The Same Mass? You Gotta Be Kidding!editor
A reader posted this Mass (on video) on our blog recently – General Discussion thread …
Which brought to my mind, this Mass (video posted on our website) …
I got to thinking about Pope Benedict’s insistence that these are not two Masses, but two forms of the same rite. I can’t see it, folks. Can you? And don’t gimme ~”Oh but that wedding Mass is not typical…” Yes it is, in the sense that anything blankety blank goes at a novus ordo Mass as long as Fr Joe King gives the go-ahead. Or am I being too hard on the new (and getting newer by the day) Mass? Before you answer, ask yourself which of the two Masses is calculated to be true worship, pleasing to God. And which is likely to bring down the wrath of God on all involved in concocting and promoting it. Reflect.
Honestly, they are completely mad!
With bells on!
I am delighted to see that you used the traditional Mass video that I posted on this blog some time ago – I hope this doesn’t sound like blackmail but shouldn’t I be paid a bonus or will I simply go racing up the pay scale now? 😀
You’ll certainly be racing somewhere – that’s for sure – if you try to blackmail yours truly!
I was so pleased to see your avatar on the sidebar after a long delay which had me about to ask you “where have you BEEN?” However, your blackmail attempt has cut me to the quick.
Of COURSE you’ll be racing up the pay scale now – that lovely video which you posted all those months ago, is invaluable.
You are now being paid the same six figure sum as my unworthy self – can’t say fairer than that now, can I so watch for that cheque in the amount of £000.000
Just don’t spend it all in the one shop, mind 😀
The priest in the first video looks as if he’s been sniffing lighter fuel.
LOL! Lighter fuel and what else?!
It’s a disgrace that any priest should behave like that anywhere but at Mass it’s beyond belief.
“Lighter fuel”? Really? It has that effect, does it? I wonder if they do a “Diet” version…
Whatever they were all on, it’s pretty powerful stuff.
Thing is, there are several videos of that same priest doing much the same thing with slight variations, always with lots of cameras clicking, and of course the whole debacle being videoed, so it looks like he’s literally made a career out of his idiocy. You’d wonder at any couple seeking him out to officiate at their wedding but it looks like that’s what’s happening. And not a disturbed or even concerned face in the audience, oops, I mean congregation…
How any objective person could look at those two videos and not conclude that something has gone very wrong in the Church for senior churchmen to seek to replace the beautiful old rite with the flexible (and often fun-filled) new Mass. beats moi. And I’m more than a little shocked myself 😯
Now readers have got through the cheap jokes and got the personal abuse off their chests, it might be worth addressing the substance of your question.
One point is that the clip, however much it annoys the reactionaries, is not actually part of a nuptial mass, so your clips are not comparing like with like. The Italian report (http://milano.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/13_luglio_18/) are that this section (using Ricchi e Poveri’s “Mamma Maria”) came afterwards: “pochi minuti dopo la celebrazione della Santa Messa”. Makes a difference.
Don Bruno Maggioni pointed out the gospel says that the best bit of the marriage feast came at the end: this is the time to give a gift and congratulate the couple; he feels joy is a gift of God – and if this is not appropriate at a wedding where is it appropriate?
Don Bruno Maggioni was the curate of the Holyrood, Limbiate. His decision is to follow the Italian-speaking leader of the Italian Church and keep his language simple so that the people can understand. Weddings and Christenings are a pastoral opportunity to reach out and if, by wearing a Juventus shirt, he can “engage” young people, or by using football themes in his homilies he can catch more than just pious old women (of either sex), then that is his pastoral call to make.
Nothwithstanding the abuse heaped on him here, Don Bruno’s people admire his work, his leadership skills (from his military services days) and his ability to relate to youngsters (from his teacher-training). According to Angelo Salerno «Durante la messa non vola una mosca, nonostante la chiesa sia piena. Tutti sono attenti, anche perché questo prete usa parole comprensibili a tutti e metafore tratte dalla vita di tutti i giorni».
If Don Bruno can hold a crowded but comprehending church silent during a mass, a bit of variety is perfectly appropriate afterwards: «La gioia è un dono di Dio …».
Curates like this deserve credit, not vilification by a bunch of straight-laced old dears.
The place for singing and dancing and having fun after a wedding, is at the reception, usually in a hall, hotel, not a church building, certainly not in a Catholic church right after Mass. The old adage about time and place is there for a purpose. Nobody lacks dignity having some (reasonable) fun at a wedding in an appropriate venue, but a priest in vestments running around like a clown, lacks dignity, big time. And he’s never going to draw anyone to the Church by that means. They’ve been trying and testing that means for over 50 years now and the churches have never been emptier, the young people unable to tell right from wrong, don’t know if they are on foot or on horseback. No, Dowden, it’s a very bad idea.
As for the rest, I just don’t have the time, and will leave it to others to correct you.
Right now, I’m off to nurse my hurt feelings, knowing full well that I am one of the “straight-laced old dears” to whom you refer in your final (and if I were less charitable it WOULD be your final) sentence. See this face? 😀 Does this face look bovvered?
I like being a straight-laced old dear. Beats being a “bent-laced old dear” (if you get my drift… Think “Ireland” at all, at all, at all… 😀 )
Oh, I really am a bad girl. Ignore that last paragraph, folks. I’m bordering on humour there, and it’s just NOT the done thing for us straight-laced old dears… 😯
”if, by wearing … , then that is his pastoral call to make.”
Er, no it’s not. I know it’s hard to believe, but even in the Nervous Disorder there are actually rules about such things.
As for “variety is perfectly appropriate afterwards” I agree – it’s appropriate at the reception and NOT in the church.
Mind you, I’m not sure it’s appropriate for a priest to behave like that anywhere.
Why on earth are you commenting on this topic – let alone on this blog? You clearly have no understanding of the Catholic Faith, or even what is acceptable behaviour in a Catholic Church, and your arrogance in expounding on what is the appropriate and respectful behaviour of a priest, in a Church of which you are not a member, is presumptuous and offensive.
Dear me. It may be some people in Scotland are still stuck in the old sectarian attitudes but on the continent things have moved on long since.
Most ‘piskies in the diocese in Europe worship week in, week out, in Roman-Catholic* buildings. The visitors are sort of expected to contribute their bit to the ecumenical effort. So, when it comes to comment on matters of historical or liturgical fact, or of the Catholic faith (as distinct from Roman-Catholic beliefs* ) all this is open to all, regardless of sectarian origins. When it comes to acceptable behaviour, that is just observation, not arcane knowledge depending on membership of some chosen tribe.
The liturgical issues are worth discussing but why on earth try mobbing people off sectarian turf?
* Take note: Dowden is evidencing here, the branch heresy (condemned by the Church) that the Catholic Church is wider than the Church of which Peter is the head. This is why all Catholics should refuse to use the term “RC” – at least if you wish to be regarded as a truly “informed Catholic” – Ed.
Not just people in Scotland I’m glad to say. I’m English. I bow to your more personal knowledge of sects as I don’t belong to one, and whatever “piskies” or other heretics believe, they have no right to intrude erroneous and blasphemous opinions on the behaviour expected in a Catholic Church.
I assumed, rightly, the dancing was after Mass. King David danced before the Ark of the Covenant practically naked, and Jesus, implicitly, commends David for eating the food only the priests are allowed to eat.
Sometimes, we need to gain a proper perspective, and ask what would Jesus do?
Before I answer your question – “what would Jesus do?” would you answer it first, please and thank you.
What do YOU think Our Lord would say if, for argument’s sake, He appeared to a 21st visionary unknown to us at the present time (but who probably lives in Glasgow and is tall, slim, glamorous etc.)
What if she (clue) asked Our Lord if He objected to the kind of dancing around which we see in the video posted at the top of this page. How might He respond? Here are some possible starter sentences for you…
Well, it seems to Me that…
a) this is perfectly OK…
b) this is really a good thing…
3) this is displeasing to Me…
4) A.N. Other answer of your choice…
Then, believe me, I will answer your question, Irish Eyes, with “a proper perspective” and with bells on…
The point is that it wasn’t during Holy Mass. I personally find it distasteful, and it definitely not the best thing to tack on at the end of Mass, and yet, just as Jesus used parables to express something he might find Dance – outside of Holy Mass – acceptable, to serve some purpose. The thing is it not the most sinful thing a person could do.
King David danced with holy joy before the Ark, his heart fixed solely on God, and he did so outwith the temple. As for being “practically naked,” you will read in the Scriptural account that he wore a linen caphod having stripped himself of his kingly garments as an act of humility before the power of the Almighty.
Are you seriously trying to compare these holy and zealous actions of King David with the sacrilege of that priest in the video, whose attention was anything but drawn to Our Lord in the tabernacle?
And as for Our Lord commending King David’s eating of the holy bread of proposition: Again, you will read in the actual Scriptural account that King David was first questioned by the priest as to whether he and other partakers had kept their “vessels” in purity (free from women) before administering the holy food to them.
There are lots of inferences to be taken from these Old Testament stories, each of them pointing to reverence and devotion before the holy things of God. You err greatly in suggesting that the video priest’s actions can be justified by comparison.
This is the tragedy of our times, times in which Catholics like you attempt to justify irreverence, blasphemy and sacrilege with a recital of the old Protestant chestnut “ask yourself what Jesus would do”.
Well, in liturgical matters Jesus has spoken through His Church by 2000 years of liturgical sacrality that has only been lost since Vatican II, unto the blindness of so many children of the Church now blind to the corruption taking place before their very eyes.
Traditional prayer recited by a bishop during the blessing of a church:
Terrible is this place, it is the House of God and the Gate of Heaven”.
Try telling that to today’s Catholics, especially that pathetic priest!
Easy on the accusations of heresy.
The last I heard of “branches”, the evidencing was from a Roman-Catholic assistant bishop, speaking to an international gathering. It so happens his English was limited but he brought a brilliant interpreter along – the gist of it was that the presently divided church can be considered as four great branches, he argued, subsisting in the Roman-Catholic branch, yet present in the Orthodox, the Anglican and the Protestant branches. In his L1, the metaphor was “branch” as in “bit of tree”, rather than as in “subordinate office”.
Continentals have no sort of problem with using forms equivalent to our “Roman-Catholic”, nor, for that matter, does “The Roman-Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen” – or, indeed, an Italian diocese that comes to mind. Some Southern Irish and Irish Americans do go on about it, but less, one suspects, to be informed than to bash the proddie dogs.
The Assistant Bishop has, incidentally, now moved onwards and upwards to much higher things – and at this rate the brilliant interpreter will soon be able to say he once worked for a cardinal.
So, when it comes to saying which of you has got it right ….
“The last I heard of “branches”, the evidencing was from a Roman-Catholic assistant bishop…It so happens his English was limited”
” the gist of it was that the presently divided church can be considered as four great branches, he argued, subsisting in the Roman-Catholic branch, yet present in the Orthodox, the Anglican and the Protestant branches…”
Christ bequeathed unity on His Church from the very beginning. The Church remains “undivided” – it is Christendom that is split, thanks to the bad Catholic priest, Martin Luther and his co-conspirators. The heresy that the Church is made up of different branches, is a condemned heresy. Some unnamed bishop with a poor grasp of English (and probably Latin as well) can’t change that fact.
“The Assistant Bishop has, incidentally, now moved onwards and upwards to much higher things – and at this rate the brilliant interpreter will soon be able to say he once worked for a cardinal”
Your obscure writing style gets across the yawn yawn claim that the once “assistant bishop who can’t speak English” is now or was later, a cardinal. SO?
I’m going to ignore your jibes about the widespread use today of “Roman Catholic” even by Catholic bishops and their webmasters because it is pointless trying to fight the world on everything. Nothing can change facts and any truly educated Catholic (and even Protestant) knows that the name of the Church is “Catholic” with the earliest records showing that that name was in widespread use and that no ancient document of any authority has ever used RC, which originates in the Middle Ages, thanks to the Protestant Reformers.
So, in summary (a) the name of the Church is “Catholic Church” with other man-made ecclesial communities like yours (not) enjoying a purely schismatic relationship with Christ’s Church and trying to create the impression that you are part of Christ’s Church by using the manufactured RC name which I must admit does help to fool some of the people at least some of the time.
And (b) we are living through a monumental crisis in the Church where “cardinals oppose cardinals” and “bishops oppose bishops” (hardly new in the C of E but very new in the Catholic Church) so it’s hardly surprising that members of the hierarchy have fallen into the branch heresy as they’ve fallen into other heresies, check out Ireland on 22 May.
(c) if you think that by virtue of being an unnamed) “assistant bishop” who became an (unnamed) “cardinal” I must be wrong on any particular heresy and he correct, think again.
Dowden, with respect, your obscure manner of writing, coupled with your Anglican take on Catholicism, makes it very difficult for a simple gal like me to respond to your posts. I’m tempted to say “Come back, Leo, all is forgiven” but I know he’s swamped and has better things to do with his time that go round in circles with you again – although, as we all remember only too well, he certainly won rounds, 1 through to 20 last time. Ouch! Memories, as the song goes, are made of this 😀
I’m going to be swamped myself tomorrow, Dowden, so I’m afraid any more obscure ramblings from your good self will have to wait until I can work out precisely what it is you are trying to say and then do my humble best to reply.
Ever so ‘umble best, I’m proud to say 😀
LOL! It certainly is powerful stuff!
The widespread loss in Faith means that the clergy feel that they have to entertain people during Mass, otherwise they won’t find it ‘meaningful’ or ‘enjoy it’. I’ve just returned from a few days at the shrine of Our Lady at Walsingham. Although the shrine is in the hands of modernists, I think it is important to maintain a traditional Catholic presence at these hallowed places – I always time my visits so I can get the TLM.
On 26th May I noted that the (novus ordo) pilgrim Mass at 12 noon was being attended by the Diocese of East Anglia children’s pilgrimage. It was with great sadness that I saw loudspeakers and pop music equipment being lugged into the large Chapel of Reconciliation before the Mass. As I came out of the Slipper Chapel, before leaving the Shrine area, I could hear the thudding of the bass guitar and drums, as they were ‘warming up’ for the Mass. I remarked that the children don’t even stand a chance these days. And yet the people at the Shrine are constantly embarking on projects to try and enthuse young people about the Faith. They just can’t seem to join the dots up . . .
I always groan when I see a pop band tuning up before Mass. I totally agree that they are just not joining up the dots. If it takes a pop band to bring young people to Mass, what’ll happen when they’re past the pop stage? It’s so stupid. I’ve never been to Walsingham but it’s sad to hear of that sort of thing going on a Our Lady’s shrine.
Yes Margaret Mary, Walsingham, Aylesford and all the Marian shrines in England are simply a microcosm of Church in general. Fortunately, traditional pilgrimages do occur at various times in these places, so Catholics can go and worship unhindered by all the post-Vatican II nonsense. Despite everything, Walsingham is a beautiful place, chosen by Our Lady and hallowed by the prayers of the faithful for 950 years, and as I said before, I think that traditional Catholics should continue to worship at these shrines and pay special honour to Our Lady. We either keep going to these places, or just cede them to the modernists.
I wonder what Pope Benedict was thinking when he said they were the two forms of the same rite! One is like a shabby unscripted play (open to the ‘creative’ interpretations of the player) the other is a masterpiece, it stands in need of nothing.
The spectacle was pathetic. The priest-entertainer must have a full-time job working out his ‘routine’ for weddings, funerals, baptisms etc. I would hope they would be different 😀
The thing that saddens and appals me is the complete lack if respect for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before Mass. Anything goes: chat about last nights TV, shopping, gossip etc. and it is not young people only by any means. We spent a lot of time recently in Johannesburg and where we went to Mass there was always a respectful silence even when there were lots of children present. How has this been allowed to happen? I think if the priest was seen to be on his knees at the front of the church preparing himself to say Mass that might help. Or maybe a really passionate sermon on the subject ….recently I turned up for a childrens Mass at our parish. The noise was frightful! Children running around, teachers chatting etc. I am afraid I went home! Can nothing be done about this?
I agree Christina. When I used to go to a novus ordo parish, the older people were by far the worst culprits at chatting before, during and after Mass. The young ones were mostly notable by their absence.
I didn’t say a word, WF. That was Christiana speaking!
There is no redress. Things have gone to far, in every diocese of Scotland. Nothing can be done about this. People like it, and it is not their fault.
The problem is, if you don’t like this kind of “Mess”, then there is nothing better on offer.
You will find an occasional N.O. Mass said with a modicum of decorum, but you will always find something to irritate … in the largest parish in the archdiocese of StAnd&Ed, a priest will say Mass reasonably well with no distractions, but that same priest will not genuflect at any point during the Mass, but will make do with a deep bow from the waist. And you know that he knows no better … he has seen his confrères bowing and he is following suit, totally ignorant that Mass in the presence of the Sanctissimum requires genuflection, according to the most recent GIRM.
True, I have seen Mass said almost sloppily by M. l’Abbé Laguérie, even before he defected to the IBP, but …
When I see debacles like that I can’t help but wonder why I became Catholic in the first place. Guitars at Mass, terrible choirs, wishy-washy sermons, screaming children and total lack of respect for Our Lord. That is not worship. Even when I was attending these ‘Masses’, I had an intense feeling, call it intuition, that this was an abomination. Enter Tradition, which I found after seeing Ed on the telly. One of the few good things I’ve seen on the telly. (stay ‘umble Ed!)
As for +Ratzinger saying that the NO and TLM are two forms of the same rite, who is he trying to kid? Is this not the same Ratzinger who said the NO was a ‘banal on the spot fabrication’? Also, the NO was roundly condemned by many theologians, most notably Cardinal Bacci and Ottavianni, who wrote their famous letter to Paul VI in 1969, stating:
‘The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent’.
‘The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith’.
Indeed, the New Missal condemned in 1967 by a Synod of Bishops in Rome, who had the misfortune to witness Bugnini celebrate his ‘Missa Normativa’.
Likewise, what were the reasons for its introduction? Was it to make the Mass more accessible to people, or to make it easier for people to participate? Nope! As Archbishop Bugnini said, ‘we must remove from our Catholic prayers and liturgy all that serves as a stumbling-block to our separated brethren, that is to say Protestants’. I believe Bugnini, a suspected Freemason, had an ulterior motive. He termed his New Mass a ‘major conquest of the Catholic Church’, a phrase alarmingly similar to Luther’s, ‘destroy the Mass and you will have destroyed the Catholic Church’. We are seeing Luther’s prophecy coming into fruition in our own days, with the loss of faith, collapse in vocations and decimation of Mass attendance.
Similarly, the Novus Ordo was also criticised by Protestants. Peter L. Berger, a Lutheran sociologist, stated: “If a thoroughly malicious sociologist bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.”
Finally, Dietrich von Hildebrand, the 20th century Doctor of the Church, as termed by Pius XII, stated, more cuttingly, ‘Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better’.
In short, these Masses are not ‘two forms of the same rite’, in fact they are polar opposites. One Mass, codified by St. Pius V, and with the hearty blessing of all subsequent Popes (up until Paul VI), Priests, Saints and Laity, and which is based upon ancient rites, is the only Mass ever sanctioned by the Church for worship, as stated in Quo Primum in 1570. The New Mass is a bizarre and hollow concoction, dreamed in the years of sex, drugs, rock and roll, with a negligible spiritual, religious and intellectual impact. It s only worthwhile effect has been to pander to the simpering ecumaniacs and their desire for a new world religion based upon relativism and indifferentism.
There is not much point in inflicting great screeds of cut-and-paste stuff on readers. The whole sequence “Ottovani … synod … Bugnini … Protestants … Berger … Screwtape” has all been trotted out many times before (here and elsewhere) in the same old words in the same old order.
Adding error to plagiarism serves no discernible purpose but your comment wins some sort of a prize for the sheer number of historical errors it packs in to a short space.
The masses here do indeed represent two (of the many) forms of one rite (of many).
The mass codified under (if hardly “by” Pius V) is very far from being your “the only Mass ever sanctioned by the Church for worship”. Far from it.
And no such thing is “stated in Quo Primum in 1570”, which explicitly allows Uses other than the 1570 version of the fifteenth-century Roman Use, to continue.
Any honest view of the two clips is that one lively modern performance follows a mass, the other is a thoroughly mannered modern performance of a not particularly old rite. The former clip is that bit nearer to tradition – the vestments, altar and vernacular are a better fit; the latter has baroque vestments, a medieval altar and a dead language, which are further removed from traditional Uses. It is impossible to tell from the first clip but the second departs from sacred tradition (faithfully preserved among the Orthodox) by not having an appropriate number of ministers (including a deacon) and by denying communion in both kinds to the laity.
From the point of view of liturgical tradition, neither clip gets near ancient liturgical custom but Don Bruno is the nearer.
There is a debacle, but it is hardly down to the Don.
Before you get stuck into Dowden, remember that he is a fully paid up member of the Anglican (non) communion! As such, we’ve gone round in circles with him many times on the subject of the Mass and he just doesn’t agree with us, sob, sigh, shock 😯 Still, it is our contribution to the ecumenical movement to keep our patience with Dear Dr Dowden and to be nice to him at every opportunity.
I have time only to clarify one point made by Dowden. He cutely omits to clarify his mention of Quo Primum, wherein, yes, other rites were to be permitted henceforth, but only those of ancient custom, at LEAST 200 years old. Naughty, Dowden, for not mentioning that crucial point. Nothing new was to be introduced, that’s clear in Quo Primum. And, 200 years? You really think The novus ordo will last that long? It’s already – at 50 years of age or thereabouts – been changed day and daily since its lamentable introduction and they’re still producing new versions. Laugh? I thought I’d never start.
Anyway, I need to be somewhere else in about ten minutes and I know that the rest of you will be jes DYIN’ to clarify even more bits and pieces for Dowden, so I’ll get out of the way and let you get on with it…
Just remember to…
Keep the heid!
Dear me. It is fairly well known that the prescription was 1370 (nisi … consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum …) but not saying so is hardly “cute” suppression – the detail is simply superfluous to the point at issue: the Tridentine revision (itself revised at various times before becoming today’s “Extraordinary Form”) is not, as was said, “the only Mass ever sanctioned by the Church for worship, as stated in Quo Primum”. That is untrue and 1370 is neither here in establishing that simple fact.
But, dear me, far from clarification, your “nothing new was to be introduced, that’s clear in Quo Primum” simply adds to the error. The legal principle is that one deed may be abrogated or derogated by a subsequent grant. Quo Primum never ever says it was binding on Pius V himself (he changed the new Missal) or his successors (a long list of whom made changes to his New Order). The principles that a legislator cannot bind their successions, or require their “obedience” are so basic that they did not need stating. Pius V cannot possibly have imagined a situation where a lay person (still less some dear lady) would have had the temerity to imagine otherwise.
The late, dear Dr John Dowden studied all the known papal bulls relating to Scotland and the principles of interpretation have been known ever since. The words “hac nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione statuimus et ordinamus …. tenore praesentium, etiam perpetuo concedimus et indulgemus” only means his bull was valid indefinitely, valid without specified limit of time. Such a grant did not bind either the grantor or their successors at law: they were perfectly free to change the bull in detail or indeed revoke the grant entirely. Derogation squares with the terms of the original.
Pius V clearly intended to bind his subordinates but did not make it clear “nothing new was to be introduced” by him or his successors: nothing in the text says that. There is no reason why people should not be free to preserve the favourite services of their childhood but that is a minority passion: a sort of ecclesiastical steam railway preservation society. Such quaint antiquarianism is no reason, however, to misinterpret sixteenth-century historical documents – a really bad example to the blog’s junior historians. Dear, dear, Dear.
Dr John Dowden,
” – far from clarification, your “nothing new was to be introduced, that’s clear in Quo Primum” simply adds to the error. The legal principle is that one deed may be abrogated or derogated by a subsequent grant. Quo Primum never ever says it was binding on Pius V himself (he changed the new Missal) or his successors (a long list of whom made changes to his New Order). The principles that a legislator cannot bind their successions, or require their “obedience” are so basic that they did not need stating. Pius V cannot possibly have imagined a situation where a lay person (still less some dear lady) would have had the temerity to imagine otherwise.”
It is well known that Quo Primum was meant to be a perpetually binding encyclical. Here’s one extract:
“Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.”
“In perpetuity” can only mean one thing and that is “forever”.
I understand that you are an Anglican (no offence intended) so perhaps that is why you fail to see divine protection in the above statement.
Nothing was every removed from the Mass after Quo Primum, just very small additions, but definitely not any wholesale change to a totally different Mass as we’ve seen since the Church went into crisis in the 60s. Even so, God has seen to it that Catholics were made aware of the Traditional Mass and Quo Primum. Deo gratias!
It seems to have fallen to you to argue the “Traditionalist” case: there is no question of mere Anglicans taking offence – but you really have drawn the short straw with this case. Three points.
(1) You say: “It is well known that Quo Primum was meant to be a perpetually binding encyclical.” Quo Priumum is not an encyclical.
It is a “bull”, technically a “constitution”, not the much later “encyclical” form. It is an anachronism to read a bull as anything other than a bull: Pius XII in his musings on papal infallibility never confused modern “encyclicals” with older styles. The point is not just a diplomatic technicality – it bears on your belief of the applicability of some “divine protection in the … statement.”
(2) You tell us: “Here’s one extract: “Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity ….” The actual words of the papal Chancery were “tenore praesentium, etiam perpetuo concedimus et indulgemus.”
Readers might take a moment to look at it carefully. “Tenore presentium” it says – the word “tenore” is not simply not translated in your version. “Presentium” is, fairly obviously, a grammatical plural and cannot possibly mean “this law” (singular) – it simply means “these present letters”, i.e. the letters written on the sheet of parchment the reader of the original bull is supposed to be holding. The words “our apostolic authority” are simply interpolated from elsewhere – “tenore praesentium, etiam perpetuo concedimus et indulgemus” actually and obviously contains no such phrase. Where a translation is offered to guide those who find Latin beyond them, translation really ought to be accurate, and literal enough to be a faithful clause-by-clause guide. The translation you copy is, nevertheless, too free to be helpful.
(3) And then, discussing “perpetuo”, you tell readers: ‘“In perpetuity” can only mean one thing and that is ‘forever’”. No reason to imagine that is the case.
The late, great, Dr John Dowden (a TCD man who illuminated Scottish church history) explained long ago that bulls could be promulgated for a fixed or determinable time, after which they expired. Alternatively, bulls could (and can) be granted without any prescribed limit of time – perpetuo. That does not mean “forever”: look at the text – Pius V himself simply cancels what his predecessors had once mandated “confirmatione Apostolica, vel aliis quibusvis facultatibus”. By the same token he himself, and several of his successors, did the same to Quo Primum. His Breviary was drastically cut about (and its Psalter proscribed) – in this case by none other than Pius X. All the 1570 text means is that Pius V’s bull bound his (and his successors’) subordinates: “even cardinals” (etiamsi …. Cardinales) and that under obedience (“in virtute … obedientiae”) “perpetuo”, indefinitely, without specified limit of time and until further order be taken by some future authority. And in the ’60s and ’70s, taken it was.
So, the bull is not an encyclical; it was issued without limit of time but was not irreformable. Where people are a bit upset by or uncomprehending of change, it is really unfair to feed them some sense of grievance by suggesting that they have been cheated of their “perpetual” rights.
I made a typo. Encyclical by mistake. Sorry about that.
I’m not wasting time arguing with you. I think we all know that the novus ordo Mass is an aberration that is already on the way out. So no point in discussing whether Quo Primum was an encyclical or a bull – the fact is, it was respected until the 1960s, as binding us all to Mass of all time.
As an Anglican, I really don’t expect you to grasp that, since you tend to change things by vote at annual meetings.
Yes, it is wise to know when arguments have no chance of winning. Fact of the matter remains that readers are being mislead by Traditionalists trying to suggest that a mere bull should be treated as the doctrinal equivalent of an encyclical – bit more than just a typo there. Equally, mistranslation (an issue you may well prefer not to address) is misleading. And, just as misleading, it is wrong to suggest “perpetuo” means anything other than the terms of the bull applied without specific limit of time. So the bull you mistranslate is not “perpetual”. No argument there. Never was.
But, that said, there is no point in starting another false trail that Quo Primum “was respected until the 1960s, as binding us all to Mass of all time”. Like the other misinterpretations and mistranslations being circulated by “Traditionalists”, the “Mass of all time” is another ahistorical myth. The Liturgical Movement went back to genuinely early forms – hence the changes, trying to get back to the older forms. Suggesting the 1570-1970 text is a rite “of all time” is just plain untrue.
People can worship today in whatever chapel takes their fancy, embroidered maniples and all, but that is no reason to misrepresent the Christian churches’ long and complex historical experience of liturgy. None of this is difficult to discover – simple matter of getting a copy of Gregory Dix on the “Shape of the Liturgy”. It is good honest Oxford scholarship and is a whole lot closer to Catholic truth than the tosh being circulated in “Traditionalist” websites.
Editor: I’ve very limited time at my disposal right now, so excuse this hasty response to enable you to move out of the false dichotomy you are creating between a papal bull and a papal encyclical. You miss the entire point (as you always do) that within Catholicism as it relates to the Magisterium, it is the authority of the document as set out in the language therein (usually “commanding”), its connection to Catholic Tradition and eternal law, that is the key. Hence I am not giving a second thought to Papa Francis’s forthcoming “Green” encyclical, which I expect to be nonsense. Anyway, here’s a page from a very reliable source, an excellent article if you persevere through the Vatican baloney, to read the nature and extent of the authority of Quo Primum. Click here and all will be revealed…
Now, please leave poor Michaela alone. We all make slips of the tongue, typos from time to time. It matters not. She was correct on the fundamental point – and you, yet again, are wrong. Become a Catholic, Dowden, a real one, and you’ll never be wrong again… In the proverbial nutshell, Dowden, encyclicals are authoritative all right but bulls are authoritative with bells on, so to speak. Have a check out at the bulls issued in the past – WOW! All the major stuff, dealt with via bulls, wish I had time to list some examples, but, hey, if you don’t like the “tosh being circulated on traditionalist websites”, don’t let’s keep you. 😀
Fact of the matter remains that readers are being mislead by Traditionalists trying to suggest that a mere bull should be treated as the doctrinal equivalent of an encyclical …. Catholic readers aren’t. You see, informed Catholics are already familiar with Quo Primum so it doesn’t matter whether it is an encyclical or bull.
People can worship today in whatever chapel takes their fancy , they certainly can, but Catholics may not worship in any old chapel that takes their fancy if it is not a Catholic chapel.
Exactly right – to us it wouldn’t matter whether Pro Quimum was a bull or an encyclical but I thought I would do some checking to help Dr Dowden and found this very short answer from a priest online:
What’s an Encyclical? What’s a Bull?
To clarify Pope John Paul II’s position on stem-cell research, the Vatican quoted from his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae. What’s an encyclical, and how does it differ from a papal bull?
The Catholic Church articulates and develops its teachings primarily through encyclicals. Traditionally, an encyclical is a letter from the pope to the church’s bishops, but during the past 40 years the pope has also addressed them to the faithful and to “all people of good will.” Pope John Paul II has issued 13 encyclicals, the latest being 1998’s Fides Et Ratio (“Faith and Reason”).
Notable encyclicals include Paul VI’s 1968 Humanae Vitae (“On Human Life”), which affirmed the church’s stance against contraception, and John Paul II’s 1995 Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”), which condemned he “culture of death” the pope saw manifested in abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. The first encyclical was circulated by Benedict XIV in 1740.
Prior to the 18th century, the church expressed its teachings through apostolic bulls, more legalistic and solemn documents than encyclicals. (“Bull” refers to the Latin bulla, or seal, which is affixed to the document.) The condemnation of Martin Luther, for example, came in a papal bull.
Today, the Vatican issues bulls mostly to confer the titles of bishops and cardinals or to proclaim the canonization of a saint.
Encyclicals are authoritative, not to be criticized or rejected lightly by members of the church, but they are not infallible. Only three doctrines developed in the past 200 years are considered infallible, and all were issued as bulls: the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was born without original sin), the Assumption (that Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven), and the definition of papal infallibility issued by the First Vatican Council.
Explainer thanks the Rev. John Langan, S.J., of Georgetown University and the Catholic Word Book.
I am well aware that other rites, such as the Ambrosian, Mozarabic and Braga rites, as well as rites of religious orders, such as the Dominican, Norbertine and Carmelite rites, but as Ed said they had to be 200 years old or older, and no new Masses were to be permitted after the codification of St Pius V.
Your comments about the former being more ‘traditional’ is absolute nonsense, and normally I would not respond to such a trifling statement, but are you seriously suggesting that the rite used by the early Church was of the same substance as the performance of Don Bruno? I doubt that St. John and Our Lady were skipping about in gay abandon at the foot of the Cross. Did Christ do a jig around the table at the Last Supper when he instituted the Mass and sacrificed His Body and Blood as a clean oblation before the day He was to suffer?
Deary me!!! You need to get to the nearest SSPX priory. Pronto!!
Oh dear. Since you are aware of other rites, it particularly makes no sense to have said “one Mass, codified by St. Pius V … is the only Mass ever sanctioned by the Church for worship”. Beyond that, I am simply suggesting that the Don Bruno clip is that bit nearer to tradition in respect of the vestments, altar and the vernacular. The other clip (which appears to be mainly a training video on the manual acts) is that bit further from traditional Uses: baroque vestments, a medieval altar and a dead language, none of which would have been seen in the early church. I don’t honestly think there is any room for argument on these points – historical facts are facts.
Imagine you knew liturgies from 300 AD, which of these two would then seem to you to be the more familiar? While Don Bruno gets closer, in many respects neither are close to tradition: neither has a proper complement of ministers, neither has a deacon and the Extraordinary Form version denies communion in both kinds to the laity. Don Bruno is closer to tradition but neither clip is close. Quick visit to your local Orthodox liturgy is the simple way to get near tradition, if that is what is wanted.
You have gone one to compound error with a statement “no new Masses were to be permitted after the codification of St Pius V”. In fairness, that is the editor’s error which you are copying but just because a fallacy is common in among the old dears does not mean you should let it mislead you when it comes to diplomatic interpretation of historical texts. Dear me, no.
”baroque vestments, a medieval altar and a dead language, none of which would have been seen in the early church.“
I’m sorry, but that is, frankly, a rather stupid observation. Since the baroque period began around 1600 they could hardly have had such vestments in the early Church!
You seem, erroneously, to identify Traditionalism with Archaeologism. The architects of the Novus Ordo fell into the same absurd error.
The liturgical practice of the early Church is a matter of great historical interest (though one on which we have rather limited information) but there is no reason whatever why it should be taken as a model for current practice.
We were asked to discuss two clips. Compare and contrast and all that …. I am not sure what is wrong in an observation that one clip elects to use one decorative style (in fashion in Hispanic and Italian circles comparatively recently) whereas the other shows a return to an older style of vestment (current over much of Western Europe for a much longer period).
Those who like the fussy (and to my mind somewhat effeminate) style of the Gin-and-Lace brigade are of course entitled to their view but the liturgical movement went back behind that. Pius V was after a “pristine” text of a “missal”. True, he was seriously adrift in his scholarship: quite unknown to him “missals” are centuries less than pristine. And Archbishop Cranmer did a whole lot better for the English-speaking peoples but, for the rest, a lot has had to be stripped out as inauthentic.
That is, of course, presuming the aim is to restore the pristine. You may feel that the liturgical practice of the early Church is a matter of great historical interest but that there is no reason whatever why liturgical archaeology should be taken as a model for current practice. That is for you to decide but (and far be it from me to suggest he was infallible) your opinion was not shared by Pius V – his aim was to have things “ad pristinam Missale ipsum sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum restituerunt”.
We were asked to reflect on two clips: a valid reflection is that while neither in near being traditional, the ordinary form gets a whole lot closer the pristine than the extraordinary. But, if people like it, great: njoy Baroque lace – Keith, Cardinal O’Brien was a great fan of flouncing about in thoroughly unpristine Cappa Magna, trailing lots of quite unpristine lace. As the alliterative Don says «La gioia è un dono di Dio».
The Idiot in the first video ran around the alter, sorry table, without even a nod towards Our Lord, but then again haven’t they removed Him to some obscure little corner where He can’t get in the way of their antics. I wouldn’t mind if he could dance. If he were to appear on Britain’s Got Talent Simon Cowell’s botox wouldn’t be able to take the strain.
“The same Mass, you’ve got to be kidding”.
That headline supposes that the circus shown is the Mass. I for one refuse to accept it. This travesty cannot be acceptable to God as a sacrifice for sin. No no no – it is not a Mass at all. No grace can possible come from it. I refuse to accept it.
It’s certainly questionable whether that priest believes in the Real Presence or the Mass as the Sacrifice of Calvary. For sure, somebody needs to tell him that nobody was dancing and jumping around and having fun at the end of the Crucifixion on Calvary. Before or after that sombre event, there could have been no justification for fun and games and the same goes for end of Mass activities which must be restricted to thanksgiving prayer and silent adoration – before heading for the fun and games at the wedding reception!
Editor, regarding the Traditional Latin Mass versus the Montini/Bugnini new order mass – I would appreciate your thoughts on the “Ottaviani Intervention” – or the thoughts of anyone else for that matter.
I’m sorry not to have answered this earlier – I’ve just remembered about it and re-opened the thread to offer a brief response. I’ll then close the thread because there’s really nothing much to say on the subject except…
The Ottaviani Intervention was spot on, totally correct in it’s assertion that the new Mass is a “grave departure from Catholic theology of the Mass, both in whole and in part.”
If the Pope had paid attention to that intervention, how differently things might have turned out across the world.
I’ve not looked into the later life of Cardinal Ottaviani, but I have a vague memory of someone telling me that he later went along with the revolution and affirmed the orthodoxy of the novus ordo, afraid of a “break” or schism. If so, that’s a pity but not too surprising. I imagine the pressure brought to bear on the two “rebels” (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci) must have been quite something else. I mean, who among us would have wanted to pick a fight with Archbishop Bugnini? Rhetorical question 😯
Hope this answers your enquiry. If not, you can catch me over on the General Discussion thread.
As one of my sons remarked: They try to make it (the NOM) entertaining but there’s far better entertainment out there.
Saying the 2 Masses are the same reminds me of the Emperor’s new clothes.
Any attempt to get people to the sacraments by pandering to secular mores is doomed to failure. I remember attending a few of ‘The Youth Mass Experience’ (TYME) ‘rave’ Masses in Westminster Diocese in the late 1990’s as an observer. These sacrilegious Masses took place under the false pretext that they would help to bring lapsed youth – immersed in the ‘rave culture’ which was prevalent at that time – back to Mass. What good came of them? Nothing. I defy anyone to tell me they were brought closer to God as a result of those Masses. The whole thing was a sham, because there was a subsequent admission that all of the youngsters attending them, were already attending Mass in one parish or another, so all it did was take them out of their parishes and encourage them to commit sacrilege – including passing the consecrated bread (pieces of sesame-seed covered ciabatta broken up into breakfast bowls) around amongst each other, with pieces of it ending up on the floor and being danced on and trampled underfoot. It was certainly illicit matter for the Eucharist, I remember hoping and praying at the time that it was also invalid matter, so at least Our Blessed Lord wasn’t being trampled underfoot in this way. I personally witnessed this sacrilege, and so did other observers. The whole ‘rave nightclub’ ambience of the Mass was pathetic. Despite evidence of all these abuses being submitted to Cardinal Basil Hume, he allowed them to run for a while, and they eventually stopped. All the priests and laity involved – and I remember the names of all of them – should be ashamed of what they did.
WF et al,
I’m now wondering why anybody’s cohabiting at all – you’d think they’d all be racing to marry at one of these fun-churches.
Whatever happened to “He must increase, and I must decrease”?
Worse and worse! Doesn’t he just LOVE himself! Horribly embarrassing. If that had happened at my wedding I’d have walked out. But it’s the bishops’ fault for allowing these conceited so-and-sos to get away with this sort of thing.
The problem is that some of the bishops are the worst offenders.
I suppose it’s no use hoping such bishops would be brought to book by their boss. He has the tango danced at Mass …
About walking out – that’s what I can’t get over in all these videos, nobody seems the slightest bit bothered. They’re all clapping and laughing. It’s just unbelievable. No wonder Jesus asked “when the Son of Man comes will he find any faith on earth.” If he comes now, the answer would be a definite “no”.
If you think the above video link is the worst of Don Bruno Maggioni’s joyful excesses, check this out for the corruption of a sacrament, which, in the most joyful way, of course, verges on infant abuse, as one poor babe indicates in no uncertain way.
The terrible tragedy of all this is that Don Bruno Maggioni, like so many priests and prelates possessed by the ‘spirit of Vatican II’, means well in his own mind-bogglingly misguided way. He is acting completely in accordance with the teachings of the post-Conciliar Church, and particularly of Pope Francis in his encyclical Evangelii gaudium. As he says of his own style, it is inspired by ‘gioia’ – ‘gaudium’ – joy, and who could contradict him? For me the most ironic sentence in that sad, sad encyclical is God save us from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings!” by which he means the traditional Church of us ‘pious old women of either sex’ (I’m partial to a bit of plagiarism), not the truly worldly Church which turns to the fleeting ephemera of pop and sleb ‘culture’ for its worship ot Almighty God.
How fortunate many bloggers are in that they see true, holy joy on the faces of young children, young adults and pious old women of either sex when they are present at Holy Mass.
I completely agree – the same thought about child abuse went through my mind as I watched that debacle and thought “what a total numpty”.
Somebody needs to tell that priest (and Papa Francis) that there’s a (big) difference between joy, which is found in the soul, the result of being at peace with our conscience in seeking to do God’s will in our lives, and fun, which can result from watching a Disney movie, or, of course, dancing about and playing with babies in a Catholic church, as we’re finding out.
However, I must admit that my musing are the musings of a “pious old woman” – still, the “democrats”, the “tolerant, liberal” brigade, so keen on “diversity”, don’t mind us “pious old women” holding an opinion, do they?
A very obviously rhetorical opinion since the answer is – very clearly – “yes they do!
Poor little babies. Robbed of their dignity. And yes, he could have done some damage waving them around like that. Another conceited priest.
He is acting completely in accordance with the teachings of the post-Conciliar Church, and particularly of Pope Francis , with that, Christina, you’ve said it all. The behavior of the priest (and our pope) is certainly free from spiritual trappings, and is equally free from the tether of dignity as well.
I haven’t read Evangelii gaudium but the quote is really very sad. I wonder how he can be so very bold in expressing his aversion to tradition.
Even though I was educated to ‘O’ Level standard in R.E. and notwithstanding the fact that I was awarded an ‘A’ (I knew that total recall of the parable of Dives and Lazarus would pay off in the end) , I don’t really feel qualified to plunge in to the heart of this debate………however, I’m not going to let that stop me from chucking in my tuppenceworth from the periphery.
What struck me about the exchanges on this thread is that Dr. John is an ANGLICAN! (x 6 more !s). Why then is he getting so hot and bothered and I think bitter about a Catholic website? Hasn’t he got more than enough in his own ‘house’ to sort out or does he start experiencing feelings akin to despair whenever he sits down and tries to decide where on earth to begin? I can only think of two possible causes for his really quite flattering interest. Firstly, it’s a straightforward case of a raging and uncontrolled envy engendered by a subconscious realisation that he’s not a member of the Church but rather of a human construct more akin to a social club (take a bow, not so Good Queen Bess!) albeit with a very impressive President who has disappointingly recently dropped off the list of the World’s Richest but no matter. If that’s the case, may I suggest the Rosary, Dr.J., to facilitate the shining of the clear light of Faith through the fog?
The other reason could be that he’s trying to recruit new members for his ‘Established Church’ and he’s cunningly using the sheer brilliance and ineluctable logic of his arguments to realise his dream. Well, all I can say on that score is “Keep trying,Doc,keep trying!”
Simple enough explanation – Scots people interested in traditional liturgy and liturgical music are always liable to stumble across this blog in the (perhaps mistaken) belief that it is a blog interested in the traditions of liturgy and liturgical music shared by our ancestors – or by spud-eating immigrants prepared to take an interest, such as the late, great, dear Dr Dowden.
Having stumbled in here, even by accident (and the Lord moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform), the scope for moving fecund error nearer to catholic truth is fairly large.
That apart, old liturgies can help worshippers remember before God “all those who rejoice with us, but upon another shore and in a greater light, that multitude which no one can number, whose hope was in the Word made flesh, and with Whom we for evermore are one.” A text well worth memorizing even without a GCSE incentive.
Your altruistic motives are most laudable but you appear to be rather accident-prone as you keep on ‘stumbling’ into this blog. At your current mishap rate, you’ll be the first to get the call if they ever remake Mr.Magoo. It might be a good idea to ask Waldo to take you back ‘home’ as I think there’s a chap called Justin there who needs all the help he can get.
It is quite providential that you raise the subject of the liturgical traditions “shared by our ancestors.” As you well know, that came to a sharp end when our liege lord Henry, the 8th thereof, turned the Church in England into the Church of England, over which he arrogated to himself the authority of Peter, thereby separating himself and his collaborators in adultery decisively from the Mystical Body of Christ. The English ancestors must yet be spinning in their graves, especially Edward the Confessor!
Liturgical vestments do not a priest make, Dowden. Leo XIII has declared with Petrine authority that Anglican orders are null and void, the Apostolic Succession having been lost many centuries ago. But look on the bright side. All the liturgical aberrations in your pretend religion are less culpable before God, not being sacerdotal, than those of modernist Catholic clergy who terrifyingly do bear the mark of ordination on their souls.
Yes Athanasius, and (then) Cardinal Ratzinger stated in the 1998 commentary to ‘Ad Tuendam Fidem’ that the invalidity of Anglican ordinations had to held by Catholics ‘definitively’:-
“With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …”
We’ve had some very depressing videos posted on this thread, so I thought that, to mark the end of the Month of Mary, I would post the following video here, to cheer us all up a little. Technically, it should be posted on the General Discussion thread, but shucks, if a gal can’t break her own team’s rules, what’s the world coming to – or, more grammatically, perhaps, to what is the word coming?
Enjoy this, and ask Our Lady for great graces for our own and very dear Dr Dowden…
In case you miss it, I found this attached to our “Sun is Shining Brightly” video – a beautiful rendering of “Bring Flowers of the Rarest”
It’s slightly different in parts from the version with which I grew up, but lovely nevertheless… Our Lady has the power to touch the hardest heart – so remember, as you listen, to pray for Dowden! 😀
That was beautiful and truly joyful. Don’t forget to pray too for Don Bruno that he mght learn the difference between la gioia and il divertimento!
That was very beautiful! Thank you for posting it, Editor, I for one, could use some cheering up!!!
That’s absolutely beautiful! It would touch the hardest heart.
We all grew up with different things and I don’t know if SSPX places allow requests to the organists but it might be worth recommending one of the well-liked bits from the Green Book: the hymn “Ye who own …” by Vincent Stuckey Stratton Coles. It is well worth a try, works well in processions and it is one of these tunes which men’s voices can get. It is very well known in the English church but might appeal elsewhere.
Clips are available commercially but there is a free version of the words in http://stbartstoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/20150509-sbc-serviceleaflet-v6.pdf and the best tune (a folk-based English tune “Daily, daily” which fits other similar hymns) is on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR27HJVu7MA).
Just the thing to cheer people up.
Haven’t time to check out the link but played the YouTube video and that is a beautiful organ. I LOVE organ accompaniment. Beautiful.
In my opinion probably 99% of Catholics under 50 years have never been to the Tridentine Mass.
I know in my town of about 85,000 people no Latin Masses have been offered in the past 40 years except Requiem Masses organised by people in SSPX.
If offered a choice of the Tridentine Mass and going to the N/O mass most would be to set in their ways to change ” unless they were truly looking or were given a special grace. ” But if Catholics were made to watch a selection of N/O clown,balloon,tango,and self/service,masses then watched A Medititation on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Hopefully most would then see what the N/O mass for what it is?
I would like to think Catholics would choose to attend the Traditional Mass instead of the NO, especially if they were made to watch both. I can’t help thinking that people tend (unless they choose to cooperate with the grace they are given) to go with what is more convenient (and entertaining). I’ve heard from older people that they like Mass in the vernacular, they like the ‘participation’ and having the priest face the congregation that way they are more engaged!
Due to the non existent catechesis, most don’t seem to know that the Mass is a sacrifice- the idea of it being a meal, and a celebration, is their general impression. 🙁
Yes, I agree. I think people are so brainwashed now, and I’ve met many older Catholics who seem surprised that I attend the TLM and say that they wouldn’t want to ‘go back to the old ways’. As you say, lack of catechesis and people choosing what is more convenient (and entertaining) are among the problems. Also the N.O. Mass does inculcate a mind-set which is inimical to the TLM. I am a post Vatican II convert (was received into the Church in 1985) and only ever knew the N.O. Mass. When I first went to a TLM in the early 1990’s, I was completely lost and couldn’t follow it at all, and thought I probably wouldn’t want to go to it again, as I was so immersed in the N.O. mind-set. But I persevered, and within a few weeks, with a bit of help being shown how to use the missal, I began to love the TLM. It takes a little bit of effort and perseverance, and I think that this is what a lot of people aren’t prepared to put in – even if they do get the opportunity given to them.
Thank you John for that wonderful meditation.
Thank you for that – and yes, it is tragic that so many Catholics either don’t know about or have never attended, a TLM. The culpable popes and bishops will be held terribly to account for this scandal at their judgment.
N O T I C E . . .
Reminder, folks, that we are now into the month of June, so I will be closing down all the May threads within the next day or two. Anyone who wishes to catch up, answering comments or whatever, needs to be getting on with it, pronto!
Its like saying “Electric White*” Cider is the same as a particularly fine vintage of Châteauneuf-du-Pape.
After all, they are both alcoholic, right?
(*may also be used to clean engines).
“Its like saying “Electric White*” Cider is the same as a particularly fine vintage of Châteauneuf-du-Pape.”
Or, Diet Coke is the same as American Cream Soda 😀
Closing the thread now – well, it’s not often I get the last word… is it?
Thanks to all who contributed to this very interesting discussion.
Comments are closed.