the document clearly states one of the reasons why the liturgy was reformed was to ensure certainty to the average person. If that is a case, a simple decree that stated we all derive the same amount and quality of graces in any valid Mass (which was probably already said, if we did hard enough) would’ve sufficed, instead of an entire reform to the liturgy.
The reform was necessary, because as we said, there is internal and external efficciousness or in modern theological language objective and subjective benefits. Objectively, the benefits of grace are available to all in the same degree, because Christ does not give himself in doses.
Subjectively, what the person takes with him is going to vary. It is not Christ giving himself in doses, it’s the individual drawing in doses, each according to the measure of actual grace that he has available to him.
It is false to assume that everyone who celebrated the mass before the reform drew the same benefit from it. For this reason, Ascetical and Mystical Theologians cannot lend support to those who say that the mass of the ages was the mass that made the great saints of the past. This is just not true. We get this from the saints themselves and from the historical facts in their lives.
The saints wrote extensively about the Eucharist. They rarely wrote about the form of the mass. One must ask why not? The answer is simple. Most of the saints are religious and a few diocesan priests and laymen. The religious had their own forms, which were never the Tridentine Form. To claim that the Tridentine Form is the form of the saints, is a false claim. Every religious community founded before Trent had its own form. Those forms continued until Vatican II. The Tridentine form was used only by the secular clergy and the clerks regular, except the Jesuits. Since most lay people were served by secular clergy or by clerks regular, that’s the form that most know. They have mistakenly generalized it to the entire Latin Church. Those religious and the laity who attended their mass wouldn’t know the Tridentine Form if it hit them on the head.
The term, the mass of the ages, was used to refer to the mass, not to any Eastern or Western Rite or any form within those rites. This is a novel use of the term.
I am using the proper labels… and I am not making the issue of “NO vs Tridentine” but only those who oppose the Tridentine Mass seem to be making the biggest fuss about it, only pointing that out as an observer.
Actually, the term NO is no longer used by the Latin Church. The term was retired when Bl. John Paul revised the Mass of Paul VI. Novus Ordo referred to the order, not to the form. It was still the Roman Form. The order is no longer new and the original order promulgated by Pope Paul is no longer in use. The Holy Father is a very nuanced man. He deliberately uses the term Ordinary Form to drive home the point that the revised mass is the norm for the Latin Church and the Tridentine fomr is theexception, hence the term Extraordinary Form.
What I see is an almost desperate attempt on the part of some people to make the Tridentine form the norm. But that is not the current wish of the Church. We have to reflect the Church’s wishes in our speech, not our own. The great saints have always taught us that we must be children of the Church. They wee not speaking of some abstract Church, but the Church of their day.
Was that employed, in your opinion?
I’m sorry. I don’t understand the question. Can you help me here? Thanks.
Interesting, english didn’t translate that single word in it’s true form. You made a good demonstration that vernacular use is counterproductive
but that’s another subject.
Actually, it’s not that the vernacular is counterproductie. It’s that English is what it is. Spanish, French, Italian and other Romance languages are vernacular as well, but the translations work. Even in German, it works. It just does not work for English. English is a very different language since it’s a hybrid of several languages. The rules are many with exceptions to every one.
This is a very important point Brother Jay and was one of the many factors that led me out of Protestantism. What or who is the center of worship? It must be the Sacrifice upon the Altar. This makes Catholic worship completely
other than Protestant worship. Efficaciousness is hard to measure. “Smells and bells” do not make it more so. Catholics who attend either a Latin Mass or a Novus Ordo (sorry I’m a dinosaur, I’m not into acronyms
) need to focus in on what that
center is.
In Franciscan theology we have a very simple approach to understanding the mass. The mass mediates Christ, because through the mass we are nurtured with both the Word of God which is alive and incarnate and with the body and blood of Chris, which would not be possible, wee it not for the Incarnation.
The mass is also grace, because it is the moment of redemption on the cross, which is a moment of grace for the many. At the cross, divine grace is not mediated through bread and wine, but it poured upon us in the blood of the paschal lamb.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
It’s funny, because he and one of our brothers are the only priests in the diocese who celebrate it. The seminary put out four new priests last year, but they refused to celebrate it. They all know how. It’s required learning at the regional seminary.