Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

May 29th 2013 new
(quote) Angela-374523 said: I hesitate to throw my two cents into the thread as no doubt it will be taken out of context

However, in order that someone who is unfamiliar with the debates is not led astray by peoples personal opinions as opposed to what Catholic teaching is, I will say this: There is no need for any fear among those who attend the Tridentine Mass that it will be eliminated. Vatican II made it very extremely crystal clear that this Mass was still valid and was still a Roman Catholic Mass, and that it could continue. Vatican II also made it very extremely crystal clear that the Novus Ordo Mass was also Roman Catholic.

The problems that arise are because we as imperfect people have personal opinions that challenge and question those assertions. The Novus Ordo Mass is a Catholic Mass whether some people like that or not. The Tridentine Mass is a Catholic Mass whether some people like that or not. And Vatican II was not a conspiracy where the Catholic Church was infiltrated by people of other faiths. There was a context for Vatican II within the Church and within society as a whole. Of course, now, people are going to site conspiracy theory blogs and videos and tell me Im wrong, but I dont care. Im leaving this thread. God bless.
Angela,

+1

I agree with every word you said! And said well, indeed!
May 29th 2013 new
The New Mass came after the Council. The Council only set forth some (fairly vague) general principles, which were largely fulfilled in the '65 watering-down. For whatever reason, this was only transitional, leading in to something even more radical in '69.

Too much more to get into beyond that small point.
May 30th 2013 new
You begin your reply with a contradiction in terms. You agree that the form of the Mass is a discipline yet you insist that Pius V proclaimed his revision of the Roman Missal "infallibly" and that it could not be changed..

But if he had done that, he would have raised the form of the Mass to a defined dogma. A defined dogma cannot be a discipline by definition. Furthermore, defining a discipline infallibly exceeds the bounds of subject matter covered under infallibility.

Neither did the Council of Trent. What the Council did and Pius V did in promulgating his revision of the Roman missal was to abrogate and suppress, withing the Latin Rite of the Church, all forms of the Mass not in existence before the year 1300. That served two purposes; 1) it allowed all forms of the Mass that were particular to an order witing the Latin rite of the Church: i.e., such as the Mass of the Dominican Order or that of the Servites. But even these eventually conformed to the what is now called the Tridentine Mass retaining only some aspects of their former and permitted form of the Mass. For example, the Servites continued to begin their Masses with the Ave Maria and the naming of the order's Saints in the Canon. And 2) indirectly allowed the Eastern rites of the Church to retain their own liturgy, even though their forms of the Mass were not a subject of his reform as his reforms were aimed solely at the Latin Rite of the Church.

As to your claim that somehow Pius V prohibited the possibility of any changes being made to his mass, I would merely point out to you that in the centuries following Pius V, Popes did make changes, not massive changes, but changes nevertheless. JUst in your own lifetime, changes to the Tridentine Mass itself were made by Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

I laid our my reasoning for saying that it is ridiculous for two Rites of the Mass to coexist at the same time. I never meant or implied that it could not happen. I only said that doing so, unfortunately, allowed the split between the die hard line ultra-traditionalists (who see themselves as more Catholic than the Pope and the rest of Catholicism) to flourish. That silliness can be seen in these forums where the Ultras make all kinds of warranted assertions, either directly expressed or by implication, that somehoiw the Tridentine Form of the Mass is superior to, or more holy or more reverent than the Novus Ordo. Or that advocates of the Tridentine Form are more Catholic, more holy, more grace filled that the rest of the Church.

Your note also implies that the Novus Ordom Form of the Mass has the unfortunate consequence of fostering more abuses. Hate to disabuse you of the notion. Abuse of the Mass exists whatever form is in use and they were and are just as prevelent.

Abuses arise solely from the the individual celebrant and the failure of the local Ordinary from taking action against them. Sometimes those local Bishops are themselves responsible for fostering them.

Vatican II, as you note diod not sanction or call for a new form of the Mass. But neither did it prohibit it. As someone else has already pointed out, it did lay lay down some general norms and left it to the reigning Popes to interpret and implement those norms.

Finally we come to your fanciful description of Bugnini and his band of theologians foisting the Novus Ordo on to Paul VI. Paul VI created the group that he placed Bugnini as head with the specific task of creating a Form of the Mass to conform with the general norms laid down by Vatican II. Nothing was foisted on him.He freely accepted and promulgated the result. At the same time we do not know exactly what nroms he himself l;aid down nor any specific changes he may have made.

NO APPROVED form of the Mass is, in itself, superior to; or more Catholic, or more reverent, or more faith filled, or more grace filled than any other and none are subordinate to, in any way, to any other. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

The Triendentine form's greatest asset is its elegant simplicity. The Novus Ordo's greatest asset is its expanded use of Scripture throughout, especially during the early part of the Mass.

The best thing, in my opinion, that could be done would be to take the best of the two forms and combine them leaving out all the unnecessary options in the Novus that now exist. The result would be closer to what Vatican II envisioned it its broad norms. It should then be adopted and promulgated and both the Tridentine and Novus Form suppressed from further use.

Finally for your own edification, I suggest you spend some time studying exactly when and in what matters Papal infallibility comes into play. You should compare the texts of both the Tridentine Mass and the Novus side by side. You will be surprised at just how consistent both are. Stop reading the nonsense from the ultra traditionalist wing of the Church. When attending any approved form of the Mass, concentrate on the purpose of the Mass and stop worrying about the Form.

Many ultra-traditionalists are so overly concerned with the form of the Mass that they lose sight of the essentials and raise the form to an idolatrous position. They also cast aspersions on the motives, intent and character of all those who took part in the creation of the Novus.

May 30th 2013 new
Paul,

Thanks for the response. There is a lot to cover here and I would be glad to do so. Unfortunately I do not have time over the next week or two.

Since you have put down more of your thought process in your last response, I can see that we likely have more commonalities in the way each of us see things, than we have differences. But I think it would be a stimulating discussion to take up some of the things raised to deeper levels.

Just to be upfront, please know that I may consider myself of a traditionalist background, but I certainly will not allow myself to be separated from the Church as some traditionalists have done. I attend what here is called "The Normal Mass" regularly. I just happen to prefer the Tridentine Mass which unfortunately is not offered widely at all and continues to be suppressed by many bishops in their locales.

Can we come back to it in two weeks, when I have more time?

Pax

John
May 30th 2013 new
(quote) John-971967 said: Paul,

Thanks for the response. There is a lot to cover here and I would be glad to do so. Unfortunately I do not have time over the next week or two.

Since you have put down more of your thought process in your last response, I can see that we likely have more commonalities in the way each of us see things, than we have differences. But I think it would be a stimulating discussion to take up some of the things raised to deeper levels.

Just to be upfront, please know that I may consider myself of a traditionalist background, but I certainly will not allow myself to be separated from the Church as some traditionalists have done. I attend what here is called "The Normal Mass" regularly. I just happen to prefer the Tridentine Mass which unfortunately is not offered widely at all and continues to be suppressed by many bishops in their locales.

Can we come back to it in two weeks, when I have more time?

Pax

John
John,

As those who have been here since I first came on board almost a year ago can attest, I, like you, prefer the Tidentine Mass for two main reasons; 1) its elegant simplicity even in its most solemn form and 2) because it is what I grew up with.

Contrary to what many believe Bendict said in his Modus Proprio, it was not a blanket and unbridled permission for the use of the Tridentine Form of the Mass.

He first stipulates that the Novus Ordo is the primary and preferred method for the celebration of the Mass.

Although it reaffirms that the person primarily responsible for how the liturgy is performed is the local Bishop. However, even that affirmation is limited. It specifies that no individual priest may publicly celebrate the Tridentine Mass without the permission of the Pastor of the parish. Any priest may do so for his private Mass and he is given permission to allow members of the laity to attend IF they specifically ask him.

A Pastor on the other hand is given the authority hold a public celebration of the Tridentine Form without a Bishops permission. But only ONE Tridentine Mass may be held each Sunday in a parish under this indult. The local Bishop may give permission for a Pastor to have more than one per Sunday celebrated in a particular parish.

There is also one other over riding restriction. Even for a priest's private mass as well as for any public Tidentine Mass, it may only be celebrated by a priest who has received specific training in the Tridentine rite of the Mass.

And this last, is the only way a local Bishop, can legitimately suppress its celebration in their Sees; by seeing that no priest, especially pastors, under his control has been so trained.

I don't doubt that there may be Bishops who improperly and illegitimately suppress it. However, I would venture the guess that in most instances the non-existence of it within a Diocese is more the result from the lack of interest on the part of the Laity. I say that because one of the other restrictions Benedict laid down was that a Bishop is encouraged to accommodate the laity wherever and whenever there is a sufficient demand by the laity. In other words, if the only ones asking for the Tridentine Mass were a few old geezers like myself, we can be ignored.

By the way, one of the interesting facts that Priests from (I believe I am naming them correctly) the Society of Saints Peter and Paul whose primary charism is the preservation of the Tirdentine Rite as well as the reverent execution of both that rite and the Novus Ordo is that in general it is the younger people who attend the Tridentine rite while older people choose the Novus.



May 30th 2013 new
Paul,

I am pleasantly surprised, you've narrowed the gap further!

I will look forward to settling into this virtual CM forum here as if on the front porch and we'll have a conversation about this.

Stop by the men's forum tomorrow night and I'll have a beer waiting there for you. There is some really good brewing going on in there! And I will be ready for a really tall one tomorrow evening, myself!

Jun 1st 2013 new
Thanks for letting us know Vanessa! That is great news!!
Jun 1st 2013 new
(quote) Dave-24315 said: Glad to hear about this, I don't know how to translate, but would like to read this.
translate.google.com

Copy the text you wish to translate and paste it in the box on the left. It is usually pretty good at identifying the source language, but if not you can manually select Italian,

Jun 1st 2013 new
(quote) John-971967 said: The papal bull of St Pius V infallibly proclaims that the Tridentine Mass is never to be abrogated. It will be celebrated in perpetuity until He comes!

The problem with this argument is that popes no more have the authority to legislate an irrevocable change than your state legislature does.

There are several explanations available explaining why the interpretations of Quo Primum that claim the Mass can never be changed are in error.

Jun 1st 2013 new
(quote) Angela-374523 said: Vatican II also made it very extremely crystal clear that the Novus Ordo Mass was also Roman Catholic.

The Novus Ordo Mass was created several years after Vatican II concluded, so it is not at all clear how your statement can be valid.

N.B. I am not questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, only the assertion that Vatican II has anything to say about it.

Posts 11 - 20 of 51