Should Tridentine and N.O. Liturgy co-exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholiclady
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Donnchadh, I’m going to try again because I really think this is important, and if you intend to be a priest some day I think you should understand my take on this. You perceived what I said as something worthy of attack and I did not intend it that way.

Only recently did I discover that the mass wasn’t always as it is now. I am almost 40 and only remember the present mass… and do not recall anyone - priests, relatives, etc - ever mentioning the old mass. So it came as a big surprise to learn that things were once quite different, and in my early lifetime to boot. I was raised in an orthodox parish, and the only modern abuse that I have seen is hand-holding. I like things done “the right way”. OK, enough about me.

When one sets sail into the internet to explore the old mass, the use of Latin, etc. , you find all sorts of sites that claim to be Catholic but are not to varying degrees. This ranges from the “anti-Pope” people, to the schismatic groups like SSPX. It takes quite a bit of reading and research - more than most would be willing to do - to rule out these sites as useful teaching.

From there, everything is a shade of gray. Even on sites like this, there are many who ramble on at great length about why the N.O. mass is bad, should be abolished, etc. Why Latin is better. Even though the Bishops set the liturgical norms, why certain loopholes and technically valid options, are somehow “better”, more reverent, more pure. In confusing times like this, I think we should line up with the Bishops and follow the norms - not create even more confusion. (Note that in saying this, I say nothing bad about the Tridentine Mass. Although many of its supporters bad-mouth the N.O. unceasingly.)

And with each of these issues, I find almost no willingness to discuss anything, very little tolerance for different opinion. Any question or suggestion to re-think an opinion - any alternate point of view, no matter how politely it’s worded - is taken as a personal attack. The arguments usually go in circles, almost intentionally it seems.

That’s why I say it’s probably better for otherwise uninformed people not to proceed into this minefield. At least, not in the manner that I did. If this sets off another round of argument, my conscience is clear.
 
catholiclady said:
“Fair enough that SV’s and SSPXers abound a plenty to steal sheep. However, the risk is far outweighed by the many splendored benefits of attending the sacrifice of the Mass in the ritual of St. Pius V.”

And another good reason to have licit Indult Masses - so we can “steal back those stolen” or at least lost sheep. 🙂
Click to expand...

Roger that–
 
Many of you guys say Latin is the problem, if it was the problem why could they not translate the 1962 Mass into English?? Why was the Novus Ordo Missae necessary?
 
Melman,

I will be a priest someday by the Grace of God alone. I already have my doctorate in PsyD, am free of criminal convictions, am a celibate heterosexual with no sexual repressive issues, and already exploring the options I have before me with my spiritual director and priest-confessor. So, my understanding of your take on any matter, even this one, is irrelevant to my becoming a priest someday and in truth need not have been mentioned at all unless there was another motive for doing so…which in charity I will presume was not the case.

However, understanding your take on any matter is very important to my relating to you here on the MB. Moreover, it is essential to understanding your post(s) on any given subject. Now those two things are important, yet, and I must reiterate this again for clarity sake, neither has any relation to my becoming a priest.

As regards your position on the Rite of St. Pius V and by extension of those who enjoy it, nay prefer it, to the NOM, as illustrated by your e-kudos of the infantile words of Ham1, “It’s what is known as CTWS or “Circle the Wagons Syndrome”” and what you have just replied to me I am rather perplexed. Here is why. On the one hand you display antagonism towards more ancient discipline minded faithful, yet when reproached by said people you distance yourself from such a stance. In this case you can not be both.

I would agree with you, however on the positions of a good number of the Rite of St. Pius V people. I have met many that are simply obnoxious towards the Novus Ordo Missae. This is entirely regrettable and, frankly, not only illogical, but definitely uncharitable. Here in my area I know a family that constantly refers to the NOM as a “Protestant Mass”. This is both ignorant and arrogant. In fact I know too many who are like this – even within the fold of indult Mass goers. So, I can understand your aversion to those folks.

Yet, despite the good number of those folks, most of the indult Mass goers are better than that and are simply people who wish to live their life in a manner that allows them to celebrate and share in the sacrifice of the Mass in a more ancient, solemn manner. I have heard ‘reverent’ used instead of solemn and I don’t completely agree with that, for I have been to a good number of reverent NOM. Yet, the solemnity of the ancient rite is just that. That is part of the reason the NOM was brought about – ‘to liven up the Mass in order to reach a changing world’ so to speak.

In any case, as I am new here, I will simply chalk this one up to a misunderstanding of your posts due to my lack of knowledge of your style. However, given that words mean things and the apparent support of comments like that of Ham1 one can not honestly fault me for drawing the conclusion that I did. There is a difference in disagreeing and in being antagonistic. Sometimes our emotions get the better of us and we let bleed over those emotions into an otherwise rational position. If that be the case I am truly sorry for having read your comments and taken them for what they read.

Your unworthy brother in Christ and by the Grace of God a future priest,

Donnchadh
 
Excellent post DC

BTW - one of the better N.O. Masses I experienced was at Holy Ghost there in Denver and I know an Acolyte from there. I don’t know if they still do but at one time they even had Latin N.O. Masses there. Such a lovely Church and not that far from Coors field either LOL

Have you ever had the pleasure to meet Fr. Regis Scanlon there? I have met some fine Catholics from Denver area both those who attend the FFSP Masses and the N.O. Masses.
 
Catholic lady,

YES! Holy Ghost is an awesome NOM church!!! There is Eucharistic adoration daily – all day long mind you – confession, NOM with and NOM without the Latin. There is even Masses done that incorporate the most beautiful classical Masses from the greatest composers. All this right in the middle of Downtown Denver! What a great witness this church is. In fact, when the large skyser was built right next to it they tried to have it closed and condemned. Yet, God wills out and to this day that skyser is built to surround the church building on three sides; therefore most of the shape of a cross rises up the whole of the skys****er and can be seen via the air above Denver and certainly everyone who sees the building from the ground recognizes the very same thing…what a witness indeed!

Fr. Mullins is now there and he is the Hibernian Chaplain for the Denver division of the AOH (I am in the Boulder division). He is great! I have never had the honor of meeting Fr. Regis. However, I have met with and admire Fr. Schult.

And, given the play of the Rockies this year, it is great to be able to go down the street a bit and pray a prayer or two for those Rockies…and boy do they need it!

Your unworthy brother in Christ and by the Grace of God a future priest,

Donnchadh
 
Hello,
Code: 
I'm a newbie to the board. I just took your poll and see that I'm in the minority so far- so I thought I'd put in my two cents on the subject.
I’ve attended the Novus Ordo in Latin since I was a child, and, while I certainly see what attracts people to the old Mass, (especially given the abuses so prevalent since Vatican II) I find it very frustrating NOT to be able to say (or sing) the prayers and responses in the old Mass.

I’m a young’un and never experienced the old Mass when it was the standard, but I do think that the opportunity for the congregation to actively participate in the prayers of the Mass is a marked improvement in the Novus Ordo.

God bless,

peregrinator
 
“And, given the play of the Rockies this year, it is great to be able to go down the street a bit and pray a prayer or two for those Rockies…and boy do they need it”

Well the closest Church to BOB is St. Mary’s Basilica and by the looks of the Diamondbacks this year, not enough people have been going there before the games either:D
 
Hi Perigrinator - thats something I completely left out of the poll - the N.O. Mass in Latin - it is so rare here in the U.S. anyway. I have attended it twice in two different cities I visited and liked that very much. I have tried to express repeatedly in this thread and others that I am not anti-N.O. Mass but only that I prefer the Tridentine Mass to the N.O. Masses in the area in which I live.

There is such a thing as a Tridentine Dialogue Mass by the way and the people do the responses along with the servers in Latin - I rather liked that idea and don’t know if it is still permissible or not.

Here is a quote from the instruction “De Sacra Musica” issued by the **Sacred Congregation of Rites **on September 3, 1958:
"31. A final method of participation, and the most perfect form, is for the congregation to make the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest, thus holding a sort of dialogue with him, and reciting aloud the parts which properly belong to them.

There are four degrees or stages of this participation:

a) First, the congregation may make the easier liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest: *Amen; Et cum spiritu tuo; Deo gratias; Gloria tibi Domine; Laus tibi, Christe; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est; Sed libera nos a malo;

*b) Secondly, the congregation may also say prayers, which, according to the rubrics, are said by the server, including the Confiteor, and the triple Domine non sum dignus before the faithful receive Holy Communion;

c) Thirdly, the congregation may say aloud with the celebrant parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: *Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei;

*d) Fourthly, the congregation may also recite with the priest parts of the Proper of the Mass: Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion. Only more advanced groups who have been well trained will be able to participate with becoming dignity in this manner.
  1. Since the Pater Noster is a fitting, and ancient prayer of preparation for Communion, the entire congregation may recite this prayer in unison with the priest in low Masses; the Amen at the end is to be said by all. This is to be done only in Latin, never in the vernacular.
  2. The faithful may sing hymns during low Mass, if they are appropriate to the various parts of the mass.
  3. Where the rubrics prescribe the clara voce, the celebrant must recite the prayers loud enough so that the faithful can properly, and conveniently follow the sacred rites. This must be given special attention in a large church, and before a large congregation. "
 
40.png
dcmac:
the infantile words of Ham1, “It’s what is known as CTWS or “Circle the Wagons Syndrome””
Click to expand...
dcmac,

Just to clarify, I have not attacked the old Mass. If that’s what people want to attend then that’s just fine by me. It is very beautiful and a part of our liturgical history. If you look at my previous posts and particularly my posts in other threads, I am not attempting to attack the old Mass or the indult for its use. What I am attempting to communicate is my strong disagreement with the position of some that the root and cause of all problems in the modern Church is the new Mass.

It is people with this opinion that I call “circle the wagons” because rather than showing cause and effect or exploring the issue logically they tend to say, "bring back the old mass and everything will be fine again. As I believe I have demonstrated quite well in other threads, it doesn’t make tremendous sense to hold that the new Mass is the single most profoundly corrupting influence to the modern Church. If you found that remark to be “infantile” then I apologize. Please know that it was and is directed only toward those who hold the above described position and so it was not directed at you.

Just wanted to clarify…Thanks!
 
40.png
dcmac:
I will be a priest someday by the Grace of God alone. I already have my doctorate in PsyD, am free of criminal convictions, am a celibate heterosexual with no sexual repressive issuesGood golly. All I meant was that anyone who intends to become a priest needs to listen to people with an open mind and desire to understand where they’re coming from. Not to assume any sinister intentions or antagonism, and certainly never to use words like “infantile”. “Grant that I may not so much seek … to be understood as to understand.”
Click to expand...
And I really have been trying to understand all the various shades of “traditional” thinking that I mentioned in my last post. Surely, most are good people. But a lot of the “traditional” web sites and info posted to message boards is, at best, misleading. And, any attempt at dialogue seems to lead nowhere.
 
Melman,

You said, “Good golly. All I meant was that anyone who intends to become a priest needs to listen to people with an open mind and desire to understand where they’re coming from.”

Why? Shouldn’t they listen to God and Him alone? We are not of this world.

God Bless!
 
I have a question about Holy Ghost parish. I know someone who went there 25 yeas ago when he was a child and he said they celebrated mass “ad orientum” and used the rails for communion, do they still do that there for the Latin mass there?
 
40.png
aByzantineCatho:
Why? Shouldn’t they listen to God and Him alone? We are not of this world.
Click to expand...
Huh? You’re saying priests don’t need to be patient, don’t need to be good listeners, don’t need to be courteous? I hope that’s not what you’re saying.
 
Melman:
Good golly. All I meant was that anyone who intends to become a priest needs to listen to people with an open mind and desire to understand where they’re coming from. Not to assume any sinister intentions or antagonism, and certainly never to use words like "infantile". "Grant that I may not so much seek … to be understood as to understand."
Click to expand...
And I really have been trying to understand all the various shades of “traditional” thinking that I mentioned in my last post. Surely, most are good people. But a lot of the “traditional” web sites and info posted to message boards is, at best, misleading. And, any attempt at dialogue seems to lead nowhere.

Here, you go again.

If, and that is a big if, you had truly meant what you purport here above you would have quoted the entire paragraph, and maybe the second as well, that you grab your quote from. Instead, by quoting and posting only the very first part and replying to it with “Good golly…” you attempt to minimize the entire thrust of the post. Of course you buttress this with your admonishment that I highlighted. This is infantile. Do we need to break out the definition of infantile?

For that matter, what authority do you possess that governs your right to publicly question the priestly qualification, or ability, of another, as highlighted in your quote above? This, alas, brings us back to the entire reason for the first two paragraphs in my response to you before.

At last check you have twice called into question my qualification, and thereby my ability, for priestly service based on nothing more than your own little ideology of what it should be, which is not necessarily what it ought to be.

Come, come now; do you honestly expect me to let such things slide? Some of us used practical rhetoric like this on debate clubs, or in other university classes, which demanded such rhetoric. In the grand scheme of things this is OK and even beneficial for lively debate. However, it is not so when used as you have – personal.

I am sorry you feel the need to question the vocations of others by using such methods of admonishment like, “If you’re gonna be a priest…” and, “Not to assume…and certainly never…” and, “Grant that I…”

Hopefully saying this one more time may aid you in understanding what is truly at play in a discernment process and its fruition: I will be a priest by the Grace of God alone. Not by my ability to smile and bear it. Nor an attitude of accept every little thing willy-nilly. Nor to agree with everyone even when they contradict each other. Nor any other such nonsense. It is up to God who serves Him, not those sensitivities, or styles, that are currently en vogue.

A wee history lesson for ya: Many a holy priest, and even a saint, which I certainly am not, were not cut of the “can’t we all just get along” cloth. Rather, they were forced to say and do things that were not popular, for Jesus did come as a sign of contradiction. Therefore, a pre-requisite for priesthood is NOT being able to be the effeminate man so beloved of the counter-culture generation and their intellectual offspring who simply gets along to get along.

For everything there is a season,
and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.
Eccl. 3: 1-8

Now clearly there is a time for simply being a quiet man, as you seem to have an affinity for. However, there is also a time to point out that which is in error or false. In this case your analysis of what is a pre-requisite for priesthood is entirely your opinion and therefore not worth more than what it really is in light of what truly is the sole pre-requisite for a priestly vocation: God’s Divine Will born out by God’s Grace - period.

I will put my trust in the Lord not in the sensibility of man.

Your unworthy brother in Christ and by the Grace of God a future priest,
Donnchadh
 
I am dumbfounded. I don’t understand why, but you are completely misinterpreting things. Your credentials are not relevant, that was all I was trying to say. I have simply not questioned them, your vocation, or anything else. You don’t even need to agree with my opinions or thoughts. Simply read them, consider them, and respond to them if you choose to. But not in the manner that kicked off all this, which is inappropriate in general, much less from one who aspires to be a priest.

dcmac said:
“It never ceases to amaze me at the intolerance of some. Smug comments and sneering little e-bits are infantile and disrespectful; truly worthy of immature teenagers in high school.”
Click to expand...
 
Melman,

Yes, there are many things which are “inappropriate” about many of the post on this forum.

For me personally I find those who attack Tradition are the ones who act inappropriately.

God Bless!
 
Melman:
But not in the manner that kicked off all this, which is inappropriate in general, much less from one who aspires to be a priest.
Click to expand...
This, my good brother, is precisely what I am speaking about. Your presumptive arrogance is clearly evident. Further, your desire, or demand, that one “see” things from your side and then qualifying that action, as essential to a man becoming a Catholic priest is rather egotistical.

Again, brother, I ask you by whose authority do you, not some general ideological approach, but you, lay down the charge of what qualification, or not, a man must have (“much less”) for candidacy for priesthood?

I should think that was the Lord’s right alone, as administered by His servants in the Church. Clearly, unless you represent the Church in an official capacity that would directly determine my calling to the priesthood, you think differently.

And that, brother, is what I have been pointing out. I apologize that I have not been very clear in this regard and will review the composition of my posts and adjust any future comments to you accordingly, as I do not want to confuse anyone at all “much less” to the point of going completely off topic on a thread.

Your unworthy brother in Christ and by the Grace of God a future priest,
Donnchadh
 
40.png
dcmac:
Your presumptive arrogance is clearly evident. Further, your desire, or demand, that one “see” things from your side and then qualifying that action, as essential to a man becoming a Catholic priest is rather egotistical.
Click to expand...
And again, I do not ask you to agree with me. Simply read what I (or anyone for that matter) has to say and respond to it charitably. Am I not being clear about that? I’ll continue to re-word this until the message comes through clearly.

I’ll drop all mention of priests in this context, perhaps that will make it less personal to you. I expect this from anyone.
 
Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread. It is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top