New Missal of Benedict XVI
#31
Slayer Wrote:It would be so much easier to just go back to Tradition since everything is already prepared. We have the Tridentine Latin Mass, The St. Pius V Missal, The Catechism of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law.

I don't think this is necessarily the best approach.  In fact, it ignores a lot of developments in the Church since Trent.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent contains nothing about the modern errors.  The 1917 Code of Canon Law, while the first time Church law was condensed into a single volume, could be improved.  For example, the 1917 Code only hints the possibility of supplied jurisdiction (upon which the SSPX and independents rely so much).  However, the 1983 Code is much more explicit in this regard.  Under the 1917 Code, a regularized SSPX would also be under a diocesan bishop, however the 1983 Code allows them to set up shop under the Pope and without exact diocesan borders.  Finally, I don't think I would actually like parts of the Mass of Pius V.  Have you seen the actual Tridentine Calendar?  The entire month of March has 6 feasts!  The rubrics are so somewhat different than the Missal of Pius X.

I don't think the purpose of traditionalism is to take everything back in time to the Council of Trent or before VII.  Traditionalists should desire that traditional doctrines be taught, and that the Mass should largely follow the model of the last five centuries.  However, we shouldn't be obstinant and deny that the liturgy and Church teaching can develop throughout time.
Reply
#32
Credo Wrote:
Slayer Wrote:Are you saying that the Church should not go back and make the Tridentine Latin Mass the one and only normal Mass of the Church instead of the NO because it would rip a healing wound?
In this moment that it would be imprudent to the extreme to introduce a usage of Mass that 95% of the Latin Rite is totally unfamiliar with.

While one won't say the old Mass left nothing to be desired* perhaps hundreds of years from now the old Mass can be reintroduced to the Church in general as the normative usage. For now, the situation within the Church and the world is too stormy to rock the boat.

*The lack of actual Intercessions at Mass,  the old cycle of Scripture (arguably), as well as the negligence of vigil Masses would be examples of this point.

Quote:How is the Church actually healing from the NO?

Have a chat with clergy in their sixties and seventies. Then have a chat with, say, a member of the Legionaries of Christ or Fathers of Mercy. One will find that younger Churchmen are both orthodox and orthoprax. Things are getting better in the area of formation.  

Quote:I picked the St. Pius V Missal because (or so I thought) it was the standard Missal before the 1962 revision.


While the creation of the Novus Ordo was unheard of in terms of drawing-up a liturgical book, there have indeed been a number of changes made to the Mass throughout the centuries since Trent.

I understand what you're saying. However, a hundred years to reintroduce the TLM? I hope it is sooner than that.
Reply
#33
MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote:
Slayer Wrote:It would be so much easier to just go back to Tradition since everything is already prepared. We have the Tridentine Latin Mass, The St. Pius V Missal, The Catechism of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law.

I don't think this is necessarily the best approach.  In fact, it ignores a lot of developments in the Church since Trent.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent contains nothing about the modern errors.  The 1917 Code of Canon Law, while the first time Church law was condensed into a single volume, could be improved.  For example, the 1917 Code only hints the possibility of supplied jurisdiction (upon which the SSPX and independents rely so much).  However, the 1983 Code is much more explicit in this regard.  Under the 1917 Code, a regularized SSPX would also be under a diocesan bishop, however the 1983 Code allows them to set up shop under the Pope and without exact diocesan borders.  Finally, I don't think I would actually like parts of the Mass of Pius V.  Have you seen the actual Tridentine Calendar?  The entire month of March has 6 feasts!  The rubrics are so somewhat different than the Missal of Pius X.

I don't think the purpose of traditionalism is to take everything back in time to the Council of Trent or before VII.  Traditionalists should desire that traditional doctrines be taught, and that the Mass should largely follow the model of the last five centuries.  However, we shouldn't be obstinant and deny that the liturgy and Church teaching can develop throughout time.

I am still new to Tradition having only discovered it about a year ago. What I experienced in the Church was only an outer shell of what I discovered it once was. Although it may not be the best approach, I think sometimes in order for one to move forward, one must take a few steps back. It seems the Church ran into a fork in the road with VII and went left. Perhaps in order for the Church to move forward she must retrace her steps and and take the right path.

But I am no expert on the matter...
Reply
#34
cunctas_haereses Wrote:
Quote: Any abrupt change would result in the second Western schism.

I beg your pardon, perhaps you weren't around in 69-71 but rest assured the implementation of the Novus Ordo was a VIOLENTLY ABRUPT CHANGE that knocked people for a complete loop. It did me and all of my contemporaries, our parent's and grandparent's generations too. 

Where I come from, the implementation of the New Mass was not a violently abrupt change.  The changes began several years before the New Mass was promulgated.  In fact, the Mass had been altered so much by the time the New Mass showed up that nobody noticed much difference.

My parish stopped kneeling for Holy Communion in 1966-67.  Mass was totally in English by that time.  The priest faced the people.  Women stopped wearing veils (there were some holdouts).  The new "Eucharistic prayers" appeared in 1968, said completely aloud, before the New Mass came.  We were singing un-Catholic and non-Catholic hymns.

All of that occurred prior to the New Mass coming to my parish.  The new missal was not abrupt at all; most of the changes were already in place.

Of course, many of the changes were abrupt at the time they occurred (like standing for Holy Communion), but that occurred prior to the New Mass, at least for me.  Ditto for Mass facing the people, in the vernacular, et cetera.
Reply
#35
The complete removal of the TLM with the Mass of Paul VI was a trauma that the Church has not recovered from. It would be equally as traumatic to get rid of the Novus Ordo for all the Catholics who are lost during this time of apostasy. 

What we need is complete freedom for the TLM to compete with the New Mass is parishes around the world. We need a phase out of the New Mass. With complete freedom of choice, Catholics will flock to the TLM to the point, that in a couple of years, the TLMs would be bursting, while the Novus Ordo will be attended by really small groups of aging Modernists.

Let's pray for the day when justice wins out and the TLM is rightly recognized as the one true Roman rite. The Novus Ordo needs to be regulated to an indult, which it should end up as, an indult to the TLM.  
Reply
#36
MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: Finally, I don't think I would actually like parts of the Mass of Pius V.  Have you seen the actual Tridentine Calendar?  The entire month of March has 6 feasts! 

That's because the Church wanted to keep the propers for the weekdays of Lent, which are very ancient, instead of replacing them with modern propers for new saints' days. 
Reply
#37
This is all a bunch of uproar over not much.  Eventually, the NO will cease to be said in any Catholic church in the world and it won't require a papal mandate.  It will die from lack of interest.  Maybe not in my lifetime, but eventually. There's a reason God allowed the Mass of 1962 to be replaced by a banal, on the spot product.  Kept the modernists filthy paws off it and let them wreak their havoc with the new fangled Mass.  Seriously, do you think the pant suit wearing nuns and hippie priests would've left the Mass alone just because it was in Latin?  Keep dreaming. 
Reply
#38
spasiisochrani Wrote:That's because the Church wanted to keep the propers for the weekdays of Lent, which are very ancient, instead of replacing them with modern propers for new saints' days. 

This problem was resolved by the 1960 Rubrics. During lent only the first and second class feasts are celebrated, all the rest are commemoration only. For this year this left St Joseph and the Annuntiation as feasts.

laszlo

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)