O
- Status
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The mystery of faith’s entrance into the canon is of uncertain origin. Merely because it had become a part of tradition by the time of Trent does not mean that anyone knows where it comes from. Certainly it existed in 1179. It is a matter of just when it came about that nobody is sure about. Fr. Vagaggini was one of the most respected liturgists prior to Vatican II. Fr. Jungmann, who also worked on the Pauline Missal, has been called by Benedict XVI “one of the truly great liturgists of our century.” The point is not that it was bad to be there, or that it was contrary to tradition. Rather, the point is that nobody knows just when it entered into tradition, as it was not there in the earlier roman liturgies that we possess.
A
AJV
Guest
They were well aware of Innocent III’s words. That was, however, what Innocent III believed because at that time it was even held that the Canon itself was handed down by the Apostles.
The same can be applied to so many other things- such as the traditio instrumentorum which was also held to be Apostolic until later research showed that it wasn’t.
That is the orthodox meaning which Paul VI interpreted it. But there are indeed other meanings, as is evident from the query to Innocent III. Even Protestant controversialists in attacking the Canon made use of it to allege that the Real Presence was only spiritual. And even among orthodox expositors, the meaning differs - see for example, the interpretation of the Angelic Doctor in the Summa.
If you notice, the Catechism of Trent does not pronounce on the origin of the phrase - it only asserts that it was taught by tradition, but refrains from attributing it to the apostles or Christ
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
It seems as if Cardinal Ratzinge has said different things at different times. I’m sure you’re familiar with this quote (repeated in First Things magazine):
Ratzinger made no secret of his dissatisfaction with what was done under Paul VI. In the preface to the French edition of Klaus Gamber’s book, Ratzinger wrote: “One cannot manufacture a liturgical movement but one can contribute to its development … J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as ‘a liturgy which is the fruit of development.’ … What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process–with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. [Gamber] showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history from the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery.”
goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-6028789_ITM
And this is what Monsignor Gamber had to say regarding the TLM:
“In the final analysis, this means that in the future the traditional rite of the Mass must be retained in the Roman Catholic Church, and not only as a means to accommodate older priests and lay people, but as the primary Liturgical form for the celebration of the Mass. It must become once more the norm of our faith and the symbol of Catholic unity throughout the world, a rock of stability in a period of upheaval and change.”
sacramentary.blogspot.com/2007/06/reform-of-roman-liturgy-msgr-klaus.html
He said other things as well regarding the reform of the liturgy but I’ll leave it at that.
God bless.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I really don’t see any disagreement here with Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that I quoted earlier. Therein, he said (I did not quote the first part) that he was grateful for the Pauline Missal and viewed it as a legitimate development, but viewed it as very problematic that it was introduced in a way giving the impression that it was something new rather than a development. He said that in the future, it must be made clear that it is not a new Missal, but simply a renewed version of the same Missal that had been used all along.
In the quote you provide, he doesn’t say that the Pauline Missal was a fabrication or banal - which would be entirely inconsistent with declaring it a development and something he was grateful for - but he says that the movement and the process was inorganic. Now admittedly the statement can be read as if he meant what you put him forth as having meant. It is entirely possible that he did mean this. However, if we are to see him as a man with consistent and developed thoughts - which he clearly is - then I think we ought to read this statement in the light of the other one, where he states in no uncertain terms that the Pauline Missal is not a new thing, but rather the means by which it was introduced was as if it were new.
Peace and God bless
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
It seems pretty plain what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying. And of course if the process itself is inorganic then the product will be as well.
And conversely, we can also read the statement you posted in the light of this one and attempt to make them consistent.
You quoted Cardinal Ratzinger:
“In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer.”
So my question is, a new edition of the missal? And does this speak of a reform of the reform, which would be entirely consistent with his statement in the forward to Monsignor Gamber’s book, as it’s implying that the revision done after Vatican II does not demonstrate this continuity, and that’s why we need a new edition (of the missal).
God bless.
God bless.
M
MarieO2
Guest
It’s not a democracy for heaven sakes.
The WE believe doesn’t get it. You are not the Majesterium.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Surely people here realize that the Mass of Paul VI can licitly be recited/chanted in Latin? That in fact the use of the vernacular, according to the Council, was supposed to be extraordinary and reserved for cases where the use of Latin would be an impediment?
M
Margarite
Guest
You know what I have noticed?
The TLM only people are often like the pharisees, they are so focused on tradition, and on the rules that they forget the purpose. It is like being unable to see the forest through the trees.
VatII was a huge step for the Church. Unfortunately it occurred during the 60’s when the hippies were in charge of everything. I mean where do you think the holding hands at the Our Father came from?
It was just bad timing, not a bad thing.
I completely agree with you! I love the TLM as much as the next guy, but just because I love it doesn’t make the NO evil. I love a beautiful NO almost as much. Just because there are abuses does not mean that the NO is evil.
Just look at EWTN’s mass, or the pope’s mass, both are beautiful and both are NO. Now if you go on youtube and look at the Barney mass, it is bad, yes, but that just means that us trads need to stick together not yell about validity, when the pope has stated that the NO is valid, and we are bound as Catholics to follow the Pope.
I have to go now, but I will respond later.
The TLM only people are often like the pharisees, they are so focused on tradition, and on the rules that they forget the purpose. It is like being unable to see the forest through the trees.
VatII was a huge step for the Church. Unfortunately it occurred during the 60’s when the hippies were in charge of everything. I mean where do you think the holding hands at the Our Father came from?
It was just bad timing, not a bad thing.
I completely agree with you! I love the TLM as much as the next guy, but just because I love it doesn’t make the NO evil. I love a beautiful NO almost as much. Just because there are abuses does not mean that the NO is evil.
Just look at EWTN’s mass, or the pope’s mass, both are beautiful and both are NO. Now if you go on youtube and look at the Barney mass, it is bad, yes, but that just means that us trads need to stick together not yell about validity, when the pope has stated that the NO is valid, and we are bound as Catholics to follow the Pope.
I have to go now, but I will respond later.
A
AJV
Guest
Latin is not the only reason why people like the Traditional Mass. I think actually if someone puts together a list, Latin will be some distance down.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
I’d like to see the exact wording of the competent decree. (I’ll get arount to it eventually…)
I would be inclined to think that in today’s America, and most other parts of the world, where Latin is no longer taught in highschool or in many colleges, Latin is almost always an impediment.
Interestingly, my Baptist grandfather learned Latin in high school–public high school. And there were not many Catholics in Oklahoma at that time.
CC
O
OraLabora
Guest
From
CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 4, 1963"
"36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 4, 1963"
"36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
- But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
- These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
- Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Right, but this doesn’t say anything at all about “extraordinary circumstances,” or whether or not latin is “an impediment.” It simply says that Latin is to be preserved, and because the vernacular can be beneficial its use ought to be expanded.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I guess it boils down to a translation issue. I have the 16 conciliar documents in French (my mother tongue) and in French it says, if I translate directly: “The use of the Latin language, except by particular right, shall be conserved in the the Latin rites”.
So the English says that the Latin right by law remains in force, and the French says that the Latin right remains in force unless right has been granted otherwise…
No wonder Bible translators have such a tough time!
So the English says that the Latin right by law remains in force, and the French says that the Latin right remains in force unless right has been granted otherwise…
No wonder Bible translators have such a tough time!
M
MarieO2
Guest
Considering few priest alive today are familiar with Latin…I’d say that makes it an impediment almost always.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Well, at least for a francophone like me, Latin is pretty darned easy to learn to read and chant. I sing in a Gregorian Chant choir and even though I maybe only understand 30-50% of what I am singing, I can certainly read, pronounce and sing it properly. So I would say that this isn’t an impediment except maybe for writing a homily; and of course, understanding the readings properly.
However it is pretty easy to master the understanding of all the parts of the Mass and the common chants like the Gloria and the Credo. You don’t have to be able to converse in Latin!
I am a Benedictine secular oblate as well; the abbey where I attend Mass every Sunday chants the entire Mass in Plainchant, Latin is used for the Introit, the Kyriale (except Greek for the Kyrie itself of course), the Gloria, the Gradual, the Alleluia, the Credo, the Offertory hymn and the Communion hymn. Readings, prayers, homilies, Eucharistic Prayer, etc, are in French plainchant. Even the readings are chanted, not read!
It is a very beautiful and reverential liturgy according to the rubrics of the post-Conciliar Mass.
However it is pretty easy to master the understanding of all the parts of the Mass and the common chants like the Gloria and the Credo. You don’t have to be able to converse in Latin!
I am a Benedictine secular oblate as well; the abbey where I attend Mass every Sunday chants the entire Mass in Plainchant, Latin is used for the Introit, the Kyriale (except Greek for the Kyrie itself of course), the Gloria, the Gradual, the Alleluia, the Credo, the Offertory hymn and the Communion hymn. Readings, prayers, homilies, Eucharistic Prayer, etc, are in French plainchant. Even the readings are chanted, not read!
It is a very beautiful and reverential liturgy according to the rubrics of the post-Conciliar Mass.
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
So Pope Innocent had as agenda? He said it was handed down to the Apostles by Christ. He was a liar? The Council of Trent seemed to agree. Its orgin wasn’t even a question at Trent, Pius V used those words in De Defictibus.
So what is the meaning of "Mystery of Faith " in the New Mass?
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
=AJV;3674960]
What is the meaning of Mystery of Faith in the New Mass?
Of course the Catechism of Trent does not pronounce on the orgin. It wasn’t in question The Catechsim does not pronounce on the Trinity either, now does it? I wonder why?
J
JReducation
Guest
If we look at the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church the mystery of faith is the mystery of Christ which the liturgy proclaims. As we all know, the most solemen proclamation of the mysery of Christ is the moment of consecration. It would seem appropriate that the words that proclaim the mystery of Christ be pronounced be proclaimed as soon as Christ becomes physically present on the altar.
What the Church has done is simply remove the proclamation from the words of consecration, so that the words of consecration stand alone and insert them immediately following the consecration, without interruption, so that the unity of the words of consecration and the mystery of faith/Christ continue to be united as they have always been. This is not a break with traditions. This is a rearranging of the wording for the sake of clarity.
As the Chuch expands to include more and more cultures she will always have to clarify her language for the benefit of all believers and so that it speaks to every culture. Attempting to speak to every culture is not a violation of Church tradition. It is consistent with the Church’s missionary and pastoral tradition.
1204 The celebration of the liturgy, therefore, should correspond to the genius and culture of the different peoples. In order that the mystery of Christ be “made known to all the nations . . . to bring about the obedience of faith,” it must be proclaimed, celebrated, and lived in all cultures in such a way that they themselves are not abolished by it, but redeemed and fulfilled: It is with and through their own human culture, assumed and transfigured by Christ, that the multitude of God’s children has access to the Father, in order to glorify him in the one Spirit.
**1200 From the first community of Jerusalem until the parousia, it is the same Paschal mystery that the Churches of God, faithful to the apostolic faith, celebrate in every place. The mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse. **
Why we keep going back to the Catechism of Trent when the contents of Trent have been written in language that we can better understand today, is beyond me.
JR
What the Church has done is simply remove the proclamation from the words of consecration, so that the words of consecration stand alone and insert them immediately following the consecration, without interruption, so that the unity of the words of consecration and the mystery of faith/Christ continue to be united as they have always been. This is not a break with traditions. This is a rearranging of the wording for the sake of clarity.
As the Chuch expands to include more and more cultures she will always have to clarify her language for the benefit of all believers and so that it speaks to every culture. Attempting to speak to every culture is not a violation of Church tradition. It is consistent with the Church’s missionary and pastoral tradition.
1204 The celebration of the liturgy, therefore, should correspond to the genius and culture of the different peoples. In order that the mystery of Christ be “made known to all the nations . . . to bring about the obedience of faith,” it must be proclaimed, celebrated, and lived in all cultures in such a way that they themselves are not abolished by it, but redeemed and fulfilled: It is with and through their own human culture, assumed and transfigured by Christ, that the multitude of God’s children has access to the Father, in order to glorify him in the one Spirit.
**1200 From the first community of Jerusalem until the parousia, it is the same Paschal mystery that the Churches of God, faithful to the apostolic faith, celebrate in every place. The mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse. **
Why we keep going back to the Catechism of Trent when the contents of Trent have been written in language that we can better understand today, is beyond me.
JR
- Status