The Latin Mass and Vatican 2?

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

Here is a comparison text between the two Missals:
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

Read it carefully especially the Offertory of the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass.

I’ve seen this before. Two things:

1. The Offertory of the TLM is much, much, much more beautiful. If it were in English and English speakers were able to understand it, I bet there would be near unanimous assent on that point. Problem is, they don’t hear it in English. As for the Canon of the Mass, they don’t hear that at all from after the Sanctus, as was discussed above.
2. I was told, by priests, that the Offeratory in the Mass of Paul VI is, in fact, comprised of the traditional Jewish prayers over bread and wine. The rationale continues that this is what Jesus would have said over the bread and wine at the Last Supper (obviously before he went on to the Words of Consecration). I don’t know how they would prove this, but it seems more reasonable than thinking that He said the Offeratory from the TLM. However, I’ll go on record right NOW as saying that in a comparison of the TLM and the Mass of Paul VI, the TLM is more beautiful in it’s language and expression, IN MY OPINION, and I will wholeheartedly support It becoming the normative Mass of the Church again, provided: A) It’s translated and celebrated in English (we can use the translation you linked us to!), B) the rubrics forbid a silent offering (the priest has to be clear and audible), and C) the congregation make the responses as opposed to just the servers, always.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

pnewton:

We should not have to sit through Mass constantly thinking about what is licit and not, like an enforcement officer.

Precisely. No one wants the “liturgy police” sitting in their heads. On the other hand, there are egregious abuses out there. On my vacation, I went to Santa Cruz, California, where I attended Mass at the parish that stands on the site of the mission founded by Father Lausen, Blessed Junipero Serra’s associate and successor as Presidente of the Alta California Missions. I saw this: Laity processing with either the lectionary or the Gospel book, EMHC’s processing with the priest and servers, a layman delivering the homily (the pastor introduced him, saying that since it was Fathers’ Day, he thought he’d get a man with children to talk about being a father), EMHC’s fractioning of the Most Precious Blood into chalices from a flagon where It had been consecrated, EMHC’s all over the place when two would have done (we could have all processed up the central aisle, rec. the Most Precious Body from the priest and the Most Prescious Blood from the EMHC’s to either side, AND FINALLY, the priest PARAPHRASED the entire canon of the Mass!!! All of it, except the Words of Consecration. I thought I was going to have an aneurism. This is only about the third situation I’ve witnessed, though, in 17 years of being a Catholic.

 

[TOME]

I find through out this thread and discussions in general (either in chats such as this or on TV or radio) a certain lack of discussion about “why” were there changes made at all - why did we move from the Triditine Rite to the Novus Ordo? Most of the time I’m exposed to the all to many abuses found in the Novus Ordo, that is abuses found in the actual celebration of the Novus Ordo but not contained in the Roman Missal.These abuses seem to be for many the Rule which they are not. Going back to my original thought, I never hear the WHY for change. It is my opinion, that those who have offered criticism of the Novus Ordo should first understand that from Vatican II came an eccelesiology which was distinct from the eccelesiology of the Council of Trent. I believe that all who offer any criticism of the Novus Ordo and/or apologetics in regards to the Liturgy of the Eucharist should include how the Novus Ordo (abuses aside) reflects the Church’s understanding of itself as expressed by the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern world and the Decree on the Apostolate of Laity.These expressed the role of the Church that builds on all the previous Councils but with its own very clear directions which, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy mandates liturgical changes that build on this understanding of the Council (Vat II) of the Church’s role in the modern world.

 

[peregrinator_it]

(My emphasis added in the quote below.)

TOME:

It is my opinion, that those who have offered criticism of the Novus Ordo should first understand that from Vatican II came an eccelesiology which was distinct from the eccelesiology of the Council of Trent.

Care to elaborate?

I’m no expert and I haven’t read all the documents from Trent, but it seems to me that, while Trent certainly has a different focus from VII (namely to reinforce doctrine in the face of Protestant misinterpretation), I didn’t percieve a different view of the role of the Church in the world. But, again, I’m no expert.

I’m curious as to how Trent’s ecclesiology is different from VII, in your view. (BTW, I wholly agree that VII is in continuity with Trent and doesn’t represent a break from prior Councils.)

TOME:

I find throughout this thread and discussions in general (either in chats such as this or on TV or radio) a certain lack of discussion about “why” were there changes made at all - why did we move from the Triditine Rite to the Novus Ordo?

I think this is the case because a discussion of the reasons for the change might be viewed as critiscism of the Tridentine Rite, and many people are anxious not to upset those who (misguidedly) equate reverence and orthodoxy with this Rite and cling to it still.

 

[TOME]

I know I used the word “DISTINCT”, and I will be the first to use a better if one is presented (I know there is another word I would prefer to use but it just isn’t coming right now).
Part of my point comes from my understanding, historically, that the Church, at the time of the time of Trent, was facing particular challenges to its mission of bringing Christ into the world. We see this in the reformation’s rejection of the Church’s Teaching Authority through the rejection of the Pope and the Church’s Magisterium with the growth of the concept of Sole Scriptura and private interpertation (please note I’m not refering to the Bible being translated into the vernacular - a topic for another thread). We find the rejection of the Church’s teaching on Original Sin and its effects, the role of Faith, works and Grace, most of the sacraments were rejected and the most grevious attack on the Church which was the rejection of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The documents of the Council of Trent addressed all these along with its reforms of legitimate criticisms of various Church practices or practices and abuses of individuals in the Church’s name. So we can study the Church’s mentality at the time of Trent and this self understanding being reflected in the Church’s Liturgical Life. For example, before Trent, in the West, there were other Missals in use and accepted as valid. After Trent’s liturgical change these were incorporated into the Roman missal or parts dropped. There came a codification of the separation of the roles of the faithful, with the emphasis on the role of the ordained ministry to where the non ordained took on a more passive role in all aspects of Church Life (this was especially seen in the Liturgical Celebration of the Mass of the Triditine Rite) So with this need to reemphasize the Unity of the Church and Church authority was created the Church as we knew it before Vatican II. However, because of the changes in the culture and needs of the world, and we cannot forget the effects of Catholic Biblical Scholarship of the 20th century along with studies of the Church, especially during patristic time, change was in the making for a renewal in the way the Church would carry out its mandate from Christ to evangelize the World. Many would disagree with what I’m about to say but there was wide spread belief that the Church must get away from its “seige mentality” prevelant from Trent through Vat.II and into the mid 20th Century. Thus the reforms of Vatican II as expressed by Lumen Gentium and Gadium et Spes.Through out the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, there is constant refrence to renewal and simplification which would allow the Faithful (as opposed to the Ordained Clergy - my terms) more active and intellegent participation in the Mass, while remaining faithful to those parts of the Mass which are essential and immutable. One of the allowable changes was the use of the vernacular. I’ve taken up too much space but I hope this discussion will continue.

 

[TNT]

TOME:

I find through out this thread and discussions in general (either in chats such as this or on TV or radio) a certain lack of discussion about “why” were there changes made at all - **why did we move from the Triditine Rite to the Novus Ordo? **… It is my opinion, that those who have offered criticism of the Novus Ordo should first understand that from Vatican II came an eccelesiology which was distinct from the eccelesiology of the Council of Trent. I believe that all who offer any criticism of the Novus Ordo and/or apologetics in regards to the Liturgy of the Eucharist should include how the Novus Ordo … reflects the Church’s understanding of itself as expressed by the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern world and the Decree on the Apostolate of Laity.…

In summaery, the NOM is based on Ecumenism and community centered which is the new mission of the church since VATII. It requires external laity “participation”.
The TLM is oblivious to ecumenism and is focused on sacrifice and God centered. It is Priest participation and requires only internal laity participation.
I think I’m being fair to both sides here.
To get a feel for what I’m explaining, envision each of the masses done by ONLY the priest and server being present…NO ONE else. Much of the NOM would make for talking to and giving instructions and speaking out loud to…an invisible community.
In the TLM, there are very few directives to the laity…but to the server.
I’ve had several priests say that there really is no “private” mass intended in the NOM.
So, the Why is Pre-VATII=No ecumenism or diversity. After VATII, Paul VI determined that the Church must give mission to Ecumenism and Diversity, and this is reflective in the NOM and its vernacular, outspoken prayers and flexible (options) format.

The difficulty for some is that Modern VATII Ecumenism had already been condemned by previous popes.
At Trent the Church was on the defense, at VATII the church moved into offense with the world via engagement with non-catholics.
Since Ecumenisim is the new mission, it only seems reasonable that the New Mass would follow that principle, which it did.
Hope that also answers the “care to elaborate?” from a recent post.
The difficulty comes when one sees that the TLM had so much defensive exclusive Catholic dogma reflected, and the NOM lightens up on all that exclusive Catholic dogma in its prayers, one gets concerned that the dogmas were being deposed or at least made ambiguous. They referred to this as “protestantising”. Actually, it was “ecumenising” the mass to put it into the whole framework of the new mission of the church.

I hope this answers the WHY as well.
I have been brief to keep the concept in focus, and not quibble over specifics.

 

[TradCat82]

I don’t think it is at all “misguided” to ascribe greater reverence and orthodoxy to the Tridentine mass. The council (V2) never called for many of the things we now see as normative with the Novus Ordo. For example, the maintainence of Gregorian Chant, sacred polyphony and Latin prayers were all encouraged by V2.

The painful truth is that the Novus Ordo is NOT a reform of the Tridentine mass but an entirely new mass. Don’t get me wrong - the codified rubrics of the Novus Ordo are not inherently bad or flawed. They do, however, allow for a kind of “flexibility” or “freedom” on the part of the celebrant (excuse me, “presider”) than do the rurbrics of the Tridentine mass. It seems that far too many priests celebrating the Novus Ordo feel compelled inject their own personality into the liturgy - you don’t find that with the Tridentine rite.

One complaint I often hear from critics of the Tridentine mass is that it doesn’t allow or require the involvement of the laity and that the Novus Ordo does. I reject that premise altogether. While the Tridentine mass is conducted entirely in Latin the translations of the prayers are available in numerous pocket missals and booklets. Sadly, too many Catholics seem to subscribe to the Protestant “experiential” notion of worship, i.e. “I have to have an experience, I have to do something in order for it to be meaningful.” Such an idea is flawed when speaking of Catholic worship because it suggests that worship is about us. To me, the Tridentine liturgy more fully and far more beautifully expresses the Catholic understanding of sacrifice. We unite and offer our sacrifices through the priest who acts as mediator between God and the people of God. In the Tridentine mass the emphasis is always on the Divine, not the human.

I know I’ll catch some grief for this but I recommend reading “Pope Paul’s New Mass” by the late Michael Davies. Also recommended is “The Spirit of the Liturgy” by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Indeed, all of the former Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings on the Eucharist are most edifying.

 

[TradCat82]

And how much watering-down of the Faith will we tolerate in the name of Ecumenism? Save the Blessed Sacrament and a priest of the Apostolic Succession there is now very little that differentiates the new Catholic mass from Protestant worship. I was fully converted to the Faith not by attending the Novus Ordo but by attending the Tridentine liturgy. What appeal can Catholic worship have to a potential Protestant convert if Catholic worhip has been made to look, feel and sound like Protestant worship?

And what is the ultimate end of Ecumenism? If it is simply to “dialogue” with and reach out to those outside the Church without challenging them to accept the Faith then the various changes in Catholic worship make perfect sense. But if the real aim of Ecumenism is evangelisation and conversion then Catholic faith, practise and polity ought not attempt to dress itself down in order to mollify those would criticise it.

 

[pnewton]

TradCat82:

. Also recommended is “The Spirit of the Liturgy” by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Indeed, all of the former Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings on the Eucharist are most edifying.

I bought this last week in order to get to know our new pontiff. I have really enjoyed it so far.

 

[TOME]

In my opinion, I find a reasonable but flawed criticism of the Novus Ordo. First it is the primary liturgical rite of the Roman Church. I say primary because the Treditine Rite is allow through the Indult of the local Bishop (who is the pastor of his Church) and may be expanded by an universal indult from our Holy Father.
Again, however, it is the liturgical rite the Church has choosen to use in its worship. Also, I think, from what I have read I think many believe the “Protestant” observers at Vatican II had a greater influence that actually was the case - they were observers - not participants. Also, if you study the history of this liturgical reform, this was a Catholic product that was developing throughout the 1950’s especially here in the USA. It was the result of studying the scriptures and non biblical writings especially of the Church Fathers and their descriptions of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist and couldn’t help but see that the earliest Liturgies was a communal celebration, there were distinct ministries within the liturgy but there was greater conscious active participation by the non ordained by right of their being part of the Mystical Body.(Remember, the first liturgies or celebrating the “Breaking of the Bread” were held in the setting of communal meals). So for those who say we have “watered down” the Mass, made it Protestant, I have to disagree - how can you say we have watered it down when the apex of the Liturgy remains the Eucharistic Prayer? How can you say we have gone Protestant when the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is actually more in line with how the Church celebrated the Liturgy of the Eucharist during Apostolic and Patristic times void of the many Monarchical influnces of later dates? Again, I’m refering to the actual reforms and not the abuses found in the actual celebrations of variuos Novus Ordo Masses.

 

[TNT]

TOME:

…However, because of the changes in the culture and needs of the world, and we cannot forget the effects of Catholic Biblical Scholarship of the 20th century along with studies of the Church, especially during patristic time, change was in the making for a renewal in the way the Church would carry out its mandate from Christ to evangelize the World…

Could you let us know what, exactly “Evangelize” means?
Does it mean conversion to the Catholic Church of Christ, or something else?

Speaking of returning to the patristic period in the liturgy:
MEDIATOR DEI

**Encyclical of His Holiness Pope Pius XII On the Sacred Liturgy November 20, 1947 **

1. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too**, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.** They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
2. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

1. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

That pretty much says it all, right?
Of course, if we go back to antiquity, we end up in houses, and dismissing the catecumens after the gospel. But then that is not ecumenical.

Keep up your research.
And
God Bless.

 

[TradCat82]

Some theologians actually deny the necessity for an indult in order to use the 1962 Missal as its use was never formally suppressed. While the Novus Ordo may be the most commonly used liturgical rite in the Latin Rite there remain a number of communities and religious orders which use exclusively the Tridentine: the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, Society of St. John and an entire diocese in Brasil, to name but a few.

As for the the Novus Ordo being a return to the more primitive liturgies of the early Church devoid of later “monarchical” influences: The Church is most certainly a monarchy with Jesus Christ as King. I think it entirely fitting and proper that Her worship adequately reflect the glory, pomp and splendour of Christ and His Kingdom.

And, yes, I have read the history of the liturgical reform. All of the so-called push for reform in the years preceeding the Council, done in the name of Catholic laity, is more accurately attributed to Catholic and Protestant ecumenists who found the Catholic mass, as it existed at the time, an insurmountable obstacle to their notion of dialgoue and ecumenism; it simply had to be changed! This is illustrated by myriad facts, chief among them being the steady decline in weekly mass attendance and priestly and religious vocations which immediately followed the implementation of various “reforms” here in the U.S. especially.

The Protestant “observers” at the time of the Council did indeed wield far more power and influence than was appropriate. Many Council Fathers were keen on rejecting the idea of condemning Protestantism as error (which it is) but rather viewed it as a cause for dialogue. As a result many Council Fathers lent an eager ear to various Protestant observers who came to Rome with very definite agendas. K.E. Skydsgaard (a Lutheran) is known to have said years later that “the Second Vatican Council seemed in many ways to have brought the Catholic Church very close to the Protestant Churches.” The “behind-the-scenes” stories of the drafting, amendment and passage of documents like the decrees on ecumenism and religous liberty certainly bear this out. The Decree on Ecumenism itself contains hints of this: “The manner and order in which Catholic belief is expressed should in no way become an obstacle to dialogue with our seperated bretheren…” What this statement, and the paragraph that follow, fails recognise is that no matter how much Catholic doctrine might be changed or differently presented there will ALWAYS be those who are not appeased. So where do we draw the line?

“By their fruits ye shall know them…” Protestant glea over the Council is certainly one of its most evident fruits. We cannot offer a full, accurate assessment of the Novus Ordo without taking into the account the many abuses it fosters, the lack of vocations it has produced and the spiritual apathy it has fomented for some. The sexual abuse crisis, the rise of the Culture of Dissent and the endless liturgical abuses in the celebration of the Novus Ordo all point back to a fundamental misunderstanding, if not outright denial of the unique and supernatural role of the ordained priest. But I’m getting off topic…

 

[A.Pelliccio]

(Some) Bishops have abandoned reason for madness! They have tried to destroy the most beautiful and reverent act this side of heaven. Even no Catholics saw the beauty and art of the old Latin mass.

Bishops have purposes misinterpreted VAT II and now we see the ramifications. They praise VAT II and look what happened a less devout, less active, less holy parishioner. One who always receive the body of Christ without proper reverence or confession, a parishioner is less educated on his faith and the bible in comparison to heretics, a parishioner who openly challenges and defies the wills, wishes decrees of the Holy Father. These are dark time for Holy Mother Church and these problems derived from Vat II, its implementation and the rads Awho misinterpret it.

 

[palmas85]

I have spent the better half of the past year researching as much as I have been able to, the documents that came out of Vatican II, and interpretations of them both pro and con. As near as I have been able to determine the changes in the Mass came about for two reasons.

One was to make the Mass more accesible to the faithful so that they could participate more in it. It was felt that bu allowing more lay participation, servers, readers etc, the faithful would flock back to the Church and a new age of faith would be born. The

The second was to make the Mass more like Protestant services so that Protestants might be more comfortable with Catholicism. Apparently the idea was that since all Christian faiths were basically the same, separated brethern and all, the Mass should more closely approximate Protestant services. Now whether or not that was really the intention it was certainly the result. So with there being few differences in the worship, the Protestant churches would stop their long standing distrust and hatred of Catholicism. That would lead to greater ecumenical dialogue and eventual reunification of all Christian faiths under one religious banner with the Catholic Church in the center. While probably a noble idea it was hopelessly, no, tragically naive.

In fact it was apparently a general opinion in Rome that the late Pope John Paul II took this vision even further and saw an eventual unification of ALL religions grouped in a series of concentric circles with Catholicism in the center, the Orthodox next, the various Protestant faiths next, then the Jews, then the Muslims, then the remainder. It certainly does explain a lot of what has happened in the church lately.

 

[mickey_doolan]

Hi to all
Latin is nice to hear , and it is good to know some of it.

I have been involved in both sides Pre Vatican 11 and Vatican 11 Masses.
I did go to the Tridentine Mass of SSPX for nearly 5 years and to the modern Mass after that .
It saddens me with the criticism that goes on about the two different aspects of the Catholic Church. In my view anyone who born and baptised a Catholic is a Catholic no matter what.
I have respect for the two and I believe as brothers and sisters in Christ ,we need to embrace on the common ground that we all want to unite in the Glory of God in Heaven.
What I have learnt fundamentally is that God looks to the heart in a person by how much love and respect they have to God. All Jesus wants is your heart for him and a daily inventory of how well we keep to his commandments. Hence in either Mass this is the aspect we all need to focus upon.
One of the important aspects is keeping the Sabbath Day Holy and this the day we give ourselves to God with Glory and Honor from our hearts .
Consider for instance a soldier at war , a prisoner or someone on travel in the remote of places and is a practicising Catholic is that they can too keep a Sabbath Day Holy simply by giving their time to God. Fortunate to those who can make it to either Mass.
If two ardent Catholics ,one from the Tridentine Community and one of from the Vatican 11 community were both stranded on a Island together ,they will embrace on common grounds upon serving God. It would be pointless for them to fight and quarrel over differences because God loves them both.

 

[TradCat82]

NetNuncio:

Seeing the decay of the Roman Rite, many disgusted Roman Catholics joined schizmatic groups such as the Society of St. Pius X, which questions the validity of the Post Vatican II Mass, or the Society of St. Pius V and the “True Catholic Church”, which regard Blessed John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as anti-popes and who have elected their own popes.
The “Traditionalists” have lost faith in Christ’s promise that the fires of Hell will never prevail against his Church. They have disobeyed, some going so far as to profane the Holy Father and His successors of happy memory. If only they would remain within the Church and help us to defend her against the modernists. Many see the falling of the Church as a sign that the end is near and are very interested in prophecy.

Whoa… Let’s be VERY careful not to paint all “Traditionalists” with the same brush. To lump in mainstream Trads with fringe groups like the SSPX, SSPV and tCC does the entire movement a grave disservice.

I would submit that the overwhelming majority of Trads are decidedly faithful to the Church, suffering quietly in “progressive” parishes or sacrificing much to travel long distances to the nearest indult mass (should their local ordinary be benevolent enough to provide one).

In fairness, a number of unbiased theologians and canonists disagree as to whether or not the SSPX is a schismatic (not schizmatic) group. Whilst their rather audacious criticisms of the Church are disquieting to most mainstream Trads it isn’t fair to speak of the entire society as disobedient. And while they are not shy about bashing the Novus Ordo I do think the official “line” of the SSPX is that while the Novus Ordo may be valid it still presents great cause for scandal and concern on the part of orthodox believers. (Their view, not mine.) By comparison, the so-called Society of St. Pius V is an extreme fringe group which holds to the sedevacantist heresy, that being there is no pope and there hasn’t been one since Pius XII. The so-called True Catholic Church has even gone so far as to elect their own “pope”.

So please be careful not to confuse mainstream, faithful Traditionalists with those on the fringes. Most of the Trads I know are quite grieved by the fact there need be a Traditionalist movement in the first place. Surely, “conservative”, “liberal”, “traditional” and “progressive” are all labels better suited to adherents of political ideologies and not the Mystical Body of Christ.

 

[NetNuncio]

TradCat82:

Whoa… Let’s be VERY careful not to paint all “Traditionalists” with the same brush. To lump in mainstream Trads with fringe groups like the SSPX, SSPV and tCC does the entire movement a grave disservice.

I would submit that the overwhelming majority of Trads are decidedly faithful to the Church, suffering quietly in “progressive” parishes or sacrificing much to travel long distances to the nearest indult mass (should their local ordinary be benevolent enough to provide one).

In fairness, a number of unbiased theologians and canonists disagree as to whether or not the SSPX is a schismatic (not schizmatic) group. Whilst their rather audacious criticisms of the Church are disquieting to most mainstream Trads it isn’t fair to speak of the entire society as disobedient. And while they are not shy about bashing the Novus Ordo I do think the official “line” of the SSPX is that while the Novus Ordo may be valid it still presents great cause for scandal and concern on the part of orthodox believers. (Their view, not mine.) By comparison, the so-called Society of St. Pius V is an extreme fringe group which holds to the sedevacantist heresy, that being there is no pope and there hasn’t been one since Pius XII. The so-called True Catholic Church has even gone so far as to elect their own “pope”.

So please be careful not to confuse mainstream, faithful Traditionalists with those on the fringes. Most of the Trads I know are quite grieved by the fact there need be a Traditionalist movement in the first place. Surely, “conservative”, “liberal”, “traditional” and “progressive” are all labels better suited to adherents of political ideologies and not the Mystical Body of Christ.

I try to differentiate between the “Traditionalists”, where I would put the SSPX, SSPV, etc and “traditional Catholics”, who prefer the use of Latin, sometimes the Indult Tridentine Mass, chant, polyphony, etc, of which I count myself as a member.

My apologies to anyone I may have offended by not more clearly explaining this.

Adam

 

[NetNuncio]

TradCat82:

Some theologians actually deny the necessity for an indult in order to use the 1962 Missal as its use was never formally suppressed. While the Novus Ordo may be the most commonly used liturgical rite in the Latin Rite there remain a number of communities and religious orders which use exclusively the Tridentine: the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, Society of St. John and an entire diocese in Brasil, to name but a few.QUOTE]

Although I am not sure, I believe the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is still required to obtain an indult from any diocese in which they celebrate the Tridentine Mass. I’m also not sure that it is their blanket belief that no indult should be necessary. Although I’m sure many of the members of the Fraternity wish that that was the case, I don’t know that it is the policy of the entire Order. Having such a policy would definately put them in a tense situation with the Holy See.

Benedict XVI, while still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, celebrated the Tridentine Mass. There will be a Tridentine Mass celebrated at World Youth Day this year. This may be the Pope who eliminates the necessity of an indult, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Adam

 

[peregrinator_it]

Sorry to return so late to this discussion. Forgive me if I set the conversation back.

TNT:

In summary, the NOM is based on Ecumenism and community centered which is the new mission of the church since VATII. It requires external laity “participation”.
The TLM is oblivious to ecumenism and is focused on sacrifice and God centered. It is Priest participation and requires only internal laity participation.
I think I’m being fair to both sides here. (Snip)
So, the Why is Pre-VATII=No ecumenism or diversity. After VATII, Paul VI determined that the Church must give mission to Ecumenism and Diversity, and this is reflective in the NOM and its vernacular, outspoken prayers and flexible (options) format. (Snip.)
The difficulty for some is that Modern VATII Ecumenism had already been condemned by previous popes.
At Trent the Church was on the defense, at VATII the church moved into offense with the world via engagement with non-catholics.
Since Ecumenisim is the new mission, it only seems reasonable that the New Mass would follow that principle, which it did.

TNT:

Hope that also answers the “care to elaborate?” from a recent post.

TNT (and any other posters who care to reply),

I’m hard to please .

1. What do you mean by “Ecumenism” and “Modern Ecumenism?”

I can easily imagine that you mean something along the lines of “watering down Catholic doctrine in an attempt to appease members of other religions” but I don’t know and I don’t want to misjudge you.

1. Please point me to the passages in the documents of Vatican II that you feel promote this ecumenism.

Since ecumenism is under such discussion here, let’s be clear what we mean by the word and let’s be clear on what Vatican II actually promoted. The only way we can judge what the Council fathers intended is by looking at what they were willing to put on paper, that is, the documents of Vatican II.

 

[peregrinator_it]

**One complaint I often hear from critics of the Tridentine mass is that it doesn’t allow or require the involvement of the laity and that the Novus Ordo does. I reject that premise altogether. **While the Tridentine mass is conducted entirely in Latin the translations of the prayers are available in numerous pocket missals and booklets. Sadly, too many Catholics seem to subscribe to the Protestant “experiential” notion of worship, i.e. “I have to have an experience, I have to do something in order for it to be meaningful.” Such an idea is flawed when speaking of Catholic worship because it suggests that worship is about us.

I could not disagree with you more. I can’t think of a better way to express this, so forgive me if it sounds boastful- it’s not meant to be. I realize that perhaps in previous posts I may have said something that would seem to contradict this, but:

I do not think that I have to “have an experience” (that is feel something, feel affected) in order to find the Mass or worship of God meaningful. Nor do I think that most devout Catholics who prefer the Pauline Mass believe this.

What I value in the opportunity to actively participate in Mass is this:

When one loves God and acknowledges Him as Creator of all things, one desires to do something to show one’s love and awe of God. This is not done out of self-centeredness but out of a desire to show one’s love in some way, to give to God some sign that one loves and reverences Him. One of the ways one can do this is to speak, publicly and aloud, prayers of worship and praise to Him at Mass.

This does not mean that “I have to do something, in order for Mass to be meaningful.” This means that I have one more way of worshiping God at Mass.

But one does have to do something in order to worship God- that is a Catholic notion of worship.

“To adore [the CCC uses “worship” and “adoration” interchangeably] God is to praise and exalt Him and humble oneself, as Mary did in the Magnificat, confessing with gratitude that he has done great things and holy is his name.” CCC 2097

I am grateful that the Church gives me, poor sinner that I am, the opportunity to do what Mary did, and praise God aloud in His Church.