There is a poster in the "Frank the hippie pope" video comments, "MaximosMagnus", who is an eastern orthodox schismatic who says that the Tridentine Mass has liturgical abuses.

This is what he posted:

Well if I did convert, I would probably go Melkite Rite since they are the most traditional. The Tridentine Mass still has several liturgical abuses such as kneeling on Sundays which was forbidden by the early Church in Canon 20 of the First Council of Nicaea.

He also told someone i know that

Other liturgical abuses of the Tridentine Mass include refusing to give Baptized infants the Holy Eucharist (and Confirmation), withholding the Blood of Christ from the laity only giving them the Body of Christ, having the liturgy only in Latin as opposed to the vernacular, and finally having multiple liturgies at the same altar on Sundays.

These all depart from the tradition of the Early Church. Refusing communion to a baptized infant altogether, and also refusing to give the Blood of Christ to the laity are the most unacceptable.

Is there any truth to this?

Well if I did convert, I would probably go Melkite Rite since they are the most traditional.

By What/ whose standard? So he's saying he would convert, but not accept the authority of the Church's Magisterium? That's an oxymoron.

The Tridentine Mass still has several liturgical abuses such as kneeling on Sundays which was forbidden by the early Church in Canon 20 of the First Council of Nicaea.[/b]

I cannot answer this and am unaware of the cannon.

Other liturgical abuses of the Tridentine Mass include refusing to give Baptized infants the Holy Eucharist (and Confirmation)

First of all, it isn't a proper 'liturgical abuse' he is speaking of here. Also, the different Rites of the Catholic Church have different traditions. Confirmation is given to those who are of the appropriate age, but exceptions have been made in times of persecution (ie- the Mexican Revolution). Even my mother was confirmed as a baby into the 1970s. Baptism is a separate sacrament from Confirmation; there would be no neccesity to confirm at such an age unless there are circuмstances which require it, as my example above explains, where the assurity of Bishops in the future may be in peril)

, withholding the Blood of Christ from the laity only giving them the Body of Christ, having the liturgy only in Latin as opposed to the vernacular, and finally having multiple liturgies at the same altar on Sundays.

. I am unsure if other Rites do this practice, but if they do, it does not make it an abuse of any sort for another Rite to not do it. That's why there are different Rites in the first place- hello.

These all depart from the tradition of the Early Church.

The Early Church, where? The tridentine Rite is ancient and stretches back to the Early Church.

Refusing communion to a baptized infant altogether, and also refusing to give the Blood of Christ to the laity are the most unacceptable.[/b]

The practice of not giving the Blood of Christ to the faithful was put in place to reject a heresy which said Christ was not completely found under each species, bread and wine. Since he is contained, fully and completely, under both species, there is nothing unacceptable about it.

Hopefully someone more learned can answer these questions in more detail.

There is a poster in the "Frank the hippie pope" video comments, "MaximosMagnus", who is an eastern orthodox schismatic who says that the Tridentine Mass has liturgical abuses.

This is what he posted: ...

 

Welcome to CathInfo, Vanessa.  

Usually, when a member provides comments about a comment on
another forum regarding a video, he provides also a link to the
video so readers who choose to view it can do so.  Then we can
all be talking about the same thing.

Could you post here the URL address of the video you're talking about?


.

What planet is he on?

These aren't liturgical abuses.

They would be abuses in the Eastern Rite.  They are most certainly not abuses in the Latin Rite.

I attended a TLM at which there was an abuse. It was really bad. At the time I didn't realize it. I was really impressed with the priest. However later on I learned that what the priest had done was a serious abuse. I suppose you can find abuses wherever you go if you know what to look for.

Did he throw the Blessed Sacrament on the floor, or put on a Groundhog Day costume and crawl under the altar? What abuse, exactly, was committed during the Mass?

Similarly with the use of vernacular, to state that vernacular should be used and the use of Latin of another sacred language is forbidden was solemnly condemned by Trent.  Even many of the Eastern Rites use dead languages (Greek, Church Slavonic--Ukrainian, Aramaic--Maronite, etc.)

Quote from: poche

I attended a TLM at which there was an abuse. It was really bad. At the time I didn't realize it. I was really impressed with the priest. However later on I learned that what the priest had done was a serious abuse. I suppose you can find abuses wherever you go if you know what to look for.

He said the mass in public from memory without the use of any books.

Did he have altar cards up there, et cetera?

This is how Poche views the "latin" mass. The same way as Arinze.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/mqnjgg1vNgU[/youtube]