Tredentine Mass Is Our Right

[cathguy]

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.

The OF is not unacceptable. It is the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

The way it is commonly practiced IS unacceptable.

We need to be clear in language.

I like your zeal.

 

[saint_rafael]

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

Article 2 of Summorum Pontificum is not banning the TLM during the Easter Triduum. It is banning a private Masses of the TLM.

Priests can have public OF and EF Masses during the Easer Triduum, but there can be no private Mass during this time. No priest can say a private Novus Ordo or TLM Mass. All the Masses must be the scheduled public Mass for the Parish.

Only a private TLM is banned under article 2.

 

[JReducation]

I had thought that this portion was meant to refer to situations in which a Church having OF Masses during the Triduum would refrain from having two Masses in different forms during that time, even if they had a stable group requesting the EF. I was under the impression that there was to be only one Good Friday service for instance, and so it should not be repeated in the EF if it was already done in the OF. But don’t some Churches or organizations, such as the FSSP, celebrate only in the EF and continue to do so even during the Triduum? I don’t believe that Summorum Pontificum is meant to ban all use of the EF during the Easter Triduum, even for groups like the FSSP.

The Motu Proprio is very clear when it comes to religious orders. It says that they must submit to the authority of the Major Religious Superor. What I’m not sure about is whether the FSSP is granted the same privilege as a religious order, because they are a secular society. I don’t know the answer to this question.

Religious can celebrate the EF during the Triduum if that is the wish of their Major Superior. Being that the FSSP is not a religious community, I have no idea how that’s handled. Diocesan clergy cannot celebrate the EF during the Triduum, even if they have multiple masses on Holy Thursday, multiple Good Friday Services or mulitple Easter Sunday masses, as is sometimes the case when you have parishes that have services in several languages.

I wish I could help.

JR

 

[Timothysis]

This is insulting, does not further discussion, is in violation of forum rules, and should have been removed by a moderator.

:crying: Now I’ll never be able to sleep tonite… I wonder if having no sense of humor violates forum rules…:doh2:

 

[cothrige]

Religious can celebrate the EF during the Triduum if that is the wish of their Major Superior. Being that the FSSP is not a religious community, I have no idea how that’s handled. Diocesan clergy cannot celebrate the EF during the Triduum, even if they have multiple masses on Holy Thursday, multiple Good Friday Services or mulitple Easter Sunday masses, as is sometimes the case when you have parishes that have services in several languages.

I had confused the issues and had forgotten, as was clarified one post above, about the issue of private Masses. In my faulty memory I was thinking it had to do with not offering two Good Friday celebrations, but clearly I was wrong about that. It is clear, however, that a diocesan priest is not restricted by Summorum Pontificum where religious are not and neither is the EF banned during the Easter Triduum. There is no language like that in it.

 

[ethelzguy]

:crying: Now I’ll never be able to sleep tonite… I wonder if having no sense of humor violates forum rules…:doh2:

Thus my signature…if it’s good enough for the Pope…

 

[cathguy]

:crying: Now I’ll never be able to sleep tonite… I wonder if having no sense of humor violates forum rules…:doh2:

Is insinuating the OP is insane or from a zoo funny?

Of course not.

Its not that some of us lack a sense of humor. Its that some of us are both insulting and not very funny.

God Bless You.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I some of us are both insulting and not very funny.

God Bless You.

I totally agree with this statement, especially when it is applied to statements made by some about a valid form of the Mass which they do not prefer. I for one find it totally insulting and certainly not funny
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[EasterJoy]

With all due respect, this is wrong on many levels.

1. The laity DO INDEED HAVE A RIGHT to the sacraments (this is Church teaching), and we also have a right to have those sacraments to be free of abuse. Please read the Church documents, the writings of our current Pope, the Catechism, and the Bible. The laity have rights. We especially have a right to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! Unless we are placed under indict we not only have a right to attend Mass, but we have a DUTY to do so as well! Consider the 3rd Commandment…

Yes, but you do not have the authority to define what “free of abuse” is.

1. Your second point is entirely wrong. Our rights come to us from God. The Church protects our rights, but does not give them to us apart from God.

God also gives us leaders, to whom we are to be obedient. We are not guaranteed that they will be saints. We are guaranteed that they will teach the truth.

1. Just because the Holy Father does it, this doesn’t make it correct. Being Pope does not give one cart-blanche. Popes have made HUGE GIGANTIC mistakes in the past. Read history. (The best history of the Church in many volumes is Dr. Warren Carrol’s the History of Christendom series) The only thing the Holy Spirit guarantees is that a Pope will not teach error regarding dogma when he exercises the Petrine teaching office through the exercise of the ordinary or extraordinary magesterium.

As has been proven beyond shadow of a doubt, the EF was NEVER abrogated, and therefore the Popes who proceeded as if it had been were in error. The Holy Spirit does not protect Popes from making errors in politics OR Church governance outside the area of Dogma. Therefore, now that it is as obvious as the sky is blue that the EF had NEVER been abrogated, those Popes who proceeded as if it had been were in ERROR.

With all due respect, you need to think more before you post. An evangelical reading your post would conclude that the Church teaches that the Pope is always and everywhere infallible. If that evangelical is knowledgeable about history, it would not be hard for him to laugh out loud at Rome’s claim of primacy. Of course, IT IS NOT the Church’s teaching that Popes are always and everywhere infallible, despite some simplistic notions to the contrary among uninformed members of the laity.

It is not that whatever the Pope does is right. It is what the Pope, in concert with the bishops, decrees that is right. “Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The successors of the Apostles, the Pope first of all and over all, have the perogative to define what is and is not legitimate liturgy within their jurisdiction and during their tenure.

It is not the perogative of the laity to define what is acceptable liturgy, that much is certain.
(It is unbelievable to be explaining this to a traditional Catholic.)

Even though Queen’s English is the language of Nigeria, for many it is still their second language and often it is Pidgon English. No doubt the capitalization is just a quirk of language.

I don’t really believe the scam posts are from Nigeria. I think they want me to believe they’re from Nigeria, and, in the case of these spam e-mails, I think they want to give the impression that they aren’t very educated or astute.

If someone taught you English, if you ever read published English, if you are even on this forum for very long, you learn very quickly not to use all caps or to capitalize every word.

 

[cathguy]

I totally agree with this statement, especially when it is applied to statements made by some about a valid form of the Mass which they do not prefer. I for one find it totally insulting and certainly not funny
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Hopefully I have never said such a thing.

The OF is certainly VALID, and GOOD.

What I am saying (and what other thoughtful Traditionalists LOYAL to Vatican II and the Holy Father are saying) is that the O.F., the WAY IT IS COMMONLY CELEBRATED, constitutes an abuse.

This is true of both the banal translation, the banal music choices, orientation, etc. etc.

Vatican II NEVER called for an end to ad orientum. It NEVER called for an end to Latin. It never even called for vs populum. It NEVER called for an end to Chant.

In other words, what we have in general is NOT the Mass of Vatican II. It needs to be.

I hope you are not one who loves the abuses. I am sure you are not. It should however NOT be insulting to say that the way the Ordinary Form is currently celebrated is problematic. Nor should it be insulting to call one form superior to the other. (Especially in a traditional subforum). The Holy Father has said as much. Is he insulting?

Poor Michael Davies was persecuted for saying these things, and the Pope has made clear that that was wrong.

However, it was NOT my intent to insult the Novus Ordo. Rather, I am standing with the Holy Father and the letter of Vatican II calling for its reform so that it reflects a hermeneutic of continuity, as opposed to one of rupture.

I apologize for any insult inadvertently given.

Of course, when dealing with those who HATE tradition and thus the Church, I have never said that the “zoo was out” or other such comments. I suppose what is truly insulting, as opposed to challenging, is difficult for some to discern.

 

[liberational]

You have to keep the pews filled with warm bodies to pay the bills!

It’s simple economics.

 

[EasterJoy]

Vatican II NEVER called for an end to ad orientum. It NEVER called for an end to Latin. It never even called for vs populum. It NEVER called for an end to Chant.

In other words, what we have in general is NOT the Mass of Vatican II. It needs to be.

At some point the Pope, the cardinals, the archbishops, and the bishops stopped celebrating the Mass ad orientum, quit using Latin exclusively, and quit using chant exclusively. Are you trying to get us to believe that some mad little monsignors behind the curtain at St. Peter’s and the cathedrals of the world had a gun on them all? Of course not. Presumably the men who were AT Vatican II knew what they had in mind, don’t you think?

 

[Timothysis]

Of course, when dealing with those who HATE tradition and thus the Church, I have never said that the “zoo was out” or other such comments. I suppose what is truly insulting, as opposed to challenging, is difficult for some to discern.

1. I never said, nor do I, HATE tradition
2. I never said, nor do I, HATE the Church.
3. The “zoo was out” comment was an attempt at humor, something that you either have and appreciate or do not. If you reread the OP you will see that it is, at least to me, one of those wild attitudes that defies any kind of logical approach. What furthered my post was the fact that people were responding to it in the positive. Take it for what it’s worth.

You must be a blast at a dinner party…

 

[ethelzguy]

At some point the Pope, the cardinals, the archbishops, and the bishops stopped celebrating the Mass ad orientum, quit using Latin exclusively, and quit using chant exclusively.

oops, the traditionalist camp didn’t want you to notice THAT.

 

[redrosetea]

I think before it is over we are going to have the best of both worlds…There are things I admire about the tridentine mass and things I like about the NO mass…For one thing I like the priest to face the congregation during consecration …I think Pope Benedict is doing a fine job and will show us the best course to follow

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

I would think that someone who focuses so much on what other people are doing at a Mass to the point of judging if they are irreverent or not is the one who is focusing more on man rather than God during the Mass.

Blessings,
Marduk

Is that a reference to me? If so, what makes you think I “focus so much on other people at Mass to the point of judging whether they are irreverent”?

Seems rather rash.

 

[Ace86]

Presumably the men who were AT Vatican II knew what they had in mind, don’t you think?

Yeah I assume they did. It’s funny how the documents don’t speak of even promulgating a Novus Ordo Missae, but only of reforming the Mass they had during Vatican II, which was the Traditional Catholic Mass. Go figure.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

This is insulting, does not further discussion, is in violation of forum rules, and should have been removed by a moderator.

 

[ethelzguy]

Yeah I assume they did. It’s funny how the documents don’t speak of even promulgating a Novus Ordo Missae, but only of reforming the Mass they had during Vatican II, which was the Traditional Catholic Mass. Go figure.

Um, like, maybe the Novus Ordo Missae WAS the “reform”.

 

[Ace86]

Um, like, maybe the Novus Ordo Missae WAS the “reform”.

Well gee if it was, then why is it still being reformed? And why did the Pope point out that the Latin Mass of All Time was always free to be celebrated? I guess the reform didn’t quite work out the way the Council Fathers intended…