Why are clerics so frightened of the old Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iohannes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
paramedicgirl said:
And I thought the Tridentine Mass was the symbol of all that is sacred and beautiful about Catholic Tradition. Maybe people have been conditioned to view it as a symbol of disobedience by the propagandizing of the last several decades. We are truly fortunate there are Catholics who are willing to preserve and cling to sacred tradition, otherwise all could be lost with this brave, new springtime.
Click to expand...
A mostly Latin, traditionalist Novus Ordo would be perfect. None of this “Spirit of Vatican II” stuff – stick to the original format, with the readings and homily in the vernacular so the people can learn more easily. This is what I wish for. I don’t mind learning the Latin for the Gloria, Credo, etc. But I still wish to hear the ever-changing parts of the Mass in my native tongue. But definitely bring back chant, reverence and prayers in a universal tongue. That would be great.
 
Philothea_2.0 said:
A mostly Latin, traditionalist Novus Ordo would be perfect. None of this “Spirit of Vatican II” stuff – stick to the original format, with the readings and homily in the vernacular so the people can learn more easily. This is what I wish for. I don’t mind learning the Latin for the Gloria, Credo, etc. But I still wish to hear the ever-changing parts of the Mass in my native tongue. But definitely bring back chant, reverence and prayers in a universal tongue. That would be great.
Click to expand...
There are still a lot of issues with the text of the Novus Ordo itelf. A lot of things that we changed in the text of the Mass that the Council never called for.

What about the Asperges or the Vidi Aquam?
What about the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar?
Where is the Last Gospel?
Why do we almost-never use the Roman Canon?
What are all these pauses throughout the Novus Ordo?
What’s with these intentions read after the homily?
Why does the priest (or thelay ministers) only say “The Body of Christ” when distributing Holy Communion? Why dont they still say “May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen.”.
Where are all the other prayers?
Why were so many changed- some in such a way that the very meanings changed?
 
I am not trying to attack Cardinal Mahony, He is in violation of Redemptoris Sacramentum, Rome said not to use Glass Chalices.

I wanted to make the point that the TLM as a symbol of disobeidence is absurd when the clergy are being disobeident themselves.
 
paramedicgirl said:
And I thought the Tridentine Mass was the symbol of all that is sacred and beautiful about Catholic Tradition. Maybe people have been conditioned to view it as a symbol of disobedience by the propagandizing of the last several decades. We are truly fortunate there are Catholics who are willing to preserve and cling to sacred tradition, otherwise all could be lost with this brave, new springtime.
Click to expand...
Yes, it should be…I agree.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not stating that the TLM should be a symbol of disobedience. I am stating that unfortunately (and unfairly), for many, it is.

Undoubtedly, the SSPX has done a good job of creating an association between the tridentine and schism. This is not a good thing and is unfair to those who desire the beautiful Mass of St. Pius! I am talking about a symbol that like it or not exists even though it should not. If you asked your average priest what he thought of the word “tridentine”, he would probably think of “schism” or “ultra-conservative” or “opposed to Rome” or something along those lines. heck, there are probably a lot of priests out there who think that any priest who says the tridentine Mass is part of that “french wacko group.” The SSPX is substantial reason why this unjust word association exists. They have stolen a good and beautiful liturgy and made it their rallying point against Rome.

My point here is that the SSPX has done a disservice to the movement to increase the availability of the tridentine Mass because they have helped to stigmatize the liturgy among the mainstream Church. I also believe that the liberal heterodox types have done their part as well to stigmatize the liturgy (telling people it’s not allowed, bad, etc.). Together the liberals and the SSPX have done a thorough job of creating the impression that the tridentine mass should be avoided by mainstream Catholics.
 
Ham1 said:
Yes, it should be…I agree.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not stating that the TLM should be a symbol of disobedience. I am stating that unfortunately (and unfairly), for many, it is.

Undoubtedly, the SSPX has done a good job of creating an association between the tridentine and schism. This is not a good thing and is unfair to those who desire the beautiful Mass of St. Pius! I am talking about a symbol that like it or not exists even though it should not. If you asked your average priest what he thought of the word “tridentine”, he would probably think of “schism” or “ultra-conservative” or “opposed to Rome” or something along those lines. heck, there are probably a lot of priests out there who think that any priest who says the tridentine Mass is part of that “french wacko group.” The SSPX is substantial reason why this unjust word association exists. They have stolen a good and beautiful liturgy and made it their rallying point against Rome…
Click to expand...
The SSPX did not steal the Tridentine Mass. They simply kept what the modernists so readily discarded.

I don’t associate the Tridentine Mass with schism; I associate it with sacred, awe-inspiring, reverent tradition that serves to humble the soul and unite us to God in a way that most NO Masses simply do not accomplish. If it wasn’t for *“that French wacko group”, *the Tridentine Mass would have ended up in the trash.
Ham1 said:
My point here is that the SSPX has done a disservice to the movement to increase the availability of the tridentine Mass because they have helped to stigmatize the liturgy among the mainstream Church. I also believe that the liberal heterodox types have done their part as well to stigmatize the liturgy (telling people it’s not allowed, bad, etc.). Together the liberals and the SSPX have done a thorough job of creating the impression that the tridentine mass should be avoided by mainstream Catholics.
Click to expand...
Then why are so many people attracted to SSPX? It is because they are drawn, body and soul, to the sacred litugy of the Tridentine Mass. When SSPX is finally reunited with Rome, there will be a lot of empty pews in the NO churches.
 
Ham1 said:
I’m not trying to drum up bias, but I do think that the SSPX has not exactly helped the cause of those who would like to see a wider availability of the tridentine mass. I think that because of the SSPX, when you mention “tridentine” to many clerics, they immediately think “this must be a borderline schismatic wacko.” I do not think that this reaction would occur nearly as much if the SSPX had not gone schismatic. Am I missing something here???

By the way, I don’t agree with this reaction. I am just giving a reason as to why it may exist.

Can’t this be reasonably discussed instead of people posting pictures of Mahoney (not really sure how that fits into this thread anyway) or sarcastically stating that I am “drumming up bias.”

Please, explain to me how the SSPX has not hurt the traditionalist movement.
Click to expand...
Because the problems already existed before the SSPX came into being. The “spirit” of VatII and its “new springtime” has manipulated many. How did the Church—within the span of a few years—turn Her back on and discard Her form of worship that had sustained Her and Her people for hundreds of years. It continues to this day.

So stating that the SSPX are at the cause of the inavailability of the TLM is just trying to shift the focus. What we are living thru now----had its birth way before the SSPX.

I can see that you continue with the your same line of thought.

Quote=Ham1
Undoubtedly, the SSPX has done a good job of creating an association between the tridentine and schism. This is not a good thing and is unfair to those who desire the beautiful Mass of St. Pius! I am talking about a symbol that like it or not exists even though it should not. If you asked your average priest what he thought of the word “tridentine”, he would probably think of “schism” or “ultra-conservative” or “opposed to Rome” or something along those lines. heck, there are probably a lot of priests out there who think that any priest who says the tridentine Mass is part of that “french wacko group.” The SSPX is substantial reason why this unjust word association exists. They have stolen a good and beautiful liturgy and made it their rallying point against Rome.
 
Walking_Home said:
Because the problems already existed before the SSPX came into being. The “spirit” of VatII and its “new springtime” has manipulated many. How did the Church—within the span of a few years—turn Her back on and discard Her form of worship that had sustained Her and Her people for hundreds of years. It continues to this day.

So stating that the SSPX are at the cause of the inavailability of the TLM is just trying to shift the focus. What we are living thru now----had its birth way before the SSPX.
.
Click to expand...
As I menioned in my previous post, I do not blame the SSPX as solely responsible for the prevailing attitude against the tridentine Mass (the liberals also did their share). But I cannot see how they did not play a role in getting us where we are today. If they had not split from Rome, but worked with the agreement that had been established, then perhaps now the tridentine Mass would be more widely available than it is today. And perhaps it would not have the stigma that it appears to have among many clerics.

I just don’t get how you can be happy and positive about an organization that desires the same end as the indult-favoring Catholic, but chooses a very different and devious path to achieve that end.

To put it into a simple analogy…there are 2 men who both want to live in nice houses on a block in a good neighborhood. One man works very hard within the law to earn money to buy his nice house. The second man works outside the law in order to get his money to buy his nice house. Should the first man be happy and welcoming to the other because, after all, they both had the same end in mind and they both achieved it? What if the neighbors begin to think that the first man went outside to the law to get his house as well? The second man is like the SSPX and he gives a bad name to the first man…hey maybe it’s a stupid analogy, I’m just trying to get my point across here.

Thanks:)
 
Ham1 said:
As I menioned in my previous post, I do not blame the SSPX as solely responsible for the prevailing attitude against the tridentine Mass (the liberals also did their share). But I cannot see how they did not play a role in getting us where we are today. If they had not split from Rome, but worked with the agreement that had been established, then perhaps now the tridentine Mass would be more widely available than it is today. And perhaps it would not have the stigma that it appears to have among many clerics.

I just don’t get how you can be happy and positive about an organization that desires the same end as the indult-favoring Catholic, but chooses a very different and devious path to achieve that end.

To put it into a simple analogy…there are 2 men who both want to live in nice houses on a block in a good neighborhood. One man works very hard within the law to earn money to buy his nice house. The second man works outside the law in order to get his money to buy his nice house. Should the first man be happy and welcoming to the other because, after all, they both had the same end in mind and they both achieved it? What if the neighbors begin to think that the first man went outside to the law to get his house as well? The second man is like the SSPX and he gives a bad name to the first man…hey maybe it’s a stupid analogy, I’m just trying to get my point across here.

Thanks:)
Click to expand...
Stigma-----the TLM is an authorized Mass of the Church—and with this approval—there should be no question of stigma. What your words show—is that the clerics --who on there own–do not want the TLM----are then using the SSPX as scapegoats to justify themselves. Your analogy ---- shows this quite clear.
 
Walking_Home said:
Stigma-----the TLM is an authorized Mass of the Church—and with this approval—there should be no question of stigma. What your words show—is that the clerics --who on there own–do not want the TLM----are then using the SSPX as scapegoats to justify themselves. Your analogy ---- shows this quite clear.
Click to expand...
So you don’t believe the SSPX did anything wrong? And they are just scapegoats? You don’t think the SSPX does ANYTHING that harms the reputation of the tridentine mass?
 
Ham1 said:
So you don’t believe the SSPX did anything wrong? And they are just scapegoats? You don’t think the SSPX does ANYTHING that harms the reputation of the tridentine mass?
Click to expand...
They are scapegoats----when they are used the reason to not offer the TLM. The TLM is a valid Mass of the Church—authorized and approved—so it does not matter who else offers this Mass.

Should we then say----that the reputation of Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is harmed because it is the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox.

The only ‘harm’ that is seen-----is when people are manipulated into thinking that the SSPX are responsible for the actions of our own clerics.

As to the SSPX----I leave that to the Church.
 
Hopefully I’m not going to off-topic here:

Many people speak of the changes mandated by the Council or not. In fact changes were already in place before the Council at the time of Pius XII, of blessed memory. As far back as 1953 (or actu7ally 1948 when Pope Pius appointed a reform Commision), there were proposals and Congresses with support of many including Pope Pius XII, of blessed memory, Cardinal Ottaviani, et al. to reform the Roman Rite. To take a few of the items from your list- the ommission of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Last Gospel, the addition of the Prayers of the faithful, were all suggested and the gradual implementation can be seen first in the 1962 missal and in subsequent missals. As can the single collect, the exapnded lectionery and prefaces. Even the rubrics had a proposed revision very similar to some in the NO- possibly the missal of 1965 comes closest to this. Even, versus populum was becoming common then, often receiving official support- you can see that in Pius XII’s adress to the Assisi delagates… All these things did not just pop out of thin air after the Council. Most of the things on your list (except no Roman Canon) were in place by 1965.

The main ‘new’ things that was done was the new Offertory prayers, and the addition of the new Eucharistic Prayers and pentitential options.
Caesar said:
There are still a lot of issues with the text of the Novus Ordo itelf. A lot of things that we changed in the text of the Mass that the Council never called for.

What about the Asperges or the Vidi Aquam?
What about the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar?
Where is the Last Gospel?
Why do we almost-never use the Roman Canon?
What are all these pauses throughout the Novus Ordo?
What’s with these intentions read after the homily?
Why does the priest (or thelay ministers) only say “The Body of Christ” when distributing Holy Communion? Why dont they still say “May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen.”.
Where are all the other prayers?
Why were so many changed- some in such a way that the very meanings changed?
Click to expand...
 
Walking_Home said:
They are scapegoats----when they are used the reason to not offer the TLM. The TLM is a valid Mass of the Church—authorized and approved—so it does not matter who else offers this Mass.

Should we then say----that the reputation of Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is harmed because it is the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox.

The only ‘harm’ that is seen-----is when people are manipulated into thinking that the SSPX are responsible for the actions of our own clerics.

As to the SSPX----I leave that to the Church.
Click to expand...
I still think that if you asked an average parish priest about the tridentine Mass many of them would think of people in schism. NOTE: this association is wrong and erroneous and unfair. But it is a perception which I contend exists and I believe it exists because of the SSPX.

I guess we just don’t agree on this point. I think the Tridentine Mass would be more widely accepted and said if the SSPX had never split. I think they unfortunately tarnished the reputation fo a beautiful liturgy.

Thanks
 
Ham1 said:
I still think that if you asked an average parish priest about the tridentine Mass many of them would think of people in schism. NOTE: this association is wrong and erroneous and unfair. But it is a perception which I contend exists and I believe it exists because of the SSPX.

I guess we just don’t agree on this point. I think the Tridentine Mass would be more widely accepted and said if the SSPX had never split. I think they unfortunately tarnished the reputation fo a beautiful liturgy.

Thanks
Click to expand...
The thing is ----I do not think the all the average parish priests have been asked. Those that would think to associate the TLM with in such a manner have been greatly misled. The only ones that are tarnishing the reputation of the TLM are the ones with agenda of keeping it suppressed.
 
paramedicgirl said:
And I thought the Tridentine Mass was the symbol of all that is sacred and beautiful about Catholic Tradition. Maybe people have been conditioned to view it as a symbol of disobedience by the propagandizing of the last several decades. We are truly fortunate there are Catholics who are willing to preserve and cling to sacred tradition, otherwise all could be lost with this brave, new springtime.
Click to expand...
The Mass is. The TLM isn’t exclusively, the Pauline Mass isn’t exclusively, the Divinie Liturgy isn’t exclusively.

Really, the “traditionalist’s” oft-repeated mockery of the Church in the form of the oft-repeated and sarcastically spoken “brave, new springtime” not only is of little service to Christ, it’s positively boring. And Mahoney’s celebration of the Mass is not typical of the Pauline Rite. It’s disingenous to use it on these forums. Go try it out among the gullible.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
The Mass is. The TLM isn’t exclusively, the Pauline Mass isn’t exclusively, the Divinie Liturgy isn’t exclusively.

Really, the “traditionalist’s” oft-repeated mockery of the Church in the form of the oft-repeated and sarcastically spoken “brave, new springtime” not only is of little service to Christ, it’s positively boring. And Mahoney’s celebration of the Mass is not typical of the Pauline Rite. It’s disingenous to use it on these forums. Go try it out among the gullible.
Click to expand...
Not typical? Talk about disingenous. It’s very typical. Or do you not read this forum much?
 
Walking_Home said:
The thing is ----I do not think the all the average parish priests have been asked. Those that would think to associate the TLM with in such a manner have been greatly misled. The only ones that are tarnishing the reputation of the TLM are the ones with agenda of keeping it suppressed.
Click to expand...
**

I think if you DID ask them, most would say,“No, thank you, I’d rather not.” I think the same answer would come from most of their parishoners, too. But then, of course, I’m certain that’s because the poor, unwashed masses haven’t had the benefit of a “proper” formation. Why, if they had, it would be a self-evident truth that the TLM was the ONLY way to go. :rolleyes:
**
 
Dr.Bombay said:
Not typical? Talk about disingenous. It’s very typical. Or do you not read this forum much?
Click to expand...
I read what is **alledged **these forums. I very much doubt if Mahoney’s way of doing things is remotely typical.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I read what is **alledged **these forums. I very much doubt if Mahoney’s way of doing things is remotely typical.
Click to expand...
And I doubt if Mahoney’s way would so much as raise an eyebrow in the average American no parish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top