Why do you regularly attend the tridentine mass?

[Melchior_1]

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.

As you may have guessed, systematic thinking, critical analysis, and deductive reasoning are hallmarks of Dominican spirituality. The first step is; we obey. The next step; find out the why’s, what’s, and how’s behind it. Even infallible statements, we break things down and find out why, try to figure out where it fits into things. Great example; the Immaculate Conception. Aquinas, one of our most famous members, disagreed with it. As he’s very popular in Dominican circles, and I’m sure when the time came for that infallible statement there were like some concerns people had about what the Dominicans would say about it. The reality; at first, regardless of their thoughts on the matter, nothing was said except “we obey”. They then proceeded to look into what was behind the infallible statement and try to tease out some information on the Immaculate Conception. The belief would (and will) always be believed, but it’s the nature of the Order to look into why we believe it. Aquinas would have obeyed and looked into they why’s, the man was a philosopher after all.

I say all of that because this does shed light into why austerity plays such a big role within Dominican spirituality; when you break things down, you often do strip things away and look at the core components.

I never said the externals weren’t important, and no where in any of my posts will you hear me say otherwise. What you **will **hear me say is that there is a danger to overly rely on the externals, and that some may get too hung up on them. They are designed to lift us up, not act as a barrier. There is a very real possibility that without even knowing, it is a barrier to some (am extreme example are those who think that the Ordinary Form is invalid simply because it’s the “wrong” Form).

People have no reason to get defensive about mendicants and their approach to liturgy. And there’s no reason for people to get defensive over some voicing their concerns over an over reliance on the externals (just as I shouldn’t get up in arms over someone saying I think the externals aren’t important)

Like I said in another thread; for some they can approach Christ as he is in the Temple. For others, they approach the manger.

tl;dr - I think we agree with each other on this, we happen to approach the liturgy in a couple different directions. Both directions are authentically Catholic in-line with Church teaching and tradition (and Tradition).

 

[jam070406]

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.

I’m glad someone finally pointed out what you did in your last paragraph. With so much comparison to monastic communities, by some in these threads, it was a long time coming.

 

[jmj1984]

As you may have guessed, systematic thinking, critical analysis, and deductive reasoning are hallmarks of Dominican spirituality. The first step is; we obey. The next step; find out the why’s, what’s, and how’s behind it. Even infallible statements, we break things down and find out why, try to figure out where it fits into things. Great example; the Immaculate Conception. Aquinas, one of our most famous members, disagreed with it. As he’s very popular in Dominican circles, and I’m sure when the time came for that infallible statement there were like some concerns people had about what the Dominicans would say about it. The reality; at first, regardless of their thoughts on the matter, nothing was said except “we obey”. They then proceeded to look into what was behind the infallible statement and try to tease out some information on the Immaculate Conception. The belief would (and will) always be believed, but it’s the nature of the Order to look into why we believe it. Aquinas would have obeyed and looked into they why’s, the man was a philosopher after all.

I say all of that because this does shed light into why austerity plays such a big role within Dominican spirituality; when you break things down, you often do strip things away and look at the core components.

I never said the externals weren’t important, and no where in any of my posts will you hear me say otherwise. What you **will **hear me say is that there is a danger to overly rely on the externals, and that some may get too hung up on them. They are designed to lift us up, not act as a barrier. There is a very real possibility that without even knowing, it is a barrier to some (am extreme example are those who think that the Ordinary Form is invalid simply because it’s the “wrong” Form).

People have no reason to get defensive about mendicants and their approach to liturgy. And there’s no reason for people to get defensive over some voicing their concerns over an over reliance on the externals (just as I shouldn’t get up in arms over someone saying I think the externals aren’t important)

Like I said in another thread; for some they can approach Christ as he is in the Temple. For others, they approach the manger.

tl;dr - I think we agree with each other on this, we happen to approach the liturgy in a couple different directions. Both directions are authentically Catholic in-line with Church teaching and tradition (and Tradition).

Thanks for that but I answer simply with what I said above on religious others.

As for those few people who think the OF is valid, and the rather larger number who think it is less efficacious, their view has absolutely nothing to do with externals and is therefore not relevant to this discussion or this thread.

 

[jmj1984]

I’m glad someone finally pointed out what you did in your last paragraph. With so much comparison to monastic communities, by some in these threads, it was a long time coming.

Took me a while to think of it to be honest

 

[albertjazz]

Its not complicated we had a perfectly good liturgy before the Second Vactiacan Council,the the “Spirit of” all a total diaster for so many reasons.You can dicuss with deep meaning anaylises and meanings,but true Roman Catholics in the Pew just want devotion DEVOTION to our Blessed Lord and nothing else,and the abominations of the liturgy,the excuses in sin,the lack of penance,the lack of reverence to the most holy Sacrament of the alter.Change for changes sake,th attempt to change the church from within to meet the modern word MODERNISM the great heresy

 

[jmj1984]

Its not complicated we had a perfectly good liturgy before the Second Vactiacan Council,the the “Spirit of” all a total diaster for so many reasons.You can dicuss with deep meaning anaiises and meanings,but true Roman Catholics in the Pew just want devotion DEVOTION the our Blessed Lord and nothing else,and the abominations of the liturgy,the excuses in sin,the lack of penance,the lack of reverence to the most holy Sacrament of the alter.Change for changes sake,th attempt to change the church from within to meet the modern word MODERNISM the great heresy

Oh Dear…

 

[albertjazz]

Oh Dear What ?

 

[jmj1984]

Oh Dear What ?

You should have read the forum rules.

 

[Melchior_1]

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.

I see you added this while I was posting before.

Quite often what happens in religious communities will spill over into the Church as a whole. It has been referenced a few times on these boards that the Tridentine had several Franciscan and Benedictine influences. Other items which were adopted eventually were placement of the Tabernacle. St. de Monfort was heavily influenced by Dominican spirituality, and we now see that his devotional practices are being used by the Church as a whole.

Also, it isn’t just for those “in a religious state”. The Third Order of Saint Dominic and the Secular Franciscans are both fully recognized as being a part of those Orders, and by being so are aligned with that kind of spirituality. There are priests and laymen who are involved with said communities, and that would impact them in several respects. Like I said before, Saint Pius X was a Secular Franciscan. In six years I won’t be taking solemn vows like my brothers, but I’ll be no less a part of Dominic’s family than them, while still being a layman with a family.

 

[jmj1984]

I see you added this while I was posting before.

Quite often what happens in religious communities will spill over into the Church as a whole. It has been referenced a few times on these boards that the Tridentine had several Franciscan and Benedictine influences. Other items which were adopted eventually were placement of the Tabernacle. St. de Monfort was heavily influenced by Dominican spirituality, and we now see that his devotional practices are being used by the Church as a whole.

Also, it isn’t just for those “in a religious state”. The Third Order of Saint Dominic and the Secular Franciscans are both fully recognized as being a part of those Orders, and by being so are aligned with that kind of spirituality. There are priests and laymen who are involved with said communities, and that would impact them in several respects. Like I said before, Saint Pius X was a Secular Franciscan. In six years I won’t be taking solemn vows like my brothers, but I’ll be no less a part of Dominic’s family than them, while still being a layman with a family.

This is actually irrelevant, what we are talking about is practices regarding the mass and the sacraments, not general spirituality. Laymen standing around the altar is an abuse, you have said Franciscans do this, that is one of many examples where something that is acceptable for one is not for the other.

Whether you like it or not the religious and secular and lay state are different, they each have different duties and obligations, though they share some, and therefore self-evidently people in one state can do that which people in another state cannot and vice-versa, what is beneficial for a person in one state may not be beneficial for a person in another state.

 

[albertjazz]

Oh Dear…

Oh Dear What?

 

[Melchior_1]

This is actually irrelevant, what we are talking about is practices regarding the mass and the sacraments, not general spirituality. Laymen standing around the altar is an abuse, you have said Franciscans do this, that is one of many examples where something that is acceptable for one is not for the other.

But even then, it’s situational. TimothyH, a user here, is a layman. He visited a monastery and they went up around the alter. All other laymen who were there, along with him, joined the brothers around the alter. Technically, laymen around the alter in that case is not an abuse.

The preceding paragraph is splitting hairs, yes, but that’s what we’re doing at this point, and have been for a few posts now. My initial post commented on the internal attitude one brings to the liturgy, without commenting on the liturgy itself. Which is why I’m continuing along the same vein in most of these posts; that it’s how one carries themselves to the foot of the Cross, how one brings themselves to the creche in Bethlehem. External aspects of the liturgy can both help and hinder that, in a myriad of fashions.

Having your Mass “ruined” because you see people receiving Communion on the tongue while standing instead of kneeling, for example. I can’t kneel due to back pain, which means I may have ruined someone’s Mass because I didn’t kneel. To me, that’s a sign on their part that they might want to consider looking internally with how they’re approaching Christ. And yes, it does work both ways. If there are abuses happening of some kind that are actual abuses, then the person doing the abusing should look at themselves internally and see why.

 

[jmj1984]

But even then, it’s situational. TimothyH, a user here, is a layman. He visited a monastery and they went up around the alter. All other laymen who were there, along with him, joined the brothers around the alter. Technically, laymen around the alter in that case is not an abuse.

The preceding paragraph is splitting hairs, yes, but that’s what we’re doing at this point, and have been for a few posts now. My initial post commented on the internal attitude one brings to the liturgy, without commenting on the liturgy itself. Which is why I’m continuing along the same vein in most of these posts; that it’s how one carries themselves to the foot of the Cross, how one brings themselves to the creche in Bethlehem. External aspects of the liturgy can both help and hinder that, in a myriad of fashions.

Having your Mass “ruined” because you see people receiving Communion on the tongue while standing instead of kneeling, for example. I can’t kneel due to back pain, which means I may have ruined someone’s Mass because I didn’t kneel. To me, that’s a sign on their part that they might want to consider looking internally with how they’re approaching Christ. And yes, it does work both ways. If there are abuses happening of some kind that are actual abuses, then the person doing the abusing should look at themselves internally and see why.

I’m not going to comment about people standing round the altar, save to say that layman in the sanctuary is not something I or the church approves of, with the obvious exceptions i.e confirmation etc…

Your comments probably affect 0.5% of trads, believe it or not we don’t go 'Woe is me, someone received communion in the hand!’ or ‘Someones standing up, Gods going to strike them down’. We may however go 'I wish communion in the hand was banned or ‘Why are there women and lay people in the sanctuary?’ or ‘Why is someone other than a priest or deacon giving out communion?’

The fact remains, some things approved for religious orders are obviously not approved for lay people.

 

[albertjazz]

But even then, it’s situational. TimothyH, a user here, is a layman. He visited a monastery and they went up around the alter. All other laymen who were there, along with him, joined the brothers around the alter. Technically, laymen around the alter in that case is not an abuse.

The preceding paragraph is splitting hairs, yes, but that’s what we’re doing at this point, and have been for a few posts now. My initial post commented on the internal attitude one brings to the liturgy, without commenting on the liturgy itself. Which is why I’m continuing along the same vein in most of these posts; that it’s how one carries themselves to the foot of the Cross, how one brings themselves to the creche in Bethlehem. External aspects of the liturgy can both help and hinder that, in a myriad of fashions.

Having your Mass “ruined” because you see people receiving Communion on the tongue while standing instead of kneeling, for example. I can’t kneel due to back pain, which means I may have ruined someone’s Mass because I didn’t kneel. To me, that’s a sign on their part that they might want to consider looking internally with how they’re approaching Christ. And yes, it does work both ways. If there are abuses happening of some kind that are actual abuses, then the person doing the abusing should look at themselves internally and see why.

But the majority don,t have back pain,this is all stupid,Norvo Ordo for those who want it,but allow the Tridentne Mass for those who wnat it,the fear of the “reformers” and the “Spirit of Vactican Two” is that the Tridentine Mass,given exposure to the faithfull will,in time be preferred !

 

[jmj1984]

But the majority don,t have back pain,this is all stupid,Norvo Ordo for those who want it,but allow the Tridentne Mass for those who wnat it,the fear of the “reformers” and the “Spirit of Vactican Two” is that the Tridentine Mass,given exposure to the faithfull will,in time be preferred !

You will get banned and will probably get this thread locked, so please shush

 

[albertjazz]

You will get banned and will probably get this thread locked, so please shush

What banned for having a point of view,?

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m not going to comment about people standing round the altar, save to say that layman in the sanctuary is not something I or the church approves of, with the obvious exceptions i.e confirmation etc…

Your comments probably affect 0.5% of trads, believe it or not we don’t go 'Woe is me, someone received communion in the hand!’ or ‘Someones standing up, Gods going to strike them down’. We may however go 'I wish communion in the hand was banned or ‘Why are there women and lay people in the sanctuary?’ or ‘Why is someone other than a priest or deacon giving out communion?’

The fact remains, some things approved for religious orders are obviously not approved for lay people.

The Church doesn’t approve of it in most circumstances I agree, but there are some (such as at a monastery or a Franciscan home) where it can happen. Francis himself was a layman for most of his years.

Again, lay people can be a part of those Orders. As can secular clergy. A Secular Franciscan who lives in a Franciscan home is still a Franciscan and will take part in their practices despite being a layman.

Overall though, there are some practices that those who are not a part of those communities will not do. Fortunately, I was never talking about that; I was talking about the attitude and spirituality, which anyone can adopt. I do find it interesting that whenever the internal state is brought up, some people automatically assume that it’s liturgy being attacked or talked about, despite that in this case I specifically said that was what I wasn’t talking about.

 

[albertjazz]

The voting graph says it all.no need to say more on the subject !

 

[jmj1984]

The Church doesn’t approve of it in most circumstances I agree, but there are some (such as at a monastery or a Franciscan home) where it can happen. Francis himself was a layman for most of his years.

Again, lay people can be a part of those Orders. As can secular clergy. A Secular Franciscan who lives in a Franciscan home is still a Franciscan and will take part in their practices despite being a layman.

Overall though, there are some practices that those who are not a part of those communities will not do. Fortunately, I was never talking about that; I was talking about the attitude and spirituality, which anyone can adopt. I do find it interesting that whenever the internal state is brought up, some people automatically assume that it’s liturgy being attacked or talked about, despite that in this case I specifically said that was what I wasn’t talking about.

Sorry you’re saying that layman can stand around altars and thats fine? Is this an official Franciscan practice?

Its a fair presumption to make, considering the topic of this thread and your replies.

 

[Melchior_1]

Sorry you’re saying that layman can stand around altars and thats fine? Is this an official Franciscan practice?

Its a fair presumption to make, considering the topic of this thread and your replies.

Brother JR could chime in on that one as he’s an expert on the Franciscans. From some of what I’ve read over the last few years, it seems to be the case. But I’ll differ to his knowledge as it’s very possible I’m mistaken, as it’s been a few years since I read said materials. Until he or another Franciscan comes by, don’t quote me on it

I recall that TimothyH mentioned that he was invited to go near the Alter during his stay at the monastery he visited, perhaps he could share this experience at some point as well.