What is the only feasible way out of the current crisis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter At_Trent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Just to respond to your points JK:
  1. I think it is erroneous to say that the majority of Catholics who encounter the TLM will not be interested. They may be confused initially, but confusion does not equal disinterest. I can say this with a degree of certainty because I was not raised with the TLM. I only discovered it in college when I wandered in by accident. I was confused by the Latin initially yes, but I was also intrigued.
This was all long before SP when the TLM was still considered an “indult” and was hard to find.
  1. I think your conclusion (or guess) sort of underscores my point about hostility. If several hundred students make a request at a University that has more than enough clergy (including ones capable of saying the TLM), the facilities and the time, then it seems that rejecting the request on the bases of a technicality can be attributed to a degree of hostility that I believe exists towards the traditional movement in many dioceses.
Think of it in another way. If several hundred students had petitioned for a Priest to, for example, provide an extra OF Mass once per month, do you think that such a request by that number of students would have met with some consideration? At the time this petition was presented, there were no other available resources for students who wished to have a Traditional Mass. The diocese had rejected the request and so the only recourse was to ask the University.

Again, I think the bottom line is that none of us know what would happen if the TLM were made as widely available as the OF. And I believe that lack of knowledge honestly scares some dioceses who have become comfortable with a strictly modern approach to the Mass.
 
Onegin said:
Just to respond to your points JK:
  1. I think it is erroneous to say that the majority of Catholics who encounter the TLM will not be interested. They may be confused initially, but confusion does not equal disinterest. I can say this with a degree of certainty because I was not raised with the TLM. I only discovered it in college when I wandered in by accident. I was confused by the Latin initially yes, but I was also intrigued.
This was all long before SP when the TLM was still considered an “indult” and was hard to find.
  1. I think your conclusion (or guess) sort of underscores my point about hostility. If several hundred students make a request at a University that has more than enough clergy (including ones capable of saying the TLM), the facilities and the time, then it seems that rejecting the request on the bases of a technicality can be attributed to a degree of hostility that I believe exists towards the traditional movement in many dioceses.
Think of it in another way. If several hundred students had petitioned for a Priest to, for example, provide an extra OF Mass once per month, do you think that such a request by that number of students would have met with some consideration? At the time this petition was presented, there were no other available resources for students who wished to have a Traditional Mass. The diocese had rejected the request and so the only recourse was to ask the University.

Again, I think the bottom line is that none of us know what would happen if the TLM were made as widely available as the OF. And I believe that lack of knowledge honestly scares some dioceses who have become comfortable with a strictly modern approach to the Mass.
Click to expand...
I also notice that those who seek to suppress the LM are the ones whose lives are not so holy. the LM somehow seems to scare them.
 
Onegin said:
Just to respond to your points JK:
  1. I think it is erroneous to say that the majority of Catholics who encounter the TLM will not be interested. They may be confused initially, but confusion does not equal disinterest. I can say this with a degree of certainty because I was not raised with the TLM. I only discovered it in college when I wandered in by accident. I was confused by the Latin initially yes, but I was also intrigued.
This was all long before SP when the TLM was still considered an “indult” and was hard to find.
  1. I think your conclusion (or guess) sort of underscores my point about hostility. If several hundred students make a request at a University that has more than enough clergy (including ones capable of saying the TLM), the facilities and the time, then it seems that rejecting the request on the bases of a technicality can be attributed to a degree of hostility that I believe exists towards the traditional movement in many dioceses.
Think of it in another way. If several hundred students had petitioned for a Priest to, for example, provide an extra OF Mass once per month, do you think that such a request by that number of students would have met with some consideration? At the time this petition was presented, there were no other available resources for students who wished to have a Traditional Mass. The diocese had rejected the request and so the only recourse was to ask the University.

Again, I think the bottom line is that none of us know what would happen if the TLM were made as widely available as the OF. And I believe that lack of knowledge honestly scares some dioceses who have become comfortable with a strictly modern approach to the Mass.
Click to expand...
I make my guesses from what I know about people. People may be intrigued by what is not familiar, but they like and generally prefer what IS familiar (esp. after years of it and esp. after being able to hear everything that is said). It isn’t an antipathy on my part (though I dislike the arrogance of “traditionalists,” I don’t hate the EF), it’s just an observatin about human beings. And I think the Church knows that (I think the lesson was reinforced by the manner in which the OF was initially).

As for the rest of your post, I genuinely sorry that your desire and that of others wasn’t granted. If, however, the attitudes that so often appear here (“get rid of the OF,” “things won’t be better until the EF is all there is,” etc., etc.) were evident or suspected rightly, then I hardly blame the authorities if they could find an out! Why accomadate a group that essentially dislikes the rest of the Church?
 
wisdomseeker said:
I also notice that those who seek to suppress the LM are the ones whose lives are not so holy. the LM somehow seems to scare them.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear: No one posting here has proposed suppressing the EF. You aren’t suggesting that those who prefer the OF are less holy or have less potential for holiness, right?
 
At Trent6600267 said:
;Certainly not in a liberal diocese jaded by the bad fruits 😉 That’s why I propose the new priests be instructed to pray the EF so over time Roman Catholicism will be practice once again by the majority.
Click to expand...

I hope I won’t ruin your supper by letting you inh on a little secret. Roman Catholicisim is being practiced by the vast majority of Catholics who go to the OF.

At Trent6600267 said:
;You see, an orthodox Catholic can attend the NO without worry because he/she understands and recognizes error and novelty. But those who know no better are being cheated of what they should be handed.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. The attend the OF because it is the Ordinary Form of the Mass; error and novelty are absent (you are about 20 years off kilter). And they know they are not being cheated; it is the form of the Mass our Holy Father says when he says Mass; and the Cardinals, and the Bishops, and the vast majority of priests throughout the world.

It is interesting that in Mas attendance, the largest number of thsoe attending, over half of all there, are pre-Vatican CAtholics; and it is further interesting that most of them don’t recognize the differences you agonize over; however, they do realize what to them is the most significant (and positive) difference - the Mass is in the vernacular. You, with your rose colored glasses looking back before Vatican 2, don’t realize how many people back then were among the theologically unsophisticated unwashed masses; how many were lucky if they had completed the Baltimore Catechism series; how few actually owned a missal (there were none in the pews for use - you actually ahd to go buy one) and how extremely few had taken any significant amount of Latin - and of those, how few could speak it. They showed up becasue they were told they would go to hell if they didn’t’; they put in their time and a constant question was “How late can I come to Mass, and how soon can I leave and still fulfill my obligation”, as Mass was seen as an obligation, not as the privilege it is.
 
They showed up becasue they were told they would go to hell if they didn’t’; they put in their time and a constant question was “How late can I come to Mass, and how soon can I leave and still fulfill my obligation”, as Mass was seen as an obligation, not as the privilege it is.
Click to expand...
Hey, these sound exactly like the reasons I use when I’m at the OF! 👍

As a footnote, and as a general principle, the fact that a majority subscribe to an error does not justify that error. If you want to convince a traditionalist that Vatican II is a good, Catholic council that comports with pre-existing Catholic Tradition then saying “a majority subscribe to it!” isn’t going to stand on it’s own in a convincing way. Error can be pandemic.
 
Onegin said:
Hey, these sound exactly like the reasons I use when I’m at the OF! 👍

As a footnote, and as a general principle, the fact that a majority subscribe to an error does not justify that error. If you want to convince a traditionalist that Vatican II is a good, Catholic council that comports with pre-existing Catholic Tradition then saying “a majority subscribe to it!” isn’t going to stand on it’s own in a convincing way. Error can be pandemic.
Click to expand...
Quite right, Onegin.

If might made right, we’d all be Arians today.👍
 
Onegin said:
Hey, these sound exactly like the reasons I use when I’m at the OF! 👍

As a footnote, and as a general principle, the fact that a majority subscribe to an error does not justify that error. If you want to convince a traditionalist that Vatican II is a good, Catholic council that comports with pre-existing Catholic Tradition then saying “a majority subscribe to it!” isn’t going to stand on it’s own in a convincing way. Error can be pandemic.
Click to expand...
But the Church has also always tried to ascertain the *sensum fidei, *the sense of the faithful. My sense is that the *sensum fidei *doesn’t buy what “traditionalists” have to say about VII or the EF.
 
Lormar said:
Quite right, Onegin.

If might made right, we’d all be Arians today.👍
Click to expand...
You don’t know how many of the actual people in the pews (except they didn’t have pews) bought the heresy, no matter what their bishops might have said.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
But the Church has also always tried to ascertain the *sensum fidei, *the sense of the faithful. My sense is that the *sensum fidei *doesn’t buy what “traditionalists” have to say about VII or the EF.
Click to expand...
Problem is, these days, the majority of the “faithful” don’t have a very good sensum fidei. Wonder why.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I don’t know what you mean. The ATTITUDE of others keeps me from attending the EF, but not BECAUSE of the EF, as I said. It’s because I’d be with a group of people who would gladly see the Mass I love (and which brought me into the Church) abrogated (for example). It would be rather like someone calling my mother a whore. I’m not apt to want to associate much with such a person, am I, realistically? Do I embrace the EF? I regard it as a venerable and beloved rite of the Church, which should be provided to stable communities that want it. If it were offered in the vernacular, I would probably attend, as it’s prose is beautiful. I myself, however, prefer the OF.
Click to expand...
Weren’t Novus Ordo “Catholics” claiming the “Tridentine” Mass was abrogated for decades, until Pope Benedict XVI issued the Motu Proprio? I think its a bit odd and hypocritical that you wouldn’t “associate” with people simply because they want the committee-approved, “banal, man-made, on-the-spot production” commonly referred to as the Ordinary Form, abrogated.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Um, you have people actually and verbally denigrate the EF? You’ve heard a priest call the EF “an abomination?” Really?
Click to expand...
Where have you been?? I have heard dozens of Novus Ordo priests and lay leaders make disparaging comments about the traditional Mass; many of them are very vocal in their opposition. It make sense though–the Novus Ordo was intended by its architects to replace the tridentine Mass. Obviously THEY viewed the Novus Ordo as superior to, not equal to, the old Mass. I think someone recently posted here a blog entry from a Novus Ordo presbyter who is apparently the liturgy director for the archdiocese of Seattle in which he denounced and denigrated the traditional Mass.
 
Did anyone read 16-century Trent? Does this say in effect that everyone who condemns the received and approved Gregorian Rite has been anathematized or doesn’t it? Not to mention all pastors who formed the New Rite?

From the Council of Trent, Session VII:
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
So why is it right to criticize the old Mass and not the new?
 
You, with your rose colored glasses looking back before Vatican 2, don’t realize how many people back then were among the theologically unsophisticated unwashed masses.
Click to expand...
This is true. And they were even more confused when the Mass started changing and they were getting hit with all kinds of novelties and birth control ideas; I’m afraid even the vernacular didn’t help them much. At least they were going to Mass before VII.
 
ProVobis said:
Did anyone read 16-century Trent? Does this say in effect that everyone who condemns the received and approved Gregorian Rite has been anathematized or doesn’t it? Not to mention all pastors who formed the New Rite?

From the Council of Trent, Session VII:
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

So why is it right to criticize the old Mass and not the new?
Click to expand...
St Pius V Feast day May 5th

Michael Ghislieri, who later became Pope Pius V (1506-72), entered the Dominican Order at the age of 15 and was made successively inquisitor bishop, cardinal, and then pope. When he became Vicar of Christ, the first care of Pius V was to translate the reforms of the Council of Trent into immediate action. Pius V revised the missal and the breviary. He strongly upheld the Catholic rulers and parties in the countries affected by Protestantism, and he was the soul of Christian resistance to the Moslem advance in Europe. Pope Pius V found his wisdom and strength in devotion to Christ Crucified.

Propers for the day

Mass of a POPE, except

COLLECT
O God, You chose blessed Pius as Pope to overcome the enemies of the Church and to restore the beauty of sacred liturgy. May his prayers protect us and help us to persevere in serving You, so that we may avoid the snares laid by our enemies and enjoy everlasting peace. Through Our Lord . . .

SECRET
We have offered our gifts to You, O Lord. Let Your light graciously shine upon Your Church, so that this flock may everywhere prosper, and its pastors, under Your guidance, may be truly pleasing to You. Through our Lord . . .

POSTCOMMUNION
O Lord, govern the Church, which You have been pleased to nourish with Your heavenly food. Guide her by Your powerful direction so that she may enjoy greater freedom and remain unshaken in the fullness of faith. Through our Lord . . .

St Pius V, hear our prayer

:signofcross:
 
At_Trent said:
. When he became Vicar of Christ, the first care of Pius V was to translate the reforms of the Council of Trent into immediate action. Pius V revised the missal and the breviary. He strongly upheld the Catholic rulers and parties in the countries affected by Protestantism, and he was the soul of Christian resistance to the Moslem advance in Europe. Pope Pius V found his wisdom and strength in devotion to Christ Crucified.
Click to expand...
alteringliturgy.com/
In this book, first published in 1996 and augmented in 1999, Father Paul Kramer makes the case for the Tridentine Mass as not only not being forbidden, but in fact being the only Mass that is the “received and approved” rite of the Latin Rite it is not just approved by Church authority (i.e. Popes and Ecumenical Councils), but it was also received. That means, that it has been handed on (traditio) from the previous generations of the Church, going back not just as far as the Council of Trent, but going back to Pope Gregory the Great (590-604 AD), back to the Apostles. It is part of Catholic Tradition with a capital “T”. Catholic Tradition is also part of the Deposit of Faith.
Click to expand...
So when Pope St. Pius V, in his bull Quo Primum, commands that this Mass is to be said and that no one not even a Pope, much less a Cardinal, bishop or religious superior — can impose or command another rite of Mass to be said by any priest of the Latin Rite, he was not simply making a canonical law – that is, a law of the Church – which could be changed by a subsequent lawgiver – that is, another Pope. No, this decree of Quo Primum is making a dogmatic statement of the Catholic Faith – an infallible definition that cannot be changed by any subsequent Pope or any subsequent Pope together with a Council. That is why Canon XIII of Session VII of the Council of Trent solemnly defines, “If any one shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be … changed to other new ones by any pastor of the churches whomsoever: let him be anathema.”*
Click to expand...
What Pope St. Pius V was saying was that this rite (now known as the Tridentine Rite) – that is, the book that is attached to the bull Quo Primum – is the received and approved rite. This rite cannot be changed into an other and different one, as the Council of Trent has already dogmatically defined. And that is also why Quo Primum is binding on the Church for all time.
Click to expand...
What all this means in a few words is that the true, faithful, obedient Roman Catholic priest must offer the Tridentine Mass and it only– unless he is bi-ritual and can licitly (legally) offer the Byzantine liturgy as well. It also says that the true Catholic faithful of the Latin Rite must attend the Tridentine Mass and attend it only – unless they are visiting a Byzantine Rite Mass. And, it further means that those Catholics who have prided themselves as being faithful and obedient to legitimate authority by going to the New Mass have, in fact, been misled.
Click to expand...
 
KBernadette said:
But I thought that using the vernacular in the Mass helped people to understand their faith better?

😃
Click to expand...
The Mass has to be explained through teaching, through catechesis (the EF did as well).

And if it were in Latin, it would take even more teaching, because you’d have to say,“This is what the Latin means…”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top