Suggesting Changes to the TLM is Absurd!

[AJV]

Actually, the Council of Trent prohibited the creation of new rites. And I’ll bet most attending Vatican II knew this as Vatican II did not call for any new rite.

Maybe a better translation would have been “by any pastor of the church whomsoever”?

Can you please refer BobP123, to a pre-conciliar work that supports this interpretation of the canon?

Hmmmmm…“received and approved” in which form? I’m thinking since the 1570 missal (under the mandate of the Council) was quite different in a number of areas from its mediaeval predecessors. Or what about 1604 Ritual?

Also, why is the sacrament of Matrimony (and even Unction and Baptism, though to lesser degree) excepted from this decree? If you see in the diocesan Rituals, there was the power of the *bishop *to determine the form *and *rites surrounding marriage. Didn’t the Council of Baltimore (I forget whether it was I or II) exercise this authority for the USA?

As for the Council Fathers, I’m not so sure. Consider the *declaratio *of October 8, 1963, before the SC, which explains in greater detail the proposals laid before the Council Father

Among the individual parts of the Mass, it seems that those at the beginning, at the offertory, at the communion and at the end are in greatest need of revision, especially because the Roman rite was taken over in Gaul and redacted accordign to a Gallic-Germanic genius in a new form which the Roman Church later adopted.
.

And it goes on to suggest proposals. For example, revising the Offertory prayers “to better correspond with the meaning of offering of gifts which are to be consecrated later”. I don’t think we can say the Council Fathers were so oblivious.

 

[BobP123]

Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV
English is the dominant language throughout the entire world.

This is, of course, not true. And most arrogant to say. Mandarin is spoken by many more people and Spanish is coming along very fast, especially in the U.S. And don’t forget about the growing Muslim communities and whatever they speak. The local Muslim mosque in my area draws more than the Lutheran and Catholic churches combined. Seems the English Novus Ordos are starting to take a back seat these days. Sorry.

 

[BobP123]

Hmmmmm…“received and approved” in which form? I’m thinking since the 1570 missal (under the mandate of the Council) was quite different in a number of areas from its mediaeval predecessors. Or what about 1604 Ritual?

Pius V clarified this by stating that only those rites of 200 years or older prior to 1570 were legit. The 1570 Missal was a polished version of the earlier Latin Mass, it was not a new rite. There is really no such thing as the Tridentine Mass if that is what you’re suggesting.

 

[AJV]

Pius V clarified this by stating that only those rites of 200 years or older prior to 1570 were legit. The 1570 Missal was a polished version of the earlier Latin Mass, it was not a new rite. There is really no such thing as the Tridentine Mass if that is what you’re suggesting.

No, but it omits a fair amount of things that appeared in the Curial Missal. My question is what is the determination that these things are or aren’t part of the “received and approved” rites? In other words, which century do we have to go to to find the “received and approved rites”?

And moreover, how does this square with Pius XII’s Ultrmontane statement

It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

I’d like to add also one more example to the Trent Canon: what of the changes made by Papal order through the Propaganda to the rituals of the Eastern Churches most particularly Penance?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is, of course, not true. And most arrogant to say. Mandarin is spoken by many more people and Spanish is coming along very fast, especially in the U.S. And don’t forget about the growing Muslim communities and whatever they speak. The local Muslim mosque in my area draws more than the Lutheran and Catholic churches combined. Seems the English Novus Ordos are starting to take a back seat these days. Sorry.

Not in the language of commerce and business. True, there are more actual people speaking Mandarin, but they are fairly fixed in locale. Most Europeans, Asians, etc., are taught English as a second language. So it doesn’t involve arrogance at all, but simple fact. This isn’t a commentary on English anyway and certainly not about any perceived or alleged superiority of English, it’s about the use of any vernacular for a Mass, in specific the TLM. I haven’t brought up the NO, but your snarky remark about it does not go unnoticed. This type of snarkiness (particularly in light of the fact that no one abuses or denigrates the TLM in these fora) only aids and comforts the true enemies of the TLM, because they’re able to read human nature better than some here. They know, again, that most people will ask themselves,“Why would I want to be like that? If that is a product of the Tridentine, count me out!” Fortunately, the Tridentine is simply an innocent bystander and hopefully most people will realize it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually, the Council of Trent prohibited the creation of new rites. And I’ll bet most attending Vatican II knew this as Vatican II did not call for any new rite.

Maybe a better translation would have been “by any pastor of the church whomsoever”?

Once again, if YOUR interpretation of this is true, then there are popes beloved of “traditionalists” are anathematized. It is a CATHOLIC understanding that Popes cannot bind their successors in matters of discipline. If some here don’t understand that, the Church does. This quote clearly pronounces an anathema against any unauthorized person changing the rite at whim or introducing any new rite. It does not prohibit any future lawful and legitimate authority from altering or modifying a rite or promulgating a new one.

The Pope could quite legitimately change or modify the Tridentine Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes. of course all tongues should worship God - Yet at the same time it is more beneficial for the Church to have Latin as a universal language. Unity is a very important aspect to a Church that is big as ours. As I said before - ONE, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Unity is a big factor, it is one of the marks of the Church - thus why not aid the Church with a unifying language. **Because very few understand it.

** Vulgar as in the common language - the language of our schoolyards, businesses, homes etc. It does us a great service to put aside a language for liturgy - to have a language associated with higher learning/prayer helps us to get into a prayerful mindset. I know that I only associate Latin with the Church - and so when I use it or hear it - it actually assists me in my devoution because the only thoughts have with that lanugage are those that are used for devoution. **I’m sensible of your remarks on “common” language, but I think we can have an elevated language that is still comprehensible to the faithful. **

Now, you seem to focus on understanding - we both know that you can still understand and follow the liturgy via translations.Yes, it does make following along more difficult BUT it is worth taking the effort because of all the benefits that Latin has. **And this is the rub, and where I don’t think some are getting it: Why would I trade a Mass in which I don’t need a book, where I know and understand and can HEAR the whole of it, where I know the responses and can make them myself rather than depending on a 3rd or 4th grader to do it for me, where every word the priest says immediately resonates in my mind because I understand it, for a Mass that is largely silent and what isn’t silent is in a language foreign to me? **

It is helpful however, by providing a standard. As any living language progresses in time, its vocabulary aquires new words, and previous words have altered meanings, grammar often changes as well. Latin counters this problem by acting as a sort of standard - No matter how our living languages change, we can always go back to the Latin to see the exact meaning of a text - we can even compare Latin to english in all its stages because Latin texts have been translated into every form of English past or modern. **Absolutely! We have to have a standard, just like there are standards of measure. BUT…I’ve heard people complain about “One in Being with” used in the Credo as opposed to “consubstantial.” If it’s changed, almost everyone (despite the fact that this is an Anglicized form of a Latin word) is still going to think “One in Being with.” If ask to explain it, they’re going to more than likely say,“It means One in Being with.” So why not simply say “one in being with?” **

We are all aware that our current translation of the NO mass could use a bit of cleaning up. How do we even know this? because we have the Latin! Without the Latin, we would have no standard to compare this too, and may be unaware of the problem.​

Anyway, if you haven’t already, I suggest you read Veterum Sapientia. Pope John XXIII (the same pope who started VAT II), was calling for a revitalization of this language! Why aren’t we fulfilling this calling? He also explains why Latin is superior. I refer you to his arguments - I sincerely think that you will have a hard time countering his overall argument.

I have never said that Latin was not the language of the Church, nor that it should not BE the language of the Church. It would be very foolish to say it isn’t important. Hebrew and Greek are as well. But we don’t study either to read the Scriptures, the vast bulk of the faithful, and it isn’t clear why we can’t continue to have the Mass as we’ve become accustomed to it. Regardless of their personal feelings about Latin, I’d bet the Holy Father or his successors are going to force the flock on this non-essential issue. And as for unity, these forums are ample evidence of the deep divide between the OF and the EF, despite the Holy Father’s desires for peace and unity (you might urge some here to read his cover letter for the MP to the bishops of the world). Nonetheless, I actually think the Holy Father is going to be cheated of that desire, probably by both camps (at least liberals and progressivists don’t post too often in the forums, so we don’t hear their voices here). I don’t see how we’ll be able to live with both forms. I think it would be far better, for the sake of unity, to have one form, the Tridentine, offered in every parish in both the Latin and the vernacular. I think we will see it move back to one form and it will probably be a hybrid, which I rather hate to see. I’ve read the Tridentine as it is in the vernacular and I think it is sublime.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirk,

Just a thought. Would you agree that it might be easier to move the NO towards the goal of adopting the TLM in the vernacular rather than adapting the TLM to large changes? For instance, your priest could start introducing the elements of the TLM such as the Prayers at the Foot of the altar. He would say them in English and the people would make the responses. As time went on, the Mass could resemble the TLM but with an audible Canon and in the language of the people. The things that many consider redundant, like the Confiteor or the Last Gospel would never be adopted.

I would think this is a more realistic goal for you than trying to convince us traditionalists to mess with the TLM.

Possibly, but either way, it’s going to turn out the same, Snorter. One confietor rather than two isn’t going to change the ontological character of the TLM and neither would the audible canon. But fine, we could move the NO closer.

And I would NEVER call the Last Gospel redundant!!! I wish that was chanted as a recessional at every Mass. I’ve never understood why anyone would want to get rid of the Last Gospel. It’s glorious.

 

[CollegeKid]

Once again, if YOUR interpretation of this is true, then there are popes beloved of “traditionalists” are anathematized. It is a CATHOLIC understanding that Popes cannot bind their successors in matters of discipline. If some here don’t understand that, the Church does. This quote clearly pronounces an anathema against any unauthorized person changing the rite at whim or introducing any new rite. It does not prohibit any future lawful and legitimate authority from altering or modifying a rite or promulgating a new one.

The Pope could quite legitimately change or modify the Tridentine Mass.

JKirk,

Let me start off by making a few points. First, I agree with your interpretation of (what I believe was Pius V’s “Quo Primum,” not the Council of Trent) on future modifications to the liturgy. Second, I realize that many times on this forum, people throw out half-truths or out-of-context information, repeating it often enough until it is hopefully accepted as the truth. I know this is frustrating, and not to excuse it, but please try to bear in mind that to greater or lesser degree this sort of thing probably happens on every online discussion forum, blog, etc. God help us, we’re human, and sometimes in the defense of traditional Catholic spirituality and liturgy people get carried away.

That being said, I must say with all sincerity and goodwill that I find some of the things you’re saying troubling. Know that this is coming from someone who has read your posts for awhile now and that I respect your intellect, your honesty, and your fidelity to the Church. And, you may be right, maybe someday in the future the Mass of the 1962 Missal will be offered in the vernacular. But I must ask sir, why is there such zeal on your part for this possibility to be realized?

I have said that the primary reason most of us attend the TLM is for its litany of rich and deeply-moving prayers and the sense of the mystical and sacred cultivated thereby. That is true, but its not as if we could care less about the Latin, either.

Throughout your posts, you have repeatedly asked in seeming astonishment how anyone could worship to their fullest capacity in a language other than their native tongue, as if even after learning it the language factor would still be an obstacle, or as if simply by virtue of its “foreigness” to most Americans, the second we decide to offer the Mass in Latin, our worship has somehow thereby been reduced in its efficacy for both God and us.

(More to come)

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

The Pope could quite legitimately change or modify the Tridentine Mass.

So why doesn’t he?
Elaborate.

 

[CollegeKid]

To Continue,

I submit to you that the “foreigness” of the Latin, for those of us who are attached to the Traditional liturgy, actually helps our worship of God. As you know, when Mass is offered we are entering, for a brief period of time, into Eternity: the One, Everlasting Sacrifice of of the Pascal Lamb to the Holy Trinity.

First off, because those who keep returning to the Mass of the Classical Roman Rite usually take the time to learn Latin (or least to memorize the Latin to English translations of the Missal), we are not confused as to what we’re praying for.

Second, because the Mass is by its very nature such an otherworldly experience, and an experience of such deep and intimate-yes, bodily, Communion with the Risen Lord, having it offered in an ancient (even dead) language, a language so much more (I’m going out on a limb here-“sensuous” than the English we were raised with), not to mention Latin’s venerable history as being the language of the pagan Empire converted to the One, True Faith by the Church and the language of some of the greatest poets, orators and philosophers the world has ever known, and just its general “Otherness” in the face of English, well, all of these factors combine to increase the sense of the pure “Mysticality” of the Sacrifice of the Mass, an atmosphere entirely appropriate to its nature.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

JKirk,
Let me start off by making a few points. First, I agree with your interpretation of (what I believe was Pius V’s “Quo Primum,” not the Council of Trent) on future modifications to the liturgy. Second, I realize that many times on this forum, people throw out half-truths or out-of-context information, repeating it often enough until it is hopefully accepted as the truth. I know this is frustrating, and not to excuse it, but please try to bear in mind that to greater or lesser degree this sort of thing probably happens on every online discussion forum, blog, etc. God help us, we’re human, and sometimes in the defense of traditional Catholic spirituality and liturgy people get carried away.

Yes, some get carried away.

That being said, I must say with all sincerity and goodwill that I find some of the things you’re saying troubling. Know that this is coming from someone who has read your posts for awhile now and that I respect your intellect, your honesty, and your fidelity to the Church. And, you may be right, maybe someday in the future the Mass of the 1962 Missal will be offered in the vernacular. But I must ask sir, why is there such zeal on your part for this possibility to be realized?

He has an agenda, if you have not yet realized.

I have said that the primary reason most of us attend the TLM is for its litany of rich and deeply-moving prayers and the sense of the mystical and sacred cultivated thereby. That is true, but its not as if we could care less about the Latin, either.

Many have tried to explain that to those who want to dismantle the TLM, but to no avail.

Throughout your posts, you have repeatedly asked in seeming astonishment how anyone could worship to their fullest capacity in a language other than their native tongue, as if even after learning it the language factor would still be an obstacle, or as if simply by virtue of its “foreigness” to most Americans, the second we decide to offer the Mass in Latin, our worship has somehow thereby been reduced in its efficacy for both God and us.

It seems he may never get it:

Summa Theologica
Prima Secundæ Partis

Question 78. That cause of sin which is malice
Article 1. Whether anyone sins through certain malice?

I answer that, Man like any other being has naturally an appetite for the good; and so if his appetite incline away to evil, this is due to corruption or disorder in some one of the principles of man: for it is thus that sin occurs in the actions of natural things. Now the principles of human acts are the intellect, and the appetite, both rational (i.e. the will) and sensitive. Therefore even as sin occurs in human acts, sometimes through a defect of the intellect, as when anyone sins through ignorance, and sometimes through a defect in the sensitive appetite, as when anyone sins through passion, so too does it occur through a defect consisting in a disorder of the will. Now the will is out of order when it loves more the lesser good. Again, the consequence of loving a thing less is that one chooses to suffer some hurt in its regard, in order to obtain a good that one loves more: as when a man, even knowingly, suffers the loss of a limb, that he may save his life which he loves more. Accordingly when an inordinate will loves some temporal good, e.g. riches or pleasure, more than the order of reason or Divine law, or Divine charity, or some such thing, it follows that it is willing to suffer the loss of some spiritual good, so that it may obtain possession of some temporal good. Now evil is merely the privation of some good; and so a man wishes knowingly a spiritual evil, which is evil simply, whereby he is deprived of a spiritual good, in order to possess a temporal good: wherefore he is said to sin through certain malice or on purpose, because he chooses evil knowingly…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So why doesn’t he?
Elaborate.

He may. When a Cardinal, he wrote to a correspondent and said that whatever reform of the liturgy came about, it had to be based upon the Tridentine. He included the possibility of it being said in the vernacular. I’ve got it bookmarked, but I’ll have to search for it. I’ll get back to you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes, some get carried away.

He has an agenda, if you have not yet realized.

Many have tried to explain that to those who want to dismantle the TLM, but to no avail.

It seems he may never get it.

You know, I can respect College Kid’s approach to the question, but your contempt and arrogance simply propagates and increases, without any reason, the ill-feeling in the liturgy “wars” that are going on in the Church.

I don’t have an agenda in the sense you mean.

I’m not trying to dismantle the TLM.

I don’t care whether you think I “get” it or not (your record of posts amply demonstrate an inability to “get” it when it comes to verifiable facts, so when it comes to theoretical conjecture, I don’t find it too terribly unbelievable that you don’t “get” it) and I reckon the majority of posters to these forums who frankly disagree with me realize that I’m not a modernist and that I’m NOT trying to dismantle a venerable rite of the Church. I would also speculate that they are also able to see through your technique of ad hominum (someone correct me if I declined that wrong!) attacks and your habit of throwing mud and just hoping against hope that some of it sticks. Again, this facility of yours does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of the venerable rite you profess to love. You’re going to turn more people off of it than you’re going to convert to it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes, some get carried away.

He has an agenda, if you have not yet realized.

Many have tried to explain that to those who want to dismantle the TLM, but to no avail.

It seems he may never get it:

Summa Theologica
Prima Secundæ Partis
Question 78. That cause of sin which is malice
Article 1. Whether anyone sins through certain malice?

I answer that, Man like any other being has naturally an appetite for the good; and so if his appetite incline away to evil, this is due to corruption or disorder in some one of the principles of man: for it is thus that sin occurs in the actions of natural things. Now the principles of human acts are the intellect, and the appetite, both rational (i.e. the will) and sensitive. Therefore even as sin occurs in human acts, sometimes through a defect of the intellect, as when anyone sins through ignorance, and sometimes through a defect in the sensitive appetite, as when anyone sins through passion, so too does it occur through a defect consisting in a disorder of the will. Now the will is out of order when it loves more the lesser good. Again, the consequence of loving a thing less is that one chooses to suffer some hurt in its regard, in order to obtain a good that one loves more: as when a man, even knowingly, suffers the loss of a limb, that he may save his life which he loves more. Accordingly when an inordinate will loves some temporal good, e.g. riches or pleasure, more than the order of reason or Divine law, or Divine charity, or some such thing, it follows that it is willing to suffer the loss of some spiritual good, so that it may obtain possession of some temporal good. Now evil is merely the privation of some good; and so a man wishes knowingly a spiritual evil, which is evil simply, whereby he is deprived of a spiritual good, in order to possess a temporal good: wherefore he is said to sin through certain malice or on purpose, because he chooses evil knowingly…

If you look “irony” up in the dictionary, you’ll find the above post with the above poster’s name attached to it. This is simply absurd.

 

[universalindult]

ehatever reform of the liturgy came about, it had to be based upon the Tridentine. He included the possibility of it being said in the vernacular.

In the end, the last Pope of the Vatican II council will obey the council. VII was quite clear that Latin was to be retained, and the vernacular was to be quite limited.

The Novus Ordo would have to cease to exist before the Tridentine Mass would be offered in the vernacular, otherwise, what’s the point? Why a vernacular Tridentine when the Novus Ordo in vernacular is already universally available? Its an answer to a question that has not been asked.

But in the end, if VII is ever truly implemented, the Novus Ordo mass will cease to exist, as it clearly violates the spirit and letter of the VII documents dealing with liturgy.

A dialogue mass version of the pre-VII liturgy – with the readings in the vernacular – would fully satisfy the actual dictates of VII regarding the mass.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

You know, I can respect College Kid’s approach to the question, but your contempt and arrogance simply propagates and increases, without any reason, the ill-feeling in the liturgy “wars” that are going on in the Church.

If you call it one than perhaps this is a war based on the true liturgy.

I would also speculate that they are also able to see through your technique of ad hominum

How about you ad this:

adversus solem ne loquitor

corruptio optimi pessima

Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.

Again, this facility of yours does absolutely nothing to advance the You’re going to turn more people off of it than you’re going to convert to it.

I am only trying to convert you to Catholicism.

St Luke 14:11
Because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirk,
That being said, I must say with all sincerity and goodwill that I find some of the things you’re saying troubling. Know that this is coming from someone who has read your posts for awhile now and that I respect your intellect, your honesty, and your fidelity to the Church. And, you may be right, maybe someday in the future the Mass of the 1962 Missal will be offered in the vernacular. But I must ask sir, why is there such zeal on your part for this possibility to be realized?

**Frankly, because the liturgy wars have to stop. The snobbery and elitism and denigration on both sides have to stop. The Holy Father wants both forms to peacefully coexist, but I personally don’t see how that will be allowed, by either camp (I disagree as fervently with the O’Briens and the Chichesters of this world as I do with There Can Be Only 1 and Bob and LatinMassLover and I think both camps are engaged in blatemt jingoism and frank chicanery and character assasination). I know other rites have more than one form, but there is far to much bad history over the NO rite (much of it predicated on the half-truths you mention) that I don’t think we can get to a place where both rites are viewed with mutual respect by both camps (this doesn’t address the vast number of ordinary, faithful Catholics in the middle).

I’ll have to finish responding latter, but thank you for your respectful question.
**

I have said that the primary reason most of us attend the TLM is for its litany of rich and deeply-moving prayers and the sense of the mystical and sacred cultivated thereby. That is true, but its not as if we could care less about the Latin, either.

Throughout your posts, you have repeatedly asked in seeming astonishment how anyone could worship to their fullest capacity in a language other than their native tongue, as if even after learning it the language factor would still be an obstacle, or as if simply by virtue of its “foreigness” to most Americans, the second we decide to offer the Mass in Latin, our worship has somehow thereby been reduced in its efficacy for both God and us.

(More to come)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If you call it one than perhaps this is a war based on the true liturgy.

One who says that the Pauline Rite is not a true liturgy has incurred an anathema.

How about you ad this:

adversus solem ne loquitor

corruptio optimi pessima

Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.

I am only trying to convert you to Catholicism.

St Luke 14:11
Because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

**Sorry, you can’t pass Jasenism off as Catholicism. And if you’re trying to convert anyone, I’d suggest you read the very Gospel you quote and of the Savior to Whom it points, who said,“Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart.” You can read it in the Latin, if you prefer. **

 

[CollegeKid]

JKirkLVNV:
JKirk,

If, and I emphasize IF because I am honestly not sure where you stand on this so correct me if need be, but if you are in favor of the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular only, and not in Latin, I must tell you I think your outlook on this matter is one that if it were widespread could be very destructive to the just and proper preservation of the treasures of the Church’s traditions of sacred liturgy.

I’m not saying this as an attack on your person or to deride your practice of the Faith, but because if this is in fact your position I have a hard time understanding how someone with such seeming devotion to the Catholic faith could come to the point where they have no tolerance for a liturgical form which has nourished the faith of millions for almost 2000 years (admittedly, with changes along the way but it would seem none so drastic as those which followed the promulgation of the 1970 Roman Missal).

Not only has the Traditional Mass been a boon for so many Catholics throughout the ages of history, but the pendulum of faithful devotions is in our day swinging toward the more traditional, and this includes the Mass of the 1962 Missal. The traditionalist orders of priests our having no shortage of applicants and their seminaries are full, at least between the FSSP and the ICRSS. Granted we are not yet seeing a sea change in this regard but in different places throughout the United States (and I imagine in other parts of the world) we are witnessing wellsprings of youthful interest and newfound devotion to the Mass of the Classical Roman Rite. I go to the TLM regularly near my university and I’ve visited St. Francis de Sales Oratory in St. Louis. The pews are full on Sundays, and many of those present are young families or young adults.