Sola Liturgia? Will we see TLM Protestants?
  • Francis,

    Your point (valid in its analysis of English) fails because His Holiness wrote in German.

    Thanked by 1chonak
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,572
    Hmmm... I guess we need to go back to the Latin translation

    An interesting article that digs deeper
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,709
    A paragraph from the article cited just above, in the section "Breaking with the past":
    Ratzinger’s third major criticism of the liturgical reform was that whatever its virtues, the new missal, both in particular sections and in its entirety, leaves the impression of a rupture with the past, and can seem contrived. It resembles more a compilation by a committee of professors than the organic development of a truly living liturgy. “In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy,” Ratzinger wrote. “We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

    And, two paragraphs further down:
    Ratzinger’s claim that the organic development of the liturgy gave way in the liturgical reform to “fabricated liturgy” raises a more fundamental question, albeit one that he himself never confronted directly: Does the pope possess the moral or even the legal right to make radical revisions to the Church’s liturgy? There had been a great many changes to the Roman liturgy over the centuries, to be sure, but they had been gradual and organic, and typically imperceptible. There was never anything like what happened in 1969-1970.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,711
    Here is a version of the quote; I say that because Cdl. Ratzinger probably spoke on the subject more than once, and his exact wording probably varied a bit.

    „An die Stelle der gewordenen Liturgie hat man die gemachte Liturgie gesetzt. Man wollte nicht mehr das organische Werden und Reifen des durch die Jahrhunderte hin Lebendigen fortführen, sondern setzte an dessen Stelle – nach dem Muster technischer Produktion – das Machen, das platte Produkt des Augenblicks.“

    Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger, Gedenkschrift für den verstorbenen Liturgiewissenschaftler Msgr. DDr. Klaus Gamber „Simandron – der Wachklopfer“, W. Nyssen, Köln 1989, S. 14 f.

    which is (my translation):
    "In place of the liturgy that had become was set the liturgy that was made.
    They didn't want to carry on the organic becoming and ripening of what had been a living thing through the centuries; but in place of it -- following the model of technical production -- they put making, the flat product of the moment."

    The quote is from a collection of memorial essays in honor of the liturgist Msgr. Klaus Gamber.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,572
    The article I posted above was written just after the MP of 2007. For those of you who read it in full, will realize that what was finally restored through the MP of 2007 has now been reversed and the Orwellian spectre now is fully unleashed upon us as it parallels and gives rise to a New World Order and a Christless Single World Religion.
  • Chonak,

    I'm not a German scholar by even the broadest sense of the term, but would "werden" ( and, by extension, "gewordenen") fairly be rendered not by "becoming" but by "developing"?

    If I understand His Holiness properly, he's upset not merely with the final product, but with the process by which that product came to be. One was nurtured, as one nurtures a child or a vineyard or something like that, while the other was produced and presented, as if by a factory -- like acid-washed or pre-ripped jeans. Instead of (if you'll forgive the image) a stuffed bunny rabbit with all his fur loved off, it was designed and built like computer-generated camouflage trousers and shirts. (That doesn't make computers necessarily bad, but I hope what I've said makes sense.)
    Thanked by 2Elmar tomjaw
  • Elmar
    Posts: 371
    As a German native speaker I can confirm what's been written above about the wording of pope B-XVI. (Maybe it is an interesting exercise for language scholars to compare what he said on the subject in different languages.)

    I believe the critique on 'fabrication' is to be taken in the larger context of modernity with its attempts to technicaqlly 'improve' on God's creation. We 'make' the New City, the New Man, the New Church... maybe the pope and the curia fell pray to a thinking that they were the 'makers' of doctrine and discipline...

    BTW organic development isn't about undoing what has been done wrong in the past, rather about discerning what changes done at the basis (even out of disobedience!) are good/bad and therefore should be maintained/suppressed.
    With respect to post-1971 organic developments there is maintanance work to do.
    Thanked by 3chonak MarkB Don9of11
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,727
    When one nurtures a vine there is a great deal of cutting and grafting to do. But it has to be done to keep the plant healthy and productive. And it has to done repeatedly, by the nature of organic growth.
    And the results are rarely beautiful in the short term, fruitfulness is the primary objective. High polish and perfect symmetry are found in flower shows, by artful contrivance, not in gardens.
    564 x 846 - 75K
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,154
    On the other hand, *all* of the Benedictine OF Masses at our abbey are beautiful, reverent, and in Gregorian chant with a degree of solemnity (incense, organ) befitting the occasion.

    Beauty as modern society generally recognises, is in the eye of the beholder, I am sure that Fr. James Martin think his masses are beautiful too. As for true timeless beauty, an "banal product" can never be beautiful, "Gregorian chant with a degree of solemnity (incense, organ)" are only makeup if what is underneath is an 'artificial' or 'manufactured' product of the 1960's.
    I am glad that people think the N.O. can be 'beautiful', I am glad that they find it helpful to their prayer life etc. that really is wonderful. Unfortunately many people also find it not beautiful and a hinderance to their prayer life. To say we can swop between them and please everybody just is not possible, as we can see in the comments above.

    We must also remember all those millions of young people in England, that have grown up with the N.O. mass, but made their confirmation Mass their last Mass. Remember our Catholic schools have a 97% lapsation rate! In the British Social attitude survey they could not find one young man that would admit to being Catholic, we can all see how that can pan out.

    Arguing about the Liturgy, is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. My Diocese has been declared a missionary diocese... We are arranging new Catechetical programmes, and these all focus on tradition. Some years ago a group of Trads took over the diocese teaching centre, while they have found the position untenable (One employee would attend the SSPX each morning before work). The seeds they have planted are bearing fruit, many of the N.O. people involved now prefer attending the TLM.

    The Church did not begin with Vat II, and the first true Masses did not start with the N.O. Missal, too many people seem to think this is the case but is is false. "We are told by their fruits you will know them"... We have instructions in the scriptures and examples of evangelisation from the lives of the Saints, if we are not a successful as them we either are lacking in prayer, good works, or our message is not of God.
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    I agree with tomjaw that catechesis has been abysmal besides liturgy being awful in many places.

    I don't think the wider Church/bishops/pastors have come to terms yet with the reality that the Church has to reorient her thinking to be that of nurturing faith in an indifferent and hostile secular society. For a long time the Church in Western countries rode the coattails of societies that were predominantly Christian and benefitted from that social-environmental reinforcement and inertia, and perhaps became lazy about evangelization and worship on account of it because cradle Catholics would just come to Mass out of habit and go to catechism classes no matter how poor the quality of either was.

    Now the Church's approach to many things has to be more intentional and has to equip Catholics to build faith on rock instead of sand.
    Thanked by 2Elmar tomjaw
  • Elmar
    Posts: 371
    Here in the Netherlands we are happy to build on sand instead of mud.
    At least the secular environment isn't hostile any more, general knowledge on chistianity is so poor that people don't even know how to hate the Church any more.

    Our new bishop has youth & family high on his agenda, unfortunately the intended tour of his new staff members through the parishes has to start yet due to covid restictions...
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    Arguing about the Liturgy, is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    I couldn't disagree more on this particular point.

    The liturgy is the "source and summit" of the faith... it is where all the unspoken things of the faith are absorbed rather than taught verbally. It is where these mysteries are lived and experienced rather than just talked about.

    Up until this point, my son has never been able to observe people who go out of their way to show due reverence to Our Lord in the Eucharist. He does not have the advantage of seeing everyone kneeling at a communion rail... because it was ripped out about 15 years ago (curiously, I'm told ours was used up through the 80's if you can believe it). The former communion rail is now the back balustrade to the choir risers up in the organ loft (I'm not joking).

    My son doesn't get to perceive the mystery of the consecration by witnessing the priest whisper prayers to God in a sacred language after ascending to the high altar versus Deum... because we don't have a high altar and our priest speaks the words of consecration into the microphone in the vernacular while facing us.

    My son doesn't get to experience what it's like to have an organ literally shake an entire church during a full-throated Gloria, because we have a toaster from 1970 that refuses to die.

    My son doesn't get to experience the awe and wonder that can only be felt by entering into a beautiful church adorned with life-sized murals and sublime stained glass, where life-like statuary abounds... because our church has none. He doesn't get to stare at a stained glass window in boredome during the homily, and naturally begin to ponder the scene depicted in it. Our church is a banal creation of the 70's (admittedly, not as bad as many others) but no stained glass, limited statuary, not a single painting on the walls or ceiling... everything is whitewashed. One visitor asked the pastor two years ago, "so what was this before it was a catholic church?" in all innocence and seriousness. Houston, we have a problem.

    Arguing about the liturgy is VERY important. As is arguing about everything else that adorns it. The faith is felt in the soul, not simply reasoned in the mind. St. Thomas Aquinas had many sublime things to say (arguably more than any other soul apart from Our Lord and Our Lady) and yet most people don't give a rip about any of it because they are lacking faith, and there's nothing in their churches or liturgy which inspires them to enter into the divine mysteries.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    The iconoclasts are not just a product of a previous century. They are alive and well today and have wreaked havoc in modern church buildings. They are plain and unadorned enough to make the heart of any Calvinist happy - assuming Calvinist hearts are ever happy.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 879
    On the other hand, *all* of the Benedictine OF Masses at our abbey are beautiful, reverent, and in Gregorian chant with a degree of solemnity (incense, organ) befitting the occasion. And 100% faithful to the rubrics. No innovations or creativity. It's do the red, say the black within the allowable options.

    Which rubrics are you thinking of here? The one which allows the proper chants (and all other chants for that matter) to be permanently excised from the Mass, along with the organ and incense? That allows commentary by the priest ("these or similar words") at various points? These are all allowable, too.
    It can be done

    Yes, it "can." But doesn't have to be - that's the point. Yes, there were irreverent TLMs back in the day, but I would venture to say these were not in accord with the rubrics.

    I've been to many reverent OF Masses like the one you describe, and I appreciate them. It's just that the model is not sustainable for a parish over the long run. A new pastor can change everything, all within the "allowable options."
    and it has nothing to do with the form of the Mass

    But many of the main differences between the two forms are precisely those things which help safeguard reverence - canonical digits the and communion only on the tongue kneeling come immediately to mind. Nothing can guarantee the care the priest is supposed to take in celebrating the Mass, but there certainly are things which can help. Unfortunately the NO eliminated a number of these helpful things.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,798
    And, it is important to address the written content of the Missal, not just the external elements. As I mentioned before, perhaps in another thread, there is a crisis in the Faith regarding the Real Presence.

    As much as I prefer the Gregorian Gradual and Alleluia (from the Graduale) to the Responsorial Psalm and Gospel Acclamation (from the Lectionary), both of which are licit options in the Novus Ordo, I doubt that the loss of belief is the result of the Responsorial Psalm.

    However, lex orandi statuat legem credendi: I do think that the change in the Offertory is part of the problem. The Offertory Prayers of the Roman Rite, which are themselves a later element, added purposefully to underscore this fact, namely, that the bread and wine will become the Body and Blood of Christ, and that the priest is offering a propitiatory sacrifice. The Novus Ordo Offertory, which is often spoken aloud, speak only of bread of life (sic) and spiritual drink (sic), and the notion of sacrifice is diminished. Is it any wonder of the lack of belief? Lex orandi statuat legem credendi.

    (When I get to my office tomorrow I will look at my UCC Service Book and Hymnal, my Lutheran Hymnal, and my Book of Common Prayer (Rite II)...something in the back of my mind tells me that the offertory prayers in these books is identical to the Novus Ordo.)
  • Salieri,

    Would you take the part of the ars celebrandi which appertains to the Responsorial Psalm to be part of the problem, if the responsorial psalm itself isn't problematic?
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    Well, Archbishop Vigano has written a response to TC in which he states that the Church has a non-Catholic pope:

    We have come to the point that even simple people with little knowledge of doctrinal issues understand that we have a non-Catholic pope, at least in the strict sense of the term. This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.


    But I'm not going to speculate nor accuse him of schism or heresy.

    He asserts that the new Mass and the post-Vatican II Church are different in kind, not degree, from the pre-conciliar Mass and Church such that the new Mass and the post-Vatican II Church are in substantial, ontological rupture with the pre-conciliar Mass and Church, such that the post-Vatican II Church is a "new religion":

    Francis has once again disavowed the pious illusion of the hermeneutic of continuity, stating that the coexistence of the Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible because they are expressions of two irreconcilable doctrinal and ecclesiological approaches. On the one hand there is the Apostolic Mass, the voice of the Church of Christ; on the other there is the Montinian “Eucharistic celebration,” the voice of the conciliar church. And this is not an accusation, however legitimate, made by those who express reservations about the reformed rite and Vatican II. Rather it is an admission, indeed a proud affirmation of ideological adherence on the part of Francis himself, the head of the most extremist faction of progressivism. His dual role as pope and liquidator of the Catholic Church allows him on the one hand to demolish it with decrees and acts of governance, and on the other hand to use the prestige that his office entails to establish and spread the new religion over the rubble of the old one.

    But I'm not going to speculate nor accuse him of schism or heresy.


    And what is even more absurd is that while we hear it said with impunity that the Tridentine Mass ought to be abolished because it is incompatible with the ecclesiology of Vatican II, as soon as we say the same thing — that is, that the Montinian Mass is incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology — we are immediately made the object of condemnation, and our affirmation is used as evidence against us before the revolutionary tribunal of Santa Marta.

    But I'm not going to... you get the point.

    TLM Protestantism is a thing.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 200
    > "but I'm not going to speculate nor accuse him of heresy"
    > speculates and accuses him of heresy

    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 143
    You are entitled to your opinions, Mark, so you can accuse Catholics of being "TLM protestants" all you want (never mind that traditional Catholics don't think the way they do solely because of liturgical differences and thus "TLM Protestants" in the sense that the term implies is not even accurate).

    You're right, everything Vigano is saying (and most of what traditional Catholics have been saying before him since at least the 1970s if not before) absolutely is wrong, IF it is true that popes can't err, that councils can't err even in disciplinary and non-dogmatic manners, and that therefore anyone who disagrees with said popes/councils is automatically schismatic.

    Luckily, that's not true, and more people are waking up to the reality of the crisis, particularly under Pope Francis and particularly the last 1-3 years.

    The Catholic faith is worth literally nothing - or at least it is worth no more and no less than any religious institution - if it all hinges upon agreeing with everything a pope or a council says with no qualifications, and upon obeying without any qualifications.

    Whatever value Vatican II may have had in the 60s, it is largely not relevant today, in the sense that it aimed to address the world and the Catholic Church of the 1960s. I am not necessarily saying that Vatican II is all inherently bad, or that some of it couldn't be read today to the benefit of some people. But I am saying that the world and the Church are much different in the 2020s, and it would behoove Vatican II enthusiasts and especially everyone who has care of souls to recall that we have a 2000 year tradition to draw from, and that in the context of all those 2000 years, Vatican II is not even close to the epitome of the Catholic faith.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,711
    Abp. Vigano isn't accusing the pope of not being pope: he's accusing him of being in some sense -- perhaps intellectually -- "non-catholic". If so, it's a serious criticism.

    Does it constitute heresy? Obviously not.

    Does it constitute schism? By itself, no.

    Does it open Abp. Vigano to accusations of having committed some other offense against church law? Possibly. Severe criticisms of the pope or of an ordinary could be interpreted as an attempt to "incite hatred" of him. (Canon 1373)

    In the case of any ordinary as well as of the Pope, we should always be mindful to express any criticism (if, horribile dictu, we think it is needed) without hostility.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Elmar
  • Mark,

    I don't think you've read properly what he has written. He wrote not that he asserts the rupture, but that

    Francis has once again disavowed the pious illusion of the hermeneutic of continuity, stating that the coexistence of the Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible because they are expressions of two irreconcilable doctrinal and ecclesiological approaches. On the one hand there is the Apostolic Mass, the voice of the Church of Christ; on the other there is the Montinian “Eucharistic celebration,” the voice of the conciliar church. And this is not an accusation, however legitimate, made by those who express reservations about the reformed rite and Vatican II. Rather it is an admission, indeed a proud affirmation of ideological adherence on the part of Francis himself, the head of the most extremist faction of progressivism.

    Your impersonation of Marc Anthony is a bit off. In both your case and his, something doesn't make sense, but all the Archbishop has done is point out that when the same claim (that a rupture exists) is made by those attached to the traditional forms and expressions of the Catholic faith, they are accused of heresy and schism, but when the reigning pontiff makes the same claim nobody seems to blink.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    It’s funny, Mark: I read each quote you shared from Vigano and nodded in agreement. Nothing about his words seems outlandish except that they need be stated at all.

    Simple people ARE waking up. Please afford me a little spirited rant:

    The number of 180° turns the church has taken in recent years is nothing short of baffling. In a certain sense, his recent legislation has condemned all of church history. He literally did an about face on the death penalty (embraced by the Angelic Doctor…) and, by consequence, rewrote the catechism. (Brilliant maneuver, that.) He has allowed literal idol worship in St. Peter’s. He has condemned priests who administered the sacraments at the height of the covid pandemic when their witness was needed the most. He has sold out the true church in China. He has permitted Eucharistic sacrilege via AL, all the while ignoring multiple high-profile cardinals (his supposed intimate advisors) all the while giving public exposure to homoheretics. (All the while muttering, “who am I to judge?!” SUPPOSEDLY, THE SUPREME PONTIF GIVEN THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST YOU KNUCKLEHEAD. That’s who!) He has talked loquaciously about “openness” and “transparency” about the abuse crisis whilst elevating known predators and refusing to sack others. Priests who speak the truth are censored left, right, and center, while literal heretics are given free reign, yet he does nothing. He signs pacts with other religious leaders that diminish the standing of the church, rather than challenging them to turn away from those things that will see them damned. He has allowed the saying of masses to be suppressed (even N.O.) in St. Peter’s….

    This is just a short litany of things; sadly, there are many more.

    All of this, meanwhile another pope is still living (absolutely unprecedented… even when there were “multiple popes” I’m the Middle Ages there truly was only one that was authentic) and the cardinals that broke canon law to get Francis elected even had the Gall (pun intended) to write about it in their autobiographies!

    And we are just supposed to take this all lying down like IDIOTS and pretend we don’t notice a problem (or have the tenacity to tenaciously hold to the belief that there isn’t a problem… “he’s the pope, after all! He cannot err!”)?

    To not admit that what is going on is catastrophic is either genuine idiocy or obstinacy.

    Decrying these atrocities (yes, they are atrocities since they are affronts on Christ Himself) doesn’t make me or any other person a heretic or schismatic.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,727
    Salieri - I agree that there seems to have been a widespread loss of understanding of the Mass as The Holy Sacrifice. And that the offertory prayers which were dropped were a late addition to the Mass to express this. But I am quite unclear how a group of prayers said silently by the celebrant would impinge on the general awareness.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,154
    Are prayers said silently less effective? They impinge on the general awareness because most people can read, and so would be following along in their Missals.

    Although general awareness is interesting, I always listen to at least the first few lines of the Epistle and Gospel in Latin, but if it is read in English I find something else to do rather than listen.
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 513
    I thought I would share this with all of you so you could see how the NO Latin was celebrated in my parish. This booklet was published in 1970 and became the model for the NO Latin Mass at St. Mary's in Akron, Ohio from 1970 to 2005 or 35 years. As choir member from 1977-2010, you acquire things and I became an archivist of sorts. Please note the English portions of this booklet are out of date with todays vernacular translation. But again, I believe this could be a model for all parishes to follow to bring EF and OF toward the NO Latin.

    When I was singing in the choir we celebrated one Mass in the NO Latin on the last Sunday of the month at 10am. The parish had a 5:30 Saturday Vigil, and 8, 10 and 12 Sunday Masses. The bulletin, would always announce that the last Sunday of the month at 10 o'clock Mass would be Latin. So there were no surprises unless you were a visitor from out of town. And as it was generally known, we had many out-of-towners who came to Mass.

    The booklet promotes the Missa de Angelis setting but we did not use this setting all the time, our go-to Latin Mass setting was Mass in G by La Hache. During my time in the choir we also used other Mass settings which might curl the toes of some proponents of the St. Gregory Society. Also, every other year at Christmas and Easter we celebrated the NO Latin at the Christmas Eve Mid-night Mass and Easter Vigil Mass.

    The particulars of the Mass in general were that all the sung Mass parts were sung in Latin. That is, the Kyrie, Gloria w/priest intoning "Glory to God in the highest", the Credo was never sung, we all recited the Procession of Faith, Sanctus and Benedictus, and Agnus Dei. We did not use much chant which is one reason the Missa de Angelis Mass setting was not used very often. The readings were always in English and there was no last gospel.

    The chanted parts were the Pater Notster, and I distinctly recall the organist quietly surfing the organ keys to find the pitch that the priest was using when he intoned "Praeceptis salutaribus moniti", since the choir responded in the same Key, sometimes the priest was in the key of Z, meaning somewhere between a white and black key. This was particularly true of the Pastor Fr. Hilkert. The organist and the celebrant would always meet before Mass to discuss any details needed for the celebration and Fr. Hilkert was known to joke that he wanted the names of all the choir members who laughed when he was singing! I digress...

    Eucharist prayer 1 was always used and if the celebrant was comfortable chanting it in Latin he did so and the choir responded accordingly in Latin where this little booklet indicates. If he was not comfortable he would us English, but always Eucharistic prayer 1.

    We also had a four hymn pattern during this time at St. Mary's, Entrance, Offertory, Communion, Recessional. We used the WLP missalette and without fail the Entrance and Recessional were in English, to allow parishioners to participate. The Offertory and Communion hymns where in Latin. Usually, before Mass and just after the Rosary, the choir would sing a devotional hymn. Since our patron was the Mother of God, many of our devotional hymns were in honor of her. The Mass ended and the priest if he chose and mostly he did, would say give the final blessing in Latin.

    As I mentioned above Christmas and Easter followed the same pattern, except we might sing the Christmas Carol Mass by Korman or Mass of the Infant Jesus by Marsh, for Mid-night and Christmas Day. We always had a half hour program of Christmas music. Easter was very special too. As many of the old rites as were permitted by Vatican 2 were observed, Christmas and Easter even more so.

    I ask that before you vizirate eviscerate my short recollection and this small booklet , take a moment to consider how this could be a model to be used in your parish. If our Bishop's are true to the new Moto Proprio, there will need to be a path forward. This small booklet from the past could be the model of the path forward. It offers enough of the old rite and enough of the new mass.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    Don, that is an excellent booklet, all things considered. It’s also amazing that it specifically states three times at the beginning that it is intended to preserve “reverence, quiet, Latin, chant”.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • Don,

    Before I accidentally vizirate your short recollection and the attached booklet, what does vizirate mean? I've never seen the word before. [Please note, I'm being perfectly serious].
    Thanked by 2Don9of11 tomjaw
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 513
    @ Chris Garton-Zavesky

    Ahhh... my bad. I meant eviscerate
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • I had some vision of a Muslim governing system: a vizir-ate?
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    Two important articles about the matter of the pope's authority over the liturgy:

    1. A speech by Dr. Kwasniewski, taking the position that the pope does not have the authority to abolish or restrict the TLM, and his authority to alter it is constrained:

    2. A critique of Dr. Kwasniewski's argument by a Roman Catholic theologian, Ron Conte:

    Both are quite long. No need to provide excerpts. Both men do an able job of stating and arguing their positions.

    For the record, I think Ron Conte's argument is the better of the two.
  • For the record, I think Ron Conte's argument is the better of the two.

    Given what you've already said about Peter, I'm hardly surprised that you prefer Ron Conte's argument. In fact, I have trouble believing that you think that Peter ably stated and argued his position.

    But let that pass.

    To get back to the title of the thread, "TLM Protestant" is oxymoronic. He who stands with what the Church has always taught can't be one who disagrees with that same teaching.
  • OlivierOlivier
    Posts: 58
    I would guess that the oxymoron is intentional and meant to provoke thought about what we might claim about papal authority vs how we actually behave when things don't go our way.

    How about sedevacantist, if it will avoid a quibble. Or suddenly-a-former-ultramontanist.
    Thanked by 3MarkS Elmar MarkB
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    Sedevacantism and attachment to the old mass are two completely separate things. I’ll grant that some tlm’ers are sedes, bug hardly all—and by a long shot at that.
    Thanked by 3francis tomjaw CCooze
  • Elmar
    Posts: 371
    We'll see whether the current developments lead to an increase of the idea of sedevacantism or not. At present the mainstream tradtionalist argument seems to be along the line:
    'Francis is mistaken when he declares binding this decree by his papal authority';
    it could be replaced by:
    'Francis is mistaken when he claims papal authority'.

    Some of the treatises I read (as a non-expert for that matter) seem to be built towards the desired conclusion 'We need not obey pope Francis'... on the other hand it's surprising out of which corners we suddenly hear: 'Of course we must do what the pope tells us to do'.
    Thanked by 1KARU27
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,711
    For the record, Mark, I think it might be a mistake to use the title Dr. for the gentleman. I did not find any information about his education on his website, which seems unusual.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    I don't think I used "Dr." in reference to Ron Conte; only Dr. Kwasniewski.

    I see that Chris applied the title "Dr." to him. I did not.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,711
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    To get back to the title of the thread, "TLM Protestant" is oxymoronic. He who stands with what the Church has always taught can't be one who disagrees with that same teaching.

    Yes, the apparent oxymoron was deliberate.

    "The Church has always taught..." until it didn't. Not exactly "taught" because we're not talking here about doctrines but approved liturgical rites.

    So maybe it should be "the Church has always done..." until it changed; and it changed some of what it did as a result of and after Vatican II.

    And that's the point: Vatican II marks a change in the Church's liturgical rites and praxis. I don't think a Catholic can legitimately argue "the Church has always done" while ignoring Vatican II's decrees because the Church's authority and what it has chosen to do must include Vatican II's changes to the liturgy. To dismiss Vatican II, to ignore Vatican II is to be selective about Catholic tradition and teaching in a way that Catholics cannot be.

    This is a good place to add remarks by Fr. Anthony Ruff that were made in a comment to an article post:

    I hope to lay this out soon in a future post, but I think the bar for “accepting Vatican II’ is a good bit higher than simply acknowledging that the Vatican II Mass is not invalid and accepting that other Catholics may celebrate the Vatican II Mass. To accept Vatican II is to accept its implicit and explicit teaching that the then-current (1962) liturgy is in need of reform and is to be replaced by a reformed rite which better expresses the nature of the true church.

    That is to say that even the most non-polemical attachment to 1962, with the most generous and charitable attitude toward the Vatican II Mass, is still less than totally obedient to Vatican II to the extent that it remains attached to a liturgy which the Council did not intend to continue. I would not judge the participants in pre-Vatican II liturgies for this – the issue is what Church leadership has done. Under John Paul II, and then more strongly under Benedict XVI, people were led to believe that attachment to 1962 is OK or even praiseworthy – in direct contradiction to the teachings of Vatican II.


    I think the point he makes there needs to be grappled with and the following questions answered definitively. Can any attachment to the 1962 Missal be reconciled with Vatican II? If Vatican II did not intend for the pre-conciliar, unreformed liturgy to continue, then ought the 1962 Missal have a place in the post-conciliar Church's liturgy?

    I think those questions are at the heart of the current debate.
    Thanked by 3Olivier Elmar CharlesW
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,727
    @tomjaw - in the 50s & 60s I do not recall seeing anybody at a Sunday Mass consulting, or even carrying, a Missal. When serving, at a side altar, which I did for several years on a Friday morning, I did take my father's 1923 edition, and I would usually be able to locate one of the collects (etc.) and follow along. I only ever followed the ordinary to marvel at how fast some celebrants could get through it.
    That all changed when the vernacular started coming in. I got caught up in the prayer, I was now praying, not simply letting the priest pray on my behalf. So the prayer affects my mind. Whether that has anything to do with its effectiveness I do not know. But I am very sure that talk of the efficacy of prayer can lead into a maze of elephant traps.
    Thanked by 2Elmar CharlesW
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,727
    To repeat - the Tridentine rite has been repeatedly revised/adjusted over the years, 1962 was the sixth editio typica IIRC. Even if we claim that the 1969 version is a discontinuity, the previous approved version had rubrics revised and published in editio typica in 1965, and further revisions listed in Tres abhinc annos in 1967.
    The later use of 1962 was a political device to appease SSPX, and has proved to be a political mistake.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,711
    The mention of post-1962 editions recalls one of the points made in the canonist's analysis mentioned above: passages of TC referring to the "edition prior to 1970" are placing restrictions on the use of the 1965 Missale Romanum.

    Outrageous, I say! :-)
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    Tweaking the traditional missal cannot be equivocated to composing a new rite all together.

    “The missal was tweaked in the past therefore the novus ordo is valid.” is a non sequitur.
    Thanked by 2KARU27 tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    in the 50s & 60s I do not recall seeing anybody at a Sunday Mass consulting, or even carrying, a Missal.

    The only ones I ever saw using the Rosary were the prototypical 'little old ladies.' Well over half of my fellow parish members had and used hand-missals. About 30% used neither.

    It is not up to us to "judge" whether they were actively participating, either. Nor is it up to any other frequent commenter on this board. At my current parish, which has both OF and EF Masses, all celebrated with reverence and dignity, about 40% of the congregation does not sing the hymns. Does this mean that they are not fulfilling the 3rd Commandment, or the first Law of the Church?

    Or that they are in schism?
    Thanked by 4WGS KARU27 tomjaw Elmar
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    "The missal was tweaked in the past [by legitimate Church authority] therefore the novus ordo [promulgated by legitimate Church authority] is valid," would be a more correct way of framing the statement.

    The point is not that the ritual changes were of the same order, therefore valid for reasons of congruence or comparability. The point is that the ritual changes were all made by legitimate Church authority, therefore binding and valid for that reason alone.

    "The Missal of Paul VI was promulgated by legitimate Church authority" is a true statement. Promulgation by legitimate Church authority is what makes that Missal valid.

    Regardless of one's personal feelings or thoughts about the revised Missal, Vatican II called for it to be done, and a pope authorized and promulgated it.

    The issue is the Church's authority, the pope's authority, over the liturgy and whether that authority extends to restricting or abolishing the use of the 1962 Missal besides introducing the 1970 Missal. If the Church and the pope do have such authority, then it would seem that Catholics cannot in good faith reject that use of the Church's or the pope's authority simply because they would prefer that use of the 1962 Missal be unconstrained. Even if they don't like the decision or the result of the Church's or the pope's exercise of legitimate authority, they have to accept obediently the use of that authority.

    The longevity and legacy of the TLM are irrelevant. If the Church and the pope have authority over the liturgy to change, revise, alter, abolish and replace an older form with a newer form, then it matters not one bit how long the previous liturgical form had been used in the Church; all that matters is that legitimate Church authority made the change.
    Thanked by 3Don9of11 CharlesW Elmar
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    Tweaking a pre-existing rite with small changes and promulgating a rite that is so different and new it is literally called the NOVUS ORDO by the pope doing it, clearly is not only a difference in degree but in kind. Legitimate authority is irrelevant in a certain respect. You are trying to equivocate two actions that are simply not the same.
    Thanked by 2KARU27 tomjaw
  • The Council ordered a general revision. That's not what we got, by Pope Francis' full-throated insistence: the new rite is a complete break with the old. In fact, the Council intended to continue the old rite, with revisions.

    In a town where I used to live there was a sign in front of a recently-closed McDonald's restaurant. It said "Closed for Remodeling". Shortly after the sign went up, a wrecking ball arrived, and demolished the entire structure, foundation and all.

    No remodeling of that kind is consistent with the Council or the nature of the Church.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • abolish older form
    is precisely the point at issue. I think you'll find that this question never occurred to anyone to ask, for the answer was straightforwardly obvious: no one would do such a foolish thing.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    Regardless of one's personal feelings or thoughts about the revised Missal, Vatican II called for it to be done,

    You remind us of this daily. The problem is we didn’t get a revised liturgy as the council asked for; we got a NEW liturgy, and this is the crux of the matter for many people. I don’t deny that the new mass is valid (if deficient, imho as I’ve expressed elsewhere). But I also don’t think the pope has the right to abrogate the TLM. There are things that transcend a pope’s authority (dogma, for instance). The pope can’t abrogate established dogmas. His powers are additive. They can also clarify. But they don’t abrogate or condemn unless it’s heresy. Similarly I don’t believe he has the right to abrogate the TLM, which can trace its roots back centuries beyond Pius V.
  • Since Vatican II called for a reform of the liturgy as it existed in 1962, celebrating this unreformed liturgy is an implicit rejection of the call for reform and thus a rejection of Vatican II.
    Since Vatican II called for imparting "an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful", celebrating the liturgy created after Vatican II which has failed to impart such vigor is an implicit rejection of Vatican II.
    Points to be grappled with....
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 513
    about 40% of the congregation does not sing the hymns

    Not surprising given the poor quality of hymns they have to sing. Like "Amazing Grace" at Offertory or "Jesus loves me this I know, the bible tells me so", at Adoration. In my parish, communion hymns have been replaced by cantors singing song and response tunes. Learning to play mass for the TLM doesn't seem to have helped our MD to choose a better quality of hymn in the NO.

    Thanked by 1tomjaw