Sola Liturgia? Will we see TLM Protestants?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,570
    Hesse goes to the very edge of discounting the Council on grounds that councils clarify doctrine and deal with emerging heretical ideals. If I am not mistaken, he does reject the NO.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    I believe he does.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,711
    The one time I heard Fr. Hesse offering Mass, he said in his homily he wanted "nothing to do with" the people celebrating Mass at the same time at the diocesan cathedral. I considered that a wicked thing to say, and I walked out.
    Thanked by 2Liam a_f_hawkins
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    since the NOM itself embodies contradictions to mandates of Sacrosanctum Concilium.


    Like paragraphs 36 and 54, which are VERY specific mandates.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw

  • I don't know how many recordings of Fr. Gregory Hesse are on YouTube, but there are 34 here, most of them over an hour
    https://archive.org/details/FatherHesse
    I have only heard one of his talks (and very long ago - it's on a VHS tape!). Would be interesting to see how his comments have stood up through the years.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    Since BXVI described the 2002 Missal as 'The ordinary form of the Roman rite' perhaps you can identify for us evidence of where he thought it did not fit the general norms of SC.


    The general norms include language requiring 'flowing from prior' (paraphrase) and B-16 clearly thought that the NO did NOT do that.

    But nobody here disputes whether the NO is licit or "ordinary." The disputation has to do with Francis' attempt to shoot the EF in the head.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 371
    Very interisting and mind-boggling aspects you all put forward. I cannot judge any othe claims but am 'condamned' to have an opinion nontheless. So:
    If you were to delve more deeply into the very troubling history of V2, I suspect that you would find yourself much more reticent to make some of your claims about its supposed binding power.
    While this may be true, I hate this kind of arguments "If you had studied the subject as much as I have, you would agree with me; therefore your opinion is irrelevant".
    There are people (including bishops) who got their doctorate on VII and still do not agree on these questions.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,725
    Francis may have the desire to shoot the EF in the head, but the new rules do little more than restore to bishops the control they had before SP. Apart from that the principal intention seems to be to choke off the supply of priests competent and authorised to say the EF. A very long term starvation, rather than a coup de grace. Even the repeal of the automatic permission for any priest to say the EF privately only applies to priests ordained after the date of TC. And bishops may still permit new priests to use it. This is an approach which will take decades to show significant effect, and who knows what these decades will bring.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Andrew_Malton
  • St. Maximillian Kolbe, pray for us!

    After ten days of starvation, during which he refused to die, the Nazis executed him.

    May the end of the war bring an end to this persecution because of the conversion of the aggressors.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw francis
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    St. Maximillian Kolbe, pray for us!

    After ten days of starvation, during which he refused to die, the Nazis executed him.

    May the end of the war bring an end to this persecution because of the conversion of the aggressors.


    Bordering on the hysterical to compare the two events. I suspect if TLM folks appealed more to reason than to hysteria they might have more success in dealing with the bishops.

    To add to this, No big bad man has forcibly taken your toys or candy and the majority of you will be at a TLM this weekend as usual. Most of the bishops seem to have made no changes despite what Pope Francis said or wrote. However, this is all something to observe carefully in the future for new developments.
    Thanked by 2bhcordova Elmar
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    Elmar, you very much misread my remark. I’m not saying I’m smarter or have any peculiar knowledge that makes my argument better, nor was I dismissing Mark’s arguments; I’m just stating the simple fact that a “deep dive” (to any extent, by anyone) tends to change they way they think about the council. No more, no less. You ascribe an intent to my remark that was not there.
    Thanked by 2Elmar tomjaw
  • Charles,

    You mistook my intent. I'm not bordering on the hysterical. Rather, I recognize that it is Pope Francis' intent to cajole anyone who doesn't already use the UR to do so, and if these people can't be persuaded or cajoled, harsher measures are directly willed.

    As Mark keeps reminding us, the purpose of TC is to finally bury the UA. That burial will, first, take the form of ostracizing those priests who wish to offer the UR, more than they already are, and to shame the laity into abandoning it.


    Additionally, I hope you will take seriously my bleat that we should pray for his conversion, so that he abandons such a silly policy.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw sdtalley3
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,570
    @CharlesW
    your toys or candy
    ?? What toys? What candy? Are you speaking of the elements of the Mass itself?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    Noting a similar overboard reaction. Let's put it in other terms. If HH Francis confiscated your rosaries and banned Fatima devotions, I would say you have something to seriously worry about. Nothing on that scale has happened and it is clear a number of bishops are not on board with him regarding the TLM. Most places that had it still have the mass.


    Additionally, I hope you will take seriously my bleat that we should pray for his conversion, so that he abandons such a silly policy.


    Praying for him will do no harm to be certain. But I think we can more profitably pray that his successor will be more agreeable and less politicized. It wouldn't hurt to pray that no more Jesuits are elected. too.

  • sdtalley3sdtalley3
    Posts: 213
    “It wouldn't hurt to pray that no more Jesuits are elected. too.”

    That made me chuckle.
    Thanked by 1trentonjconn
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,570
    Let me be clear on your pronouncements...
    rosaries
    =toys?
    banned Fatima devotions
    =candy?

    ...please inform me about which Fatima devotions were banned? This is news to me!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    Hairs - split ones are best.
  • Drake
    Posts: 160
    Since this thread is about equating some of us who favor the TLM with Protestants, it might be interesting to reflect on a few things the Council of Trent said about the Mass in response to Protestants:

    If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

    If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

    If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.


    And

    If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.


    Of these anathemas above, how many do we see ignored presently (to a greater or lesser degree) on account of the reforms of Vatican II (or at least on account of the misapplication of those reforms, or in the name of Vatican II)? Does the actual implementation that we got of the reform of the Roman Missal conform with the principles laid out by Trent? Do they even conform to the intentions of Vatican II?

    I suggest that the above anathemas from Trent point to ways in which the lex orandi or (tradition, if you will) is tied to the lex credendi (or Tradition, if you will) and that these connections to the lex credendi may, in fact, be constant and part of the perennial teachings of the Church. Yes, the lex orandi can be modified legitimately, but what happens if it is modified in ways that conflict with or water down the lex credendi as articulated previously by the Church?

    The precipitous decline in belief among Catholics in the True Presence in recent decades ought to be evidence enough that the lex credendi is not being transmitted through our lex orandi today as effectively as it was before. Prudence, on merely a natural level, would demand that we return to what was working!

    Concerning the new edition of the Roman Missal ...

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church is essentially the catechism of Vatican II. It is the first catechism issued thereafter. Yet, this catechism does not abrogate the Catechism of the Council of Trent simply by having been written. And surely, the Church desired to put out a new edition of the catechism. Likewise, just because a reform of the Roman Missal was begun by Vatican II, that does not necessarily mean that all editions of the Roman Missal prior were therefore automatically to be replaced or beyond the use of priests of the Roman Rite.

    No. I am not a TLM Protestant.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    I do think we have to keep in mind the purpose of Trent. Much of what Trent said had more to do with combatting Protestantism than benefitting Catholics. For example, the silent canon was condemned and forbidden centuries earlier by the emperor Justinian. Somewhere along the line the belief developed that the mass was far too sacred for the common people and it became ridiculously clericalized. Certainly that and many of the Tridentine rubrics have been changed by popes and Vatican II.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,570
    Anathema
    Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words:

    "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

    Whereupon all the assistants respond:

    "Fiat, fiat, fiat."

    The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church. The promulgation of the anathema with such solemnity is well calculated to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha.
    NewAdvent
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    I wonder how many years it has been since anything like that happened?
  • KARU27
    Posts: 156
    Probably at least 51 years.
    Because it's pastoral not to excommunicate anyone, I guess...
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,725
    the ceremony of the Maranatha

    What's that? Google is not helping here, and neither can I find any futher reference in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (from which the reference comes, I think)
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,570
    At the end of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, xvi, 22, St. Paul says, "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha," which means, "The Lord is come." But commentators have regarded this expression as a formula of excommunication very severe among the Jews. This opinion, however, is not sustained by Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible" (s.v. Anathème). In the Western Church, Maranatha has become a very solemn formula as anathema, by which the criminal is excommunicated, abandoned to the judgment of God, and rejected from the bosom of the Church until the coming of the Lord. An example of such an anathema is found in these words of Pope Silverius (536-38): "If anyone henceforth deceives a bishop in such a manner, let him be anathema maranatha before God and his holy angels." Benedict XIV (1740-58--De Synodo dioecesana X, i) cites the anathema maranatha formulated by the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Toledo against those who were guilty of the crime of high treason: "He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions. Amen." There is frequent mention of this anathema maranatha in the Bulls of erection for abbeys and other establishments. Still the anathema maranatha is a censure from which the criminal may be absolved; although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, the Church, in virtue of the Power of the Keys, can receive him once more into the communion of the faithful. More than that, it is with this purpose in view that she takes such rigorous measures against him, in order that by the mortification of his body his soul may be saved on the last day. The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    Much of what Trent said had more to do with combatting Protestantism than benefitting Catholics.


    So what?

    Are you trying to tell us that Trent is no longer relevant? Or that its pronouncements are somewhat......tainted........by being anti-Protty?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    Trent, like Vatican II, was also a product of its time. A previous council before Trent attempted to deal with Protestantism and made a mess of it. Trent was, if I recall, 40-50 years in the making. It's main issues were Protestantism, to which it over-reacted, and the ignorance and lack of education among the clergy. The seminary education and formation of priests was established at Trent. As I have said before, the church began at Pentecost, not at Trent. The two are not equivalents.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,374
    "A previous council before Trent attempted to deal with Protestantism and made a mess of it."

    Not quite. Lateran V pre-dated Luther's theses. Lateran V has often been considered a missed opportunity in hindsight, but it was still working out the post-Schism issues of papalists vs conciliarists and the debut of specifically early Modern European power politics.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    Much of what Trent said had more to do with combatting Protestantism than benefitting Catholics.


    Do you not think that this also benefitted Catholics?

    Also, V2 deliberately avoided proclaiming anything dogmatic. Trent deliberately wielded infallibility to clarify matters that were either debated or confused. You simply cannot compare the two councils. Their whole raison d’être was not only different, of course, but so was their method. One made infallible dogmatic statements (which are now roundly ignored by 90% of Catholics) while the other did no such thing and is wielded with fervor. The devil really pulled a fast one.

    My catechism of the council of Trent isn’t going anywhere, thank you very much.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Charles,

    You and I agree that the Church didn't begin at Vatican II.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276

    Not quite. Lateran V pre-dated Luther's theses.


    Yes, it predated Luther and dealt with Protestantism of a different type, to be sure.

    Fifth Lateran Council, (1512–17), the 18th ecumenical council, convoked by Pope Julius II and held in the Lateran Palace in Rome. The council was convened in response to a council summoned at Pisa by a group of cardinals who were hostile to the pope. The pope’s council had reform as its chief concern. It restored peace among warring Christian rulers and sanctioned a new concordat with France to supersede the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges of 1438. In dogmatic decrees the council affirmed the immortality of the soul and repudiated declarations of the Councils of Constance and Basel that had made church councils superior to the pope. The Orthodox churches do not accept any of the five Lateran councils as truly ecumenical.


    Interestingly, many eastern Catholic churches don't accept any past the first seven as ecumenical.

    As for Trent - too much to cut and paste - https://www.britannica.com/event/Council-of-Trent

    Sounds lengthy and trouble plagued. Glad I didn't witness that one.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276

    You and I agree that the Church didn't begin at Vatican II.


    Yes, we do. I have come to the conclusion that a council may be one of the worst ways to address church issues. Many of them leave a bit of chaos behind that takes years to settle out.
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    By the end of the century, many of the abuses that had motivated the Protestant Reformation had disappeared, and the Roman Catholic Church had reclaimed many of its followers in Europe.


    Can’t say that about V2… so much for ecumenism!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    By the end of the century, many of the abuses that had motivated the Protestant Reformation had disappeared, and the Roman Catholic Church had reclaimed many of its followers in Europe.


    Yes, but England, North Germany, and the Scandinavian countries are solidly Protestant to this day. They never came back.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,153
    @Charles
    Has England ever been Protestant? It seems you can be an Anglican and not adhere to the 39 articles. England was sundered from the One True Church with violence, despotic kings would execute Catholics for treason while also burning Protestants for heresy. The Anglicans are a strange group and are not necessarily Protestant (In belief).

    As for North Germany and Scandinavia, they are now post christian and have been for some time. When you stop believing in God, you start to believe in anything.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    The article states “reclaimed many” not reclaimed “all”. The fact that all did not return is not a knock against Trent so much as eternal testimony to the protestantism of the Protestants. The only thing V2 has managed is mild rapprochement with a handful of groups who don’t believe the things we do and we simply pretend like it’s ok. It’s essentially a “you keep believing the [wrong] things that you believe but we will state that we are friends on paper, although we aren’t enough reconciled for you to actually be considered a member of the church.” *everyone pats themselves on the back for having achieved absolutely nothing*
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    England emerged from the Reformation with ritual intact while remaining thoroughly Protestant in belief and practice. Even among the "Anglo Catholics" they are more Anglo than Catholic. They have nice music, or at least did have nice music in the churches that have not gone over to praise and worship type music. Their beliefs, however, are all over the place. My part of the U.S was settled by people from Scotland. I know them well since once side of my family is heavily Scottish to this day. Even though they are Episcopalian, they are Anglican with a heavy dose of Calvinism thrown in.