Could the MP be bad?

Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it. I’m wondering if the MP could be bad for the cause of Catholic tradition. Look at the “modernists in lace” situation amongst Anglo-Catholics in the Episcopal church. I don’t know that much about the Anglo-Catholic movement, but it’s my understanding that you have certain parishes that are fully committed to high-church liturgical grandeur whilst adopting some progressive ideas. If the MP were issued, could you have a parallel situation in the Catholic Church… modernists who are attracted to a stately, beautiful liturgy because it’s “prettier” than the NO Mass, whilst disregarding rubrics that don’t fit into their agendas. Right now, we are virtually guaranteed that a priest who says the Indult Mass genuinely tries to follow the rubrics and is loyal to the Pope, even if he sometimes makes mistakes. Could the MP muddy the waters?

Would liberal priests touch the Old Mass with a barge pole?

I’m not to sure on this one.

Unlike in the New Missal, in the old, I’m sure on the front inside pages there are warnings that if people deliberately abuse the rubrics of the Mass, they suffer the Wrath of Almighty God, Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and all the Saints.

AJV correct me if I’m mistaken… :slight_smile:

But there are Anglo-Catholic ministers who are liturgically conservative whilst being doctrinally radical. Maybe the culture of ecclesiastical dissent operates differently amongst Episcopalians than it does amongst Catholics.

You must remember the Episcopalians do not have a valid Mass or Sacraments. They are playing Catholic. No Grace flows from their “Masses”.

Things have undoubtedly changed since I was a high church Episcopalian some 35 years ago, but in those days the high church clergy were the most conservative in all ways. In fact the priest of our parish left the Episcopal church completely when they abolished the 1928 prayer book…

There is at least one possibility of how this could be bad, but it doesn’t involve the presentation of the TLM itself. I think the Catholics that attend these services will generally be among the most orthodox of our faith, and for the most part, the priests will be as well. I doubt there will be much in the way of abuses.

That said, the real problem will then be the neglect of the “reform of the reform” of the NO Mass. As orthodox Catholics abandon the NO for the TLM, it will become the exclusive domain of the more liberal elements of the church, which will have no desire to reform anything. Bishops will say, “See, there you go. Now you should be happy, you can have the original service just the way you like it. Now stop bugging us and leave the NO just the way it is for the rest of us (less orthodox) Catholics.” With very few really orthodox Catholics attending, there will be no one left to say anything, and the abuses will continue.

You reap what you sew.

I was thinking pretty much upon the same lines. I don’t see this as a wide-spread thing. In my diocese, I can see maybe five or six parishes in addition to the indult parish who will add the TLM. And it will probably be just one Mass on Sunday. I really can’t see my geographically local parish adding the TLM. And so the abuses will continue.

I simply can’t imagine a parish in my area like the OP suggested.
If the MP comes through and if my parish has a TLM, then I will observe that which I grew up with - a 3 hour fast before Communion, no meat on Fridays, etc.

If your parish has a TLM and you intend to observe the “old rules”, you will be fasting from midnight on, not 3 hours. That’s what we did in the pre-Vatican II era.:slight_smile:

I think the MP, for the most part, would have a salutary effect on the NO Mass. Something tells me that the Catholic world won’t demand the complete restoration of the Latin Mass. However, I think if more people had exposure to the Latin Mass, the NO Mass would be forced to compete with the Latin Mass in an open market, if you’ll pardon a profane term. The NO Mass would no longer have a monopoly on the religious imagination of mainstream Catholics, and I think many – not all, but many – would demand that the sense of austere beauty and solemnity present in the Latin Mass be present in their NO Masses. Some groups of orthodox priests – the Legionaries of Christ come to mind – aren’t big fans of the Latin Mass and probably wouldn’t jump the NO ship.

Hmm…our priest said he will probably offer the TLM at 1PM, so I better get used to a long fast on Sundays. Sunday lunch/dinner, rather than Sunday brunch, I guess.

Regarding potential abuses, I doubt it. Quite frankly, if a parish decides to offer a TLM-light Mass, it won’t be a TLM. Those who hold fast to a Traditional Mass would not participate.

The first Mass of the day at my parish was at 5:30 am, and the last was at 12 Noon, a High Mass. It wasn’t well-attended. I don’t know if it was the long fast or the long Mass that kept them away.:slight_smile:

This MP is not what it seems. There is a desire to “fuse” the two rites, a la an Hegelian synthesis. This is but a prelude to such a [edited by Moderator] fusion.

Actually, no. I made my first communion in 1958 and by then it was 3 hrs. I want to say it changed in '55 but I’m not certain.

The Eucharistic fast requirement is one hour for a Novus Ordo Mass or TLM.

Your worry overlooks important historical differences between Catholicism and Anglicanism. Anglicanism has, from almost the very beginning, been held together solely by liturgical books since, predictably, no one could agree on what proper doctrine was (the “almost” comes because Henry VIII was ruthless enough to be able to enforce his doctrines, too). Anglicanism, then, did not have nearly as clearly definable an orthodoxy as Catholicism, but did have for quite some time a fairly mandatory order of worship. This has allowed for very long traditions of wedding “heterodoxy” with orthopraxy.

Catholicism, in contrast, actually did and still does possess a strict orthodoxy as well as a relatively tight orthopraxy, which has much more closely linked the two than in the Anglican case. Don’t forget, also, that the TLM is simply theologically incompatible with much of liberal theology. The two rites have different theologies (with some of the differences being, admittedly, not the fault of the NO’s text but its practitioners), and I don’t see why a liberal would want to proclaim the traditional Catholicism embedded in our classic liturgy.

Where is this desire? Do you have something documenting it? What do you think the “fusion” of the two rites would consist of?

Since the Pauline Mass can be said in Latin, I don’t see a reason anybody would have to “fuse” the two.

Correct- the fast is governed by canon law, not the rubrics of the Mass.

I was curious about this, since I remember having to fast after midnight for a few years after I made my First Communion in 1955, so I looked it up on a Papal Encyclicals website. In 1957 the fast was changed to 3 hours, and in 1964 it was changed to 1 hour. I would post the link, but I have to learn how to post links on this server and haven’t got around to it yet. I am fairly computer illiterate.:frowning:

I was going to observe the three hour fast as a matter of personal piety because even at my local indult parish the fast is only an hour. 1964? Hmmm…I associate the hour with the “hybrid” Masses after Vatican II. Interesting.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.