Does The Church Have An Obligation To Promote The Latin Mass ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Council of Trent:

As it is meet that holy things should be given holy treatment and as this Sacrifice is the most holy of all, the Catholic Church, so that it may be offered and received with due dignity and reverence, instituted centuries ago, the holy Canon, so free from all error that it holds nothing save what breathes holiness and outward devotion and whatsoever lifts to God the minds of those who offer it. It is, indeed, made up of Our Lord’s own words, the traditions of the Apostles, and the pious teachings of Sovereign Pontiffs.

Can’t say that about the Novus Ordo!
 
FAB said:
For one there was no tabernacle, that is a much laterdevelopment an dthe bishop faced the people, Greek was the venacular and later came Latin, there was not a set written form of the consecration, as far as altar girls I said the ordinary more closely resememble the earliest written description, however since the liturgy developed from Jewish tradittion which women helped with prepartion of the meal, remember Martha, who’s to say. Communion was given by the hand, by deacons, and we know from Paul’s letter and historical accounts that there were women deacons.
I’m sorry if you think this is a joke, but it’s not, it’s written history of the Church.
Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
No, they faced ad orientem. That is a Jewish tradition, actually. Altar girls are an abuse, and deaconesses did not do anything during the Mass but pray with their heads covered. They were the primitive nuns.
 
Ace86 said:
Also, the TLM was basically unchanged since the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great, in about the 6th century. It is indeed much closer to Apostolic Tradition than something invented in 1969!
Click to expand...
The Ordinary form of the mass was not invinted in 1969, put perhaps resdiscovered. I would say that the TDL wasn’t change, it started it’s development with Gregory, nor is it or has has it been the only form of the Eucharistic celebration.

Peace,
FAB
 
FAB said:
The Ordinary form of the mass was not invinted in 1969, put perhaps resdiscovered. I would say that the TDL wasn’t change, it started it’s development with Gregory, nor is it or has has it been the only form of the Eucharistic celebration.
Click to expand...
No you’re woefully wrong. It was invented in 1969 by Archbishop Bugnini. You can look that up for yourself. Every source will tell you that, including Bugnini himself. It was not rediscovered, it was written and put together by him. That’s the truth, not a lie. The TLM started its development in the Apostolic era.
 
Ace86 said:
No, they faced ad orientem. That is a Jewish tradition, actually. Altar girls are an abuse, and deaconesses did not do anything during the Mass but pray with their heads covered. They were the primitive nuns.
Click to expand...
I said the early Eucharist developed from Jewish tradition, I did say the followed it exactly, it developed it’s own traditions the deep understanding of the breaking of bread being the sacrafic of Christ.
Altar girls are here to stay, there is nothing in the rites that indicate it as an abuse.
And no deaconesses were not primitive nuns and from some account, praying was only part of thier duty. Please remember that the order of Deacon was first and still one of service, one of which women could have played a role.

Peace,
FAB
 
Ace86 said:
No you’re woefully wrong. It was invented in 1969 by Archbishop Bugnini. You can look that up for yourself. Every source will tell you that, including Bugnini himself. It was not rediscovered, it was written and put together by him. That’s the truth, not a lie. The TLM started its development in the Apostolic era.
Click to expand...
The Apostolic Era ended with the death of the last Apostol in the first century. Pope Gregory the Great began to develop the 6th century, at least 500 years of separtion.

Peace,
FAB
 
FAB said:
I said the early Eucharist developed from Jewish tradition, I did say the followed it exactly, it developed it’s own traditions the deep understanding of the breaking of bread being the sacrafic of Christ.
Altar girls are here to stay, there is nothing in the rites that indicate it as an abuse.
And no deaconesses were not primitive nuns and from some account, praying was only part of thier duty. Please remember that the order of Deacon was first and still one of service, one of which women could have played a role.
Click to expand...
Yes it came from Jewish tradition. Of course it would organically develop. The New Mass is not an organic development.

Altar girls are an abuse as previous popes have *condemned *the idea. Furthermore, they are only to be used in case there are no boys or young men. I know of no Catholic parishes lacking in that part of the population. So even in the Novus Ordo, they are an abuse!

The discussion of deaconesses is irrelevant. The Church has an obligation to promote the Traditional Latin Mass. Summorum Pontificum states this.
 
Joannm said:
No one is forcing priests to learn Latin
Click to expand...
They should be.

“The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well” (CIC, can. 249)
 
FAB said:
The Apostolic Era ended with the death of the last Apostol in the first century. Pope Gregory the Great began to develop the 6th century, at least 500 years of separtion.
Click to expand...
And the Mass did not change - it organically developed in those 500 years! They passed on what they received - that is the ultimate meaning of tradition.
 
Ace86 said:
Yes it came from Jewish tradition. Of course it would organically develop. The New Mass is not an organic development.

Altar girls are an abuse as previous popes have *condemned *the idea. Furthermore, they are only to be used in case there are no boys or young men. I know of no Catholic parishes lacking in that part of the population. So even in the Novus Ordo, they are an abuse!

The discussion of deaconesses is irrelevant. The Church has an obligation to promote the Traditional Latin Mass. Summorum Pontificum states this.
Click to expand...
If you truly want to know about the development the Mass, let me suggest “The Church at Prayer:The Eucharist” by Robert Cabie. It is extensivly footnoted and is available on Amazon for about $19.00.

Popes are not infalable, so even if they did condenm something…and it is now allowed by the pope, so which ones do want to say is correct.

You want to put the church in some kind of box that can never change, that a very good view. The Church changes, a study of our history shows that both good and bad. It will change in the future with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
FAB
 
Ace86 said:
I believe that each parish (if possible architecturally speaking) should provide the TLM every Sunday morning and for every Holy Day of Obligation at a minimum.
Click to expand...
Lack of architecture shouldn’t even be used as an excuse:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Every church has the structural ability to celebrate the TLM. The Priests just need to have the willingness and patience to learn.
 
No thanks, I’ve plenty of traditional sources about that. So something can be condemned, and then not? Sounds strange to me. The Church only changes when it needs to, not just because. The Holy Spirit will not guide it into error. The Novus Ordo Mass does not have the right to even exist.
FAB said:
If you truly want to know about the development the Mass, let me suggest “The Church at Prayer:The Eucharist” by Robert Cabie. It is extensivly footnoted and is available on Amazon for about $19.00.

Popes are not infalable, so even if they did condenm something…and it is now allowed by the pope, so which ones do want to say is correct.

You want to put the church in some kind of box that can never change, that a very good view. The Church changes, a study of our history shows that both good and bad. It will change in the future with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
 
FAB said:
The Apostolic Era ended with the death of the last Apostol in the first century. Pope Gregory the Great began to develop the 6th century, at least 500 years of separtion.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
It is very hard to deal with people who do not understand or know the actual facts.
 
mardukm said:
We have an obligation to obey our bishops, who have it within their power and authority to regulate the divine things of the Church, such as the Mass.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
How many Bishops obey the rules and laws of our church? They constantly go against Vatican authority.

:mad:
 
FAB said:
You want to put the church in some kind of box that can never change, that a very good view. The Church changes, a study of our history shows that both good and bad. It will change in the future with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
You’re the one who’s saying we need to go back to the “Early Church” traditions. You’re the one saying that organic development is bad. The Tridentine Mass DOES look different from the earliest Liturgy.

But the Novus Ordo is even further from the early Liturgy. It is inherently simplified and less dignified. Look at the Divine Liturgy of St. James. It takes 3 hours long to do, and is extremely complex. It is the oldest form of Liturgy still in use today. So the simplifications of the Novus Ordo are a false way of thinking.

Organic development is good. It seems that all the Vatican II people will go on and on about how the Eastern Churches should go back to their original and equally dignified traditions. However, as they are ready to promote the Eastern traditions, they are just as ready to call the Latin traditions unhistorical and treat them as though they do not deserve just as much dignity and respect. It seems to me like a modern iconoclasm.

God bless.
 
mardukm said:
We have an obligation to obey our bishops, who have it within their power and authority to regulate the divine things of the Church, such as the Mass.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
According to the SP, if you are a priest, I believe the Holy Father has left which Mass you wish to say up to you. Obedience to the Pope, if you will, supersedes obedience to the bishop in such matters. This is not an indult or a generous gesture by the Pope either; it is your right.
 
Ace86 said:
Actually, you’re wrong here. He does make it obligatory; it’s just a bit subtle, much to the chagrin of the modernists, liberals, and Novus Ordo sympathizers:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage.

I disagree.

“Must be given due honor” is not the same as “must promote.” Nowhere does Benedict make it obligatory on all Catholics. In fact, he states that the “Ordinary Form” (as he identifies it) i.e. the Missal of Paul VI is the way most Catholics worship.
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
According to the SP, if you are a priest, I believe the Holy Father has left which Mass you wish to say up to you. Obedience to the Pope, if you will, supersedes obedience to the bishop in such matters. This is not an indult or a generous gesture by the Pope either; it is your right.
Click to expand...
What’s “SP,” and do you have a link that I can read? Thanks.

Blessings
 
Ace86 said:
Yes, it makes its celebration mandatory. The Pope ultimately wants it in every parish. .
Click to expand...
Where exactly did the Pope proclaim this? Certainly NOT in Summorum Pontificum. So…where?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top