Holy mass defined council of trent

[NeelyAnn]

Note: I just came across this and have not had time to read through it yet. However, it looks as if it would make for interesting discussion, so I am posting it.

HOLY MASS DEFINED COUNCIL OF TRENT

**THE MOST HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS **

1. What is the Mass Essentially?

The Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas tell us:

THE MASS IS BOTH SACRIFICE AND SACRAMENT. IT IS THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY, RE-ENACTED BY JESUS CHRIST IN AN UNBLOODY MANNER, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF ONE EMPOWERED BY HIM. AND AS A SACRAMENT, JESUS GIVES HIMSELF TO THE RECIPIENT, IN HOLY COMMUNION, AS FOOD FOR THE SOUL.

1. The central figure then is Jesus Christ, sacramentally and really present, both priest and victim, made present through the ministry of one chosen and empowered by Himself, namely a Catholic priest.
2. The central action, as at calvary, is Jesus Christ offering Himself to the Father in heaven, so to apply the fruits of the bloody sacrifice for those present and for the whole Church, through this new and perpetual sacrifice.
3. Dispositions required for fruitful participation in the Mass are : a. Being, contrite, penitent, and humble b. Having a sincere heart and upright faith, c. A reverential fear of God, and d. Reverence and devotion.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT clearly and explicitly, through the light of the Holy Spirit, gave to the Church an in-depth teaching on the true nature and essence of the Mass (DB 938, 940):

“That He might leave to His own beloved spouse, the Church , a visible
sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody
sacrifice, to be accomplished once on the cross, might be represented
and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and by
which its saving power might be applied to the remission of those sins
which we daily commit … And forasmuch in this divine sacrifice which
is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who once offered Himself
in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, is contained and immolated
in an unbloody manner, the Holy Synod teaches that this sacrifice (of the
Mass) is truly propitiatory, and that by means thereof this is effected
that we might obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid if we draw
near to God contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and an upright
faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation
thereof (of the Mass), granting grace and the gift of penitence, forgives
even heinous crimes and sins. For the Victim is one and the same, and
the One who now offers by the ministry of the priests is the very same
One who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of the
offering being different. The fruits of that oblation - namely, that bloody
one - are received most plentifully by this unbloody one.”

RESTORATION OF HOLY MASS

Presuming a clear and healthy mind, anyone who carefully observes the usual celebration of the New Order of Mass today, and evaluates it by the true nature, essence and dispositions needed for fruitfulness, as set forth by the Council of Trent and the Holy Spirit, as above seen, is forced by common sense to say that there exists a great and urgent need for restoration.

This website firmly holds that except by fixing the ambiguities, defects, and errors - at least implicit - , contained in the documents of Vatican II, which Council is the authority and foundation for the New Order of Mass, it is impossible to properly and permanently restore the Mass.

Click Here, Then Scroll down to the bottom of the page and Click where it says 'Click Here, Then Click ‘OPEN’, to Read 30 Page Paper ’ to Read for this website’s evaluation of, evidence for, and solution for the Restoration of the Mass and Restoration of the Church.

I found this regarding the websites purpose:

WEBSITE PURPOSE CLARIFIED

  1. To help bring about in depth study, discussion and debate regarding 
     Vatican II.

 2. Ideally this will be done in the spirit and example of the Scholastics
     of the Middle Ages and especially the spirit and example of St.
     Thomas Aquinas.

 3. These intellectual efforts and/or battles we deem highly profitable,
     if done, more or less according to the spirit, example and principles
     for disputation, of the Scholastics- especially clarity and precision
     of terms and close and solid argumentation.

 4.These efforts we deem necessary because the Catholic Church since
    Vatican II has suffered many confusions, divisions, contradictions,
    and many disorders otherwise, when measured by the order and 
    principles which had previously guided the Church.

 5. The end result hoped for by this, and much more so, works of others,
    (Holy Mass, prayer, sufferings and other offerings pleasing to God, and
     intellectual efforts pleasing to God) is great clarity of everything 
     regarding Vatican II, so that all reasonable minds agree to the con-
     clusions drawn, and so resulting in unity, order and strength returning         
     to the Church Militant, as light of the world and salt of the earth.

  6. For this end we call upon the help of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus              
      Christ, Our Blessed Mother, St. Thomas Aquinas, and all the angels
       and saints.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

---

Presuming a clear and healthy mind, anyone who carefully observes the usual celebration of the New Order of Mass today

When you use terms such as this you lose all credibility and assume an air of superiority.

In essence you are saying that anyone who disagrees with you has a muddled and unhealthy mind.

Shame, very uncharitable.

Everything you wrote is overshadowed by this and rendered to nothing.

 

[saskatoon]

I would love nothing more than to see the mass restored, that will be a wonderful day if it ever happens. I think we are too far gone to restore the mass. With many Catholics not believing in the teachings of the Church and going from a fairly liberal mass back to a truely conservative one I think would cause a mass exidus from the church. Restoring the mass would mean restoring everything, no altar girls, no lay people handing out communion, receiving communion under one species instead of 2 (I have never understood having 2 species, but that is for another post). And for some parishes, no belly dancers or clown noses! Some of the NO churches I have been to, adults (they are just as bad if not worse than children)would have a problem keeping quiet before, during, and after mass, plus having a dress code.

Though, thinking about it, at the same time there could be a large return to the mass also. SSPX for example, is growing (I am not starting a debate about SSPX) and is ordaining more priests (there are a few NO priests that have switched to be a SSPX priest) than many of the NO diocese. Again, aside from opinions about SSPX, I think they are fulfilling a need that most Catholics are looking for in a mass that the NO mass is lacking.

 

[mike52ad]

The thing that annoys me about people who want to “restore” the Mass is that they lose sight of the fact that the core of the Mass has never changed. It does not matter if the priest is facing forward, backward or standing on his head (a neat trick if he could do it.) It does not matter if we pray in English, German or Spanish or Latin. When the Holy Holy is intoned and we join with the angels and sing their everlasting song of praise to the Father, a veil parts and we, inside that church building are transported to heaven. We join with the angels and saints in offering the the sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner to the Father again and again. We then partake of the heavenly banquet where we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, who unites intimately with us. Which part of this has changed since Vatican II? None of the essentials have changed. Step into the joy of the Eucharistic celebration rather than stand on the sidelines and moan about the past.
**I mean this in all charity and defend your right to a Latin Mass. **Every diocese has churches that have a Mass said in Latin for you. Search them out but be certain that the Church that is offering it is in communion with the Pope for there are rebellious imposters out there. Check with your Diocese Office of Divine Worship.

As for altar boys and girls, I don’t think children should be around the altar at all since the job is called “acolyte” and was at one time an ordained office. But that being said, isn’t it better to involve the younger generation now in the Church so that the Holy Spirit can grow in them?

Lay Ministers have their place especially becasue of the lack of priests. But maybe they are used too much here in the United States just to “speed things up.” But here again, involving the laity is basiclly good in my opinion becasue the training that they receive helps them understand what the Eucharist is and the end result is a Catholic that is more in love with Christ in the Eucharist that he/she was before. I am living testimony to this fact.

As for the lack of priests, we must pray and pray and pray some more to ask for more workers to be sent into the vinyard of the Lord. “Reforming” the Mass will not get us more priests. God can and will if we persist in our prayers.

 

[mike52ad]

I forgot to address the matter of Commioun under both species a poster mentioned:
We have to remember that when we receive Communion we receive the whole of the Body of Christ so receiving under one species is certainly acceptable but so is receviing under both. I do not have a problem with this practice at all and am just wondering why this is considered a “problem” with the Mass for some?

 

[ljubim]

It’s not just the loss of Latin, that is FAR less important than the loss of reverence that has accompanied it, and the removal of chunks out of the mass.

The translation of the Novus Ordo is awful, and completely untrue to the Latin. Because of this, the necessary reverence due to Our Lord has been lost.

And of course the N.O. mass is valid, that’s not at all what we’re talking about here.

 

[ProVobis]

1. What is the Mass Essentially?

The Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas tell us:

THE MASS IS BOTH SACRIFICE AND SACRAMENT. IT IS THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY, RE-ENACTED BY JESUS CHRIST IN AN UNBLOODY MANNER, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF ONE EMPOWERED BY HIM. AND AS A SACRAMENT, JESUS GIVES HIMSELF TO THE RECIPIENT, IN HOLY COMMUNION, AS FOOD FOR THE SOUL.

1. The central figure then is Jesus Christ, sacramentally and really present, both priest and victim, made present through the ministry of one chosen and empowered by Himself, namely a Catholic priest.
2. The central action, as at calvary, is Jesus Christ offering Himself to the Father in heaven, so to apply the fruits of the bloody sacrifice for those present and for the whole Church, through this new and perpetual sacrifice.
3. Dispositions required for fruitful participation in the Mass are : a. Being, contrite, penitent, and humble b. Having a sincere heart and upright faith, c. A reverential fear of God, and d. Reverence and devotion.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT clearly and explicitly, through the light of the Holy Spirit, gave to the Church an in-depth teaching on the true nature and essence of the Mass (DB 938, 940):

Thanks for this, NeelyAnn. It helps to be reminded of these truths from time to time, especially in midst of the increasing secularization of the Church in the past 40-50 years.

 

[justme]

Note: I just came across this and have not had time to read through it yet. However, it looks as if it would make for interesting discussion, so I am posting it.

HOLY MASS DEFINED COUNCIL OF TRENT

**THE MOST HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS **

1. What is the Mass Essentially?

The Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas tell us:

THE MASS IS BOTH SACRIFICE AND SACRAMENT. IT IS THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY, RE-ENACTED BY JESUS CHRIST IN AN UNBLOODY MANNER, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF ONE EMPOWERED BY HIM. AND AS A SACRAMENT, JESUS GIVES HIMSELF TO THE RECIPIENT, IN HOLY COMMUNION, AS FOOD FOR THE SOUL.

1. The central figure then is Jesus Christ, sacramentally and really present, both priest and victim, made present through the ministry of one chosen and empowered by Himself, namely a Catholic priest.
2. The central action, as at calvary, is Jesus Christ offering Himself to the Father in heaven, so to apply the fruits of the bloody sacrifice for those present and for the whole Church, through this new and perpetual sacrifice.
3. Dispositions required for fruitful participation in the Mass are : a. Being, contrite, penitent, and humble b. Having a sincere heart and upright faith, c. A reverential fear of God, and d. Reverence and devotion.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT clearly and explicitly, through the light of the Holy Spirit, gave to the Church an in-depth teaching on the true nature and essence of the Mass (DB 938, 940):

RESTORATION OF HOLY MASS

Presuming a clear and healthy mind, anyone who carefully observes the usual celebration of the New Order of Mass today, and evaluates it by the true nature, essence and dispositions needed for fruitfulness, as set forth by the Council of Trent and the Holy Spirit, as above seen, is forced by common sense to say that there exists a great and urgent need for restoration.

This website firmly holds that except by fixing the ambiguities, defects, and errors - at least implicit - , contained in the documents of Vatican II, which Council is the authority and foundation for the New Order of Mass, it is impossible to properly and permanently restore the Mass.

Just a note, the Council of Trent was convened in 1545 and St Thomas Aquinas died 1274.

St Thomas was great, the Angelic Doctor, he explains much, but he is not infallible, after all, he disagreed with the Immaculate Conception.

The Council on the other hand is infallible and when it speaks of the Mass it does not speak of the form which is a discipline. All it says about the Mass is equally applicable to the OF as it is to the EF as they are just two Forms of the one one rite of the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

The Council on the other hand is infallible and when it speaks of the Mass it does not speak of the form which is a discipline. All it says about the Mass is equally applicable to the OF as it is to the EF as they are just two Forms of the one one rite of the Mass.

I’d be careful about calling the Council of Trent infallible. Yes, many of its decrees were of doctrinal nature but the Council doesn’t distinguish in its anathemas what’s doctrinal and what’s not. Two anathemas that jump out here are one that is explicit on forming a new rite and one that deals with vernacular in the liturgy. The 2007 SP basically overcame the first hurdle as the OF is not a new rite but another form as you state. The second one deals with the vernacular; this is not quite easily resolved and I think it’s in the interpretation of the word “vernacular” which I believe was used differently than it is today. “Vulgar” might be more appropriate.

About the usage of the word “discipline” I don’t see that as relevant in discussing the anathemas of Trent.

 

[justme]

I’d be careful about calling the Council of Trent infallible. Yes, many of its decrees were of doctrinal nature but the Council doesn’t distinguish in its anathemas what’s doctrinal and what’s not. Two anathemas that jump out here are one that is explicit on forming a new rite and one that deals with vernacular in the liturgy. The 2007 SP basically overcame the first hurdle as the OF is not a new rite but another form as you state. The second one deals with the vernacular; this is not quite easily resolved and I think it’s in the interpretation of the word “vernacular” which I believe was used differently than it is today. “Vulgar” might be more appropriate.

About the usage of the word “discipline” I don’t see that as relevant in discussing the anathemas of Trent.

I think the second on, the one on the vernacular, is the easiest to over come, as the canon actually says;

"CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for t
that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema. "

The Church no where states that the Mass should be celebrated in teh “vulgar” (which today means vernacular) tongue only.

“Only” is the key to this canon and over coming it.

 

[NeelyAnn]

When you use terms such as this you lose all credibility and assume an air of superiority.

In essence you are saying that anyone who disagrees with you has a muddled and unhealthy mind.

Shame, very uncharitable.

Everything you wrote is overshadowed by this and rendered to nothing.

ByzCath - No, sir, it is you who loses all credibilty. I said nothing about anyone, and certaininly nothing uncharitable. The only comments in my OP from me were the following:

Note: I just came across this and have not had time to read through it yet. However, it looks as if it would make for interesting discussion, so I am posting it.

So the question begging to be asked here is if you briefly read (misread) and responded without thinking, or if you were intentionally dishonest in your reply in order to mislead? I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it was the first, but you seem to do this often.

You appearantly do not like the topic of this thread, but you obviously have not really taken the time to read it either. Certainly you did not accurately read what was posted, or you would have known I did not write it. There is also no way you had enough time to read the 30 page paper that the author of the website refered to before you responded. Without having actually read through the materials, I really do not see how you can offer a valid opinion or how you can participate in a debate over the information. Certainly you can not participate in a debate that uses scholastic and thomistic principles, as the author of the paper says he has done in his paper.

It is quite obvious from your posts on this forum (in general), that you do not care for Traditional Catholicism (being Catholicism as it was prior to the New Mass and Vatican II), or Traditional Catholics. So I wonder why you even bother to read or post on this forum; especially since your posts rarely engage in scholarly debate, rarely contain documentation to support your point of view, or documentation to disprove anyone elses. However, your posts often are used to try to degrade and insult others, as well as that which pertains to Traditional Catholicism. I also notice that you seem bound and determined to ignore the constant, recent warnings from the moderator of this forum.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath - No, sir, it is you who loses all credibilty. I said nothing about anyone, and certaininly nothing uncharitable. The only comments in my OP from me were the following:

You are correct and I apologize to you.

The Original Author has no creditability.

I do question why one would repost such a thing including those words if they did not believe them though.

 

[Ralph4454]

I don’t know what the big deal is? can somebody please elighten me?
Did someone just said he the Mass in Latin is more important than the "english translation? Just seriously wondering…not being a smart alec

 

[NeelyAnn]

You are correct and I apologize to you.

The Original Author has no creditability.

I do question why one would repost such a thing including those words if they did not believe them though.

Thank you.

As I said, I have not had time to read thorugh his paper yet. I only glanced over his website and the paper. However, when I have time I do plan to do so. I really do not know at this time if I agree with him or not, or if perhaps I will find myself agreeing in some areas, and maybe not others. I can only comment after I have fully read his paper. I posted it because it looks to be very interesting and I believe many on here would be interested in reading it. I think it is an article that will make for interesting debate, especially since the author said he wrote the article specifically for the purposes of friendly debate and he intentionally tried to write it using the techniques of the scholasticism and thomism - which is really how true debates should be conducted (IMHO).

If there are those who disagree with what the author has written, that is fine. I have no problems with that. I only hope that for the purpose of fruitful debate, that those who disagree, as well as those who agree, will all explain themselves and site their sources to back up their opinions and conclusions.

 

[ProVobis]

“Only” is the key to this canon and over coming it.

You could be right but your wording may not be as it’s a matter of translation. And if you read the entire Session, it is clear the Fathers thought it best not to vulgarize the language. As most of the Reformists had done, I might add. So it wouldn’t have made sense to make any allowances for the vulgar language as that was one of the factors leading to the various heresies of the time.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You could be right but your wording may not be as it’s a matter of translation. And if you read the entire Session, it is clear the Fathers thought it best not to vulgarize the language. As most of the Reformists had done, I might add. So it wouldn’t have made sense to make any allowances for the vulgar language as that was one of the factors leading to the various heresies of the time.

Then how do you explain the dispensations of the day that allowed the Mass from Trent to be said in the vernacular language in certain areas of Eastern Europe following the Council of Trent?

It is not just a reading we must also look to the actions of the Church of the time.

They allowed for the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular then, so that is a good argument for it now.

 

[malphono]

Then how do you explain the dispensations of the day that allowed the Mass from Trent to be said in the vernacular language in certain areas of Eastern Europe following the Council of Trent?

It is not just a reading we must also look to the actions of the Church of the time.

They allowed for the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular then, so that is a good argument for it now.

One minor point: the Glagolitic Missal is in Church Slavonic, which is not the vernacular. The following (excerpted from a good source) may be a bit dated, but it is accurate and bears on this thread. Emphasis added.

…Thus the Roman Mass was translated into the Slavonic, and, in order to more fully distinguish the Western Rite from the Eastern Rite among the Slavic peoples, the use of the Glagolitic alphabet was reserved exclusively for the service books of the Roman Rite, just as the Cyrillic was used for the Greek Rite.

The use of the Glagolitic Missal and office books, while permitted in general among the Slavs of Dalmatia and Croatia from the earliest times since the Slavonic became a liturgical language under Pope John VIII, was definitely settled by the Constitution of Urban VIII, dated 29 April, 1631, in which he provided for a new and corrected edition of the Slavic Missal conformable to the Roman editions. …

… The use of the Latin language in the Dalmatian seminaries since the year 1828 has had the effect of increasing the use of the Latin in the Roman Rite there, and the use of the Glagolitic books has accordingly diminished. Of course the non-Slavic inhabitants of Dalmatia and Croatia have always used the Slavonic language for the Roman Rite. At present the Slavonic language for the Roman Rite, printed in Glagolitic characters, is used in the Slavic churches of the Dioceses of Zengg, Veglia, Zara, and Spalato, and also by the Franciscans in their three churches in Veglia, one in Cherso, two in Zara, and one in Sebenico. Priests are forbidden to mingle the Slavonic and Latin languages in the celebration of the Mass, which must be said wholly in Slavonic or wholly in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

They allowed for the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular then, so that is a good argument for it now.

And the Anglican Mass too. Argue all you want but exceptions shouldn’t change the rules. The world is full of exceptions and by definition they are not the mainstream. I would say 1600 years of Latin Mass is a pretty good mainstream until, as you yourself admitted, secularization took over the Church. And local culturalization became its partner.

That said, vernacular is only a symptom of secularization. And then there is, what I call, worship vernacular and conversational vernacular. The Anglican Mass has held pretty steady with its customs and it has somehow managed to survive with its “Thees” and “Thous” and “Arts” and “Thys”. Is “vouchsafe” in there, I don’t know. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if the Church manages to change these eventually to comply with still newer versions of the vernacular which isn’t very stable these days, is it? What did “gay” mean 50 years ago, for example. They have to change that, of course. I think everyone sees the problem with trying to preserve a certain vernacular. They can’t. They’re changing the English in the OF to be more worship vernacular and will probably do so in 10-30 years from now still again. And there’s always a danger you change the theology when you change the language. That’s what I see as the Trent Fathers envisioned as well so that’s why they wanted not to change the language in the mainstream Church.

How it works in the Eastern Rites, I don’t know. I’m not saying I don’t care, but right now, I have other things to study and do. I have to make money in the non-theological world.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And the Anglican Mass too. Argue all you want but exceptions shouldn’t change the rules. The world is full of exceptions and by definition they are not the mainstream. I would say 1600 years of Latin Mass is a pretty good mainstream until, as you yourself admitted, secularization took over the Church. And local culturalization became its partner.

The rules have not been changed. Show me where the Church has stated that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only.

How it works in the Eastern Rites, I don’t know. I’m not saying I don’t care, but right now, I have other things to study and do. I have to make money in the non-theological world.

I did not bring up the Eastern Rites, as has been pointed out this is the Traditional Latin Catholic sub-forum.

The Latin Mass of Trent was celebrated in the native languages of the people in areas in Eastern Europe shortly after the Council of Trent by dispensation from Rome. That dispensation shows that the Council was not looking at celebrations of the Mass in the native languages only at the issue of those who said that the Mass can only be celebrated in such a way.

The norm for the Mass in the Latin Church is Latin, though it is not used exclusively all that much, it does not change the fact that this is what the Church says.

 

[AJV]

I’d be careful about calling the Council of Trent infallible. Yes, many of its decrees were of doctrinal nature but the Council doesn’t distinguish in its anathemas what’s doctrinal and what’s not. Two anathemas that jump out here are one that is explicit on forming a new rite and one that deals with vernacular in the liturgy. The 2007 SP basically overcame the first hurdle as the OF is not a new rite but another form as you state. The second one deals with the vernacular; this is not quite easily resolved and I think it’s in the interpretation of the word “vernacular” which I believe was used differently than it is today. “Vulgar” might be more appropriate.

About the usage of the word “discipline” I don’t see that as relevant in discussing the anathemas of Trent.

The anathema regarding new rites has been made much ado of by certain Traditionalist writers, who have spread unwarranted confusion by their interpretations. The authentic meaning of this canon can be seen immediately by having recourse to the acts of the Council of Trent (“Concilium Tridentinum” by Gorres-Gesellschaft or Freudenberger’s volume) which contain the debates and prior drafts relevant to this text.

Moreover, an authentic interpretation of the Councils decrees was also published afterward by commissions charged with implementing its decrees (“Concilium Tridentinum cum declarationibus cardinalium ejusdem interpretum”).

The meaning, as is implied in the beginning of the Rituale Romanum, is merely that the clergy cannot alter the texts approved by the Church, and make something up, neither does this authority belong to the individual churches (as witnessed by the proliferation of, for example, Lutheran Church Orders). Moreover, if one sticks to the faulty interpretation, then people were under anathema a long time before Vatican II, if you consider sacraments like matrimony.