A question and discussion about History

[Among_Strangers]

I do not self identify as a Traditional Catholic. I have never attended the Extraordinary Form of our Holy Mass. I am curious about it and have found a Church in Baltimore that has the EF each Sunday, but I think curiosity should not be my motivation for attending so I haven’t yet. To be totally honest it’s that and the fact that’s it’s awfully inconvenient to get to; if it were right around the corner I may have already peeked in out of curiosity, just for truthfulness sake.

I don’t often come in this section of the forums because when I do most of the conversations seems a bit not to my taste.

In reading a few of the threads over the years I’ve been here I’ve always wanted to ask this question. Please don’t take this as snippy but in all seriousness.

If Traditional Catholic Spirituality is, at least in part, about preserving the ancient tradition of the Mass as set forth in the Council of Trent (and if that assumption is incorrect please let me know); then why aren’t today’s Traditional Catholics more understanding towards the newer expressions in the Mass? The Trinitine Mass was new at some point in history. It was created, grew, evolved, and eventually promulgated. It is not a liturgy that was given to us before all time from the Divine One Himself. At some point it replaced existing liturgies that were not done in Latin nor used the same formula.

This site catholiclatinmass.org/catholic-mass-history.html says:

On Holy Thursday, Christ instituted the Holy Sacrifice of Mass, commanding His disciples to offer it as well.

The earliest Masses had the character of the Last Supper, with readings from Holy Scripture and the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. During these earliest liturgies, the priest sat at one end of a U-shaped table with the faithful sitting beside him, as it was at the Last Supper.

With these essentials in place, with the Holy Ghost in the life of the Church, and with care from the Bishops of Rome, the form of the Mass in the West took on a Roman character, which established its everlasting beauty. Latin became the universal language of the Church. Gregorian chant, adopted from the chants in the old Synagogue, became standardized and used throughout Mass.

With the rise of Protestantism, some had sought to change the Mass, even those faithful to the Catholic Church. This caused the Council of Trent to call for its restoration (this is why the Traditional Latin Mass is sometimes called the “Tridentine” Mass). This restoration was carried out under the authority of St. Pius V in 1570, who "restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.” (Pope St. Pius V, "Quo Primum

." )

This same form of Mass, which nourished so many souls since the beginning of the Church, can be experienced today in the Traditional Latin Mass. "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too . . . It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops Accompanying “Summorum Pontificum.”)That’s a mighty large jump from 30 to 1570 without any sort of historical look at the development of Liturgy in the Catholic Church in the west. Certainly the earliest Liturgies were in Hebrew or Aramaic. With the infusing of Gentiles into the Church and Greek being the native language, the Liturgy in Greek holds an ancient traditional standard as well, as the Greek Orthodox Church claim.

So, since the Latin Mass is not the Original Form of the liturgy and was new at some point in history, why do Traditional Catholics hold on to it with such ferocity at the expense of what I see as a lack of charity towards other “new” expressions in the Mass?

Here’s to hoping I haven’t just but a bee in the collective bonnet.

Thank you,
A.S.

 

[603304529]

Hi…

The traditional Latin Mass, as promulgated in 1570 was not a new invention. It was the result of looking at the Mass the way it was offered around the world. A few uniformations were made - ie, “these guys do this for this reason - we think thats a good thing - we’ll keep it” and “there’s a few blokes that do it like this - but after much discussion, we reckon thats not right - so leave it out”.

In the time up til 1570, there were alot of different forms of the Mass - but they weren;t radically different.

Then, in 1967 (or whenever it was), the whole lot was thrown in the bin. And a few ratbags got in, and created a whole new one. One that kept some little bits and pieces from the old one, but very different. Pope Ratzinger called it a banal invention of man - or words to that effect.

Old Mass - centuries of organic development.

New Mass - a collection of novelties, put together over a few weeks/months.

There is no comparison… read the Ottaviani Intervention for a more in depth study.

Regards
Mick

 

[Among_Strangers]

Hi…

The traditional Latin Mass, as promulgated in 1570 was not a new invention. It was the result of looking at the Mass the way it was offered around the world. A few uniformations were made - ie, “these guys do this for this reason - we think thats a good thing - we’ll keep it” and “there’s a few blokes that do it like this - but after much discussion, we reckon thats not right - so leave it out”.

In the time up til 1570, there were alot of different forms of the Mass - but they weren;t radically different.

Then, in 1967 (or whenever it was), the whole lot was thrown in the bin. And a few ratbags got in, and created a whole new one. One that kept some little bits and pieces from the old one, but very different. Pope Ratzinger called it a banal invention of man - or words to that effect.

Old Mass - centuries of organic development.

New Mass - a collection of novelties, put together over a few weeks/months.

There is no comparison… read the Ottaviani Intervention for a more in depth study.

Regards
Mick

No comment just yet - just this link to the Ottaviani Intervention for me and those others interested in the reference:

LETTER ON NOVUS ORDO MISSAE by Cardinal Ottaviani

 

[I_Believe]

It’s not the Novus Ordo Missae that is the problem. It’s what it has become. It’s the liberties taken by individual parishes to “do it their way”. That is one of the issues Trent faced. The codified Mass that resulted ensured a uniform liturgy. Today we are right back to square 1. There is supposed to be an Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite, but in truth, there are an infinite # of Ordinary * Forms*. It’s a roll of the dice trying to find a reverent OF Mass.

 

[cam100]

If the changes in the Liturgy had been accompanied by an increase in fervor for the practice of Catholicism, I really don’t think there would be too many “Traditional Catholics” today. As it was, however, the changes gave more flexibility to the clergy and faithful, and pushed more authority down to the lower levels. Unfortunately, this authority was abused all too often, and even the mere fact that so many changes were taking place made it easier to slip unauthorized changes in as well.

The liturgical changes were followed by a period of liturgical abuse and a general falling away from Catholic practice. This sparked an interest in some fervent Catholics in a return to the traditional liturgy and practices.

Most traditional Catholics don’t really have a problem with the basic principle that the liturgy and practices of the Church can and should be changed at times. It was what happened during the recent changes that led them to desire a return to the traditional.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Trinitine Mass was new at some point in history. It was created, grew, evolved, and eventually promulgated. It is not a liturgy that was given to us before all time from the Divine One Himself. At some point it replaced existing liturgies that were not done in Latin nor used the same formula.

You are correct in saying that the Tridentine Mass was not the first liturgy of the Church. However, what we now call the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is a very ancient liturgy that has Apostolic origins. Here is what Pope Pius V stated when he promulgated the EF in 1570.

Taken from the Apostolic Consitution, Quo Primum:
Quo Primum:

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

Emphasis is mine

The Tridentine Mass was never new. Pope Pius V merely restored the Mass to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. The Missal of Pius V was a restoration, not an invention.

The Mass of Paul VI, however, was the invention of a committee. They artificially constructed a Mass according to their own likes and dislikes. They kept the most important elements of the Mass so that it would still be valid, but they scrapped everything that could be eliminated. They incorporated many elements from protestant services in the hopes that a more familiar Mass would aid in ecumenism and conversion. This is why the OF and the Anglican liturgies are almost identical.

I am not saying that I dislike the OF Mass. I attend it quite often. However, it must be said that the OF Mass represents a rupture in the Roman rite. The Roman rite developed naturally over thousands of years; it changed very slightly to meet the needs of the people or to better express Catholic doctrine. The changes were never radical, and they happened very slowly over time. The development of the Roman rite was organic. This organic growth of the Roman rite stopped abruptly in 1970. The Mass was discarded and a new version without historical precedent was put into its place. A committee of liturgists invented a New Order of the Mass. The Tridentine Mass grew and developed organically over time in response to heresies, societal changes, and doctrinal developments. It wasn’t an invention of a single committee; it was a living entity that grew with the Church. It was the Mass of all times. Thousands of Saints received spiritual nourishment from it. Then it was tossed into the bin and replaced, even though most Catholics were content with the Mass they already had.

 

[Eucharisted]

A lot of Traditional Catholics don’t have a grasp on theology. For example, a lot of them declare the NO and EF are two different Mass’s; this is far from the case! The Mass is one, there are just different Forms of it. Another example: a lot of Traditional Catholics say the Church would be better off pre-Vatican Council II, some even saying Apostolic times would be best. This is a big mistake. Jesus did not go backwards on the Way of the Cross and neither dose the Church, His Body! The Church grows, learns, and becomes more holy as she lives the life of Jesus Christ (and this life is lived in the hearts of the righteous souls). So too dose the Mass grow, evolve, and become greater. For the Holy Eucharist, which is the Body of Christ, makes the Church, the Body of Christ, and it is the spiritual fulfillment of the Passover, inseparably united to the dolorous Passion, which is the physical fulfillment of the Passover. So as we advance ahead, so dose the Mass!

This ignorance of theology is why the Traditionalist Movement has survived. It began as a movement to preserve Catholic traditions and to combat the liturgical abuses. But it has since evolved into a self-righteous anti-Vatican Council II movement. And I wonder how this movement will react when liturgical abuses are found in the Tridentine Mass? It will soon happen - Satan always finds a way to cause scandal and chaos in the Mass. But we can combat him with prayer and penance, knowledge and devotion, and, above of all, chairty.

 

[Dempsey1919]

A lot of Traditional Catholics don’t have a grasp on theology

Please prove your statement.

This ignorance of theology is why the Traditionalist Movement has survived. It began as a movement to preserve Catholic traditions and to combat the liturgical abuses. But it has since evolved into a self-righteous anti-Vatican Council II movement.

Traditionalists are not ignorant of theology and I take offence at your comments.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is considered by many to be the founder of the traditionalist movement. Here is some background information about him.

In 1932 Father Lefebvre joined the Holy Ghost Fathers and was sent to Africa as a missionary.

In 1947 he was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Dakar.

In 1948 he was appointed Apostolic Delagate (the Pope’s personal representative) for the whole of French speaking Africa.

In 1955 he became the first Archbishop of Dakar.

In 1960 he was appointed to the Central Preparatory Commission of the Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII.

In 1962 he was appointed Archbishop of Tulle in France.

In 1962 he resigned his bishopric because he had been chosen to become Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers.

He took part in every session of the Second Vatican Council. He signed every document. He later went on to found the SSPX in order to safeguard and defend the the doctrines of the Faith from what he saw as attack from liberals and dissenters.

I am not a member of the SSPX and I don’t attend their masses but I am a traditionalist Catholic. The SSPX are considered by many to be the founders of the traditionalist movement. Their founder was extremely close with many popes, most notably Pope Pius XII. He was not an ignorant man. He was an accomplished theologian. And this accomplished theologian practically started the traditionalist movemnt within the Church.

The traditionalist arguments were developed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Are you saying that he was ignorant of theology?

 

[Dan-Man916]

www.liturgica.com
gives a basic overview of the development of liturgics from the time of the Apostles to the present and compares them to other Eastern Rites that developed.

The idea that some traditionalists have the Tridentine Rite is some sort of pristine rite isn’t true to history.

The exact reason for the reforms of Vatican II in the liturgy was precisely to return back to some of the most ancient practices of the liturgy of the first few centuries.

 

[Among_Strangers]

Thanks to all so far. I hope this conversation keeps going. In just this little bit I think I have a better understanding of Traditional Catholic Spirituality so far as where their love of the EF comes from. It’s been educational for me - and that’s always good.

Please don’t take my questions and queries as pot shots or loaded questions, OK? I hate to have to keep giving disclaimers but I am new to this area of the forum and I am sure my reputation as a wisenheimer precedes me. So …

If I get the gist of it the EF set next to the OF, according to Traditional Catholic Spirituality generally speaking, is that so much of the rich Catholic traditions in the prayers of the Mass were dropped, omitted and this detracts from the reverence and theological basis of the Mass itself. But didn’t the changes that are in the OF bring into the Mass more Scripture? I might be mistaken, but in the EF there is minimal OT readings and in the OF there is always an OT reading. If that’s correct isn’t that change in the Mass quite a good thing? And the change of having the Mass in the vernacular, also a good thing?

 

[Among_Strangers]

www.liturgica.com
gives a basic overview of the development of liturgics from the time of the Apostles to the present and compares them to other Eastern Rites that developed.

The idea that some traditionalists have the Tridentine Rite is some sort of pristine rite isn’t true to history.

The exact reason for the reforms of Vatican II in the liturgy was precisely to return back to some of the most ancient practices of the liturgy of the first few centuries.

Dan, what section do I go in this link to see the comparisons? I’m having a hard time finding it.

 

[PaulinVA]

I am not a member of the SSPX and I don’t attend their masses but I am a traditionalist Catholic. The SSPX are considered by many to be the founders of the traditionalist movement. Their founder was extremely close with many popes, most notably Pope Pius XII. He was not an ignorant man. He was an accomplished theologian. And this accomplished theologian practically started the traditionalist movemnt within the Church.

The traditionalist arguments were developed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Are you saying that he was ignorant of theology?

This is one of the biggest stumbling blocks I have to moving along the spectrum from conservative to traditionalist.

The major traditionalist players have a controversial past and present, to say the least.

I would like to see the abuses end. I would like to see reverence increase and Catholic Identity be something special again. But, I don’t want the NO repudiated, because that implies it was a mistake, and if you say that, for most people it’s “game over” and the Church becomes irrelevant for them.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The major traditionalist players have a controversial past and present, to say the least.

Re-read my earlier post. How did Archbishop Lefebvre have a controversial past? Before he founded the SSPX, he was highly thought of by high ranking officials in the Church. Furthermore, when the SSPX began, it had was legitimately establised according to all legal requirements of the Church.

Cardinal Ottoviani was another traditionalist. How was his past controversial?

Sorry to derail the thread slightly, but I don’t think it’s right to stereotype an entire movement within the Church. Sure, there are many bad apples. But there are also many good people. Traditionalists aren’t bad people. Don’t believe the stereotypes that are have been invented by liberals who are opposed to the traditionalist movement. We are all Catholics at the end of the day; we just prefer different Forms of the same rite.

 

[PaulinVA]

Re-read my earlier post. How did Archbishop Lefebvre have a controversial past? Before he founded the SSPX, he was highly thought of by high ranking officials in the Church. Furthermore, when the SSPX began, it had was legitimately establised according to all legal requirements of the Church.

Cardinal Ottoviani was another traditionalist. How was his past controversial?

Sorry to derail the thread slightly, but I don’t think it’s right to stereotype an entire movement within the Church. Sure, there are many bad apples. But there are also many good people. Traditionalists aren’t bad people. Don’t believe the stereotypes that are have been invented by liberals who are opposed to the traditionalist movement. We are all Catholics at the end of the day; we just prefer different Forms of the same rite.

Dempsey, this is 2009. Things that occurred in 1988 are *in the past. *However they started, SSPX is now controversial. Just read the threads about their present status.

I actually made no judgment as to their goodness or badness. I just said that they were controversial.