A New Mass Is Needed

  • Thread starter Thread starter kermitz06
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ockham said:
The word “catholic” is synonymous with “universal”. Wouldn’t it be nice if all Catholics attended the same Mass?
Click to expand...
It’s the faith that’s universal, not the liturgy. The word *katholicos *was used to differentiate between the previous covenant, which was with the nation of Israel; with the new covenant, which was international or universal in scope.

Due to history and Jesus’ desire for unity, I think it would be a mistake to eliminate the rich diversity of liturgical traditions in order to have one mass.

BTW - If the Mass never changed from Greek to Latin, we wouldn’t have even called it “the Mass”.
 
Unity and diversity are not synonymous.

You believe as you pray. It’s no coincidence the percentage of Cathlics believing in the Real Presence declined after the NO. The liturgy is very much a matter of faith. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a recreation of Calvary. The NO makes it more of a supper with Christ’s body and blood being symbols rather than fact.

We don’t need a new Mass. If anything we need one less.
 
Ockham said:
Unity and diversity are not synonymous.

You believe as you pray. It’s no coincidence the percentage of Cathlics believing in the Real Presence declined after the NO. The liturgy is very much a matter of faith. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a recreation of Calvary. The NO makes it more of a supper with Christ’s body and blood being symbols rather than fact.

We don’t need a new Mass. If anything we need one less.
Click to expand...
Looks like my intent missed the mark again. My comment had nothing to do with the OF.

When I speak of “unity in diversity” I am speaking of the ancient and venerable liturgies. Those include the various Oriental and Eastern liturgies, as well as the several particular usages of the the Roman Church which were preserved by Trent.
 
Cluny said:
The Tridentine mass is no more the “mass of the ages” than are the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, Ss Addai and Mari, or Ambrosian rite. All are equally old and venerable.
Click to expand...
That may be but how many numbers of each have been said in toto? How many have attended each of the rites you’ve mentioned since the beginning of time? And it’s not really the Tridentine Mass, it is the Latin Mass since 400 AD or before, that we refer to as the “mass of the ages” and with good reason. This is not to say that it’s superior but it has been the most widespread and as close to being universal as we’ve ever had. And keep all-vernacular out of it, stick to what Vatican II taught.
 
CradleCath said:
You do realize that the Novus Ordo is meant to be prayed with BOTH the vernaculur & Latin.

If it is indeed the Mass of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo was meant to be said with the Latin retained, and vernacular allowed where it is pertinent. Sorry, no all-vernacular Masses; this is (also) consistent with what the Council of Trent taught.
Click to expand...
 
"*The Rule of St. Francis obliges that all clerics perform their duties according the “Ordo of the Roman Church”, which is a precise 13th Century liturgical term for the Ancient Roman Rite, which is commonly termed the “Tridentine Mass” today.

St. Francis of Assisi can be rightly regarded as the “savior” of the Ancient Roman Rite, since, at the time of the foundation of his Order, on account of his desire to live the same religious life that the Apostles lived with Christ Jesus, the three years before He was Crucified and Died for our salvation, he petitioned Pope Innocent III to take as the rite of his Order, the ancient Rite of the Roman Church, which was held to be the “Rite of St. Peter the Apostle”.** During the reign of Innocent III, this rite was only used on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, in the private papal Chapel, for the so-called Gallican Rite was universally employed in the Diocese of Rome.** In addition only 3 known copies of the liturgical books of this ancient rite were still extant in 1215, one of which was falling to pieces. Pope Innocent III granted St. Francis’ request and gave him one of the good, still extant copies of the Sacramentum, Lectionary, Rituale and other books.*"

So much for the Roman Rite being the “Mass of All Time”.
 
Timothysis said:
St. Francis of Assisi can be rightly regarded as the “savior” of the Ancient Roman Rite, etc.
Click to expand...
Neither the poster nor the author he cites give any documentation for these assertions. I think I’ll stick with Fr. Fortescue on this one.
 
What’s your argument here? St. Francis of Assisi saved the Roman Rite in the 13th century so as to preserve the same Mass the Apostles said, therefore Bugnini was justified in protestantizing it in the 20th?
 
Timothysis said:
Here ya go, sport. I trust that the Franciscans are a reliable source for you?

franciscan-archive.org/liturgicale.html
Click to expand...
Dude, I had already Googled it. That’s precisely what I meant when I said that the original author of the piece didn’t cite any evidence for his assertions. What source does he cite? Or are we supposed to just take it on his ipse dixit?

I am not an expert in liturgical history, but this sounds a little simplistic to me. Such sweeping statements really need to be backed up with adequate evidence.
 
Ockham said:
What’s your argument here? St. Francis of Assisi saved the Roman Rite in the 13th century so as to preserve the same Mass the Apostles said, therefore Bugnini was justified in protestantizing it in the 20th?
Click to expand...
The argument is that the justification of the “Mass of All Time” is a fallacy. If you attend the EF, fine, but try to be a little more scholastic when you argue that the latin Mass is superior because it is of all time, since it really isn’t.

Also, it is your opinion that Archbishop Bugnini is guilty of “protestantizing” the Mass with the Missal of Pope Paul VI. Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence nor transubstantiation. Perhaps you would care to respond to the following:

*“There were no doubt Protestant observers of the working sessions of the Commission my insertion - there were also protestant observers at the Council of Trent]. Protestants do not generally believe Christ can be made present; thus there can be no sacrifice. They only believe in the “priesthood of all believers,” not a ministerial priesthood. Let us see whether Catholic doctrine was watered down in these areas. What did the Vatican II Church officially declare about the Mass in reference to Pauline Rite Mass?”

"Hence, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at the same time and inseparably:
  1. A sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated
  2. a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said “do this in memory of me” (Lk. 22:19).
  3. a sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ. (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Eucharisticum Mysterium, #C1."
In the foreword to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal states:
The Sacrificial character of the Mass was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent in accordance with the universal tradition of the Church (Session 22, Sep. 17, 1562). The Second Vatican Council has enunciated this same teaching once again, and made this highly significant comment: ‘ At the Last Supper our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross until he should come again; (Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy #47). *

And also this:

*"Max Thurian, a Calvinist monk at the time, wrote the following in reference to Protestantism and the Pauline Rite Mass:

“Recently a Protestant commission was given the task of revising the prayers of the Last Supper. It was proposed that they adopt the second Catholic Eucharistic Prayer (inspired by St. Hippolytus). That proposition was rejected, because the commission considered that the doctrine implied in that prayer did not correspond to the actual common faith of Protestants… the invocation of the Spirit on the bread and wine presupposed Transubstantiation.” (Max Thurian, Quoted in La Croix (Paris), June 15, 1977.) Notice that the second Eucharistic prayer was inspired by the ancient tradition of St. Hippolytus. Not only was there not a single non-Catholic who participated in the work of the post-conciliar Commission headed by Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, there were no Protestants back in the 3rd Century, from which this Eucharistic prayer is based on. It is distinctively Catholic."*
 
Timothysis said:
“Recently a Protestant commission was given the task of revising the prayers of the Last Supper. It was proposed that they adopt the second Catholic Eucharistic Prayer (inspired by St. Hippolytus). That proposition was rejected, because the commission considered that the doctrine implied in that prayer did not correspond to the actual common faith of Protestants… the invocation of the Spirit on the bread and wine presupposed Transubstantiation.” (Max Thurian, Quoted in La Croix (Paris), June 15, 1977.) Notice that the second Eucharistic prayer was inspired by the ancient tradition of St. Hippolytus. Not only was there not a single non-Catholic who participated in the work of the post-conciliar Commission headed by Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, there were no Protestants back in the 3rd Century, from which this Eucharistic prayer is based on. It is distinctively Catholic."
Click to expand...
This was already answered on another thread (by Dauphin, as I remember, but now I can’t find it.) He asked if these Protestants are really admitting that this third century prayer actually “presupposed Transubstantiation” and that “it is distinctively Catholic”? If so, it would seem that they have effective nullified their own position, since it’s saying that the ancient Church was distinctively Catholic and believed in transubstantiation. In that same thread, though, there was cited other Protestant sources which declare themselves quite comfortable using the new missal, especially when EP #2 is utilized.
 
Cluny said:
**the Mass of the ages, **

I see red whenever I see this statement.

The Tridentine mass is no more the “mass of the ages” than are the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, Ss Addai and Mari, or Ambrosian rite. All are equally old and venerable.

ALL authorized Eucharistic Liturgies of the Church can justly be called “the mass of the ages.”
Click to expand...
Is it possible for you join a thread without exlclaiming "hey, look at us, we’re Easterners’?

Really its not necessary. We know you exist. But this tendancy you have really takes away from the threads around here.
 
In my opinon, for what it’s worth, if there really was a "need " to monkey with the Mass at Vatican II, they should have simply translated it into the Vernacular, and mandated a Dialogue Mass - Best of both worlds: congregation participates, and understands the prayers without the aid of a missal, but the dignity and traditional practices are all maintained.

The Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form reminds of the saying that “a camel is a horse designed by committee.”
 
Tim, Perhaps you read too much into the phrase, “Mass Of All Time”. I didn’t invent it but use it to distinguish between the EF and OF of the ROMAN rite. I believe it is a fitting description of the Tridentine Mass as it evolved slowly over centuries and fits within the four marks of the Church: one, holy, catholic, apostolic.

In contrast the NO was invented in the late sixties by a dubious bishop and six protestant ministers and is vulnerable to much customized abuse. If you don’t think the NO is a protestant version of the Holy Sacrifice then you should deepen your scholarly studies on the subject. It is no coincidence the percentage of Catholics believing in the Real Presence dropped significantly after the NO became standard. Survey people at a NO and then compare to a Tridentine Mass. I wouldn’t be surprised if 100% of the latter have complete faith.

As other people have pointed out in this forum, it is common for there to be a period of chaos after a council. Perhaps that’s what we have lived through with the NO being the best example of chaos and confusion. When the dust settles and the council is better understood I expect a much more solemn NO or its gradual retirement. The Tridentine Mass will survive essentially unchanged as its design doesn’t allow local customs, clown masses or other abuses to weaken its essence. Thus the Tridentine Mass will have survived through another age, (aquarius) and remain a cherished becon of faith for years to come.
 
JaMc said:
In my opinon, for what it’s worth, if there really was a "need " to monkey with the Mass at Vatican II, they should have simply translated it into the Vernacular, and mandated a Dialogue Mass - Best of both worlds: congregation participates, and understands the prayers without the aid of a missal, but the dignity and traditional practices are all maintained.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty much the story of the ill-fated “interim Missal” of 1965. It wasn’t terrible in and of itself, but about 15 minutes after it appeared, the “spirit of Vatican II” ran amok and the resulting liturgical free-for-all was set in motion.

Been there, done that. Once was more than enough. I don’t voluntarily attend the OF, but I’d rather have the two forms. At least that way I know that the EF is the EF.

BTW, while the old “Dialogue Mass” seems never to have been very popular in the US, it is still an option in the EF all the same.
 
Timothysis said:
"*The Rule of St. Francis obliges that all clerics perform their duties according the “Ordo of the Roman Church”, which is a precise 13th Century liturgical term for the Ancient Roman Rite, which is commonly termed the “Tridentine Mass” today.

St. Francis of Assisi can be rightly regarded as the “savior” of the Ancient Roman Rite,* since, at the time of the foundation of his Order, on account of his desire to live the same religious life that the Apostles lived with Christ Jesus, the three years before He was Crucified and Died for our salvation, he petitioned Pope Innocent III to take as the rite of his Order, the ancient Rite of the Roman Church, which was held to be the “Rite of St. Peter the Apostle”.** During the reign of Innocent III, this rite was only used on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, in the private papal Chapel, for the so-called Gallican Rite was universally employed in the Diocese of Rome.** In addition only 3 known copies of the liturgical books of this ancient rite were still extant in 1215, one of which was falling to pieces. Pope Innocent III granted St. Francis’ request and gave him one of the good, still extant copies of the Sacramentum, Lectionary, Rituale and other books."

So much for the Roman Rite being the “Mass of All Time”.
Click to expand...
I am confused by the Franciscan “order” (orders) today. I’ve tried to learn just how the Franciscans evovled into three orders & have doubts about some of the things I’ve heard from them. I’ve heard much about the social gospel from the secular Franciscans of today, but not much about abortion, a reverent Mass, etc.
newadvent.org/cathen/06217a.htm
Third order
Tradition assigns the year 1221 as the date of the foundation of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, now known as tertiaries. This third order was devised by St. Francis as a sort of middle state between the cloister and the world for those who, wishing to follow in the saint’s footsteps, were debarred by marriage or other ties from entering either the first or second order. There has been some difference of opinion as to how far the saint composed a rule for these tertiaries.** It is generally admitted, however, that the rule approved by Nicholas IV, 18 Aug., 1289 (Litt. “Supra Montem”) does not represent the original rule of the third order. **

Some recent writers have tried to show that the third order, as we now call it, was really the starting point of the whole Franciscan Order. They assert that the Second and Third Orders of St. Francis were not added to the First, but that the three branches, the Friars Minor, Poor ladies, and Brother and Sisters of Penance, grew out of the lay confraternity of penance which was St. Francis’s first and original intention, and were separated from it into different groups by Cardinal Ugolino, the protector of the order, during St. Francis’s absence in the East (1219-21). This interesting, if somewhat arbitrary, theory is not without importance for the early history of all three orders, **but it is not yet sufficiently proven to preclude the more usual account given above, according to which the Franciscan Order developed into three distinct branches, namely, the first, second, and third orders, by process of addition and not by process of division, and this is still the view generally received. **

I’ve also learned that the Pope is trying to “reign in” the Francisans…especially those in Europe. Can anyone tell me whether this is a liberal order (orders), do they allow the TLM., since the Pope has proclaimed it [

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/nov/05112406.htmlnot]() abrogated?

Annoyed liberal commentators have interpreted this unexpected maneuver by the Holy Father as an attempt to ‘reign-in’ the Franciscans in regards to some of their more controversial or unorthodox initiatives, most notably the abuses of their so-called “inter-faith dialogues” that Benedict strongly spoke out against while still Cardinal Ratzinger. One minister of the liberal Democrats of the Left Party, however, complained bitterly that, "Now the Franciscans have their hands tied and can no longer be a bridge between the Church and society

Help??
 
Ockham said:
In contrast the NO was invented in the late sixties by a dubious bishop and six protestant ministers and is vulnerable to much customized abuse. If you don’t think the NO is a protestant version of the Holy Sacrifice then you should deepen your scholarly studies on the subject.
Click to expand...
*"On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.” *

Are you suggesting that the Pauline Mass is not Catholic? Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence, Transubstantiation or the Mass as a Sacrifice. These beliefs are distinctly Catholic. By your reasoning, if the Pauline Mass is a “protestant version” of the Catholic Mass, then the Real Presence, Transubstantiation and the Mass itself as a Sacrifice are not present, since protestants do not believe in such things. Is this what you are suggesting? Are you suggesting that the many Catholics, including myself, who attend the Pauline Mass are not Catholic?
Ockham said:
It is no coincidence the percentage of Catholics believing in the Real Presence dropped significantly after the NO became standard. Survey people at a NO and then compare to a Tridentine Mass. I wouldn’t be surprised if 100% of the latter have complete faith.
Click to expand...
So the Real Presence relies solely on the belief of those in attendance? By your reasoning, if 100% of people believed in UFOs, then they do indeed exist. There has always been some who do/did not believe in the Real Presence; that, in itself, does not make a Truth false.
Ockham said:
As other people have pointed out in this forum, it is common for there to be a period of chaos after a council. Perhaps that’s what we have lived through with the NO being the best example of chaos and confusion. When the dust settles and the council is better understood I expect a much more solemn NO or its gradual retirement. The Tridentine Mass will survive essentially unchanged as its design doesn’t allow local customs, clown masses or other abuses to weaken its essence. Thus the Tridentine Mass will have survived through another age, (aquarius) and remain a cherished becon of faith for years to come.
Click to expand...
And as I have pointed out before, if you prefer the EF over the OF, more power to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top