Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?

[JReducation]

@luvlife:

I’m sorry that you have had such a liberal parish. There is no Salvation outside of the Church, this is Infallible doctrine. So no you are not allowed to have you own opinion and not be deemed a heretic. You should of course know that most RCIA classes are very heretical and make it a point to teach heresy. This is why I would advise any Converts, especially young people to not take the RCIA to instead see if you can research privately especially with a real Catholic priest for example an FSSP priest.

---

Pope Eugene IV proclaimed the Bull Cantate Domino Infallibly during the Council of Florence. The entire Church accepted this, even the Eastern Orthodox Bishops, although they latter decided to schism, it’s odd that the people that agreed to no Salvation outside the Church willfully left it.

First, any validly ordained priest is a real priest.

Second, the RCIA is the only acceptable portal into the Catholic Church in the USA by decree of the Conference of Bishops. A priest can only receive someone into the Church, without the RCIA if they are in danger of death.

Third, why aren’t you reading what Pius V really wrote. He was speaking of the entire liturgy. Why do you keep focussing on the mass? He was speaking of reforming the mass and the liturgy of the hours.

You cannot have one without the other and they have to be complimentary. St. Benedict was the first to say it. Later, Pius V said it, Pius X said, Vatican II said it, John Paul II said it and Bendict XVI said it.

Why are you not focussing on the Liturgy of the Hours as well?

Fourth, did you not read the sentence in the Motu Proprio where the Holy Father discusses the sanctity of the Ordinary Form? If it is a vehicle for grace (sanctity) how can you contradict the Holy Father and say that nothing good has come out of it? One of you has to be wrong, you or the Pope. You can’t both be right?

Fifth, Pius V himself calls his encyclical a constituion on liturgy, not a decree of dogma.

Dogma is that which makes a satement of faith. All encyclicals are going to mention some dogma. In Pius V’s encyclical he mentions the Eucharist. That is the dogma, not the rubrics. The Roman rubrics were the form on how the dogma of the Eucharist were to be celebrated.

Sixth, Pius V also mentions everyone who is NOT allowed to change the rubrics, except the Pope. He deliberately leaves out the Pope from his list. Even Cardinals are not allowed to change the rubrics if the Roman MISSAL AND LITURGY OF THE HOURS, not just the missal.

You’re all fighting to preserve the missal, but not the Liturgy of the Hours, which tells me that you are lacking in knowledge concerning liturgy, because they are intimately united and inseperable. They are both the official prayer of the Church.

When you kind folks decided to speak about liturgy hollistically, then your credibility as liturgical scholars will increase. As long as you only focus on the mass, it sounds as though you’re only interest is the part that you pray and not the Official Prayer of the Universal Church.

The mass and liturgy of the hours have existed since the beginning of Christianity. In fact, the Liturgy of the Hours predate Christ. They were and still are part of the Judaism. They later became part of the Christianity and then Islam.

The Liturgy of the Hours of great significance becasue they unite the three great monotheistic faiths. All three faiths consider them the official prayer of the community of believers.

How can you not discuss them in this thread and claim to be discussing liturgy, unless you are ignorant of the meaning of liturgy.

JR

 

[holdencaulfield]

@JReducation:

I am not saying the Novus Ordo is Invalid. Of course the Novus Ordo is Valid when celebrated properly. However I believe the Tridentine Mass to be a better form of the Liturgy. Historically all many forms of the Liturgy were revised or done away with, however in all cases it was for a better Liturgy. The Novus Ordo is not a better Liturgy, so why does the Tridentine Mass have to take the back seat. Furthermore I don’t see how Pope St. Pius V’s statement on the Mass was not Infallible. I didn’t say the Novus Ordo contradicted this, because otherwise all the Eastern Catholic Liturgies would as well, my point was that he was Infallible in saying that it must never go away.

 

[luvzita]

Yes, I would like to see the NO discontinued and replaced with the TLM. Read (then) Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Spirit of the Liturgy.

I have been to reverent NO Masses with chant and Latin as recommended by the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium. While the reverent NO was much better in terms of helping the faithful focus on and pray the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass than what is typically celebrated in parish settings, still much has been removed in the NO from the TLM that encourages the faithful to a more active spiritual participation. The prayers of the TLM are more detailed and give more time to really enter into the part of the Mass being prayed. Praying the TLM fruitfully requires some education regarding the sacrificial nature of the Mass and the purpose of the Mass (adoration, atonement for sin, petition, and thanksgiving). It also takes time to acclimate to the Latin and the vertical orientation. The ability to pray the TLM grows over time.

My experience with the NO has been that it easily becomes focused on the participants activity in a physical sense - what to say, what to do. There is less emphasis on prayer. It becomes centered on the people instead of God. When this happens, we do not do what we are supposed to do at Mass as well as we need to, and consequently we do not receive the same grace which we need to live authentically Christian lives. This is extremely detrimental to the Church. These aren’t my ideas. They are the Holy Father’s.

 

[catharina]

Yes, I would like to see the NO discontinued and replaced with the TLM. Read (then) Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Spirit of the Liturgy.

I have been to reverent NO Masses with chant and Latin as recommended by the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium. While the reverent NO was much better in terms of helping the faithful focus on and pray the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass than what is typically celebrated in parish settings, still much has been removed in the NO from the TLM that encourages the faithful to a more active spiritual participation. The prayers of the TLM are more detailed and give more time to really enter into the part of the Mass being prayed. Praying the TLM fruitfully requires some education regarding the sacrificial nature of the Mass and the purpose of the Mass (adoration, atonement for sin, petition, and thanksgiving). It also takes time to acclimate to the Latin and the vertical orientation. The ability to pray the TLM grows over time.

My experience with the NO has been that it easily becomes focused on the participants activity in a physical sense - what to say, what to do. There is less emphasis on prayer. It becomes centered on the people instead of God. When this happens, we do not do what we are supposed to do at Mass as well as we need to, and consequently we do not receive the same grace which we need to live authentically Christian lives. This is extremely detrimental to the Church. These aren’t my ideas. They are the Holy Father’s.

The words of Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000 are simply that - the words of Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000. No one can pretend to put those words of the Cardinal eight years ago into the mouth of Pope Benedict XVI today. The Pope is inspired AS the Pope by the Holy Spirit. No one can buiild a case from the past.

 

[elt1956]

thats what Vat-2 wanted to do actually, then Bugnini and his cronies came along…

I would be afraid having only TLM would not only confuse folks who have been raised with and experienced only the NO Mass, it would cause many to leave in THEIR confusion and I think it would also cause a greater division in the Church than what has already happened. I would vote for BOTH to remain in use. PEACE.

 

[luvzita]

The words of Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000 are simply that - the words of Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000. No one can pretend to put those words of the Cardinal eight years ago into the mouth of Pope Benedict XVI today. The Pope is inspired AS the Pope by the Holy Spirit. No one can buiild a case from the past.

I wasn’t trying to build a case. I was refering to Ratzinger as the Holy Father because that is what he is now. I say they are his ideas because he is very knowledgable about the liturgy. I wasn’t trying to imply that he was speaking as Pope then.

 

[catharina]

I wasn’t trying to build a case. I was refering to Ratzinger as the Holy Father because that is what he is now. I say they are his ideas because he is very knowledgable about the liturgy. I wasn’t trying to imply that he was speaking as Pope then.

I’m not targetting you. MANY posters have been quoting the Cardinal and actring as if the quotes are the words of the Pope. We DON’T KNOW what his ideas are now. So forgive me if I sounded dismissive but I promise that line of thought has been presented here very often. If that’s not what YOU meant, so be it.

 

[LilyM]

I wasn’t trying to build a case. I was refering to Ratzinger as the Holy Father because that is what he is now. I say they are his ideas because he is very knowledgable about the liturgy. I wasn’t trying to imply that he was speaking as Pope then.

How about reading what he’s said about the liturgy SINCE becoming Pope? How about reading what he’s said about in the Motu Proprio about the OF having an inherent sanctity to it? Why bash ANYTHING that has been declared to be inherently sacred? Bash abuses of it all you want - I do as well - but hands off the OF otherwise.

 

[elt1956]

The Western Church most definitely had Latin from the beggining, yes the Orthodox use Greek, Aramaic, and Syriac, and Coptic too, but in the west, Latin served as a common language among clergy from all different lands, and even the peasantry, up until the Crusades knew some basic Latin. Liturgically we were held together by a common language of praise to God. that is what i meant. I did not intend to discredit the Holy Spirit. See when we use the vernacular we sometimes end up with bad translations, which, if they are in the “right” places, can seriously impair the ability of Grace to come to us. I heard a priest from the Institute of Christ the King say this at a Lenten Mission in my diocese. He explained this in more detail and it made perfect sense. He did not say that the Novus Ordo was invalid or heretical, he simply said that in some languages, the translation was so butured, that the prayers are almost completely different. That is divisive, maybe not so noticeably, but more spiritually. That is why Benedict has begun the re-translation of the Novus Ordo.

If we want to be exactly exact Brian 777, the Church beginning with Jesus used Aramaic and Hebrew, then Greek ( St. Paul used Greek, I think) and Coptic and others. Latin was spoken in Rome.

 

[Unitas]

If we want to be exactly exact Brian 777, the Church beginning with Jesus used Aramaic and Hebrew, then Greek ( St. Paul used Greek, I think) and Coptic and others. Latin was spoken in Rome.

The Church consists of more than just the latin rite. The latin rite would have, of course, latin, since its beginning.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

How about reading what he’s said about the liturgy SINCE becoming Pope? How about reading what he’s said about in the Motu Proprio about the OF having an inherent sanctity to it? Why bash ANYTHING that has been declared to be inherently sacred? Bash abuses of it all you want - I do as well - but hands off the OF otherwise.

Lily, people do this because they are misguided and feel strongly about their opinions. And that is all they are. OPINIONS. Anything that does not agree with what they “feel” the way the mass should be , is rejected. Just consider some of the statements that have been made in this thread. There has been so much misinformation spewed out as fact, erroneous statements as to what is and is not dogma, straw man arguments brought up that this thread really frightens me. Even statements that RCIA teaches heresy. They are not fostering unity but disunity. Splinters cannot be removed from another’s eye because of the beam in their own. I am not a moderator, but I wish they would look at the misinformation that is being put out that can lead others astray. I am to a point, I just follow and pray.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Lily, people do this because they are misguided and feel strongly about their opinions. And that is all they are. OPINIONS. Anything that does not agree with what they “feel” the way the mass should be , is rejected. Just consider some of the statements that have been made in this thread. There has been so much misinformation spewed out as fact, erroneous statements as to what is and is not dogma, straw man arguments brought up that this thread really frightens me. Even statements that RCIA teaches heresy. They are not fostering unity but disunity. Splinters cannot be removed from another’s eye because of the beam in their own. I am not a moderator, but I wish they would look at the misinformation that is being put out that can lead others astray. I am to a point, I just follow and pray.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed. That is so true. Some believe these myths to the point of threatening others if they do not agree with them (it has happened to me, but not here).

I follow the following when dealing with those on the fringes.

• The Extreme Traditionalists tends to raise Discipline to the level of Doctrine or Dogma.
• The Extreme Progressives tends to lower Doctrine and Dogma to Discipline.
  This may ruffle a number of peoples feathers but, in most cases, it holds.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I follow the following when dealing with those on the fringes.

• The Extreme Traditionalist tends to raise Discipline to the level of Doctrine or Dogma.
• The Extreme Progressive tends to lower Doctrine and Dogma to Discipline.
  This may ruffle a number of peoples feathers but, in most cases, it holds.

This is an excellent observation. I had not thought of it that way before, but it hits the nail square on the head. Yet I consider myself a traditionalist, meaning that I chose to follow Rome in all that I do. All these handles of traditionalist, progressive have been so twisted that the original meanings have been obscured. As I said, lets pray, pray & pray some more.
Prayers & blessings
Deacocn Ed B

 

[peregrinus_WA]

This is an excellent observation. I had not thought of it that way before, but it hits the nail square on the head. Yet I consider myself a traditionalist, meaning that I chose to follow Rome in all that I do. All these handles of traditionalist, progressive have been so twisted that the original meanings have been obscured. *** I said, lets pray, pray & pray some more.
Prayers & blessings
Deacocn Ed B

That is why I qualified it with “Extreme”.

When you say you are a “traditionalist”, I use the term “orthodox” with a small “o”. It kind of separates me from the fringe elements

 

[CradleCath]

This is an excellent observation. I had not thought of it that way before, but it hits the nail square on the head. Yet I consider myself a traditionalist, meaning that I chose to follow Rome in all that I do. All these handles of traditionalist, progressive have been so twisted that the original meanings have been obscured. As I said, lets pray, pray & pray some more.
Prayers & blessings
Deacocn Ed B

I, too, am a Traditional Catholic who attends the Tridentine Mass. I hate to see phrases such as “so called priest” used, also, & the epithet “heretic” has been thrown around way too much. I, who have always been faithful to the Pope, have been called a schismatic, an SSPXer, etc. (not here). I sure don’t want to see Traditionalists employing the same type of intolerance.

I understand how angry & hurt people from both “sides” can feel. Many of the Traditional Catholics have tried & tried hard to accept & believe the blending of the clergy & laity is good. We gave every effort to attend & participate in the Novus Ordo Mass, only to increasingly find it’s very theology lacking & STILL we attended & do attend. We sat & watched while the horrible scandal of pederasty within the priesthood unfolded before our eyes.

The liberal Catholics, who’ve known nothing but the Novus Ordo Mass, Communion in the hand…standing, EEM’s, general absolution or Confession face-to-face, …LOVE their Mass & their faith. They must get angry & hurt when someone attacks today’s Catholicism, just as I do when someone attacks the faith of the ages.

We all have strong feelings about our faith, thank God, & there are bound to be arguments. However, name-calling is just not acceptable from either the Traditional Catholics or the Liberal Catholics. Charging those who do not agree with one’s views with heresy is wrong. Heretic is a very strong condemnation & it should be used ONLY when one actually confronts heresy.

 

[lovesMary]

I don’t understand why there can’t be more than one rite in the Roman Catholic Church. I went to Anglican services and apparently they have more than one rite, once was just like our NO but they receive kneeling, another time the priest faced the altar like the older rite, but it was all in English of course. They receive kneeling in both.

I don’t understand the controversy. This thread has over 700 responses!

 

[Spiller]

I don’t understand why there can’t be more than one rite in the Roman Catholic Church. I went to Anglican services and apparently they have more than one rite, once was just like our NO but they receive kneeling, another time the priest faced the altar like the older rite, but it was all in English of course. They receive kneeling in both.

I don’t understand the controversy. This thread has over 700 responses!

The Anglican-use provision is part of the Latin Rite. It’s not a separate “rite.”

 

[I_Believe]

No one can buiild a case from the past.

Sure we can

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”

• Pope St. Pius X

 

[Aragorn1]

On what Planet are you Catholic living when you say that the central aspect of our faith, the Mass which contains Faith and Morals within it’s texts is not part of Catholic Faith?

If the Mass is not part of our Catholic faith, then what is it?

You really don’t get it, do you? NO ONE on this thread has EVER claimed the Mass is not part of - or the central aspect of - our faith. The argument is that a particular form of liturgy, or outward embellishment of the Mass, is no more worthy of being definitively established as dogma than any other form of liturgy. Is setting up caricatures of other people’s positions the best you can do on this thread?

 

[elt1956]

The Church consists of more than just the latin rite. The latin rite would have, of course, latin, since its beginning.

Hi, am talking about the early, early church. Do you know what year the Latin rite was officially introduced? Thanks.