Why the Tridentine rite has no abuses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Godefridus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, English was the language of Henry VIII, Archbishop Cranmer and others. Maybe that’s why the Council of Trent prohibited the vernacular in the Mass?
Trent did not prohibit the use of the vernacular in the Mass. The Tridentine Mass was actually celebrated in the vernacular in some places at the time of Trent.

Here is the actual Canon from the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent (underlined emphasis added).

** CANON IX.–**If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

The Church today does not say that the Mass has to be in the vernacular only. Our daily Mass in the house has Latin in it.
Come to think of it, didn’t Vatican II vote to retain Latin in the liturgy, as maybe a sign of unity, if not tradition and universality?
Yes it did.
 
The Mass I attend is an one and half hours…I don’t even know I’m there a hour and half, because of God’s presence. I totally feel immersed in God’s grace and in Heaven praising God with the Angels and Saints.

That’s the impression I had - when I attended an Orthodox Liturgy 🙂 I’ve never had that experience at the Latin Mass. Does that mean the Orthodox Liturgy is even more heavenly 🙂 than the Latin ?​

IMO, this whole discussion is too silly for words 🙂 - the Liturgy is the Liturgy, whatever its form: & it’s not for us anyway, but for God. It is not a good idea to run down the Liturgy, in any form. There is a bitter irony in the fact that the very rite that should be a clear sign of the Church’s unity, has become an occasion of bitter & division. What use is the Church if it mirrors the same divisiveness that we find outside it ? One needn’t join the Church to find divisions.

BTW - wouldn’t it be even more traditional for the demons to stick to Sumerian, instead of speaking a johnny-come-lately of a language such as Latin ? Adam could hardly have spoken Hebrew, becacause it is far too recent - as for Latin, that’s even younger; whereas Sumerian goes back to about 3500 BC. So the demons would not originally have spoken Latin, or Greek, or even Hebrew - but Sumerian, or Egyptian, or something older 🙂 ##
I would disagree there is abuse where the Tridentine Mass is said. My experience is people that attend are totally committed, 100% and are very well read.
We have Stations of the Cross on Friday, the Church is packed out. You wouldn’t see that at a Church where the Norvus Ordo is being said. I attended even First Fridays Reparation at the last Parish, maybe two from our Parish would show, I’ll stretch it to 10 all the other people were spanish and were from different Parishes a total of about 20 people.
 

That’s the impression I had - when I attended an Orthodox Liturgy 🙂 I’ve never had that experience at the Latin Mass. Does that mean the Orthodox Liturgy is even more heavenly 🙂 than the Latin ?​

IMO, this whole discussion is too silly for words 🙂 - the Liturgy is the Liturgy, whatever its form: & it’s not for us anyway, but for God. It is not a good idea to run down the Liturgy, in any form. There is a bitter irony in the fact that the very rite that should be a clear sign of the Church’s unity, has become an occasion of bitter & division. What use is the Church if it mirrors the same divisiveness that we find outside it ? One needn’t join the Church to find divisions.

BTW - wouldn’t it be even more traditional for the demons to stick to Sumerian, instead of speaking a johnny-come-lately of a language such as Latin ? Adam could hardly have spoken Hebrew, becacause it is far too recent - as for Latin, that’s even younger; whereas Sumerian goes back to about 3500 BC. So the demons would not originally have spoken Latin, or Greek, or even Hebrew - but Sumerian, or Egyptian, or something older 🙂 ##
I’m sorry you have no use for the Traditional Mass, does nothing for you. Take your advice quit running down the Liturgy.

As far as what demons speak I just quoted what Father Amorth said I think he adds more crediablity as being an expert than you.
 
You need to be very careful with statements like this. Believing what an exorcist says could very well lead some to believe that you accept the existence of Lucifer and Demons:bigyikes:

As is normally pointed out by most catechists these days, all right thinking Catholics should see theseconcepts as coming from a Pre Vatican II mentality and should thus be avoided. Belief in Lucifer as a fallen angel is a primitive notion according to these people and serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

Actually I guess the only folks who can get away with a belief in the existance of Lucifer, Demons Hell and Purgatory are old timers like me who have no fear of and are in fact proud to carry the label of
**
ROMAN CATHOLIC PRE VATICAN II MINDED INDIVIDUAL **
Pope John Paul II said…He that does not believe in the Devil does not believe in the Gospel.
 
Uh, John Paul said neither of those things. And this ** ROMAN CATHOLIC POST VATICAN II INDIVIDUAL **believes firmly in the reality of the spiritual world. And Fr. Amorth is great.
 
I’m sorry you have no use for the Traditional Mass, does nothing for you. Take your advice quit running down the Liturgy.
See this over reaction and drama-queening makes the “Trad” position hard to be sympathetic to. Even for me and I love Latin. He wasn’t bashing the TLM he was making an observation that emotional justifications are not evidence of anything in and of themselves.
As far as what demons speak I just quoted what Father Amorth said I think he adds more crediablity as being an expert than you.
That’s great but I’m sure that it is the exorcist’s Faith that they hate regardless of the language he’s using. It is the Faith after all that does the work not the language.
Pope John Paul II said…He that does not believe in the Devil does not believe in the Gospel.
If you make comments like that about the Holy Father you had best be able to back it up.
 
Quote:
Pope John Paul II said…He that does not believe in the Devil does not believe in the Gospel.

If you make comments like that about the Holy Father you had best be able to back it up.
I think there was a misunderstanding. “He” in the sentence is not referring to Pope John Paul II himself but to a quote from John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was responding to someone who told the Holy Father that many people today do not believe in the devil. And the Pope had said, “He that does not believe in the devil does not believe the gospel.”
 
Brennan Doherty;1972497:
I also get the impression that Pope John XXIII liked Latin quite a bit, but I don’t think he worshipped it above Christ even though his language regarding it in Veterum Sapientia is as strong as any Traditionalist’s:

The nature of Latin
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin’s formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

I agree with your statement: “Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.” …

In case there needs to be any clarification, that statement was not from me (though I wouldn’t mind it if I had sait it!) but from Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia:

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

God bless.
 
… IMO, this whole discussion is too silly for words 🙂 - the Liturgy is the Liturgy, whatever its form: & it’s not for us anyway, but for God. It is not a good idea to run down the Liturgy, in any form. There is a bitter irony in the fact that the very rite that should be a clear sign of the Church’s unity, has become an occasion of bitter & division. What use is the Church if it mirrors the same divisiveness that we find outside it ? One needn’t join the Church to find divisions. …
Your statement (in bold) reminds me of an astute observation Fr. Brian Harrison once made in the book, “The Reform of the Reform?” by Fr. Thomas Kocik (Ignatius Press). Italics are his:

"In short, what we have witnessed in these thirty years has been a tragic polarization and fragmentation among Catholics, in regard to the liturgy. But while so many have been drawing swords either to defend or attack the post-conciliar changes in the rite of Mass, not many seem to have noticed that the very existence of such tension, bitterness, and division is about the most eloquent possible evidence that the liturgical reform introduced in the name of Vatican Council II has been seriously defective. What both liberals and conservatives often forget is the fact that, in the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas, "The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church’s unity.

… The implications of this profound truth for the post-Vatican II liturgical reform seem to me very serious. If one of the main purposes of the eucharistic liturgy is to “renew, strengthen, and deepen” [CCC 1396] the unity of all Catholics in the one Mystical Body, then what are we to think of a reform that, whatever its positive results may have been, has also managed to provoke more discord, mutual alienation, and disunity than any officially introduced liturgical innovation in the entire history of the Church?

… Now, can the new rites be said to have promoted “unity” [Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) no. 1] among believers, when we see more strife and disunity than ever in connection with the liturgy? It may be true that Catholics and Protestants now feel less divided than before, but not in the way the Council Fathers expected. They hoped that liturgical reform would help Protestants to become more Catholic in their thinking; but all that has happened is that Catholics have demonstrably become more Protestant in their thinking! The Vatican II Fathers, as we have just heard, hoped that a revised liturgy would be a means of “help[ing] to call all mankind into the Church’s fold” [SC, no. 1]. But how could anyone claim that this hope has been even partially fulfilled when in most countries rates of conversion to Catholicism have plummeted to an all-time low, priests and religious have abandoned their holy vocations in tens of thousands, innumerable other Catholics have given up the faith altogether, and of those who do still profess it, fewer than ever now attend Mass regularly?"

(pp. 154-157)

thechristianactivist.com/vol8/V8Crisis.htm
 
Well, English was the language of Henry VIII, Archbishop Cranmer and others. Maybe that’s why the Council of Trent prohibited the vernacular in the Mass?

Come to think of it, didn’t Vatican II vote to retain Latin in the liturgy, as maybe a sign of unity, if not tradition and universality?
Trent didn’t prohibit the vernacular. Trent simply said that it did not seem appropriate at that time to switch from Latin to the vernacular. Popes after Trent have permitted the celebration of the Tridentine missal in the vernacular in a variety of locales.
 
Well, English was the language of Henry VIII, Archbishop Cranmer and others. Maybe that’s why the Council of Trent prohibited the vernacular in the Mass?

Come to think of it, didn’t Vatican II vote to retain Latin in the liturgy, as maybe a sign of unity, if not tradition and universality?
This makes a lot of sense. I can understand the need to clearly define which Mass was said in obedience to the Church. It seems that a lot of disciplines like this are in response to a pressing response to an immediate issue.
 
I think there was a misunderstanding. “He” in the sentence is not referring to Pope John Paul II himself but to a quote from John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was responding to someone who told the Holy Father that many people today do not believe in the devil. And the Pope had said, “He that does not believe in the devil does not believe the gospel.”
Well that makes more sense. The way it was presented was kind of confusing.
 
I’d have to say there is a built in abuse protector.

The fact that the Mass looked the same everywhere made it waaaay easier to spot liturgical abuse. I know for certain that if my Priest changed a bit of the Mass, even the most miniscule detail, it would throw myself and all the altar boys off at the same time.

It was one constant flow, without any pauses for lectors to get up to read, or cantors to drag themselves across the sanctuary. Any disturbance in that flow would result in an instant "liturgical innovation’ warning.

Also, the Traditional Missal left very little room for abuse. It goes through great detail on how the priest should even hold the host, how low he should bow, etc. etc.

In fact, any well read Traditionalist will know that there are several levels of ‘bowing low’.

In my Missal…there is

“profoundly bowing low”
“slightly bowing”
“inclining the head”
“bowing in deep humility”
“bowing in deep contrition”

All with their appropriate angels. Im surprised the Missal doesnt go ahead and illustrate it in percise degrees.

Such attention to detail really lowers the chance of liturgical abuse. While in the Novus Ordo Mass…we even have three versions of the introductory prayer among other chunks of the Mass that can be moved around at the priests discretion.

So the lack of uniformity results in parishoners attending the Mass, and assuming that no matter what happens at the altar its somehow okay or allowed.

While in the TLM, any slight change WILL lead to speculation.
Actually there are only 3 types of inclinations in the TLM: the profound bow, the moderate bow and the inclination of the head or simple bow of which, though not specified in the books, but I suppose according to decrees of the SCR (or maybe custom), manuals usually subdivide into two i.e. a complete bow of the head for the Holy Name, and a not so complete bow for Our Lady, the Saint and the Roman Pontiff. I do imagine that in many places when the TLM was the norm it would have varied a little, since not all priests were as pious about the Mass as those celebrating the TLM are today.

Though I do see the overall point: that while the liturgical detail of the TLM might be for the priest a little too too exacting, when the pendulum moves from that to the level of liberty given in the NO, and in so short a time (over 5 years), one shouldn’t be surprised that it was taken further.

But for me there is also a great merit in what the OP is saying which is the attitude of the priests, and sometimes sadly the bishops also. If now, one lived in a climate where abuse would get one transferred to a monastery in the desert, I’d imagine that, despite the options, priests would be a tad more careful about the way they conduct themselves.
 
The Anglicans celebrate the Tridentine “Mass” in a very beautiful “Thou” and “Thee” English. I don’t think I would be too comfortable there, though.
One should hope not!:eek:

They do NOT have valid Sacraments because they do not have valid Orders.

Let us not prefer an ancient rite over the ancient practice of obedience.👍
 
The abuses issue is a superficial one.

Even without any abuses, the New Rite is inferior to the Tridentine.

Cardinal Ottaviani’s criticisms were of the New Rite in its purest, abuse-free form.

Triumpha.
While many of criticisms the Study (which may have well not been written by Cardinal Ottaviani) are valid, some of them aren’t.
You are right, it is the Anglicans Book of Common Prayer. But it does do a very nice job of simulating the TLM.
It does?
 
They do NOT have valid Sacraments because they do not have valid Orders.
And why are their orders invalid?

And also, is their rite a valid rite? If not, why not?
 
And why are their orders invalid?

And also, is their rite a valid rite? If not, why not?
Hmmm, the Church has ruled on this. The main reason though, IMHO, is that they do not consider Holy Orders a Sacrament, so that would mean that their ordinations are not valid.

Also they do not have clear apostolic succession. And lets not forget that they have priestesses and bishopesses.

The Anglican Church is not practicing a valid rite as it can not truly be considered a rite as there is no Eucharist from it.

The proof of this is the Anglican Use which is a correction of the Anglican Churches “rite” to make it valid.
 
Church History / Welcome to the CatholicChurch

All the bishops, except Kitchin of Llandaff, refused to take the corresponding oaths to the new Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, and were deprived of their sees. They were replaced by a hierarchy installed according to the revived Edwardian Ordinal. From Barlow’s invalid consecration of the-new primate of Canterbury, Matthew Parker, on December 17, 1559, all Anglican prelates and clergy have derived their orders. The Catholic Bishop Bonner, indeed, challenged their validity; whereupon in 1564 the queen graciously issued a letter “supplying all defects.” She herself, however, showed scant respect for her prelates and “hedge priests.” All of the Catholic hierarchy died in prison except Kitchin, Heath of York, permitted to retire to his family estate, and Goldwell who escaped to the Continent where he died in 1585, last survivor of the Marian Catholic regime. Of some eight thousand beneficed clerics, six thousand took the required oaths, though some of these continued to say Mass in secret. About seven hundred resisted strongly; the others fled or resigned.

Anglican Orders * [From the Letter, “Apostolicae curae,” Sept. 13, 1896] 1963 In the rite of conferring and administering any sacrament one rightly distinguishes between the ceremonial part and the essential part, which is customarily called the matter and form. And all know that the sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify [see n. 695, 849]. Although this signification should be found in the whole essential rite, namely, in matter and form, yet it pertains especially to form, since the matter is the part not determined by itself, but determined by form. And this appears more clearly in the sacrament of orders, for the conferring of which the matter, insofar as it presents itself for consideration in this case, is the imposition of hands. This, of course, by itself signifies nothing, and is employed for certain 1964 orders, and for confirmation. Now, the words which until recent times were everywhere held by the Anglicans as the proper form of priestly ordination, namely, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” certainly do not in the least signify definitely the order of priesthood, or its grace and power, which is especially the power “of consecrating and of offering the true body and blood of the Lord,” in that sacrifice which is no “nude commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” [see n. 950]. Such a form was indeed afterwards lengthened by these words, “for the office and work of a priest”; but this rather convinces one that the Anglicans themselves saw that this first form was defective, and not appropriate to the matter. But the same addition, if perchance indeed it could have placed legitimate significance on the form, was introduced too late, since a century had elapsed after the adoption of the Edwardine
 
Ordinal; since, moreover, with the extinction of the hierarchy, there was now no power for ordaining.
The same is true in regard to episcopal consecration. For to the formula “Receive the Holy Ghost” were not only added later the words “for the office and work of a bishop,” but also, as regards these very words, as we shall soon see, a different sense is to be understood than in the Catholic rite. Nor is it any advantage in the matter to bring up the prayer of the preface, “Almighty God,” since this likewise has been stripped of the words which bespeak the summum sacerdotium. It is, of course, not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate is a complement of the priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether when conferred, as they say, per saltum, that is, on a man who is not a priest, it has its effect or not. But the episcopate without doubt, from institution of Christ, most truly pertains to the sacrament of orders, and is a priesthood of a pre-eminent grade, that which in the words of the Fathers and in the custom of our ritual is, of course, called “summum sacerdotium,” “sacri ministerii summa.” Therefore, it happens that since the sacrament of orders and the true sacerdo~ium of Christ have been utterly thrust out of the Anglican rite, and so in the consecration of a bishop of this same rite the sacerdotium is by no means conferred; likewise, by no means can the episcopacy be truly and validly conferred; and this is all the more true because among the first duties of the episcopacy is this, namely, of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and the sacrifice. . . .
So with this inherent defect of form is joined the defect of intention, which it must have with equal necessity that it be a sacrament. . . . And so, assenting entirely to the decrees of all the departed Pontiffs in this case, and confirming them most fully and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own inspiration and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that ordinations enacted according to the Anglican rite have hitherto been and are invalid and entirely void. . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top