Should Latin mass be brought back?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apologies for not explaining deeper what I meant. I believe that we should keep the English mass but have more parishes do the Latin mass. Like a 50/50 ratio of English masses and Latin masses.
 
You keep saying that.
It may be true, but it is as simple as evaluating the post VII Catholic world, and determining if the intended changes and improvements have been effective and advancing the mission of the church. They have not. They have had the opposite effect, unless the intent was more protestant converts and more fallen away Catholics.

So maybe VII didn’t cause the problems, but it sure didn’t fix them either.
 
We do the sign of peace as a gesture to forgive our enemies and be free from anger before approaching to receive communion.

Not many people know that anymore, since it has become a social thing.
 
Exactly. Don’t get me wrong some of the earliest Christians promoted the sign of peace. If I’m correct Justin Martyr wrote of it when describing the Mass.

But it just seems so repetitive now. But I don’t make these decisions .
 
It’s so awkward as well. I’m at church to worship, not to be bothering myself about what’s the most appropriate way to greet my neighbour!
 
Shakuhachi said:
Like TLM, nothing wrong with it as long as it is not a distraction viewed as more important than the real meaning of the Mass
Click to expand...
That’s the sort of iconoclastic attitude the brought about the post Vatican 2 wreckovation. Beautiful, timeless high altars smashed to pieces and replaced with tables. Side altars got rid of all together. Communion rails, which clearly differentiate the sanctuary as a holy place, a place of sacrifice, removed for being too ‘uninviting’.
I hope you understand the gravity of this dreadful statement.
 
I really try to keep that mindset during the whole show. I always need to do a little forgiving!
 
For the record, I don’t necessary agree with the argument, but I just wanted to correct your logic; Just because someone has a story about one person leaving the church before the liturgical reforms after Vatican II doesn’t say anything. Did people leave the church before Vatican II? Of course! but the fact of the matter is that before the liturgical reforms more people were joining the church than leaving; today the opposite is true. So, to be clear, just because someone can give an emotional anecdote about their in-laws leaving the church does not prove anything; for example, I could give anecdotes about rape victims who recieved abortions, but that doesn’t in anyway change the fact that the majority of women who recieve abortions were not rape victims.
 
I was there before and after Vatican II. I was obeying Holy Mother Church when the service was in English and the priest was facing the people. It doesn’t matter how far you drive to get something you believe you need. However, be aware that there were dissidents inside and outside the Church that launched a coordinated attack against the Church shortly after Vatican II ended. Any “changes” that occurred were blamed on Vatican II. Now, perhaps you should pass the following on to your priest because “changing the Church” was not the goal of Vatican II. Liturgical Reform, yes, but not all of the other changes Vatican II was and is blamed for.

Pope Benedict

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level.
 
Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."
 
jas84173 said:
the more I research groups like the SSPX, the more I find myself identifying with them.
Click to expand...
I can definitely agree that the way the mass of Paul VI is celebrated in practice definitely leaves much to be desired. I think its notable that the OF had been charictarised with disobedience. For example, Musicam Sacram required that for the ordinaries to be sung at mass, almost everything else in the mass had to be chanted. If we look at the way mass is celebrated in your average OF parish, that is definitely not the case. If we look at the way most of the more contraversal changes came about, we once again see this continued trend in disobedience. For example, the indult that some countries such as the US have for recieving the Eucharist on the hand, came about because of disobedience on the part of the “faithful.” The same is true of abstinance on Fridays. You might ask why the Holy Spirit would allow such comprimises to happen, but it is important to note that the infallibilty of the papacy only garuntees freedom from doctrinal errors, and not disciplinary ones.

Considering these disciplinary errors I totally get your desire to lean toward the SSPX, but in reallity all the SSPX is, is the errors of the “Spirit of Vatican II” under a different form. There was this interesting anecdote I heard the other year, on how Lefebvre visited Padre Pio a couple of years before Vatican II. Before Lefebvre was about to leave, Padre Pio looked at him very sternly saying, “Never cause discord among your brothers and always practise the rule of obedience; above all when it seems to you that the errors of those in authority are all the more serious. There is no other road than that of obedience, especially FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE MADE THIS VOW.”(Lefebvre was himself a professed religious before being raised to the episcopate)
 
If one wants to be more traditional why only go back 1570? I’d like to see some Gallican Rite masses.
 
bpm4330 said:
If one wants to be more traditional why only go back 1570? I’d like to see some Gallican Rite masses.
Click to expand...
Because we ought not to be traditionalist simply for the sake of tradition itself; tradition is a means to an end, namely that of union with God, and not a mere end in itself.
 
I’m not sure that we both mean the same thing when we use that term. When I refer to the “Spirit of Vatican II” I’m mostly refering to the spirit of disobedience the errupted in the post conciliar days, and allowed the modernists to hijack the council, that is, put words into the mouths of the council fathers that were never there to begin with.
 
That is one of the problems with the TLM. " you have more time for personal prayer". You are supposed to be praying the Mass. Not saying a rosary or all involved in personal prayer. As far as Father Ripperger, he is not infallible. I will take the words of Benedict XVI. I like Father Ripperger and think he is a good theologian, however his words contradict Catholic teaching in regard to the TLM being more spiritually efficacious and meritorious. That is his own opinion.
 
Depends on how you look at it. The TLM is more contemplative prayer than vocal as many see it.

This is far different than personal prayer.

Your point about the rosary is well-taken. Maybe the nun’s large rosary beads had some unintended consequences. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Mr_Freeze said:
They have had the opposite effect, unless the intent was more protestant converts and more fallen away Catholics.
Click to expand...
Except that mainstream Protestant denominations also suffered a significant loss of members as well during the same period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top