Tridentine Mass.

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Well, you are fully entitled to say “If it had been up to me, I wouldn’t have changed anything or issued a new missal” and “I do not like some of the changes that were made; I think they have turned out to be harmful and we would be better off undoing them.” I feel that way about some of the changes (e.g., elimination of the Dies Irae from the Mass of the Dead), though, of course, not about others (e.g., readings proclaimed in the vernacular while facing the congregation). What goes against the Church, however, would be to claim that the new missal is illegal, or invalidly promulgated, or that Mass said according to it is not actually a Mass at all but a blasphemy, and so on. Similarly, you cannot refuse to attend Mass if the only Mass available is according to the modern form.

The SSPX does not officially hold any of those positions, although some of their statements clearly verge in that direction.

Whycan i not refuse to attend Mass if the only Mass available is according to the modern form?

 

[MarkThompson]

Whycan i not refuse to attend Mass if the only Mass available is according to the modern form?

“Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.”

Attendance may be excused “because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause” (Can. 1248 § 2), but the Church, it should go without saying, has never recognized “But I don’ wanna!” as a grave cause.

 

[archangel04]

That’s fine if you haven’t felt it, I have and was simply putting into terms what sacrosanctum concilium says about changing the congregation away from being strangers and silent spectators, and Matthew says that He sat at a table with them and proceeded to talk to them about who would betray them and when He consecrated the bread and wine He proceeded to tell them that it was His body and blood etc. It would simply seem to me to be natural thought that He was doing all of this facing them but did not sit at the table backwards and bless the bread and talk to them with His back to them

There is some evidence that the painting of Michalangelo “last supper” is accurate in the way they sat. The other evidence was that the table was in a “U” shape but with 90 degree angles. I wish I had the sources but I know one of these came from the book “Spirit of the Liturgy” by then Card. Ratzinger.

 

[archangel04]

This statement is about as accurate as saying that our Mass is just a meal where we sit around and drink wine and eat bread. First, as Jews, they would have all sat on one side of the table, due to customs of the time not allowing them to have been served their food from behind. They would have been all facing the direction, as we do when we celebrate Mass ad orientem. And second, it was not merely a “communal meal.” The Passover meal was a sacred ritual.

Yes, a communal ritual setting. It was not people singing and having a good time over dinner. It was a sacred meal.

Nor does it make sense for any man to pick up a piece of bread during dinner and tell those around him “This is my body.” But yet, both of these supposedly nonsensical things did indeed happen, and were indeed the way God had planned things.

The foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom.

Indeed!

 

[archangel04]

Mediaeval practice was to separate clergy and nobility from the common people. In may places - particularly in England, there was a screen keeping the peasantry at bay. Ordinary folk were obliged to hear Mass, but they weren’t allowed to get too close or even see what was going on.

The Council of Trent unified practice in the Latin rite and modernised the layout of churches. The screens were replaced by altar rails with lockable gates to keep the rabble at bay. In response to the Protestant reformers, the common people were allowed to see what was going on and Mass included a sermon - preached in their own language from a high pulpit (it was believed that the plague couldn’t spread upwards).

The Second Vatican Council looked at the Mass and tried to sweep away all the abuses that had grown up because of class prejudice and medical superstition. The altar was brought closer to the congregation and the priest stood behind it so that we now gather around God’s altar. As a general rule, altar rails went and pulpits were replaced by lecterns. (Why we decided to call them ambos is beyond me - that used to be the word for a tall pulpit with two staircases)

More variation was introduced into the prayers of the Mass to allow for local preferences and sensibilities. Some of the prayers in the modern Mass - especially Eucharistic Prayer II - are much older than the Tridentine Mass. Some of the prayers introduced by the Council of Trent were omitted.

I was at University (at an Anglican Institution) when the new rite was introduced. I preferred it and it was probably an important part of my decision to stick with Catholicism and not join the Church of England. Who knows - if it had been delayed for a few years, I might now be a married Catholic priest.

 

[ProVobis]

So the Veterum Sapientia by John XXIII was simply ignored?

Pretty much but the Church’s official language is still Latin and the last two Popes have encouraged it. Perhaps a more important piece of legislation still on the books is Canon 249 which requires those in priestly formations to study Latin.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Pretty much but the Church’s official language is still Latin and the last two Popes have encouraged it. Perhaps a more important piece of legislation still on the books is Canon 249 which requires those in priestly formations to study Latin.

Right, and many seminaries also teach Greek. Three years of Latin isn’t a lot, but it’s more than enough to be able to pronounce it very well and comprehend it in such a manner as to be able to conduct a good mass in Latin.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Mediaeval practice was to separate clergy and nobility from the common people. In may places - particularly in England, there was a screen keeping the peasantry at bay. Ordinary folk were obliged to hear Mass, but they weren’t allowed to get too close or even see what was going on.

As the priest begins his entrance into the sanctuary, he does so in silence; proceeded by the server, who represents in a way, the help that all the faithful want to give to support the priest in his awesome task and responsibility. The nave represents those who have come in from the world, to seek what God alone can give them. The altar rail represents the barrier, the chasm that exists between our sinfulness and the holiness and majesty of God. The priest is the one who mediates between these two realities. Who moves from the nave into the sanctuary, in order, as an instrument, to make Christ present. As he begins to do so, there is silence. Silence, as he places the Chalice. Silence, as he opens the book to the mass of the day. Silence, as he bows his head towards the cross by which we are saved; and only then as he goes down to the bottom of the Altar, the bottom of Calvary, the words begin; and they begin with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, as all creation begins in the presence of the Holy Trinity, is carried on through their work in our world, and will be brought to fulfilment by their action amongst us. 1.

The Council of Trent unified practice in the Latin rite and modernised the layout of churches. The screens were replaced by altar rails with lockable gates to keep the rabble at bay. In response to the Protestant reformers, the common people were allowed to see what was going on and Mass included a sermon - preached in their own language from a high pulpit (it was believed that the plague couldn’t spread upwards).

It seems like your understanding is deeply flawed. Your information seems very similar to that of anti-traditional liberal left-wing websites such as Huffington post and National Catholic Reporter, no offence.

**The Second Vatican Council looked at the Mass and tried to sweep away all the abuses that had grown up because of class prejudice and medical superstition. ** The altar was brought closer to the congregation and the priest stood behind it so that we now gather around God’s altar. As a general rule, altar rails went and pulpits were replaced by lecterns. (Why we decided to call them ambos is beyond me - that used to be the word for a tall pulpit with two staircases)

Could you give some examples? The biggest abuses I have heard of is the priests rushing through Mass and removing some prayers. Compare that to some of the abuses the Ordinary Form experienced, some of which were so bad they invalidated the Mass. In the attempt to make everything more about the community, it seems that anything even related to pre-Conciliar was thrown out, and we lost a huge amount of traditional Catholic symbolism.

1. Source: “Extraordinary Form of the Mass explained” - Father Calvin Goodwin, Fraternity of Saint Peter, explains the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

“Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.”

Attendance may be excused “because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause” (Can. 1248 § 2), but the Church, it should go without saying, has never recognized “But I don’ wanna!” as a grave cause.

I pray at my home altar, on my knees, in Latin.
I have personal reasons for not going.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

I pray at my home altar, on my knees, in Latin.
I have personal reasons for not going.

You must fulfil your Sunday obligation. You are dispensed only when it is literally not possible to go. To not do so is grave matter.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

You must fulfil your Sunday obligation. You are dispensed only when it is literally not possible to go. To not do so is grave matter.

That seems rather harsh.
And why are you so hostile?
No offense but you speak as if you are an inquisitor.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That seems rather harsh.
And why are you so hostile?
No offense but you speak as if you are an inquisitor.

I don’t personally detect malice in Martyr’s post. It is true that you are dispensed only if there is literally something completely impeding you, such as illness or transportation, or otherwise.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

I don’t personally detect malice in Martyr’s post. It is true that you are dispensed only if there is literally something completely impeding you, such as illness or transportation, or otherwise.

Well transportation wise it is impossible for me, does that count?
PS:Martyr’s post says it is a “grave matter”, is that not a condemnation of some sort?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well transportation wise it is impossible for me, does that count?
PS:Martyr’s post says it is a “grave matter”, is that not a condemnation of some sort?

Yes, lack of transportation counts as a reason for not going to mass.

“Grave matter” is simply referring to the fact that, if you skip mass of your own accord, that is, you could have gone but just didn’t, then it is a mortal sin.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Yes, lack of transportation counts as a reason for not going to mass…

So me having a home altar is a good alternative than?
And what is the penalty for skipping mass of ones own accord?
Excommunication?

 

[YoungTradCath]

So me having a home altar is a good alternative than?
And what is the penalty for skipping mass of ones own accord?
Excommunication?

A home altar never replaces a church altar. You aren’t a priest, so you can’t offer the Sacrifice on it anyways.

No, excommunication is not going to be levied on someone for not going to mass. Rather, if one dies in a state of mortal sin, of which skipping mass puts you in, one goes to hell.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

A home altar never replaces a church altar. You aren’t a priest, so you can’t offer the Sacrifice on it anyways.

No, excommunication is not going to be levied on someone for not going to mass. Rather, if one dies in a state of mortal sin, of which skipping mass puts you in, one goes to hell.

My priests and my bishop said it was purgatory and not hell.
God Is not a tyrant that can not forgive.
God hates nobody, only people do.

 

[YoungTradCath]

My priests and my bishop said it was purgatory and not hell.
God Is not a tyrant that can not forgive.
God hates nobody, only people do.

That’s not how it works. If you die in a state of mortal sin, you go to hell. Bam. If you die in a state of venial sin, you go to purgatory. If you die in a state of grace, you may go straight to heaven or you may go to purgatory first, depending on if you have temporal punishment to work off or not.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

That’s not how it works. If you die in a state of mortal sin, you go to hell. Bam. If you die in a state of venial sin, you go to purgatory. If you die in a state of grace, you may go straight to heaven or you may go to purgatory first, depending on if you have temporal punishment to work off or not.

Are you calling the dutch clergy liars than?
Only the ones who are evil in there heart go to hell.
That is what i have been taught.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Are you calling the dutch clergy liars than?
Only the ones who are evil in there heart go to hell.
That is what i have been taught.

:dts: