Traditional Latin Mass Group and the Child Abuse Scandal

[KatherineS]

it was reverent..

Cardinal Avery Dulles didn't think so. I didn't find Low Mass all that reverent.

not all change is good. Some is unecessary. Moving the Tabernacle to the corner of the church was unnecessary.

Giving the reserved sacrament a place of its own rather than confusing it with the action on the altar has some merit. St. Peter's in Rome has long been this way has have many great churches.


The way they planned Novus Ordo, it was supposed to be much like the TLM only in the vernacular. Why move the Tabernacle, remove altar rails, replace traditional music with folk music and guitars (in some parishes), have everyone receive Communion in the hand from Eucharistic ministers, etc? that wasn't how NO was originally planned. If a parish stays close to the rubrics, the Mass will resemble the TLM more than the NO we're used to.[/quote]

The rubrics of the former Mass do not require the Tabernacle on the altar of sacrific (on occassions, it was prohibited), altar rails, no even that the priest face the apse.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

MoNiCa

it was reverent..

It was they who were reverent, not the Mass itself. Reverence comes from the people who participate in the Mass, not the format.


Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

The Mass that "gave us great Saints for centuries" didn't create great saints because it was said in Latin. Nor did it create great saints because the priest faced away from the people. Nor did it create great saints because people received Communion on the tongue while a sharp edged golden plate was placed under their chins.

I get what your saying... but the obvious resentment for the Latin Mass, whoa. what's up with that? There is a awe and beauty to that, but it seems to really turn your stomach- how come?

And it seems you want to assign a perception of "darkness" and/or the coldness to the Latin Mass.

The Mass that gave great saints is no different from the Mass we have today in its essence.

One thing I have always noticed about the great saints is their ability to adapt to change and new circumstances. Many were missionaries. Many faced situations in their lives that required them to make drastic changes. They didn't become saints by clinging to forms and practices that were no longer relevant or meaningful to the societies in which they lived.

There is a chapter in Acts where the disciples learn that it is not necessary for Christian converts to go through the Jewish procedure of circumcision....Change. New circumstances.

I think that is a good analogy for the TLM. It worked for previous generations, and maybe it created saints. But it is no longer necessary, except as an option for those who enjoy that worship form.

It's necessary when folks want to get all wacky with the NO. We lost a lot with the translation and then, there's inclusive language which leads to serious problems.

But I get what your saying. We need to watch out for stagnancy.

 

[benedictaoo]

I never said child abuse is right.

About Pope Benedict, I believe what I believe. I think he is suffering a lot over this too.

God bless

sigh... perhaps but looking at him through some kind of rosy glasses as if he's perfect and a Saint might be premature.

Yeah he's suffering but it's not as romantic as it may sound. He is suffering because the Church you and I love so much, spend so much of our own time and energy defending, did some really bad stuff.

He is suffering because some bad stuff went down and it came out, that is why he's suffering.

It's not because some mean people have ruled him out and are picking on him for no reason.

The problem is, he was in high places when the stuff went down, and then there is the huge lack of trust based on the fact the Church has not been forthcoming or honest. Their MO has always been to cover it up and keep it secret, so you expect trust from so called "enemies"?

Why would you expect that?

And we have got to stop with the lying hateful media rant because thank God they did break it or this evilness would still be going on.

Love them or hate them, friend or foe, they are the ones who is putting an end to this madness.

 

[benedictaoo]

When I was a child it gave me decapitation nightmares and made me think of Marie Antoinette on the guillotine.

well that was you. It's not the whole world.

I'm sorry that you had, and it's based on reading many of your post from the past, that you had some bad experiences.

I'm really sincerely sorry you did, however, that's not everyone, many have some beautiful memories, just because you didn't, doesn't a reality make.

 

[benedictaoo]

no you are not deserved an apology, are you trying to offend my intelligence on purpose ?

well I got one, so deal with it.

 

[benedictaoo]

As I recall, Benedicta disagreed with me.

I do and I don't.

I get what your saying, that it was the "better to marry then to burn" teaching/mentality but I don't necessarily buy it.

I think gay men trying to, in hind sight, pin their personal failings either as husbands or as priests, on the big bad mean teaching of the Church is a cop out.

We have to take responsibility for the things we do in life.

The blame games got to stop.

We are not going to blame this on the teachings of the Church nor are we going to blame this on homosexuality.

We are going to blame this on the individuals who chose freely to do what they did that created this whole mess.

 

[AMDG]

Giving the reserved sacrament a place of its own rather than confusing it with the action on the altar has some merit. St. Peter's in Rome has long been this way has have many great churches.

You do know that those big Churches in Rome are also inundated with non-Catholic tourists (unlike most of our little neighborhood parish Church's which don't need to provide a place for Catholic reverence while still maintaining the tourist trade where loud oohs and ahhs are the norm.) And it doesn't even make any sense to say that all the thousands of years of Church history prior to Vatican II (and especially the Tridentine Mass) are bad (and is the cause of every abuse known to man) while only the 45 years since Vatican II are okay.

 

[benedictaoo]

MoNiCa





It was they who were reverent, not the Mass itself. Reverence comes from the people who participate in the Mass, not the format.


Jim

No, Jim.. the format matter.

If we do not have proper format, ie form, matter and intent, we don't even have a Mass. We are no better then the Protestants at this point when we begin to change this and that to the point where isn't even a Mass.

The Mass is not there for our entertainment. It is a prayer of the highest form offered to God as the ultimate act of worship we can offer Him.

 

[benedictaoo]

Giving the reserved sacrament a place of its own rather than confusing it with the action on the altar has some merit. St. Peter's in Rome has long been this way has have many great churches.

Giving Christ his rightful place, center, on the alter as the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, has even greater merit.

 

[BAFRIEND]

No, Jim.. the format matter.

If we do not have proper format, ie form, matter and intent, we don't even have a Mass. We are no better then the Protestants at this point when we begin to change this and that to the point where isn't even a Mass.

The Mass is not there for our entertainment. It is a prayer of the highest form offered to God as the ultimate act of worship we can offer Him.

sorry but you are wrong here

Jesus said what was bound on earth would be bound in heaven and even gave the bishops the authority to forgive sins

so if the Church through its bishops says it is valid it is- regardless of how they rearrange the furniture

to state otherwise is to place a personal opinion over the authority of Jesus

 

[benedictaoo]

sorry but you are wrong here

Jesus said what was bound on earth would be bound in heaven and even gave the bishops the authority to forgive sins

so if the Church through its bishops says it is valid it is- regardless of how they rearrange the furniture

to state otherwise is to place a personal opinion over the authority of Jesus

You are arguing with the wall now, arguing for the sake of arguing, and I told you already, this is not a competition. You would lose anyway if it were.

We are not talking about the changes the Church makes officially. We are talking about what bozo individuals think they can do with it, with clown Masses and what ever else.

Jim said format does not matter- yeah, it does.

Proper form, matter and intent, indeed matters, with out proper form, matter and intent- there no Sacramento, BA.

If the words of consecration are not produced and said correctly, there is no Jesus, thus no Mass. What do you think we offer to God if not carvery? if someone wanted to bust open the saltines for Communion, it's not the sacrifice of the Mass. It's just snack with crackers.

 

[BAFRIEND]

You are arguing with the wall now, arguing for the sake of arguing, and I told you already, this is not a competition. You would lose anyway if it were.

winning or losing is besides the point that is your game

regardless- i will not place your opinion over the pope's which i feel is really the issue here

 

[benedictaoo]

winning or losing is besides the point that is your game

regardless- i will not place your opinion over the pope's which i feel is really the issue here

So the pope said we can do whatever the heck we want to the Mass? That the format does not matter?

Where did he say that?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

When I was a child it gave me decapitation nightmares and made me think of Marie Antoinette on the guillotine.

I'm sorry that you had that experience Fantine. But I personally have never associated it with anything negative, and I like receiving Communion that way. God bless.

 

[benedictaoo]

I don't know, Fantine, that's a little odd to say the least. Did you ever get to talk to a professional about that inordinate fear?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Cardinal Avery Dulles didn't think so. I didn't find Low Mass all that reverent.

I was talking about Tridentine Latin Mass, ie High Mass.

Giving the reserved sacrament a place of its own rather than confusing it with the action on the altar has some merit. St. Peter's in Rome has long been this way has have many great churches.

Perhaps this can be done in a reverent way, but in a couple parishes I've been to, the Tabernacle was in the corner and tehre were even pews arranged in such a way that people sat with their backs to the Tabernacle. Next to no one genuflected when entering the pew. I think that really shows maybe there's a right and wrong way to do this.

MoNiCa

It was they who were reverent, not the Mass itself. Reverence comes from the people who participate in the Mass, not the format.
Jim

But the format can inspire reverence... would you agree? If you went to a Mass where they used glass vessels for Communion, and there were no kneelers, and people danced during the Mass, - I don't think that would inspire as much reverence as something more traditional.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

sigh... perhaps but looking at him through some kind of rosy glasses as if he's perfect and a Saint might be premature.

I'm not saying he's perfect, I'm saying he's innocent regarding the child abuse. I really don't want to debate this topic any more that's what I believe.

Yeah he's suffering but it's not as romantic as it may sound. He is suffering because the Church you and I love so much, spend so much of our own time and energy defending, did some really bad stuff.

and that's the Pope's fault how?

I don't regret defending the Church... it's Christ's Church.... sure there are people who did evil in it, but I've done evil too, - that doesn't change the reality that the Church also has a divine component and the Holy Spirit is in it. It doesn't change the holiness that's in the Church.

sorry but you are wrong here

Jesus said what was bound on earth would be bound in heaven and even gave the bishops the authority to forgive sins

so if the Church through its bishops says it is valid it is- regardless of how they rearrange the furniture

to state otherwise is to place a personal opinion over the authority of Jesus

no one is saying the Mass is not valid, rather that some people took the changes too far, beyond what the Bishops said.

 

[benedictaoo]

I'm saying he's innocent regarding the child abuse.

you can believe it and he just may be, but we do not know this for a fact because the info is not very forthcoming.

and that's the Pope's fault how?

It's not his fault but the fault of the system being corrupt that has was a part of. To what extent he participated, we do not know, if he had participation but the guy was there.

I don't regret defending the Church... it's Christ's Church.... sure there are people who did evil in it, but I've done evil too, - that doesn't change the reality that the Church also has a divine component and the Holy Spirit is in it. It doesn't change the holiness that's in the Church.

and I have not spoken one word against the Church of Jesus and I don't regret defending Catholicism or the Presbytery even, but I'm not blurring lines here either, crossing over and defending the perverted men who has hurt this Church severely.

Are you having hard time separating the Church from men running the Church?

no one is saying the Mass is not valid, rather that some people took the changes too far, beyond what the Bishops said.

and if they take it so far beyond where the consecration is not said correctly or proper matter is used, then it's no longer Mass.

 

[AMDG]

but we do not know this for a fact because the info is not very forthcoming.

Perhaps this article will help: The Catholic Knight: Pope To Be Crucified This Easter ,
or maybe the open-letter from George Wiegle that Michie posted,
or maybe the EWTN archived World Over program with George Wiegle that dealt with the scandal.