Why do you regularly attend the tridentine mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MillTownCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike30 said:
**I prefer the Traditional Mass for one reason. You know what to expect. **A reverent Mass. With the Ordinary Form, you might get a reverent Mass, you might not. There is simply no telling beforehand what direction an Ordinary Form Mass will take’. They vary tremendously from place to place and week to week.
Click to expand...
+1.
 
What fraction of those who answered are in organizations such as the SSPX, etc? Do most of you go to traditional masses provided the diocese? What makes certain people join the SSPX as apposed to simply going to a diocese tridentine mass?

Sorry if some of these questions cannot be answered without breaking the forum rules, I’m new to the Traditional Catholic section. 👍
 
MillTownCath said:
Do most of you go to traditional masses provided the diocese?
Click to expand...
I go to FSSP mass because that is the only option. I would love to have EF mass provided by the diocese as well but I guess we have a long way to go to get that.
 
I’m still starting out as a Tridentine Catholic, and I’ve only attended the Traditional Latin Prayer Mass. I feel it’s alright, but it just doesn’t quite do it for me. I’m waiting for the Traditional Latin Sung Mass. I saw a few videos and I loved it. Can’t wait for Christmas, perhaps the Bishop will allow the Traditional Latin Sung Mass at the Church. 🙂

For me, I have several reasons why I chose to be a Traditional Latin Catholic:
  1. I feel closer to the past. (I know feelings are not a thing to be encouraged when it comes to belief, but it gives me comfort knowing that this is the mass fought for after so many years)
  2. Helps me practice Latin. (I’m a practical person)
  3. It gives me an identity. I am a Latin. (Period)
  4. I can use what I practice for my own works.
-MontChevalier
 
MontChevalier said:
I’m still starting out as a Tridentine Catholic, and I’ve only attended the Traditional Latin Prayer Mass. I feel it’s alright, but it just doesn’t quite do it for me. I’m waiting for the Traditional Latin Sung Mass. I saw a few videos and I loved it. Can’t wait for Christmas, perhaps the Bishop will allow the Traditional Latin Sung Mass at the Church. 🙂

For me, I have several reasons why I chose to be a Traditional Latin Catholic:
  1. I feel closer to the past. (I know feelings are not a thing to be encouraged when it comes to belief, but it gives me comfort knowing that this is the mass fought for after so many years)
  2. Helps me practice Latin. (I’m a practical person)
  3. It gives me an identity. I am a Latin. (Period)
  4. I can use what I practice for my own works.
-MontChevalier
Click to expand...
I think you should be careful about “working” to be a “Tridentine Catholic”.

By all means, do attend a sung mass, but I don’t want to see you get to a point where you are forcing yourself to be a traditionalist.
 
TrueLight said:
I think you should be careful about “working” to be a “Tridentine Catholic”.

By all means, do attend a sung mass, but I don’t want to see you get to a point where you are forcing yourself to be a traditionalist.
Click to expand...
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
 
MontChevalier said:
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
Click to expand...
So by ‘working’, you mean you’re trying to find a traditional Latin mass community?
 
TrueLight said:
So by ‘working’, you mean you’re trying to find a traditional Latin mass community?
Click to expand...
I already have, it’s just small. And it needs to bring new people and the people who practice liturgical abuses aboard, and the stop the abuses. There are already plans being drawn up.

-MontChevalier
 
Mike30 said:
I prefer the Traditional Mass for one reason. You know what to expect. A reverent Mass. With the Ordinary Form, you might get a reverent Mass, you might not. There is simply no telling beforehand what direction an Ordinary Form Mass will take’. They vary tremendously from place to place and week to week.
Click to expand...
Aye, I find this too, but I have been able to be pretty accurate with my predictions based on whether or not the priest is wearing his stole over or under his chasuble.

I voted for other. I’m a revert, and I need all the help I can get. My priest is a good and holy priest, and gives strong sermons. Most importantly, I don’t have to worry about any weirdness, irreverence, inappropriateness. If I could expect to attend Sunday Mass in the OF, and have it be at the same level of reverence as the EF, I would likely attend it more frequently. I’m not anti-OF. I’m anti-irreverence. Had I not discovered the EF, I would have jumped ship to the Eastern Side. Even as a little kid I always thought it seemed odd that our Sunday Masses weren’t like the ones the pope celebrated on TV.
 
MillTownCath said:
What fraction of those who answered are in organizations such as the SSPX, etc? Do most of you go to traditional masses provided the diocese? What makes certain people join the SSPX as apposed to simply going to a diocese tridentine mass?

Sorry if some of these questions cannot be answered without breaking the forum rules, I’m new to the Traditional Catholic section. 👍
Click to expand...
I attend a diocesan TLM and about once a month, an FSSP parish.
 
I attend an FSSP parish at least once a month. Plus we have a TLM at our local parish once a month and lately I have been going to St. Birgitta’s near Portland Oregon for a TLM about twice a month.

This Sunday, however, I’ll attend the local parish for an OF Mass, as I must prepare the Altar for the fourth week of Advent. I own the Rose colored Altar Frontal. In fact I own all of the frontals. So I care for and install them throughout the seasons.

The white frontal goes up Thursday about 3:00 pm (Mass is at 7 pm) Then saturday I will put up the Rose Frontal. Then change back after Mass for the violet one until after Advent but just before Christmas when another lady puts up her white Jacobean frontal.
 
The two Masses should not be refereed to ‘tridentine mass/TLM’ or ‘novus ordo/NO’ any longer as laid out in “Summorum Pontificum” It’s Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form. This poll pits the two forms against each other and suggests the Ordinary Form is heretical in option 2 of the poll. It’s not the Ordinary Form that is the problem, it’s the way it’s implemented and people adding their ‘own interpretation’ to SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.
Now the new missal is in effect for the Ordinary Form, it’s nice now that most of the responses are now the exactly English translation as to my Extraordinary Form Mass guide for the 1962 Missal. I try to attend a Sunday EF Mass about once a month, but I still like a properly celebrated OF Mass better.

Summorum Pontificum
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the **ordinary expression **of the **‘Lex orandi’ **(Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an **extraordinary expression **of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
 
Lance_O said:
The two Masses should not be refereed to ‘tridentine mass/TLM’ or ‘novus ordo/NO’ any longer as laid out in “Summorum Pontificum” It’s Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form. This poll pits the two forms against each other and suggests the Ordinary Form is heretical in option 2 of the poll. It’s not the Ordinary Form that is the problem, it’s the way it’s implemented and people adding their ‘own interpretation’ to SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.
Now the new missal is in effect for the Ordinary Form, it’s nice now that most of the responses are now the exactly English translation as to my Extraordinary Form Mass guide for the 1962 Missal. I try to attend a Sunday EF Mass about once a month, but I still like a properly celebrated OF Mass better.

Summorum Pontificum
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the **ordinary expression **of the **‘Lex orandi’ **(Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an **extraordinary expression **of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
Click to expand...
Give me a break. There is nothing that says we can’t refer to the Traditional Latin Mass as the Traditional Latin Mass.
 
Lance_O said:
The two Masses should not be refereed to ‘tridentine mass/TLM’ or ‘novus ordo/NO’ any longer as laid out in “Summorum Pontificum” It’s Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form. This poll pits the two forms against each other and suggests the Ordinary Form is heretical in option 2 of the poll. It’s not the Ordinary Form that is the problem, it’s the way it’s implemented and people adding their ‘own interpretation’ to SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.
Now the new missal is in effect for the Ordinary Form, it’s nice now that most of the responses are now the exactly English translation as to my Extraordinary Form Mass guide for the 1962 Missal. I try to attend a Sunday EF Mass about once a month, but I still like a properly celebrated OF Mass better.

Summorum Pontificum
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the **ordinary expression **of the **‘Lex orandi’ **(Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an **extraordinary expression **of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
Click to expand...
Are there not valid theological concerns with the influence behind, and promulgation of, the OF? Concerns that predate the subsequent misinterpretations and abuses? That’s my understanding, but I’m still a novice in my exploration of the history of the novus ordo.

I’m not trying to pit one against another, but it seems to me to be valid to do so, especially if one considers some of the evidence out there which suggests that the OF came about due to questionable influences, despite not departing from orthodoxy. Again, I’m no expert, still learning about the two forms (I’m a recent convert who has never attended an EF). But my exploration has revealed some intriguing insights into how the OF came about, and came to be accepted, although I, of course, never question it’s validity.

Just saying that, even when done reverently and fully inline with VII’s guidance, the OF seems to have origins that reasonably could be argued are theologically unsound, and depart from practices that are more consistent with authentic liturgy.

Hope I’m not stirring the hornet’s nest too much here. Not my intent. I think there is a way to contrast EF with OF and maintain fairness and charity.
 
SteveGC said:
Are there not valid theological concerns with the influence behind, and promulgation of, the OF? Concerns that predate the subsequent misinterpretations and abuses? That’s my understanding, but I’m still a novice in my exploration of the history of the novus ordo.

I’m not trying to pit one against another, but it seems to me to be valid to do so, especially if one considers some of the evidence out there which suggests that the OF came about due to questionable influences, despite not departing from orthodoxy. Again, I’m no expert, still learning about the two forms (I’m a recent convert who has never attended an EF). But my exploration has revealed some intriguing insights into how the OF came about, and came to be accepted, although I, of course, never question it’s validity.

Just saying that, even when done reverently and fully inline with VII’s guidance, the OF seems to have origins that reasonably could be argued are theologically unsound, and depart from practices that are more consistent with authentic liturgy.

Hope I’m not stirring the hornet’s nest too much here. Not my intent. I think there is a way to contrast EF with OF and maintain fairness and charity.
Click to expand...
Does the evidence keep in mind Venerable Pope Pius XII instituted several liturgical reforms, and “in 1948 the pope erected a Pontifical Commission for the Reform of the Liturgy. Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, who served until the pontificate of Paul VI, under whom he drafted the revision of the Ordinary of the Mass and the whole of the Roman Missal, was appointed secretary of this Commission.”

I find some people forget that changes were happening already back in the late 40’s (and earlier than that; Saint Pope Pius X changed the Psalter, if I’m not mistaken).
 
Melchior said:
Does the evidence keep in mind Venerable Pope Pius XII instituted several liturgical reforms, and “in 1948 the pope erected a Pontifical Commission for the Reform of the Liturgy. Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, who served until the pontificate of Paul VI, under whom he drafted the revision of the Ordinary of the Mass and the whole of the Roman Missal, was appointed secretary of this Commission.”

I find some people forget that changes were happening already back in the late 40’s (and earlier than that; Saint Pope Pius X changed the Psalter, if I’m not mistaken).
Click to expand...
Trads cringe when they hear the name Bugini! :D:p
 
There was a break there somewhere. Pope John XXIII disemployed Monsignor Bugnini.
 
So last Sunday I went to an EF Mass. I found it through the nice "Find a Mass’ search engine provided on my Archdiocese’s website. The Father who gave the Mass had an extremely thick German accent. Is he probably part of the FSSP?

Why do some people feel the need to distance themselves from the Church and join the SSPX, when the Church still does provide EF masses (Tridentine)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top