Tridentine Solemn High Mass

[Lida]

bear06:

St. Margaret Mary’s Oakland, CA
St. Mary’s, Walnut Creek, CA (this mass is only once a month)

I’ve heard of people calling others stupid but calling people liars is disgusting.

Bear, are you from the Bay Area? I normally attend the Tridentine Mass at St. Margaret Mary’s, but once I went to their Latin NO Mass and I was amazed at how beautiful it was.

After reading all the posts about how people live 100+ miles from their nearest Traditional Latin Mass, I realize how blessed I am to live as close to one as I do. (I used to complain about the hour-long bus ride to church… but now… I’ll use my time to pray for those of you who long for this Mass but live too far away. )

 

[bear06]

Lida:

Bear, are you from the Bay Area? I normally attend the Tridentine Mass at St. Margaret Mary’s, but once I went to their Latin NO Mass and I was amazed at how beautiful it was.

After reading all the posts about how people live 100+ miles from their nearest Traditional Latin Mass, I realize how blessed I am to live as close to one as I do. (I used to complain about the hour-long bus ride to church… but now… I’ll use my time to pray for those of you who long for this Mass but live too far away. )

I certainly do. I was married at St. Margaret Mary’s. We don’t attend every weekend but we’ve been there more lately. We’ve been there since the Fr. Kozina days and I was at the first TLM there. I’m not sure how close you live but I’m sure your pleased that they will be having a daily TLM too!

 

[Volodymyr]

It is.
No it isn’t.
You’re simply mistaken.
Calling people liars is disgusting.

This level disagreement among Roman Catholics seems very opposed to view of outside that Roman Church has better adapted to conditions modern world by Council Vatican II decisions. \

 

[Iohannes]

bear06:

Buddy, I’m not reducing anything nor would I ever say the Pope is acting on a whim. What part of this exactly do you not accept? Do you not accept the term sanate? That the Church has a history of doing this? Even the SSPX gives the definition on their “Angelus” site. I don’t know that it is used with masses or simony, didn’t ask, but it is often used with marriage and apparently confessions according to the canon lawyers (by the way, did I mention that they are Traditionalists?) who are experts in the SSPX arena. In fact, one of them used to be in SSPX until he got educated.

You’ve got to realize that a priest must have faculties in a diocese to officiate at wedding and to hear confessions or they are not valid. Go ahead and keep up with this outrageous claim that the SSPX is not in schism but you can’t deny that they do not have faculties.

This is not going to go anywhere.

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

This is not going to go anywhere.

Ahhhhhhhhhh…Agreement!

 

[kk1727]

DominvsVobiscvm:

For the record the Asperges are only done at Solemn High Mass, on Sundays. So far as I know, they’re a requirement at Sunday Solemn High Mass. They are not to be done at other Masses. (In the Tridentine Rite.)

What’s your source for this? I’m curious because if the Asperges are only for Solemn High Mass (Missa Solemnis) then there are very few communities that should be using this ritual. I’ve only ever attended the Missa Cantata (Sung Mass) where the Asperges is included. At a read Mass (Low Mass), of course this ritual is omitted.

One of the things that amazed me was how often the so-called Traditional Latin Mass is not celebrated according to the rubrics. One such deviation that I consistently see is the inclusion of the *Confiteor, Misereatur, *and Indulgentiam before communion of the faithful. Pope John XXIII’s motu proprio Rubricarum Instructum clearly calls for this ritual to be omitted when the faithful receive communion during the Mass:

**Rubrics for Holy Communion during Mass **

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 26, 1960, AAS 52, 596: Promulgation of the New Rubrical Code.
Motu proprio Rubricarum instructum, Pope John XXIII, July 25, 1960 (Novum rubricarum breviarii et missalis romani corpus approbatur, AAS 52, 593-595)

Part 3, Chapter 8, I. 502-503:

1. The proper time for distributing holy communion to the faithful is within the Mass, after the communion of the celebrating priest, who himself distributes it to those who seek it, unless it is appropriate by reason of the great number of communicants that he be helped by another priest or priests.
   It is altogether improper, however, that holy communion be distributed by another priest, outside of the proper time of communion, at the same altar at which Mass is being celebrated.
   On the other hand, it is also permissible for a good reason to distribute holy communion immediately before or after Mass, or even outside of the time of Mass. In such cases the form prescribed in the Roman ritual Rituale Romanum], tit. 5, ch. 2, nos 1-10, is used.
2. Whenever holy communion is distributed within the Mass, when the celebrant has consumed the most sacred Blood, the Confiteor and the absolution Misereatur et Indulgentiam]are omitted, but the celebrant says the Ecce Agnus Dei and says the Domine, non sum dignus three times, and then proceeds immediately to the distribution of the holy Eucharist.

Source: The New Liturgy: A Documentation 1903 to 1965, R. Kevin Seasoltz, 1966, Herder and Herder New York 16, N.Y.

[insertions in brackets are mine].
www.sanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com

 

[CatholicAJ]

OrthoCath:

If there is any Church in the World that uses Gregorian Chant with the Novus Ordo would you please post a link to its name. Otherwise I don’t believe you.

St. John Cantius in Chicago, Illinois says one N.O. Mass in Latin, one in English, and then they do the TLM, too. I am pretty sure they used Gregorian Chant during the N.O. Would someone who has been to St. John Cantius please let me know if I am mistaken!

In Denver, Holy Ghost Parish uses Gregorian chant during their 10 a.m. N.O. Mass. Actually, tomorrow they will be using the St. Cecilia Mass, which I’m told by regulars is the most beautiful.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

THat does not make sense at all.

You are basically reducing the sacraments as if they are magic.

Your argument on the marriage front nullifies the very concept of defect of form. If a Catholic is married without permission outside of the Church the Pope can’t simply wave some sort of magic wand and retroactively validate the marriage.

The very idea is preposterous, and it strikes at the foundation of our Holy Faith. Can a Pope retroactively validate an invalid Mass? A Mass at which he wasn’t even present? It’s bad enough that we now tacitly accept the bizarre notion that the Pope can transcend space at his mega-Masses and zap the Eucharist from a quarter of a mile away, but the suggestion that he can transcend TIME is offensive to the dignity of the Papacy. It is a cartooning of the Catholic Church.

You saying the Pope governs by fiat. Not only fiat but WHIM! You are not addressing the simony issue either, when a person donates a stipend for a Mass to be said for an intention, if the Mass is either invalid or illicit the acceptance of the stipend constitutes simony… which USED to be a serious offense.

It reminds me of those monks at Mt. Athos were one day they declare each other’s orders invalid and the next day its mystically valid again.

I see what you’re saying, but hear us out.

Your comparison between the Eucharist and Marriage in this regard is not a valid one. (No pun intended!)

The Pope certainly cannot retroactively validate a Mass. This is because the Sacrament is not conferred unless the proper matter and form are adhered to. So long as matter and form are present, a true Sacrament is effected, whether the Pope wishes it so or not.

It’s different with Matrimony and Penance. Not only must matter and form be adhered to, but the Church herself has added certain requirements as to their validity, requirements which she can legitimately do away with.

So with Matrimony, consent between a Catholic man and woman is not enough; the consent must be before a priest who poseses faculties from his bishop or the Pope.

And with Penance, only a priest with faculties can give absolution. An otherwise validly ordained priest cannot (except in danger of death).

Now, the Church has always had a very unique way of dealing with schismatics who return to the Church in mass numbers.

Once a schismatic has returned to union with the Church, the Church looks upon his willful, consenting living arangement with his “wife” and declares that this, in itself, constitutes the same assent which a bride and groom otherwise give each other in a formal ceremony. In this really special circumstance, the Church gives something of a “General Marriage Blessing” to all returned schismatics.

It’s not unlike the practice of giving General Absolution of Sins to certain groups of people in extreme circumstances.

And this is apparently what she does, again, with schismatic reverts en masse. Upon reunion, the Church grants a sort of “general absolution of sins” to the reverts, in light of the sincere contrition for sin otherwise visible in their former reception(s) of (invalid) Penance.

At least this is my understanding.

 

[Teresita]

OrthoCath:

If there is any Church in the World that uses Gregorian Chant with the Novus Ordo would you please post a link to its name. Otherwise I don’t believe you.

Corpus Christi, Boscombe, Bournemouth (England). My parish church: the 11 o’clock Mass every Sunday is an NO Latin Mass, and we sing the propers in Gregorian (normally the Missa de Angelis).

Mind you, I prefer the Old Rite.

Sue

 

[OrthoCath]

Ok, so we found 1 church in the World that has Gregorian Chant. Let’s see Vatican II said we should use Gregorian Chant and now we can find only 1 church in the World that has it. Yet, the “schismatic” Traditional Churches have it on a regular basis. Umm, who is really “schismatic” here?

 

[SeekerJen]

OrthoCath:

Ok, so we found 1 church in the World that has Gregorian Chant. Let’s see Vatican II said we should use Gregorian Chant and now we can find only 1 church in the World that has it. Yet, the “schismatic” Traditional Churches have it on a regular basis. Umm, who is really “schismatic” here?

I think a number of people have listed more than one parish for you. “Schismatic” means not in communion with Rome. Gregorian chant is great and all, but doesn’t mean a thing if the parish in question is out of communion with Rome. The Church existed before Gregorian chant, and the Church will continue to exist whether or not Gregorian chant is regularly used during Mass.

Wow. After reading this thread and others like it, I now have the urge to push my head back in the sand and pretend I’d never heard of the TLM. Honestly, this “we have these things, so we’re better Catholics” mentality is not appealing. It makes me want to stay as far away from the TLM as possible. Up until recently I had been looking so forward to attending my first TLM at St. Josaphat’s downtown (indult Mass- in full communion with Rome and with the approval of our Cardinal). Now I’m not so sure I want to be involved in something that brings out so much nastiness in otherwise good people.

“Lex orandi, lex credendi”, sure. But what happens when the externals become so important that one begins to ridicule the faith and worship practices of others within the Church?

My apologies to all who attend the TLM and find great peace and joy in it without ridiculing the rest of us. I am sure you are the quiet majority. Like they always say, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

 

[OrthoCath]

Seeker,

Now I’m not so sure I want to be involved in something that brings out so much nastiness in otherwise good people

It is NOT us that which “brings out so much nastiness.” In fact, the Church is in crisis. May I recommend a good book:
goodbyegoodmen.com/

Let me give you an example. I know of this little Eastern Rite Catholic Church which has about 50 families who are members. They wanted to hold a dinnner for a feast day. There Church is a house/church and is way to small to hold the dinner. Naturally, they tried to call some of the Mega Roman Rite Churches nearby to see if they could hold the event there. Most of the Churches did not return there calls. In fact, one of the priest hung up the phone on them. The priest told me that the local Novus Ordo priest are afraid of there Eastern Rite brothers because they don’t want the Church to return to a traditional Liturgy.

My point is this if you think Traditional Catholics are nasty you haven’t heard the first part of it. You would be SHOCKED to hear many N.O. Bishops have behaved along with there priest.

Have you ever wondered why so many Bishops have had to resign lately? Some are in jail, some have been strip of orders.

It is my theory and I stress this for sake of getting this post banned. Again, this is just a thought and I am not turning this into anything which deserves this post being removed. The current “Spirit of Vatican II” movement is the result of a homosexual agenda to destroy the Church from within. If you can eliminate the importance of Holy Sacrifice of the Mass then you can open the Church to all kinds of new ideas (women priest, lay ministers, acceptance of homosexuality, etc…). This is nothing short than an attack on the Church.

If you want to really know the truth Seeker then do some homework and you will find the truth. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you.

As far as Traditional Catholics go who are not under a Bishop they are only justified for there Masses if a state of “emergency” exist. In some cases, such an “emergency” does in fact exist (ex: news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11480858%255E3102,00.html)

Pax Vobiscum!

 

[katolik]

OrthoCath:

Seeker,

It is NOT us that which “brings out so much nastiness.” In fact, the Church is in crisis. May I recommend a good book:
goodbyegoodmen.com/

Let me give you an example. I know of this little Eastern Rite Catholic Church which has about 50 families who are members. They wanted to hold a dinnner for a feast day. There Church is a house/church and is way to small to hold the dinner. Naturally, they tried to call some of the Mega Roman Rite Churches nearby to see if they could hold the event there. Most of the Churches did not return there calls. In fact, one of the priest hung up the phone on them. The priest told me that the local Novus Ordo priest are afraid of there Eastern Rite brothers because they don’t want the Church to return to a traditional Liturgy.

My point is this if you think Traditional Catholics are nasty you haven’t heard the first part of it. You would be SHOCKED to hear many N.O. Bishops have behaved along with there priest.

Have you ever wondered why so many Bishops have had to resign lately? Some are in jail, some have been strip of orders.

It is my theory and I stress this for sake of getting this post banned. Again, this is just a thought and I am not turning this into anything which deserves this post being removed. The current “Spirit of Vatican II” movement is the result of a homosexual agenda to destroy the Church from within. If you can eliminate the importance of Holy Sacrifice of the Mass then you can open the Church to all kinds of new ideas (women priest, lay ministers, acceptance of homosexuality, etc…). This is nothing short than an attack on the Church.

If you want to really know the truth Seeker then do some homework and you will find the truth. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you.

As far as Traditional Catholics go who are not under a Bishop they are only justified for there Masses if a state of “emergency” exist. In some cases, such an “emergency” does in fact exist (ex: news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11480858%255E3102,00.html)

Pax Vobiscum!

Yes and in Detroit here, the bishop will only allow a Mass on sundays, but no holydays at the indult!!! This is crazy!!!

 

[katolik]

SeekerJen:

I think a number of people have listed more than one parish for you. “Schismatic” means not in communion with Rome. Gregorian chant is great and all, but doesn’t mean a thing if the parish in question is out of communion with Rome. The Church existed before Gregorian chant, and the Church will continue to exist whether or not Gregorian chant is regularly used during Mass.

Wow. After reading this thread and others like it, I now have the urge to push my head back in the sand and pretend I’d never heard of the TLM. Honestly, this “we have these things, so we’re better Catholics” mentality is not appealing. It makes me want to stay as far away from the TLM as possible. Up until recently I had been looking so forward to attending my first TLM at St. Josaphat’s downtown (indult Mass- in full communion with Rome and with the approval of our Cardinal). Now I’m not so sure I want to be involved in something that brings out so much nastiness in otherwise good people.

“Lex orandi, lex credendi”, sure. But what happens when the externals become so important that one begins to ridicule the faith and worship practices of others within the Church?

My apologies to all who attend the TLM and find great peace and joy in it without ridiculing the rest of us. I am sure you are the quiet majority. Like they always say, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

Sorry, Seeker Jen,
Please do attend the Mass at St.Josaphat’s. Bishop Boyea will celebrate next week. Just because some people have certain personality traits which look disappealing to the eye, doesn’t mean that we all do. Actually, after Mass at St.Josaphat’s there is a social hour with Catholics who don’t condemn you to the nether regions of hell.

 

[FrmrTrad]

SeekerJen:

Wow. After reading this thread and others like it, I now have the urge to push my head back in the sand and pretend I’d never heard of the TLM. Honestly, this “we have these things, so we’re better Catholics” mentality is not appealing. It makes me want to stay as far away from the TLM as possible.

Charity is a key mark of faith, and of doing God’s will. The ‘charity’ of the traditionalist is to ‘pray for the pope’ only insofar as the pope comes to ‘admit’ that he is mistaken. The ‘charity’ of the traditionalist is to discourage people from acknowledging the validity of the Pauline rites, thus depriving the gulled faithful of the sacraments that are widely available. When the Church permitted the Tridentine rite to be said, it did so only under the condition that the faithful in attendance completely accepted the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the Pauline rite of mass. It was for their own good, and the importance of this has been borne out in subsequent years.

 

[katolik]

FrmrTrad:

Charity is a key mark of faith, and of doing God’s will. The ‘charity’ of the traditionalist is to ‘pray for the pope’ only insofar as the pope comes to ‘admit’ that he is mistaken. The ‘charity’ of the traditionalist is to discourage people from acknowledging the validity of the Pauline rites, thus depriving the gulled faithful of the sacraments that are widely available. When the Church permitted the Tridentine rite to be said, it did so only under the condition that the faithful in attendance completely accepted the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the Pauline rite of mass. It was for their own good, and the importance of this has been borne out in subsequent years.

Charity is not easily attained, sir. Just because one loves the TLM doesn’t mean that he is a saint. If you have a problem with Trad’s take it to Bishop Fellay.

 

[FrmrTrad]

katolik:

Charity is not easily attained, sir. Just because one loves the TLM doesn’t mean that he is a saint. If you have a problem with Trad’s…

The issue is not being a “saint” in this colloquial sense. Rather, the issue is respecting the Church, believing in order to understand, and appreciating dogma. It is uncharitable in the extreme to discourage Catholics from receiving the sacraments, and it is to this stance that late-twentieth-century traditionalism leads. In the intermediate stage, the Indultist doesn’t actively discourage reception of the sacraments, but carries in his bosom great criticism of the Church (together with an embryonic novel ecclesiology), which, when others hear it, becomes a bad example.

 

[misericordie]

FrmrTrad:

The issue is not being a “saint” in this colloquial sense. Rather, the issue is respecting the Church, believing in order to understand, and appreciating dogma. It is uncharitable in the extreme to discourage Catholics from receiving the sacraments, and it is to this stance that late-twentieth-century traditionalism leads. In the intermediate stage, the Indultist doesn’t actively discourage reception of the sacraments, but carries in his bosom great criticism of the Church (together with an embryonic novel ecclesiology), which, when others hear it, becomes a bad example.

HERE is THE Mass:fssp.org/album/HR2003/tn_image005.jpg

 

[misericordie]

misericordie:

HERE is THE Mass:fssp.org/album/HR2003/tn_image005.jpg

Here is a good example of modernism, and irreverance: http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0306e.jpg

 

[FrmrTrad]

misericordie:

Here is a good example of modernism, and irreverance:

As the apostle writes, for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face: that your joy may be full (2 John 1:12). Is it possible that you are being judgmental? Is it possible that you are judging something that need not concern you? When I wanted ‘out’ of the ‘novus ordo’, a picture such as that one would have exacerbated my wish to perceive problems. When instead I calmly evaluated the nature of the Church and her rites (and her rights), I realized I was wrong to think the Pauline rite was harmful. Of course, we may attend the Tridentine rites. My observation is that there is a great risk of schism within that community. The tendency to want to judge the Pauline rite is very high, and to condemn “novus ordinarians” along with it. Erroneous ecclesiology follows hard thereupon, and the Catholic becomes a schismatic if he fails to check himself. Be careful that your preference for a rite does not lead to judgmentalism, schism, and erroneous ecclesiology.