ONLY Tridentine (Latin) Mass?

It’s terribly sad to see those postings that suggest a forced return to the Tridentine Mass would cure all the liturgical ills of the Church. While it might be a romantic “silver bullet” to fantasize about, it simply wouldn’t fix all the horrific liturgical problems many of us experience today.

Only two things will drive abuse out of the liturgy. Better and ongoing catechesis, and the demand by all Church leaders (bishops) that the Mass be celebrated according to the Church’s teachings.

The Novus Ordo Mass is no better or worse than the Tridentine Mass. Both are gifts to mankind from the Church. They key is to be able to attend either type of Mass without being subjected to liturgical abuse.

We have many examples of liturgical abuses taking place during the Novus Ordo Mass on this forum. Abuses also take place (and have taken place for centuries) during the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. Anyone who suggests differently is still fantisizing about the Tridentine Mass as a silver bullet that will magically eliminate liturgical abuse. Utter malarky!

Let’s embrace all the legitimate forms of the Mass so that we can focus our attention on eradicating abuse…

Just give me a Mass without abuses! Tridentine, Novus Ordo or any other valid form…just no abuses!

I do differ with some people who are Traditionalists because my main issue with the Current Missal, aside from a poor translation to English is not the missal itself, but in the manner it is celebrated.

In the way it is celebrated, I have many issues, from abuses that started out as abuses untill the Vatican caved in such as altar girls, EMHCs, frequent communion under both species using the cup instead of intinction, to rubrics that have been taken away that while allways lict, took away much of the mystery such as standing for communion, not to mention how the interior of a parish is configured. noty to mention the bland hymnals that are usually used.

These are all “lict”, not the “illict” abuses that so many mention. Give me a parish that celebrates a NO mass without these issues, and thankfully there is one in the area I live in, and I have no problem attending and supporting such a mass.

It is sad that many younger priests do want to restore the liturgy, but face many problems from the local chancery offices that if they try to do anything such as restore kneeling for communion, kick out EMHCs or decided to have only altar boys, they will get a large amount of grief, and possibly re assigned.

I grew up with the Latin Mass. The only reason I like it better is because no matter what language you speak, you know what is being said. To me it makes the Church more unified.

That is just my opinion. :thumbsup:

I thought the GIRM states that you must have alter boys and only use girls when there are not enough boys. Also, I thought it stated that Communion must be distributed by priests unless there is a shortage in your parish. Did I misunderstand or are these common abuses? We have 3 priest in our parish yet none of them distribute communion unless they are saying the Mass. When I was in grade school ( before Vatican II) we only received communion on the tongue from a priest. We respectfully knelt at the Communion rail. I don’t mind standing for Communion and bowing before receiving as a sign of respect, but I prefer to receive from a priest and make sure I sit on the side of church where the priest is more likely to be giving Communion.

I agree with Crusader and I was raised with the Tridentine liturgy into adulthood. I believe it is a fantasy to believe it would be a panacea, and it was never, ever what those who are experiencing it for the first time now think it was. I would questimate that those who faithfully followed along with the latin in a missal in the vernacular were maybe 1 in 100. Songs were sung by choirs if there was any singing and most people, I believe, (from my experience living through it with family and friends) just zoned through it all and many rushed out after communion. They attended regularly because they were told it was a mortal sin if they didn’t and they might go to hell-----so if they were there they had the bases covered (that was a common comment made—"I’m ok, I went to mass). Most family and friends I knew could tell you absolutely nothing about the mass or what went on or why although they went weekly.

The answer isn’t just no abuses in the mass, but truly converted Catholics who want to be there because they know who they are in Christ and come to worship with the rest of the household of God and to be fed with Him so we are able to take Him back into the world with us to convert the world.

BTW, loved the crowded church parking lots after Mass (live in a more rural area now), especially when there were back to back masses, both pre and post vat II. All the swearing, cutting people off, flipping them off etc. Surely tells you that these Christians knew where they had just been, what had taken place, and who they were supposed to be!

Off my soapbox-----I put myself in the same place as others, Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

[quote=JNB]I do differ with some people who are Traditionalists because my main issue with the Current Missal, aside from a poor translation to English is not the missal itself, but in the manner it is celebrated.

In the way it is celebrated, I have many issues, from abuses that started out as abuses untill the Vatican caved in such as altar girls, EMHCs, frequent communion under both species using the cup instead of intinction, to rubrics that have been taken away that while allways lict, took away much of the mystery such as standing for communion, not to mention how the interior of a parish is configured. noty to mention the bland hymnals that are usually used.

These are all “lict”, not the “illict” abuses that so many mention. Give me a parish that celebrates a NO mass without these issues, and thankfully there is one in the area I live in, and I have no problem attending and supporting such a mass.

It is sad that many younger priests do want to restore the liturgy, but face many problems from the local chancery offices that if they try to do anything such as restore kneeling for communion, kick out EMHCs or decided to have only altar boys, they will get a large amount of grief, and possibly re assigned.
[/quote]

If the Church allows it, they are non-issues. Again, the key is to follow the Church and not individuals – be they overly progressive abusers or “traditionalist” abusers.

[quote=KathyT]I thought the GIRM states that you must have alter boys and only use girls when there are not enough boys. Also, I thought it stated that Communion must be distributed by priests unless there is a shortage in your parish. Did I misunderstand or are these common abuses? We have 3 priest in our parish yet none of them distribute communion unless they are saying the Mass. When I was in grade school ( before Vatican II) we only received communion on the tongue from a priest. We respectfully knelt at the Communion rail. I don’t mind standing for Communion and bowing before receiving as a sign of respect, but I prefer to receive from a priest and make sure I sit on the side of church where the priest is more likely to be giving Communion.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with Vatican Council II, The Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass.

It has to do with people not following what the Church directs.

I whole heartedly agree that the Tridentine Mass will not end abuses in the Church. St. Paul assured us that there will always be wolves in sheeps clothing. The Tridentine Rite it is a pearl of a Mass, and so is the Novus Ordo when celebrated the way the Council Fathers intended. But at times, our pearl wearing Traditionalists can be spiritual snobs, forgetting that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our Faith – not the “smells and bells” that enhance our worship! We should not take a minimalist approach to Liturgy, but we should, howvever, refrain from putting standards on holiness and people living up to that holiness. Who are we to say that the Council Fathers got it wrong on the new Liturgy. Isn’t this a question of authority(our protestant side of Catholicism)? We have found the enemy, and it is within! http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

In Domino

[quote=KathyT]I thought the GIRM states that you must have alter boys and only use girls when there are not enough boys.
[/quote]

This is one of those things that seems to be designed for abuse. In what community is there actually a shortage of boys? I mean, really…it’s a bit silly. Apparently, there is a shortage of boys in virtually every diocese and most parishes in the United States, from the looks of things.

[quote=zelenak]I whole heartedly agree that the Tridentine Mass will not end abuses in the Church. St. Paul assured us that there will always be wolves in sheeps clothing. The Tridentine Rite it is a pearl of a Mass, and so is the Novus Ordo when celebrated the way the Council Fathers intended. But at times, our pearl wearing Traditionalists can be spiritual snobs, forgetting that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our Faith – not the “smells and bells” that enhance our worship! We should not take a minimalist approach to Liturgy, but we should, howvever, refrain from putting standards on holiness and people living up to that holiness. Who are we to say that the Council Fathers got it wrong on the new Liturgy. Isn’t this a question of authority(our protestant side of Catholicism)? We have found the enemy, and it is within! http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

In Domino
[/quote]

Incense and bells does enhance the worship.
When people are incensed, it is an acknowledgment and a respect of a Divine presence within a soul. In other words, the person is a temple for the Holy Spirit.

Bells tells us the important parts of the Mass.

It is the Re-representation of the Sacrifice of Calvary that is our source and summit of the Catholic faith to be more accurate.

I am sick and tired of fellow Catholics accusing traditionalist of being disobedient. Can you guys leave us alone and not take away the Old Mass?

[quote=Iohannes]I am sick and tired of fellow Catholics accusing traditionalist of being disobedient. Can you guys leave us alone and not take away the Old Mass?
[/quote]

Can “you guys” stop the “us vs. them” charade that I see in so many forums whenever this topic comes up? “We” know how to pray properly, “we” know how to dress properly, “we” are closer to heaven. It’s really quite frustrating. Indeed, the very use of the word (capital-T) “Traditional Catholic” as if it is a separate sect within the Church.

[quote=goat]This is one of those things that seems to be designed for abuse. In what community is there actually a shortage of boys? I mean, really…it’s a bit silly. Apparently, there is a shortage of boys in virtually every diocese and most parishes in the United States, from the looks of things.
[/quote]

The Church does not specify that females are to be used as altar servers only when there is a shortage of males.

[quote=Iohannes]Incense and bells does enhance the worship.
When people are incensed, it is an acknowledgment and a respect of a Divine presence within a soul. In other words, the person is a temple for the Holy Spirit.

Bells tells us the important parts of the Mass.

It is the Re-representation of the Sacrifice of Calvary that is our source and summit of the Catholic faith to be more accurate.

I am sick and tired of fellow Catholics accusing traditionalist of being disobedient. Can you guys leave us alone and not take away the Old Mass?
[/quote]

1.) There are no unimportant parts of the Mass.

2.) The Tridentine Mass is no better or worse than the Novus Ordo Mass.

[quote=Melman]Can “you guys” stop the “us vs. them” charade that I see in so many forums whenever this topic comes up? “We” know how to pray properly, “we” know how to dress properly, “we” are closer to heaven. It’s really quite frustrating. Indeed, the very use of the word (capital-T) “Traditional Catholic” as if it is a separate sect within the Church.
[/quote]

Sadly, some “traditionalists” take it upon themselves to suggest for instance that the SSPXers are not in schism.

That’s utter nonsense. All they need to do is read Ecclesia Dei and follow what the Church is directing. Instead they choose to follow schismatics (or heretics, I forget their status.) It’s stunning to see them contradict JPII WHILE they claim to be such obedient Catholics.

Those that suggest the SSPX are part of the Catholic Church would be no different than say an Anglican Protestant who also claims to be part of the Catholic Church…

[quote=Melman]Can “you guys” stop the “us vs. them” charade that I see in so many forums whenever this topic comes up? “We” know how to pray properly, “we” know how to dress properly, “we” are closer to heaven. It’s really quite frustrating. Indeed, the very use of the word (capital-T) “Traditional Catholic” as if it is a separate sect within the Church.
[/quote]

I too was raised in the Pre Vatican II Church. Latin was the norm at that time and I didn’t hear all this rucus I hear today that Latin is the only way to go. Pre Vatican II Catholics were not worshipping in the same language as those in the early Church because the Common Language was not Latin but Greek. So does that mean that the Latin Mass was Illicit? No!
And neither is the [font=Arial][size=2][font=Comic Sans MS][size=3]Novus Ordo Mass.[/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font]
Since Vatican II we are closer with the early Church than Pre Vatican II. That might be a hard pill to swallow for some but those who separate themselves from the Norms of the Church and insist on only the Trinetine Mass is licit have already separated from the Church. We call that Prostestant!

DigitalDeacon

[quote=DigitalDeacon]I too was raised in the Pre Vatican II Church. Latin was the norm at that time and I didn’t hear all this rucus I hear today that Latin is the only way to go. Pre Vatican II Catholics were not worshipping in the same language as those in the early Church because the Common Language was not Latin but Greek. So does that mean that the Latin Mass was Illicit? No!
And neither is the [font=Arial][size=2][font=Comic Sans MS][size=3]Novus Ordo Mass.[/size][/size][/font][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font]
Since Vatican II we are closer with the early Church than Pre Vatican II. That might be a hard pill to swallow for some but those who separate themselves from the Norms of the Church and insist on only the Trinetine Mass is licit have already separated from the Church. We call that Prostestant!

DigitalDeacon
[/quote]

So very true.

  1. How do you know that Novus Ordo Missae is the Mass of the Early church or that we are closer.
    Want to play early church fine. lets play early church.
    -Men women seperated.
    -Stand the entire time.
    -Women cover their heads
    -Catechumens are not allowed in during the Mass of the Faithful
    -no female altar boys
    -They did not dialogue with pagan, schismatics, and heretics
    -non-catholics were not allowed to worship on Catholic altars
    -the altar back then was not a square altar table
    -Mass was often said on top of tombs, why was the relic requirement removed at VII?

Anybody else want to play early church?

  1. I did not say that the Traditional Latin Mass is the only licit Mass. For your information, I attend the Latin Novus Ordo Missae on the weekdays.

  2. I know of plenty of people who were raised Pre-vatican II, many of them did not like the changes.

ALL of the people that I know who were raised Pre-Vatican II prefer the current mass to the old mass.

[quote=Iohannes]1. How do you know that Novus Ordo Missae is the Mass of the Early church or that we are closer.
Want to play early church fine. lets play early church.
-Men women seperated.
-Stand the entire time.
-Women cover their heads
-Catechumens are not allowed in during the Mass of the Faithful
-no female altar boys
-They did not dialogue with pagan, schismatics, and heretics
-non-catholics were not allowed to worship on Catholic altars
-the altar back then was not a square altar table
-Mass was often said on top of tombs, why was the relic requirement removed at VII?

Anybody else want to play early church?

  1. I did not say that the Traditional Latin Mass is the only licit Mass. For your information, I attend the Latin Novus Ordo Missae on the weekdays.

  2. I know of plenty of people who were raised Pre-vatican II, many of them did not like the changes.
    [/quote]

First, as I recall your name was not mentioned! Second I did not say the Novus Ordo Mass was the norm in the early Church. Third the Church has a right to make changes in the Liturgy which it has over the centuries and p[size=2][size=3]robably[/size] will in the future. Those changes does not make the Church wrong or in error as some have suggested. I have heard a lot in this forum about adhering to norms of the Liturgy and the teaching of the Church but on the other side of the mouth I hear nothing but complaints about how wrong She is to have the audacity to change.[/size]
[size=2][size=3]
[/size][/size][size=2][size=3]DigitalDeacon[/size]
[/size]

[quote=DigitalDeacon]I too was raised in the Pre Vatican II Church. Latin was the norm at that time and I didn’t hear all this rucus I hear today that Latin is the only way to go.
[/quote]

Of course not, it was assumed. Just like you don’t hear a lot of ruckus today about how the vernacular is the only way to go. (Except perhaps on message boards like this one and only in response to someone who suggests that Mass ought to be in Latin.)

“The use of Latin shall be retained in the Latin Rites.”

Pre Vatican II Catholics were not worshipping in the same language as those in the early Church because the Common Language was not Latin but Greek. So does that mean that the Latin Mass was Illicit? No!

First, the conjecture that early Christians in Rome were worshiping in Greek is just that, conjecture. It has not been proven and in fact there is evidence against it.

Second, if they were worshiping in Greek they were not worshiping in the vernacular, but in a liturgical language. So if we were to apply this principle to the situation today, it would behoove us to bring back the liturgical language of the Roman Rite – Latin! :wink:

And neither is the Novus Ordo Mass.

Is someone here claiming that it is?

Since Vatican II we are closer with the early Church than Pre Vatican II.

In what way? Did the early Church have

(a) national episcopal bureaucracies?
(b) women lectoring and serving at the altar?
© “theologians” rejecting everything traditional and embracing pure novelty?
(d) church buildings that look like spaceships?
(e) poor attendance at Mass among the faithful?

If the early Church was like the Church today, I would want no parts of it. Thankfully, I know it wasn’t.

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.