Tredentine Mass Is Our Right

[Sacerdotalis]

Then I want someone to explain to me why B16 made it very clear in Summorum that this implementation is for people who find the desire for it, not for EVERYONE to be directed toward it…there is a difference between allowing people to go and decreeing that people SHOULD go…

I really don’t want to get involved in this thread at this point. It appears to be attracting trolls. However, I will make this one comment. In addition to the Cardinal saying that this was the will of the Holy Father we do have to remember what this Cardinal’s jurisdiction is. He is the head of PCED, which is the competent and relevant authority on matters relating to the Traditional Mass. This means that just as in the past when Cardinal Ratzinger spoke on matters of doctrine and faith, when this Cardinal speaks on matters relating to this form of the liturgy he speaks with the full authority of Rome. This is not gossip. He is not spreading rumors. He is acting with the office he has which has competence on this matter, and to question his view regarding the extent of use of the EF would be identical to question the statements of Cardinal Ratzinger when he was head of the CDF. And in both statements you would be rejecting the word of Rome. Those who think that they can question or doubt the word of competent authorities in Rome on matters they have jurisdiction over, just because the Pope didn’t personally sign the statement, will likely have little hope of satisfaction.

 

[ethelzguy]

Then I want someone to explain to me why B16 made it very clear in Summorum that this implementation is for people who find the desire for it, not for EVERYONE to be directed toward it…there is a difference between allowing people to go and decreeing that people SHOULD go…

:tiphat:

 

[AlexV]

Parse SP all you want, there’s nothing in it that is at variance with what the pope’s appointed official for these matters said at Westminster. That sermon was a watershed for the definition of the traditionalist movement in the Church…no doubt occasioned by all those prelates who have been arguing for so long (with a not-so-thinly disguised smirk) that “Oh, yes, well, the Latin Mass is for those who want it, who need to sign a paper or two or three, and all be registered in the same place, under the right phase of the moon, if we have a priest free who was ordained before 1962, if they pay all the bills for the extra hour we might have to open a church building for them, if they all pass Latin exams, if they were all born before 1965…etc. etc.”

 

[cothrige]

Then I want someone to explain to me why B16 made it very clear in Summorum that this implementation is for people who find the desire for it, not for EVERYONE to be directed toward it…there is a difference between allowing people to go and decreeing that people SHOULD go…

Yes, there is a difference between these, and it is exactly what the Cardinal addressed. How, I wonder, can people who desire to go to the EF actually do so if it is not offered? How can people be “allowed” to go to something that doesn’t happen? The Cardinal above said that the Holy Father wishes to see the EF in every parish, but he did not say that he wishes everyone be compelled to go to it. You are twisting the meaning of the words to argue a straw man, and in the same breath apparently failing to see the logic of the desire expressed which is absolutely necessary to fulfilling the spirit of Summorum Pontificum itself. There is no choice without availability, and arguing against the widest possible availability of the EF Mass, i.e. in individual parishes, is an argument for suppression of both a valid Mass and that choice called for by none other than the Holy Father himself.

 

[Sacerdotalis]

And there is a possibility that what you are stating is being misinterpreted. B16 has NOT decreed that every parish should have EF.

And I quote, “Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.” - Tell me how this implies that every the EF is superior to the N.O.

And I continue, “It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following” the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962" - PERMISSABLE - not FORCED UPON YOU.

And finally, “Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.” If that says “all parishes should have EF” then I must be dumb, because in the English language “may” doesn’t mean “must”.

Stop reading what you want it to say and read what it really says - unless you have been granted authority from the Chair of Peter - which I doubt.

Yes, there is a difference between these, and it is exactly what the Cardinal addressed. How, I wonder, can people who desire to go to the EF actually do so if it is not offered? How can people be “allowed” to go to something that doesn’t happen? The Cardinal above said that the Holy Father wishes to see the EF in every parish, but he did not say that he wishes everyone be compelled to go to it. You are twisting the meaning of the words to argue a straw man, and in the same breath apparently failing to see the logic of the desire expressed which is absolutely necessary to fulfilling the spirit of Summorum Pontificum itself. There is no choice without availability, and arguing against the widest possible availability of the EF Mass, i.e. in individual parishes, is an argument for suppression of both a valid Mass and that choice called for by none other than the Holy Father himself.

 

[AlexV]

Of course if so many bishops weren’t so hell-bent on doing everything to prevent 1962 Masses, perhaps there wouldn’t be such a problem. Fortunately SP removes the bishop from much of the process…a pastor doesn’t need a bishop’s permission anymore.

 

[cothrige]

And there is a possibility that what you are stating is being misinterpreted. B16 has NOT decreed that every parish should have EF.

No, he has decreed that those who desire to attend it should be able to do that. How can they if they are not celebrated in parishes? I don’t think that there is any misinterpretation in that.

What is certainly a misinterpretation is your understanding of the words of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos. You implied that by saying that all parishes should offer the EF he is going to force people to attend that form. How do you make that leap? You have not explained how you did that, or how anybody other than ethelzguy should or would believe it.

And I quote, “Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.” - Tell me how this implies that every the EF is superior to the N.O.

Tell me how this, or anything else discussed here, even begins to imply that anybody involved, be it the Pope, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos or any of us on this thread, is saying that “every EF is superior to the N.O.?” Why do you keep inventing straw men?

And I continue, “It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following” the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962" - PERMISSABLE - not FORCED UPON YOU.

Okay, and that proves what? Who here has said it should be? You keep bringing up this idea of forcing people to go to a Mass, not anybody else. Why are you saying that if every parish offers both forms of the Mass, which is what the Cardinal said the Holy Father hopes for, that is the same as forcing people to go to the EF? That is not a leap, it is fiction. Just because those like yourself who preferred the OF forced Catholics to go to it and banned a valid Mass for something like forty years doesn’t mean that the traditionalists, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos or the Pope will do the same thing.

And finally, “Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.” If that says “all parishes should have EF” then I must be dumb, because in the English language “may” doesn’t mean “must”.

You will have to clarify for me as to why you seem to be arguing that this small reference to “personal parishes” offereing exclusively the EF has anything to do with restricting other parishes from celebrating according to that form. Why would you think the desire of the Holy Father to see every parish offer the EF eventually has any contradiction to his allowance of personal parishes such as those mentioned above?

Stop reading what you want it to say and read what it really says - unless you have been granted authority from the Chair of Peter - which I doubt.

Are you really serious in this? Above you misinterpret the meaning of everybody involved here, from the Pope to traditionalists to my own posts on this thread, and now you chastise me for simply believing the heirarchy of the Church? Let me ask you this. Is Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos lying? Are you correcting a prelate of the Church? Perhaps ethelzguy could set you straight about putting yourself above and before the Church.

 

[catharina]

With no offense intended toward the OP, my understanding is that our absolute “right” as followers of Our Lord is to take up our cross(es) and follow Him.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

With no offense intended toward the OP, my understanding is that our absolute “right” as followers of Our Lord is to take up our cross(es) and follow Him.

Sounds more like an obligation to me…Just like the ten commandments and the six precepts of the church. We have the obligation to go to Mass etc, and we have the right to attend either form without the meddling of bishops who would (and still do) restrict or completely deny the TLM’s use. SP was plenty clear about our ‘rights’.

 

[catharina]

Sounds more like an obligation to me…Just like the ten commandments and the six precepts of the church. We have the obligation to go to Mass etc, and we have the right to attend either form without the meddling of bishops who would (and still do) restrict or completely deny the TLM’s use. SP was plenty clear about our ‘rights’.

Difference in point of view?

What I see as an endless grace and enormous privilege,
you seem to view as obligation? OK by me.

 

[AlexV]

Don’t bait people, Catharina…especially when you’ll then turn and start issuing accusations of lack of “charity”.

We are indeed obligated to take up our cross.

 

[catharina]

Don’t bait people, Catharina…especially when you’ll then turn and start issuing accusations of lack of “charity”.

We are indeed obligated to take up our cross.

Don’t track me, Ales dear.

Jesus offers the invitation:

“If you would come after Me, then take up your cors and follow Me.”
I answer Him, “Thank you so much for the privilege. I will” and I do.

I can speak for me. I quoted CL to CL. Where do you fit in? You don’t speak for me and you’re not speaking for you. Do I smell the burnt odor of a flaming troll?

 

[AlexV]

Don’t “track” you? If you don’t like reactions and responses to your posts, don’t post.

Christ’s words are of divine precept. Your added bit about “privilege” (to the exclusion of “obligation”) is just that, your added bit.

 

[Ivan_Muniz]

i would really love to go to a tridentine mass to bad i dont know where a church that offers it i love everything about the roman rite especially the language latin our inheritance

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Difference in point of view?

What I see as an endless grace and enormous privilege,
you seem to view as obligation? OK by me.

The only ‘point of view’ is that it is both an enormous privilege and an obligation for Catholics to live according to the commandments and precepts of the Church. In that case, a Catholic has as much a ‘right’ to the EF as he does the OF. That’s why it would be a positive to have an EF in every church. It’s not forcing people to go to it, but it would be there (along with the OF) for those who want it. People should be able to hear the EF at their own parish if they so desire.

 

[pnewton]

That’s why it would be a positive to have an EF in every church. It’s not forcing people to go to it, but it would be there (along with the OF) for those who want it. People should be able to hear the EF at their own parish if they so desire.

But why have it available where there are not those that desire it? I can understand why those that prefer this want this available to them. What I can not understand is the desire to see it in parishes where no one wants it and they will never attend.

 

[AlexV]

Pretty hard to decide you don’t want something when for over 40 years officials have scrupulously made sure you wouldn’t have it in the first place.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Hi pnewton,

I could be wrong, but I think you missed what I said.

But why have it available where there are not those that desire it?

Here is what I said: “People should be able to hear the EF at their own parish if they so desire.”

Problem solved.

What I can not understand is the desire to see it in parishes where no one wants it and they will never attend.

I think it would be a great idea for churches to do a pilot program for the TLM even if nobody has specifically asked for it. Some people (like me), who grew up NO, don’t even realize that there is a “traditional” latin Mass. They just assume that the NO is the same as the latin Mass, except it’s in the vernacular. Trying to stir up interest in the EF is never a bad idea. Each parish could try it out for a few months and see who ends up coming. They might attract a lot of the “recovering Catholics” that the post-concilliar church lost, for one reason or another…

BTW, for anybody who hasn’t heard the term ‘recovering Catholic’, it’s not a good thing. The first time I heard it I said “oh good!”. I didn’t realize they meant they were recovering FROM the church, and not TO it. lol…whoops!

 

[pnewton]

Pretty hard to decide you don’t want something when for over 40 years officials have scrupulously made sure you wouldn’t have it in the first place.

I haven’t had any problems knowing what I prefer. No, not hard to decide at all.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I don’t know why it would seem to be a hard decision. If both are available, which they are, if a person has not experienced one form or the other, then he or she should participate at one of the masses. I did not have a hard time deciding. It is a right of each of us and should not be disputed or denigrated by anyone.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B