Tredentine Mass Is Our Right

[cathguy]

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?

You must enjoy dealing in generalizations. In addition, by not thinking before you post, you have proved my point.

Go to Rome and see how our Pope celebrates Mass there. Then, compare that with the way the NO is commonly celebrated here. Every point I have made is proven in an instant.

READ VATICAN II.

No one has said that there is a problem that we do not use Latin EXCLUSIVELY, or celebrate ad orientum EXCLUSIVELY, or use Chant EXCLUSIVELY.

The PROBLEM on the other hand, and I think you know this, is that for the last 40 years we have celebrated vs. populum EXCLUSIVELY, received communion in an irreverent way EXCLUSIVELY, and used banal music EXCLUSIVELY. This is an act of rebellion, AGAINST ROME, AGAINST VATICAN II, and AGAINST THE CHURCH HERSELF, for Vatican II says that chant must have primacy of place, Latin must have primacy of place, and ad orientum worship must have primacy of place.

Get it?

If you compare how the Pope says Mass (beautifully) to how we celebrate Mass here, you instantly prove my point. Don’t you see this?

 

[liberational]

No one understands Latin. What’s the point? So it has the appearance of the sacred…what because a dead language is being spoken it’s somehow holier?

Come on…I’m sure some people connect with it, but I bet most prefer the vernacular.

 

[pnewton]

No one understands Latin. What’s the point? So it has the appearance of the sacred…what because a dead language is being spoken it’s somehow holier?

Come on…I’m sure some people connect with it, but I bet most prefer the vernacular.

Yes, there are many people who understan Latin. Do you enjoy stirring the pot?

 

[Ace86]

You must enjoy dealing in generalizations. In addition, by not thinking before you post, you have proved my point.

Go to Rome and see how our Pope celebrates Mass there. Then, compare that with the way the NO is commonly celebrated here. Every point I have made is proven in an instant.

READ VATICAN II.

No one has said that there is a problem that we do not use Latin EXCLUSIVELY, or celebrate ad orientum EXCLUSIVELY, or use Chant EXCLUSIVELY.

The PROBLEM on the other hand, and I think you know this, is that for the last 40 years we have celebrated vs. populum EXCLUSIVELY, received communion in an irreverent way EXCLUSIVELY, and used banal music EXCLUSIVELY. This is an act of rebellion, AGAINST ROME, AGAINST VATICAN II, and AGAINST THE CHURCH HERSELF, for Vatican II says that chant must have primacy of place, Latin must have primacy of place, and ad orientum worship must have primacy of place.

Get it?

If you compare how the Pope says Mass (beautifully) to how we celebrate Mass here, you instantly prove my point. Don’t you see this?

Excellent points!!

 

[Layman]

Read this, and let the quarelling cease (hopefully):

latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

What seems to have happened to the Church is what happens to a lot of well-meaning organisations which get hijacked by small, well-organised cliques.

Thus you have UK student unions ‘coming out in sympathy’ because of American interference in Cuba, or having ‘gay pride’ days; things the majority membership are not enthusiastic about, to say the least.

In other words, the Hierarchy were blind-sided. You see it a lot in politics.

The early 70’s were awash with cr*pyy, selfish, glamourous, hippy ideas. They were hard to resist.

And there’s never been a shortage of clerics who’ll be happy to take a sledgehammer to their churches, same as there’ll always be politicians who’ll want to erect expensive monuments to themselves. They want to put their stamp on history.

Out of pride, the oldest sin.

 

[LilyM]

The PROBLEM on the other hand, and I think you know this, is that for the last 40 years we have celebrated vs. populum EXCLUSIVELY,

ummm … no. There are quite a few ad orientem NOs in America for starters.

received communion in an irreverent way EXCLUSIVELY,

ummm … no again.

Firstly how is hand v tongue or standing v kneeling inherently irreverent? Irreverence has as much to do with attitude of the mind as attitude of the body. And I know you don’t think, because it’s illogical to think, that people who receive on the tongue or kneeling can’t and don’t do so in an irreverent way - perhaps thinking the whole time of what they’re going to have for lunch or dinner after Mass or whether the kids are acting up behind them, instead of Our Lord in the Eucharist before and within them.

Secondly - I know I’ve never in my life seen a Mass anywhere in the world, including the US, where at least part of the congregation didn’t receive on the tongue. In that, at least, you can’t judge them as being exclusively and wholly irreverent, surely.

and used banal music EXCLUSIVELY.

Define banal music - my cathedral and numerous other churches in my area use the NO Mass, vernacular and ad orientem but have exquisite chant, Mozart, Palestrina and the like, or at the very least the same old standard hymns that were used in the never-banal (apparently) pre-Vatican 2 period. From what I’ve seen and heard of the US plenty of your NO Masses do as well.

I’m not disputing that we can’t and shouldn’t increase the use of ad orientem, communion on the tongue and the more traditional music, but to say these things are used exclusively, even in the US, is patently ridiculous.

 

[cathguy]

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

Yes, I do have a right to a liturgy free of abuse. To dialog one should be informed. You need to read Spirit of the Liturgy by Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now our POPE. His definition of liturgical abuse is mine as well.

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.

Yes in terms of Dogma.

NO on EVERYTHING ELSE!!! Look, let me give you some not so far fetched examples:

A Pope who predates the building of the Sistine Chapel orders artists to use his mistress as a model for the Madonna. If I am the artist in that scenario, I hope I have the courage to say “no” and face the consequences. Obedience to God comes first.

How about Martin IV? Consider this paragraph from Warren Carroll’s History of Christendom (is HE a heretic in your eyes too?)

“From this total rejection and unmerited condemnation of men” (Paleologus and Veccos) “(whatever their motives) had risked their fortunes and their lives for the Catholic Faith and the Church of Rome, flowed all the ensuing evils of Martin IV’s pontificate, and many of the still worse disasters that came after it. No Pope in history has made a greater mistak. Of course it involved only political judgement and personal assessment of individuals, not doctrine on faith and morals.” (Carroll 312)

Other concrete examples:

If the Pope (or Bishop, or Priest) tells you to kill an innocent or break ANY commandment, you say NO! Not “yes I obey.”

Obedience has limits! To say otherwise is to give protestants all the fodder they need to ATTACK THE CHURCH.

If the Pope is WRONG on a political judgement, outside of Dogma, we are FREE to SAY SO. Being Catholic does not mean being forced to have a full frontal lobotomy.

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.

On Dogma ONLY. Furthermore, it isn’t the Pope in union with the Bishops today only. The Magesterium goes back 2000 years!

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.)

Laity with competence CAN INDEED say such things. See the work of Michael Davies and the Pope’s comments at his passing. Sorry, you are just wrong here. Michael Davies spent his entire career arguing that the liturgical changes to come after the council were disastrous. Michael Davies is a LAY scholar. Eaamon Duffy (of OXFORD UNIVERSITY) has made similar arguments. He is also a LAY SCHOLAR. Are they heretics? The POPE DOES NOT THINK SO. In fact, the Pope literally seemed to apologize for the abuse Davies took during his life time, from people who speak to traditionalists much the way you do.

A great book to read (but expensive) is “Ever Directed Towards the Lord”. It is edited by Father Ewe Michael Lang. However, many of the scholars who presented at the conference in question were lay. Eaamon Duffy is one of them. Francis Cardinal Arinze writes the intro.

"Dear Members of the Society of St. Catherine of Sienna

It is with joy that I learn that you are planning to invite a group of scholars to a Conference on ‘Ever Directed Towards the Lord,’ to be held in Oxford…

Your initiative is fully in the spirit of the ‘Suggestions and Proposals’ made for the Year of the Eucharist by this Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Universities and scholars CAN CONTRIBUTE MUCH TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND A MORE SUITABLE AND SANCTIFYING CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARISTIC MYSTERY. LITURGICAL RENEWAL AND A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PUBLIC WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH WILL NO DOUBT GAIN FROM THE PUBLICATION OF THE LECTURES AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE CONFERENCE…"

In this book Dr. Eaamon Duffy delivers an essay that would make your head spin. It is a FAITHFUL essay.

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.

Scam posts? I am ignorant of what you are referring to here.

However, I think you need to go back and rethink some of your totalitarian views regarding authority in the Church.

 

[cathguy]

ummm … no. There are quite a few vs populum NOs in America for starters

I assume you meant to say “ad orientum” here. Otherwise your argument makes no sense.

Proceeding with that assumption, if you are honest, you will have to admit that such Masses constitute a TINY MINORITY of those celebrated in the U.S. The exception proves the rule.

ummm … no again.

Firstly how is hand v tongue or standing v kneeling inherently irreverent? Irreverence has as much to do with attitude of the mind as attitude of the body. And I know you don’t think, because it’s illogical to think, that people who receive on the tongue or kneeling can’t and don’t do so in an irreverent way - perhaps thinking the whole time of what they’re going to have for lunch or dinner after Mass or whether the kids are acting up behind them, instead of Our Lord in the Eucharist before and within them.

Secondly - I know I’ve never in my life seen a Mass anywhere in the world, including the US, where at least part of the congregation didn’t receive on the tongue. In that, at least, you can’t judge them as being exclusively irreverent, surely.

Oh please! Are you being sincere here? The ONLY countries that were given the INDULT to receive in the hand were those that were most difficult. That includes the U.S. In Rome, to receive from the Pope, one must receive in the mouth, for we DO NOT HAVE CONSECRATED HANDS. Kneeling is much more reverent.

At WYD in Australia all who received from Pope were required to kneed and receive on the tongue.

Those who receive in this manner constitute a TINY minority in the U.S. The exception proves the rule.

define banal music - my cathedral and numerous other churches in my area use the NO Mass, vernacular and ad orientem but have exquisite chant, Mozart, Palestrina or at least the same old standard hymns that were used in the non-banal (apparently) pre-Vatican 2 period. I know of many US churches that do as well.

I’m not disputing that we can’t and shouldn’t increase the use of ad orientem, communion on the tongue and more traditional music, but to say these things are used exclusively, even in the US, is patently ridiculous.

Well, well, well, the Mass at the CATHEDRAL has good music some of the time. What a surprise. A few in the U.S. do. A few parishes as well. But these constitute a tiny MINORITY of Roman Catholic Church’s nation wide. Once again, the exception proves the rule.

 

[cathguy]

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.

Thats because it WAS rash. He owes you an apology.

 

[cathguy]

No one understands Latin. What’s the point? So it has the appearance of the sacred…what because a dead language is being spoken it’s somehow holier?

Come on…I’m sure some people connect with it, but I bet most prefer the vernacular.

Liberational! That is AWESOME. What are YOU doing in a traditional subforum?

In any event, a good translation in the vernacular would help a lot.

However, the issue is NOT as simple as you make it. Latin is a dead language. As such, words do not change meanings or have double entendres etc. etc.

Thus, a dead language (whether it be Latin or ancient Greek etc.) is GREAT for liturgy because it is a defense against heresy. In other words, if the meaning of words cannot change, the dead language precludes heterodox or heretical interpretations of a sacred text.

This would include things like liberation theology!

 

[LilyM]

Once again, the exception proves the rule.

Hey, don’t blame me. You’re the one who wrongly chose to use the word ‘exclusively’, meaning ‘without exception’. You didn’t say ‘all bar a tiny minority’. A minority is still an exception, so something done by all bar a minority is by no means done ‘exclusively’ end pedantic rant

And don’t bother asserting that the exceptions prove the rule. That’s a total nonsense saying anyway - no exception ever proves a rule, although a general (but not exclusive ) rule can exist in spite of exceptions.

In regards reception on the tongue at the very least my 35 years of experience tells me that there are far more than a tiny minority of people who do receive on the tongue, even in the most liberal NO parishes I’ve seen.

 

[cothrige]

In regards reception on the tongue at the very least my 35 years of experience tells me that there are far more than a tiny minority of people who do receive on the tongue, even in the most liberal NO parishes I’ve seen.

I have to agree with this. In the area I live in perhaps 10 percent of the people still receive on the tongue, which while a definite minority is something more than tiny I think. I do have to add though that my wife was once refused communion by a priest here for choosing not to receive in the hand.

But, I cannot argue with the previous person’s points on ad orientem. I have never seen this even once and so, in terms of my experience at least, the use of versus populum (sorry if that is the wrong term) has been exclusive.

 

[EasterJoy]

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…

Give them a break. They’re only shepherds, and they’ve been asked to herd cats.

 

[LilyM]

I have to agree with this. In the area I live in perhaps 10 percent of the people still receive on the tongue, which while a definite minority is something more than tiny I think. I do have to add though that my wife was once refused communion by a priest here for choosing not to receive in the hand.

But, I cannot argue with the previous person’s points on ad orientem. I have never seen this even once and so, in terms of my experience at least, the use of versus populum (sorry if that is the wrong term) has been exclusive.

No - again, it’s been all bar a tiny minority. Exclusive means literally no exceptions - read a dictionary sometime.

You can find something of a list of parishes and other places in the US and Canda that offer NO ad orientem (EWTN’S Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament being one), although it probably doesn’t name every single one, at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2198

 

[cathguy]

No - again, it’s been all bar a tiny minority. Exclusive means literally no exceptions - read a dictionary sometime.

You can find something of a list of parishes and other places in the US and Canda that offer NO ad orientem (EWTN’S Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament being one), although it probably doesn’t name every single one, at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2198

How can I conclude anything other than the fact that you are playing legalistic and pharisaical word games to avoid conceding a point that almost anyone of good will would concede?

Since you are unwilling, I will do it. I used the “exclusively” as a rhetorical device because the poster I was debating used it. I will gladly cede the notion that, if read in a narrow and legalistic fashion, you can interpret my words the way you insist on doing; however, as their author, I assure you that was not my intention.

In my previous post, “exclusively” should be read as “almost always” or “in the vast majority of cases” as opposed to a stricter definition.

You need to go to law school… trust me… I know. You can hair split while avoiding the real issue very well.

 

[LilyM]

How can I conclude anything other than the fact that you are playing legalistic and pharisaical word games to avoid conceding a point that almost anyone of good will would concede?

Since you are unwilling, I will do it. I used the “exclusively” as a rhetorical device because the poster I was debating used it. I will gladly cede the notion that, if read in a narrow and legalistic fashion, you can interpret my words the way you insist on doing; however, as their author, I assure you that was not my intention.

In my previous post, “exclusively” should be read as “almost always” or “in the vast majority of cases” as opposed to a stricter definition.

You need to go to law school… trust me… I know. You can hair split while avoiding the real issue very well.

I have gone to law school, thanks

And as the author of *my *posts I can assure you my interest and intent is in more than the merely pharisaical and legalistic. I’m trying to make a few serious points as well.

I gladly ceded long ago that some of the things you’ve mentioned - kneeling for communion and ad orientem - are indeed in a tiny minority. But my first point would be that some of those things you value in the Mass - communion on the tongue especially, but also good music and so on - are not in fact a TINY minority, although certainly hard to find in a lot of places which may lead you to think they are.

Heck, if you want to see kneeling then set the example - go ahead and do it yourself, if you’re not already. You’re absolutely allowed and your priest cannot deny you communion. You may well find others wanting to do the same who just might follow your example if you take that first bold leap forward (or downward ) If not, then you’ve done your best and certainly no more can be expected if others won’t follow your lead. Most of those who heard and saw Jesus Himself didn’t follow His example either, so you’re in good company.

My second point being we all need to take great care with our use of language. So many problems within the Church and outside of it are caused by linguistic sloppiness, in drafting and interpretation of documents among other things. And on the internet in particular, where it’s harder to truly establish meaning in a nonverbal way and easy to assume that everyone will ‘catch your drift’, misunderstandings are a lot easier and it behooves us to be that much more careful.

 

[cathguy]

I have gone to law school, thanks

And as the author of *my *posts I can assure you my interest and intent is in more than the merely pharisaical and legalistic. I’m trying to make a few serious points as well.

I gladly ceded long ago that some of the things you’ve mentioned - kneeling for communion and ad orientem - are indeed in a tiny minority. But my first point would be that some of those things you value in the Mass - communion on the tongue especially, but also good music and so on - are not in fact a TINY minority, although certainly hard to find in a lot of places which may lead you to think they are.

Heck, if you want to see kneeling then set the example - go ahead and do it yourself, if you’re not already. You’re absolutely allowed and your priest cannot deny you communion. You may well find others wanting to do the same who just might follow your example if you take that first bold leap forward (or downward ) If not, then you’ve done your best and certainly no more can be expected if others won’t follow your lead. Most of those who heard and saw Jesus Himself didn’t follow His example either, so you’re in good company.

My second point being we all need to take great care with our use of language. So many problems within the Church and outside of it are caused by linguistic sloppiness, in drafting and interpretation of documents among other things. And on the internet in particular, where it’s harder to truly establish meaning in a nonverbal way and easy to assume that everyone will ‘catch your drift’, misunderstandings are a lot easier and it behooves us to be that much more careful.

On all of this I can agree 100%

 

[LilyM]

On all of this I can agree 100%

"And there was much rejoicing throughout the land … " :extrahappy:

 

[EasterJoy]

You must enjoy dealing in generalizations. In addition, by not thinking before you post, you have proved my point.

Go to Rome and see how our Pope celebrates Mass there. Then, compare that with the way the NO is commonly celebrated here. Every point I have made is proven in an instant.

READ VATICAN II.

No one has said that there is a problem that we do not use Latin EXCLUSIVELY, or celebrate ad orientum EXCLUSIVELY, or use Chant EXCLUSIVELY.

The PROBLEM on the other hand, and I think you know this, is that for the last 40 years we have celebrated vs. populum EXCLUSIVELY, received communion in an irreverent way EXCLUSIVELY, and used banal music EXCLUSIVELY. This is an act of rebellion, AGAINST ROME, AGAINST VATICAN II, and AGAINST THE CHURCH HERSELF, for Vatican II says that chant must have primacy of place, Latin must have primacy of place, and ad orientum worship must have primacy of place.

Get it?

If you compare how the Pope says Mass (beautifully) to how we celebrate Mass here, you instantly prove my point. Don’t you see this?

You use EXCLUSIVELY in all caps that many times, with full knowledge that it was no such thing, and* I’m* the one who enjoys generalizations?

To whomever it may concern: I didn’t say the laity couldn’t have opionions about the liturgy. I did not say it was impossible for them to reach a conclusion about it prior to the episcopate reaching the exact same conclusion. I said it wasn’t their place to define what is and is not an abuse. They don’t have the jurisdiction. I stand by that, and whether you get it or not is not in my jurisdiction, nor my worry.

If your pastor or bishop doesn’t say Mass beautifully, well, I’m sorry. I’ve watched the Holy Father say Mass, and I don’t think to myself, “I’ve never seen it done like that. Wow.” My pastor and bishop are not in rebellion against Rome, not now, not ever, including for the last 40 years. They are reverent men who love the Mass and who would remain in obedience to Rome if they had to bite their own tongues off to do it. Do you have any idea how many good and holy priests you smear with the accusation that distributing Holy Communion in the way that Rome told them to was somehow in cooperation with reception that was EXCLUSIVELY irreverent? Gosh, I can’t imagine why more men don’t want to go into the priesthood.

I tell you what I get: there are a lot of posters here on this “traditional” forum who talk a good talk about obedience and Rome and the Magesterium and all the rest, but when it is their turn to do things someone else’s way, why then the bishops all need to be sent to the woodshed and a few start wondering out loud if we even have a Pope. Anyone who doesn’t do things their way is banal and irreverent and spits in the Lord’s eye every day and twice on Sundays.

**Pah! Do we not have enough positive things to say about what is traditional that we have to spend so much time putting down everything else? **

 

[karl4]

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.

well said…it truely is not about us. Remember first friday tomorrow if you can make Mass.!!