Changes in the Traditional Mass

[ProVobis]

You have to remember that the will of the people is not what drives the Church, but revelation and discipline as interpreted by the Pope and the bishops in communioin with him.

I don’t buy this. Why this sudden revelation after 2000 years of organic developments within the Mass to bring about the logical flow of the propers in their relation to the epistle and gospel? Even the word “epistle” was removed. Where did that revelation come from? The TV set which was probably a more modern “revelation” than anything else that came along in the 60’s and 70’s?

 

[LilyM]

I don’t buy this. Why this sudden revelation after 2000 years of organic developments within the Mass to bring about the logical flow of the propers in their relation to the epistle and gospel? Even the word “epistle” was removed. Where did that revelation come from? The TV set which was probably a more modern “revelation” than anything else that came along in the 60’s and 70’s?

Why a sudden revelation in the 1840s about the Immaculate Conception prompting ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ instead of leaving the teaching as it previously had been, somewhat murky and undefined (and hence susceptible to disagreement from, among others, Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas?) Why not just leave it to ‘naturally’ and ‘organically’ define itself without Papal help?

Or the much more hotly-contested ‘sudden’ revelation at Vatican I about Papal Infallibility? Why not leave that particular bit of teaching to also ‘organically’ define itself?

 

[JReducation]

Why a sudden revelation in the 1840s about the Immaculate Conception prompting ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ instead of leaving the teaching as it previously had been, somewhat murky and undefined (and hence susceptible to disagreement from, among others, Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas?) Why not just leave it to ‘naturally’ and ‘organically’ define itself without Papal help?

Or the much more hotly-contested ‘sudden’ revelation at Vatican I about Papal Infallibility? Why not leave that particular bit of teaching to also ‘organically’ define itself?

Amen to what you said. You forgot one more. What about Mercy Sunday or the canonization of saints, aren’t those insights into revelation? But did they develop organically? Did we organically develop a faith that Mother Teresa and John XXIII are most likely in Heaven or did our faith get a little boost from the Holy See?

JR

PS. The word epistle has never been taken away. It was translated into modern languages. “Letter” and “Epistola” are the same thing. Epistle is an anglocism of a Greek word.

 

[Cat]

When you refer to “organic development of the Church,” are you referring to the fact that the Church grows and matures? Or is this a term for something else. Could someone please define and explain “organic development?”

Isn’t there a section of the Catechism that deals with this?

Are there encyclicals, books, or other documents that define and discuss the idea that the Church grows and yet doesn’t change? To me, that’s a tough concept to wrap my mind around. I think I get it, but then it slips away.

Thanks for the assistance!

 

[ProVobis]

Amen to what you said. You forgot one more. What about Mercy Sunday or the canonization of saints, aren’t those insights into revelation?

I could add a few more Sundays too but that’s not the point. There had not been a major overhaul of the calendar, the propers, and all of the Catholic practices all done within such a short time until this sudden “revelation” you brought up.

PS. The word epistle has never been taken away.

And neither was St. Philomena but where do you hear of her anymore? You don’t even hear the word “propers” or “Sundays after Pentecost.” They even changed the Sundays after Easter to “Sundays of Easter.” The anti-trads didn’t seem to miss a beat.
And this was because of some “revelation”?

 

[JReducation]

When you refer to “organic development of the Church,” are you referring to the fact that the Church grows and matures? Or is this a term for something else. Could someone please define and explain “organic development?”

Isn’t there a section of the Catechism that deals with this?

Are there encyclicals, books, or other documents that define and discuss the idea that the Church grows and yet doesn’t change? To me, that’s a tough concept to wrap my mind around. I think I get it, but then it slips away.

Thanks for the assistance!

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”. So “that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit.” Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.

If you notice, the Church tells us that our faith and reason go hand in hand. We know that reason is not static. As humanity matures it comes to a greater understanding of truth.

The truth does not change. It is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. What changes is our knowledge of truth and our understanding with the passing of each generation. This where we speak of the Church’s growth.

The Church’s growth in understanding revelation is a sign that revelation is real or believeable. If everything that could be known about God was already visible to us, then there would be no further understanding than what we have.

This poses a problem, because there is much that we do not understand about God. If God were to leave us with the little understanding that we have of him, would he be a merciful God? The answer is no.

A merciful God wants to be known and loved. Therefore he continues to allow us to understand him better as time passes, both individually and as a community of believers. The truth does not change. We understand it better and we can recognize better as we mature in the faith. This is the true meaning of growth, a deaper and broaer understanding of truth.

For example, the Church struggled with many explanations of the Immaculate Conception since its birth. Finally, it came to a satisfactory understanding and declared it a dogma to be believed by all. This satisfactory understanding did not happen over night. It took centuries.

It took almost 400 years for the Church to fully understand that Jesus was trully God and truly man and that the two natures co-exist in him, but never mix or blend. Each retains its integrity, much like oil and vinegar. They stay separate even in the same bottle. This is growth. The truth about the Hypostatic union of natures in Christ was revealed to the Apostles by Jesus himself, but it took 400 years for the Church to understand it and be able to teach it without confusion. Reason allows us to reach these points where what was once ambiguous or confusing, becomes clear and believeable.

It the passage for ambiguity to clarity that we define as growth. Growth is the proof that something is alive. The Church’s growth is proof that the Mystical Body is alive. If we were still struggling with the same questions as Christians of the 4th century, we would not be very alive. We are struggling with some of those questions and some new ones, but we have also reached some clearer understanding of other points of revelation.

This kind of growth is what anthropologists call organic development. Theologians have borrowed the term from anthropology, because the Church is about people and their relationship with God. It’s appropriate to use some language from the science that studies human growth and development.

Hope this helps.

JR

 

[ProVobis]

JR, great sermon but the only thing I can think of in response to what you said is that certain atheists (or the presense of) have been known to stir up some “pro God” thinking from those who might not have thought about it. Should we thank God for these atheists then?

 

[JReducation]

I could add a few more Sundays too but that’s not the point. There had not been a major overhaul of the calendar, the propers, and all of the Catholic practices all done within such a short time until this sudden “revelation” you brought up.

And neither was St. Philomena but where do you hear of her anymore? You don’t even hear the word “propers” or “Sundays after Pentecost.” They even changed the Sundays after Easter to “Sundays of Easter.” The anti-trads didn’t seem to miss a beat.
And this was because of some “revelation”?

You have to understand what the Church is trying to do. It is not trying to change itself. It is trying to say the same thing that has always been said but in language that is clearer and that is more comprehensible to the newer generation.

There is not sin or fault in rewording something as long as you don’t take away its essence.

As you said, there had not been a major overhaul of the calender and the propers for a long time. The Church explained this very clearly. Over the course of the centuries many saints were canonized and never added to the liturgical calendar. The Church said that she wanted to add the newer saints because their lives are easier for modern man to relate to and because they were unknown to the Catholic community. There was no firing of the the saints who occupied those days on the old calendar.

For example, most Americans didn’t know who Elizabeth Ann Seton was. With all of the single mothers, Protestants, converts and teachers that we have in the USA, it was very proper to give St. Elizabeth Ann Seton a day on the liturgical calendar. Her life has many elements that Catholics and Protestants can understand and which may attract some Protestants to Catholicism. It also speaks to the many single parents of our society. She’s one example of many saints that replaced older saints on the liturgical calendar. There was a valid reason for it.

The Sundays after Easter were changed to the Sundays of Easter, becaues Easter had always been celebrated as a season in the ancient church and it still is in the Orthodox Church. They have preserved the Easter Season. At some point in Europe, Easter was reduced to one Sunday a year. Yet, Catholic theology insisted that the Easter mystery runs from the resurrection to the feast of Pentecost. We had a dichotomy between what theology teaches and how we organized our calendar. It was interesting, because the prayers for the weeks between the Resurrectioin and Pentecost reflected the Easter spirit and spoke about the resurrection and what happened during those 50 days, but the name that we used did not fit what we believed and what we prayed.

We prayed Easter prayers and our theology taught about an Easter Season, but our calendar said, Sunday after Easter. So, which was it? Was it the Easter Season or was Easter over? If Easter was over, why did we continue to wear the white vestments of Easter, keep the paschal candle in the sanctuary and light it every Sunday between the resurrection and pentecost, and why did the readings of every mass have to be the ones that narrated the story of those 50 days? It did not make sense to modern man.

This is why the change from sundays after Easter to Sundays of Easter came about. The theology and the liturgy didn’t change, the name of the season was recovered.

This is part of revelation. These truths have always been there, but we had yet to recognize them. They had been revealed to us. There is nothing new in the changing of the liturgical calendar to include saints that are closer to the people of a specific time and place. Revelatioin has always taught us that the saints are what they are. They are for the veneration and admiration of the faithful. What we realized is that the reason why God allows us to recognize saints is for the sake of evangelization too. The best way to evangelize is with role models that are similar to those who are to receive the message or role models that the receiver can relate to.

The change of which you speak, the Sundays after Easter fits into revelation as well. It had already been revealed to us that the Easter Season extended from the Resurrection to Pentecost. This has been a belief of the Church from the beginning. The Eurpeans lost the proper language. What the Church did was recover the proper language for something that was present in revelation from the early days of the Church, the Easter Season.

JR

 

[Genesis315]

If you like fire and brimstone type sermons, the newer lectionary actually will give more opportunity for that…

Here’s a good article on the subject:

rtforum.org/lt/lt116.html

 

[ProVobis]

If you like fire and brimstone type sermons, the newer lectionary actually will give more opportunity for that…

Here’s a good article on the subject:

rtforum.org/lt/lt116.html

Maybe we should just forget the Mass and make Sunday a Bible study class. Doesn’t the Mass itself have a much deeper Scriptural meaning/basis? I would like to think so.

 

[ProVobis]

For example, most Americans didn’t know who Elizabeth Ann Seton was. With all of the single mothers, Protestants, converts and teachers that we have in the USA, it was very proper to give St. Elizabeth Ann Seton a day on the liturgical calendar. Her life has many elements that Catholics and Protestants can understand and which may attract some Protestants to Catholicism. It also speaks to the many single parents of our society. She’s one example of many saints that replaced older saints on the liturgical calendar. There was a valid reason for it.

Then maybe we should make it mandatory for everyone to visit Emmitsburg in Maryland. Quite a beautiful place.

 

[rien]

Maybe we should just forget the Mass and make Sunday a Bible study class. Doesn’t the Mass itself have a much deeper Scriptural meaning/basis? I would like to think so.

You can’t be serious with that comment? It is really scary. So we can dispense with the Bible altogether. The Mass is more important? The early chritans broke bread and had fellowship. They had no latin mass. Or EF. This is all going into legalism which is condemned in Scripture.

Your salvation is not based on attending an EF. It actually may be hindered by it in some cases seeing where radical traditionalists have gone.

Just be careful not to drift into heresy nin your apparent seeing of the Latin mass as the be and end all of Chritian/Catholic faith/beleif and practice. read Scripture - this is exactly the kind of legalism jesus condemned the Pharisees for.

Is your faith in Scripture ot the Latin/EF Mass? I you could just have one?

 

[JReducation]

You can’t be serious with that comment? It is really scary. So we can dispense with the Bible altogether. The Mass is more important? The early chritans broke bread and had fellowship. They had no latin mass. Or EF. This is all going into legalism which is condemned in Scripture.

Your salvation is not based on attending an EF. It actually may be hindered by it in some cases seeing where radical traditionalists have gone.

Just be careful not to drift into heresy nin your apparent seeing of the Latin mass as the be and end all of Chritian/Catholic faith/beleif and practice. read Scripture - this is exactly the kind of legalism jesus condemned the Pharisees for.

Is your faith in Scripture ot the Latin/EF Mass? I you could just have one?

Wait a minute, you can’t have mass without scripture. The teaching and tradition of the Church is that there are three liturgies and two of them make up the mass.

How can you have mass without the Liturgy of the Word?

There are some exceptions for this, but they are far and few between.

JR

 

[ProVobis]

The Mass is more important?
…
Is your faith in Scripture ot the Latin/EF Mass? I you could just have one?

I think in order to understand the Mass (either EF or OF) one needs to see not only the Old Testament and the New but the connection between the two. In other words, the Sacrifice of the Mass should be the bigger picture of Scripture. I’m certainly not opposed to the gospels and epistles, though, and I don’t understand your questions or concerns. I merely find it pointless to argue whether a set of readings repeated yearly is better or worse than another set of readings repeated every three years. Either way we’re still spending the same amount in Church if we attend every Sunday.

 

[JReducation]

ProVobis and Rien

I’ve lost you.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

ProVobis and Rien

I’ve lost you.

Amen! I dont know where this thread went.

 

[LilyM]

I think in order to understand the Mass (either EF or OF) one needs to see not only the Old Testament and the New but the connection between the two. In other words, the Sacrifice of the Mass should be the bigger picture of Scripture. I’m certainly not opposed to the gospels and epistles, though, and I don’t understand your questions or concerns. I merely find it pointless to argue whether a set of readings repeated yearly is better or worse than another set of readings repeated every three years. Either way we’re still spending the same amount in Church if we attend every Sunday.

So you don’t see scripture as having any inherent importance? You don’t see increasing the amount of scripture Catholics are exposed to as good in and of itself? Wasn’t it St Jerome who said ‘ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ’ - how do you square that with your attitude?

That being the case, why would it NOT matter that we get taught as much scripture as possible in the Mass, since it’s the only time many Catholics will learn about it?

 

[AJV]

The reason why the readings have to be changed is because Pope Benedict does not want the Tridentine mass to be a separate rite, but another form of the Roman Rite.

To protect the unity of the rite, the readings, the breviary and the liturgical calendar have to be the same.

Besides, if we are going to change the breviary, what’s the point in having a different missal?

 

[AJV]

So you don’t see scripture as having any inherent importance? You don’t see increasing the amount of scripture Catholics are exposed to as good in and of itself? Wasn’t it St Jerome who said ‘ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ’ - how do you square that with your attitude?

That being the case, why would it NOT matter that we get taught as much scripture as possible in the Mass, since it’s the only time many Catholics will learn about it?

But that’s the thing. If more Scripture is wanted, it could be added into the ferial cycle (which the TLM doesn’t have) rather than disturbing the Sunday cycle. Moreover, the “more Scripture” thing is true in a way, and also not true in another. As Fr. Boyd indicated above, certain periscopes are to rigid in the A,B,C Matthew, Mark, Luke idea such that periscopes which give us less detail, or are less suitable are often read.

Moreover, it does seem a tad unfair that everything is being changed in the TLM/EF and nothing in the NO/OF, don’t you think?

 

[ProVobis]

So you don’t see scripture as having any inherent importance?

Everything I say gets twisted so I give up. This discussion isn’t going anywhere and I’ve got to prepare myself for am Mass.