I never said that he wasn't 'devoted to the NO' I said that he has 'been critical' of it, and he has. And he has been even more critical of the way that the Novus Ordo was imposed on the faithful by Paul VI, describing Paul's methods as 'draconian' and saying that in promulgating the NO, Pope Paul showed 'a lack of pastoral sensitivity' towards traditionalists and others who wanted to maintain the old rite, and he has said that the ban on the Tridentine rite imposed by Paul VI was 'radical' and 'completely without precedent in the history of the Church.'
No, he isn't a traditionalist if 'traditionalist' means 'someone who thinks the Novus Ordo is somehow corrupt, invalid, irredeemibly evil' but then again, by that definition, even most 'traditionalists' aren't traditionalists. However, if 'traditionalist' means 'someone who believes that people should be allowed a choice between the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass, and that the Tridentine should be offered as widely as possible', then yes he is a traditionalist.

Then that wouldn't be the definition of "traditionalist", would it?

A traditionalist is someone who prefers the TLM over the NO. Traditionalists usually believe that the TLM is without flaw and far superior to the NO which is rife with flaws even when done properly.

Isn't it? Have you ever read 'The Latin Mass' magazine, the leading traditionalist magazine? My summary is basically the way that magazine sees things. The main issue to traditionalists is pastoral sensitivity, they ask for very little, and they get treated like dirt by much of the Church hierarchy. Way too many bishops who stress the need to be 'inclusive' and 'tolerant' of homosexuals, abortionists and to accept all kinds of immorality and depravity, have absolutely no tolerance for those who would like an indult Latin Mass. Bishops who would never condemn a homosexual, do not hesitate to attack traditionalists without mercy. I dare say that many bishops would sooner allow a porn movie to be filmed in upon their altar than allow a Latin Mass to be said there. This is the main issue to traditionalists, the abuse they have suffered at the hands of many bishops.



I don't believe that I have never seen anyone say that the Tridentine Mass is 'without flaw', and actually most traditionalists that I have encountered are much less hostile to the Novus Ordo than is often perceived.

What I thought was interesting was that evidently Bp. Trautman was the one who led the charge to remove that acclamation. Dunno whether it was because of its lack of correspondence with the Latin, or the lack of mention of "me".

Knowing Trautman, it was probably the lack of mention of "me." And by coming out against it, he can look like he's in line with Liturgiam Authenticam.

I have a feeling "chrsit will come again" is a big part of the reason. Dont' really know why just my thought.

If there was something atually wrong with the orignal and not a right way, I coud see changing it. But, I dont really ee the point. Maybe to be more "modern" language and more I guess the term is new age. I think peole want things to seem new ans fresh or differnt as opposed to traditional for some reason.


I could even see adding the other version undre it or tellign people that as a prayer to do. I don't really see a problem with the original though.

I'm not Catholic so I dont know if there have been many changes in doctrine and all that but I've heard htings are not quite ilke they were and changing a lot, that's probably part of it.

Doctrine has not changed one iota.

The problem with the words is not the words themselves, but where they are in the Mass

The "mysterium fidei" or "Mystery of Faith" in the Mass refers not to Christ's death, resurrection and second coming, but to the Real Presence and the Sacrifice ofCalvary made present to us. The words uused to be just "mysterium fidei" and were in the words of consecration, or words of institution "For this is the chalice of my blood..."

They were moved out of there for dubious liturgical reasons and a response was made to them. In Latin it is still "Mysterium fidei" (Mystery of Faith) but they loosely translate this as "let us proclaim the mystery of faith"

It still refers to what has just happened at the altar. So the words "Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again" are inappropiate here.

Oh, now, don't be so gentle. "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith" isn't just a loose translation -- it's a mistranslation.



I think a case could be made that those would appropriately characterise what had just happened at the altar -- the re-presentation of Christ's saving work. The trouble is, as you said, that it is not made clear any longer that "mysterium fidei" is referring specifically to that re-presentation. I don't mind those words being separated out from the consecration, as long as there would also be something to clarify what they refer to.

Pope Paul VI already has explained these two words MYSTERIUM FIDEI in his own encyclical letter dated on September 3, 1965:

MYSTERIUM FIDEI