Not your "normal" Traditional Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter CUAGRAD08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CUAGRAD08

Guest
Okay guys hear me out before you jump on me:
I feel a bit of my personal background is needed so you can understand where I’m coming from. I’m an Early Church Historian by training and trade, I’ve gone to the “Traditional” Mass before, the “New” Mass and more Protestant Services than you could count. My Latin, grasp of Church History and Theology are great. This is not as a means to say “I’m better than you are” but rather as a means to say “I know what I’m talking about”.

I love the Mass that came out of the Council of Trent; I love it because I can understand the Latin; I love it because I think its beautiful; I Love it because I can understand the time and place it came out of. Thats my point however, the Mass of Trent did not come out of thin air, it is NOT the Mass of Jesus or the Early Saints (Even the later Saints). It came about as a response to the Protestants and because the Church had a need to define itself. Thats all great, and its beautiful but it is not the “Traditional” Mass.

I am a Traditional Catholic. I follow the Mass that best represents the Traditions of the Church. What does that mean? The early Writters, Christian and otherwise spoke that the earliest and best traditions of the Church are corporate Prayer, the Sharing of “Meal” and coming together as Bothers and Sisters in Christ. Nowhere are pretty clothes, gold and Latin required.
Pliny tells us that Christians came together and shared a meal and prayed together. Paul tells us that Christians came together and shared the meal and prayed together and remembered the saving act on the Cross. Latin did not come into the Mass until late in the game, even in Rome.

The “New” Mass is an effort to get back to these things, it is an effort to get back to what the Early Chuch and the Early Saints knew and loved. The Mass has changed many times. The Mass of Paul is different then the Mass of Saint Thomas, which is different than the Mass of Saint Catherine which is different then the Mass of Trent and all of those changes were good and okay. Trent was not the first Mass and it is clearly not the last. All are beautiful and holy and all show that Mass, like every other Work of God is meant to speak to people at their own time and place, the time and place of Trent is over

Thank you for letting me rant a bit, have a peachy day.
 
then why would Paul admonish those not to profane the Body and the Blood of our Lord, if they were simply “sharing a meal?”

could it be your understanding of the early Church isn’t as perfect as you claim?
 
Thank you for that post. That helps confirm my understanding of the purpose of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the Ressoursement (or however you spell that word!).

Both uses are beautiful and priceless…
 
Don’t get too comfy with the Novus Ordo. Pope BXVI is trying to salvage it as we speak.

The time of Trent is over huh ? Hard to believe when traditional semenaries are having to turn young men away due to demand. Hard to believe in light of the fruits of the SP of Pope BXVI.

No, to say “I’m a trad” and to also say that Trent’s time has passed is not normal. :eek: I’ll give you that 🙂
 
CUAGRAD08 said:
Okay guys hear me out before you jump on me:
I feel a bit of my personal background is needed so you can understand where I’m coming from. I’m an Early Church Historian by training and trade, I’ve gone to the “Traditional” Mass before, the “New” Mass and more Protestant Services than you could count. My Latin, grasp of Church History and Theology are great. This is not as a means to say “I’m better than you are” but rather as a means to say “I know what I’m talking about”.

I love the Mass that came out of the Council of Trent; I love it because I can understand the Latin; I love it because I think its beautiful; I Love it because I can understand the time and place it came out of. Thats my point however, the Mass of Trent did not come out of thin air, it is NOT the Mass of Jesus or the Early Saints (Even the later Saints). It came about as a response to the Protestants and because the Church had a need to define itself. Thats all great, and its beautiful but it is not the “Traditional” Mass.

I am a Traditional Catholic. I follow the Mass that best represents the Traditions of the Church. What does that mean? The early Writters, Christian and otherwise spoke that the earliest and best traditions of the Church are corporate Prayer, the Sharing of “Meal” and coming together as Bothers and Sisters in Christ. Nowhere are pretty clothes, gold and Latin required.
Pliny tells us that Christians came together and shared a meal and prayed together. Paul tells us that Christians came together and shared the meal and prayed together and remembered the saving act on the Cross. Latin did not come into the Mass until late in the game, even in Rome.

The “New” Mass is an effort to get back to these things, it is an effort to get back to what the Early Chuch and the Early Saints knew and loved. The Mass has changed many times. The Mass of Paul is different then the Mass of Saint Thomas, which is different than the Mass of Saint Catherine which is different then the Mass of Trent and all of those changes were good and okay. Trent was not the first Mass and it is clearly not the last. All are beautiful and holy and all show that Mass, like every other Work of God is meant to speak to people at their own time and place, the time and place of Trent is over

Thank you for letting me rant a bit, have a peachy day.
Click to expand...
I hope you have your turn-outs handy…:whistle:
 
Okay First,
Yes, the “Meal” is more than just another meal but the point is that it was more than just eatting a little piece of bread and a little sip of wine that had become the body and blood…it was that something important happened when the People came together to share this Holy Meal.

Second, yes, the Mass of Trent is still around and interest in it is Growing and yes the Pope has said its a good thing that ought to be done. What I meant when I said the time of Trent had passed was the the situations that fostered Trent are over.

I heart of my argument/issue/problem/whatever is really just that Trent is not THE Tradional Mass, there is a long Tradition of Mass before Trent and there will be long after it.
 
Prepare, the tidal wave approaches.

Welcome to the Traditional Catholicism forum, my friend. :o
 
CUAGRAD08 said:
The Mass has changed many times. The Mass of Paul is different then the Mass of Saint Thomas, which is different than the Mass of Saint Catherine which is different then the Mass of Trent and all of those changes were good and okay.

Trent was not the first Mass and it is clearly not the last. All are beautiful and holy and all show that Mass, like every other Work of God is meant to speak to people at their own time and place, the time and place of Trent is over

Thank you for letting me rant a bit, have a peachy day.
Click to expand...
If only some of our traditionalist bretheren had your open mind.

Trust me, anything you say here can and will be used against you…

😉
 
consumedconvert said:
Prepare, the tidal wave approaches.

Welcome to the Traditional Catholicism forum, my friend. :o
Click to expand...
I wasn’t stirring anything up intentionally. As the OP said, Trent was, and remains, the definitive Council of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s the “that was a long time ago” argument that gets old, no pun intended.

When you folks have a Pope who has been deemed a SAINT to quote from, then we can have a genuine debate. In the mean time, welcome to the Dark Side. 😉

Traditional Roman Catholicism isn’t fun. It doesn’t feel good. It ruins all the pleasures we can gather from embracing the mundane. It ruins everything. But the reward is the greatest treasure we can seek. A happy death and salvation.

Read St Alphonsus’s Preparation For Death. We don’t have to be sour faced saints, but we don’t have a lot to smile about either. It’s a filthy world.
 
I need to find a skull for my computer desk. That, and my St Benedict medal should keep my mind where it belongs 😛
 
From Michael Davies’

Short History of the Roman Mass.

geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/mhist.html
In its eighteenth session, the Council appointed a commission to examine the Missal, **to revise and restore it “according to the custom and rite of the Holy Fathers.” **Doctor Fortescue considers that the members of the Commission established to revise the Missal “accomplished their task very well”:
Click to expand...
It was not to make a new Missal, but to restore the existing one "according to the custom and rite of the holy Fathers," using for that purpose the best manuscripts and other documents.
Click to expand...
He makes particular mention of the liturgical continuity which characterized the new Missal. The Missal promulgated by St. Pius V is not simply a personal decree of the Sovereign Pontiff, but an act of the Council of Trent, even though the Council closed on 4 December 1563, before the commission had completed its task. The matter was remitted to Pope Pius IV, but he died before the work was concluded so that it was his successor, St. Pius V, who promulgated the Missal resulting from the Council, with the Bull Quo Primum Tempore, 14 July 1570. Because the Missal is an act of the Council of Trent, its official title is Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum (“The Roman Missal Restored According to the Decrees of the Holy Council of Trent”). This was the first time during the one thousand five hundred and seventy years of the Church’s history that a council or pope had used legislation to specify and impose a complete rite of Mass.
Click to expand...
 
CUAGRAD08 said:
I love the Mass that came out of the Council of Trent; I love it because I can understand the Latin; I love it because I think its beautiful; I Love it because I can understand the time and place it came out of.
Click to expand...
Did the Mass come out of Trent? I was under the impression that after Trent changes were made to the already existing Mass. Does that really constitute a new Mass? I would have thought of it more as a revision.
Thats all great, and its beautiful but it is not the “Traditional” Mass.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand this statement. How is it not the traditional Mass?
I am a Traditional Catholic. I follow the Mass that best represents the Traditions of the Church. What does that mean? The early Writters, Christian and otherwise spoke that the earliest and best traditions of the Church are corporate Prayer, the Sharing of “Meal” and coming together as Bothers and Sisters in Christ. Nowhere are pretty clothes, gold and Latin required.
Click to expand...
I don’t follow this either. How does the OF better represent these traditional ideas of the Mass than does the EF? I have been to many OF Masses with gold and have even seen them with Latin. Especially those celebrated by our Holy Father. I also often see them with people in pretty clothes, so I think I am misunderstanding this one.
The “New” Mass is an effort to get back to these things, it is an effort to get back to what the Early Chuch and the Early Saints knew and loved.
Click to expand...
I think it is wonderful that anyone loves the Mass, any Mass. I am also a traditional Catholic, or at least I would call myself that, and I also love a well celebrated OF Mass. If done with reverence and care it is a beautiful thing to behold. But, I am uncomfortable with your suggestions that the EF Mass is something of an anachronism for a completely different time, and that somehow that period is gone and instead we should try to celebrate as did the early Christians. Why, I wonder, do you say that the time of Trent is gone, but you don’t feel that way for the Church of the first few centuries? Surely 1800 years ago is far more gone than is 500, or am I missing something? It just seems a rather incongruent approach to keeping contemporary and such, don’t you think?
 
CUAGRAD08 said:
Okay guys hear me out before you jump on me:
I feel a bit of my personal background is needed so you can understand where I’m coming from. I’m an Early Church Historian by training and trade, I’ve gone to the “Traditional” Mass before, the “New” Mass and more Protestant Services than you could count. My Latin, grasp of Church History and Theology are great. This is not as a means to say “I’m better than you are” but rather as a means to say “I know what I’m talking about”.

I love the Mass that came out of the Council of Trent; I love it because I can understand the Latin; I love it because I think its beautiful; I Love it because I can understand the time and place it came out of. Thats my point however, the Mass of Trent did not come out of thin air, it is NOT the Mass of Jesus or the Early Saints (Even the later Saints). It came about as a response to the Protestants and because the Church had a need to define itself. Thats all great, and its beautiful but it is not the “Traditional” Mass.
Click to expand...
No offence, but your history is completely flawed. What you are calling the Mass of Trent goes back to Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 600). That’s why Cardinal Castrion has begun calling it The Gregorian Mass, rather than the Traditional Mass, or the Tridentine Mass. It did not originate at Trent, nor was it a responce to the heresies of the Protestants.

When I said that it goes back to St. Gregory the Great, we need to realize that Pope Gregory the Great actually only modifed a few prayers, which means, in reality, the Traditional Mass goes back to the mist of the apostolic age.

The following is from the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, by Msgr. Klaus Gamber. The forward for this book was written by Cardinal Ratzinger, who said that Msgr Gamber is *“the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church.” *

The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: "The Roman Rite, in important parts, goes back at least to the fourth century, more exactly to the time of Pope Damascus (366-384). By the time of Gelasius (492-496) the Canon of the Mass had attained the form it has kept until now, apart from some modifications made under Pope St. Gregory (590-604). Since the fifth century, the only thing on which the popes have unceasingly insisted is that the Roman Canon must be adopted; their argument being that it originated with the Apostle Peter. (p. 24).

The Old Mass was not “created” as was the new. Rather, it grew organically over the years, beginning with St. Peter. There were simply modifications and additions added to it.

Cardinal Ratzinger himself wrote the following:

Cardinal Ratzinger: "The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition… of using the missal we had had until then… I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. **The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal. The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is much different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, **which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries. Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a “Missal of Pius V”, created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. … The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences cold only be tragic." (Milestones)

Here’s a link to the history of the Mass from the Catholic encyclopedia.

newadvent.org/cathen/10354c.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top