The Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass

Latin Mass Magazine ^ | Summer 1995 Issue | Alfons Cardinal Stickler

[Grey Ghost II]

Finally, we have to consider seriously the behavior of the sacred ministers in the light of the Council of Trent—the behavior of the sacred ministers whose deep relationship with their sacred ministry the Council of Trent emphasized. Correct clerical behavior, dress, bearing, comportment, encourage people to follow what they say and teach. Unfortunately, the wretched behavior of many clerics often obliterates the difference between sacred minister and laity, and emphasizes the difference between the sacred minister and the alter Christus.

Summarizing our reflections, we can say the theological attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass corresponds with the theological incorrectness of the Vatican [II] Mass. For this reason the Christi Fidelis of the theological tradition should continue to manifest, in the spirit of obedience to legitimate superiors, the legitimate desire and pastoral preference for the Tridentine Mass.

[murphE]

ping

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

In 1996, Cardinal Stickler celebrated the Tridentine Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. The church was filled to overflowing, with people standing in the aisles. An article describing the event appeared on the front page of the Metro section of the New York Times.

[bornacatholic]

Finally, we have to consider seriously the behavior of the sacred ministers in the light of the Council of Trent—the behavior of the sacred ministers whose deep relationship with their sacred ministry the Council of Trent emphasized.

Because of the ghastly behavior, simony, superstition, filthy lucre gained for saying multiple Masses, etc, Trent had to condemn the very things existing in the old Liturgy that rad trads say the old liturgy will prevent. However, such illogic is lost on those who judge Holy Mother Church.

DECREE CONCERNING THE THINGS TO BE OBSERVED, AND TO BE AVOIDED, IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASS.

What great care is to be taken, that the sacred and holy sacrifice of the mass be celebrated with all religious service and veneration, each one may easily imagine, who considers, that, in holy writ, he is called accursed, who doth the work of God negligently; and if we must needs confess, that no other work can be performed by the faithful so holy and divine as this tremendous mystery itself, wherein that life-giving victim, by which we were reconciled to the Father, is daily immolated on the altar by priests, it is also sufficiently clear, that all industry and diligence is to be applied to this end, that it be performed with the greatest possible inward cleanness and purity of heart, and outward show of devotion and piety. Whereas, therefore, either through the wickedness of the times, or through the carelessness and Corruption of men, many things seem already to have crept in, which are alien from the dignity of so great a sacrifice; to the end that the honour and cult due thereunto may, for the glory of God and the edification of the faithful people, be restored; the holy Synod decrees, that the ordinary bishops of places shall take diligent care, and be bound to prohibit and abolish all those things which either covetousness, which is a serving of idols, or irreverence, which can hardly be separated from impiety; or superstition, which is a false imitation of true piety, may have introduced. And that many things may be comprised in a few words: first, as relates to covetousness:--they shall wholly prohibit all manner of conditions and bargains for recompenses, and whatsoever is given for the celebration of new masses; as also those importunate and illiberal demands, rather than requests, for alms, and other things of the like sort, which are but little removed from a simonical taint, or at all events, from filthy lucre.

In the next place, that irreverence may be avoided, each, in his own diocese, shall forbid that any wandering or unknown priest be allowed to celebrate mass. Furthermore, they shall not allow any one who is publicly and notoriously stained with crime, either to minister at the holy altar, or to assist at the sacred services; nor shall they suffer the holy sacrifice to be celebrated, either by any Seculars or Regulars whatsoever, in private houses; or, at all, out of the church, and those oratories which are dedicated solely to divine worship, and which are to be designated and visited by the said Ordinaries; and not then, unless those who are present shall have first shown, by their decently composed outward appearance, that they are there not in body only, but also in mind and devout affection of heart. They shall also banish from churches all those kinds of music, in which, whether by the organ, or in the singing, there is mixed up any thing lascivious or impure; as also all secular actions; vain and therefore profane conversations, all walking about, noise, and clamour, that so the house of God may be seen to be, and may be called, truly a house of prayer.

Lastly, that no room may be left for superstition; they shall by ordinance, and under given penalties, provide, that priests do not celebrate at other than due hours; nor employ other rites, or other ceremonies and prayers, in the celebration of masses, besides those which have been approved of by the Church, and have been received by a frequent and praiseworthy usage. They shall wholly banish from the Church the observance of a fixed number of certain masses and of candles, as being the invention of superstitious worship, rather than of true religion; and they shall instruct the people, what is, and whence especially is derived, the fruit so precious and heavenly of this most holy sacrifice. They shall also admonish their people to repair frequently to their own parish churches, at least on the Lord's days and the greater festivals. All, therefore, that has been briefly enumerated, is in such wise propounded to all Ordinaries of places, as that, by the power given them by this sacred and holy Synod, and even as delegates of the Apostolic See, they may prohibit, ordain, reform, and establish, not only the things aforesaid, but also whatsoever else shall seem to them to have relation hereunto; and may compel the faithful people inviolably to observe them, by ecclesiastical censures and other penalties, which at their pleasure they may appoint; any privileges, exemptions, appeals, and customs whatsoever, to the contrary notwithstanding.

*So, the old Liturgy did not prevent those actions Trent was compelled to condemn. In fact, back in the day, in the old Liturgy, scandals, abuses and abominations were worse than the abuses in the Pauline Rite.

Also condemned were the wandering priests, mass celebrated without permission, mass celebrated in another's Jurisdiction etc etc.

In other words, virtually everything the liberal traditionalists (libertrads) promote and defend has been condemned by Trent.

That these condemned actions are defended and promoted as Tradition illustrates the Libertrads understanding of Tradition is self-annihilating.

[8mmMauser]

Thank you

Bump

[murphE]

In fact, back in the day, in the old Liturgy, scandals, abuses and abominations were worse than the abuses in the Pauline Rite.

Try to prove this ridiculous assertion.

[CouncilofTrent]

It also condemns what many of the Pauline Rite people do in their churches:

"They shall also banish from churches all those kinds of music, in which, whether by the organ, or in the singing, there is mixed up any thing lascivious or impure; as also all secular actions; vain and therefore profane conversations, all walking about, noise, and clamour, that so the house of God may be seen to be, and may be called, truly a house of prayer."

Because of your liberalism, you resort to name calling such as "rad trads", etc... and have presented a flawed case. First of all, how does the old liturgy not prevent abuses that occurred? In your own words, of course. Secondly, I would like to point out that this is BEFORE the standardization of the Latin rite (in its entirety, at least) so your arguement that the Tridentine Rite is more flawed than the Pauline Rite is baseless. For we see historically, that after Trent, the Church seems to have gone pretty well, despite political problems which involved mainly France (through several centuries). I would also like to point out that last I checked, I never had to pay a traditional Priest to say Mass.

[Ambrose II]

Please inform me as to what a "liberal traditionalist" is? I find that phrase to be contradicting itself.

[bornacatholic]

Please inform me as to what a "liberal traditionalist" is?

*Certainly. A liberal is, in essence, one who decides for himself. He is his own authority and he will "obey" the Magisterium if what the Magisterium Teaches agrees with his own personal opinion. If the Magsterium teaches or takes decisions he opposes, he refuses to submit to the church. He is, in a word, self-centered and egotistical. He does not love the Church. In a word, he is a protestant of the left.

A Libertrad (a liberal traditionalist) is the "right" or "conservative" counterpoint to a Liberal. He too, in essence, is one who decides for himself. He is his own authority for what Tradition is. When the Magisterium takes decisions about ecclesiastical traditions he does not approve of, he wars against the Magisterium - publicly and relentlessly. When it is pointed out it is the Magisterium which decides what is and isn't Tradition, he will begin citing the personal oponions of this or that theologian, far-right polemicist, schismatic etc and he will attack the very Christian Church Jesus established insinuating, if not outright claiming, the Magisterium is untrustworthy, devious, deceptive, and intentionally destroying Tradition. His will must predominate. He will not submit to the Church. The Libertrad is, in a word, self-centered and egotistical. He does not love the Church. He judges the Church corrupt, schismatic, in error etc. It must be his personal opinion of what constitues Tradition which prevails. In a word, he is a protestant of the right

[Grey Ghost II]

In other words, virtually everything the liberal traditionalists (libertrads) promote and defend has been condemned by Trent.

The posted article was written by Alfons Cardinal Stickler.

Is the good cardinal one of your perceived "wandering priests", one of your so-called "libertrads" who has been condemned by Trent?

[Grey Ghost II]

Please inform me as to what a "liberal traditionalist" is? I find that phrase to be contradicting itself.

It's a phrase he made up a couple of months ago, just like the word he made up, "libertrad".

He's reknown for making up stuff.

[Ambrose II]

First, we must give meaning to the words we are using. Liberal is defined according to dictionary.com as "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."

The Catholic Encyclopedia on NewAdvent.org tells us "Ecclesiastical Liberalism" is:

(B) Ecclesiastical Liberalism (Liberal Catholicism)

(1) The prevailing political form of modern Liberal Catholicism, is that which would regulate the relations of the Church to the State and modern society in accordance with the Liberal principles as expounded by Benjamin Constant. It had its predecessors and patterns in Gallicanism, Febronianism, and Josephinism. Founded 1828 by Lamennais, the system was later defended in some respects by Lacordaire, Montalembert, Parisis, Dupanloup, and Falloux.

(2) The more theological and religious form of Liberal Catholicism had its predecessors in Jansenism and Josephinism; it aims at certain reforms in ecclesiastical doctrine and discipline in accordance with the anti-ecclesiastical liberal Protestant theory and atheistical "science and enlightenment" prevailing at the time. The newest phases of this Liberalism were condemned by Pius X as Modernism. In general it advocates latitude in interpreting dogma, oversight or disregard of the disciplinary and doctrinal decrees of the Roman Congregations, sympathy with the State even in its enactments against the liberty of the Church, in the action of her bishops, clergy, religious orders and congregations, and a disposition to regard as clericalism the efforts of the Church to protect the rights of the family and of individuals to the free exercise of religion.

Now that we have defined what a liberal is in the ecclesiastical sense, let's define what a traditionalist is.
It is defined by dictionary.com as "adj : stubbornly conservative and narrow-minded".

Now one is left with a dilemma here for these definitions most assuredly contradict each other. But you say that it is a manifestation of both -- that they have taken traits from each side and combined it to make a "libetrad."

You say that these people are self-centered, that they do not submit to the will of the Magisterium, that they do not love the Church, and that they do not take the word of the current hierarchy of the Church on deciding what the Tradition is.

Respond to the fact that they do not submit to the will of the Magisterium. In Acts, Peter says to the Jewish authorities " We ought to obey God rather than men." Now the "Traditionalist" looks at this, looks at the changes (mark of a liberal/progressive) in the Church, looks at the outright rejection by some of the PREVIOUS 20 councils and is left to wonder.

This is not the sign of a self-centered, egotistical person, but rather a prudent mind. Remember in obeying God we obey the Church that is the Mystical Body of Christ.
They are NOT two separate things. They are NOT able to be changed by man. It is this that they are "protesting" and I think rightly so.

[RFT1]

Sorry, but Protestants do not have valid ordinations nor valid Eucharist, despite the shortcomings of the SSPX(especially with Bp. Williamson), the SSPX does.

In terms of dogmas and doctrines, the church does require obidience, in terms of disclipine, such as liturgical matters, blind obidience on the laity is not required, people can disagree as long as the concecration remains valid(though in some suburban parishes that is questionable).

One intresting thing in the next few months is what will happen to the cult of personality that surrounded Pope John Paul II(Though no fault of the late Pope), who often took people who had questions about the current missal as an attack against Pope John Paul II, and retaliated by using terms such as Protestant or worse against them.

[BulldogCatholic]

God willing the Traditional Latin Mass will be restored to its rightful place as the "normal" Mass and this Protestant Masonic version of the Novus Ordo will be pushed back to where it belongs. With the pews empty, is the wrath of St Peter and Paul brought down upon us as St Pope Pius V warned.

Dominus Vobiscum!

[RFT1]

While I go to the TLM most weeks now, the parish I am registered at does the NO in a manner that is reverent. All pre 1960 hymns, many Latin hymns, no altar girls, no female lectors, no EMHCs and all recieve on the altar rail for communion, mostly on the tounge.

Now that said, I prefer the old missal, but I would not mind the reform of the reform being the 62 missal with new feasts added, with a vernacular option as long as the canon is silent and in Latin, not to mention the 62 and before rubrics being followed.

[murphE]

Well said!

[bornacatholic]

Infallible Dogamatic Teaching of Vatican 1

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] . For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received

* Libertrads are, in a word, protestants.

[bornacatholic]

Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium §25

Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

[Ambrose II]

I was always told that two things were needed for it to be infallible. (if this is wrong, please correct me.) One, it had to be stated so. Two, it had to be consistent with the teaching of the Church.

You also absolutely blew off everything I said in my post.