Why the Tridentine rite has no abuses

[gorman64]

From *Apostolicae Curae *, On the Nullity of Anglican Orders, Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII:

1. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m sorry you have no use for the Traditional Mass, does nothing for you. Take your advice quit running down the Liturgy.

The reformed Missal is also a liturgical book - there’s not much danger of its predecessor being run down; there is, OTOH, a good likelihood that the reformed Missal will be.​

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.

The question was not about him, or anything to do with him - it was entirely to do with this (very odd) idea that demons have linguistic abilities.​

The issue, & the questions arising from it, would be the same if it were said that demons spoke Modern German or Old French or any other language you care to name:

• 1. How does such a claim make sense ?
• 1. What basis is there for making it ?
• 1. How do demons learn or know languages anyway ?
     The argument from authority is no answer - it’s an evasion, & it’s a logical fallacy: two good reasons for ignoring it. If a claim looks silly - it is going to be thought to be silly; if not by “Traditional Catholics”, then by other people. It professes to make a statement of fact; and that implies it is verifiable. Those others will ask inconvenient questions, even if some Catholics are too polite or too cautious to do so. St.Thomas Aquinas has some words to say about arguments that make Catholicism look ridiculous - & TCs are (I thought) rather fond of folk like him; I know I was; & still am.

If someone says “The cow jumped over the moon”, and claims this to be a fact - people will want to know what basis there is for it. Assertions that demons are proficient in Latin, if these assertions profess to be statements of fact, are going to have the same questions asked about them.

We can’t make claims which we say are true statements of fact, and then tell people not to ask how we know those claims are true; that wouldn’t be good. If we claim something is true, we should expect to be questioned about it.

If demons do speak Latin: which kind ? There’s a choice between a wide variety of kinds. Cicero, St. Bede The Venerable, Robert Grosseteste, & Sir Isaac Newton all used it, but that is no guarantee that they would have understood one another; so the question is by no means an idle one:

• Silver
• Late
• Ecclesiastical
• Mediaeval
• Neo-Latin

• for example; unsurprisingly, given the lifespan & geographical distribution of the language; & if they do speak some form of it, this could be of considerable interest to historians of the language. At least their ability to speak some form of it shows it is not dead - which ought to cheer up Father Foster, who was recently quoted as deploring its death. If the old Missal were in Ciceronian Latin, it’s anyone’s guess whether it would be in use: many of the Office Hymns were barbarised in the 17th century, in a misguided attempt to “restore” their Latinity to that of Virgil & other Golden Latin poets.

I’m not joking BTW, but taking the assertion that demons (all of them ?) speak it, seriously; because if the claim they do is true, this has some remarkable implications. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I heard the black Mass is a ritual where it is said in Latin backwards.

Oh, details, details, details…

Define “backwards” ​

Are we talking about

• putting the phonetic structure of syllables backwards
  or
• putting the phonetic structure of words backwards
  or
• what ?

There is a difference between the sound produced by saying syllables or **words **or letters: yet all are in some sense being said backwards. Or are we talking about word order, & if so, in what size of unit ? Sentences, paragraphs, or “other” ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

Was it the content, or the manner, that caused problems ? There are​

many complaints of episcopal heavy-handedness: that has more to do with the culture in the Church, than with the content of what is enforced.

If there had been more sensitivity to the fact that people acquire habits in religion, which cannot be switched, but need time to change, there might have less anguish. That is a good reason for not making that mistake now - religious habits can’t be changed like a pair of trousers, just because a change is expected; they are too delicate for that. Those who are used to the revised Missal deserve the same consideration. Then there might be less acrimony in 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!

What about becoming more Christian ? If we can learn that from them, & they from us, well & good​

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](http://www.thechristianactivist.com/vol8/V8Crisis.htm)

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply ​

My position is fairly straightforward (I think !); I’ve read all sorts of claims, counter-claims, opinions, accusations, and so forth - & there is no way they can all be right:

• Coomarasway & Omlor take one position the sedevacantist, IIRC
• Michael Davies disagreed with Omlor in his own books
• Abp. Lefebvre had his position - & Davies wrote a long apologia for him, which included some diagreements with people like
• Father Harrison (whom you’ve quoted) - as well as with
• Yves Congar & others, whose names escape me for the moment
• who with other Fathers of V2 been severely criticised by writers such as Atila Sinke Guimaraes; not least because of the reformed Missal
  They all represented various positions, several of which seem to be mirrored on these fora.

They cannot all be right, yet all put forward impressive & varied reasons for their positions - the result, for some of us, being complete puzzlement. I have no idea who is right, or whether any of them is, or whether it even matters; I do know that it is impossible to say why one should believe any of their positions. It’s fine for them - what becomes of those who cannot decide where to stand or what to do ? No wonder people give up - the C of E is more united. If you want chaos, become RC.

…cont’d]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…cont’d & done]

The Mass is now something to unchurch or hereticate people for - its proper religious function seems to have been forgotten.
So whether it has brought unity is irrelevant - it is meant to be a sign of unity, & **that **is the point. Otherwise, it’s not even distinctively Christian.

The author does not look in detail at the causal connections he claims exist. What he refers to, may have other or more complicated causes. People did not start giving up Catholicism the moment V2 was finished; in England in the 1950s, there was an average yearly rate of 15,000 conversions to Catholicism - but also of 3,000 from Catholicism. IMO, V2 made the impression it did because it all happened at once; if its work had been distributed over generations - from 1750 to 1960, say - the same needs Church might have been met, with relatively little fuss.

Blaming everything on Vatican 2 or the reformation of the Missal is too convenient - it lets people off asking themselves about their responsibility for their acts & lives: they can blame something else. Life is not that simple - there is a world *outside *the Church too. ##

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Michael (Gottle of Geer), thanks for your response. I can’t quote what you said (I would not have much room left to write!), but at least it’s above for people to read.

Having read the entire article (and other things) written by Fr. Brian Harrison I am pretty sure his critique lands squarely with the liturgical “content” and not so much the manner of its imposition (though he could probably critique both, I am sure).

As far as Cahtholics becoming more Protestant in their thinking perhaps he is talking about the predilection of many Catholics to behave as if they can pick and choose what Church dogmas they want to obey or ignore, much as Protestants choose what they will do according to their own lights.

As far as the list of men you gave, all I can say is that I point people in general to Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dr. William Marra, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. Aidan Nichols, and books like “Reform of the Reform?” by Ignatius Press. At least when reading these people you have the impression you are reading men well versed in the liturgy and who are reasonable (whether someone agrees with all their points or not) and are not sedevacantists. For instance, both Dom Alcuin Reid and Fr. Aidan Nichols are members of religious orders (maybe the same order) in good standing with the Vatican.

Yes, the liturgy is a sign of unity, but I also think it is meant to foster unity. Fr. Brian Harrison quotes the Catechism that the liturgy is meant to renew, strengthen, and deepen the unity of the Church, and it also would go hand in hand with the idea of a sacrament,–something which effects that which it signifies. Thus even though the liturgy per se is not a sacrament, it is wholly appropriate to not only signify but help foster unity.

Cardinal Ratzinger once said that, “I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, …”

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=196

Thus, conversely, when people do not recognize the factor the new liturgy played in the resulting life of the Church after Vatican II, but instead blame all the Church’s ills almost exclusively on the secular world, then I think this can also be quite convenient.

Because if we blame the world out there, then I guess we as a Church did not really do anything to cause our vocations crisis or lax Mass attendance. And if only the secular world would get its act together we might just start getting more vocations and greater Mass attendance.

 

[PaulusRobertus]

Abuses don’t depend from the rite, but from the priest. An ungood priest can commit abuses with both the tridentine rite and the new rite.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Anyway, why is the Tridentine Mass today so pristine and free of abuse? Because almost by definition, nobody who attends or conducts a Tridentine Mass supports liturgical abuse.

It’s as easy as that. It has nothing to do with some mysterious sort of “built in abuse-protectors” that the Tridentine rite has and the Vatican rite doesn’t. The “abuse protectors” are the priests who celebrate it and the people who attend it.

You have a very good point. I think that a lot of traditionalists make the mistake of think that, because the TLM has become the icon of the traditional movement, replacing NO with TLM would be a panacea. Of course it wouldn’t.

Another thing is that people often don’t realise that there is no ideal strategy. Let’s say we decide to market “digestive” biscuits in America. Americans don’t like that name so much, so we could change in to “health cookies”. But that destroys the British brand. So “health cookies” in America and “digestives” in Britain? OK, but now we’ve doubled the amount we need to spend on marketing materials.

Similarly a rather revamped rite isn’t going to be best for everybody, even if it is best for the Church as a whole.

This also applies to centralisation versus decentralisation. If you give the priest a lot of freedom to interpret the Mass as he chooses you will always get some clown Masses. On the other hand you will also get a lot that are pitched correctly for the congregation. If you apply rigid discipline you can get rid of the clowns, but some priests will begin to see themselves as automatons, and not personally responsible for the liturgy.

The Tridentine rite does protect against some abuses. A priest is much less likely to alter the words of the Mass if it is not in his native tongue, for instance. But the rite itself won’t protect against all.

 

[patrick457]

For the Main Topic,
I agree with Godefridus. Most of those who celebrate the TLM today were not exactly the types to attempt desecrate the Mass and at least has a sense of the Sacred, though I think the case was different 50, 100 years ago.

There were probably abuses then, just not easily detected (since mostly the Priest said some of the prayers on a low voice with the server; unlike the NO, where it is more likely to detect any possible deviation from the rubrics and the words), but now, almost few to none.

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.

Add me to the ** ROMAN CATHOLIC POST VATICAN II INDIVIDUAL ** who believes in the ‘All that Pre-VII stuff’ since the Church has always taught so, only some had a severe hearing problem and taught the Church changed all that stuff.
Some even have that rare disease that makes them see all kinds of rubrics except the actual rubrics.

I think they need to be hit with the ‘Roman Missile’ to combat their ‘Weapons of MASS Destruction’.

I’m sure the Pope has one (but is using it on small launches for the moment; I really hope he uses the Big Missile),
so I hope all orthodox parishes should buy one and combat anyone who will dare to desanctify the Masses in their parishes, along with the Guidebook GIRM (The General’s Instructions for the Roman Missile) included for free.