Why are clerics so frightened of the old Mass?

[Walking_Home]

**

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.
**

---

We won’t know until we ask all of them will we. As to the proper formation-----you have been here in these forums long enough to know the kind of formation that is becoming more evident. At times near heretical. This damages the Church as a whole.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I attend several. It would. The chancery would be under siege.

you are blessed to live in a conservative bastion like Las Vegas.

Most of us, however, aren’t so lucky. Walk a mile in my shoes sometime, brother.

 

[jimmy]

its while reading threads like this one that I begin to wonder how the God feels about people attacking His Church and saying that the Liturgy He inspired is so hated.

According to the Church the liturgy is not inspired. Otherwise it would have never changed. Pope Benedict, when he was cardinal Ratzinger, spoke about this in an interview. He contrasted the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. While the EO believe the liturgy to be a gift from God the Catholic Church views it as an act of the Church. If it was inspired the changes in the liturgy of Vatican II would have been an act of heresy.

The Liturgy changes, the Tridentine was vastly dirrerent than the Liturgies used prior to its birth.

Quite a false way of looking at it. The tridentine liturgy was not simply thought up at Trent. It was the unification of the liturgies of the west. The liturgy of Trent was pretty much the same as that which Gregory the Great used in the sixth century. The liturgy was a development over centuries. It was not written in a year or two, it was written in about 16 centuries. The new liturgy on the otherhand was written in a couple of years.

Are those groups such as the Marionites and Byzantine Catholics that never left in the wrong for using the SJC Liturgy?

I am Maronite by birth. They do notuse the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, that is only the Byzantines. The Maronites use a modified liturgy of St. James. No, they are not wrong. These liturgies are both older than the Tridentine liturgy though. They never used the tridentine. However, Vatican II took the liturgy of the west and replaced it by a new liturgy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

According to the Church the liturgy is not inspired. **I would respectfully suggest that the poster didn’t mean “inspired” as in “Scripture is inspired.” I rather think the poster meant that God was the inspiration for the Mass. **

However, Vatican II took the liturgy of the west and replaced it by a new liturgy.

Which, according to Cardinal Ratzinger’s observation about the constrasting ways in which the East and the West view the Liturgy, is within the Church’s scope. If the Liturgy is an act of the Church, then the Church can legitimately “act” to govern it, change it, modify it, etc.

 

[jimmy]

Which, according to Cardinal Ratzinger’s observation about the constrasting ways in which the East and the West view the Liturgy, is within the Church’s scope. If the Liturgy is an act of the Church, then the Church can legitimately “act” to govern it, change it, modify it, etc.

Very true. That doesn’t mean it is a good change though.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Very true. That doesn’t mean it is a good change though.

I think it was an excellent one. And I think most of the world will want to stick with it, if only because it’s in the vernacular. But that’s only one opinion.

 

[jimmy]

I think it was an excellent one. And I think most of the world will want to stick with it, if only because it’s in the vernacular. But that’s only one opinion.

What most of the world wants is not a valid identification of what is good. Most polls of teens say that the majority of them have sex before marriage. Does that mean we should change our teaching on sexual ethics? Most of the Catholics in the world don’t believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What most of the world wants is not a valid identification of what is good. Most polls of teens say that the majority of them have sex before marriage. Does that mean we should change our teaching on sexual ethics? Most of the Catholics in the world don’t believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

None of which has any bearing on the question of the Mass. It’s perfectly all right to prefer one to the other. I prefer the one I’m accustomed to, the one I’ve always attended.

 

[jimmy]

None of which has any bearing on the question of the Mass. It’s perfectly all right to prefer one to the other. I prefer the one I’m accustomed to, the one I’ve always attended.

I was simply answering your statement that most in the world would prefer it. It is fine that you have your own preference. I have my own.

 

[Trident59]

The priest who was denied permission to say the Traditional Mass, even though a member of an excepted Society, experienced exactly what SSPX feared would happen if they had signed the Accord
back in the 80’s. They felt Rome was not to be trusted in its dealings with Traditionalists. Take, for example, the recent restrictions placed on new members of the Good Shepard Institute by a Cardinal. Rome can say one thing and the Bishops and Cardinals change the implementation.

And we have “collegiality” to thank for the mess. There is no leader, only a committee.

When the Pope is ready to assume the reigns of his office then perhaps we shall see a true reform of the reform.

 

[demerzel85]

Actually one has to differentiate between what the actual rubrics of the Novus Ordo and the abuses that take place. The fact of the matter is that the very problem with the Novus Ordo is that the rubrics are not followed properly. The fruits of not adhering to the rubrics in terms of the declining Mass attendance and falling numbers of clergy are plain to see. The fruits of the Novus Ordo itself is not.

In the same way, what is actually inside Vatican II, needs to be differentiated from ‘the Spirit of Vatican II’.

To say that the TLM itself is so solid that it require no change is really to live in a time warp. Over the centuries since Quo Primum, it has been gradually revised. I am not saying that the Novus Ordo is a kind of revision to the TLM. What I am saying here is that like any precious treasure, the TLM needs polishing. So for example the expansion of the Gradual/Tract would be a positive development. Expanding the Proper of the Saints to include the newer ones is needed.

I would however still take the stand that at the end of the day, SSPX has done alot of damage to the status of the TLM. I will accept that the ex-communications that occured had its part to play in having an expanding the TLM indult. Yet this has given much ammunition to those who oppose the TLM, by letting them with one broad stroke link the TLM, SSPX, the return to Tradition, schism and ex-communication together and argue for its restriction.

I know that in my local SSPX, re-Confirmations have been performed, just because the validity was claimed to have been in doubt.

For all SSPX talks about adherence to Tradition, somehow some just are so blind to the idea that the ‘true’ Chruch is hidden is simply a Protestant heresy. That the Church is to be reformed from the outside is also a concept of the Protestants.

 

[TradyDaddy]

I’m not with the SSPX, but to all the indult TLM attendees, be honest with yourselves; do you really think that the indult would exist were it not for the society?

 

[demerzel85]

I’m not with the SSPX, but to all the indult TLM attendees, be honest with yourselves; do you really think that the indult would exist were it not for the society?

An indult for the TLM is not available where I am. I would consider the actions of the SSPX as one of the factors that the current indult is available.

 

[Craigmaddie]

I’m not with the SSPX, but to all the indult TLM attendees, be honest with yourselves; do you really think that the indult would exist were it not for the society?

I think this is a very valid point. If it were not for the SSPX it is probable that the Old Rite would have been ‘disappeared’ without a trace.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

There was nothing wrong with the SSPX before they went into schism.

 

[Trident59]

You’re right Comrade,

I attended right up through 1988 in Post Falls, ID.

But I couldn’t bring myself to accept the fact that I “may” be in schism. So I returned to the established church.(gag).

Man, I walked into guitars, Kumbaya, hand holding, etc. Thought I’d gotten the wrong church.

Even gave it a try at making myself a part of this mess. Tried teaching CCD but was told I was too conservative. Tried to use a series of books approved by Cardinal Ratzinger. Our priest said he was TOO conservative. I was to use a series approved by Father Jan Larson and the Seattle Diocese. So I chucked it. And of course, they had no problem finding a replacement for me. This is after all the “left coast”.

I suppose that if you don’t buy into the philosophy that Rome has left the Church, you could attend the SSPX Mass. At least that is what my local NO priest says. But would the SSPX priest give me communion? Its not like you just walk in and blend in. They know who their regulars are. One makes a confession with their priest before receiving communion. And I don’t think a person would be able to carry out the penance if they intended to go back the following week to the NO mass.

 

[TobyLue]

its while reading threads like this one that I begin to wonder how the God feels about people attacking His Church and saying that the Liturgy He inspired is so hated.

I do not think people hate the Novos Ordo mass. I have seen many priest, mine included that have reverently celebrated the mass. I can say it was great beauty. What is hate are the innovations, the shennanigans that many priest and congregation do while celebrating it; ie. telling jokes, laughing with the people, directing all the attention to them, wanting to be cute, introducing wild music etc. If the priest would stick to the rubrics, I believe there would be no complaints.

 

[Walking_Home]

I had not heard of the SSPX until I joined these forums. Since then–I have come to the conclusion—that if it wasn’t for them—the TLM would have long ago been dead and buried.

I must disagree—that the SSPX- has hurt the growth of the TLM within the Church. We cannot blame the actions of our own on the SSPX.

Many see the TLM —more or less–as threat to their power. Their power has been-- in doing what they wish with our Mass—where now—we have to shop around for one that follows the Church. The TLM is seen as a reminder—to a time—when they were answerable to Rome. Their power is manifested-- in controlling and suppressing the TLM.

 

[Trident59]

And I wonder what God thinks when He sees what our current Clery has done to His Church, and what does He think when He hears Bishops and Cardinals ignore His Pope and laity that gleefully go along with the destruction of innocent unborn.

 

[paramedicgirl]

The Mass is. The TLM isn’t exclusively, the Pauline Mass isn’t exclusively, the Divinie Liturgy isn’t exclusively.

Yes, the Mass when celebrated according to the rubrics, whether it be the TLM or the NO is sacred and beautiful.

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.

What’s *positively boring *is the mockery that is made of the Holy Mass every time liturgical abuses are permitted, tolerated, sanctioned and overlooked. That, Kirk, is what is being fed to the gullible.