Should Latin mass be brought back?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1Lord1Faith said:
I’ll have to assume you’re including yourself in this group you’re referring to as traditionalist. If that’s the case, would you like to be given the same understanding and compassion as you give to “Protestants Heretics”, or “the homosexuals”?

Do you see the irony in your position that Don Ruggero pointed out?

From what I’ve seen on these forums, it’s not a traditionalist’s desire for the Latin Mass that is found to be a problem. Rather, it’s the attitude present in their posts, and the accusations of ‘heretic’ that they hurl at Protestants and sometimes even at the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
Yes…

It’s quite remarkable.

Of course, I remember the behaviour of these people going back to the 1970s.

In the 1980s, there were two groups seeking refuge from the Holy See, almost at the same time. One were members of the Anglican Communion who wanted to be in communion with the Holy See. The other were the refugees of Marcel Lefebvre, who came to their senses and realised what had they lost by being out of communion with the Successor of Peter.

The FSSP, I have to say, were very grateful – they realized they were not only in the ocean at that point without a boat, they didn’t even have a life vest. But the laity. My goodness.

The difference in attitude and mindset between those who call themselves “traditionalists” and those who were part of the Pastoral Provision, which became the Anglican Use and now exists in Ordinariates was like the difference between night and day. Those around the world coming to Rome from the Anglican Communion were just a delight. They could hardly have been more a pleasure to engage with. They embraced the Council and its renewal, of course. They saw it as the Work of God that it was…that it remains, in the midst of the Church today.

The traditionalists I have contended with in how many countries across these decades? Not hardly.

I was so happy with the creation of the three Ordinariates for them, as they deserved it and they had progressed to the point that it was proper for them to have it and it will be a paradigm for others in the same circumstance as we move forward.
 
Being a lowly uneducated layman, I’m not sure what my opinion counts for, but what attracts me to “The Latin Mass” isn’t the language, but rather the theology. I freely acknowledge that it’s a pain in the neck to worship in a language that you don’t already know; but I think the prayers and THEOLOGY of the Tridentine Mass is what sets it apart.

The below link illustrates most of the main differences between the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Masses.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

That link really cemented my opinion of both Masses. Make of it what you will.

DISCLAIMER: I CONSIDER THE NOVUS ORDO TO BE A VALID MASS. I just think the Tridentine Mass is more Catholic than the Novus Ordo.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
vert.” Well, I have known the FSSP since the day in 1988 they sought refuge from Marcel Lefebvre and his followers

The ICK is based in the Archdiocese of Florence and I have known since months after it started. I have seen their progress across these years…more so than I dare say than probably anyone on this page.

But I am not emotionally engaged with or by these communities anymore than I am by other very tiny institutes of consecrated life, most especially of diocesan right. I am happy to respond to requests from them or about them or from their ecclesiastical superior on behalf of them – and would help, if asked, should the Church make some other disposition in their regard, such as dissolution.

These are matters I look at quite rationally and dispassionately…even as I have done various things to provide them with assistance across these decades.
Click to expand...
Father, do you know any of the stats on Franciscans? It seems to me that the charism of being educated/educators of the Jesuits may be waining since the 1980’s simply because college enrollment has skyrocketed since then and the average man (or woman) was able to pursue advanced degrees and have a place outside of the educational system. Whereas the Franciscans, like the CFR’s, FFI’s etc offer something that isn’t readily available in society, which is a material poverty.
 
R_H_Benson said:
And with respect, Father, regarding your accusation of my being disobedient to the Church: The Traditional Roman Breviary of 1962 (liberated by Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum)often makes references to heretics. If the Divine Office, the very Liturgy of our Holy Mother Church makes use of this term, then I have absolutely no qualms using it either.
Click to expand...
Oh! Thank you for reminding me of that. I have something coming up and I should actually focus on that, as an issue that requires comment.

We of today live in the age of Nostra Aetate, which demanded that the prayer concerning the Jews, whom we embrace as our elder sisters and brothers in the faith, be redacted in the 1962 missal. Because of course, whichever form is observed, the determinations of the Council about our interactions with non-Catholic Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and so forth is what governs our thoughts and our mindsets.

Thank you for reminding me of something very important.
 
Last edited:
But there has been no redaction of “heretics” in reference to the Protestants. To this day, everyone who prays the Traditional Divine Office will come across the term often, particularly in the matins readings.
 
Last edited:
Priests. Religious. Families. Roman Catholics.
Click to expand...
In the 1970s, we are talking about suspended Priests, Religious whose entire communities had been dissolved, as happened with the SSPX, or who had been ejected from their Communities for their disobedience to direct commands under their vow of obedience concerning reform.

And we are talking about those who were living in rebellion to the Council and to a Pope now beatified. Reprehensible. To faithful Catholics, that behaviour speaks for itself.
 
Yes. In now looking back at the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, that is something that needs to be re-examined in the ongoing analysis.

Thank you again.
 
Father, why does it need to be re-examined? Since it came from the Vicar of Christ, must his word not be obeyed absolutely? Who is a mere priest … or a layman in my case … to say a papal motu proprio “needs to be re-examined”?
 
@R_H_Benson: In response to what you wrote:

The prayer about the Jews in the 1962 missal was changed by Pope Benedict because it is unworthy to be spoken, given our new understanding of our relationships with the Jewish people. Having lived through World War II, he is extremely aware of the ramifications of that prayer and the whole mindset it represented…and which we confess before God.
 
That decision is already made…and it was made by someone far higher up than a priest.

Perhaps you did not see that I remarked earlier in the thread that, regarding Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict’s accompanying letter stated that beginning after three years, issues that arose regarding implementation would be re-examined by the Holy See.
 
R_H_Benson said:
40.png
Don_Ruggero:
The FSSP seminaries? After 30 years of existence, there are only two of them in the entire world. One in Wigratzbad, Germany and the other in Nebraska, United States.
Click to expand...
The bishops don’t want them…

But it isn’t really about numbers. It’s about forming holy priests. The Curé of Ars - one priest - saved innumerable souls through his humility and sanctity. I know the kind of men the Fraternity is ordaining. Second only to the religious of the traditional contemplative orders, they are the true heroes of our day. Please pray for them, Father.
Click to expand...
It’s about forming holy priests/humility/and sanctity— and you know the kind of men the Fraternity is ordaining – right.

The following quote is from a traditionalist site. Then you know – some FSSP priests are telling the flock – that they should never attend the OF – it’s a sin to do so/etc. How does that fit in with holiness/humility/sanctity-- when some priest --poison the flock against the OF.
I have been attending my FSSP parish for probably around 10 years or so and we’ve changed pastors maybe 4 or 5 times in that period. Some differ from others regarding this topic so I wanted to see what other’s thought:

I have been told on more than one occasion by different FSSP priests that we should never attend the NO, that it is a sin to go because it’s a break with tradition, could lose my faith, etc, I get that. Trust me I do, and this is the position I hold.

However, our current pastor seems to be extremely hard-lined regarding not missing mass on Sunday if all you have available is the NO, that we should suffer through it and offer reparation to Our Lord for the sins, abuses and blasphemies committed there, to fulfill our Sunday obligation.

His basic argument was that there is no crisis in the Church, that the only true crisis in the Church right now is in China because obviously you would be slaughtered by the govt there for holding the true faith. He does not seem to really believe there is a crisis of doctrine and liturgy, which seems very odd to me seeing as how he is in an order that tries to uphold traditional Catholicism.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No, I saw it…but I was commenting on how you were saying what needed to be re-examined. The accompanying letter does not say what you said. Your posts leave the clear impression you think SP needs to be repealed.
 
I learned at Mass that the Church used to “send people to hell for eating meat on Friday.” That’s false. That was at a modern Mass.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
ut suspended Priests, Religious whose entire communities had been dissolved, as happened with the SSPX, or who had been ejected from their Communities for their disobedience to direct commands under their vow of obedience concerning reform.

And we are talking about those who were living in rebellion to the Council and to a Pope now beatified. Reprehensible. To faithful Catholics, that behaviour speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
Oh, while I was looking up facts about the CFR’s I was surprised to find that there seems to be more of them than the FSSP—and they were ALSO started in the 1980’s. They also have a few hundred priests (with about 130 in the US) and their vocations are also bursting at the seams with many hundreds waiting in the wings…and they have more friaries and vocations than the FSSP.

So why don’t we hear more about CFR’s-- Is it because they focus on the poor? Is it because their hundreds are not concentrated in one area but flung across the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, South Korea, Nigeria, Lebonon, Guatemala and Mexio? There’s loads more of them than FSSP. Yet why has FSSP considered so “powerful” or ascribed magical statistics of outnumbering those who celebrate the OF mass.

I mean, the CFR’s run an amazing Adoration, they chant at Masses, they skateboard and play guitar and go surfing—and they have mass in the OF–because their primary goal is to be there for the poor and meet the poor where they are at.

Why do they not get the attention they deserve? They are just as old as FSSP. They are just as recognized by the Church. And by their number in both vocations and world-reach they seem far more powerful.
 
Last edited:
Ah, you must have been at my parish. I’ve heard that too, along with how St. Paul was sexist and that Father rejoices in the idea that one day the good sisters at the institute will be able to pursue the priesthood, and that on “reformation Sunday” Martin Luther had to put up the theses because “The Pope was selling indulgences that said that if you had sinned, the indulgence would cancel it and you didn’t have to worry about hell’ in order to 'raise money for more big expensive churches.”
 
Walking_Home said:
The following quote is from a traditionalist site. Then you know – some FSSP priests are telling the flock – that they should never attend the OF – it’s a sin to do so/etc. How does that fit in with holiness/humility/sanctity-- when some priest --poison the flock against the OF.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? There’s a certain Jesuit priest who’s pushing LGBT agenda garbage. Where were you when Vatican police raided a drug-fueled gay sex party, and arrested a monsignor who is a secretary to one of Pope Francis’ closest collaborators? Now what was that you were saying about “poisoning the flock”?
 
Last edited:
Mark121359 said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
The following quote is from a traditionalist site. Then you know – some FSSP priests are telling the flock – that they should never attend the OF – it’s a sin to do so/etc. How does that fit in with holiness/humility/sanctity-- when some priest --poison the flock against the OF.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? There’s a certain Jesuit priest who’s pushing LGBT agenda garbage. Where were you when Vatican police raided a drug-fueled gay sex party and arrested a monsignor who is a secretary to one of Pope Francis’ closest collaborators? Now what was that you were saying about “poisoning the flock”?
Click to expand...
And what – because other priest have gone off the edge – this does not excuse the ones who go off the edge in the other direction. Poison is Poison – from either side.
 
Last edited:
Hi,
Latin was signaled out. The premise was to increase the participation of the body of Christ, speaking the language of that community. Organ music was replaced w guitar. This was to embrace the youth. Now, I grew up in Phila.Pa. I went to West Catholic girls HS.
We would meet in auditorium and start BIBLE READINGS. Before that we were told Not to read Bible.
Vatican II, was explained to us. I’m not saying what I feel. I’m relaying what was verbally taught to us by good Holy nuns. The priest facing Parishioners was to have priest commune w combined prayers to glorify God in community.
I don’t know how many want the Latin,Just don’t take away what the Holy Spirit developed. Pope John XXIII opened doors of Vatican for Holy Spirit to enter.
We can’t ignore that the Holy Spirit, speaking through council, enacted changes.
Other reasons cause decrease in attendance and vocations for priesthood. I’m not going off on my opinion about that now. Just don’t blame the abscence of Latin for the ppl leaving church.
In Chrisrs love
Tweedlealice
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top