Should Latin mass be brought back?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Father, calling fellow Catholics “lamentable people” because they wish to worship in a way that the pope has called a 'rightful aspiration" is really deplorable.
 
Last edited:
And truly Father, when you say you suggested that the bishop either shred or burn your Tridentine indult…that really says all that needs to be said about your attitude towards a venerable liturgy. You will be in my prayers.
 
When the diocesan bishop was on the receiving end of their toxicity, he resolved the matter of how they would worship…he withdrew all provision regarding the vetus ordo in their regard. Having poisoned the last place in a list he gave them, they lost all opportunity for anything else.

His word was stronger than lamentable for how they behaved…and the presbyterate remembers that experiment

As Monsignor Pope said in the article reference above, the result of what happened in our case was solely because of the bad actions of the laity who requested it. They had been the recipients of so much largess and generosity. And they lost all of it in the end.

As I said, I would encourage Bishops and Priests to read a number of these 700+ posts as they show exactly what they would have the opportunity to experience…and I am glad this thread exists for that reason.

Quattuor abhinc annos had a number of useful provisions that were very important and very useful.
a) That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.

c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.

e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.

This concession, indicative of the common Father’s solicitude for all his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities.
Click to expand...
As for provision E, it was reported back to the Congregation that the effort had been a disaster and the lay faithful were remanded by their bishop to the pastoral care of their respective territorial parishes, where they could be educated in, as Quattuor abhinc annos said: “the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities” of our diocese.
 
Last edited:
Quattuour Abhinc Annos was completely replaced…you might prefer the term abrogated…by Ecclesia Dei and then Summorum Pontificum.

You have an obvious disdain for those who prefer to pursue what John Paul II called the “rightful aspirations” of those who prefer the liturgy in question.
 
And frankly Father, given the attitude you display toward traditionalist Catholics in your posts, one wonders how much of the trouble you allude to in your diocese was the cause of the laity, and how much the cause of the clergy who may have had thinly veiled contempt for what the laity were seeking.
 
I am quite aware that its status was changed.

The current disposition can also change with the decision of the Pope, which is my point.
 
And progressives would do well to remember that the more contemptuously and arrogantly they act under the current pope, the likelier the next conclave will be to swing the pendulum back.
 
Your comments well prove exactly what the Bishops should be aware of with regard to integralists…and why this issue deserves very careful analysis by the Bishops.
 
Summorum Pontificum liberated the traditional liturgy from the veto power of bishops, and confirmed the right of all priests to use the old books.
 
I think Monsignor Pope lays out the matter very well indeed.

That in his archdiocese, an archdiocese of some 200 parishes, one-half of one percent of Mass going Catholics are involved with the vetus ordo. Thus 99.5 percent of Catholics at Mass in his diocese are in celebrations of Eucharist according to the renewed and reformed liturgy

I think that reality should shape the thoughts of the clergy regarding provision the vetus ordo and ultimately, that is where the matter rests. With the Bishops. Who have wonderful ways to mentor priests and to structure their assignments where they are really needed…and to organise the exercise of their priestly ministry, as co-worker with the Order of Bishop, so that they are, properly, providing pastoral care. Just like the school, in Monsignor’s excellent example.

www.ncregister.com

An Urgent Warning About the Future of the Traditional Latin Mass

In this post I want to summon my fellow Catholics who love the Traditional Latin Mass to a greater appreciation of their obligation to evangelize. I sense tha...
www.ncregister.com www.ncregister.com
 
Oh here we go…the argument that this issue really is insignificant, because of how small the numbers are (allegedly) who want this.

Really ironic that the same people who did everything in their power to prevent this liturgy are those who then always sooner or later talk about how few people want it.
 
Take the matter up with Monsignor Pope. He is the author of the article writing about his experience. My experience with this population is far more negative than his. It is also goes back further than his.
 
Yes, you have made it clear you are in complete and utter disagreement with Benedict XVI on this issue (not to mention John Paul II).
 
tweedlealice said:
Salutations,

I’m glad your experience had all parishioners repeating Latin responsorial phrases. In my church,

Rosaries were present in every pew. Some said responsorial responses, some did not.
Click to expand...
The truth is that the traditional, old school protocol is for the faithful to remain quiet during the Latin mass. Any responses to be made are the task of the altar servers, not the faithful who traditionally keep their mouths shut.

Those who do articulate responses when at Latin mass aren’t really as “traditional” as they might think.
 
The dialogue Mass was a fruit of the liturgical movement, the great success of which the Second Vatican Council drew heavily.

As you say, outside the influence of the liturgical movement, the faithful kept their mouths shut. Which is why Sacrosanctum Concilium said
  1. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God’s word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.
  2. For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation, has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree.
  3. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.
    For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.
  4. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.
 
Where exactly did SC decree that a new Eucharistic Prayer should be composed at a trattoria in the Trastevere, as the author of it…Father Louis Bouyer of happy memory…writes that he is embarrassed he was responsible for doing? At the behest of an archbishop he writes was as devoid of honesty as he was of learning, to quote Bouyer?
 
He is indeed of very happy memory. He did a splendid job of it.

What an absolute tragedy that you do not see and confess how much better off we were today, thanks to the gift from On High that is Vatican II. How sad for you… In pity, I pray for you.
 
Last edited:
Well I prefer to trust the very author of the prayer, who laments what he participated in and what he calls the “shameful” way it was implemented.

In any case, “Vatican II” cannot get the credit for everything that followed it.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
What an absolute tragedy that you do not see and confess how much better off we were today, thanks to the gift from On High that is Vatican II
Click to expand...
The changes were designed to meet a different world than we had more than 50 years ago.

My grandparents had a very difficult time with the V2 introduction of the vernacular and the new expectations that the faithful read responses and prayers. But they weren’t really able to read English so well, and they were elderly and well used to the old school protocols where silence was expected.

That generation died off, the new generation is fluent in the vernacular and doesn’t have the same situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top