Why do you regularly attend the tridentine mass?

[liturgyluver]

Ir I could only attend a Tridentine Mass here in Norwich England and at my parish Church The Catheral Church of St John the Baptist but there seems no chance,its just the Novo Ordo,and the Banal Liturgy with a protestant feel to it.I feel that the lack of respect to The Blessed Sacrament of the Alter,the lack of belief in the Real Presence and Transsubstantiation,has all lead to this current situation,Holy Communion in the hand and not Kneeling when receiving the king of kings Even the priest would only hold th sacred host between forefinger and thumb in the Tridentine Mass which was once the only Mass,Seeking excuses in sin, Modernism,Materialism. Most of what has happened under the banner of “Spirit of Vactican Two” was not ordained at this council,but has been introduced by the liberal clergy who seemingly want to change the church from within,as many before ,down the years who are now protestants.Mass facing the wrong way.Iconoclsm,Roman Vestments,Happy Clappy Hymns.No communion Rail.Holy Communion taken in the Hand,and condemnation of the Tridentine Mass,the mass for all time,l a culpable sin by these often unkown perpertrators

Although I am only an ocassional attender at either Latin or Tridentine mass, I do feel passionately that provision should be made for weekly celebrations in each area. It’s shocking that a Catholic cathedral, no less, feels unable to do this and I understand your frustration.

While I’m at it, I also think the other issues you mention - westward-facing celebration, modern hymns, no communion rail, standing for communion - are relevant and it’s sad that they have now become the norm in the Catholic church. I think the Church would regain some lost ground if it dealt with these issues too. Whenever I attend an Anglican Church and I see eastward-facing, beautiful traditional music, communion rails, an orderly approach to communion, incense and sanctus bells, benediction, the angelus, quietness and dignity of conduct before and after mass, I always think, why can’t we have that. Before anyone says it, I know they don’t have the mass like we do, but some reinstatement of these traditions would make mass so beautiful.

 

[albertjazz]

However lovely the Tridentine mass is, we must be ever so thankful that at both forms of the mass Jesus humbles himself so greatly to be there. The reason for mass being wonderful is because Jesus is there.

Then Our Lord should have the best in Worship,and not Puppet,Clown.Folk Masses and the almost Lutheran Liturgy all practised within the Norvo Ordo

 

[MissRose73]

I go to both forms. I prefer the ExtraOrdinary Form because of the history, the Latin, chant/music, and you know what will happen each time, and the prayers are consistently the same. I also like the EF because people tend to display a bit more reverence, respect, and modesty in behavior & dress compared to most Ordinary Form Masses I’ve been to. I only wish I did not have to travel 50+ miles one way for the EF. I just try to go to Ordinary Form Masses that stick to the rubrics as much as they can, and kneel using kneelers when they are available for the parts that require it.

 

[Bearontherun]

Then Our Lord should have the best in Worship,and not Puppet,Clown.Folk Masses and the almost Lutheran Liturgy all practised within the Norvo Ordo

I agree that He does deserve the best.
His greatness though far exceeds what we have to offer in worship…in either form.

 

[albertjazz]

I go to both forms. I prefer the ExtraOrdinary Form because of the history, the Latin, chant/music, and you know what will happen each time, and the prayers are consistently the same. I also like the EF because people tend to display a bit more reverence, respect, and modesty in behavior & dress compared to most Ordinary Form Masses I’ve been to. I only wish I did not have to travel 50+ miles one way for the EF. I just try to go to Ordinary Form Masses that stick to the rubrics as much as they can, and kneel using kneelers when they are available for the parts that require it.

For the most part the Holy Father is struggling with components within the church who are hostile and disobedient to his wishes,hence the lack of opurtunnity to find on attend a Tridentine Mass,as here in Norwich England
I wonder when I see people who flock to Holy Communion,accept our Lord in the hand ,standing up,beliving that Mortal Sins are forgiven in the penetential rite of the Mass,so no need to go to Confession…The Sacrament of Penance,!Whether they actually believe in the real presence has to be asked,no genuflection before the Blesses Sacrament,with conversational noise throughout

 

[CompSciGuy]

I like it, there are elements I prefer to the way a typical english mass. I think we must all agree now, that any liguistic concerns have been addressed in the full, the new translation is fantastic.

But what is lacking, for me, is the palpatible dignity of the the melenia and a half (or so) old style of worship. I feel more connected to the communion of Saints, I appreciate what I see is greater reverence, right down to kneeling while receiving.

That said, I have no particular problem being at an English mass.

I know that everyone loves the new translation. I don’t have a problem with it. But I don’t think it’s a “vast improvement” from the old one; to be perfectly honest I can’t tell the difference. They are different words that say more or less the exact same thing as before.

I wonder how you feel that the old style of worship is ‘more connected’ to the communion of the saints. I guess if it’s your preference that’s ok. But the supposed “irreverance” of the ‘common’ parishoners does not affect me; what turns me off are the traditionalist who sit comfortably through the tridentine mass and snobbishly look down their noses at everyone else. Not saying that this is you. I’m saying that I see it a lot and it makes me sick.

As you can probably tell I don’t put a lot of thought into external ritual. I think too much focus on it turns out an awful lot of hypocrites.

 

[jmj1984]

I wonder how you feel that the old style of worship is ‘more connected’ to the communion of the saints. I guess if it’s your preference that’s ok. But the supposed “irreverance” of the ‘common’ parishoners does not affect me; what turns me off are the traditionalist who sit comfortably through the tridentine mass and snobbishly look down their noses at everyone else. Not saying that this is you. I’m saying that I see it a lot and it makes me sick.

As you can probably tell I don’t put a lot of thought into external ritual. I think too much focus on it turns out an awful lot of hypocrites.

How pray tell me do you know they are snobbish? Do you presume this or have you actually asked them? I’m going to be honest I’ve been to quite a few TLM’s, in fact its the only mass I do attend, and I never seen any hint of snobbish behaviour. Besides which I’m sure someone could make the same complaint about EMHC’s and 'Vatican II guys’.

As for the external ritual issue, thats fairly problematic, the Church has always put a lot of thought and focus on external ritual, indeed it has theological and dogmatic reasons for doing this.

 

[Melchior_1]

How pray tell me do you know they are snobbish? Do you presume this or have you actually asked them? I’m going to be honest I’ve been to quite a few TLM’s, in fact its the only mass I do attend, and I never seen any hint of snobbish behaviour. Besides which I’m sure someone could make the same complaint about EMHC’s and 'Vatican II guys’.

As for the external ritual issue, thats fairly problematic, the Church has always put a lot of thought and focus on external ritual, indeed it has theological and dogmatic reasons for doing this.

Again the conversation steers towards the externals, although I’m not speaking in a ritualistic sense. We see what is on the outside, and perceive that to be the case. It happens across the board with those who attend the OF or the EF.

CompSciGuy gave his perception of what he see’s. Meanwhile, I’ve seen several traditionalists on this very board call into question people who attend the OF with no regard to the internal. Sadly, I doubt this will change anytime soon.

 

[crazzeto]

I know that everyone loves the new translation. I don’t have a problem with it. But I don’t think it’s a “vast improvement” from the old one; to be perfectly honest I can’t tell the difference. They are different words that say more or less the exact same thing as before.

The new words are more specific, consubstantial might seem to mean the same thing as “one in being” to someone who understands well what Holy Mother Church is trying to say (and who is obedient to the teaching). But today, we all tend to be a little more “free thinking”, and someone not “bound by the restrictions of what the Church says” can be free to feel “one in being” means modalism, for instance. Consubstantial, however is a little more specific.

I wonder how you feel that the old style of worship is ‘more connected’ to the communion of the saints. I guess if it’s your preference that’s ok. But the supposed “irreverance” of the ‘common’ parishoners does not affect me; what turns me off are the traditionalist who sit comfortably through the tridentine mass and snobbishly look down their noses at everyone else. Not saying that this is you. I’m saying that I see it a lot and it makes me sick.

Very easy, the Latin Mass goes back to the 5th century or so… Oh sure, you might experience some more prayers that were originally said, such as the prayer to St. Michael at the conclusion, but the core liturgy is unchaged. Per Fr. Fortescue all major “revisions” of the Mass served to restore the Liturgy to it’s original intended format (after it had been altered in the field), rather than to alter it.

For me this is powerful, and yes it is a matter of preference. I have no qualms with the English liturgy, particularly in it’s latest revision. But I do personally prefer the Latin when I am able to experience it.

As you can probably tell I don’t put a lot of thought into external ritual. I think too much focus on it turns out an awful lot of hypocrites.

It can, if one loses perspective. But I would urge you to not try and disconnect the spirit from the body, this is a heresy. More specifically here, what is on the inside should reflect on the outside and vice versa.

There is a tendancy today to think that it is OK to believe what I am expressing on the outside can be totally different than what is on the inside. From another POV, we can call this hypocracy.

I would tend not to claim someone who prefers English is experiencing less than the Latin, I believe it is a matter of preference. Both are fully endorced by the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church. I prefer the Latin, if you prefer English then peace be with you =)

 

[ProVobis]

Oh! No!
Do you understand the difficulty for Chinese to learn Latin?

Seeing that their reading, math, and science skills are superior to those in the U.S., I wouldn’t degrade them like that. Give them the exposure and I’ll bet they’ll pick it up, Latin alphabet, vocabulary and grammar.

Latin is a DEAD language !!!

I don’t like the way you put it but, yeh, like gold, I would consider that a good thing. Know also it is one of the three languages of the cross.

 

[CompSciGuy]

How pray tell me do you know they are snobbish? Do you presume this or have you actually asked them? I’m going to be honest I’ve been to quite a few TLM’s, in fact its the only mass I do attend, and I never seen any hint of snobbish behaviour. Besides which I’m sure someone could make the same complaint about EMHC’s and 'Vatican II guys’.

As for the external ritual issue, thats fairly problematic, the Church has always put a lot of thought and focus on external ritual, indeed it has theological and dogmatic reasons for doing this.

I’m not talking about snobbish behavior at mass, I’m talking about snobbish behavior in everyday life. And by that I mean they make judgments about other peoples’ level of devotion based on, for example, whether they take communion on the tongue or not, whether women wear a head dress, and trivial silly things like this. They rail against the ordinary form, against the music, make derisive comments, etc. In all honesty, ask yourself, are these differences really offensive to God, or are they just offensive to me?

 

[albertjazz]

I’m not talking about snobbish behavior at mass, I’m talking about snobbish behavior in everyday life. And by that I mean they make judgments about other peoples’ level of devotion based on, for example, whether they take communion on the tongue or not, whether women wear a head dress, and trivial silly things like this. They rail against the ordinary form, against the music, make derisive comments, etc. In all honesty, ask yourself, are these differences really offensive to God, or are they just offensive to me?

In many cases YES No genuflection before the Blessed Sacrment,the herding up to Holy Communion,many thinking that the Penetential Rite of the Mass forgives Mortal Sin [though many dont know what a mortal sin is] The Sacrament of Penance [confession] hardly used nowadays.Communion in the hand and standing when receiving our Blessed Lord,Loud conversation a total lack or reverance,Its the priest who offers the sacrifice of the Mass not the congregation,who are wittneses to the Holy Sacrifice,the Mass is not a family meal,as say Lutheran Oh for the silent prayerfull Tridentine Mass following it all with the Missal and able to join with the Mass in any country in the world,the lack of distraction and receiving our Blessed Lord in the hand is not a “Trivial Thing” are you worthy to touch the hem of his garment

 

[jmj1984]

I’m not talking about snobbish behavior at mass, I’m talking about snobbish behavior in everyday life. And by that I mean they make judgments about other peoples’ level of devotion based on, for example, whether they take communion on the tongue or not, whether women wear a head dress, and trivial silly things like this. They rail against the ordinary form, against the music, make derisive comments, etc. In all honesty, ask yourself, are these differences really offensive to God, or are they just offensive to me?

In other words, no, you have never asked them you have just presumed that they are being snobbish.

It should be pointed out that stating that everyone who doesn’t like the OF or bad music is snobbish is using a rather large brush and condemns not just everyone in the SSPX, but Michael Davies, anyone who holds similar views to him and I suspect a large portion of members of Una Voce, the FSSP and the ICKSP.

 

[jmj1984]

Again the conversation steers towards the externals, although I’m not speaking in a ritualistic sense. We see what is on the outside, and perceive that to be the case. It happens across the board with those who attend the OF or the EF.

CompSciGuy gave his perception of what he see’s. Meanwhile, I’ve seen several traditionalists on this very board call into question people who attend the OF with no regard to the internal. Sadly, I doubt this will change anytime soon.

To be frank, this overemphasis on the internals to the exclusions of the externals, is a protestant invention.

 

[mattkubes]

To be frank, this overemphasis on the internals to the exclusions of the externals, is a protestant invention.

I’m glad someone said it. Christ the King is present in the tabernacle. The Maker of the universe is deserving of our best.

 

[jmj1984]

I’m glad someone said it. Christ the King is present in the tabernacle. The Maker of the universe is deserving of our best.

I’m sorry it had to be, but as you said someone had to say it.

 

[Melchior_1]

To be frank, this overemphasis on the internals to the exclusions of the externals, is a protestant invention.

Well for starters, I wasn’t talking about the external as it pertains to liturgy in my post. And no one advocates eschewing liturgical externals as they being inherently evil. But since you’re bringing it up, focusing on the internal actually predates Protestants by a couple hundred years and is quite authentically Catholic.

Mendicants (and those who practice the spirituality of the mendicants) don’t have anything against the externals, including liturgical externals. But if there are a lack of externals, that doesn’t affect us as much due to the focus being on Christ Jesus as presented within the nativity.

We strive to bring ourselves to the manger. I understand this isn’t for everyone, some people may prefer to meet Jesus at the Temple, for example. But the concept of focusing on the internals is not, as you say, a Protestant invention.

Mendicants were the ones who moved the Tabernacle to the center, so obviously the externals matter. But if they walk into a Church where it isn’t in the center, they can still easily find Christ within the manger. OF, EF, the mentality remains the same; humbling going with all we have before the Child Jesus, with Him swaddled in blankets in the arms of our Immaculate Mother.

 

[jmj1984]

Well for starters, I wasn’t talking about the external as it pertains to liturgy in my post. And no one advocates eschewing liturgical externals as they being inherently evil. But since you’re bringing it up, focusing on the internal actually predates Protestants by a couple hundred years and is quite authentically Catholic.

Mendicants (and those who practice the spirituality of the mendicants) don’t have anything against the externals, including liturgical externals. But if there are a lack of externals, that doesn’t affect us as much due to the focus being on Christ Jesus as presented within the nativity.

We strive to bring ourselves to the manger. I understand this isn’t for everyone, some people may prefer to meet Jesus at the Temple, for example. But the concept of focusing on the internals is not, as you say, a Protestant invention.

Mendicants were the ones who moved the Tabernacle to the center, so obviously the externals matter. But if they walk into a Church where it isn’t in the center, they can still easily find Christ within the manger. OF, EF, the mentality remains the same; humbling going with all we have before the Child Jesus, with Him swaddled in blankets in the arms of our Immaculate Mother.

Good post, except I said ‘to the exclusion of the externals’, therefore you are:
a)preaching to the converted, and
b)attacking a strawman

My thinking is bext expressed by the Council of Trent which states 'And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice. '

Further the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared in a decision confirmed by Pope St Pius X ‘**… But whereas the Sacraments of the New
Law, though they take effect ex opere operate,
nevertheless produce a greater effect in
proportion as the dispositions of the recipient
are better, therefore care is to be taken that
Holy Communion be preceded by serious
preparation, and followed by a suitable thanks
giving, according to each one s strength,
circumstances, and duties. **’

It is somewhat self-evident that both this preparation and thanksgiving will be manifested externally.

 

[Melchior_1]

Good post, except I said ‘to the exclusion of the externals’, therefore you are:
a)preaching to the converted, and
b)attacking a strawman

I was responding to your posts, as I was under the impression you were telling me that I was a proponent of excluding the externals, since you posted your original comment right after I talked about the internal state of being versus people’s external signs. If you weren’t directing it towards me, then all we have is a misunderstanding and are simply sharing each others viewpoints.

My thinking is bext expressed by the Council of Trent which states 'And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice. ’

There’s nothing wrong with this, provided it brings you to the place that the Fathers of Trent desired. If it aids you like the Fathers of Trent say it can, then that’s a wonderful thing. But what if it detracts you, or if you find that due to something missing to have a fierce reaction?

An example would be going to Mass at an Abbey. The Mass there will not be like the Mass you are used to going to. How would that affect you (general you, not you yourself )? Likewise with Franciscans, as they sometimes gather around the Alter as they have been doing since the time of their founder. How does that affect you (again, general you)?

The mendicants see no issue with what the Fathers of Trent said, and agree wholeheartedly. But for us, the externals are a means to an end. If they aren’t there, it doesn’t matter to us, as we focus on the end itself.

I see you edited your post. The interesting part is that St. Pius X would possibly share my perspective on the externals; the man was a Secular Franciscan after all.

 

[jmj1984]

I was responding to your posts, as I was under the impression you were telling me that I was a proponent of excluding the externals, since you posted your original comment right after I talked about the internal state of being versus people’s external signs. If you weren’t directing it towards me, then all we have is a misunderstanding and are simply sharing each others viewpoints.

There’s nothing wrong with this, provided it brings you to the place that the Fathers of Trent desired. If it aids you like the Fathers of Trent say it can, then that’s a wonderful thing. But what if it detracts you, or if you find that due to something missing to have a fierce reaction?

An example would be going to Mass at an Abbey. The Mass there will not be like the Mass you are used to going to. How would that affect you (general you, not you yourself )? Likewise with Franciscans, as they sometimes gather around the Alter as they have been doing since the time of their founder. How does that affect you (again, general you)?

The mendicants see no issue with what the Fathers of Trent said, and agree wholeheartedly. But for us, the externals are a means to an end. If they aren’t there, it doesn’t matter to us, as we focus on the end itself.

Well it did come across like that to be honest, but perhaps as you say all we have is a misunderstanding.

You are using what is called a purposive approach, I’ve come across it in my law degree, essentially you look at the reasoning behind the law and uphold this reasoning, therefore if in your opinion taking the words literally would contradict with this purposive approach you set the literal meaning aside. It is a useful method for human laws but as we know that infallible statements cannot err nor can they have been written in such a sense that a literal sense would contradict them, there is no need for such an approach. The Church takes a literal approach to infallible pronouncements and this is an infallible pronouncement. Thus it is irrelevant whether it brings you to the place the fathers of trent desired or not, the statement is still infallible.

It may well be that the Franciscans have a simpler mass, the Carthusians may as well, however the externals are still important and the Church is clear about that.

It is also pointing out something that people often forget when they say ‘But this religious order…’, yes that RELIGIOUS order, meaning that those in it are in the religious state. A state which brings particular and plentiful graces with it and for which they will likely have been well catechised, therefore what is suitable for religious may not always be suitable for the laity or secular clergy, it may even be harmful to them.