Tredentine Mass Is Our Right

[johnlex]

Today, We Have Witnessed Serials Of Abuses In The Holy Mass. The Place Where Jesus Shades Blood For Us Have Been Turned In To An Entertainment Center. You Can Hardly Distinguish Between A Catholic And Pentecostal Service. Many Songs Which Are Not Of Catholic Origin Which Serves To Please The Body Instead Of The Spirit Have Been Introduced. The Holy Father Have Finally Approved That We Can Go Back To The Tredentine Mass. In Some Places, It Has Been Granted, While In Some Places, It Has Been Decline. It Is Important For Us To Know That Tredentine Mass Is Our Right.

God Bless You All

 

[PrayforMallory]

Today, We Have Witnessed Serials Of Abuses In The Holy Mass. The Place Where Jesus Shades Blood For Us Have Been Turned In To An Entertainment Center. You Can Hardly Distinguish Between A Catholic And Pentecostal Service. Many Songs Which Are Not Of Catholic Origin Which Serves To Please The Body Instead Of The Spirit Have Been Introduced. The Holy Father Have Finally Approved That We Can Go Back To The Tredentine Mass. In Some Places, It Has Been Granted, While In Some Places, It Has Been Decline. It Is Important For Us To Know That Tredentine Mass Is Our Right.

God Bless You All

Agreed!

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Preach it

 

[karl4]

Today, We Have Witnessed Serials Of Abuses In The Holy Mass. The Place Where Jesus Shades Blood For Us Have Been Turned In To An Entertainment Center. You Can Hardly Distinguish Between A Catholic And Pentecostal Service. Many Songs Which Are Not Of Catholic Origin Which Serves To Please The Body Instead Of The Spirit Have Been Introduced. The Holy Father Have Finally Approved That We Can Go Back To The Tredentine Mass. In Some Places, It Has Been Granted, While In Some Places, It Has Been Decline. It Is Important For Us To Know That Tredentine Mass Is Our Right.

God Bless You All

it is time to return to reverance and holiness.Leave the theatrics to the theater.

 

[bilop]

Today, We Have Witnessed Serials Of Abuses In The Holy Mass. The Place Where Jesus Shades Blood For Us Have Been Turned In To An Entertainment Center. You Can Hardly Distinguish Between A Catholic And Pentecostal Service. Many Songs Which Are Not Of Catholic Origin Which Serves To Please The Body Instead Of The Spirit Have Been Introduced. The Holy Father Have Finally Approved That We Can Go Back To The Tredentine Mass. In Some Places, It Has Been Granted, While In Some Places, It Has Been Decline. It Is Important For Us To Know That Tredentine Mass Is Our Right.

God Bless You All

Amen!

God Bless

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Absolutely! Conversely, the Novus Ordo has no right to exist, since it represents a “*striking departure *from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent” (Cardinal Ottaviani).

 

[Timothysis]

Looks like someone left the gate to the zoo open…:whacky:

 

[LilyM]

Absolutely! Conversely, the Novus Ordo has no right to exist, since it represents a “*striking departure *from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent” (Cardinal Ottaviani).

Ummm … apart from the fact that it is a validly aproved and promulgated form of the Mass - by which fact alone that the Canons of Trent come into force in the following ways:

"Seventh Session

Canon XIII. If any one saith, that the received **and approved **rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned … let him be anathema."

"Twenty Second Session

Canon VII. If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."

Of course abuses of any form of the Mass are to be condemned strongly, but the forms themselves are solid and cannot lightly be condemned.

 

[consumedconvert]

nowholdonjustasecond…

1. The Mass is never ever our “right.”
2. You are in the Catholic Church. This ain’t no democracy. Our rights come from the top–through the hierarchy–down.
3. Before Pope Benedict liberalized the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Mass, if your bishop did not grant an indult, then you had about as much “right” to the EF as I have to the Sarum Rite or Chaldean Rite Mass.

I never thought of the Catholic Church as a place where we wine about our “rights,” but rather as a place to worship Christ. Perhaps it’s time to remember that Mass is his–is about Him–not about us. If we can’t worship Him–in any approved use of any approved rite–then perhaps we need to look inward.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

Perhaps we could use a reminder that our current Holy Father, while liberating the Gregorian Form for more widely available use to those Catholics who prefer it, has not at all condemned what is currently the Ordinary Form of the Mass. He himself celebrates it every day.

He also wrote in Summorum Pontificum that the Gregorian Form may be said by any Latin Rite priest, anywhere in the world, any day of the year. The exception is at the Easter Triduum until Easter Sunday; at that point, the form of Mass that is to be said is the Ordinary Form, the Mass of Pope Paul VI, and ONLY the Ordinary Form may be used on these most holy and solemn feasts. This is a recognition from Pope Benedict XVI that the Ordinary Form is as efficacious and sacred as the Gregorian Form, and Catholics will receive the same graces from either form. If the Mass of Pope Paul VI did not have such sanctity, the current Holy Father would not have made the statement that he did.

Of course, the rule is a bit different for various orders and congregations of religious (both men and women). The decision to say either the Gregorian Mass or the Mass of Pope Paul VI is up to the Major Superior of a particular order; a bishop cannot force it upon the order’s members, but can make such an agreement in conjunction with the Major Superior (JR, you may correct me on this if I am wrong). JR once gave the example of students approaching the Franciscan Friars at Franciscan University at Steubenville, and their request was to have the Gregorian Form said on campus; their request was turned down, not because the Friars did not want to do it, but because the Superior of the order had made the decision that it was not necessary for the life of the Friars. The only person who could overturn the Superior’s decision is the pope, who–so far as I know–has not done so.

I will be praying for all of you and the members of CAF the rest of this week, especially when I go to Eucharistic Adoration on Friday and pray during one the periods of silent adoration. I will offer up the work I do at my job tomorrow and the Rosary for reconciliation and healing between my brothers and sisters in Christ. And it would behoove us to remember that, no matter the form of Mass we attend, it is about Him, not us. May we decrease so that He may increase in our hearts.

Peace and all good be with every one of you.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

nowholdonjustasecond…

1. The Mass is never ever our “right.”
2. You are in the Catholic Church. This ain’t no democracy. Our rights come from the top–through the hierarchy–down.
3. Before Pope Benedict liberalized the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Mass, if your bishop did not grant an indult, then you had about as much “right” to the EF as I have to the Sarum Rite or Chaldean Rite Mass.

I never thought of the Catholic Church as a place where we wine about our “rights,” but rather as a place to worship Christ. Perhaps it’s time to remember that Mass is his–is about Him–not about us. If we can’t worship Him–in any approved use of any approved rite–then perhaps we need to look inward.

Actually, Consumed, we do have a right to the Mass and all the sacraments. Canon Law says as much. So did John Paul II in his document from 1980: “The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy . . .”

And there has always been a right to the Traditional Mass, which has never been banned. Pope Benedict explicitly stated this in his motu proprio.

And you’re right-- the Catholic Church is a place–the place!-- to worship Christ, which is precisely why the New Mass is unacceptable . . . it places emphasis on man rather than God.

 

[consumedconvert]

Actually, Consumed, we do have a right to the Mass and all the sacraments. Canon Law says as much. So did John Paul II in his document from 1980: “The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy . . .”

And there has always been a right to the Traditional Mass, which has never been banned. Pope Benedict explicitly stated this in his motu proprio.

And you’re right-- the Catholic Church is a place–the place!-- to worship Christ, which is precisely why the New Mass is unacceptable . . . it places emphasis on man rather than God.

I see now that my response should have been better worded, and more clearly thought out.

If a stable group of faithful want an EF Mass, then by all means they should gather themselves together and approach a local Priest and request it. I believe it would help tremendously if members of nearby parishes who desire the EF Mass form one group. It’s important that we don’t make things ligistically difficult or impossible for our Priests, as far as we can help it.

It seems self-evident to me that this right–specifically, the right of any Priest to say the EF Mass–was granted them by the Pope–who of course recieves the right to make such decisions from God.

I am honestly not familiar with the place in the MP where it says that every Priest always had the righ to say the EF, or something along that line. If you paste the quotation, I’ll examine it and, if necessary, count myself corrected.

I do apologize that I came into this discussion a bit harsh. Mea culpa. For a truly knowledgable, patient, and well-tempered response, see DonaNobis_Pacem, above.

I do struggle when I feel like discussions go toward demanding our rights rather than giving all we can to our Holy Mother Church–as it is Her right to demand it of us. Do we teach Catechism or whatever else we can? Do we volunteer ourselves to our Priests? Do we join choirs or liturgical committees? Do we pray enough? (I know I don’t. )

SIgh. Pray for me, I need it.

 

[JReducation]

What we have to understand here is that there are rights that are given to us by God and rights granted by legitimate authority.

God gives us the right to worship him in the liturgy.

The Church gives us the right to worship him using different rites.

As far as the Latin Rite is concerned, there are only two forms of the Latin Rite, extraordinary and ordinary.

Anyone who says that the ordinary form has not right to exist is in conflict with the Holy See. The Holy See has given the ordinary form the right to exist. It is not up to the laity or any other person in the Church to take away the right of the ordianry form to exist.

As to who may or may not celebrate it. The Motu Proprio is very clear. Every priest has the right to celebrate it. However, priests who belong to religious orders and religious congregations can be denied that right by their major superior as long as the mass is to be celebrated in a chapel or church that belongs to the community.

No major superior may take away the right of a priest who is a religious to celebrate the EF or the OF outside of their premisis. In their premisis the authority of the major superior is final.

In some religious communities, preists are not allowed to celebrate the OF or the EF, depending on the community, on their premises. They must celebrate the form approved by the community. However, if a local bishop or a pastor asks a religious to celebrate either form on diocesan property, the religious is free to do so.

The only priests who can celebrate both the EF and the OF without any intervention from superior are secular priests. The Motu Proprio was written for bishops. Bishops only have authority over secular priests, not over religious. Religious must comply with the wishes of the bishop only if they are on loan to a bishop or employed by a bishop. Other than that, they are bound by the rules and traditions of their religious community.

In the case of Franciscan University, the University is not part of the diocese. It belongs to the Order. Any friar who is also a priest is bound to follow the rules of his superior, not the Mout Proprio. In their case, the superior would not authorize the celebration of the mass in the extraordinary form on their permises. However, the superior did offer the students and faculty free transportation to the local parish where there is an EF mass and is only 10 minutes away. The local parish belongs to the diocese. The University had no obligation to facilitate transportation to a mass off campus, when they celebrate several masses on campus. That was the issue there. But they did offer to transport the students and faculty and they did offer to discuss the matter in their community chapter.

Yes we have a right to the extraordianry form, but it has been given to us by the Church. Christ gave us the right to the Eucharist. The Church decides the form in which it can be celebrated.

Remember, anyone who puts down the ordianry form is contradicting what the Motu Proprio said. The Motu Proprio is very clear that both forms are the same and equal in sanctity.

Yes, the Holy See is also clear that the extraordianry form may not be celebrated during the Easter Triduum This of course does not apply to religious houses such as the Sons of the Holy Redeemer or the chapels of the FSSP. Those are not part of the diocese. Any chapel or church that is part of the diocese must celebrate the Ordinary Form during the Easter Triduum.

As to what happens in FSSP chapels, I have no idea. The Sons of the Holy Redeemer are exempt from this prohibition, because they are religious. FSSP are not religious. They are secular priests. I don’t know what exceptions Rome makes for secular priests under these circumstances.

Religious communities are exempt from many rules that diocesan priests and bishops must follow. By virtue of their vows, their status in the Church is very different from the rest of us.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

JR

 

[I_Believe]

Today, We Have Witnessed Serials Of Abuses In The Holy Mass. The Place Where Jesus Shades Blood For Us Have Been Turned In To An Entertainment Center. You Can Hardly Distinguish Between A Catholic And Pentecostal Service. Many Songs Which Are Not Of Catholic Origin Which Serves To Please The Body Instead Of The Spirit Have Been Introduced. The Holy Father Have Finally Approved That We Can Go Back To The Tredentine Mass. In Some Places, It Has Been Granted, While In Some Places, It Has Been Decline. It Is Important For Us To Know That Tredentine Mass Is Our Right.

God Bless You All

Welcome to the Forum from a Youssou N’Dour fan

God Bless

 

[GerardP]

Actually, Consumed, we do have a right to the Mass and all the sacraments. Canon Law says as much. So did John Paul II in his document from 1980: “The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy . . .”

And there has always been a right to the Traditional Mass, which has never been banned. Pope Benedict explicitly stated this in his motu proprio.

And you’re right-- the Catholic Church is a place–the place!-- to worship Christ, which is precisely why the New Mass is unacceptable . . . it places emphasis on man rather than God.

Don’t forget about the number of “permissions” that have been granted that make the Novus Ordo as it is regularly “performed” something identical to the liturgical practices that were proposed at the Synod of Pistoia and condemned at the Council of Trent.

 

[PrayforMallory]

What we have to understand here is that there are rights that are given to us by God and rights granted by legitimate authority.

God gives us the right to worship him in the liturgy.

The Church gives us the right to worship him using different rites.

As far as the Latin Rite is concerned, there are only two forms of the Latin Rite, extraordinary and ordinary.

Anyone who says that the ordinary form has not right to exist is in conflict with the Holy See. The Holy See has given the ordinary form the right to exist. It is not up to the laity or any other person in the Church to take away the right of the ordianry form to exist.

As to who may or may not celebrate it. The Motu Proprio is very clear. Every priest has the right to celebrate it. However, priests who belong to religious orders and religious congregations can be denied that right by their major superior as long as the mass is to be celebrated in a chapel or church that belongs to the community.

No major superior may take away the right of a priest who is a religious to celebrate the EF or the OF outside of their premisis. In their premisis the authority of the major superior is final.

In some religious communities, preists are not allowed to celebrate the OF or the EF, depending on the community, on their premises. They must celebrate the form approved by the community. However, if a local bishop or a pastor asks a religious to celebrate either form on diocesan property, the religious is free to do so.

The only priests who can celebrate both the EF and the OF without any intervention from superior are secular priests. The Motu Proprio was written for bishops. Bishops only have authority over secular priests, not over religious. Religious must comply with the wishes of the bishop only if they are on loan to a bishop or employed by a bishop. Other than that, they are bound by the rules and traditions of their religious community.

In the case of Franciscan University, the University is not part of the diocese. It belongs to the Order. Any friar who is also a priest is bound to follow the rules of his superior, not the Mout Proprio. In their case, the superior would not authorize the celebration of the mass in the extraordinary form on their permises. However, the superior did offer the students and faculty free transportation to the local parish where there is an EF mass and is only 10 minutes away. The local parish belongs to the diocese. The University had no obligation to facilitate transportation to a mass off campus, when they celebrate several masses on campus. That was the issue there. But they did offer to transport the students and faculty and they did offer to discuss the matter in their community chapter.

Yes we have a right to the extraordianry form, but it has been given to us by the Church. Christ gave us the right to the Eucharist. The Church decides the form in which it can be celebrated.

Remember, anyone who puts down the ordianry form is contradicting what the Motu Proprio said. The Motu Proprio is very clear that both forms are the same and equal in sanctity.

Yes, the Holy See is also clear that the extraordianry form may not be celebrated during the Easter Triduum This of course does not apply to religious houses such as the Sons of the Holy Redeemer or the chapels of the FSSP. Those are not part of the diocese. Any chapel or church that is part of the diocese must celebrate the Ordinary Form during the Easter Triduum.

As to what happens in FSSP chapels, I have no idea. The Sons of the Holy Redeemer are exempt from this prohibition, because they are religious. FSSP are not religious. They are secular priests. I don’t know what exceptions Rome makes for secular priests under these circumstances.

Religious communities are exempt from many rules that diocesan priests and bishops must follow. By virtue of their vows, their status in the Church is very different from the rest of us.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

JR

They use the 1962 Missal during this time. FSSP, ICKSP, IGS, and SSPX priests never say the Novus Ordo. They send representatives to attend the Chrism Mass (the SSPX don’t) to get Chrism, but that’s it.

The prohibition for the last few days of Holy Week had to do with the prayer for the Jews, if I’m not mistaken. Now that it’s been revised, I’m sure it will be made licit even for those few days.

Also it’s licit to use the 1962 Missal on Easter Sunday.

This is at least my impression. I could be wrong, though.

 

[JReducation]

They use the 1962 Missal during this time. FSSP, ICKSP, IGS, and SSPX priests never say the Novus Ordo. They send representatives to attend the Chrism Mass (the SSPX don’t) to get Chrism, but that’s it.

The prohibition for the last few days of Holy Week had to do with the prayer for the Jews, if I’m not mistaken. Now that it’s been revised, I’m sure it will be made licit even for those few days.

Also it’s licit to use the 1962 Missal on Easter Sunday.

This is at least my impression. I could be wrong, though.

Article 2 of the Motu Proprio does not mention the prayers for the Jews of Good Friday. But it does say the following about the Easter Triduum.

**. . . each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. **

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum.htm

I guess that point is not clear. Though I heard a bishop say that the new prayer was not mandatory. I have not seen anything to the contrary.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[ProVobis]

"Seventh Session

Canon XIII. If any one saith, that the received **and approved **rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned … let him be anathema."

"Twenty Second Session

Yes, there were many rites “received” (handed down) at the time of Trent but Pope Pius V “approved” only those in existence of over 200 years. In this context the Novus Ordo was not “received” but was “approved,” at least the promulgated Latin version was by Pope Paul VI himself. But, of course, this can be overturned by a future Pope.

The expanded canon:

Canon XIII.—If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones: let him be anathema.

Can we say one would really have to call it a stretch to call the Novus Ordo NOT a new rite?

Canon VII. If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."

Of course abuses of any form of the Mass are to be condemned strongly, but the forms themselves are solid and cannot lightly be condemned.

I noticed you had posted this before. I guess it’s how you define “impiety.” But there seems to be some murky waters involved here. Can we extend the “incentives” to a rite that was not handed down? Perhaps I’m confusing myself trying to make some connections here.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, there were many rites “received” (handed down) at the time of Trent but Pope Pius V “approved” only those in existence of over 200 years. In this context the Novus Ordo was not “received” but was “approved,” at least the promulgated Latin version was by Pope Paul VI himself. But, of course, this can be overturned by a future Pope.

Sure - none of which is any justification for saying that any validly promulgated form of Mass, including the NO, has ‘no right to exist’, as an earlier poster would have it.

See Pius ‘overturned’, if you will, many of the forms of Mass that existed prior to Trent. Did this make those who had used those Masses prior to Trent heretics? Or the Masses themselves somehow wrong? No, no more so than the promulgation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception made those Doctors of the Church (including St Augustine and most notably St Catherine of Siena) wrong or heretical who had disagreed with it.

By a similar logic, no-one who currently uses a currently valid form of Mass need worry, although if and when such a form is overturned in the future we must needs accept at that time whatever form or forms of the Mass are valid at that time.

Can we say one would really have to call it a stretch to call the Novus Ordo NOT a new rite?

Well the very name of it is ‘Novus Ordo’, certainly implies as much. Not that a new rite need be problematic. Didn’t Jesus exhort us, like the householder, to take out of our storehouse treasures ‘both old and new’?

Note carefully, firstly, that the canon talks about CHANGING the existing rite INTO a new one. As TLM afficionados are so fond of pointing out, the TLM rite/form wasn’t changed, or nothing to signify. And as JPII and Benedict XVI jhave pointed out, it was never abrogated either.

Rather a distinct form was promulgated alongside it in the NO. No change of the TLM into anything else was involved at all, therefore that part of the canon is inapplicable.

Secondly, note that Trent talks about the anthematised change being something that which is done ‘by every pastor’ - sounds like it’s referring to changes by individual pastors. Certainly individual pastors aren’t allowed to change the Mass, be it OF or EF, on their own whims, to do so is an abuse in anyone’s language.

But to say the collective Magisterium is not protected, by the charism of infallibilty, from promulgating error, in such an entirely central and basic point of faith and morals as the form of the Mass which it chooses to approve for near-universal use, is really to say the Magisterium is so ineffective that it may as well not exist, and that the protection offered by the charism of infallibility is laughably ineffective.

I noticed you had posted this before. I guess it’s how you define “impiety.” But there seems to be some murky waters involved here. Can we extend the “incentives” to a rite that was not handed down? Perhaps I’m confusing myself trying to make some connections here.

Perhaps so, you’re the best judge of whether such is the case. I will say that since the sainted Pius V and the fathers of Trent were happy to extend the canon to ALL ceremonies that are USED by the Church, as their terminology was, seemingly regardless of how they came (or were to come) about, then I don’t think we can argue that the canon was inapplicable merely because a particular Mass was not ‘handed down’.

 

[pnewton]

This whole thing thread sounds more American than Nigerian or British, all this talk about rights. Let me through some cold water on it.

No. It is not your right. It is not my right. None of us have any rights to the grace from God. My goodness, do we not even realize what Grace is? It is the favor of God, totally unmerited, undeserved, to which we have zero rights. “By grace you have been saved, through faith and that not of yourself. It is the *Gift *of God.”

I know this is somewhat off topic and not what the OP and others mean, but I just wanted to add a little perspective before the UKCatholic cranked up the bickering level too much.