What was the traditional Latin Mass like?

[usqueadmortem]

This is not to mention that Lefebvre himself was willing to sign away on the Vatican II documents interpreted “in keeping with Tradition”.

It was only when he realized Rome wasn’t going to give him a bishop that he tore away from the agreement.

Lefebvre wasn’t a neo-Protestant. He was thoroughly Catholic. If Karl Rahner can be called “Catholic to the tips of his toes” then Lefebvre can all the more.

Usque.

 

[Sean_O_L]

A partial response to benedictusoblat is contained at More Catholic Than the Pope by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere; also at HERE

As an old age pensioner, I am not “up-to” high-flying wines - even if they ARE Australian. Congratilations, if you enjoy them.

It is impossible that what was good before the council can be bad now.

This is a strawman argument. The FACTS are that Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer pertinaciously disobeyed a direct COMMAND from the Supreme Pontiff, Lawmaker and Interpreter NOT to break the UNITY of the Church in a most grave matter - episcopal consecrations. THAT, my friend was NOT GOOD.

In the eyes of God? I somewhere read that the Lord promised St Peter (and His successors) that “whatsoever” His Vicar bound or loosed on Earth would be bound or loosed in Heaven. Are you suggesting that God has disagreed with His Vicar on this most serious matter?

Perhaps you ought to re-read Ecclesia Dei - or, do you simply dismiss it as worthless?

You lament:

You must understand the profundity of illogic there is behind a group of clerics being excommunicated because they refuse to give way on traditional practice and belief.

What I DO understand is the illogic of attempting to divert the heat from the REAL REASONS for Lefebvre’s excommunication as being, simply, holding to “traditional practice and belief.”

You continue:

These are not “Old Catholics” who deny the Primacy of Peter in the person of the Pope.

And yet, that is the very thing that the Pope DID accuse Lefebvre of doing:

1. In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience–which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy–constitutes a schismatic act. [Code of Canon Law, 751.]
   Documents on the Case – See Ecclesia Dei
   I have pointed out Lefebvre’s vaccilating between craven fawning and shrill illogical outbursts Vacillations of Lefebvre

What rubbish you write ever so “nicely”, though!. Lefebvre, initially, was miffed when the Schemata that had been prepared through him was tossed out at the opening of the Council, and he travelled a downward road from there on. Let us not forget that he told the Pope to “get stuffed” (not in those words, of course) after he has been suspended from ALL ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES (suspended a divinis) following the “ad experimentum” closure of Econe.

My friend, you are defending a very bitter old man in Lefebvre against the Vicar of Christ and his lawful exercise of his office. And you call this “traditional”! I call it chutzpah!

Have a nice day.

 

[Sean_O_L]

usqueadmortem wrote:

This is not to mention that Lefebvre himself was willing to sign away on the Vatican II documents interpreted “in keeping with Tradition”.

It was only when he realized Rome wasn’t going to give him a bishop that he tore away from the agreement.

Oh, how the Lefebvrites fiddle the FACTS to suit their precious desires!

Mate, Lefebvre DID sign Dignitatis Humanae and the second Vatican II doc. Yes, he DID squeal that he did not do so, but, Fr. Brian Harrison, OS thrashed out the truth.

Secondly, Lefebvre DID sign an accord with the Vatican for the consecration of a bishop BUT, after consultations with the proposed consecrands (who had a VESTED INTEREST in being made a bishop!), Lefebvre welched on his written word! (I don’t know if the meaning of “welshed” is known in USA, but it means that he disgracefully went back on his signed word.)

Sheesch! You guys will bend the truth every which way in defending your skewed conception of “tradition”!

 

[Scotty_PGH]

My, how far we’ve drifted from the original topic.

 

[Thepeug]

Kielbasi:

I remember the latin mass nostalgicly , but I remember all the people being there, they ain’t there today, they are at the vernacular masses. The English mass just seems a lot more in tuned with the church at this point in time.

Along those same lines, my priest offered, at least in my opinion, a concise and profound summation of the difference between the two Masses: “The Tridentine Mass was a beautiful and sacred reality for its time, but the Mass of Paul VI is the Mass for our time.”

 

[benedictusoblat]

Thepeug:

…“The Tridentine Mass was a beautiful and sacred reality for its time, but the Mass of Paul VI is the Mass for our time.”

The miracle of the Mass involves the suspension of the limits and confines of time and space. Strange that Father would compare the two using “time” as a discriminator.
I suspect this comment wasn’t intended to be loaded with a lot of deep meaning. But I can infer all kinds of meaning here. The inclusion of the words “beautiful” and “sacred reality” were used to describe the “Tridentine” Mass. These words are missing in the reference to Pope Paul VI’s Mass.

To carry this thought to its final conclusion: What will the Mass look like at the end of time when Jesus wondered if anyone would have the Faith? It’s pretty clear to me which direction the trend is moving with the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

Benedicite,
Benedictusoblatus

 

[Thepeug]

benedictusoblat:

The miracle of the Mass involves the suspension of the limits and confines of time and space. Strange that Father would compare the two using “time” as a discriminator.

While I agree that the Mass transcends time and place, Fr. Philip was referring to the fact that the Church does not exist in a vacuum. To paraphrase Bonaventure Kloppenburg, O.F.M: the Church is an organic, mysical pilgrim, set down in the midst of history and inevitably condiitoned by historical events and circumstances. To assume that the Mass will remain perpetually frozen in one aesthetic form is to forget that the Church is comprised of people with varied cultures and customs, living in different time periods and both experiencing and expressing sanctity in different forms. As the “universal sacrament of salvation”, the Church must liturgically express itself in ways that reflect the diversity of God’s people, and not limit itself to a liturgy to which only those with an affinity for 16th-century European aesthetics can relate. This, in my opinon, is one of the primary concerns of the New Mass: to identify the Church as the universal, transcendent Body of Christ that recognizes and even celebrates the plurality of the faithful while still maintaining the immutable truths and doctrines of the faith.

 

[benedictusoblat]

Thepeug - your points are well taken. To “tweak” the analysis a bit, however, I would point out that just as culture gradually changes over time, so should the Mass gradually change over time, if change is even needed. This is called liturgical development. It is sane and serves everyone’s needs well.

Change in the Mass was never requested by any significant number of the faithful or the hierarchy. The hierarchy’s expressed will/desire at the 2nd Vatican Council was later ignored in favor of sweeping changes that could not be described as “developmental.” They were monumental and they were simply imposed from above. Everyone was just told to accept it. Many people were really happy about the changes. Others were heartbroken. The rest is the history we are living through.

Well that’s water over the dam, as they say. I can’t say I would want to issue an equally “pastorally sensitive” edict abrogating the new Mass in favor of the old. I wouldn’t want to do to “modern” Catholics what was done to their parents and grandparents 35 years ago.

Happily the traditional Latin Mass remains as a heavenly oasis in a desert world gone mad.

Benedicite,
Benedictusoblatus

 

[God_saves]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Oh Michael, I do so agree and it does my heart good to see every one of the people here in different parts of the country who get an “EWTN” mass.
My parish (God Bless Father Ben) sings Latin, kneels for communion, has May Crowning, Corpus Christi and some of the ladies wear chapel caps to pray (including myself).
One day I’ll got to the TLM, but I love the mass here.

No dancing girls, no holding hands, no orans “Gettin’ mo’ God on me.” by the people, holy water, kneeling, genuflecting…OH I love it!!!

You are indeed blessed! And you are so right in citing Holy Mass celebrated on EWTN. It is wonderful. That is why I cannot understand why a friend from my parish, where there are really few if any litergical abuses, has resorted to attending a Tridentine Mass celebrated by a priest with no indult who associates with Father Gruner, and who advises prospective seminarians to go to a SSPX seminary. I do not believe this satisfies her Sunday obligation and I have so told her to no avail.

God saves

 

[Leeta]

I recommend , the Hidden Treasure of the Holy Mass by St. Leonard of Port Maurice. He outlines 3 basic ways to participate in Holy Mass, the highest being contemplation. The revised Roman Rite makes a superficial participation easier, but it makes a higher and deeper participation more difficult.