Latin NO

[NTOT]

Are you prefering to the link i provided?

Yes.

do you mean that the link i provided contain error?

Yes, and I have already indicated some errors. I didn’t have to read very much at all to come across them. Go back through this thread and see. I have specifically spelled out some glaring errors promoted in the links you have provided and further indicated that it would be very foolish and unwise for a Catholic to learn Catholicism from these links when they are peppered with errors and attacks on the Church.

gosh… the link i gave is Catholic Apologetics and it is the eyes of Catholic church. that is what the Catholic has been believing and you say it contain error?

Yes, I can make a website and call it Catholic also. The devil is very deceptive remember. Can you point me to the imprimatur and Nihil Obstat on that website?

CAtholic Apologetics vs New Doctrine of Vatican II?

I am afraid I have to side with Vatican II which is the Catholic Church. Did you know that Vatican Councils do not teach or promote erroneous doctine?

which do you think is the true Catholic view?

Do I choose between “Catholic Apologetics” website or the Catholic Church and Vatican II? I choose the Church.

dont be so timid in reading, i know the link i provided is very very long and i believe it requires time to understand and comprehend.

Blatant errors (as I have already indicated a couple) do not take lots of time to understand and comprehend. They are obvious.

 

[NTOT]

Okay, I took yet another look at the aforementioned links and found some errors:

That the new rite is no longer based on sacrifice, but on a memorial meal, a concept harmonious with Protestant practice.

False, the Novus Ordo is most assuredly the ‘Perfect Sacrifice’.

Rather than emphasizing Our Lord’s presence in the Priest and in the Eucharist, which is the Catholic focus, the new rite emphasizes Our Lord’s presence “in His Word and in His people.” This too favors Protestant doctrine

To deny the mystical Body of Christ is to deny Christ and the Church. The author here is confusing Sacrifice and the Real Presence with the Mystical Body of Christ.

In the new rite, there is a downplay of emphasis on the Mass as propitiation, that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass makes satisfaction to God for sin. Rather, the Novus Ordo emphasizes the Mass as an act of Thanksgiving. Again, this is a shift from a Catholic orientation to one that is Protestant.

Remember, Protestanism is contains only partial truth. Catholicism contains total truth. Is the Church wrong to say the Mass is not only a Sacrifice, but also an act of Thanksgiving, and an act of making satisfaction to God for sin? Do you know what the four ends of prayer are? Mass being the perfect prayer, elevating these four ends to a perfect level?

This explains why parts of the new “Presentation of the Gifts” were “borrowed word, for word from the Jewish grace-before-meals;”
“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.”

Correction: This blessing was derived from a Jewish prayer based on Eccl 3:13 and John 6:35. Noting heretical there. Is there? Do you know which parts of the TLM have non-Catholic origins? Quiz.

There is more. For example it presents the following as falsehood:

This part of the New Liturgy is also “pro-choice” in that it offers the celebrant a selection of four new Mystery of Faith formulas from which he may choose, none of which emphasize Transubstantiation. These prayers are now called the “Memorial Acclamation.”
For example, Acclamation “A” also centers on Our Lord’s life: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”. Memorial Acclamation “C”, however, does not focus on the Mysteries of Our Lord’s life, nor on the Consecration, but on a type of Communion: “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim Your death, Lord Jesus, until You come in glory.” All four of the new *Mystery of Faith *acclamations could be recited at a Protestant communion service.

What is doctinally incorrect, heretical, or falsehood about the Memorial Acclamations? Answer, nothing. Yes these Catholic prayers may well find there way into a Protestant communion service, but when done so, they become a lie. Why? Because “When we eat this bread…” is falsehood when absent the True and Real Presence. Remember, a protestant liturgy has only bread and wine. Not Body and Blood.

Okay, I addressed some items. If that is still not enough, present some more links and we can take a look.

 

[SenorSalsa]

While I may concede that the focus of Mass has shifted from the Sacrifice aspect to the Last Supper-type aspect, that does not mean both have not always be present. Both are present in the EF and the OF.

In the same way there are shifts in focus all throughout Church History. Look at the shifts from Old to New Testaments. The shift from Pope as Ruler to a Leader. From Sin to Grace. And yet nothing has ever been abolished. People have just chosen different things at different times according to the needs of the people.

I might add some from the EP1 of the OF

Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son. We, your people and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us we offer to you, God of glory and majesty,** this holy and perfect sacrifice**: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvatio

In fact, in the 4 EPsmost commonly used, the word sacrifice appears 11 times total, while communion, meal, and Last Supper all apear 0 times. Not a sacrifice?

 

[NTOT]

While I may concede that the focus of Mass has shifted from the Sacrifice aspect to the Last Supper-type aspect, that does not mean both have not always be present. Both are present in the EF and the OF.

In the same way there are shifts in focus all throughout Church History. Look at the shifts from Old to New Testaments. The shift from Pope as Ruler to a Leader. From Sin to Grace. And yet nothing has ever been abolished. People have just chosen different things at different times according to the needs of the people.

I might add some from the EP1 of the OF

In fact, in the 4 EPsmost commonly used, the word sacrifice appears 11 times total, while communion, meal, and Last Supper all apear 0 times. Not a sacrifice?

Thank you and well said. There is a growing trend among members of the Catholic Church, and many very prominent members at that to discredit the Novus Ordo, attack it as well as attack official Vatican Councils of the Church of being erroneous. These are all grave issues indeed, especially when one would attack the very Church herself as being a promulgator of error and false doctrine. I do not understand it. For me, I find beauty and reverence in both masses (when done properly according to the GIRM, as both masses can be abused by the unscrupulous). I do not need to defend the validity or sacredness of the TLM by attacking the Novus Ordo which is indeed as much a most pleasing and perfect prayer and Sacrifice. Neither do I need to attack the TLM to defend the Novus Ordo.

 

[NTOT]

While I may concede that the focus of Mass has shifted from the Sacrifice aspect to the Last Supper-type aspect, that does not mean both have not always be present. Both are present in the EF and the OF.

I might add that it was not so much a shift, but rather a bringing out more fully of something which was always present, but somewhat hidden in the TLM. I believe the Novus Ordo actually went a long way in helping to emphasize the four aspects of prayer with the new liturgy.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I do not need to defend the validity or sacredness of the TLM by attacking the Novus Ordo which is indeed as much a most pleasing and perfect prayer and Sacrifice. Neither do I need to attack the TLM to defend the Novus Ordo.

Indeed so, I will defend the validity of the NO until I die, barring a mass email straight from God saying otherwise, and yet starting a week from today, I will be training to serve at the EF, and assuming my current path is continued, plan on saying both forms when I am ordained

 

[bear06]

In all honesty, you probably wouldn’t notice the differences.

I frequent both and this statement would only apply if a person was deaf and blind and maybe not even then.

 

[bear06]

People who prefer the TLM probably feel like “chopped liver” as well, since they have to drive hours to get to the Mass they want, petition and write letters to get one in their area, have bishops that disobey the Pope and try to stop the TLM, etc.

Actually, with SP out now, I can claim the chopped liver status. There’s only one church in my diocese that offers the Latin OF. We’re adding EFs but not one Latin OF. I asked the priest a our local church who just added the EF if he would add the OF in Latin and he said “Not likely.”

 

[BrendanD]

Actually, with SP out now, I can claim the chopped liver status. There’s only one church in my diocese that offers the Latin OF. We’re adding EFs but not one Latin OF. I asked the priest a our local church who just added the EF if he would add the OF in Latin and he said “Not likely.”

I don’t get it, what’s SP got to do with the Latin NO?

 

[peregrinator_it]

The big advantage of the NO is its versatility, particular in regards to language, so I don’t really understand the particular appeal of a Solemn Latin NO over a Tridentine High Mass. I’ve never been to a Latin NO. I’ve seen it on EWTN and on the Internet, and it looks awesome, but if you can understand Latin, it still seems less complete theologically than the Tridentine Mass.

Personally, I prefer a Latin NO because I find it more conducive to prayer than a Tridentine High Mass.

I don’t know how to express it properly, so I can only say that for me chanting the responses (and the ordinary) is a method of prayer. For me, participating in a Latin NO is like chanting the Divine Office (which the Church has done uninterruptedly for centuries.) I find that I do not have the option to chant the Mass together with the priest at a typical TLM High Mass (one is usually forced to make a choice between praying with the choir or trying to keep up with the priest.)

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t look on being permitted to make/chant the responses as a “right” or a chance to “perform,” I look on it as an enormous privilege. As an example, one of the things that always strikes me when I attend the Latin Pauline Mass after having been away is that after the readings are proclaimed, we are permitted to thank God and chant “Deo gratias.” If the Church were to ask me to give that privilege up, I would do so. But why would I surrender that privilege when I am permitted it?

I do understand Latin (at least well enough to understand the Mass) and, frankly, I’m not fond of the -issimi and repetition in the TLM. I find the placement of the non-scriptural “Mysterium Fidei” at the Consecration jarring. I appreciate the addition of “ommissionem” at the Confiteor; (which I am grateful to be allowed to say for myself in the OF) I personally need the reminder. I am grateful that I’m allowed to hear the Canon spoken by the priest (because of this I know it by heart and am able to think about & meditate on it.)

For me, the simplicity and focus of a chanted, Latin OF provides a framework of prayer surrounding the Sacrifice of the Mass. By contrast, at a TLM High Mass I often find myself fighting the distractions pomp and ceremony in order to pray.

 

[James0235]

I appreciate the addition of “ommissionem” at the Confiteor;

I like the “ommissionem” as well.

But, do you think that the addition of “ommissionem” is worth the loss of

"…beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistae, sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus Sanctis, et tibi pater: quia peccavi nimis cogitatione verbo, et opere…"

Personally I would rather have **

“…Blessed Mary ever Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul…”**

than **

“…and what I have failed to do”.**

James

 

[peregrinator_it]

But, do you think that the addition of “ommissionem” is worth the loss of

"…beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistae, sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus Sanctis, et tibi pater: quia peccavi nimis cogitatione verbo, et opere…"

It’s funny you should ask, as this is something I’ve thought about.

I don’t, in fact, mind the loss. I’ve often wondered why we confess to the Blessed Virgin, St. Michael, St. John the Bapist and Sts. Peter & Paul by name in the TLM. (A liturgical expert would be helpful here. AJV? Anyone?)

Caveat: what follows is just my uninformed speculation/opinion. I stand ready and willing to be corrected.

When I’ve attended Compline at religious communities, I’ve noticed that founder of the order is inserted into the Confiteor. So Benedictines confess to St. Benedict, Dominicans to St. Dominic, etc. (Maybe this is not true for all orders…)

I imagine this is because those saints are the spiritual fathers and leaders in heaven for those particular orders; members of those orders confessing to them makes sense to me. (As a follower of Benedict or Dominic, you are “accountable” to Benedict or Dominic…)

It makes slightly less sense to confess to St. John the Baptist and St. Peter & Paul if you don’t have a particular connection with them. Perhaps they are included in the TLM because they hold special significance for priests? (As the priest makes his confession first…)

That said, I personally wouldn’t object if the Blessed Virgin were re-inserted into the Confiteor. But, I don’t suppose it’s mandatory (though it’s a very good thing and I can’t imagine anyone objecting) that all Catholics have a special devotion to Mary.

I would probably feel the same way about re-inserting “omnibus sanctis” as I do about Sts. John the Baptist and Peter & Paul: I don’t object, but I’m not sure I understand the significance.

 

[ProVobis]

Which of course is totally false, possibly bordering on heresy (the claim that it is not the Perfect Sacrifice". Vatican two did not say any such thing. The Mass under either the TLM or the Novus Order is the “Perfect Sacrifice”. The actual Sacrifice on Calvary reenacted in non-bloody manner.

Paul VI himself signed a document to the effect that the Novus Ordo was “the Lord’s Supper or the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”

Furthermore, if you read EP#2, not one word of any “sacrifice” is mentioned. Not only that, even after the consecration, the words “we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.”

Is it any wonder Catholics don’t believe in Transubstantiation anymore?

 

[bear06]

I don’t get it, what’s SP got to do with the Latin NO?

A traditionalist claimed they felt like chopped liver. With the SP out now and EF’s popping up here and there, I’m the one who can still claim the chopped liver status. There has been no expansion in the Latin OF’s in my diocese (which is my preference). We’re the forgotten ones and hence my chopped liver status.

 

[AJV]

Paul VI himself signed a document to the effect that the Novus Ordo was “the Lord’s Supper or the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”

Out of curioisity, have you read the 1969 GIRM (or the 1968 prototype?)

Furthermore, if you read EP#2, not one word of any “sacrifice” is mentioned. Not only that, even after the consecration, the words “we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.”

Which are Eucharistic terms. “Bread of Life” and “Cup of salvation” are borrowed from the Canon. It was for this reason (among others, liturgical and theological) that some Protestants rejected it as a basis of common text for all denominations.

Something interesting that I read recently, was in a journal called Studia Liturgica where the author was commenting upon the Offertory sections of various anaphorae. He was opposed to an offering of the “Body and Blood” (an element that he criticised in EP IV and the GIRM). But the interesting bit was about how he viewed the offertory of the Canon. “Hostiam puram, etc.” according to him was all interpreted as referring to something other than the transubstaniated elements.

 

[AJV]

It makes slightly less sense to confess to St. John the Baptist and St. Peter & Paul if you don’t have a particular connection with them. Perhaps they are included in the TLM because they hold special significance for priests? (As the priest makes his confession first…)

Ss. Peter and Paul because they are the saints of Rome. St. Michael because he was regarded as the “angel of sacrifice”. St. John the Baptist could be said for a twofold reason: his high veneration in earlier ages, and his immaculate birth (as well as what Christ said of him). You’d probably also find other explanations: e.g. heavenly realms (St. Michael), Old Covenant (St. John) and the new Covenant (Ss. Peter and Paul)

That said, I personally wouldn’t object if the Blessed Virgin were re-inserted into the Confiteor. But, I don’t suppose it’s mandatory (though it’s a very good thing and I can’t imagine anyone objecting) that all Catholics have a special devotion to Mary.

I would probably feel the same way about re-inserting “omnibus sanctis” as I do about Sts. John the Baptist and Peter & Paul: I don’t object, but I’m not sure I understand the significance.

In an paper presented at the Assisi liturgical conference, the liturgist Fr.Jungmann discussed different possibilities for a reorganisation of a sort of a “penitential rite”. He wrote:

…simplification is desired inasmuch as it would increase the formula’s religious gravity and strength. It seems namely that the vision of God’s majesty is to a certain extent distracted by the enumeration of the saints; and the symmetrical repetition in the second half though it may have literary merit is scarcely any real enrichment of the formula

Jungmann proposed a deletion of the saints from the second half, and the removal the names- like the Dominican but without any enumeration. Eventually of course, it was the second half that was retained, and the first list omitted, as making clearer the theological point about the intercession. The name of the BVM was retained both for theological and historical reasons.

 

[piojunbabia]

Yes.
Yes, and I have already indicated some errors. I didn’t have to read very much at all to come across them. Go back through this thread and see. I have specifically spelled out some glaring errors promoted in the links you have provided and further indicated that it would be very foolish and unwise for a Catholic to learn Catholicism from these links when they are peppered with errors and attacks on the Church.
Yes, I can make a website and call it Catholic also. The devil is very deceptive remember. Can you point me to the imprimatur and Nihil Obstat on that website?

I am afraid I have to side with Vatican II which is the Catholic Church. Did you know that Vatican Councils do not teach or promote erroneous doctine?

Do I choose between “Catholic Apologetics” website or the Catholic Church and Vatican II? I choose the Church.

Blatant errors (as I have already indicated a couple) do not take lots of time to understand and comprehend. They are obvious.

well, there is nothing i can do to let you believe that the traditional teachings of Catholicism is in clash to the modern ideas of Vatican II. Come on, ope your eyes. you are only looking at the light of V2 and what about the past? Everything that you disliked that is against the New Mass, you make it a heresy, although there is no proof that it is something heretical. You made them erroneous because it is offendeing to you. Hey, study Catholicism not in the light of V2 alone but also the teachings of the past, you will realize it is really in clash. Please dont be proud enough, Im not offending you but i really have to tell this bcoz i have to. that V2 is really departing from Catholicism. I advise if you study the Council of Trent specifically. I wont provide links so that it wont be bias. all you have to do is search. if you dont trust the internet, then go to the library.
You are saying attack on the Church, the church you are reffering is V2 right? its not really an attack but to point out errors… Please study Catholicism (again) not in ight of V2 alone.

I am afraid I have to side with Vatican II which is the Catholic Church. Did you know that Vatican Councils do not teach or promote erroneous doctine?

Come on wake up. Again, please study. Study history

 

[PrayforMallory2]

Personally, I prefer a Latin NO because I find it more conducive to prayer than a Tridentine High Mass.

I don’t know how to express it properly, so I can only say that for me chanting the responses (and the ordinary) is a method of prayer. For me, participating in a Latin NO is like chanting the Divine Office (which the Church has done uninterruptedly for centuries.) I find that I do not have the option to chant the Mass together with the priest at a typical TLM High Mass (one is usually forced to make a choice between praying with the choir or trying to keep up with the priest.)

I enjoy chanting with the choir. I kind of like the separation of the priest because in a sense, it affirms the special role of the priest. Of course, the role is the same at any NO. I really need to go check out a Latin NO. It’s mainly the lay readers and Eucharistic ministers that would be off-putting for me in that setting.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t look on being permitted to make/chant the responses as a “right” or a chance to “perform,” I look on it as an enormous privilege. As an example, one of the things that always strikes me when I attend the Latin Pauline Mass after having been away is that after the readings are proclaimed, we are permitted to thank God and chant “Deo gratias.” If the Church were to ask me to give that privilege up, I would do so. But why would I surrender that privilege when I am permitted it?

Sounds very uplifiting.

I do understand Latin (at least well enough to understand the Mass) and, frankly, I’m not fond of the -issimi and repetition in the TLM. I find the placement of the non-scriptural “Mysterium Fidei” at the Consecration jarring. I appreciate the addition of “ommissionem” at the Confiteor; (which I am grateful to be allowed to say for myself in the OF) I personally need the reminder. I am grateful that I’m allowed to hear the Canon spoken by the priest (because of this I know it by heart and am able to think about & meditate on it.)

My big problem there would be that I really like the collects of the TLM. The very spiritual references. Of course, I’ve never been to a Novus Ordo that was even Neo-Conservative, so I can’t really comment.

For me, the simplicity and focus of a chanted, Latin OF provides a framework of prayer surrounding the Sacrifice of the Mass. By contrast, at a TLM High Mass I often find myself fighting the distractions pomp and ceremony in order to pray.

I guess I kind of enjoy the quiet time. I usually fill those moments with private prayer, when there isn’t a specifically communal prayer going on.

I don’t want you to think that I am opposed to a Latin NO by any means. I wish every NO was a Latin NO. The lay readers, eucharistic ministers, and especially the priest facing the people would be hard to get used to again, but I think I may check it out one day.

 

[ProVobis]

But the interesting bit was about how he viewed the offertory of the Canon. “Hostiam puram, etc.” according to him was all interpreted as referring to something other than the transubstaniated elements.

Then this is more of a problem with the unofficial translations in the handmissals. If you look it up, “Hostia” also means “Victim”.

Has this issue been addressed in the new OF translations?

Or maybe better, eliminate EF#2 altogether since there is no mention of “sacrifice.”

 

[AJV]

Then this is more of a problem with the unofficial translations in the handmissals. If you look it up, “Hostia” also means “Victim”.

Not really, the author was commenting on the Latin and was aware that Hostiam means Victim. I’m not aware actually, of any handmissal that says otherwise, if one discounts those strange versions of the mid-60’s. He was arguing that Victim (hostiam as opposed to say, victimam) is not univocal as being a reference to the transubstantiated Elements.