Video: Hispanic Rock and Mascot Masses

[Lycorth]

youtube.com/watch?v=B8-nuqVsyXs&feature=player_embedded

youtube.com/watch?v=yhuodg-Ont8&feature=player_embedded

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

If I may, without getting in trouble from the moderator, pose a simple question…

Are these masses the fruits of the Second Vatican Council’s liturgical reforms? I believe the Latin Mass was considered the “Mass for all times” for a reason. With strict rigidity and form, the Latin Mass explicitly prevents this kind of blasphemy on the altars.

I hope that I don’t get in any trouble with the moderators, but I must say that the liturgical reforms by Vatican II have opened up the doors to these kinds of abuses…

God Bless

Yeah, that’s correct. Vatican II is the primary reason for such abuses.

 

[Victorious]

Yeah, that’s correct. Vatican II is the primary reason for such abuses.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Vatican II is the excuse for the abuses. You will find no support in the actual teachings of Vatican II for the abuses.

 

[pnewton]

Are these masses the fruits of the Second Vatican Council’s liturgical reforms? I believe the Latin Mass was considered the “Mass for all times” for a reason. With strict rigidity and form, the Latin Mass explicitly prevents this kind of blasphemy on the altars.

It is a good question and I will answer it with another question. What would prevent one who ignores the rubrics of the Mass today, who deliberately defies those things which have been forbidden, and adds these type of absurdities from doing the same thing if the Mass never had changed? Are there snipers incorporated into the Latin that take out priests before they can do something stupid? Is there something inherent in Latin that prevents it be spoken in an incorrect vestment?

Obviously I think if the Mass had never changed there would still be those who ignore what they wish to ignore. One thing that keeps the TLM as reverent as it is lies in the fact that any priest that goes to the trouble of saying it is already commited to being very exact in the way he says Mass.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

It is a good question and I will answer it with another question. What would prevent one who ignores the rubrics of the Mass today, who deliberately defies those things which have been forbidden, and adds these type of absurdities from doing the same thing if the Mass never had changed? Are there snipers incorporated into the Latin that take out priests before they can do something stupid? Is there something inherent in Latin that prevents it be spoken in an incorrect vestment?

Obviously I think if the Mass had never changed there would still be those who ignore what they wish to ignore. One thing that keeps the TLM as reverent as it is lies in the fact that any priest that goes to the trouble of saying it is already commited to being very exact in the way he says Mass.

While I sense the sarcasm in your post with the sniper comment, I get the analogy…

I don’t recall hearing many stories of these kinds of abuses in the pre-concilliar Church. Mainly for the same reason that you point out above about the Priest being “committed.” The whole purpose for sticking with Latin, as was actually promulgated at Trent, was to deter these kinds of things from happening. We were given warning after warning about the modernists… Latin was to be used universally throughout the Church to prevent any abuses in the Mass. A Catholic would get the same Mass in Germany that he would get in Colorado, absolutely fascinating and brilliant. A universal Church with a universal Mass.

Today, it seems as though every Parish is different in offering the Mass. I hear so many people on this forum discuss leaving their Parish for a different one. I hear that their Parish is too liberal, too conservative, etc. What has happened to our universal Church? Hence, my original question about the fruits of Vatican II.

God Bless

 

[pnewton]

While I sense the sarcasm in your post with the sniper comment, I get the analogy…

I don’t recall hearing many stories of these kinds of abuses in the pre-concilliar Church. Mainly for the same reason that you point out above about the Priest being “committed.” The whole purpose for sticking with Latin, as was actually promulgated at Trent, was to deter these kinds of things from happening. We were given warning after warning about the modernists… Latin was to be used universally throughout the Church to prevent any abuses in the Mass…

Not sarcasm, but rather humor. I guess it would be more convincing if someone could explain the mechanism by which Latin prevents abuses of the kind being discussed here instead of just stating it as an unsubstantiated Truism. For the life of me, I do not see it. I see no reason why the same people doing nutty stuff now would be deterred from doing nutty stuff in a different liturgy. And since many priest also stick to the rules, it sure seems like the problems are more a reflection of the priest doing these things than an inherent part of the liturgy.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

While I sense the sarcasm in your post with the sniper comment, I get the analogy…

I don’t recall hearing many stories of these kinds of abuses in the pre-concilliar Church. Mainly for the same reason that you point out above about the Priest being “committed.” The whole purpose for sticking with Latin, as was actually promulgated at Trent, was to deter these kinds of things from happening. We were given warning after warning about the modernists… Latin was to be used universally throughout the Church to prevent any abuses in the Mass. A Catholic would get the same Mass in Germany that he would get in Colorado, absolutely fascinating and brilliant. A universal Church with a universal Mass.

Today, it seems as though every Parish is different in offering the Mass. I hear so many people on this forum discuss leaving their Parish for a different one. I hear that their Parish is too liberal, too conservative, etc. What has happened to our universal Church? Hence, my original question about the fruits of Vatican II.

God Bless

This is correct. Latin eventually became the universal language of the Church, yet it was thrown out at Vatican II.

You’re right about all parishes being different as well. Some are more reverent than others, but very few today are Traditional. I have three parishes near me that are all modern. None celebrate the TLM. Thus why I’ll drive miles and miles just to get to a TLM.

 

[Lycorth]

While I sense the sarcasm in your post with the sniper comment, I get the analogy…

I don’t recall hearing many stories of these kinds of abuses in the pre-concilliar Church. Mainly for the same reason that you point out above about the Priest being “committed.” The whole purpose for sticking with Latin, as was actually promulgated at Trent, was to deter these kinds of things from happening. We were given warning after warning about the modernists… Latin was to be used universally throughout the Church to prevent any abuses in the Mass. A Catholic would get the same Mass in Germany that he would get in Colorado, absolutely fascinating and brilliant. A universal Church with a universal Mass.

Today, it seems as though every Parish is different in offering the Mass. I hear so many people on this forum discuss leaving their Parish for a different one. I hear that their Parish is too liberal, too conservative, etc. What has happened to our universal Church? Hence, my original question about the fruits of Vatican II.

God Bless

It’s a classic case of trying to fix what wasn’t broken.