About That Motu Proprio

Of course a lot of people have been wondering where the Tridentine Mass liberalization motu proprio is and why it hasn't come out.

We know with a high degree of confidence that the documents was drafted--in fact, that it's been through several drafts--and that B16 has been favorably disposed to issuing it (or it wouldn't have been drafted in the first place).

But where is it?

Some have speculated that it was delayed by the negative reaction of the French episcopate--or other episcopates--and that this negative reaction may derail it altogether.

Maybe.

Although maybe B16 is just letting the bishops have their say before he does what he planned to do all along.

Myself, I have a different speculation about why it hasn't come out. The desire for greater consultation with the bishops may be part of it, but I suspect that there is a different factor that has been delaying the motu proprio: the delay of the apostolic exhortation.

The Holy See sequences the release of major documents so that each one can make an impact in the press and then be absorbed by the public (or at least the relevant sections of the public). They don't want the impact of major documents diluted by having them step on each other.

You could see a bit of that happening last week when--although the big news was the release of the apostolic exhortation--the headlines in many places were stolen by attention to a document of much lesser importance: the warning about some books by an individual theologian.

The latter--because it involved controversy--got more press in some circles, though it was much less important in and of itself.

Now you can imagine what would happen if they released the motu proprio before or (as some suggested) at the same time as the apostolic exhortation. Since the motu proprio will be controversial, the press surrounding it would totally overwhelm the apostolic exhortation.

The smart things for B16 to do--and he is a very smart man--would be to issue the apostolic exhortation first, to lead with the document that clearly shows he is in harmony with the liturgical renewal that followed the Second Vatican Council (even if it needs some course corrections) and then issue the motu proprio liberalizing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

The inordinate delays with the apostolic exhortation (which B16 complained about himself, albeit politely) thus strikes me as a likely reason for the delay in the release of the motu proprio.

Or that's my theory.

Comments

[Breier]

Mr Akin,

I curious what you mean by the "liturgical renewal that followed the Second Vatican Council." Can you give some concrete examples of what you see as signs of liturgical renewal?

[Jason]

A small pet peeve: why does everyone call it the "liberalization" of the Tridentine Mass. Seems an ironic word to use, lol.

[JD]

Maybe, Jimmy, said motu proprio won't come out, because it is imprudent, to say the least, to take the power of regulating liturgy in their dioceses away from bishops, and the Holy Father might consider it fair to leave well enough alone, rather than introducing what could easily become a recipe for chaos.

[Kris]

"leave well enough alone"

I suppose if you consider the faithful being subjected to wacko Bishops who have no appreciation for the Church's liturgical tradtions being "well enough alone," then you're right.

I think this Moto Proprio might actually dispell some of the chaos that we're experiencing now. It's a great opprotunity for the faithful to learn about the sacred traditions of the Church and to grow in appreciation for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

[Thomistic]

I think you may be right, Jimmy.

Pax,

Thomistic

[JD]

Kris--

listen, I'm not opposed to the idea of the Tridentine rite being celebrated. What I am worried about is that wacko bishops and their non-wacko counterparts, whose considerable canonical responsibilities are outlined in CIC1983 381-402, may have difficulty exercising vigilance over the liturgy and the unity of the the People of God entrusted to him if the law allows for such liturgical factionalism (and the doctrinal wars that often accompany it) with his diocese. One liturgy is not in some way ontologically higher, or more pleasing to God, than another. What is pleasing to God is seeing his Church united at a common altar of sacrifice, in the celebration of the Eucharist.

Why promote division, especially since, in 300 years, folks will be clamoring for the Novus Ordo instead of whatever liturgy is being used then? Why not prefer a united people of God, rather than allow folks to decide that liturgy is about how the sensory experience makes them feel?

[SDG]

A small pet peeve: why does everyone call it the "liberalization" of the Tridentine Mass. Seems an ironic word to use, lol.

Not at all. To "liberalize" is to make freer, to remove limitations or restrictions. "Liberal" is the opposite of "conservative" only in knee-jerk political groupthink.

[A.Williams]

Jimmy's theory, I think, is right on the mark. Pope Benedict is wisely waiting for the perfect timing. And not that this timing is really essential, and that the Motu Propio could adequately be promulgated at any time, it might just be an act of charity on the Holy Fathers part, to try to make it as acceptable to as many as possible, and in the least 'confictive' way.

And to offer my own further elaboration to Jimmy's logical theory, I would assume that the Holy Father wants to tie it in, somehow, with Easter, either shortly before or shortly thereafter. And this makes sense, due to the fact that everything concerning the MP revolves around Easter, ie. the Sacrifice of Christ and His resurrection. So....what BETTER time would there be, than this, for a new liturgical promulgation such as this?

Just to speculate, I think Pope Benedict will ANNOUNCE the date sometime shortly before Palm Sunday, with the actual release within 10 days after Easter Sunday. This might take into consideration all of the catechumens who are getting ready for their Easter baptisms, and I think the Holy Father might have some charitable consideration(and of course Liturgical insight), for this, and not want to disturb or overshadow it for them( the catechumens), in any way.

But to announce it at this time, shortly before Palm Sunday, would be very suitable, because it will give everyone the time to meditate about it during Holy Week. And when fasting and meditating on the Passion of the Lord, the idea and rational behind the MP might be easier for some people to digest. Really the MP does nothing more than try to add back a little of the holiness, dignity and respect to the Mass, that it had previously had for so many centuries.

And what BETTER time could there be to make an argument for its necessity than Holy Week, or shortly thereafter, when the Passion of Christ is still highly impressed upon the soul and fresh in our memory? In this context, an argument for more 'gravity' and depth in the Mass can be understood by most Catholic, even the ignorant ones!

And this is what I think Pope Benedict is trying to do...make the MP understandable to all!

[Scott W]

Maybe, Jimmy, said motu proprio won't come out, because it is imprudent, to say the least, to take the power of regulating liturgy in their dioceses away from bishops, and the Holy Father might consider it fair to leave well enough alone, rather than introducing what could easily become a recipe for chaos.

Not in the least because the Bishops will still have the ability to forbid it.

[JD]

"Really the MP does nothing more than try to add back a little of the holiness, dignity and respect to the Mass, that it had previously had for so many centuries."

The Mass is Holy. In and of itself, it is Holy. It is dignified. It is to be respected.

And, if you want a particular liturgical schema, other than that which is used by the Church universal, to see that, well, doesn't your bishop, who is entrusted by Christ's church with the pastoral care of your soul, have a right to determine whether giving you what you want is what's best for you, and for your brothers and sisters in Christ?

I'm sorry, but I feel strongly about this. Just because we want something, doesn't mean we should get it, and when those entrusted with caring for us don't give it to us, it doesn't neccesarily make them wackos. It may make them wise.

[Scott W]

doesn't your bishop, who is entrusted by Christ's church with the pastoral care of your soul, have a right to determine whether giving you what you want is what's best for you, and for your brothers and sisters in Christ?

Yes, and this is why bishops will still have the power to forbid it. In fact it helps the bishops because very few parishes are going to go all-TLM-all the time. Instead they will offer one here and there in response to desire for it and not have to bother the bishop with it.

[JD]

"Not have to BOTHER the bishop with it?"

The bishop's whole job is to be bothered with it!!!
HE is responsible for the pastoral care of his faithful! Nothing could be less of a bother for a bishop than prudentially deciding what to do about the Tridentine Rite in his diocese, where his people, whose pastoral needs he knows, live.

Now, Scott, unless you have far more friends than I do, neither of us has seen the motu proprio, but assuming you are correct, that the bishop's two choices are to either allow the Tridentine Rite to go on as much as it goes on, or to forbid it entirely, his ability to see to the needs of his people in their unique situation is rather severely limited, isn't it?

Shouldn't that bother us?

[A.Williams]

From what rumors I have read, the Motu Propio would allow the Tridentine Rite to be used as an 'extraordinary liturgy' and the NO as the normal, or 'ordinary' liturgy. This seems to be a great way of having both accepted and used, as I think most Cathlolics already are familiar with such concepts as 'ordinary' minister ot the Eucharist,(the priests and deacons), and 'extraordinary' ministers of the Eucharist, which are derived from the laity.

Seen in this context, I see no problem of have two types of liturgies. And the N.O. liturgy will definately benefit from this scenario! The Tridentine liturgy has, by its very nature,language and history, a UNIFYING quality. And as everyone knows, the N.O. Liturgy is highly susceptible to all sorts of liturgical abuses and novelties. So this scenario of the Holy Father is PERFECT... wherein the 'extraordinary' latin liturgy which will be used less frequently, will teach everyone to be more devout, knowlegable and attentive, in the 'ordinary', N.O., liturgy.

It's really the best of both worlds!

[Miguel]

"One liturgy is not in some way ontologically higher, or more pleasing to God, than another. What is pleasing to God is seeing his Church united at a common altar of sacrifice, in the celebration of the Eucharist."

Au contraire, one liturgy is actually better than the other liturgy, at least in its secondary characteristics, that is the Traditional mass is in its nature more reverent, beautiful, and its prayers more theologically correct (or appropriate) as compared to the post-Vatican II mass. These characteristics are important as is exhibited in the Pope's remarks regarding beauty in the liturgy in his recent exhortation. As far as being "united at a common altar of sacrifice," the Church has never interpreted this as requiring that the same liturgy be used by all Catholics, because there are many different rites in the Church.

[kate]

I think most Cathlolics already are familiar with such concepts as 'ordinary' minister ot the Eucharist,(the priests and deacons), and 'extraordinary' ministers of the Eucharist, which are derived from the laity.

If most Catholics make that distinction in your diocese, PLEASE tell me where it is so I can move there! i think that is a very naive position. i also think that it makes sense that the Bishop should get to decide when and where to have Tridentine mass, since the Tridentine Mass people are often critical of the regular Mass, and of priests and the bishop, etc. Maybe the bishop will feel that having more of the Tridentine Mass will make Catholics in the diocese less unified, but he still wants to let it happen, just under his control. that doesn't seem unreasonable. why should he get to decide if it is a good idea in his diocese?

[Miguel]

"The Mass is Holy. In and of itself, it is Holy. It is dignified. It is to be respected."

The New Mass may be holy in its essence, but it is not necessarily said in a dignified manner. All one has to do is google the internet for videos of Cardinal Roger Mahony's recent liturgy(s) with all the liturgical abberations in that big ugly thing in LA. The Mass should be dignified, and it should be respected, and thus the Traditional Mass should be encouraged. Let's face it, the Bishops in the US have by and large ignored the Pope's wishes as expressed in the Ecclesia Dei document. Perhaps if they had obeyed, there would be no need for a Motu Proprio. Perhaps not.

[kate]

why should he get to decide if it is a good idea in his diocese?

oops..."why shouldn't he get to decide?

[Scott W]

Now, Scott, unless you have far more friends than I do, neither of us has seen the motu proprio, but assuming you are correct, that the bishop's two choices are to either allow the Tridentine Rite to go on as much as it goes on, or to forbid it entirely, his ability to see to the needs of his people in their unique situation is rather severely limited, isn't it?

Yes, the general assumption (which could be mistaken, but not likely) is that the mp does not cut the bishop out of the picture. And I think you are being over-dramatic with my describing the bishop being bothered with it. The mp would not limit the bishop in the least.

I hear the same two things from most anti-mp folk: 1.) There is no serious demand or desire for the TLM and 2.) Good heavens whatever we do, please don't liberalize the TLM! Well which is it? Becuase if there is no demand or desire for the TLM, then the mp should no more appear on the radar than editing a semicolon in the Code of Canon Law. Something else is going on here that has little to do with the mp.

[JD]

Miguel--

you are confusing two issues. That the NO is abused does not mean that the Tridentine should be liberalized, that just throws fuel to the fire of disunity, of split, of factionalism. Instead, folks should do better with the NO. Don't confuse the issues, there is no logical connection between your statements.

[JD]

If the motu proprio wouldn't limit the bishop, what is it s point?

[Scott W]

If the motu proprio wouldn't limit the bishop, what is it s point?

Simple. It makes it easier for a parish to offer a TLM without going through a bunch of diocesan bureuacracy. It's not that darn controversial, but getting bent in wad about it is.

[Miguel]

JD - Thank you for your thoughts.

However, actually I'm correct. As far as I have seen in my long life, the New Mass has been the cause "of disunity, of split, of factionalism." I guess it may depend on where you are standing. But logically, the statements are related. Thanks anyways.

[Tim J.]

"doesn't your bishop, who is entrusted by Christ's church with the pastoral care of your soul, have a right to determine whether giving you what you want is what's best for you...?"

The Motu Proprio would seem to be the Pope's way of proclaiming that freer access to the TLM is what is best for people. He has some say in the pastoral care of souls, does he not?

[Breier]

I find it surreal to see this opposition to the way that nearly everyone in the Latin Rite of the Church worshipped until forty years ago. The clericalism from some of these statements is astounding. I am thankful that the Pope sees the situation more clearly.

[JD]

Tim,

Indeed he does. And, if he judges it expedient and prudent to undermine the authority of local bishops in order to provide more access to the TLM, well, that is certainly his prerogative, and I trust that he is in his office through the Holy Spirit's intercession. However, I question the wisdom of the decision, and see it as part of a larger trend to divorce folks from attachment to their local church in favor of attachment to the curia. Many of the modern movements in today's Church draw good people whom the local Church needs, away from participating in their own parishes and dioceses. I see this as no different.

I also worry about SSPXers using a rise in popularity of the TLM to siphon off more Catholics, and that makes me sad.

[Mary Kay]

However, actually I'm correct. As far as I have seen in my long life, the New Mass has been the cause "of disunity, of split, of factionalism."

Actually, Miguel, you are incorrect. The New Mass, the 1970 Missal, in itself has not been the cause of disunity or factionalism. The way it has been celebrated has contributed but no more than your statements cause disunity and factionalism.

Before you go into a kneejerk reaction, read carefully what I wrote.

[Tim J.]

"if he judges it expedient and prudent to undermine the authority of local bishops "

JD, in a very real sense, the Pope IS the authority of the local bishops. They carry their authority only in union with him. How does this undermine any LEGITIMATE authority a bishop might have?

"I also worry about SSPXers using a rise in popularity of the TLM to siphon off more Catholics..."

Seems to me much more likely to have the opposite effect. Why attend the liturgies of a bitter, schismatic sect when you can get the Real Deal at your local parish?

[Kris]

"and see it as part of a larger trend to divorce folks from attachment to their local church in favor of attachment to the curia."

Perhaps this is because many of the local church's have left the faithful with little to hang on to. Weak cathechisis, horridly illicit masses, priests who act more like social workers then guardians of souls, silence on essential moral issues (abortion, the homosexual agenda), and outright heresy have left orthodox Catholics with little to be loyal too but those members of the curia who have remained stedfast in the faith.

Sorry, I feel strongly about this myself. I would desperatly like to see a revival of Catholic identity and culture, for the sake of souls, and I believe a more widespread use of the Tridentine Rite would engender that.

[JD]

Tim--

This MP would undermine their current authority, under the law. Legitimately, certainly, and if it happens, its law, and that's fine, and, I'm orthodox, I always play by the rules, but, I happen to think this time the rule we have is pretty good, especially as it is reflective of Christus Dominus and the VatII's perspective of the bishop.

Kris,

I sympathize with you. I jsut wish that we orthodox Catholics could help to transform and renew our local Churches instead of abandoning them. My wife and I have the perspective, and admittedly, it is sometimes discouraging. As for the Tridentine Mass, I don't think it, in itslef, would effect the salvation of souls, but, we can certainly legitimately disagree about that, and you might even convince me you are right.

[caine]

However, I question the wisdom of the decision, and see it as part of a larger trend to divorce folks from attachment to their local church in favor of attachment to the curia. Many of the modern movements in today's Church draw good people whom the local Church needs, away from participating in their own parishes and dioceses. I see this as no different.

Ut unum sint, baby!

That doesn't mean a cohesive local parish, that means a Universal Church! People that want their parish or diocese to be more in tune with Rome aren't federalists - they're concerned with global unity of the faithful. We should be able to walk into any Catholic church on the planet and go to a Mass that is licit and that we recognize. It's local groups of malcontents and individualist Bishops that have been re-making the liturgy in their own image for far too long. Liberalizing a rite that allows for less free-form loopiness opens the door to GREATER UNITY! It could also create an increased sense of community on the local level precisely because each parish is united with the greater whole which is.... (lets all say it together now!)....

the Mystical Body of Christ

Turn a few lights on. There's no bogeyman in the room.

[JD]

caine,

that isn't a bad argument...

[Michael]

I also worry about SSPXers using a rise in popularity of the TLM to siphon off more Catholics, and that makes me sad.

Now that is just silly. If anything it will siphon off SSPXers back into a regularized situation assuming they have a place to go.

[caine]

xie xie, JD

And I sympathize with your desire to engage at the local level, but have been frustrated so many times in doing so. There's just too many goofy busybodies that have the go-ahead from detached or sympathetic Bishops. When the Bishops are nudged into accepting and enforcing liturgical norms, that will hopefully change. But there will be major growing pains. So many parishes have been allowed to exist practically outside the Church for way way too long. If they're ever forced to reign it in, the shock to their system will be too much - and the fault of that lies with Bishops who allowed them to stray so far. They'll all point the finger at B16 and turn him into the bad guy, but so be it. Onward and upward!

[Miguel]

Mary Kay: "The New Mass, the 1970 Missal, in itself has not been the cause of disunity or factionalism. The way it has been celebrated has contributed but no more than your statements cause disunity and factionalism.

Before you go into a kneejerk reaction, read carefully what I wrote."

I'm sorry - I was responding to someone named JD. Was it you that made the statement I attributed to JD? I'll try not to kneejerk. It looks like I'm saying one thing and you're disagreeing- Can we at least agree on that? I would say that the New Mass has problems intrinsically within itself, not that it isn't a valid and licit Mass. As to the New Mass - the way it is is a result of certain prudential and disciplinary decisions that may be mistaken. As to a lessening of beauty and reverence within the New Mass itself - the proof is in the pudding. Yes, there are also problems with the way it is said - I do agree with you on that. Is the Mass of at least 1500 years that helped to produce so many saints really something to be so feared?

[EileenR]

JD, have you read then-Cardinal Ratzinger's reflections on the question in his memoir "Milestones"? He had some very interesting comments on the historical process which led us to today's situation. One of his main points is that the original decision to restrict the old Mass was a break with the tradition of the church and unjustifiable in terms of unity. I was surprised by the strength of his opinion.

A review of that bit of the book, with quotations, is here. The "Reactions" bit is just people being... well, reactionary, but the Ratzinger bit is very interesting.

[mary martha]

"I also worry about SSPXers using a rise in popularity of the TLM to siphon off more Catholics, and that makes me sad."

I just don't see the logic there. The only time I have attended Mass at an SSPX chapel was when I was in a diocese where there was no Latin Mass available. If there had been any Latin Mass anywhere in the diocese I wouldn't have stepped foot in that chapel.

[JD]

Mary Martha-

That's exactly my point. Why didn't you choose to go to a NO mass? Because, probably, you prefer Tridentine Mass and took it where you could get it. SSPXers prey on that sort of situation.

[Maureen]

I for one welcome a little more legitimate diversity of Masses.

I don't live near enough a Byzantine Rite church to make a visit practical for me. I'm not at all likely to get to attend a Mozarabic Mass unless I get to Spain, an Ambrosian one unless I hit Milan, or an Assyro-Chaldaean one unless I visit Baghdad.

But all these Masses are current legitimate rites of the Catholic Church, and are not only meant for the parishioners who normally attend them. They are all part of our Catholic inheritance, and they all have a lot to teach us.

So if people in Milan can attend a Mass that goes back to the time of Ambrose, Monica, and Augustine, it's not exactly an imposition to let people attend a modern Mass format like the Tridentine.

That's exactly my point. Why didn't you choose to go to a NO mass? Because, probably, you prefer Tridentine Mass and took it where you could get it. SSPXers prey on that sort of situation.

You're still not making much sense. If legitimate Tridentine masses are available universally, then no one will need to go to the SSPX to get them. Hence no SSPX-siphoning. Many will likely return to legitimate parishes. Not to mention that it would make corporate reconciliation with the SSPX, or at least part of it, much more likely.

[Shane]

One concern I have is that permitting the Tridentine Mass so freely will take away focus from improving the Pauline Rite. I've seen very well done Pauline Masses, and they are beautiful, uplifting, and on top of this accessible to those who do not understand Latin. With the new translations of the Pauline order expected soon, I fear that the Tridentine Mass would serve as a distraction from leading the Pauline rite - one that will remain the most popular amongst everyday Catholics - to be as wonderful and Sacred as it could be. There is a great oppurtunity to pull some of the flock back in with reverant and complete celebrations of the Pauline rite, an oppurtunity that is growing each day as more and more of the "Spirit of Vatican II" clergy die off or retire. I just hope the MP doesn't cause a conflict here.

[A.Williams]

The perfect Mass for me, is a perfectly said, N.O. Mass, and in most large cities they are capable of being found. The problem is, therefore, not with the N.O. mass per se, but rather with all of the terrible liberally'adapted' N.O. Masses 'out there'.

And my experience in the S.F. Bay Area, is that youth who grow up in these liberal parishes, especially in the suburbs, will never(or very difficultly) come to value frequent confession, the devout reception of Holy Communion and a profound devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. And this is predominantly because progressive, liturgically negligent, parishes don't emphasize these essential aspects of Catholic life and faith.

As Pope Benedict so frequently writes about, there are a great many of these parish's wherein a 'community' or horizontal liturgy is emphasized, as opposed to an emphasis on the worship of God 'in spirit and in truth', which is a so-called 'vertical'emphasis.

So, really, there is a tremendous amount of liturgical 'division' created by the liberal, or progressive, N.O. masses, due to this lack of the proper understanding of exactly WHAT IS a Liturgy. And isn't this really what all the recent Vatican liturgical documents, such as "Redemptionis Sacramentum" and "Sacramentum Caritatis" are all about? To teach us exactly what it is that we are doing when we go to Mass?

The problem is that the progressive Catholics (such as some of my brothers and sisters)don't really give a hoot about such teachings, but rather prefer that the Church continue to be a sort of social club wherein they can minimally perform some sort of religiousity, in which their consciences can be somewhat alleviated or soothed, just through the very minimal act of just being present in a Church. As for anything more, such excesses are not necessary. For them, if you dig too deep, you may uncover some nasty Church restrictions such as those referring to birth control, artificial conception and other thorny and un-popular itemsthat are only good for 'pricking' the liberal conscience, wherein Mass attencance really wouldn't be too much 'fun'.

So, because of a modern or progressive tendency to 'water down' the faith, wherein certain of these above mentioned sins will not be 'focused on', they try to make the liturgies as religiously shallow as possible. To put it simply, gravity and profound adoration of God is not on the list of their priorities, but rather, a comfortable and social club type 'horizontal' litugical experience..with soothing music, to boot. These are the liturgical goals strived for in these parishes.

And isn't this why so many of these liberal N.O. masses are so depressing...at least for those who love Jesus to be properly honored and adored.. and also worthily recieved, in Holy Communion? So it is really these progressive, and canonically disobedient Catholics, that are the ones who are really causing division in the Church, and this is what I believe Pope B16 is currently trying to adequately address with ths Motu Propio.

Moreover, the shallow liturgies produce very little spiritual fruit...and even fewer vocations! And this is because they really aren't all that religious to begin with!

Maybe if B16 steers the boat (the Church) into 'deeper waters', there will be abundantly more fish(sincere believers)brought into the boat. This, I think, is his strategy, and ingenious idea, for the promulgation of the Motu Propio. And personally I think it will be extremely beneficial and fruitful for the Holy Faith!Hopefullly we'll experience something like this:

"Now when he had ceased to speak, he said to Simon: Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 5 And Simon answering said to him: Master, we have labored all the night, and have taken nothing: but at thy word I will let down the net.

6 And when they had done this, they enclosed a very great multitude of fishes, and their net broke. 7 And they beckoned to their partners that were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they were almost sinking." Luke 5:4-7

[Josh Hood]

I also think it's wrong to say that the SSPX "preys" on people wanting the Tridentine Mass. The SSPX is in a canonically irregular situation, but they aren't in a full-blown, formal schism like many of the other traditionalist groups. I think it is more correct to say that they are provding what many Catholics want or need, and that, for whatever reason, their diocese is not providing. If the availablility of Tridentine Masses is increased within canonically regular structures, the very reason most people frequent SSPX or Independent chapels is removed from the equation.

I am no apologist for the SSPX; I have never set foot in one of their chapels, and I don't intend to in the future. I am too wary of my own pride to get in a situation where I place my own judgment above that of the Church by attending services outside recognized canonical structures. That being said, there are many people who have been so scandalized by what they see in their parishes that it has become a matter of conscience for them NOT to attend Novus Ordo Masses. While I do not agree that the NO is inherently problematic, I have seen enough garbage in various parishes to understand where they come from and couldn't tell someone that he CAN'T attend an SSPX chapel (though I would strongly counsel against Independent chapels).

[Tim J.]

Maybe having greater access to a more solemn and sacred liturgy (the TLM) will create greater incentive to bring the N.O. Mass into line with the rubrics, and to take the music, postures, etc., more seriously.

Some "looser" parishes may see people voting with their feet for a more meaningful liturgy in the next town.

It may cause more polarization, locally, but in the long run I think that is not necessarily a bad thing. It may result in the purveyors of clown masses and New Age/happy clappy liturgies to end up in little, impotent conclaves, which is how it should be.

[Josh Hood]

I think it's incorrect to say that a Latin liturgy is "inaccessible" to those who aren't fluent in Latin. For a younger Catholic nowadays, attending a Tridentine Mass for the first time can indeed be jarring, as was my experience. But it wasn't the Latin - it was the somber quietness and reverence. Before Vatican II, every Roman Rite Mass was in Latin for centuries, yet people still knew and understood the Faith, besides the thousands of saints produced by that rite! Clearly the connection with what happens at the altar is not solely based on the language of celebration; I have attended Spanish liturgies and understood essentially nothing, but found it spiritually edifying anyway.

[Mary Kay]

Miguel,

I would say that the New Mass has problems intrinsically within itself, not that it isn't a valid and licit Mass.

If you say that the 1970 Missal is a valid and licit Mass, how can you say that the earlier Missal is "better"? Either can be said with reverence. Either can be said without reverence.

You have a preference for the earlier Missal, just as I have a preference for the 1970 Missal. Personally, I find it much easier to be reverent when the Mass is celebrated with the 1970 Missal than the earlier one.

As to the New Mass - the way it is is a result of certain prudential and disciplinary decisions that may be mistaken. As to a lessening of beauty and reverence within the New Mass itself - the proof is in the pudding.

Your "proof" does not speak to the 1970 Missal, but the way it has been celebrated. If there was something inherently "off" about the 1970 Missal, it would not have spiritually fed people who have literally given up everything to live the Gospel. But the fact remains that the 1970 Missal has and they are living proof to me that those who belittle the 1970 Missal are not completely informed.

As to the New Mass - the way it is is a result of certain prudential and disciplinary decisions that may be mistaken.

Can you provide a specific basis for that statement?

Yes, there are also problems with the way it is said - I do agree with you on that. Is the Mass of at least 1500 years that helped to produce so many saints really something to be so feared?

To repeat, just as the 1970 can be said irreverently, so can - and was - the earlier Missal said irreverently.

Who said anything about "fearing" the earlier Missal? Please do not put words in my mouth. I grew up with the earlier Missal. I very much appreciate the 1970 Missal.

[Mary Kay]

Mary Martha, if I can second guess what JD meant, was that it sounds like you did not even consider the option of attending a Mass using the 1970 Missal (the Novus Ordo Mass).

[John]

Hey, if you like 40 minute masses that worship man and permit liturgical abuse then you like the New Mass

If you want to reflect, worship God instead of man, and actual have to work a little by following along in a missal, then you would want to worship as our forefathers have for centuries in the Traditional Mass

One must at least have respect for the coca-cola company when they did away with "classic coke " and put forth new coke only to see it flop, they reacted right away and put back the classic

When one labels a mass "New Order", one realizes they clearly are breaking from what is "classic" and it has produced failure

This is just another lame ploy (leaving the decision up to the priest instead of his Bishop to perform a TLM-what a great move that would be on his part!!) is just another red herring thrown out there. Pray for a complete restoration of the mass, sacraments, catechism, canon law and customs before "new coke" was promulgated

[SDG]

Hey, if you like 40 minute masses that worship man and permit liturgical abuse then you like the New Mass

Hm. Mass at our parish, done according to the current Roman rite, lasts about an hour. I'm afraid I can't remember man ever being worshipped. I'm pretty sure we worship God. And I'm blanking on the new rubrics permitting liturgical abuses. Please help me John, what am I missing?

[Truefaith]

My prediction: 1) the papal exhortation will be ignored by the vast majority of US bishops. However, I do expect some 'respectful' lip service rendered, but very little action on practical implimentation on a wide scale. 2) If/When the motu proprio is released, that too will be ignored by the vast majority of US bishops--as being not practical, i.e. we can't have a Tridentine latin Mass, because the diocese has a 'shortage' of priests, and they are needed else where, etc--this is what you'll hear, or perhaps similar 'pastoral' situations that will render the motu proprio 'un-do-able'. 3) As for the SSPXers--forget any reconciliation with them, the TLM is only one issue in a whole mindset that must be reconciled--so I predict that no reconciliation will occurr at this time.

[bill912]

SDG, what you are missing is:

1) Vatican II bad

2) Everything since Vatican II bad

3) Paul VI bad

4) John Paul II bad

[Shane]

When one labels a mass "New Order", one realizes they clearly are breaking from what is "classic" and it has produced failure.

The Tridentine Mass was once the new order as well, and there's no question that some at the time probably actually referred to it as that. It was an order of the Mass and it was new, after all.

The ironic thing about the Tridentine Mass being called the "Traditional Latin Mass" is that when it was instituted, it was far from traditional, but was at least in some ways a break from the previous tradition.

[Tim J.]

I was just about to offer a bit of an apology for my remarks earlier about the SSPX being a "bitter schismatic sect". But after John's predictable diatribe, I now preemptively retract my intended retraction.

[whosebob]

Just in case readers here don't have them in their bookmarks already, here are the links to the four best full-length Tridentine Mass videos freely available on the Net:

Tridentine Missa Cantata (Sung Latin Mass) for the Last Sunday after Pentecost

Traditional (Tridentine) Votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Traditional Latin Mass: Feast of the Sacred Heart

Traditional Latin Low Mass With Meditation by St. Eymard

Enjoy! And share them with your friends and families!

(Yes, three of the four are celebrated by SSPX priests, but the value of the videos in demonstrating the breathtaking beauty of Masses lovingly and properly celebrated according to the 1962 Missale Romanum surely cancels out any negative effects of indirect promotion of the SSPX.)

[David B.]

"Yes, there are also problems with the way it is said - I do agree with you on that. Is the Mass of at least 1500 years that helped to produce so many saints really something to be so feared?"

Two things.

One: the TLM wasn't used for 1500 years.

Two: I don't think Mary Kay IS afraid of the TLM

[David B.]

John,

I have a beachfront property in Kansas that I'd like to sell you.

[Esau]

How could the Tridentine Mass be presented as something that is longer than the Novus Ordo?

They only have 1 Reading and 1 Gospel!

Further, the Tridentine rite only features just 1% of the Old Testament and 16.5% of the New Testament in its lectionary!

The Novus Ordo Mass has three with the Psalms in between there. It has three cycle of readings to cover most of Scripture (thus, the Novus Ordo has 13.5% of the Old Testament and 71.5% of the New Testament; a tremendous increase over that of the Tridentine).

The Eucharistic Prayers of the Novus Ordo and its Historic Relevance

Here, let me share some information for you:

Eucharistic Prayer#1 is, of course, the Roman canon. Early versions of this Canon were developed during the fourth to the sixth centuries, but it did not reach a definitive state until after the papacy of St. Gregory the Great, who led the Church from 590 to 604. The format became further standardized when Missals containing the entire text of the Mass began appearing in the eleventh century, and they were in general use by about the year 1200. After the Council of Trent (1545-1563) Pope Pius V issued the Missale Romanum in 1570 and made the new standard form binding throughout the Western Rite of the Church. This Tridentine Mass format remained virtually unchanged until the reforms that followed Vatican II. The text was fixed, and the only alteration permitted was the addition of saints' names to the Communicantes and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus prayers.

As regards the other Eucharistic Prayers:

Eucharistic Prayer II was composed from manuscripts of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, written about the year 225, which describe the oldest known liturgical form of the Mass. These manuscripts have come down to us as translations in several languages. Thus Prayer II is the oldest of the four.

Eucharistic Prayer III is a revised version of what had been originally proposed as an alternative to the Roman Canon, and Eucharistic Prayer IV is based on a format of the type found in Eastern liturgies such as that of St. Basil (330-379).

Since the editors of the post-Vatican II Sacramentary made such an effort to compose and restore the Eucharistic Prayers to formats that are ancient in the Church, it is surprising that the Society of Pius X, which puts such an emphasis on tradition, has nothing but criticism for all aspects of the Novus Ordo liturgy. They should have especial praise for Eucharistic Prayer II of Hippolytus which is the most ancient, dating back to the year 225.

This is the reason why I have had such great respect for Vagaggini since he was attempting, in the Novus Ordo, to do a "reform of the reform" in his day and tried to restore parts of the rite of mass which have been lost through the accidents of history.

[Shane]

Esau, is there a book or something that contains this information? I would like to learn more.

[Rick Morales]

Ah, the good old liturgical wars. I go to the Tridentine Mass exclusively, so I definitely have a "dog in the fight." Leaving behind the NO is the best thing I have done for my spiritual life other than frequent confession. Those who say there is no difference in the NO and the TRID because both are the mass are certainly correct in that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be validly offered in both rites. But I have trouble with those who stipulate that the MP should not be issued because it would produce too much fighting. How is this demand for iron-clad liturgical uniformity of rites to be squared with the dozens of eastern rites within the Church? I am afraid those who demand such uniformity are missing something here.

Also, the assertion that because both the NO and the TRID offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass both are the same is no argument that both rites are equally the same in their particulars. If that argument was true, and the one accepted by the Church Herself, then the bishops at Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, and the Concilum that revised the Tridentine Mass were wrong in changing the particulars of the mass. If the Tridentine Mass were valid, then why change it at all? In other words, if the validity of the sacrament is all that mattered, then I would expect the NO apologists to be condemning those who changed the Tridentine Mass in the first place. According to this logic, it was the reformers that have caused the firestorm of controversy, the very liturgical wars, that we see around us. In other words, you are making my very point! Thanks.

[Esau]

From a great, wise man, Fr. Corapi:

"Before I studied, before I went to seminary and the university, people were always saying things to me -- 'Well, Vatican II said this and Vatican II said that, and in the Spirit of Vatican II, you must do this, that and the other thing!' I had people tell me things like this for several years.

Now, I wasn't stupid but I didn't have a theological background and they thought that I probably was stupid because I didn't have a theological background and they would say things like this. They would turn and look at that and say, "Vatican II did away with that! Get it out of the Church!' or they would say, 'Vatican II suppressed Latin! It's never to be seen again in the Church!' or they would say, 'Vatican II said we should not have Eucharistic Adoration! Perpetual Adoration went out with Vatican II!'

THOSE ARE LIES! THEY NEVER READ THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II!

And if they ever did, they are speciously construing them!

Vatican II said many things but it DIDN'T say any of those kinds of things!

Some of you may have a DISTASTE for the Second Vatican II Council because you HEARD those kinds of things.

My Dear Friends,

I'm here to tell you Vatican II DIDN'T do any of those things to your FAITH!

MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT VATICAN II SAID!

You know one good thing to do?

Read the 16 documents!"

[Esau]

Esau, is there a book or something that contains this information? I would like to learn more.

Sure!

In fact, when I first posted this info last year, I had a link to the information.

However, the best reference on the matter is the book “The canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform" by Father Cipriano Vagaggini.

[Miguel]

M Kay: "If you say that the 1970 Missal is a valid and licit Mass, how can you say that the earlier Missal is "better"? Either can be said with reverence. Either can be said without reverence."

I suppose that is in a sense true, but it seems obvious that the older Mass is intrinsically more reverent and beautiful. As for prudential decisions, of course they may be mistaken, that is why they are prudential. The Church does not have infallibility with regard to prudential decisions and can change them later (i.e. suppression of the Jesuits). As for putting words in your mouth, I refuse to do so and have never done such a thing.

[BobCatholic]

I like the NO, I grew up with it, in a Church that did it right.

I heartily support the MP and hope it is done.

The Easter speculation is a good guess, I would have speculated that as the time, but also what about Pentecost? That's another good day to release the MP.

[Miguel]

"the TLM wasn't used for 1500 years.

Two: I don't think Mary Kay IS afraid of the TLM"

OK, I meant 1500 years more or less with a few changes here and there for natural organic liturgical development, unlike the Pauline missal which just dropped from somewhere. Maybe MK is not afraid of the TLM, but she acts as if she is, as do the progressive Bishops in the Church. There is nothing to fear - The 2 Masses can co-exist - remember you say that they are the same, ayways.

[Shane]

I suppose that is in a sense true, but it seems obvious that the older Mass is intrinsically more reverent and beautiful.

have you ever seen a perfectly celebrated Pauline Mass?

My understanding is that one of the reasons the New Missal was instituted was because Tridentine Mass was far from reverant. This does not mean the Mass itself was not, but the celebration of it was not. If we are to question the reverance of the Pauline Mass based on what we see in most parishes, then we must also question the Tridentine Mass based on the same principle.

[Esau]

By the way, did ANYONE read the section on Z's blog that mentioned:

I saw a copy of Corriere della Sera, which is sort of the NYT of Italy. Their vaticanista, Luigi Accattoli (pronounced Accáttoli), who is pretty good, wrote on 18 March that the Motu Proprio to derestrict the "Tridentine" Mass:

... potrebbe essere pubblicato entro Pasqua: il tempo «si avvicina» dicono in Vaticano, ma non c’ è ancora la data. Qualcuno lo prevede per il 25 marzo e altri per il 5 aprile, Giovedì Santo, che non sembra un giorno adatto per un testo normativo, essendo destinato a grandi celebrazioni. ... could be published before Easter: the time is "drawing near", they are saying in the Vatican, but there is no date yet. Some foresee it coming on 25 March and others on 5 April, Holy Thursday, which does not seem to be a well-suited day for a normative text, since it is destined for great celebrations.

Another journalist, Marco Tosatti, who is much more on the conservative side of Church issues, wrote for La Stampa on 17 March that the document could come betweem 25 March and Easter.

Benedetto XVI «libera» la messa tridentina, la cosiddetta messa «in latino» amata – ma non solo – dai seguaci di monsignor Lefebvre, e per questo molto avversata dalle ali «progressiste» della Chiesa. E’ pronto il «motu proprio» del Papa, che dovrebbe essere promulgato fra la festa dell’Annunciazione (il 25 marzo) e la Pasqua. Il testo è blindatissimo; ma secondo indiscrezioni di ottima fonte dovrebbe rovesciare la situazione attuale. Benedict XVI will "free" the Tridentine Mass, the so-called Mass "in Latin", beloved by the followers of [Archbp.] Lefebvre – but not only them – and for this reason greatly opposed by the "progressivist" wing of the Church. The Pope’s "Motu Proprio", which should be promulgated between the feast of the Annunciation (25 March) and Easter, is ready. The text is highly protected ("blindatissimo" = "very heavily armoured"); but according to leaks ("indiscrezioni") from a very good source, it ought to reverse the present situation.

[Shane]

unlike the Pauline missal which just dropped from somewhere

As was pointed out by Esau, the entire point of the Pauline Missal was to return the Mass to what it was in the earliest times of the Church. This is why it is virtually identical to the description of the Mass offered by Justin Martyr. It didn't just drop from somewhere. The Pauline Missal was, in many ways, a correction of all of the changes from the original Mass of the Church that had crept in over the years and finally manifested themselves in the Tridentine rite.

[Esau]

My understanding is that one of the reasons the New Missal was instituted was because Tridentine Mass was far from reverant. This does not mean the Mass itself was not, but the celebration of it was not. If we are to question the reverance of the Pauline Mass based on what we see in most parishes, then we must also question the Tridentine Mass based on the same principle.

Shane:

This is interesting because I can see where you get this from.

I have attended the Tridentine Mass for some period of time way back when and can actually see why some have commented in this manner.

Often, for many, it seemed more of a private affair where the priest did his thing and the laity seemed so far removed from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that there was even a time where a Pope had actually recommended that folks say the Rosary doing the Mass in order to do something (feel like they're participating in some manner) during the actual course of the Mass.

(I don't have that info with me now, but for those who might know what I'm actually talking about, it's indeed something even Fr. Connor had mentioned in his history program.)

But, as far as reverence goes, I would say that as far as my experience goes, there is, indeed, the utmost reverence observed in the Tridentine Rite; however, it may be more so due to the fact that most Novus Ordo Masses are not celebrated as they should be because of errant priests out there.

The forces that be will allow it...

[Shane]

Esau,

I was not referring to that sort of thing. Clearly, I think one of the problems with the Tridentine Mass is the situation that you described - often people may feel as if they are simply hanging around waiting until its time for them to do something.

I was referring to the fact that, according to many reports I have heard, the Tridentine rite was not being celebrated reverantly in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council and the institution of the Pauline rite. Priests were rushing through the words, mumbling them, rushing through the actions, not following the many prescripts, and other such things.

[Esau]

A clarification on my remark:

"But, as far as reverence goes, I would say that as far as my experience goes, there is, indeed, the utmost reverence observed in the Tridentine Rite"

I was actually referring to the Mass I had attended.

However, as Shane had pointed out, abuse can occur there as well.

Somebody in the east coast had once informed me that there was a Tridentine Mass he had attended in their area that was so irreverantly celebrated in such a rushed fashion, it became a source of scandal in their region.

[Esau]

I was referring to the fact that, according to many reports I have heard, the Tridentine rite was not being celebrated reverantly in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council and the institution of the Pauline rite. Priests were rushing through the words, mumbling them, rushing through the actions, not following the many prescripts, and other such things.

JINX!

We just cross-posted and, yet, we were writing about the exact same thing!

"My understanding is that one of the reasons the New Missal was instituted was because Tridentine Mass was far from reverant."

Wrong. Who told you that? Bishop Trautmann?

"the entire point of the Pauline Missal was to return the Mass to what it was in the earliest times of the Church"

2 words, "revisionist history." I guess, based on that reasoning, that we should all attend Mass in the garb of the early Church and recline around a table during the Mass, while one of the congregation (presumably a liturgical director or whatever they call them) runs off to betray the Priest.

On a lighter note, I understand that Mel Gibson is making a new movie. The working title is Lethal Missal. It's one big splatterfest about the total emasculation and disemboweling of the Mass. Apparently, he's filming the thing in post-conciliar English, but with Latin subtitles.

God bless you all and adieu.

[Esau]

Look at that:

I was referring to the fact that, according to many reports I have heard, the Tridentine rite was not being celebrated reverantly in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council and the institution of the Pauline rite. Priests were rushing through the words, mumbling them, rushing through the actions, not following the many prescripts, and other such things.

Posted by: Shane | Mar 21, 2007 11:14:13 AM

and

Somebody in the east coast had once informed me that there was a Tridentine Mass he had attended in their area that was so irreverantly celebrated in such a rushed fashion, it became a source of scandal in their region.

Posted by: Esau | Mar 21, 2007 11:14:17 AM

Talk about being on the same wavelength!

[Some Day]

I suggest that you don't shout victory even when it comes out.

Unfortunetly, this is a "transitional" Pope, so if he dies, you all bashed the progresivists and nanny nanny boobed them, they could have a progesivist Pope in next, and then we'll have Hell to pay.

Just be prudent, and think why is it that all this is coming back.

I know there is a grace, but there is also a bit more...

[Different Day]

I will never accept the Traditionalists!

[Tim J.]

"a Tridentine Mass he had attended in their area that was so irreverantly celebrated in such a rushed fashion, it became a source of scandal in their region."

See, that's the thing. Priests who have no love for the Mass will allow it to be abused and treated irreverantly, no matter which rite is in use. The problem is in the formation of priests... in the seminaries. We need priests who are IN LOVE with the sacrifice of the Mass, and in love with Christ in the Eucharist. Until we have that, the use of this or that liturgy is pretty much irrelevant.

[bill912]

Gee, I just re-read St. Justin Martyr's description of the mass in his "First Apology". It sure sounds like the Mass of Paul VI to me, other than that the Sign of Peace came beween the Prayer of the Faithful and the Offertory (which I wish we would have it now, so as to avoid the current distraction from Christ between the Eucharistic Prayer and Communion).

[Alex Benziger.G]

Sir,
Please you see the changes into the Roman Catholic Church before and after the 2nd Vatican Council. Everything collapsed, many lay catholics left the Church, churches are sold, attendance of mass is very low, bishops and priests are running after money, pious priests are sidelined on the otherhand influential persons are appointed as bishops. Post Vatican period is the" 2nd Dark Age"[earlier Dark Age between 973 and 1073 AD].All will be finished off, if it is the Tridentine Mass and the tradition of the Church will be implimented in all forms. Center for the Study of Global Christianity, issued a statement is that since 1900 the muslim population has increased more than six fold,because their identity,uniqueness, without any ambiguity they follow the Qur'en.Christians should think it over.
DEO GRATIAS.

[Some Day]

Who ever the "gracious"person who seems to mock me with posts after my own, please stop.

I don't accept traditionalists...

Or progresivists...

Only Catholics...

[Esau]

Gee, I just re-read St. Justin Martyr's description of the mass in his "First Apology". It sure sounds like the Mass of Paul VI to me, other than that the Sign of Peace came beween the Prayer of the Faithful and the Offertory

Yup! Which is NOT contained in the Tridentine Rite!

Mind you, the kiss of peace is ancient and goes back to the Early Church!

The fact that it was re-established in the Novus Ordo speaks volumes of re-introducing the ancient elements of the Early Church Liturgy!

(which I wish we would have it now, so as to avoid the current distraction from Christ between the Eucharistic Prayer and Communion).

I believe that was one of the points made by B16 in his Exhortation.

[Shane]

It was. Whomever posted a moment ago about "revisionist history," I would encourage you to read Esau's post about the Eucharistic prayers of the Pauline rite which were taken from the early Eucharistic Liturgies of the Church.

Of course, the Old Mass had a reverent and formal sign of peace. Never assume because them you make an .......

Maybe the overly used 2nd eucharistic prayer is proof that not all that was very early was very good. But if we used the 1st prayer, we might not get home for the football games.

[Esau]

Everything collapsed, many lay catholics left the Church, churches are sold, attendance of mass is very low, bishops and priests are running after money, pious priests are sidelined on the otherhand influential persons are appointed as bishops. Post Vatican period is the" 2nd Dark Age"[earlier Dark Age between 973 and 1073 AD].

Again, as I've pointed out time and again:

CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION

Remember my Pink Bikini Example?

As I mentioned previously:

Gee... and all those statistics actually PROVE that Vatican II was behind them???

HOW???

As I stated before:

'That is like finding a correlation between people wearing pink bikinis on the beach on a hot summer's day and the high number of deaths that occured on that particular day.

Does that mean that because there were several folks wearing pink bikinis on that hot summer's day and the high number of deaths that occurred that very day; that the former was a cause of the latter?

Mind you, correlation does not prove causation!'

Posted by: Esau | Nov 13, 2006 11:02:37 AM

[Esau]

Of course, the Old Mass had a reverent and formal sign of peace.

And WHERE exactly, ANON, is there the Sign of Peace in the Tridentine Mass???

That's strange -- all those times I attended it, I've never encountered it in that rite!

Perhaps Esau had sold his birthright (the Old Mass) for some lesser thing.

[Esau]

Abi in malam crucem

Vatican II was simply the written form of the spirit that was already around.

I analyzed the cathedral of the city I am living in.

It is ugly and totally modernish.

It was built about 10 years before Vatican II.

So the problems started a long time ago.

Because you don't go from the horrible stuff in that cathedral represents in ten or even 20 years.

It has been a process.

VII just made it official

[ANON]

"And WHERE exactly, ANON, is there the Sign of Peace in the Tridentine Mass???"

The Liturgy of the Mass, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia describes how, when concelebration ceased to be practised in Western Europe, Low Mass became distinguished from High Mass:

"The separate celebrations then involved the building of many altars in one church and the reduction of the ritual to the simplest possible form. The deacon and subdeacon were in this case dispensed with; the celebrant took their part as well as his own. One server took the part of the choir and of all the other ministers, everything was said instead of being sung, the incense and KISS OF PEACE were omitted. So we have the well-known rite of low Mass (missa privata). This then reacted on high Mass (missa solemnis), so that at high Mass too the celebrant himself recites everything, even though it be also sung by the deacon, subdeacon, or choir. "

[bill912]

Ignore the anonymous troll, Esau; he's just trying to get a rise out of you. His mommy and daddy probably don't realize he's at the computer again.

[Some Day]

Just because it is old does not make it perfect.

We aren't going to wear the same stuff St.Peter wore during mass. In fact we won't even say the same things, except for the stuff instituted by Diving Right.

"Abi in malam crucem" Ouch!! But I suppose if the ICEL "translated" it, it would mean something totally different. So, Esau delenda est:-) but I mean that in a good way.

[Esau]

ANON:

You do know that the Kiss of Peace was NEVER part of the Tridentine Rite, don't you?

Go up a few comments for the answer to your question on the Kiss of Peace. This topic does raise the emotion level. In the immoratl words of Rodney King - "can't we all just get along?" Can't the 2 Masses just co-exist?

[JoAnna]

See, that's the thing. Priests who have no love for the Mass will allow it to be abused and treated irreverantly, no matter which rite is in use. The problem is in the formation of priests... in the seminaries. We need priests who are IN LOVE with the sacrifice of the Mass, and in love with Christ in the Eucharist. Until we have that, the use of this or that liturgy is pretty much irrelevant.

Beautifully said, Tim.

I converted to Catholicism in May 2003 and I'll I've ever known is the N.O. Mass. I've never attended a Latin Mass and would welcome the chance to experience one. However, I'm lucky in that our priest as a great and reverent love for the Mass, and it is done beautifully every time I go.

[JoAnna]

Oops, meant to italicize Tim's comments in my above comment. Sorry, Tim!

One thing I forgot to add - perhaps Papa Ratzi is saving the MP to release on his birthday (April 16). Heck of a gift, eh?

[Dr. Eric]

I for one don't think that this enigmatic MP will come about. It seems to be the proverbial carrot that has been dangling in front of the noses of all those who want the "TLM." And, most of those people are either elderly and remember it or wanna be apologists who romanticize "The Good Ol' Days."

The other 85% (79.57% of all statistics are made up on the spot) of Contraceptin' Catholics can't be bothered to go to Mass 3 times per year and don't want to go and not hear a dead language! That's why you have parishes with an English Mass at 7:00, a Spanish Mass at 9:00, a Filipino Mass at noon, and a Vietnamese Mass at 5:00 on a Sunday. If they didn't want to hear the Mass in their vernacular, then every Mass would just be in English so they couldn't understand it just like in Latin.

In St. Louis the overwhelming majority of German immigrants were Catholic. But the Irish priests couldn't be bothered to speak to the German-Americans in German. So the parishioners all joined up at the Lutheran Church since the pastor spoke the German that they could understand which accounts for the majority of Lutherans in the St. Louis area.

Last point, what makes you think that their Excellencies, Bishops Roger Cardinal Mahoney and Tod Brown will let you have the "TLM" in their dioceses if the MP is promulgated?

Dr. Eric

Feelin' Cranky

79.57% of all statistics are made up on the spot

I just ran some numbers, and I think you made some rounding mistakes in your calculation -- it's more like 78.342%.

[Dr. Eric]

As my high school chemistry teacher used to say, "It must be the difference in your calculator!"

;-P

[John]

Shane posted:

"The Tridentine Mass was once the new order as well, and there's no question that some at the time probably actually referred to it as that. It was an order of the Mass and it was new, after all."

Shane-please back up your assertion

Bill 912 posted"

"Gee, I just re-read St. Justin Martyr's description of the mass in his "First Apology". It sure sounds like the Mass of Paul VI to me, other than that the Sign of Peace came beween the Prayer of the Faithful and the Offertory"

Ahh...so correct you are Bill...But so wrong, the kiss of peace was between the celebrant and the concelebrants (priests assisting) and not the love fest that takes place today!

As a matter of fact the mass was broken up between the mass of the catechumens and the Mass of the faithful with many having to leave after the prayers and before the canon/consecration took place

Long live the Traditional Latin mass, traditional teachings and catechism. Any nonsense that the New Mass is just like the first masses and in line with the first supper (if that was the case we should be sitting on the floor around a table!!) is just modernist Bugnini led nonsense!