Posted on 09/26/2004 5:34:44 AM PDT by tridentine
There is a lot more to it than the Latin. Visit once. It will not make a believer of you but you will understand its power. Alternatively find an Eastern Right Christmas or Easter High Mass. The effect is much the same and the language isn't Latin.
I am a Roman Catholic and aagree wholeheartedly with the sentiment.
DEAD ON!!!!
In fact you pretty much restating almost verbatim what Pope Paul VI thought of the novus ordo mass. He did not think the novus ordo was that good but went through with it anyway because he was just not a very good pope at all unfortunately. But anyway Pope Paul VI made a big complaint against the novus ordo when he said, "Where is the mystery?" Way to go.
Ping.
What good will come of having the government "ban it by law"?
The same good that comes of the government banning murder, bestiality, and polyamory by law. It gives people a strong disincentive to do those things.
Abortion and artificial contraception have been traditionally illegal for the vast majority of the history of Western civilization. The only reason they aren't today is the technological revolution of the 1960s (the Pill) and the moral and social collapse that precipitated it. Our culture has been in decline ever since.
It's time we wrote off flared pants, love beads, legalized abortion, and artificial contraception along with the rest of the bad investment that was the Age of Aquarius. As a culture, we need to wake up from the bad cultural dream of the 1960s and '70s and take up where we left off in 1962 — or, better still, in 1462.
I agree that there is a component of mystery to the Latin mass that is absent from mass prayed in the vernacular. I find even more appealing the tradition of the Tridentine mass. Knowing that identical words were said and motions performed centuries ago brings with it a sense of stability that is far less potent in the diluted liturgy of the NO mass.
Furthermore, I agree that there is a solmenity -- a clear sense of respect, adoration, humilty -- that fills the church before, during, and after Latin mass. I'd attribute the absence of this solmenity in the NO mass to the mindset fostered by a multitude of factors. I suspect it is the combination of the "good mornings" exchanged amongst parishoners at the encouragement of the priest at the beginning of mass, the guitar strumming and piano playing with the choir, the hand-holding during the Lord's Prayer, the hand shaking before communion, the receiving of communion standing upright and with the hand, and the overall watering-down and changes made to the prayers of the mass itself.
Three links that might be of interest to some:
Latin mass video (two parts, audio and video quality not terribly good, large file):
If I were trying to counsel a friend - to convert him to Catholicism, and I were to take him to a NO mass at just about any given church, the chances are that he would be confused, disappointed, and doubtful about converting to a faith which seemingly has no boundries, firm doctrine, or organized form of worship.
If I take my prospective convert to the average church, I can guarantee that whatever I tell him about the mass will be disproven before his eyes, as one never knows what the priest is going to do next! From an objective viewpoint, that's what it looks like! And the music........let's not even go there!
Unfortunately, its babel...confusion....sloppy, disorganized, and presents a perplexing lack of reverence & formality all too often.
Sorry, but unless i knew of sure of the existance of a NO mass which was done properly (and in a consistant manner!!!), I would never take a convert to it. It would be too hard to explain WHY it is so seemingly messed up!
Instead, I would take my prospective convert to a TLM, or even to an Eastern Rite church where there is a guarantee of order, sanity, consistancy, and reverence to the service.
I cannot agree with this statement concerning the Order of the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI.
Vatican II, and the revised Mass for the Latin Rite resulting from it's documents did not create or intend to implement a new theology.
While dissident theologians, liturgists, et al, have taken advantage of societal conditions in the Church and introduced many illicit novelties to the Mass during the past 40 years to push their new theology, this is not what Vatican II intended. It certainly is not a "core" value of what the Holy Spirit intends. It goes without saying that many, many Bishops failed in their shepherding by allowing this to happen. It is the current reality in the Church by and large now and will have to be corrected. There are good signs that correction is in process and will occur. Bear in mind that the Council of Trent took several generations to be implemented properly.
I have no problem with the "Tridentine" Mass either - provided it is celebrated legitimately under proper authorization of the local Ordinary. I attended just such a Mass today!
To expand further on this idea, I would ask all who consider themselves to be "traditionalists", but attend illicit "Tridentine" Masses to consider this. Every liturgical celebration of the Holy Sacrifice offered anywhere in the world in any of the liturgical Rites of the Church, always has a special prayer in the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) for two individuals - The Pope, and the local Bishop in union with the Pope. It is under the authority of Christ through these two of His servants, successors of His Apostles, that the Holy Sacrifice is offered and celebrated. Where there is no Bishop there is no Church. This is true whether or not one likes or agrees with his/her Bishop.
My question is this. Not having ever attended a non-authorized "Tridentine" Mass, who exactly do they pray for at this point in the Mass? Who claims the authority under Christ for it's celebration?
"For a dead language, it's really beautiful." LOL! & how ridiculous it is that he didn't know this before. Truth will out.
Wrong on all three counts.
Um no only Sesevacantist Tridentine masses don't pray for the pope most likely. The other allegedly so called 'illicit'(which they aren't) Masses like SSPX pray for the John Paul II. The SSPX is not schismatic or excommunicated.
This is a very important point. Who can defend a guitar Mass, who would want to?? Who wants to defend Father comparing the starving poor to a neglected flower? Young people don't need the Mass reduced to this "lowest common denominator" nonsense so many "forward" thinking Catholics have shoved down the throats of the reast of us. Why was the beauty of centuries replaced with such mediocrity and worse? To become holy you need to be reminded of what is important...God. People help the poor and do good deeds when they come closer to God. I don't understand what seems to be the attitude of so many liberal Catholics that you must embrace socialism to find God.
"...together with Thy servant John Paul II, our Pope, and all the faithful Bishops throughout the world....."
"To become holy you need to be reminded of what is important...God. People help the poor and do good deeds when they come closer to God. I don't understand what seems to be the attitude of so many liberal Catholics that you must embrace socialism to find God."
Well put, Diva!
"To become holy you need to be reminded of what is important...God. People help the poor and do good deeds when they come closer to God. I don't understand what seems to be the attitude of so many liberal Catholics that you must embrace socialism to find God."
Well put, Diva!
What, no "sign of peace"?
While dissident theologians, liturgists, et al, have taken advantage of societal conditions in the Church and introduced many illicit novelties to the Mass during the past 40 years to push their new theology, this is not what Vatican II intended."
While I really don't have the time, nor will to do any debating at this point, I will posit a short response.
You are dealing with 2 seperate issues here: Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. You are trying to say that Vatican II didn't wish to create a new theology, and neither is the new mass, that it is the dissident liberals who are causing the mass to be implemented this way.
I know this has probably been pointed out before, but I must say it again: the dissident liberals were the very people in charge of creating the new mass. From the ring leader (archleftist Bugnini) to the protestants who were allowed to help deconstruct the Catholic mass in the name of ecuminism, the entire focus of the consilium which created it was to build a worship service for thier new theology (new evangelization, new springtime, new ecuminical nightmare).
I could provide quotes from here to the moon and back from figures involved in the whole mess, but they have been given over and over again. The simple truth is this: at the dawn of the council, the leftists managed to have 3 years of preparatory work scrapped, and new more "pastoral" schemas were drawn up hastily by the periti. These men included many who were blacklisted by Pius XII for heterodoxy (Rahner, Congar, Kung, Schillebeeckx, Murray). And what of these texts that they created, did they enunciate clearly and precisely the Catholic Faith, so as to allow only an orthodox interpretation? As Msgr. George Kelly put it "The documents of the Council contain enough basic ambiguities to make the post-conciliar difficulties understandable."
Why the ambiguity? Because these were the very people who would do the interpreting in the post conciliar era, for if anyone understood the spirit of these documents, surely the authors would. These are the very dissidents you speak of, "mis-interpreting" the Council, causing problems with the implementation of the mass, etc. Why are they able to? Because they left loopholes for themselves big enough to drive a truck through, right there in the documents which they themselves constructed.
So, now we have a Council with no preparatory work, heterodox "experts", and highly ambiguous texts being interpreted by the very "experts" who drew them up after they had been accepted by the Fathers.
Such a case was the mass. It was constructed after hte council by the man responsible for the schema on the liturgy- Annibale Bugnini. He had one goal in mind, and that wasn't the preservation of sacred tradition. It was to do away with it, and construct something more in line with the new theology of ecumenism. A couple quotes will suffice:
Archbishop Bugnini-"The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church, and it has ecumenical dimensions, since the other Churches and Christian denominations see in it not only something to be admired in itself, but equally as a sign of further progress to come." [Notitiae, No. 92, April 1974, p. 126.]quoted from Liturgical Timebombs in Vatican II, M. Davies.
Fr. Louis Bouyer, 1975(influential liturgist during time of Vatican II)-"The Catholic liturgy has been overthrown under the pretext of rendering it more acceptable to the secularised masses, but in reality to conform it with the buffooneries that the religious orders were induced to impose, whether they liked it or not, upon the other clergy. We do not have to wait for the results: a sudden decline in religious practice, varying between twenty and forty per cent among those who were practising Catholics.... Those who were not have not displayed a trace of interest in this pseudo-missionary liturgy, particularly the young whom they had deluded themselves into thinking that they would win over with their clowning."
Father Joseph Gelineau (described by Bugnini as one of the "great masters of the international liturgical world")-"Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." It bears note that he was happy about this, not upset.
Cardinal Ottaviani (held position Ratzinger now holds)-"The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at all--could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever."
English Catholic Bishops' refutation of validity of Anglican Orders from 1897-"That in earlier times local Churches were permitted to add new prayers and ceremonies is acknowledged . . . But that they were also permitted to subtract prayers and ceremonies in previous use, and even to remodel the existing rites in the most drastic manner, is a proposition for which we know of no historical foundation, and which appears to us absolutely incredible."
I can go on interminably. This last 2 quotes are really the crux of the issue. They show why the problem is not one of implementation. The very fact that the new mass was created is out of line with what the Catholic Faith is about- permanence and stability. The new mass scrapped it, created something entirely new, and did so under the premise that it would not remain permanent, but would be in a constant state of flux so that it could speak to "modern man". Can modern man not expect other "out of touch" doctrines to be replaced in the same light?
I love how the Mass which was dominant for most of the twentieth century is considered the Mass of the Middle Ages. I guess only what's new can be good in a world where novelty must triumph over quality.
She sounds very egalitarian. However where there is life and freedom, there are inequalities. Where there is death, you will find all are equal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.