TLM on the way ??????

[Swiss_Guard]

I think this time the rumors are true and I hope we get the universal indult soon.

I also think we need to be cautious about its implementation. There will be many bishops who will make it difficult for priests who want to say the Tridentine Mass. I can’t imagine Cardinal Mahony out in Los Angeles letting priests say the Tridentine Mass.

I also agree with some of the things said by others on the matter. I especially agree with ByzCath that the bishops who oppose this will be out in the open about it.

I also agree that litugical abuses can happen in any rite. Although the Tridentine Mass, which was codified by St. Pius V (I think it’s disrespectful to refer to a saint without using the term), is more disciplined than the Novus Ordo Mass, it doesn’t mean abuses cannot happen.

I don’t believe much will change. What is really needed is an Apostolic Administration so the bishops who only give lip service to being in union with the Pope, and that would be the majority of the bishops in the USA, cannot sabotage the application of the universal indult.

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

The following notes, for a lecture given by Fr. Laurent Demets, FSSP in Florida during March '06, make for very interesting reading; they were made available on the Web by that same traditionalist blogsite, rorate-caeli.blogspot.com, back on March 25, '06:

The Liturgical Stake
by Fr. Laurent Demets, FSSP

I read that piece when the universal indult rumors were previously flying about, leading up to Easter '06; I think the insights it provides are relevant to this present discussion as well. Particularly, I found fascinating the section dealing with liturgical revisions during the Renaissance (keep in mind that this text is a collection of lecture notes, not a polished essay):

Then came the Humanist period, which provoked some unfortunate attempts at reform. The idea was that the ecclesiastical Latin was too rudimentary. The pontifical court was then full of poets and writers for whom the goal was to reform the Latin and they started to compose again all the hymns for the liturgical year. Pope Leo X himself ordered the composition of a new hymnal. The hymnal of Ferreri – Bishop Zacharie Ferreri was the artisan of this hymnal – was finally approved by a Brief of Pope Clement VII in 1525. According to this Brief, every cleric could choose the prayers he wanted for the Divine Office. Ten years later a new breviary was also approved. It is known as the Breviary of Quignonez, from the name of its composer Francois Cardinal Quignonez. Cardinal Quignonez had the reputation of being a man of great piety and a sincere love for the liturgy. The intention was good: it was to renew the devotion of the clerics. Nevertheless the effects were disastrous, since they were made at the expense of Tradition…(more)

If anyone knows of any sources that might invalidate this analysis, please post them in this thread; otherwise it seems that the Church has managed, at least to some degree, to repeat a foible in the 20th Century which it first committed in the 16th Centurty prior to the liturgical reforms of Pope St. Pius V – great changes made at the expense of ecclesial tradition, from which ensued disaster!

Please feel free to express your divergent opinions and to point out that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

IC XC NIKA

 

[redactorab]

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

Nice piece. And yes, he seems to have liked it. But I don’t believe his opinion disproves my aesthetic preference idea. There’s nothing magical or even particularly spiritual about Latin per se. Caligula and Nero spoke it, after all, and didn’t seem much improved by it. But yes, it was around for a long time.

John 23 praises it largely for its universality. But surely if we’re seeking universality today, English is the best candidate, running rings around Latin in terms of the number of people who know/speak it.

 

[redactorab]

A related question: On whose authority did the liturgy make the move to the vernacular languages around the world in the 60s? Aren’t there official documents/promulgations supporting that move?

 

[AlexV]

I don’t rely on anyone’s “Questions and Answers” to inform me of historical reality.

If you read the prefatory documents to the 1962 Missal (which includes every preface from 1570 forward), you will read EXACTLY what was changed.

ONLY in the 1956 Holy Week revisions were any new texts composed that actually replaced an existing text. Otherwise, anything new was added…nothing was cut or dropped. Not one word.

So from 1570 to 1956, not a single text was dropped.

However, because of the realities of publishing and the slow and steady growth of the sanctoral cycle, some alterations to rubrics were made to allow both the full cult of saints and the full celebration of the temporal cycle, AND to correct errors in printed Missals.

Interestingly, in 1970, Bugnini did not include the 1570-1970 prefaces in his draft. Paul VI did not include them in his revision. They were dropped.

I have the 1474 and 1570 Missals in facsmiles. They are virtually identical to the 1962 Missal.

Bugnini CLAIMED it was business as usual in 1970. Historically, that’s indefensible.

 

[steve_green_2]

excellent alex:thumbsup:

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Nice piece. And yes, he seems to have liked it. But I don’t believe his opinion disproves my aesthetic preference idea. There’s nothing magical or even particularly spiritual about Latin per se. Caligula and Nero spoke it, after all, and didn’t seem much improved by it. But yes, it was around for a long time.

John 23 praises it largely for its universality. But surely if we’re seeking universality today, English is the best candidate, running rings around Latin in terms of the number of people who know/speak it.

He also praises it for its immutability and, since the Church was founded by Christ, “It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.”

Also, “It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.”

Now, which country, do you imagine, is most closely associate with English today, hmmmmmm? (Hint: It’s not England.) Think that would give rise to jealousies and be equally acceptable to all? Methinks not.

 

[arieh0310]

Too many secular news outlets are reporting on this for it not to be true. I am overjoyed, the nearest TLM to me is in Pittsburgh (40 miles away) and the liturgical options here in Steubenville are pretty sad.

 

[redactorab]

He also praises it for its immutability and, since the Church was founded by Christ, “It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.”

Well, I guess I would say that whatever nobility or majesty adheres to the Church’s Latin is there because of its long-time association with the Church. i.e., it is the Church’s use of Latin that seems to have “hallowed” it for a lot of people–sort of like the way the smell of burning candles helps put some people into a prayerful state of mind. The language in and of itself has no magical properties. I can’t think of any language in the world that is not capable of mustering nobility and majesty when called upon to do so. It still seems to me just a historical/aesthetic preference with no real basis in reality, spiritual or otherwise.

Also, “It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.”

Now, which country, do you imagine, is most closely associate with English today, hmmmmmm? (Hint: It’s not England.) Think that would give rise to jealousies and be equally acceptable to all? Methinks not.

My point wasn’t that the worldwide Church should adopt English as its official language. I was making the point that Latin is a far cry from being universal, if that’s the goal. A very far cry at this point. And as for Latin not giving rise to jealousies, I guess it might not as long as we’re talking about the nations of the western world.

 

[JNB]

“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.

Stop playing games, because that is all you are doing in your crusade against the TLM. The fact is the ORDINARY of the TLM was basically unchanged from the Council of Trent untill 1965(and even the 65 missals Ordinary , at least originally was 95% similar). The Roman mass one would have seen even in the years before Trent would have been basically indetical to the Roman mass one would have seen as late as 1964.

 

[cyprian]

Me and my kids went to our first TLM last week, and my first ever. I was lost, but caught up in awe…wow. Are there any materials out there to instruct one in the Latin Mass? The difference to me was shocking as compared to the N. O. mass. Reverential beauty in act and language…wow!! I’m 44 and just missed the v 2 transition from Latin to vern.

any tlm resources for learning is appreciated

peace

 

[chris_molter]

Me and my kids went to our first TLM last week, and my first ever. I was lost, but caught up in awe…wow. Are there any materials out there to instruct one in the Latin Mass? The difference to me was shocking as compared to the N. O. mass. Reverential beauty in act and language…wow!! I’m 44 and just missed the v 2 transition from Latin to vern.

any tlm resources for learning is appreciated

peace

Ecclesia Dei publishes missals for the indult TLMs. Maybe check online to see if you can order a copy or two. Also, I’m sure the indult parish would have them available for purchase/donation.

I don’t think anyone can deny there was a big break in the continuity of the liturgy when the NO was promulgated. After reading what Pope Benedict has written and said about the liturgy, I don’t think he’s going to scrap the vernacular Mass at all. It seems to me that he wants to see the vernacular masses develop into something that better reflects Sacrosanctum Concilium and Liturgiam Authenticam. :bowdown:

As for the appropriateness or difficulty of Latin, I’m an Episcopalian convert. No Latin background. I found the Latin Mass simple and easy to follow after a couple of times. My girlfriend went to France on a school trip and went to a couple of services. One was at Notre Dame de Paris, which was in the vernacular, so, of course, she was lost as she spoke little French. The second Sunday, she went to a Latin Mass and was able to join in the prayers and the chants. Latin is the language of the Catholic (universal!) Church. To deprive Catholics of the opportunity to learn Latin and pray together in Latin is to do them a disservice. :nope:

Should we scrap the vernacular Mass? No, of course not! Should we clamor for a vernacular Mass which isn’t prone to widespread liturgical abuse? Absofrickenlutely!! The liturgical abuses are part and parcel of the larger problems of lukewarmness, poor catechesis, and appalling leadership. It takes a lot of time to fix problems that are now entrenched in our Church, but hey, we’re Catholics. We’re made to suffer!

 

[VociMike]

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?

I am aware of three issues. The first is that Mass in Latin eliminates (or at minimum, greatly reduces) the division of a parish into the Spanish Mass, the Vietnamese Mass, the Polish Mass, etc. With vernacular Masses, different language groups in the parish may just as well be seen as different communities renting the same church building at different times on Sunday.

The second issue is that of translations. In particular, bad translations. The Vatican can’t assure that every vernacular translation is a faithful and beautiful rendition of the original Latin. We’ve just suffered through 35 years of a particulary poor translation in English. Furthermore, is anybody really prepared to say that this upcoming translation will be the last English translation ever? Or even the last in our lifetimes?

The third issue, connected to the translation issue, is that of producing suitable sacred music in the vernacular, using the current translations. We never did get the Propers in English that we were supposed to get. What music that has been written will now have to be tossed out or revised based on the new translation. And every new translation will have the same effect. Every new translation pulls the rug out from attempting to create beautiful and lasting music in the vernacular for the Ordinary and the Propers. So everybody falls back on the absolute least desirable form of music at Mass, the four-hymn invention.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Stop playing games, because that is all you are doing in your crusade against the TLM. The fact is the ORDINARY of the TLM was basically unchanged from the Council of Trent untill 1965(and even the 65 missals Ordinary , at least originally was 95% similar). The Roman mass one would have seen even in the years before Trent would have been basically indetical to the Roman mass one would have seen as late as 1964.

I have no crusade against the old Latin Mass. I want it offered for those who want it. I am just against those who wish to force it on everyone. I am against those who seem to think that the current Mass is invalid or somehow in error. I am against those who seem to think that a pope can be bound to a matter of discipline by a past pope. And lastly, I am against those who argue that the old Latin Mass is some unchanged thing.

It has changed and that is not my argument, as I supplied a cite to it.

Yes, the Mass one would have seen in Rome before Trent resembles what one would see in the 1962 Missal yet there were changes to it and it is not indentical in any way to that Mass from Trent.

You make my argument for me when you say “basically unchanged”. That means that there were changes.

Quo Primum, if you want to make that fight, said that it was not to be changed, yet it was.

 

[justme]

From reading this thread, and the 100’s of others like it around here, it appears that the TLM has become an idol to some.

 

[VociMike]

From reading this thread, and the 100’s of others like it around here, it appears that the TLM has become an idol to some.

Would you also say the NO has become an idol to some?

 

[JNB]

I have no crusade against the old Latin Mass. I want it offered for those who want it. I am just against those who wish to force it on everyone. I am against those who seem to think that the current Mass is invalid or somehow in error. I am against those who seem to think that a pope can be bound to a matter of discipline by a past pope. And lastly, I am against those who argue that the old Latin Mass is some unchanged thing.

It has changed and that is not my argument, as I supplied a cite to it.

Yes, the Mass one would have seen in Rome before Trent resembles what one would see in the 1962 Missal yet there were changes to it and it is not indentical in any way to that Mass from Trent.

You make my argument for me when you say “basically unchanged”. That means that there were changes.

Quo Primum, if you want to make that fight, said that it was not to be changed, yet it was.

In terms of the ordinary, it was 99.99% unchanged, the "changes" were due to, as another poster said, clearification of publishing errors and the like, but the ordinary between 1474 and 1962 was aside from various publishing errors, the same with the exception of the addition of St Joseph to the canon of the mass made in 1962. The changes made between Trent and 1962 were NOTHING like the change when the Novus Ordo was imposed.

Very few people who are partial to the TLM want it imposed on others, very few say the NOM is invalid, what they want is reverence and Tradition, as seen in your own Byzantine Rite, but for whatever reason, it seems you(and on other message boards a few other Eastren rite Catholics) have an axe to grind against the TLM(on the other hand Eastren Orthodox tend to be supportive of efforts to restore the TLM).

 

[uther]

Here are the latest rumours;

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605776.htm

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_eu/pope_latin_mass_1

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

To me this is almost an admission of failure in one sense. There have been many admonitions regarding the lack of reverence in the NO but few seem to be listening. It is like there is already a well-worn groove and trying to upgrade the mass is more difficult than letting it slide to the lowest common denominator. So perhaps the universal indult will allow the return of reverence at least as well perhaps as a better understanding and faith in the doctrine of the Real Presence. I don’t know which comes first, the belief in the Real Presence or reverence in the mass, but clearly they are connected.
In any event, allowing priests to celebrate the St. Pius V mass without special permission from the bishop might serve statistically, at least, as an indicator of the mind of the Catholic faithful.

Having said all that, it should be noted there is no reason the NO cannot be done reverently or in Latin.

 

[Ham1]

In terms of the ordinary, it was 99.99% unchanged, the “changes” were due to, as another poster said, clearification of publishing errors and the like, but the ordinary between 1474 and 1962 was aside from various publishing errors, the same with the exception of the addition of St Joseph to the canon of the mass made in 1962. The changes made between Trent and 1962 were NOTHING like the change when the Novus Ordo was imposed.

This may be true. But if you believe that Quo Primum remains in force (I do not), there is a problem with your position. QP does not say “no changes” except small ones like the addition of saints or corrections of printing errors. It says: "…that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered there in. "

So, therefore the revisions made in 1956 for Holy Week were a violation, if QP was still in effect. So if the NO revisions violate QP then so do all the other revisions however tiny or insignificant they may seem. The alternative position of some here that little changes by the Pope are okay, but big changes are definitely bad is a very weak position to hold.

 

[gelsbern]

Nothing was added to the Missal, i.e. the oridnary of the mass. The liturgical calendar doesn’t equal the Missal, the rules regarding when Easter Vigil can be does not equal the Missal. The readings of the day does not equal the Missal. The Missal that QP was referring to was the ordinary of the Mass.