Tridentine Mass, Eucharistic Ministers

Seattle Catholic ^ | December 27,2002 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[Catholicguy]

<> Well, I love the 1962 Roman Missal, but, I also recognise the schismatic mentality of those attached to it. It is undeniable and those that set themeselves up as spokesmen for the Indult or Traditionalist movement are leading into extremism thos eon the fence.

It is also undeniable there are MANY who both love the 1962 Roman Missal and maintain the Bionds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Auhtority are are obedient to Rome, recognise the Missa Normativa and are bound by the Second Vatican Council but their voices are silent. If they do speak and object to the behavior and extremism of those who have seized control of the Indult/Traditionalist movement, they are read out of it as not really committed to the truth<>

[Desdemona]

If they do speak and object to the behavior and extremism of those who have seized control of the Indult/Traditionalist movement, they are read out of it as not really committed to the truth

True. But the same can be said for the modernists. Just try objecting to some of the abuses.

[sinkspur]

It is also common occurence to force the congregation to receive communion "consecrated" at a previous "novus ordo missae" and usually by a "priest" ordained in the new rite.

You're the sedevacantist, aren't you?

What a bizarre human being!

[RobbyS]

Just read (Part) of the "biography" that a liberal reporter did on Ratzinger. What I found most interesting was the part about how the Church dwelt with Kueng. The Cardinal gave up on Kueng about the same tme I did, about 1975, when his biggest best seller came out and came to the same conclusion: That Kueng turned Christianity into an abstraction and that the Church should make it perfectly clear that he spoke not for the Church but only himself and his sect. Reminds me of a story I once read about Maimonides, that he reasoned himself almost out a faith in God. Compare that with the story about St. Thomas, that he had a mystical experience that made everything he had written seem like straw. Ultimately, we can know God only after HE reaches out and touches our mind.

[WriteOn]

We have a deacon who helps out at Mass. No lay ministers. It works well. And the extra time at the rail on your knees is a good thing. Why rush through Communion?

[saradippity]

Reminds me of a story I once read about Maimoneides,that he reasoned himself almost out of a belief in God.

That is the reason I have asked Ultima Ratio why he chose that name. He has not responded.

I have wondered if his "greatest reasoning" has led him to the abyss of non-belief in anything but the Tridentine Mass and when something harms that certainty his world will collapse. Or,if he knows exactly what he is doing and is trying to lead us all into questioning all that is Catholic with the hope of luring us into the abyss.

But rather than speculate,I will again ask UR,just why did you choose your screen name?

[ultima ratio]

First, faith and reason have always marched together in Catholicism. Second, there is something in what you say. And it is this: if the post-conciliar rejection of the past two thousand years is allowed to stand, then it would prove that the Catholic Church itself is a sham and has always been a sham. You simply cannot reverse Catholicism and say--oops!--we were wrong before, but we've finally got it right, the popes were infallible before, but somehow they still got it wrong, but this pope has got it right and is infallible. No, if the past popes were wrong, then the whole concept of infallibility collapses.

That is why we should understand that Vatican II is a pastoral council only and was not itself making claims to infallibility. Otherwise it would logically bring the whole Church into ruin. This Pope and his bureaucracy understand all this. They are very careful to make changes that do not attack Tradition directly. They do so only indirectly, destroying Catholic culture and suppressing doctrines they no longer find convenient or convincing--which was the real purpose behind the manipulation of the liturgy. Gradually, the hope was that Catholics would no longer believe in the old faith; gradually, a new faith would be introduced while the old faith simply faded away--as it did in Catholic England in the sixteenth century under Cranmer.

This is why the persistance of SSPX is such an affront. It is the living presence of the old Church in which the memory of the Church itself is stored. Why do you suppose an apostate like Kasper is tolerated, but a traditionalist like Lefebvre is not? Why are seminarians who sleep around tolerated, while those who say their rosaries are not? Why do some bishops welcome gay Masses, clown Masses, teddy bear Masses, teen Masses, polka Masses--but not the old Latin Mass? There is a real fear of the glaring contrast presented by a Society like SSPX which adheres to Catholicism as it has always been preached and lived. Traditionalism is a sign of contradiction that condemns all that is presently going on in the name of Catholicism. It teaches the young what their patrimony truly is--something other than what is now being taught.

[St.Chuck]

They are spiritually and intellectually protestants and they are dooming what they claim to love...Go figure.

What is pathetic is that those who claim to love the 1962 Roman Missal encourage their mouthpieces in their sucidial actions. That illustrates the schismatic mindset that suffuses the Indult crowd.

Spot on CG!

The author provides no way to corroborate his claim. Just an unsubstantiated rumor to get the horses saddled. I'm thinking that if an indult needs a eucharistic minister, it speaks to the popularity of that particular mass, that one priest can't distribute communion in a timely fashion. There must be hundreds of communicants. Hooray! But no. The schismatics will say that because of this one instance, the Vatican ( the pope pulls all the strings of the billion strong adherents you know) is "foisting" EM's on the indult crowd. That's like me, going to the local convenience store on Christmas eve, observing that it is closed, and remarking that well, all the convenience stores are closed fom now on. What a travesty!

It is precisely because of this type of illogic and radical paranoia that they are not taken seriously, and are viewed with utmost skepticism. They think that they are upholding the faith when in reality , they demonstrate their sublime lack of faith. Yes, it is suicidal, because it is not inappropriate to deduce that this lack of faith, paranoia, and irrationality is related to their adherence to the traditional mass community that is outside the local ordinary's authority. Not that the mass itself creates that kind of mentality, but rather their personalized justification for having made the decisions they have. Their hatred for anything outside their own understanding or experience has made them into mind - numbed clones who tilt at windmills. Etc. Etc.

Sigh.

[ultima ratio]

Your argument regarding the Indult is pathetic in the face of the disobedience of Novus Ordo bishops--which has been widespread and blatant from the beginning of this papacy but which is wholly tolerated. The Indult crowd, on the other hand, has been fairly docile and quiet from the moment it came on the scene. When it occasionally speaks out--as some of their theologians did in Elmhurst--their people are summarily slapped down and fired--without being allowed any redress--something Rome has never done with liberal theologians who may deny the faith to their heart's content without so much as a peep from the Vatican. So clearly there's a double standard. Amazing how much corruption and apostasy Rome will tolerate, but how little traditionalism it can stand.

But you are correct as to why the Indult was granted in the first place. It was designed to split the SSPX, to divide and conquer it, not to show consideration for traditionalists--which was the phony reason the Pope gave publicly in his letter. The entire assault against SSPX has been politically motivated, as had been the continuous pressure brought to bear against Archbishop Lefebvre after the Council since he alone dared to keep the old faith, the only thing NOT to be permitted in the New Church. All else was open for grabs, but not the desire to keep what had been our heritage for two thousand years.

Your attempt to paint traditionalists as Protestants because they resist a bad pope is ludicrous in any case-- precisely because it is this Pope and his minions who have been relentlessly pushing a new Protestantism on the faithful, who have turned around the altars as Luther did, who have thrown out the Offertory as Luther did, who have signed a decree on justification with Lutherans which gives assent to the Protestant, not the Catholic, theological perspective.

Traditionalists, on the other hand, abide by the ancient Catholic faith and put this faith before even the papacy itself, which they rightly understand exists precisely to defend the faith above all else--something this pope does not do. Traditionalists believe what has been HANDED-DOWN from apostolic times, not what has been newly minted by a pope who exceeds his authority. In this they remain most truly Catholic, however few in number.

[ultima ratio]

You fail to understand the problem of eucharistic ministers. It is another attempt to desacralize the priesthood and to protestantize the Church. Traditionalists understand this. You don't because such minstry seems to you normal and familiar, whereas in actuality it is a perversion of Catholicism itself and the claims it makes for a priesthood set apart for a Mass of sacrifice.

[livius]

The link below is to an article in Una Voce by an older Jesuit that I think is very relevant to this discussion:

http://www.unavoce.org/wasdomgueranger.htm

For those who don't want to bother going to the site, here's a quote:

"Dom Gueranger started the liturgical revival in the nineteenth century, and, perhaps with an eye on what had happened during the Reformation, said that to change people’s religion you need do no more than change their books of worship. As we know, our books of worship were changed in 1968. The reason Pope Paul VI initiated the change was his hope that a new liturgy would somehow attract Protestants back into the Church. He accordingly invited Protestant observers, and they later claimed that they had been allowed to make positive contributions to the new text. Certainly, in the new Mass there is nothing that could offend Protestants in any way."

[Scupoli]

Good article.

[Land of the Irish]

Their hatred for anything outside their "own understanding or experience" has made them into mind - numbed clones who tilt at windmills.

Most Catholics who go to great efforts to assist at a Tridentine Mass do so because they understand and have experienced the travesty of the Novus Ordo Mass. Talk about tilting at windmills, the Novus Ordo Mass is still changing on a yearly basis and you all swallow it hook, line and sinker.

At the immediate conclusion of VCII, were the following directives issued: Holy Communion while standing, extraordinary ministers, Holy Communion in the hand, altar girls? What's next?The Novus Ordo is the windmill. The Tridentine Mass is a rock.

[St.Chuck]

Certainly, in the new Mass there is nothing that could offend Protestants in any way."

What in the "old" mass was offensive to Protestants? Were those elements eliminated?

[St.Chuck]

You fail to understand the problem of eucharistic ministers.

The problem I was addressing in my post to CG is the schismatic tendency to make a mountain out of a molehill. "Aha!" is more likely to come out their mouth before "Dear Jesus". You can't see the problem there. Whatever. Mock on. Mock on.

[ultima ratio]

What you see as a molehill IS a mountain. You judge these incrementalisms as insignificant because you lack an authentic sense of Catholic tradition, having been thoroughly protestantized. You suggest my perspective is "schismatic." It would seem that way to you. But I would not want to belong to this new thing which is increasingly alien. It is not the true faith. It is a new religion--and I gladly prescind from it.

[ultima ratio]

That you don't know what it was in the old Mass that was offensive to Protestants is an indication of how lost you are on this issue. Protestants 1) objected to the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence; 2) objected to the concept of the Mass as a reenactment of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary; 3) objected to the doctrine of the continual need for expiation for our sinfulness. These central Catholic doctrines--which Trent insisted on--have been suppressed in the New Mass. Liturgists will insist they are still present--but they are beliefs which have been made virtually invisible, overwhelmed by the memorial meal aspects of the Mass and made secondary within the liturgical action. This is why the concept of a priest (he who makes sacrifice) is subordinated to the activity of his presiding; it is why genuflections and kneelings (showing adoration of the Real Presence) have been eliminated; it is why the Offertory (Christ's offering of Himself to the Father in expiation for our sins)has been eliminated. All this is nothing short of blasphemous and profoundly unCatholic.

[Catholicguy]

<> THis Advent I began re-reading Dom Gueranger's "The Liturgical Year." I can promise you he would NOT have countanenced opposition to Divinely-Constituted authority<>

[St.Chuck]

You judge these incrementalisms as insignificant because you lack an authentic sense of Catholic tradition, having been thoroughly protestantized.

I judge these incrementalisms as insignificant because they are publicized by men such as Woods and Ferrara, who, as of yet, have not impressed me with journalistic accuracy or objectivity. Frankly, when the author says the Vatican is "foisting" EM's on the indult mass my BS detector begins ululating (for you CG)loudly. I do assist at the indult mass in my area, and when traveling I will go out of my way to attend an indult mass. It is my observation, based on personal experience, that EM's at an indult mass be unimaginable. But this is the modus operandi of the schizzies. They create a climate of fear, even of the indult. It is the practice of a cult that employs those type of tactics. They don't want their members attending anything but C.O.W. masses. Which is worse? Thoroughly protestantized, or thoroughly brainwashed?