Why I no longer attend the Tridentine Mass

[peregrinator_it]

Andreas Hofer:

Well-intentioned prelates, including popes, can still make less-than-perfect decisions. Admitting this possibility does not mean a lack of faith, loyalty, or obedience, just a questioning of prudential judgments.

A sincere question:

We are bound (by Vatican I-Pastor Aeternus) to submit to the Pope, not only on matters of faith and morals, but on matters of church discipline and government. When we claim that we have determined that what we would prefer is in itself superior to what the Pope has decreed aren’t we failing in submission?

dumspirospero:

…it is almost like people believe that being an orthodox Catholic and preferring the TLM are mutually exclusive…what is the deal?

It’s because so many that prefer the TLM claim that the TLM is intrinsically “better” than the liturgy which replaced it- which suggests a lack of belief that Paul VI/Vatican II were inspired by the Holy Spirit (see ref. to Vatican I above).

And because there are posters like the one on this thread who points out the “inferiority” of the Pauline Mass based on the Offertory. This is silliness. There are prayers in the Pauline Mass that are better worded than in the TLM (the Confiteor, for example). So what??

I feel like a broken record lately. Changing the rite of the Mass, returning to the TLM, will not remedy the lack of faith, revernce, and obediance lacking in Catholic congregations. Only catechesis, good example, time, and, most importantly, the grace of God will accomplish that.

I absolutely sympathize with those who miss the pre-Vatican II aesthetics - I think we should have kept them- they are something we can certainly ressurect. I don’t want to see the TLM abolished and I hope those who prefer the TLM will always be able to attend the Mass in the rite they choose, but I fail to see how questioning the inspiration of the Church can possibly do anyone any good.

 

[WhiteDove]

peregrinator_it:

A sincere question:

We are bound (by Vatican I-Pastor Aeternus) to submit to the Pope, not only on matters of faith and morals, but on matters of church discipline and government. When we claim that we have determined that what we would prefer is in itself superior to what the Pope has decreed aren’t we failing in submission?

That’s a very good point. Obedience isn’t very meaningful if we want to do it anyways. It’s only hard when it goes against our personal wishes or desires.

 

[pnewton]

Andreas Hofer:

Admitting this possibility does not mean a lack of faith, loyalty, or obedience, just a questioning of prudential judgments.

I totally agree with you here. We are definitely at liberty to have questions about the prudence of certain disciplinary and liturgical issues. To turn the table, though, prudence on our part must acknowledge that we might not be as fully informed as some decision-makers. Still we know that all leaders will at times use less-than-perfect judgement and yet still retain their authority.

This is also applicable to work, home or government, as well as the church.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

peregrinator_it:

A sincere question:

We are bound (by Vatican I-Pastor Aeternus) to submit to the Pope, not only on matters of faith and morals, but on matters of church discipline and government. When we claim that we have determined that what we would prefer is in itself superior to what the Pope has decreed aren’t we failing in submission?

While it isn’t logically impossible that this be the case, your definition of submission that requires every Catholic to agree with every matter of discipline means that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not render submission to the Supreme Pontiff. His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger is on record criticizing aspects of the current rite. Now I realize that John Paul II was not a very authoritarian pope, but I think 20 years of refusing proper submission to his decrees would have driven even him to reassign a dissenting Cardinal to a less influential post.

Your comment about questioning the inspiration of the Church by questioning the prudence of disciplinary decisions also hints at a misunderstanding of the charism of infallibility. As I noted above, the Church does not teach that she is impeccable in disciplinary matters. The only protection she enjoys in discipline is that she will not bind any practices on the faithful that are contrary to proper morality. To claim that disciplinary decisions are somehow inspired is going to get you into some pretty sticky reasoning considering the amount of disciplines which have changed over the years.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

pnewton:

I totally agree with you here. We are definitely at liberty to have questions about the prudence of certain disciplinary and liturgical issues. To turn the table, though, prudence on our part must acknowledge that we might not be as fully informed as some decision-makers. Still we know that all leaders will at times use less-than-perfect judgement and yet still retain their authority.

This is also applicable to work, home or government, as well as the church.

We’re definitely on the same page. A critic must always take great pains to know his subject and put conflicting positions in the best light possible.

 

[Cradle]

I hate to jump out of lurkdom like this and interrupt your caritate plena discussion, but…

Iohannes:

Simply the offertory in the Tridentine Mass is surperior than the New Mass. If you look at the language, it is more clear that the Mass is a sacrificial nature.

Tridentine Offertory:
Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this **spotless **host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.

Look at the words in bold, how is that not a stronger language than the New Mass offertory?
I absolutly do not understand how this is the same as this:

P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

(underlined emphasis added)

Are you comparing prayers at different points in the consecration? Because in the TLM sample that you gave of the offertory it seems as if the celebrant is speaking of the Eucharist while in the NOM sample he is speaking of the as-yet-unchanged wafer. In all honesty, I’ve only skimmed through an online missalette of the TLM and attended a barely-audible Low Mass (I would have loved to be able to hear it since I know some Latin, but the priest was unintelligible :ehh: ), so I’m not familiar with the words of the liturgy, but it certainly comes across as if your TLM sample is dealing with the already-confected Eucharist and not with a simple wafer of bread (as is the case with the NOM sample).

I’m not saying whether one is superior to the other, I’m just asking about what appears to me at least (maybe I’m just stupid) to be a discrepancy.

 

[Iohannes]

Cradle:

I hate to jump out of lurkdom like this and interrupt your caritate plena discussion, but…

(underlined emphasis added)

Are you comparing prayers at different points in the consecration? Because in the TLM sample that you gave of the offertory it seems as if the celebrant is speaking of the Eucharist while in the NOM sample he is speaking of the as-yet-unchanged wafer. In all honesty, I’ve only skimmed through an online missalette of the TLM and attended a barely-audible Low Mass (I would have loved to be able to hear it since I know some Latin, but the priest was unintelligible :ehh: ), so I’m not familiar with the words of the liturgy, but it certainly comes across as if your TLM sample is dealing with the already-confected Eucharist and not with a simple wafer of bread (as is the case with the NOM sample).

I’m not saying whether one is superior to the other, I’m just asking about what appears to me at least (maybe I’m just stupid) to be a discrepancy.

I am comparing the two offertories:

latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

Even though this is the 1965 Roman Missal, it has the same offertory as the 1962 Roman Missal:
coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

Here is another site of the two Missals:
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Texts/Index/4

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Pariah Pirana:

I think if the Tridentine Mass had always been available on demand, there would be little need for it today. It’s appeal seems to stem largely because it is “forbidden” or overly controlled within some dioceses.

I think a “univeral indult” might actually reduce the number of people who attend the Tridentine Mass.

I dont get what your saying in the first line. What do you mean by “on demand”? and “little need”?

But the second part is an interesting assumption. Is the reason why there are so few indults because few attend or because they want to phase it out slowly?

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Catholic Dude:

I dont get what your saying in the first line. What do you mean by “on demand”? and “little need”?

But the second part is an interesting assumption. Is the reason why there are so few indults because few attend or because they want to phase it out slowly?

“On demand” = enough people want it, then allow it. Many dioceses forbid the Tridentine Mass even if they are plenty of people who want it. Call if a universal indult if you like.

“Little need” = Little need due to little demand.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

“On demand” = enough people want it, then allow it. Many dioceses forbid the Tridentine Mass even if they are plenty of people who want it. Call if a universal indult if you like.

“Little need” = Little need due to little demand.

So why do they forbid it, if there is high demand now that will eventually lead to low demand then wont that solve the demand issue? Or are you saying people go for it now because it is a controversial issue? I was sure that JohnPaul II said that no Bishop (or priest?) could be denied the option.
As for the universal indult, isnt that what we have now?

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Catholic Dude:

So why do they forbid it, if there is high demand now that will eventually lead to low demand then wont that solve the demand issue? Or are you saying people go for it now because it is a controversial issue? I was sure that JohnPaul II said that no Bishop (or priest?) could be denied the option.
As for the universal indult, isnt that what we have now?

Mystique. Forbidden fruit.

No, we do not have a universal indult. Whether or not to publically allow it is ultimately up to the local ordinary.

 

[kk1727]

Cradle:

Are you comparing prayers at different points in the consecration? Because in the TLM sample that you gave of the offertory it seems as if the celebrant is speaking of the Eucharist while in the NOM sample he is speaking of the as-yet-unchanged wafer. In all honesty, I’ve only skimmed through an online missalette of the TLM and attended a barely-audible Low Mass (I would have loved to be able to hear it since I know some Latin, but the priest was unintelligible), so I’m not familiar with the words of the liturgy, but it certainly comes across as if your TLM sample is dealing with the already-confected Eucharist and not with a simple wafer of bread (as is the case with the NOM sample).

You’ve actually discovered the prevailing problem - good eye. The only traditional ‘offertory’ prayer is the Secret. Which is why the Carthusian Rite never had the aforementioned prayers just the secret prayer. The Dominican only had the Suscipe sancta Trinitas, etc. These prayers were somewhat out of place. They referred to the gifts as if they were already consecrated when in fact the consecration hadn’t yet taken place. Most explanations of the Mass I’ve come across take the position that they refer to the action of consecration but that it is not possible for the Church to say at one moment everything that she wishes to say.

In the second case, the prayers that are being compared to the former prayers of the liturgy are not in fact ‘offertory’ prayers. Rather the Church has termed them as “Preparation of the Altar and the Gifts” The desire here is to not confuse the notion that the offering of the the spotless Lamb to the Father in propitiation for the sin of the world takes place before the consecration rather than at the anamnesis. The form the take echo that of the Jewish meal prayers - berakah. It is quite simply prayers which express our intent to set apart these gifts of bread and wine for the Eucharistic Prayer which follows. These prayers achieve this purpose.

The former prayers were gorgeous and perhaps something better could have been done. There is room for objective and intellectually honest criticism based on liturgics, history, etc. for the reforms of the missal. If we are going to view things fairly with a critical eye we must be objective. There is nothing wrong with the former use nor do I find anything wrong with the current use. On the liturgical side I am of the opinion that the former were prayers that were out of place and somewhat obscured the original ancient structure both in meaning and in placement. Compared to today, the prayers more properly express the action taken and have maintained the use of the prayer Deus qui humanae. I think these prayers could have been more beautifully expressed than they were. I would like to have especially seen the retention of at least two more of the old prayers: Veni sanctificator omnipotens and Suscipe sancta Trinitas. The Semitic-style blessing I find to be somewhat strange among the Latin styled prayers but I’m not entirely against them. In the end, I can see advantages and disadvantages for each use.

Pax,
Keith

 

[otm]

kk1727:

You’ve actually discovered the prevailing problem - good eye. The only traditional ‘offertory’ prayer is the Secret. Which is why the Carthusian Rite never had the aforementioned prayers just the secret prayer. The Dominican only had the Suscipe sancta Trinitas, etc. These prayers were somewhat out of place. They referred to the gifts as if they were already consecrated when in fact the consecration hadn’t yet taken place. Most explanations of the Mass I’ve come across take the position that they refer to the action of consecration but that it is not possible for the Church to say at one moment everything that she wishes to say.

In the second case, the prayers that are being compared to the former prayers of the liturgy are not in fact ‘offertory’ prayers. Rather the Church has termed them as “Preparation of the Altar and the Gifts” The desire here is to not confuse the notion that the offering of the the spotless Lamb to the Father in propitiation for the sin of the world takes place before the consecration rather than at the anamnesis. The form the take echo that of the Jewish meal prayers - berakah. It is quite simply prayers which express our intent to set apart these gifts of bread and wine for the Eucharistic Prayer which follows. These prayers achieve this purpose.

The former prayers were gorgeous and perhaps something better could have been done. There is room for objective and intellectually honest criticism based on liturgics, history, etc. for the reforms of the missal. If we are going to view things fairly with a critical eye we must be objective. There is nothing wrong with the former use nor do I find anything wrong with the current use. On the liturgical side I am of the opinion that the former were prayers that were out of place and somewhat obscured the original ancient structure both in meaning and in placement. Compared to today, the prayers more properly express the action taken and have maintained the use of the prayer Deus qui humanae. I think these prayers could have been more beautifully expressed than they were. I would like to have especially seen the retention of at least two more of the old prayers: Veni sanctificator omnipotens and Suscipe sancta Trinitas. The Semitic-style blessing I find to be somewhat strange among the Latin styled prayers but I’m not entirely against them. In the end, I can see advantages and disadvantages for each use.

Pax,
Keith

It it refreshing to hear from someone who actually sounds as if they understand liturgy, as opposed to poetry.