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

[AJV]

We have no official prohibition [of the EF] and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition, not because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever. Those words of Pius V were common for an important decision of the Pope. He always said, “This is valid forever.” But this was not a theological, it was not a dogmatic statement, this decree of the Pope promulgating his Tridentine Mass order. And so it could be changed by his successors…
In Italian, they say that one pope gives the bull and another takes the bull again, that is, he can change the disposition of his predecessor…

• Cardinal Stickler.

It is about time I take Cardinal Stickler head on.

Cardinal Stickler is wrong is his statements. He says that the words are not dogmatic or theological. It’s true, but the whole decree is rooted in dogma, Cardinal. Quo Primum was dealing with the Mass, the cental aspect of the Catholic faith. The Mass is where we get our theology from.

The Cardinal does not believe it was an Ex-Cathedra because other Popes have used “perpetual” and “forever.” ** Pope Puis V did intend it to be Ex-Cathdera because he is dealing with the Roman Rite handed down from St. Peter, St. Gregory, and Trent.** This is not a liturgical hour, psalm, music, calender, or religious order. It was the central aspect of faith. Pope Pius V spoke from the Chair of Peter even though this dogma was not officially developed or declared official until Vatican I.

There are many Catholics who are able to understand the difference between Quo Primum and the other fallible documents that used the words “perpetual” and “forever” because those were not spoken from the Chair and did not have the three elements mentioned earlier. Cardianal Stickler was no Archbishop Lefebvre.

I posted three points earlier that distinguishes Quo Primum from other fallible documents from the analysis of the theologian Fr. Raymond Dulac, and further analysis by Fr. Kramer, who could set Cardinal Stickler straight if they had talked about it.

Can Fr. Kranmer or Fr. Dulac point to any explicit pre-conciliar statement that Quo Primum is infallible?

What exactly is the part handed down from St. Gregory? Or from St. Peter?

 

[EasterJoy]

"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process–with a fabrication, a banal on- the-spot product." (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

I don’t think that this implies that cobbling the TLM onto the NO might not be repeating the same error. Furthermore, a lot of water has gone under the liturgical bridge in the last 15 years; I mean the GIRM, in particular.

You may be right as to his heart and mind, though, and even about what he sees he has a duty to do as opposed to what he might wish he could do, if he served in his present position so as to suit himself. I haven’t read enough of his writings on this particular topic. I do think that he will do what he thinks right, rather than what suits him. Whatever that is, I won’t give him any guff about it. (Can you tell I had parents of German descent, myself?) Besides, he’ll get enough of that, whatever he does. What compliance obedience doesn’t call out of me, sympathy surely will!

 

[saint_rafael]

Can Fr. Kranmer or Fr. Dulac point to any explicit pre-conciliar statement that Quo Primum is infallible?

What exactly is the part handed down from St. Gregory? Or from St. Peter?

What was handed down from St. Peter, to St. Gregory, and to St. Pius V was the Roman Rite and Mass. At Trent, The Mass was officially codified. Pope Puis V in Quo Primium stated that the structure of the Mass will be the same for all time. Quo Primum validated the Council of Trent wich codified the structure of the Mass to it’s highest development. Later Popes made changes within the TLM and put out new Missals without ever changing the structure of TLM.

For example:

Missal of Pius V = TLM
Missal of Pius X = TLM
Missal of John XXIII =TLM
Missal of Paul VI = ? Not the TLM.

Since Trent, the Mass had been the reconizable TLM. The New Mass was not the TLM. Everyone can see it’s not the TLM. It is a new creation. A New Order. Something that does not resemble the traditonal sacrafice of the Mass or Catholic liturgy as handed down through the centuries or Trent. It’s a valid Mass, that is the only thing that Pope Paul VI did right by the grace of God with the liturgy.

 

[HashemEchad]

What was handed down from St. Peter, to St. Gregory, and to St. Pius V was the Roman Rite and Mass. At Trent, The Mass was officially codified. Pope Puis V in Quo Primium stated that the structure of the Mass will be the same for all time. Quo Primum validated the Council of Trent wich codified the structure of the Mass to it’s highest development. Later Popes made changes within the TLM and put out new Missals without ever changing the structure of TLM.

For example:

Missal of Pius V = TLM
Missal of Pius X = TLM
Missal of John XXIII =TLM
Missal of Paul VI = ? Not the TLM.

Since Trent, the Mass had been the reconizable TLM. The New Mass was not the TLM. Everyone can see it’s not the TLM. It is a new creation. A New Order. Something that does not resemble the Traditonal sacrafice of the Mass or Catholic liturgy.

I’ve been amazed at how many Catholics try to insist to me that the novus ordo missae is the same as or very close to the TLM.

Look, I may not be Catholic but I’m not stupid either! I’ve studied religions in depth, with an emphasis on traditional liturgies, and I KNOW what is the TLM and what is not!

Do they think because I’m not Catholic that somehow I won’t know?

 

[kathielee]

It’s horribly divisive, horribly polemical and profoundly ignorant website. Worse it’s wrong. This is the sort of misinformation that leads Catholics to the fringes of the Church at best, or all the way away from the Church at worst.

A little information can be a dangerous thing – in some situations.

AMEN AMEN AMEN.

If this website is not teaching the truth, and indeed the Truth, then it serves to confuse and sets an extremely bad bad bad example of what being Catholic really means.

kathie

 

[LilyM]

What was handed down from St. Peter, to St. Gregory, and to St. Pius V was the Roman Rite and Mass. At Trent, The Mass was officially codified. Pope Puis V in Quo Primium stated that the structure of the Mass will be the same for all time. Quo Primum validated the Council of Trent wich codified the structure of the Mass to it’s highest development. Later Popes made changes within the TLM and put out new Missals without ever changing the structure of TLM.

For example:

Missal of Pius V = TLM
Missal of Pius X = TLM
Missal of John XXIII =TLM
Missal of Paul VI = ? Not the TLM.

Since Trent, the Mass had been the reconizable TLM. The New Mass was not the TLM. Everyone can see it’s not the TLM. It is a new creation. A New Order. Something that does not resemble the traditonal sacrafice of the Mass or Catholic liturgy as handed down through the centuries or Trent. It’s a valid Mass, that is the only thing that Pope Paul VI did right by the grace of God with the liturgy.

Nu-uh. Since Trent the Mass was indeed the TLM, but it was ALSO the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carmelite and Dominican Rites etc … AND later the NO … AND later still the Anglican Use.

There never was just one ‘Mass’ - ever - nor was the TLM ever intended to be the only Mass. So your whole statement is wrong.

 

[HashemEchad]

Nu-uh. Since Trent the Mass was indeed the TLM, but it was ALSO the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carmelite and Dominican Rites etc … AND later the NO … AND later still the Anglican Use.

There never was just one ‘Mass’ - ever - nor was the TLM ever intended to be the only Mass. So your whole statement is wrong.

YES, BUT…ALL of those rites contain the ancient consecration formula of “for you and for MANY” (pro vobis et pro MULTIS)…the novus ordo missae ALONE, changes it to “pro vobis et pro OMNIS” (“for you and for ALL”).

(Whoa! What is this, a Jew making the case for the TLM??)

 

[LilyM]

YES, BUT…ALL of those rites contain the ancient consecration formula of “for you and for MANY” (pro vobis et pro MULTIS)…the novus ordo missae ALONE, changes it to “pro vobis et pro OMNIS”.

And? There’s the Anaphora of Addai and Mari of one of the Eastern Catholic churches that doesn’t have the words of consecration at all and is still accepted as valid.

Furthermore - Trent infallibly declares that the Church is incapable of promoting a liturgy that would lead the faithful into impiety, so the NO is just as valid as the TLM.

 

[PepeRoni]

i don’t know if it was covered since it has gone on for so long. But this comment on page one stood out for me:

“What people fail to recognize is that mass in the vernacular all over the world is a great help in evangelizing, especially in less developed nations where education is not as good as we are blessed to have”

This seems rather racist, paternalist & easy for a modern westerner to say about the 3rd world. Yet, can anyone think of a more ignorant and backwards individual than dark aged/medeival man? The Church evangelized with that mass and that liturgical language, turned a people worse than 3rd world into the first world and completely civilized it, why is it Asians and Africans would be so inferior as to not be similarly transformed by Catholicism and the liturgy that tamed the barbarians?

Just a thought

 

[Freshman88]

And? There’s the Anaphora of Addai and Mari of one of the Eastern Catholic churches that doesn’t have the words of consecration at all and is still accepted as valid.

The concern isn’t the validity of the consecration but rather the authenticity to the tradition of the Roman rite.

Furthermore - Trent infallibly declares that the Church is incapable of promoting a liturgy that would lead the faithful into impiety

This argument can be turned around quite easily to support the opposite conclusion.

 

[LilyM]

The concern isn’t the validity of the consecration but rather the authenticity to the tradition of the Roman rite.

Authenticity schmauthenticity - the point is it’s a valid Mass. All else is fluff and nonsense.

This argument can be turned around quite easily to support the opposite conclusion.

How can the words of the Canons of Trent mean anything other than that whatever liturgy the Church promulgates to the faithful is fine (absent, of course, abuse of that liturgy)

 

[saint_rafael]

Nu-uh. Since Trent the Mass was indeed the TLM, but it was ALSO the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carmelite and Dominican Rites etc … AND later the NO … AND later still the Anglican Use.

There never was just one ‘Mass’ - ever - nor was the TLM ever intended to be the only Mass. So your whole statement is wrong.

The TLM since Trent has been the ONLY Roman Rite. The TLM itself is the Roman Rite.
There are uses like the Anglican Use, but this is a use and not a rite. It is an indult. Many of the others mentioned have been uses that came out of the Roman Rite. They were deviations of the Roman rite.
Pope Pius V in Quo Primum, allowed some rites and uses to continue to exist only if they were older than 200 years from the time of the Council of Trent.

 

[kathielee]

When did the Holy Spirit tell you that only Latin was acceptable?. The Magisterium is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and it is they that said the vernacular is OK. I don’t know about you, but for me that seems pretty persuasive. Thats the basket I will put all my eggs in…
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

Amen Deacon,

I took care of my elderly mom for 2-1/2 years and had NO respite for 10 months…no Mass at all. She passed in January and I still care for my dad. Still no Mass.

I don’t give a hoot if the language is in “timbuktoooooo”…it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity that makes the Mass a Mass.

And, if people get hung up on the language, then I suggest that the truth and the Truth of why we have Mass is lost in pride.

Kathie

 

[kathielee]

The TLM since Trent has been the ONLY Roman Rite. The TLM itself is the Roman Rite.
There are uses like the Anglican Use, but this is a use and not a rite. It is an indult. Many of the others mentioned have been uses that came out of the Roman Rite. They were deviations of the Roman rite.
Pope Pius V in Quo Primum, allowed some rites and uses to continue to exist only if they were older than 200 years from the time of the Council of Trent.

And, so…out of curiousity…your point is?

Kathie

 

[LilyM]

The TLM since Trent has been the ONLY Roman Rite. The TLM itself is the Roman Rite.
There are uses like the Anglican Use, but this is a use and not a rite. It is an indult. Many of the others mentioned have been uses that came out of the Roman Rite. They were deviations of the Roman rite.
Pope Pius V in Quo Primum, allowed some rites and uses to continue to exist only if they were older than 200 years from the time of the Council of Trent.

The other Rites and Uses weren’t deviations of the T (stands for Tridentine, or ‘of Trent’ ) - LM - they preceded the TLM (Trent) by hundreds of years, how could they possibly be deviations of it? They were in fact different Rites (and they ARE Rites, hence at least some of 'em being called Rites!) of ancient lineage which were permitted to continue alongside the TLM, all of which came under the umbrella of ‘Roman/Latin Rite’.

 

[Freshman88]

Authenticity schmauthenticity - the point is it’s a valid Mass. All else is fluff and nonsense.

This is the great error that lays at the very heart of the current crisis in the liturgy.

If the practices, customs, and traditions of the liturgy are nothing more than “fluff and nonesense”, then the liturgy is no longer a deposit of faith. Indeed the liturgy can only be a deposit of faith in as much as it transmits those ancient practices. Discard this “fluff” and you throw-out one of the most fundamental characters of the liturgy.

Indeed your post seems to fly in the face of that ancient law “lex orandi, lex credendi”. “The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.” The key there is the Church believes as she prays - She does not pray as she believes. In other words, the Church cannot treat these pious customs as “fluff” that would be a fundamental error.

How can the words of the Canons of Trent mean anything other than that whatever liturgy the Church promulgates to the faithful is fine (absent, of course, abuse of that liturgy)

Indeed the Church is incapable of promoting a liturgy that would lead to impiety, so if the hierarchy promulgates an impious liturgy then it must follow that that liturgy is not being promoted by the Church but by someone else.

(edit) NOTE: I have made no comments about the NO -Instead I merely discussed the nature of liturgy)

 

[LilyM]

Indeed the Church is incapable of promoting a liturgy that would lead to impiety, so if the hiarchy promulgates an impious liturgy then it must follow that that liturgy is not being promoted by the Church but by someone else.

Are you saying Paul VI wasn’t the legitimate head of the Church when he promulgated the NO liturgy? That he actually did so is beyond dispute, of course.

Furthermore are you saying that none of the Church officials who wrote or put into public use the NO were acting in good faith as the collective Magisterium of the Church when they wrote and used it?

Seems pretty clear to me that it was in fact the Church which promulgated teh NO. What alternative theory are you proposing?

 

[Freshman88]

And, if people get hung up on the language, then I suggest that the truth and the Truth of why we have Mass is lost in pride.

Kathie

Yes some of us are “hung-up on the language” because the language of the Roman rite is Latin even to this day. This is for good reason too. The use of a liturgical language is an ancient practice having its roots in the liturgy of the ancient Israelites. To resort to the vernacular is to throw-out this development and to boldly claim that our generation knows better than those who preserved the use of a liturgical language within the liturgy.

It has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with a desire to uphold the nature of the liturgy.

 

[Podo2005]

I was curious, is it is the hope of anyone here eventually have the Church totally revert back to pre-Vatican II liturgies, eventually eliminating the newer form of the Mass.

No, I pray that people come to accept that the Church (inspired by the Holy Spirit at Vatican II) has granted us the right to celebrate the Novus Ordo mass. From my own personal experience I have seen the Real presence of Jesus Christ more ALIVE in the New Order mass than in the old tridentine mass. I know that this is a hard change to accept this new liturgy because we the Church have grown accustom to using the TLM since the 16th Century, but we must not be fast to condemn the New order mass and hope for a revival of the Old days. I mean what if this change is exactly what the Lord intends for his Church, being the all knowing, all loving God He is.

Just something to think about…
God Bless
Podo

 

[Freshman88]

Are you saying Paul VI wasn’t the legitimate head of the Church when he promulgated the NO liturgy? That he actually did so is beyond dispute, of course.

Furthermore are you saying that none of the Church officials who wrote or put into public use the NO were members in good standing of the Church when they wrote and used it?

Seems pretty clear to me that it was in fact the Church which promulgated teh NO. What alternative theory are you proposing?

Next time I’ll be sure to bold this part. I may have posted it too late, if that is the case, I apologize. In any case I still made no specific mention of the NO.

(edit) NOTE: I have made no comments about the NO -Instead I merely discussed the nature of liturgy)

I never said that NO was impious or leads to impiety instead I merely provided an example as to how it would be possible that Church members could promulgate an impious liturgy.