TLM on the way ??????

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Parts of the TLM are ~ 1,600 years old.

So are parts of the current Mass.

 

[whosebob]

And this is a nonsense argument and any one who knows Catholic Teachings knows this. No pope can bind a later pope in matters of discipline and the form of the Mass is nothing more than a discipline.

JMJ + OBT​

You bring up some valid points; yet, and I’m no EDIT radical, I have begun to grow sympathetic to the position put forward in the following “creed” suggested by a popular traditionalist blog:

LITURGICAL CREED

I believe that the Traditional Rites of East and West contain within themselves so many elements of Apostolic origin that it is impossible to separate these from the elements added by post-Apostolic ecclesiastical tradition.

I believe no man here on earth (Pastor Aeternus, IV, 6) can rightfully determine the complete abrogation, full substitution, or substantial derogation of any received Traditional Rite, of East and West, which contains inextricable Apostolic elements.

I believe Ecclesiastical History continuously proves that the rights of the liturgical rites “established by long and immemorial prescription” have always been respected by the Holy Roman Church, even in ages of great liturgical crises and heresies (Quo Primum; Quod a Nobis).

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[AlexV]

This announced letter, if true, rights a number of historical anomalies in the Roman Rite.

1. There’s no comparison between what happened in 1570 and what happened in 1970. Fact is, some people in c. 1550 had started writing their own liturgies (sound familiar?) and Pius V put a stop to the innovation by codifying what was mainstream European practice. In doing so, he explicitly protected liturgies of “venerable antiquity”. The Missal of 1570 is virtually identical to the Missal of 1474 (the first printed Missal), and to manuscript copies that survive of individual Missal sections as old as the ninth century. In 1970, a new liturgy was fabricated and imposed with almost no recourse whatsoever to what was the existing liturgy of centuries.
2. The Missal barely changed between 1570 and 1970. Read the prefatory letters to the Missal. Some editions corrected typographical errors. Even Pius X merely changed some rubrics to allow for the temporal and the ever-increasing sanctoral cycles. The texts never changed until 1962. Not once.

 

[Walking_Home]

Do not want to change the subject—but I found the following quite familiar.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/04/liturgical-creed-principles-of-anti.html

Fourth Principle:

…all the sectarians without exceptions begin with the vindication of the rights of Antiquity. They want to cut Christianity off from all that the errors and passions of man have mixed in; from whatever is “false” and “unworthy of God”. All they want is the primitive, and they pretend to go back to the cradle of Christian institutions.

To this end, they prune, they efface, they cut away; everything falls under their blows, and while one is waiting to see the original purity of the divine cult reappear, one finds himself encumbered with new formulas dating only from the night before, and which are incontestably human, since the one who created them is still alive.

… Their preference for preaching antiquity led only to cutting them off from the entire past.

 

[AlexV]

A further note.

It is historically inaccurate, false, wrong, and simply mistaken to claim that the “changes” in the liturgy between 1570 and 1962, and the changes AFTER 1962, are part and parcel of the same beast.

Besides adding saints to calendars and sometimes adjusting the cycles of the liturgical year to accommodate new feasts, there were no textual changes between 1570 and the 1950s. Not a single one. The changes of 1956 to 1962 were exceedingly minor.

The Missal of Clement VII, for instance, merely restored some textual readings that printing press errors had changed in the 1570 typescript (welcome to the realities of early printing presses).

 

[gelsbern]

I don’t see this happening any time soon here in the Diocese of Monterey. The bishop won’t allow it, but he is retiring. Maybe the new bishop will allow it. I would love to see the Latin Mass at my church (our pastor has said that he would do it if allowed!).

In the future, for the bishop to not allow it, he will have to write to each and every priest in the diocese indivitually prohibiting the saying of the TLM. It makes it a lot more work for the biship to prohibit the use rather than just say no when asked permission, and honestly I think this will shed a whole new light on a lot of bishops in many archdiocese.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In the future, for the bishop to not allow it, he will have to write to each and every priest in the diocese indivitually prohibiting the saying of the TLM. It makes it a lot more work for the biship to prohibit the use rather than just say no when asked permission, and honestly I think this will shed a whole new light on a lot of bishops in many archdiocese.

We do not yet know this as there is not document published yet.

And if it is so it does not make much work. First he could just write a letter that is given to each priest in his diocese, if that doesn’t work then he can write a generic letter and use the mail merge function in Word to put in each priests name. I am sure every bishop has someone working for them that knows how to do this.

And has been pointed out to me, it was Pope Clement VIII not III that made the first change to the original in 1604.

 

[AlexV]

There was NO change in 1604 to the text of the Missal.

NONE.

There were additions of saints EVEN under Pius V…those are additions, not changes. No exisiting text was altered in the slightest in 1604.

1604 represented the correction of typographical errors. Period.

 

[redactorab]

Granted that there are vast and substantial liturgical and procedural differences between the TLM and NO, and granted that I am largely ignorant of many of those differences, having been raised in the NO, I have to ask: What possible difference does the use of the Latin language make, in and of itself? I mean beyond simply being an aesthetic preference?

Or maybe I’m misreading some posts here. I can understand someone’s preferring the TLM if they genuinely consider it to be “Mass as God intended it to be” or some such, but do some people contend that the Latin language in itself is somehow a better, more efficacious language in which to worship God?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Granted that there are vast and substantial liturgical and procedural differences between the TLM and NO, and granted that I am largely ignorant of many of those differences, having been raised in the NO, I have to ask: What possible difference does the use of the Latin language make, in and of itself? I mean beyond simply being an aesthetic preference?

Or maybe I’m misreading some posts here. I can understand someone’s preferring the TLM if they genuinely consider it to be “Mass as God intended it to be” or some such, but do some people contend that the Latin language in itself is somehow a better, more efficacious language in which to worship God?

Yes. Some do.

 

[Unfinished]

Granted that there are vast and substantial liturgical and procedural differences between the TLM and NO, and granted that I am largely ignorant of many of those differences, having been raised in the NO, I have to ask: What possible difference does the use of the Latin language make, in and of itself? I mean beyond simply being an aesthetic preference?

Or maybe I’m misreading some posts here. I can understand someone’s preferring the TLM if they genuinely consider it to be “Mass as God intended it to be” or some such, but do some people contend that the Latin language in itself is somehow a better, more efficacious language in which to worship God?

Well, it is 100% uniform across the entire globe.

See, the rubics are such that if I attended a Mass in…say Texas, then went to France, everything would be the same. The only part I wouldn’t understand was the homily.

You don’t see any of this illicit stuff happening at a Latin Mass. And the reverence is BEYOND BELIEF if you have only ever attended a Novus Ordo Mass. People would quit complaining about all kinds of “uncomfortable pews” and “hard kneelers” if they had to go to a TLM for a year. It makes me sad when we are in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ - at the foot of calvary - and people are just “la de da”

There is only like 3 times you get off your knees at a Latin Mass. I mean, what? You can’t kneel before God for one hour?

It is really the entire “feel” of a TLM is different from a NO. It is hard to explain if you have never attended one. You should go - just for the experience if nothing else.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There was NO change in 1604 to the text of the Missal.

NONE.

There were additions of saints EVEN under Pius V…those are additions, not changes. No exisiting text was altered in the slightest in 1604.

1604 represented the correction of typographical errors. Period.

“Onlyh 34 years after that approval, Pope Clement VIII issued changes and said that his was now the definitive edition. Several subsequent popes did the same, right up into the 20th century, resulting in the Mass we had before Vatican II.”

From Page 124 from Catholic Q&A by Fr. John J. Dietzen.

But even if Pope Clement VIII didn’t make any changes, changes have been made and the 1962 Missal is not the identical Mass as Pope Pius V put out and (supposedly) protected with Quo Primum.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, it is 100% uniform across the entire globe.

See, the rubics are such that if I attended a Mass in…say Texas, then went to France, everything would be the same. The only part I wouldn’t understand was the homily.

Thats only if you understand Latin. If you understood German then you would understand the whole Mass including the Homily.

You don’t see any of this illicit stuff happening at a Latin Mass. And the reverence is BEYOND BELIEF if you have only ever attended a Novus Ordo Mass. People would quit complaining about all kinds of “uncomfortable pews” and “hard kneelers” if they had to go to a TLM for a year. It makes me sad when we are in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ - at the foot of calvary - and people are just “la de da”

There is only like 3 times you get off your knees at a Latin Mass. I mean, what? You can’t kneel before God for one hour?

It is really the entire “feel” of a TLM is different from a NO. It is hard to explain if you have never attended one. You should go - just for the experience if nothing else.

That is not caused by the Mass and it will be there no matter what Mass the majority of people attend.

 

[redactorab]

There is only like 3 times you get off your knees at a Latin Mass. I mean, what? You can’t kneel before God for one hour?

It is really the entire “feel” of a TLM is different from a NO. It is hard to explain if you have never attended one. You should go - just for the experience if nothing else.

I have attended a couple of Tridentine Masses in my area in the past. And yes, I agree they are reverent. But I think the “feel” you mention might be the “aesthetic preference” I was talking about. i.e., there’s surely nothing magical or mystical about the Latin language per se, yah?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I have attended a couple of Tridentine Masses in my area in the past. And yes, I agree they are reverent. But I think the “feel” you mention might be the “aesthetic preference” I was talking about. i.e., there’s surely nothing magical or mystical about the Latin language per se, yah?

Why don’t you see what Blessed John XXIII, whose feast day we celebrate today, has to say about it?

 

[Unfinished]

Thats only if you understand Latin. If you understood German then you would understand the whole Mass including the Homily.

That is not caused by the Mass and it will be there no matter what Mass the majority of people attend.

The discipline of a proper liturgy, Latin or not, can cause peity. It’s just that the Latin Mass seems to be the only, in general, strictly disciplined Mass. Ask the altar boys who genuflect 20 times. They may not know, at first, what they are doing. But explain it to them and the practice puts it into them.

Ask many of the altar boys of a NO Mass these days why they genuflect and they respond “What is a genuflect?” Then, you go on to explain to them why they should, or what it means and they respond “The priest doesn’t even do that!”

Now, maybe that is a “worst case”, but it seems commonplace in some areas…including mine.

 

[Unfinished]

Why don’t you see what Blessed John XXIII, whose feast day we celebrate today, has to say about it?

Awesome article.

 

[steve_green_2]

comments from a poster on another forum, quite excellent…

Benedict XVI’s tenure as pope may be seen to future generations as the fulcrum point (with the pope holding the handle of the lever) at which the Catholic Church was finally moved back from its disasterous dalliance with Modernism. If it is true, then this is not a namby-pamby action – it’s a full court press.

Yes, there are few priests who can say the Mass in Latin – now – but that won’t always be the case. The newest generation of vocations is truly conservative (in the classical definition of that word) when it comes to their understanding of the Catholic faith. They know that the Church was hijacked by pirates following Vatican II – pirates who left the the Church in tatters, floundering on the shoals of relativism and indifferentism. Most of these pirates abandoned ship back in the 1970’s, but those who stayed on board became little tin-pot dictators who refused to honor the the true captain of the ship. This new generation of priests and religious will join Pope Benedict and his crew in reclaiming the ship and will guide the Barque of Peter back to its proper course. Latin is the beginning.

It’s not about Latin, it’s about being Catholic. It’s not about rubrics, it’s about worship. It is time – long past time – that we get back to worshiping Jesus Christ as our Lord in loving obedience to His rightfully guided Church. If this change comes about, we will see an increase in vocations, and the Church will grow as more souls will seek to find the treasure of Truth that has always been the Catholic Church.

 

[Belcanto]

I’ll believe it when I see it.

 

[demerzel85]

But even if Pope Clement VIII didn’t make any changes, changes have been made and the 1962 Missal is not the identical Mass as Pope Pius V put out and (supposedly) protected with Quo Primum.

Personally I would read Quo Primum as being the Universal Permission granted for the use of the Missal and its revisions. The revisions however, supercede the previous ones.