Why is the Tridentine Mass popular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mgy100
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
katolik:
Well your concerns are big, truly they are but the Novus Ordo Mass is a stark departure from the Traditions of the Roman Rite, even if it is said ad orientem and in Latin. Like the 4 “EUcharistic prayers” instead of the formerly universal Roman Canon[all ROman Latin rites used it!],the “Mystrey of Faith” acclamation by the laity, and the 2 readings before the Gospel.
Click to expand...
Did you really mean to use a capital “T” when writing Traditions?
 
Anna Elizabeth:
While we’re on the subject, I have never seen a thread on the “conspiracy theories” as to how the changes in the Mass came about. Do any of you know of these things? :confused:

Does the name “Bugnini” mean anything to you? Was this discussed, and I missed it? :confused:

How about the name “Gelineau”? :confused:

:confused:

Anna
Click to expand...
Excellant book: Timebombs of Vatican II by Davies, published by TAN just this past year.

You can learn all about the Bugnini mess and much more. It is not a big book - maybe one hundred pages or so… available in quantity also.

He also interviews the Protestant “observers” at VAT II. No wonder so many have left the Catholic Church… less vocations… etc. By all means… read it. It is well referenced and documented…not the author’s opinion.
 
The Pauline rite of mass is very beautiful. There is a good bit of propaganda against it on the Internet, where publishing is cheap. I am not sure that the Tridentine rite (i.e. the rite codified at Trent) is as popular as the lead post insists; the overwhelming majority of Catholics attend the Pauline rite of mass. The anti-Pauline propaganda generally exaggerates liturgical details, and is premised upon faulty theology especially in regard to what the prayers are alleged to contain and omit. I think that participation in the Tridentine mass is now a way to jeopardize your faith: those who assist to that mass are very prone to be suspicious about the rites of the Church, and about the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council; and are very likely to have their mistaken impressions exaggerated by their “traditional” experiences. The Tridentine mass itself, obviously, is not a threat to faith, no more than the Pauline rite could be: the Church’s rites cannot harm us (Trent, below). But the tendency among traditionalists is to effectively become their own magisterium, and to be increasingly willing to criticize that which is frankly not open to criticism, as a question of dogma.
If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema. *
Click to expand...
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Go to the thread “Has the new GRIM helped?” Check out the post by Agamemnon. Sorry, have no idea how to link you. Also, perhaps you could explain this:

Anyways, the TLM is not just a choice, it is the only choice for Mass.

God bless you.
Click to expand...
See here:
Ottoviani Intervention written by Cardinals Ottoviani and Bacci in 1969
www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/ottav.html
and 62 reasons against attending the New Mass
www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/62reason.html
 
JKirkLVNV said:
(I know Novus Ordo isn’ t the correct term, what is?).
Click to expand...

It can be called the Pauline rite of mass, or the mass of Paul VI.

Incidentally, Card. Ottaviani effectively withdrew his critique of the Pauline rite, as seen in Documentation Catholique, ‘#67, 1970, pp. 215-216 and 343, in which he avers the doctrinal legitimacy of the new rite and its protection by the teaching magisterium of the Church. His critique applied to a draft of the rite, although “traditionalists” do not specify this, and generally do not realize it.
 
Cardinal Ottaviani was blind and feeble at the time of his “alleged” withdrawal. A pro-conciliar cleric provided the document for him to sign, but lied to him about its contents.
 
40.png
Patrick2340:
Cardinal Ottaviani was blind and feeble at the time of his “alleged” withdrawal. A pro-conciliar cleric provided the document for him to sign, but lied to him about its contents.
Click to expand...
“Blind and feeble”? :rotfl: What, he didn’t want to be martyred for “tradition”? What else did he have to lose if he was “blind and feeble”?

What do you mean, “the document”?
 
40.png
Patrick2340:
Cardinal Ottaviani was blind and feeble at the time of his “alleged” withdrawal. A pro-conciliar cleric provided the document for him to sign, but lied to him about its contents.
Click to expand...
Come on now. Everytime somebody says something that contradicts your camps belief in Vatican II suddenly there’s a big conspiracy. This is your big argument? When all else fails to agree we simply say that somebody made them do it? and the evidence is where?
 
40.png
MrS:
Excellant book: Timebombs of Vatican II by Davies, published by TAN just this past year.

You can learn all about the Bugnini mess and much more. It is not a big book - maybe one hundred pages or so… available in quantity also.

He also interviews the Protestant “observers” at VAT II. No wonder so many have left the Catholic Church… less vocations… etc. By all means… read it. It is well referenced and documented…not the author’s opinion.
Click to expand...
Once again, I think the tape series I recommended will counter the “not the author’s opinion.” It’s an interview with a Catholic who was involved with Vatican II. He also explains the Bugnini mess.
 
A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal’s signature, was adduced to prove the story. However, by that date it is known that the Cardinal, then 80, was totally blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the purposed letter by his secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni. *Ed. *Agustino was later made Bishop, then Cardinal, by John Paul II]

Now it has come to light that this Agustoni Ed. and his brother, Fr. Luigi Agustino] was a member of the Consilium which created the New Mass and which the Arch-Architect of the New Order service, Hannibal Bugnini, led. At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal’s signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal’s secretary.

So, it seems that Agustoni insinuated his way into becoming the Cardinal’s secretary and in that position created a fraud in an attempt to undermine the Cardinal’s public document, which questioned the validity of the New Order service, by a phony “retraction,” which Agustoni had himself written with others. In any case, co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never “retracted,” in any manner, shape, or form the devastating document, which they courageously published.
 
40.png
FrmrTrad:
The Pauline rite of mass is very beautiful. There is a good bit of propaganda against it on the Internet, where publishing is cheap. I am not sure that the Tridentine rite (i.e. the rite codified at Trent) is as popular as the lead post insists; the overwhelming majority of Catholics attend the Pauline rite of mass. The anti-Pauline propaganda generally exaggerates liturgical details, and is premised upon faulty theology especially in regard to what the prayers are alleged to contain and omit. I think that participation in the Tridentine mass is now a way to jeopardize your faith: those who assist to that mass are very prone to be suspicious about the rites of the Church, and about the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council; and are very likely to have their mistaken impressions exaggerated by their “traditional” experiences. The Tridentine mass itself, obviously, is not a threat to faith, no more than the Pauline rite could be: the Church’s rites cannot harm us (Trent, below). But the tendency among traditionalists is to effectively become their own magisterium, and to be increasingly willing to criticize that which is frankly not open to criticism, as a question of dogma.
Click to expand...
Very good post thank you…

I had a conversation with my friend who is now SSPX and I never realized the mass I go to in my church wasn’t beautiful until she told me it wasn’t… (I do still think it is) Alot of her issues seemed to be with the little “t” stuff instead of the big “T” stuff… How can someone judge the beauty and reverance in a church based on that stuff. All though, it is good to remember to keep us on ours toes.
 
40.png
Patrick2340:
A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal’s signature, was adduced to prove the story. However, by that date it is known that the Cardinal, then 80, was totally blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the purposed letter by his secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni. *Ed. *Agustino was later made Bishop, then Cardinal, by John Paul II]

Now it has come to light that this Agustoni Ed. and his brother, Fr. Luigi Agustino] was a member of the Consilium which created the New Mass and which the Arch-Architect of the New Order service, Hannibal Bugnini, led. At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal’s signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal’s secretary.

So, it seems that Agustoni insinuated his way into becoming the Cardinal’s secretary and in that position created a fraud in an attempt to undermine the Cardinal’s public document, which questioned the validity of the New Order service, by a phony “retraction,” which Agustoni had himself written with others. In any case, co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never “retracted,” in any manner, shape, or form the devastating document, which they courageously published.
Click to expand...
Would you care to cite your source? Perhaps traditio.com? They don’t even cite their source. Sorry if Fr. Moderator’s conspiracy theories just doesn’t cut it for me. It just “came to light” the way they say it does because it did. Evidence would be nice before people are accused of deceit.
 
40.png
bear06:
Would you care to cite your source? Perhaps traditio.com? They don’t even cite their source. Sorry if Fr. Moderator’s conspiracy theories just doesn’t cut it for me. It just “came to light” the way they say it does because it did. Evidence would be nice before people are accused of deceit.
Click to expand...
And conspiracy theories just make people roll their eyes!:rolleyes:
 
Presented without attribution, the source for the above post by Patrick2340 is an article maintained by two schismatic sites, Apologia and Traditio: sites which openly encourage the faithful to abandon the sacraments available through the new rites of the Church. There are several ways to see our way around this disinformation. First, Card. Ottaviani made statements approving the new rite of mass in two documents, not just one. He would have been fooled twice. Second, Card. Ottaviani died in 1979, which was a great many years for him to find a way to get the word out to the “remnant” that his Intervention had been foiled by document(s?) he was tricked into signing–was he tied up, too? It does seem, as well, a great many years during which to be “blind and feeble”. Truly, the blindness and weakness is on the part of our Catholic friends who refuse to consider the possibility that they are veering into false traditionalism. Indeed, many years into being “blind and feeble”, Card. Ottaviani himself stated that
“The words of Christ ‘feed my sheep’ are words which have been addressed only to his vicar, and it follows that whoever would wish to be counted among the Flock of Christ must submit to the Universal Pastor appointed by Christ. No one can be a exception to this rule, not even Bishops.” (Whitehead, 130, From Leroy Philippe, “Pierre a Parle,” Chevaliers #32, 1976). “A Defense of the Pauline Mass”
Click to expand...
Observe that this date occurs long after the 1970-era documents in which Card. Ottaviani writes approvingly of the Pauline rite.
 
I didn’t intend for everyone to fight. And, I’ve learned one thing, citing and decoding church law and papal decrees must take a law degree from Yale or Oxford. Long story short, if you want to attend a Roman Catholic Tridentine Mass, I encourage it, I go to both masses, and I’m not arguing at all. Further, the puritans don’t even like the 1962 mass, so technically, the 1962 Tridentine Rite really isn’t the original Tridentine Mass because it had been changed in 1962 from the previous version.
I may digress here, a parable perhaps.
In my home state we are only allowed to hunt with flintlocks in the muzzleloader season. Now, in the early muzzleloader season we can use the newest inline scoped muzzleloaders. Follow me here, ok… The late season is the “Traditional Season.” But, flintlocks aren’t the absolute first gun type ever made. If it were really to be an accurately shoulder fired gun, it would be a matchlock only season (the earliest gun, hand gonne, cannon was used for war only, it’s a barrel and a stick, not aimed).
Point is, an inline is a muzzleloader, but it’s not good enough for the Traditional season, but the flintlock that is good enough isn’t even perse the first type of hunting rifle.
So traditional is subjective, things change. The matchlock was elementary (the hand gonne was the first gun) compared to the modern scoped inline. But, but, they both still are loaded the same and are subjected to the same constraints. Does that make any sense?
 
40.png
FrmrTrad:
I think that participation in the Tridentine mass is now a way to jeopardize your faith: those who assist to that mass are very prone to be suspicious about the rites of the Church, and about the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council; and are very likely to have their mistaken impressions exaggerated by their “traditional” experiences.
Click to expand...
What traditional experiences are you talking about?
Sir, what is wrong with persons who attend the TLM? Is it because we are not full enough of the “spirit of vatican ii”? Is it that we don’t want a Mass at which a lutheran/ anglican/protestant feels like he is still in his heretical sect? Or is it that we don’t want liturgical
dancers?

Also, don’t you remember what Terese of the Child Jesus siad? She said she would die a 1000 deaths for the loss of the smallest chruch ritual! How many church rituals did we loss after Vatican II is astounding.
 
40.png
katolik:
What traditional experiences are you talking about?
Sir, what is wrong with persons who attend the TLM? Is it because we are not full enough of the “spirit of vatican ii”? Is it that we don’t want a Mass at which a lutheran/ anglican/protestant feels like he is still in his heretical sect? Or is it that we don’t want liturgical
dancers?

Also, don’t you remember what Terese of the Child Jesus siad? She said she would die a 1000 deaths for the loss of the smallest chruch ritual! How many church rituals did we loss after Vatican II is astounding.
Click to expand...
Katolik,

Myself, I don’t find anything wrong with people who prefer to attend the TLM. I would love to see a wider application of the Indult.

There is, however, a feeling that sometimes exists in Traditional Mass Communities and in some Traditional publications. It is a climate that seems to breed conspiracy theories and often openly encourages disobedience.

As beautiful as the TLM is, I personally find that constant exposure to the community is not healthy for my faith. I realize that there are many, many people who have opposite experiences. There are some wonderful TLM parishes, but not all are. I know some very Traditional Catholics that don’t attend the one TLM offered in our diocese because of the open bashing of the Pope, the Vatican and the Church that they encounter there. (not from the priest, by the way - he is wonderful).
 
I guess the anti-Trads (perhaps because so many are “Latin-loathers” :whistle: ) want it both ways.

First, the Pope says the NO is a valid Mass, so that is all we should be happy with. But when the Pope says the TLM is fully acceptable, and we should return to a wider use of it and the Gregorian music etc, well, then they say the Trads are jeopordizing the faith.

As for the fruits of Vatican II.,… how can we not include the bad fruits of the abuses of Vatican II?? I guess the fluff-off would be that the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators - the Church Since Vatican II, by Ken Jones, is just putting a spin on the numbers.:banghead:

Thank God that more and more Catholics (especially younger ones) are in awe of the level of reverence in the TLM and aware of the decrease in reverence and prayer that is the “bad fruits” of VatII abuses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top