T
Timothysis
Guest
Are you insinuating that some, because of their choice of attendance to one form of the Mass versus the other, are more or less Catholic than others?
- Status
C
Cluny
Guest
And your premise is totally wrong.
NO Eucharistic liturgy authorized by the Church is “more Catholic” or “less Catholic” or expresses the Catholic faith more or less fully or precisely than any other.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
What are these things you are talking about? The Gregorian Rite and the Pauline Rite?
The Holy Father, Pope Benedict, states in Summorum Pontificum that the current Mass is the “ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.” While the old Latin Mass is " to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi’".
So the Holy Father says that they are both expressions of the same rite, the Latin rite, not to separate rites.
G
Gregory_I
Guest
IN THE LATIN FORM using The Classic anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer 1), Yes, they are more or less the Same.
BUt todays english translations are so inferior to the meaning intended by the latin, that it is as though they seem to spell out a different Faith: A Catholicized Protestantism: I.e. Neo-Anglicanism. And not even very high church for all that…
BUt todays english translations are so inferior to the meaning intended by the latin, that it is as though they seem to spell out a different Faith: A Catholicized Protestantism: I.e. Neo-Anglicanism. And not even very high church for all that…
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Hmmm, so I either take what you say or what the Holy Father says? Your opinion or what the Church says…
I don’t think there is any competition there. I will stand with Pope Benedict and the Church any day.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is confusing considering that the topic of this thread is the validity of the Mass.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Tell me which, if either of these, more fully and precisely expresses the Catholic Faith:
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.
Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin.
Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
Or…
Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.
O God, + Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew;; by the Mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath deigned to become a partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son our Lord; Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God. World without end. Amen.
We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, entreating Thy mercy that our offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in the sight of Thy divine Majesty, for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.
Humbled in spirit and contrite of heart, may we
find favor with Thee, O Lord: and may our sacrifice be so offered this day in Thy sight as to be pleasing to Thee, O Lord God.
Through the intercession of Blessed Michael the Archangel, standing at the right hand of the altar of incense, and of all His elect may the Lord vouchsafe to bless + this incense and to receive it in the odor of sweetness. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
May this incense blessed by You, arise before You, O Lord, and may Your mercy come down upon us.
Let my prayer, O Lord, like incense before You; the lifting up of my hands, like the evening sacrifice. O Lord, set a watch before my mouth, a guard at the door of my lips. Let not my heart incline to the evil of engaging in deeds of wickedness.
May the Lord enkindle in us the fire of His love and the flame of everlasting charity. Amen.
I will wash my hands among the innocent, and I will encompass Thine Altar, O Lord. That I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works. I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house, and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked, nor my life with men of blood. In whose hands are iniquities, their right hand is filled with gifts.
But as for me, I have walked in my innocence; redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot hath stood in the right way; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord.
Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee in memory of the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ; and in honor of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of these and of all the Saints. To them let it bring honor, and to us salvation, and may they whom we are commemorating here on earth deign to plead for us in heaven. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Pray, brethren, that my Sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Cardinal Hoyos continues to speak of the traditional Latin Mass as the Gregorian Rite after the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum (see here.) I think that is correct and does not necessarily contradict SP (see my explanation here and here.) But that isn’t the topic of this thread, so merely saying that you disagree with me and think I’m nuts is sufficient.
Otherwise we could start a new one on that topic. (But before you really do say that I’m nuts, please remember that we traditionalists were also considered nuts for insisting that the traditional Latin Mass had never been abrogated. And those who said so could trot out all sorts of official statements to “prove” it. So sometimes we’re not so nuts…)
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Giuseppe:
Before I start, I think I should remind you that what we receive is not an it, but a HIM. What we receive is the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings, He who was, who is and who is to come, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Our Lord Jesus Christ is not an it.
You need to remember “Everyone handles it” is actually an INDULT - Communion in the HAND, Communicants receiving our Lord while standing, in the hand, often from an Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist is an INDULT. This was never intended to be the NORM, and I have NO IDEA why the American Bishops have insisted on making it the NORM when Pope Benedict XVI requires those who receive the Blessed Sacrament from him to receive on their knees on the tongue. and, All Masses at St. Peter’s have plenty of Sacred Ministers & NO EMHE!
Alter Rails were taken out, not because of the actual words of Vatican II, but because of what some interpreted to be “The Spirit of Vatican II”. Same for the Priest facing the People instead of facing our Lord (“Ad Orientum” - look at Rubrics, esp of the latest translation) -
usccb.org/romanmissal/ (Click on Order of Mass)
I could mention a whole bunch of things from terrible music to Priests surrounded by women & girls to bad catechesis to no catechesis which can all be traced to “The Spirit of Vatican II”. Even the terrible translation which sounds more like a Committee Meeting than an encounter between Heaven and Earth can be traced to “The Spirit of Vatican II”.
Your Brother in Christ, Michael
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Response: May the Lord Receive the Sacrifice at thy hands, for the praise and glory of His name, both for our benefit, and that of all His Holy Church.
The Lord be with You.
And with thy Spirit.
Lift up your Hearts.
We Lift them up unto the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It is meet and right so to do.
It is very meet, right and our bounden duty that we should in all times and in all places give thanks unto thee our Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God…
(Proper of the Day or Season)
…Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious Name; evermore praising thee, and saying:
HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God of Hosts,
Heaven and earth are filled with thy Glory,
Hosanna in the Highest.
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord,
Hosanna in the Highest.
I just couldn’t resist.
Your Brother in Christ, Michael
I
iamanea
Guest
My original question was to understand the position of those that attend the Tridentine Mass at parishes connected with SSPX associated priests. My questions boil down to 3: #1. Why they feel that the Novus Ordo is invalid (an error on my part as the responses made clear) # 2. Why they feel Archbishop Le Febvre was justified in taking it upon HIMSELF in violation of Catholic practice (no bishop, in and of himself (other than the Pope) is infallible and has the right to go against Magisterial authority. # 3. Does the fact that despite Rome’s lifting of JPII’s ex-communications, Rome still views SSPX associated bishops and priests as having no official ministry in the Church and thus it is illicit to attend one of their Masses INVALIDATE their consecration (evidently no, it doesn’t).
My questions have been answered, so, as a poster recently suggested, I would ask that the thread be closed. It is obvious that no one is going to change their minds and seeing as none of us are bishops/theologians, it is just one’s personal preference as to which mass one goes to.
Corry
My questions have been answered, so, as a poster recently suggested, I would ask that the thread be closed. It is obvious that no one is going to change their minds and seeing as none of us are bishops/theologians, it is just one’s personal preference as to which mass one goes to.
Corry
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
That is fine, but the Holy Father has called it the Extraordinary Form of the same rite that the Ordinary Form is from.
The Holy Father is the authority, not a retired cardinal. The Cardinal may have his opinion but it is one that I, and it appears the Holy Father, do not agree with.
L
Layman
Guest
Nearly. I find it perplexing and worrying to compare and contrast the new text with the old. I think the old one is more beautiful and more didactic. I’ve also read it expesses our faith better. It also has the benefit of being tried and tested over centuries. It’s also strange that the Mass was effectively re-written.
I also don’t like the circumstances under which this was done; it looks to me like a clique bushwhacking some gentle men, who had little idea of where, what they were getting involved in, was leading. I think a small, determined group can easily divert a wider association with no such agenda; hence the student union of a small college in Ireland finds itself supporting the Sandinistas!
I personally associate the new rite with being bored at Mass, twenty years ago. I did come back to the Church via the N.O., but unfortunately(?) it was at one which was fairly progressive by British standards; some actions annoyed me even before I found out about the history of changes to the Mass.
Having spent twenty years almost never going to Mass, then coming back at a church with a range of novelties, including some newer ones added since I’d been away, then, attending old rite Masses, then participating in these forums and finding out the licity or otherwise of the novelties, the effect on me has been pronounced.
I try to avoid to local N.O. masses as there are too many things that annoy, sadden or make me want to giggle by turns. I could go to a Latin N.O. in London, but I think if you do that, why not go to a TLM? It’s tried and tested and (whisper it) enjoyable. The young man I was never thought he’d come to say that about a Mass.
As to validity. I think most people agree it’s valid, but what does that mean, practically? I’m selfish. I want spiritual effects. e.g. I go into the the TLM tired and anxious and I come out energised. Make of that what you like.
Also, it’s nice to be in a public rite of worship where people are quiet. It’s getting rarer in a noisy, self-centred world, I think.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Corry:
As long as you feel your questions have been answered, sound like a good idea to me.
On a side note, there are three things that leave an indelible mark, or impression, on the soul - Baptism, Confirmation & Holy Orders (The Anointing or Ordination to the Priesthood & the Consecration or Anointing to the Episcopate). We could rightly occupy a thread with WHY these leave their indelible marks and why no human action or action of the Church can remove them. That’s why even a priest who has been defrocked and excommunicated is not only allowed to perform the Sacraments “in Extremis” (Someone is dying or on the verge of death & no other priest is available), he is required to perform those Sacraments (Unction, Penance and Holy Communion if possible) needed for that soul’s passage to Eternal Life.
Now that has been made clear, I’m going to add my request to yours. These “conversations” have a way of becoming uncharitable and unedifying, and before that happens, I do believe closing the thread would probably be a good idea…
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael
G
Gregory_I
Guest
ByzCath, you are not listening.
FIRST: Everything the Holy Father has said about the mass is true.
SECOND: IN case you did not realize, ALL official church documents and liturgical forms (The Roman Ones) have been compiled in Latin FIRST. Translations followed after that.
THIRD: The 1970’s translation into english of the Pauline RIte was a sloppy Job with all kinds of ridiculous paraphrase IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. It is possible that this english translation has moved away from some Catholic Theology in its slipshod translation. I KNOW this to be true because…
A typical example of the new prose used is: “Most merciful Father, we therefore humbly pray and implore you through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, to accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and undefiled sacrifices.”
In the present Missal (1970’s) , this passage reads as: “We come to you Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice.”
Instead of the priest “asking” God, he will say that we “humbly pray and implore”-a more appropriate approach for mere mortals in the presence of the Almighty.
…FOURTH: There is a liturgical commission to completely retranslate the Latin ORIGINAL of the English mass into a more Literal, beautiful, and orthodox rendering.
FIFTH: THis will soon be implemented in your parish, because our Bishop told our priests to tell us that this change is on the way; And bishops don’t do that unless change is imminent. THey will also be enforcing the norms, like bowing in the creed (from “He came down from heaven…and became man.”) and possibly facing the east and having more kneeling.
SIXTH: The Pauline Rite and the Tridentine Rite express the Same faith in Latin and when accurately translated into english. However on the MATERIAL side the Pauline mass clearly lacks the grace, beauty, and dignity of the Tridentine Mass:
HOWEVER There are those who can say it in just as good a way as the Tridentine Mass:
We have Norbertine Nuns up here, and their priests say the Pauline mass, Facing the East (Literally and liturgically), entirely in Latin, in traditional-esque vestments and without speeding through it WITH Gregorian Chant.
THAT is what Vatican II intended: Basically to get othe Gallicansim out of the Roman Rite. Gallicanism is the Eastern influenced Rite of the Liturgy of the Ancient French and German Peoples (And to some extent Celtic). It was gradually addfe to the Roman Liturgy over time, and I guess Rome just wants to be more Roman.
How prudent it was though, is another question: It’s one thing to prune a tree by degrees, it’s quite another to remove whole limbs near the base of the trunk.
But I think we have the answer to that question in our own liturgically mediocre (mostly) parishes, hmmmm?
GO here catholicinsight.com/online/church/liturgy/new_mass.shtml to read about the liturgical reform’s reform.
ANd Here: newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/09/new-english-roman-missal-translation.html
FIRST: Everything the Holy Father has said about the mass is true.
SECOND: IN case you did not realize, ALL official church documents and liturgical forms (The Roman Ones) have been compiled in Latin FIRST. Translations followed after that.
THIRD: The 1970’s translation into english of the Pauline RIte was a sloppy Job with all kinds of ridiculous paraphrase IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. It is possible that this english translation has moved away from some Catholic Theology in its slipshod translation. I KNOW this to be true because…
A typical example of the new prose used is: “Most merciful Father, we therefore humbly pray and implore you through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, to accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and undefiled sacrifices.”
In the present Missal (1970’s) , this passage reads as: “We come to you Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice.”
Instead of the priest “asking” God, he will say that we “humbly pray and implore”-a more appropriate approach for mere mortals in the presence of the Almighty.
…FOURTH: There is a liturgical commission to completely retranslate the Latin ORIGINAL of the English mass into a more Literal, beautiful, and orthodox rendering.
FIFTH: THis will soon be implemented in your parish, because our Bishop told our priests to tell us that this change is on the way; And bishops don’t do that unless change is imminent. THey will also be enforcing the norms, like bowing in the creed (from “He came down from heaven…and became man.”) and possibly facing the east and having more kneeling.
SIXTH: The Pauline Rite and the Tridentine Rite express the Same faith in Latin and when accurately translated into english. However on the MATERIAL side the Pauline mass clearly lacks the grace, beauty, and dignity of the Tridentine Mass:
HOWEVER There are those who can say it in just as good a way as the Tridentine Mass:
We have Norbertine Nuns up here, and their priests say the Pauline mass, Facing the East (Literally and liturgically), entirely in Latin, in traditional-esque vestments and without speeding through it WITH Gregorian Chant.
THAT is what Vatican II intended: Basically to get othe Gallicansim out of the Roman Rite. Gallicanism is the Eastern influenced Rite of the Liturgy of the Ancient French and German Peoples (And to some extent Celtic). It was gradually addfe to the Roman Liturgy over time, and I guess Rome just wants to be more Roman.
How prudent it was though, is another question: It’s one thing to prune a tree by degrees, it’s quite another to remove whole limbs near the base of the trunk.
But I think we have the answer to that question in our own liturgically mediocre (mostly) parishes, hmmmm?
GO here catholicinsight.com/online/church/liturgy/new_mass.shtml to read about the liturgical reform’s reform.
ANd Here: newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/09/new-english-roman-missal-translation.html
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
ByzCath & David:
In this case, both Cardinal Hoyos & His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI are correct. The Tridentine Latin Mass used what is known as the Roman or Gregorian Canon, a Canon which dates from the time of Pope Gregory the Great. That Canon is also known as the Western or Roman Canon - Canon 1 in the Ordinary Form (in the English) is what I could charitably call a mediocre translation of that Canon. The English Translations in your old Latin-English Missals were actually better.
From what I understand, the TAC will be using a 16th Century English Translation of the Gregorian Canon when “The Articles of ??” are finished and the deal is done. I’ve Assisted at a Mass where that Canon was used, and it was absolutely beautiful.
Those who know the Latin tell me there was very little revision between the Liturgy that contained the Gregorian Canon and the final Liturgy adopted by Trent. This is probably why Cardinal Hoyos is calling it the Gregorian Canon, and why Papa Bene would want to TAC to use it rather than it’s own insufficient (most parishes modify them) Canons.
OTOH, Someone who knows Pope Benedict XVI has explained to me that he’s using the terms Ordinary Form & Extraordinary Form so Catholics “get” some important things - Vatican II (in spite of what the Proponents of the “Spirit of Vatican II” want us to believe) was not a break with Tradition of the Church or with the Church that existed prior to the Council; and, Catholics who go to O.F. Masses and Catholics who go to E.F. Masses PARTAKE OF THE SAME LORD and BELONG TO THE SAME CHURCH. Using the Term “Rite” to describe a different way of doing the Liturgy of the Church can be divisive, esp. when the term “Rite” is usually reserved to describe Sui Iuris Churches, which have different Hierarchies, Canon Laws and Practices.
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael
F
Frbrendan
Guest
You’re not going to like what I say, DavidPalm, but actually those from the Novus Ordo are more precisely expressing the Catholic faith.
Why do I say this?
Because we are NOT saved by the offering of mere bread (“this spotless host”) or wine, any more than we were saved by the offering of the blood of mere bulls and goats under the Old Law. Simple bread and wine CANNOT atone for sins or effect salvation, which is what the Tridentine prayers Suscipe and Offeremus actually say.
At least the Offertory Prayers of the NO make it clear that the bread and wine WILL BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ. Those of the Tridentine Mass do not expressly say this, but talk as if they already are!
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Gregory:
This was uncalled for. We don’t do that here, not if we want people to listen to us and hear what we have to say.
ByzCath may have been really trying to understand what you were saying, but he isn’t anymore. You just insinuated something you couldn’t possibly know and insulted him at the same time. The only way anyone could ever know whether another person were listening is if the other person quoted him/her out of context to make them say the opposite of the clear sense of what he/she said or if that person said something that demonstrated that person hadn’t read his/her posts.
And, neither has happening here. No matter how long or short your post is (and it’s a deussey), I can almost guarantee he’s not going to read it. I probably wouldn’t.
Do you think that it might have been more useful to say, “I don’t think I’m making myself clear to you.” or, “I’m not sure if you’re understanding what I’m saying. Could you let me know if I’m being unclear on something?”
It’s the responsibility of the person trying to community to do whatever it needed to help the other person understand what he’s saying (unless the first person’s disabled).
We’re Christians, and this isn’t just a place to debate - This is part of our witness to unbelievers. If unbelievers see us mistreating each other here, when they know that we know we’re being watched, what do you think they’re going to think of our claims about the love of God and about our love for each other? If we can’t act it out here, where are we going to act that love of God out?
You can do whatever you want, but I’m sure you know what Scripture says to do when you wronged a Brother.
Your Brother in Christ, Michael
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Michael,
I am aware of this. The point I am trying to make is that the EF is one form of the same rite that the OF is of.
It seems that the person I was trying to discuss this with seems to think that they are two rites.
The term rite is used to describe a liturgy and the term Rite is use to describe something larger, I, as most Church documents do, use a lower case r in rite to denote when I am speaking of a liturgical rite.
I thank you for your insight and your attempt to straighten things out but I believe they have gone too far.
Some people just refuse to think of the two rites, EF and OF, as being equal even though the Church says that they are. They seem to think that their preference for the EF makes that a greater rite than the OF, which is just not true.
For myself, they are equal but I prefer the OF to the EF. There is another rite, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom which I think is far better than either the OF or the EF but I am aware that this is my personal bias and preference. I would never try to argue such a thing.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Not to you any more at least.
- Status