Should Latin mass be brought back?

[otjm]

I have already stated why Pope Pius 10th wrote his encyclical, and I stand on what I have said. It had to do with scri[tural research, a good deal of which the Church - which, apparently I need to remind - is guided by the Holy Spirit - has since accepted. Father Loisy was one of the theologians excommunicated over Modernism in scriptural research.

I certainly would welcome you to name any liturgical scholar who has been excommunicated because of Modernism. My eyes are open, and I don’t have rose colored glasses. I just follow the Magisterium.

 

[ProVobis]

I hope this doesn’t sound like a non sequitur but what exactly makes one a liturgical scholar? According to Mediator Dei, the Pope and only the Pope can make changes in the liturgy. And how often is this done?

 

[ProVobis]

Now the dioveses should have a hand in “promoting” the works of those TLM parishes? A biline on a website is fine

IMO, from a business standpoint, dioceses have done a pretty poor job of marketing the TLM. (Many are struggling enough with the OF and closing many parishes.) It seems the SSPX have done a much better job and have deep pockets to show for it. That is one of the reasons I feel the Personal Prelature would serve them better, if only they see it too.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Now the dioveses should have a hand in “promoting” the works of those TLM parishes? A biline on a website is fine

IMO, from a business standpoint, dioceses have done a pretty poor job of marketing the TLM. (Many are struggling enough with the OF and closing many parishes.) It seems the SSPX have done a much better job and have deep pockets to show for it. That is one of the reasons I feel the Personal Prelature would serve them better, if only they see it too.

Again, why is the dioceses in the marketing the EF business to begin with? There is no legitimate reason it should be, when OF is perfectly legitimate and they need to do basic evangelization? (And let’s be real, most dioceses are terrible at evangelization…and you want them to promote the EF? Yeah suhreeeeeee.

 

[ProVobis]

You are right. Why should they market the EF? They have to study the rubrics. They have to find servers who know how to serve. They’ll have to prepare the altars every time they say it. Then they have to find people who are willing to drive long distances. And perhaps set up a choir. Quite a bother, I’d say.

 

[TheCatholicKnight]

My apologies, OraLabora,

I did not mean to call you personally someone who prefers “smells and bells”, but the majority of the people whom you seem to characterize with. My entire point, which I am sure we disagree on, is that the New Mass is not intrinsically Catholic, and that the movement to restore traditional things in said liturgy don’t always seem to have the right end in mind (which is the complete and full restoration of the Holy Mass). So, hopefully you understand this, but I was talking about the majority, which I will not presume you’re not apart of, that just want to restore the “good looks and sounds” of the Mass, and not the actual liturgy texts.

God Bless, I hope you understand what I am saying.

 

[Inisfallen]

Videos of seminarians now, which actually put to shame a strict and orderly seminary, are being posted on YouTube:

I watch the video. I saw a bunch of young (very young, from my point of view) men who appeared to take their calling and their formation quite seriously. And at the same time, they’re young guys. So they play some basketball, make a few funny videos. I really, really don’t see the harm in it. It actually seems quite healthy.

They reminded me of some of the Jesuit scholastics who taught at my high school. They really weren’t all that much older than the boys they taught. And they, for the most part, grew into fine priests.

I think the video was kind of nice. Good young men, taking their calling seriously, without losing a sense of humor. I expect they’ll make good priests.

 

[LittleFlower]

Watch the first part, and how they seem to undermine what real seminary formation is like, which is my main problem with the video. If you look at the video for the FSSP Seminary, or the SSPX Seminary, you’ll see a massive difference.

They are taking the piss, this is what everyone thinks the seminary looks like. The comedic element was to show that they are still young, interested, and engaged young men.

The two videos you followed up with, @TheCatholicKnight, show it all proper. For some young men, that would might be terrifying. Neither is bad, both have a different target market.

You like smooth peanut butter, I like crunchy—but both is available!

 

[Walking_Home]

How Catholic is it – to attack the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form – and now attack future priests.

 

[TheCatholicKnight]

The two videos you followed up with, @TheCatholicKnight, show it all proper. For some young men, that would might be terrifying. Neither is bad, both have a different target market.

If those video is terrifying, then maybe they shouldn’t be going to seminary!

You like smooth peanut butter, I like crunchy—but both is available!

Seminary formation is very serious, it’s not what the Seminarians prefer, but what the Church (As in the unerring magisterium) “prefers”. Seminarians are for men, not for boys.

 

[TheCatholicKnight]

How Catholic is it – to attack the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form – and now attack future priests.

I “attack” (I would prefer saying critique) the “Ordinary Form” and the majority of the Priests that celebrate it because of it’s deficient form (again, please read Fr. Ripperger). I would never once deny that the New Mass is valid and licit, but it is less spiritually nourishing than the Tridentine Mass objectively.

 

[LittleFlower]

If those video is terrifying, then maybe they shouldn’t be going to seminary!

Nope. Different educational models for different folks. Some people like humour, eh? That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be good priests. Discouraging vocations because of what we, personally, think should happen is incorrect.

Seminary formation is very serious, it’s not what the Seminarians prefer, but what the Church (As in the unerring magisterium) “prefers”. Seminarians are for men, not for boys.

Doctors go through strict training, but you’ll find them cracking jokes, pulling pranks, having a beer. Being human doesn’t make them less able to do their jobs and vocation.

it is less spiritually nourishing than the Tridentine Mass objectively.

You mean subjectively. I love the OF, I love all valid Masses.

 

[Walking_Home]

You can try to “slide under” by saying "critique – it is what it is. If Fr. Ripperger is going around saying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form is deficient – no thank you. Any priest – who says such things about the OF-- betrays Christ/the Altar of the OF–betrays his brother priests who celebrate the OF – and betrays his own ordination.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Check out The Latin Mass magazine and their resources.

 

[R_H_Benson]

No, the 2,147 bishops did not approve of the OF because there was still work to do. However, from the numerous regions from which the bishops came, they brought with them experts in liturgy. There seems to be this idea that the OF was created out of whole cloth. it was not - liturgical research had started with Pope Pius 10th, and had taken a serious upswing during the time of Pope Pius 12th.

And Pope Pius XII unsuccessfully attempted to keep these “liturgists” at bay with Mediator Dei, which was ignored and contradicted in the implementation of the New Liturgy.

Christ did not celebrate a Mass

That is fundamentally wrong. Not only did Christ offer the first Mass, it is He alone Who offers each and every Mass. When a priest offers Mass, he does so as an alter Christus, offering the pure Sacrifice only by virtue of the sacred and sacramental union he has with Christ the one High Priest. Christ alone is worthy to offer Himself to His Eternal Father.

And it helps to know and understand the dynamics (I will use that word instead of politics) of Vatican 2. Lead by Cardinal Ottaviani, the conservative element attempted to set the form and format of the Council, and were rejected, with numerous documents rewritten. I will leave it to archivists to determine what parts of the various documents were compromises with the conservative element; was Latin? Possibly, although there were bishops who were adamant about the vernacular, particularly from Asia.

Politics is the more accurate word. Vatican II was hijacked by the Rhine country Liberal bishops and their periti. The vast majority of the Council preparatory documents that had been meticulously prepared in the years preceding the Council (notably, those prepared regarding the Sacred Liturgy) were tossed from discussion within the first month of the Council thanks to the voting power of the Liberal faction and the disorganization of the traditionalists. Politics. Not surprisingly, these preparatory documents (which can still be read online) relay Catholic teaching in a firm and unambiguous manner, a manner that simply wasn’t expedient for the progressive goals the Rhineland bishops desired to implement).

 

[otjm]

Pope Pius 12th comments in Mediator Dei were discipline, not doctrine; but those who feel the OF was/is wrong treat it as doctrine. It simply was not the time for changes.

Christ celebrated the Eucharist. As we define “mass”, it includes readings from the New Testament. Yes, He is the source of the NT (directly through the Gospels, and indirectly through the Epistles, which are refelctions), but the readings did not occur as they did not exist. You may argue that He celebrated the Mass; but no one familiar with the EF - or the OF - would recognize what was happening at the Last Supper as a Mass.

Vatican 2 was not “hijacked” - that is just Traditionalist/SSPX language. They lead. Ottaviani and the Curai attempted to derail any Council; when they could not, they attempted to run it; I could just as well say “railroad” it, but the bishops of the wold determined that the Curia was not “in charge” of the Council; it was a council of bishops, not a council of Curia.
And the bit about the liberal bishops hijacking in essence treats the rest of the bishops of the world as simpletons, fools, and not much more than sheep being herded like so many sheep. 2,147 to 4 says, according to your comments, that the vast majority of bishops were not much more than fools, hoodwinked by a handful of bishops. I have far more respect for the bishops of the world than that, and I still accept that the Holy Spirit was guiding the council.

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Pius 12th comments in Mediator Dei were discipline, not doctrine; but those who feel the OF was/is wrong treat it as doctrine. It simply was not the time for changes.

Exactly what are you arguing for?

If you look at Trent Session 7 Canon 13

“CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.”

I’d say Pius XII in fact laid the groundwork in Mediator Dei to enact changes into a reformed rite. The first changes came in 1955 as Holy Week was being rewritten.

But one thing that sticks out at me is that received and approved rites are not to be contemned by any pastor in the Church. I read this as no bishop has the right to suppress any received and approved rite of the Church. This of course includes any rite older than 1370 AD. The Gregorian Mass, which we now call the Tridentine Mass, was one of these rites.

 

[otjm]

I was responding to R H Benson. This new format drives me a bit bonkers; I hit the wrong “Reply” button.

Pope Pius 12th opened the door to some changes in the liturgy. He also remarked against what might be called, at least by some, “antiquarianism”, a comment that subsequently has been popular with some in their remarks against the OF.

Summorum Pontificum certainly supports your reading. However, as noted in an exchange above, it is up to the pastor, and the oversight of the bishop, as to the decision whether or not the EF will be celebrated in a given parish, and if so, when. That is why some parishes may have both the EF on Sunday and daily; and others might have it as infrequently as once every two months.

I have not heard if the matter of having an EF has ever been appealed to Rome (as per the instructions of SP). Have you hard of any?

 

[Entwhistler]

Actually, in my diocese there was a group of people who appealed to Rome for a Latin Mass because the bishop wouldn’t allow it. Benedict XVI obliged them.

 

[otjm]

Well, looking at the Benedictines, they have a number throughout the various monasteries who have PhDs in the matter. I certainly would start there. The Pope and only the Pope can change the liturgies, but none of them seem to be doing it in a vacuum. How often? Paul 6th; John Paul 2nd, Benedict 16th…