustine, who proceeded Pope Gregory, attended what we would recognize as a Tridentine Mass.

Not quite true. St Augustine most likely celebrated the Mass in Greek.

Carmelites, Franciscans and Dominicans, etc. do not have their own Rites. They all prayed the Tridentine Mass. What they have is their own liturgical calendar. This affects the readings used, color of vestments, whether a High Mass should be celebrated, and so on. It does not affect the Rite itself. (Confusing Rite (upper case) and rite (lower case) is a common mistake.)

Wrong again. We do have our own rites. There are many differences between the orders’ rites and the Tridentine rites.

As a Carmelite in formation I know this for a fact as there is some discussion of modifing the current Mass by adding some of the elements from the old Carmelite rite to it. So it is more than just the liturgical calendars that are different.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi rpp,

Thanks for the history…it clears things up for me, because I only knew the TLM was codified at Trent. I didn’t know when it began.

I think you may have overstated a little bit, unless you would say about the current Mass that “little has changed since the first century.” My understanding is that the Mass promulgated in Vatican II was modeled after the early Church (e.g. the Didache).

Now, it is true there have been abuses since Vatican II. I think that most hardcore Traditionalists focus on the abuses rather than the actual Mass itself. I also see Bishops and Priests starting to rein in those Masses.

God bless,

Robert

Let me help with a little history.

Many use the statement the the Tridentine Mass came from the Council of Trent as a reason why the Novus Ordo should be used to suppress it. This is incorrect.

The Tridentine Mass was not developed at the Council of Trent. It was first codified by Pope Gregory in the 400s. It was based on the Traditional liturgy from Apostolic times and was codified Pope Gregory in a manner which did not really change it. Mainly he translated it into Latin (from mostly Greek and Aramaic sources), the Lingua franca of the day. Pope Pius V further codified it at Trent, but he most certainly did not invent or develop it.

Thus, when you attend a Tridentine Rite, you are participating in pretty much the same liturgy that the saints and doctors I mentioned did. While there has been some updating, such as the readings, and some of the responses, little has, in fact changed since the first century.

While I do appreciate you looking up the lifetimes of the saints, they all attended a Mass that was essentially Tridentine (Okay, St. Athanasius probably attended a Coptic liturgy). Even St. Augustine, who proceeded Pope Gregory, attended what we would recognize as a Tridentine Mass.

The 1962 missal has updates that reflect changes to the liturgical calendar. These changes have been continually made as feast days (for saints generally) are added to the calendar. So while the 1962 missal is different that what came from Trent, the differences are not significant.

Carmelites, Franciscans and Dominicans, etc. do not have their own Rites. They all prayed the Tridentine Mass. What they have is their own liturgical calendar. This affects the readings used, color of vestments, whether a High Mass should be celebrated, and so on. It does not affect the Rite itself. (Confusing Rite (upper case) and rite (lower case) is a common mistake.) So what might be a memorial or optional memoial for the overall Church may be a feast day for Franciscans becasue the saint was an important Franciscan for example. An example of the is the feast day for St. Francis, October 4. For most of the church, this is a feast, but for Franciscans (and Dominicans, as St. Francis and St. Dominic were both contemporaries and friends) it is a solemnity.