Latin mass questions

[Sirach2]

Yes.

I was going to give the three-letter answer, also. Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to satisfy this person. Wanna bet?

 

[babochka]

":

Does the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, hold ultimate authority over the way the Mass is offered? Are all Masses, as it were, an extension from the Mass that the Pope offers?

Yes.

Could you elaborate, preferably by quoting official documents?

Certainly the answer to the first question is clearly “yes”, but I disagree with the second one. If the see of Rome were vacant, are you saying that there would be no legitimate Mass offered? Every Mass offered is, in a way, an extension of the local Bishop, as he is a successor to the Apostles. If there was not a Christian left in the diocese of Rome and the Bishop of Rome had been killed and the Church was in such a disarray that nobody was even thinking (yet) about rebuilding the Church of Rome, as long as there was a Bishop alive, the ministry of the Apostles would exist.

While the Pope has full, supreme, and universal authority over the whole Church, “power which [bishops] exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church” (Dogmatic Constitution, No.27).

 

[Filioque]

Could you elaborate, preferably by quoting official documents?

Certainly the answer to the first question is clearly “yes”, but I disagree with the second one. If the see of Rome were vacant, are you saying that there would be no legitimate Mass offered? Every Mass offered is, in a way, an extension of the local Bishop, as he is a successor to the Apostles. If there was not a Christian left in the diocese of Rome and the Bishop of Rome had been killed and the Church was in such a disarray that nobody was even thinking (yet) about rebuilding the Church of Rome, as long as there was a Bishop alive, the ministry of the Apostles would exist.

All Masses are the same sacrifice of Calvary offered by Jesus on the cross but in an unbloody manner. Every Mass offered in any rite approved by the Church is of equal value be it one offered by the Pope in the most solemn manner or by a newly ordianed priest in a small hut mission in an isolated land with the minimal amount of ceremony allowed by the rubrics. Why, because the primary priest, and the victim of each Mass is Christ, who offers it to His Father, in an unbloody manner. Aside from the externals, the only difference is our ability to recieve the superabundant graces that are present at each Mass.

Each Mass is not another Calvary, but the same Calvary. It so not based on what we do, but because of what Jesus does at the Mass.

 

[babochka]

All Masses are the same sacrifice of Calvary offered by Jesus on the cross but in an unbloody manner. Every Mass offered in any rite approved by the Church is of equal value be it one offered by the Pope in the most solemn manner or by a newly ordianed priest in a small hut mission in an isolated land with the minimal amount of ceremony allowed by the rubrics. Why, because the primary priest, and the victim of each Mass is Christ, who offers it to His Father, in an unbloody manner. Aside from the externals, the only difference is our ability to recieve the superabundant graces that are present at each Mass.

Each Mass is not another Calvary, but the same Calvary. It so not based on what we do, but because of what Jesus does at the Mass.

That doesn’t really address my question. The question originally asked was “Are all Masses an extension of the Mass that the Pope offers”? The affirmative answer was given without explanation, but to me it implies that the Mass is offered with the Pope as it’s source, not Christ. The Pope’s Mass, as every other Mass, is the sacrifice at Calvary, but it is not a funnel that goes from the source (Christ), through the Pope, down to the other bishops, and then to the priests. That was my impression of the question that was asked. Of course, Christ is the source. but the ability to offer the Mass, because of the sacrament of Holy Orders, does not come from the Pope. It comes from the Bishop. It doesn’t take the Bishop of Rome to validly ordain a bishop. That charism rests with the each and every bishop, not just the Bishop of Rome. Current church discipline requires that Bishops in the Latin Church are appointed by Rome, but this is not true universally and has not always been true in the Latin church.

 

[otjm]

Could you elaborate, preferably by quoting official documents?

Certainly the answer to the first question is clearly “yes”, but I disagree with the second one. If the see of Rome were vacant, are you saying that there would be no legitimate Mass offered?
babochka;10732783:

No, that was not what I was saying; as I do not read the question as asking that. Each priest and bishop is an alter Christus, who acts in the place of Christ and through whom Christ acts.

The Pope is the source of the Mass to the extent that he is the final and chief liturgist of the Catholic Church. That was shown recently when the Pope gave the final approval to the validity and licitness of one of the Eastern rites, which did not have the literal words of
Consecration. To say that (that all Masses are an extension of the Mass the Pope says) is not to say that Christ is not the one offering the Mass, through the actions of the celebrant. I took it as a rather awkwardly worded question, but that was what I understood the jist to be.

If that was not what the poster meant to ask, then the poster needs to elucidate their question; but that is what I took the question to be.
babochka;10732783:

Every Mass offered is, in a way, an extension of the local Bishop, as he is a successor to the Apostles. If there was not a Christian left in the diocese of Rome and the Bishop of Rome had been killed and the Church was in such a disarray that nobody was even thinking (yet) about rebuilding the Church of Rome, as long as there was a Bishop alive, the ministry of the Apostles would exist.

That, however, does not seem to be the question asked. If I misunderstood the question, then the poster should speak up and elucidate; as noted above I take the question to be asking something else.

As to documentation, I suspect it is in Canon law, but I am not a Canon lawyer so I rely on the example I gave (and pardon my failure to remember which Church it was) which was in the news not that long ago.

 

[otjm]

Of course, Christ is the source. but the ability to offer the Mass, because of the sacrament of Holy Orders, does not come from the Pope. It comes from the Bishop. It doesn’t take the Bishop of Rome to validly ordain a bishop. That charism rests with the each and every bishop, not just the Bishop of Rome. Current church discipline requires that Bishops in the Latin Church are appointed by Rome, but this is not true universally and has not always been true in the Latin church.

Correct.

Someone far above my pay grade is going to have answer this one; perhaps Bro. JR knows how to wend through it but it is wandering into a validity vs. licitnous question. bottom line, someone might be validly ordained, but they are no longer members of the Catholic Church as they are excommunicated.

 

[hoop0826]

babochka;10732783:

Could you elaborate, preferably by quoting official documents?

Certainly the answer to the first question is clearly “yes”, but I disagree with the second one. If the see of Rome were vacant, are you saying that there would be no legitimate Mass offered?
babochka;10732783:

No, that was not what I was saying; as I do not read the question as asking that. Each priest and bishop is an alter Christus, who acts in the place of Christ and through whom Christ acts.

The Pope is the source of the Mass to the extent that he is the final and chief liturgist of the Catholic Church. That was shown recently when the Pope gave the final approval to the validity and licitness of one of the Eastern rites, which did not have the literal words of
Consecration. To say that (that all Masses are an extension of the Mass the Pope says) is not to say that Christ is not the one offering the Mass, through the actions of the celebrant. I took it as a rather awkwardly worded question, but that was what I understood the jist to be.

If that was not what the poster meant to ask, then the poster needs to elucidate their question; but that is what I took the question to be.

That, however, does not seem to be the question asked. If I misunderstood the question, then the poster should speak up and elucidate; as noted above I take the question to be asking something else.

As to documentation, I suspect it is in Canon law, but I am not a Canon lawyer so I rely on the example I gave (and pardon my failure to remember which Church it was) which was in the news not that long ago.

otjm, I apologize for the awkwardness of the question. I believe you saw through to the meaning of it . Perhaps better worded - Are all valid and licitly celebrated Masses dependent on the ministry of the Pope? Must all His bishops receive both the instruction and permission from the him in order to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

 

[Filioque]

That doesn’t really address my question. The question originally asked was “Are all Masses an extension of the Mass that the Pope offers”? The affirmative answer was given without explanation, but to me it implies that the Mass is offered with the Pope as it’s source, not Christ. The Pope’s Mass, as every other Mass, is the sacrifice at Calvary, but it is not a funnel that goes from the source (Christ), through the Pope, down to the other bishops, and then to the priests. That was my impression of the question that was asked. Of course, Christ is the source. but the ability to offer the Mass, because of the sacrament of Holy Orders, does not come from the Pope. It comes from the Bishop. It doesn’t take the Bishop of Rome to validly ordain a bishop. That charism rests with the each and every bishop, not just the Bishop of Rome. Current church discipline requires that Bishops in the Latin Church are appointed by Rome, but this is not true universally and has not always been true in the Latin church.

Now that your question has been clarified, for me at least. I read the OP as dealing with validity, it seems you were asking about the legitimate exercise of the priest’s office.

For a licit Mass, a priest must be granted faculties to exercise his priesthood from his Ordinary or legitimate superior. For a bishop or superior to have the ability to grant those faculties he must be granted the right by either Pope, or in the case of a Religious Order the Superior over him. The Superior General of each Religious Order, Congregation, Society etc, ultimatly answers to the Pope, and the Order, etc exists at the lesure of the Pope, who can supress them for any reason. So ultimatly the faculties of any priest to offer Mass in a licit manner does come from the Pope, through their lawful superior be it a Bishop or Religious Superior. Canon law does have provisions that when the Holy See is Vacant everyone stays in their See until the new Pope either makes changes or confirms the previous posts. So priests can legitimatly function unless impeded by their lawful superior during the inter-regnum.

While it does not always happen this way, a priest may be granted faculties to offer Mass, and to binate or trinate, (offer two or three Masses) on a Sunday or Holy Day, to fulfil the needs of the faithful. But not be granted faculties to hear confessions. As to marriage and baptisms, those are rights of the Pastor of the person who is being married or baptized and can be delegated by the Pastor to any priest he knows to be in good standing with his diocese or order if he wishes. A priest without faculties to hear confessions can of course in the case or emergency anoint and hear the confessions, as well as absovle someone, as the salvation of souls is the supreme law.

 

[ClintonG11]

In answer to your questions in order.

1. Yes it was practiced since the early Church and was mandated for years. The practice pretty much stopped after Vatican II.
2. Originally Holy Communion was given in the hand due primarily to the fact that what was consecrated was a loaf of bread and not a wafer as is usually the case these days. After Church the loaf would be brought home for consumption during the week. This led to abuses and a loss of respect for and a belief in the Real Presence and the custom was changed to receining only on the tongue. Kneeling was also enforced to further impress upon the faithful the fact that Jesus is present in the Eucharist and deserves respect and worship. The Eastern and Orthodox Churches do not kneel to receive
3. There was a heresy many years ago that believed that unless you received Holy Communion under both species you were not receiving the completeness of Jesus in the Eucharist. Since Church doctrine is that Jesus is fully present under both or either species, the Church went to the laity receiving only the Precious Body to re-enforce that belief. It is interesting to note that today many people apparently believe that you must receive under both species or the communion is incomplete. The Eastern and Orthodox Churches receive both species through the practice of intinction.
4. The only instruments I have heard in a normal Extraordinary Form Mass have been the organ or piano, usually organ. In Pontifical High Masses or some other such Mass there may be orchaestration of some sort but not always. Gregorian Chant and Plain Chant are both common in Extraordinary Form Masses.

Hope these have answered your questions at least to a degree.

I love this answer! Thank you so much! I've been Catholic my whole life but you just helped me learn some new history and I'm super excited to share it haha. :)