Why do you regularly attend the tridentine mass?

[JM3]

That should suffice to clear up any misapprehensions about this matter

Questions:

1. When has the Church ever had only one rite to celebrate Mass?
2. Do the Popes have the authority to change the Mass?
3. 1>1=1 (when is one greater than one, but still equal to one)?

From the link I previously posted:

The “Liber Pontificalis” mentions several of the reforms which were made in it, but not all, since St. Gregory alone, as we know by his correspondence, made many alterations, of which the principal are: the introduction of the singing of the “Kyrie,” changes in that of the “Alleluia,” the alteration of the place of the “Pater,” important modifications of the Gelasian text, and probably of the chant. We must not, then, be astonished if the Roman Mass has conformed far less to the primitive form than the Mozarabic, Gallican, or Ambrosian Masses, and more especially the Eastern liturgies.

The Popes possessed an authority which allowed them to change any part of the ceremonial, and they used it.

 

[domandcarols]

Nothing is given unless it is earned. Many of the clergy where I live have a huge dislike of the Traditional Latin Mass, so I believe that placing it as “working on being a Traditional Latin Catholic” seems to fit the bill, considering the hostility to the TLM. It’s not my fault they don’t like it. I’ve already heard several songs of the traditional latin mass, and at the moment, my favorite has been Te Deum Laudamus. Many martyrs sung this very same song. I can name several…

Warriors of the Fifth Crusade, St. Edmund Campion at his execution for starters.

-MontChevalier

That’s amazing. God bless you, I’ll be praying for you.

 

[jmj1984]

1. When has the Church ever had only one rite to celebrate Mass?

Most likely during the apostolic era.

1. Do the Popes have the authority to change the Mass?

Yes, this is encapsulated within their ‘full, supreme and universal power’, power that is of course exercised within the limits set out by Vatican 1 i.e cannot propose new faiths and the tradition of the church i.e cannot assault souls, change the truth of the sacraments,oppose the creed etc…

1. 1>1=1 (when is one greater than one, but still equal to one)?

Not sure what you are getting at.

From the link I previously posted:

Not sure what the relevance of that is, I’m glad you’re conceding that the traditional latin mass has been around for longer than 30% of the church’s history and that it wasn’t created in the 16th century

If you are conceding this, in the interest of simple courtesy you should say so plainly and unequivocally

 

[JM3]

I’m glad you’re conceding that the traditional latin mass has been around for longer than 30% of the church’s history and that it wasn’t created in the 16th century

TLM stands for Tridentine Latin Mass, not ‘traditional’ latin mass, and was ‘created in the 16th century’.

 

[jmj1984]

TLM stands for Tridentine Latin Mass, not ‘traditional’ latin mass, and was ‘created in the 16th century’.

Actually it stands for both, seeing as you insist on clinging to an opinion that has now been proven wrong, there is no point in continuing this discussion, you are clearly in bad faith and worse obstinate.

You appear to believe you know more than St Pius V who promulugated the Traditional Latin Mass back in 1570 and your posts are quite clearly not so subtle attempts at denigrating both trads and the TLM.

 

[mattkubes]

Why? Because the Novus Ordo has always been offered like puerile pablum wherever I’ve been. Every. Single. Time. The lax dress, the pedestrian music, the horizontal worship - none of this may have been called for at its promulgation, but that has been my experience in over a dozen different parishes.

I’m still a young guy, so it’s not simply nostalgia, but I had a yearning that was fulfilled by the depth, beauty, and majesty of the traditional liturgy. Now I know that the Church has so much more to offer. I just didn’t know how far off course things had gotten.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

TLM stands for Tridentine Latin Mass, not ‘traditional’ latin mass, and was ‘created in the 16th century’.

They are used interchangeably.

“Other names used include Traditional Mass and Latin Mass - though the revised form of the Mass that replaced it has its official text in Latin, and is sometimes celebrated in that language.[10][11]”

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass

 

[markomalley]

They are used interchangeably.

You’re using Wikipedia for a source for something about the Faith?

Wow.

 

[jmj1984]

You’re using Wikipedia for a source for something about the Faith?

Wow.

Oh please

The terms are used interchangeably, a simple perusing of these forums would have told you that.

And wikipedia isn’t always wrong

 

[jmj1984]

TLM stands for Tridentine Latin Mass, not ‘traditional’ latin mass, and was ‘created in the 16th century’.

The terms are interchangeable as others have pointed out and seeing as you want to maintain an opinion despite the fact its plainly contradicted by the facts i.e the papal bull promulgating the TLM, I’m not sure there’s much point engaging in discussion with you.

 

[Paxvobis]

I voted that I attend the TLM (monthly) out of preference. I enjoy the incense, the Latin, the chanting, the reverence, the older prayers and liturgical seasons, et cetera. It’s absolutely beautiful.

However, I always try to not get too carried away. Both the TLM and the Ordinary Form are the same august sacrifice of the cross. They both represent the same 2,000 year old theology. I don’t believe that the Ordinary Form - while it’s rubrics are simpler and the rite of Mass shortened - is “dumbed down” as some have claimed. Many Catholics, myself included, have gained spiritual strength and inspiration from the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Nevertheless, I’d go to the TLM every week if I could.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

You’re using Wikipedia for a source for something about the Faith?

Wow.

I used Wikipedia because it is a generally accurate site, regardless of the subject. It’s more reliable than just my opinion.

 

[Warrenton]

TLM stands for Tridentine Latin Mass, not ‘traditional’ latin mass, and was ‘created in the 16th century’.

This depends on what we mean when we say “created.”

If you mean that the missal was written, published and declared authoritative in the very form as published then it would be accurate to use the word “created.”

In the same manner, we would have to say the OF was “created” a fortnight ago, because a new translation was promulagated, declared authoritative and published in new missals for use in the English speaking lands.

If, however, we mean “created” in the sense of “invented” or “derived,” then no, the tridentine mass was not invented in the the 1500s. It was a publication, with some standardization, of the Roman mass that was in general use in most of Western Europe since around 1000.

Before 1000, there was greater variation in the Roman-type mass across regions of Europe, but the variation would have been less noticeable than the variation between, say, the different Eucharistic prayers of the modern missal, and certainly less different than the manner in which masses are actually said today - for instance, there is a huge difference between a “high” concelebrated OF mass and a folk or children’s mass.

The length of use is an important factor for Catholics and Orthodox. You could say that one of our traditions is tradition.

A person is still free to dislike certain traditions, and to prefer newer ways of doing things over older ways. That’s also a tradition, of sorts.

But the argument that the tridentine mass is not ancient, or is really newer than the OF, is specious.

 

[markomalley]

I used Wikipedia because it is a generally accurate site, regardless of the subject. It’s more reliable than just my opinion.

Just as a heads up: Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should never be used in any sort of academic setting (I know this is not an academic setting). The main reason being that it can be edited by almost anybody. Which often results in puff pieces and sometimes results in vandalism of an article.

Having said that, it is valuable because it is generally footnoted.

(If you want to see an example of why Wikipedia is not reliable, just look at the tone of the entry on Mitt Romney. It reads like it was written by a member of his campaign staff. Or look at the history page on Sarah Palin…but go back about 2,500 edits or so)

On edit: you *do *realize I was just giving you a hard time, right?

 

[Melchior_1]

I think most people will agree Latin was used during the Mass for a considerable amount of time, either on it’s own or in conjunction with other languages. The question then becomes is “A” Latin Mass or “THE” Latin Mass, with a few people here claiming the later.

Something to note the reason WHY they had come up with the Tridentine Mass was because of the reformation. They wanted to make sure that people knew what Liturgy and the Catholic Church was all about. Even then, not everyone was onboard. The Maronites flat out refused to do it (and remained within the Church, I may add)…

Anyway, I recall reading here once that way back when, St. Francis asked the Pope for a stripped down Missal. His followers were often uneducated, so they couldn’t figure out the current Mass. Francis found that it promoted inequality between his brothers. He also understood that to live in abject poverty, they simply couldn’t afford to have everything needed to do the Mass as it was.

The Pope at the time handed Francis a Missal, and Francis ran with it. Then something funny happened; as they traveled Europe setting themselves up to do their thing, their version of the Mass spread. This Mass, obviously was different than the others. What did happen was that this Mass caught the eyes of the Pope at the time.

The Franciscan’s Mass received a couple of changes here or there, and became the backbone of what we used to refer to as the Tridentine Rite.

So yes, the Mass did change. In fact, even after St. Pius V made that comment about how nothing would change, he went out and changed the Missal anyway by adding a Feast Day (adding Feast Days is changing the Missal). The Extraordinary Form we have now certainly doesn’t resemble one from 100 years ago, let alone 1500. About the only thing that didn’t change was the use of Latin, and that’s only in the West.

 

[mattkubes]

The Extraordinary Form we have now certainly doesn’t resemble one from 100 years ago

lol

 

[TrueLight]

The Extraordinary Form we have now certainly doesn’t resemble one from 100 years ago, let alone 1500.

Can you go a little more into this?

 

[mattkubes]

Can you go a little more into this?

Doubtful. I have an old missal from the 1930s. The changes are minimal outside of Bugnini’s tinkering with Holy Week. It’s completely absurd to say the Mass from 20 years earlier wouldn’t even resemble what we have today.

 

[Melchior_1]

Can you go a little more into this?

You know what? A big mea coupla on my part. I’m doing a bunch of reading on this and I was reading about the changes of the Breviary rubrics while reading about the Tridentine while also patching some servers at work, and somehow rubrics and Tridentine blurred together.

 

[TrueLight]

You know what? A big mea coupla on my part. I’m doing a bunch of reading on this and I was reading about the changes of the Breviary rubrics while reading about the Tridentine while also patching some servers at work, and somehow rubrics and Tridentine blurred together.

Phew!

What are you doing patching servers? I thought you were a technical writer?