A
Aegidius
Guest
I prefer Coca Cola Classic though I can only drink Diet Decaffeinated Coke these days in small incriments. It doesnt have to be the right choice though it is my choice. 
- Status
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
Derailng thread
J
JM3
Guest
How does a Mass that has been around for 25-30% of Church history become ātraditionalā?
Just curious.
J
JM3
Guest
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I go to the old rite because:
If people donāt like the term Novos Ordo its because itās attracted, organically
D), negative connotations. Instead of griping about this, stand back and ask: why?
I can hear a mass said according to the mind of the Church (and not a local variant);
Itās solemn: no laity in civvies, no bands or drums, no distracting lay lectors, no sentimentality, no novelties.
We all know what āLatin massā, āTraditional Latin Massā and āTLMā refer to. You can re-name them or try to change the meaning, but I think thatās part of whatās be-devilling the Church at the moment: the intellectualisation of our religion. Sacred matters have become something one can fiddle about with.If people donāt like the term Novos Ordo its because itās attracted, organically
D), negative connotations. Instead of griping about this, stand back and ask: why?
M
markomalley
Guest
I selected ātheological reasonsāā¦the reason for that has nothing whatsoever to do with questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo.Why do you decide to go to the traditional mass instead of the new mass?
Please be respectful. Thanks
I have nothing at all against the Novus Ordo, particularly the corrected 2011 translation of it. I enjoy participating in the celebration of a reverent Novus Ordo when it is celebrated strictly in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concillium, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Tra le Sollecitudini, Redemptionis Sacramentum, the GIRM, as clarified by responses in Notitiae.
However, it is exceedingly difficult to find such a Novus Ordo Mass. It is exceedingly difficult to find a Novus Ordo Mass that is not characterized by blatant liturgical abuses throughout.
In all honesty, some of the errors are so grievous that it makes me physically ill to have to endure them.
I could give a litany of errors, but it would turn this into a multi-part post (which nobody would want to read). I will give one example for the purpose of illustration.
The GIRM says the following about the āPrayer of the Faithfulā
69. In the Universal Prayer or Prayer of the Faithful, the people respond in some sense to the Word of God which they have received in faith and, exercising the office of their baptismal Priesthood, offer prayers to God for the salvation of allā¦
(snip)
b) for public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;
c) for those burdened by any kind of difficulty;
d) for the local community.
Nevertheless, in any particular celebration, such as a Confirmation, a Marriage, or at a Funeral, the series of intentions may be concerned more closely with the particular occasion.
The people, for their part, stand and give expression to their prayer either by an invocation said in common after each intention or by praying in silence.
Despite these clear instructions, there are some parishes where it is the practice for the congregants to be afforded the opportunity to proclaim their intention aloud from their place in the pews (or for multiple, random people to come up and ad lib personal intentions from the ambo). Although an abuse, itās usually fairly harmless. Typically people will offer up prayer for a sick relative, for a job situation, for the troops, or something similar. And, of course, the other congregants will solemnly intone āLord, hear our prayerā in response to each of these personal intentions.
A few years ago I was in the unfortunate position of having to go to an Ash Wednesday mass at another parish. My work schedule was such that I was unable to be in proximity to my own parish for any of the Masses offered that day. Although not a day of obligation, I always make it a priority to have ashes imposed on Ash Wednesday (I wouldnāt feel like Lent really started if I didnāt).
This parish apparently had the custom of allowing ad hoc prayers from the congregants. It started off with the usual: prayers for the sick dog, the broken car, and so on. Each followed with āLord, hear our prayer.ā Then (this is burnt into my memory like it was yesterday), this woman stands up and offers the following intention: āThat God will enlighten Pope Benedict XVI and cure him of his misogyny so that he will allow the ordination of women to be priests and deacons.ā
There were no gasps from the crowd. No reproof from the priest celebrant. Only the mindless intonation of āLord, hear our prayer.ā
The above could not happen in the TLM because there is no place where it could be inserted. Abuses like that simply could not occur.(snip)
- The series of intentions is usually to be:
b) for public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;
c) for those burdened by any kind of difficulty;
d) for the local community.
Nevertheless, in any particular celebration, such as a Confirmation, a Marriage, or at a Funeral, the series of intentions may be concerned more closely with the particular occasion.
- It is for the Priest Celebrant to regulate this prayer from the chair. He himself begins it with a brief introduction, by which he calls upon the faithful to pray, and likewise he concludes it with an oration. The intentions announced should be sober, be composed with a wise liberty and in few words, and they should be expressive of the prayer of the entire community.
The people, for their part, stand and give expression to their prayer either by an invocation said in common after each intention or by praying in silence.
Despite these clear instructions, there are some parishes where it is the practice for the congregants to be afforded the opportunity to proclaim their intention aloud from their place in the pews (or for multiple, random people to come up and ad lib personal intentions from the ambo). Although an abuse, itās usually fairly harmless. Typically people will offer up prayer for a sick relative, for a job situation, for the troops, or something similar. And, of course, the other congregants will solemnly intone āLord, hear our prayerā in response to each of these personal intentions.
A few years ago I was in the unfortunate position of having to go to an Ash Wednesday mass at another parish. My work schedule was such that I was unable to be in proximity to my own parish for any of the Masses offered that day. Although not a day of obligation, I always make it a priority to have ashes imposed on Ash Wednesday (I wouldnāt feel like Lent really started if I didnāt).
This parish apparently had the custom of allowing ad hoc prayers from the congregants. It started off with the usual: prayers for the sick dog, the broken car, and so on. Each followed with āLord, hear our prayer.ā Then (this is burnt into my memory like it was yesterday), this woman stands up and offers the following intention: āThat God will enlighten Pope Benedict XVI and cure him of his misogyny so that he will allow the ordination of women to be priests and deacons.ā
There were no gasps from the crowd. No reproof from the priest celebrant. Only the mindless intonation of āLord, hear our prayer.ā
Donāt get me wrong, though. I donāt advocate eliminating the Novus Ordo and having everybody go back to only using the TLM. If that happened, The advantage of the TLM is, in my book, chiefly that the celebrant and the congregants WANT to be there and WANT to do that. This means that they, largely, have a great appreciation for the liturgy and go out of their way to see that itās done properly. If everybody were forced to go back, youād end up seeing a lot of the abuses that have been reported from the 50s and early 60s. Bored congregants, mumbled and rushed pronunciation from the celebrant, and so on.
A restoration to sole use of the TLM would be worse than the current situation we have now with the Novus Ordo.
The real solution is to raise the bar, whether the form of the Mass is Ordinary or Extraordinary. And to get rid of the abuses one way or the other.
To quote Father Z: Save the Liturgy, Save the World.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
If I was the priest, Iād be deeply ashamed at myself later for not having severely corrected the situation from the chair. That is utterly unacceptable, on the womanās part and on the priestās.
J
jam070406
Guest
Iāve been to a few Masses now where the Eucharistic Minister has blessed children when they came up with their parents to receive. Is this acceptable or another abuse?
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
J
jam070406
Guest
Yeah, thanks. (sigh)
P
ProVobis
Guest
I think itās important to note the āfiringā of Bugnini as it indicates the direction which Pope John XXIII, who convened Vatican II, intended to take with the liturgy. Or rather, what he wanted to preserve. Itās also important to note that this same Pope signed not a single document of Vatican II and made no long-term accommodations for council participants.
If Veterum Sapientia and adding the name of St. Joseph to the Canon are any kinds of indicators, perhaps Pope John XXIII wanted to expand the Latin Mass (such as adding more readings to the propers of the Roman Missal). But weāll never know for sure.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Iāve often intensely thought about what would have happened had Pope John not died and instead lived to see Vatican II through its end and beyond.
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Never too late. Donāt forget the last two Popes, both great Latinists and both having attended Vatican II, have wished to expand the availability of Pope John XXIIIās Missal, only to meet with heavy resistance (not to mention much disseminated disinformation) along the way.
I
Irish_Pride
Guest
Sadly,enough no .I donāt live in area that has one nearby so I have to attend the regular mass.
A
Aegidius
Guest
I guess you donāt how to read between the lines.
J
JM3
Guest
J
jmj1984
Guest
Let us look at the Papal Bull of Pope St Pius V that promulugated the Tridentine MassHow does a Mass that has been around for 25-30% of Church history become ātraditionalā?
Just curious.
'**From the very first, upon Our elevation to the chief Apostleship, We gladly turned our mind and energies and directed all out thoughts to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy, and We strove with Godās help, by every means in our power, to accomplish this purpose. For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by Godās help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper - for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass - We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.
Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses. **
Pope St Pius V is clear, he is not creating a mass but restoring the mass to its ancient form, that is excluding all the novelties which have grown up around it and regional practices. The Traditional Latin Mass is therefore far older than 400+ years as it was already āancientā in the days of the 16th century and indeed we know some sections, such as the confietor and the canon, date back to the 8th century and possibly earlier (Dom Propser Gueragner, The Holy Mass).
That should suffice to clear up any misapprehensions about this matter
You can read the Papal Bull here papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
- Status