Should We Turn Back The Clock?

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m obsessed with Latin just because I attend the Traditional Latin Mass? I could easily fire back and say you’re obsessed with the Novus Ordo because you prefer it over the TLM. That gets us nowhere. Latin is holier than the vernacular. If you can’t see that, then there’s nothing I can do to change you mind apparently. But whatever. And the Novus Ordo actually runs counter to the pre-Vatican II Church.

Latin is in no way, ontologically, holier than any other toungue. That is an absurdity, an opinion that you have stated as a fact. “Crux” is not “holier” than “cross,” “cruz,” or “croix.” The Church switched from Greek to Latin because Latin WAS the vernacular at the time. The Church has also permitted the celebration of the “TLM” in other languages in the past.

If you think Latin is, of itself, holier, then you should do a little research on the graffitti found on the walls of Pompeii and Herculeum…all of it in Latin and none of it fit to be printed here.

And you will have to prove that the OF “actually runs counter to the pre-Vatican II Church.”

 

[otjm]

First of all, Our Lady of Fatima did warn about Vatican II. She warned of what she calls “a diabolical dis-orientation”. She said altars would be sacked, and she said many would abandon the faith. She is really talking about Vatican II. Did you read the real Third Secret of Fatima, or the one released in 2000?

Vatican 2 did not call for any of the changes of which you complain. The changes occured in spite of what the documents called for. that is the point you just don’t seem to get.

No, the Novus Ordo is not our true Mass. Calling it the “Ordinary Form” makes it seem like it is the true Mass, but by calling it what it is, you get a sense that it’s a man-made Mass. Saying it is the true Mass actually makes one wonder if you know what the Church teaches, and I mean prior to Vatican II.

The EF is no less “man made” than is the OF; it simply occured over a much longer time. Both the EF and ther OF have Scripture ( the Liturgy of the Word); both have the Creed and the Offeratory; both have the Consecration and Communion. And the both differ from the Eastern rite liturgies, and all were put together based on what the Apostles were told to do (which interestingly is rather short - it is only the Eucharist that Christ specifically gave). From that point on, whatever we have as the Mass was “man made” to use your terms. In the beginning after the Resurrection, the Mass didn’t even all occur on the same day, as what we had was the Jewish service at synagogue on Saturday, and followers of Christ (primarily Jews) meeting on Sunday to “break bread” ( the words used in Scripture - not mine). From there, men added prayers, and the prayers differed depending on the area (which is how we got the different rites) and by the time of Trent, there were a number of canons; in fact, Trent supressed those in the Roman rite that had not been around for 200 years (and interestingly, the EF, which we get from Trent was not the only canon to survive Trent). The others are restricted to very small areas.

And St. Thomas was wrong? I’m sorry, but you are the one that is “180 degress dead wrong” about Communion in the hands. Remember, he lived before Vatican II, so he was certainly correct when he said only Consecrated hands should touch the Host. Even if he lived after Vatican II and said that, he would still be right. If you think there’s nothing wrong with Communion in the hand, then that’s simply your opinion. But whether you know it or not, whether you want to hear it or not, it is wrong. Then again, if you go by the teachings of the Church post-Vatican II, they completely ignore what all Saints and previous Popes said about such things, so I would recommend the pre-Vatican II teachings. If the Church still went by those teachings, then the TLM would be the Mass said in every parish today, not the NO.

OK, so you do not know much if anything about the vailidity of Communion in the hand for 1000 years; it would seem you do not know the difference between discipline and dogma, and you seem to know precious little of the documents of Vatican 2 themselves. As a matter of fact, if you had actually read the diocuments, you would know the falsity of your claim. There is little purpose in continuing the dialogue if you won’t even sit down and actually read the documents.

NOTE: I am not promoting CITH. COTT is the norm in the Roman rite and I seriously doubt that is going to change. Nor would I suggest that it should. But your comments about CITH ignore Church history and seem to indicate a lack of belief in the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. "Nuf said.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

OK, so you do not know much if anything about the vailidity of Communion in the hand for 1000 years; it would seem you do not know the difference between discipline and dogma, and you seem to know precious little of the documents of Vatican 2 themselves. As a matter of fact, if you had actually read the diocuments, you would know the falsity of your claim. There is little purpose in continuing the dialogue if you won’t even sit down and actually read the documents.

NOTE: I am not promoting CITH. COTT is the norm in the Roman rite and I seriously doubt that is going to change. Nor would I suggest that it should. But your comments about CITH ignore Church history and seem to indicate a lack of belief in the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. "Nuf said.

Not to mention that the practice may be Apostolic/Patristic in origin, which means what? The Apostles got it wrong? (I receive Communion on the tongue, myself, but this is an endlessly stupid argument).

Good (ie, intelligent, informed, able to be backed up by scholarship) post.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh please??? I think we agree here, Ed. Society has been in a downward spiral and would have been, whether Vatican II occurred or not.

The Catholic Church lost its moral leadership in the world somewhere along the line as well. I agree with you but the question is did the Catholic Church take part in that downward spiral or did it try to prevent it somehow? My guess is that it just wanted “to go with the flow,” the HV notwithstanding.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Catholic Church lost its moral leadership in the world somewhere along the line as well. I agree with you but the question is did the Catholic Church take part in that downward spiral or did it try to prevent it somehow? My guess is that it just wanted “to go with the flow,” the HV notwithstanding.

The Catholic Church has lost (and regained) its moral leadership more than once in Her history.

I do NOT think that VII wanted to “go with the flow.” I DO think that the “spirit” of VII DID want to “go with the flow.”

Pope Benedict (and others) said that the times following a council were always a time of turmoil. Fifty years is not a long time in terms of the Church.

 

[otjm]

I’m obsessed with Latin just because I attend the Traditional Latin Mass? I could easily fire back and say you’re obsessed with the Novus Ordo because you prefer it over the TLM. That gets us nowhere. Latin is holier than the vernacular. If you can’t see that, then there’s nothing I can do to change you mind apparently. But whatever. And the Novus Ordo actually runs counter to the pre-Vatican II Church.

Latin is the language of the Roman rite. It is not the only language of the Church, as the Maronite rite, for example, uses Aramaic and Arabic. Not Latin, and It didn’t use it before, and it isn’t going to use it in the future.

Latin has the advantage of having been around for more than 2000 years (some of the great writings in Latin were well before the birth of Christ) and is no longer an exisiting (as in current useage) language; it is set. English, for example, is a current language and as a result, workds have different meanings depending on the time of the useage (e.g., do a study of wht the definition is of the word “gay”; it is only recently that we have taken it to mean “homosexual orientation”). latin has been in use within the Roman rite liturgically for longer than anything else; but it started out in Aramaic and quickly moved to Greek, and remained that for several hundred years (largely because the Romans persecuted the Church). As the Romans settled more and more area and Latin became the preferred language, and as the persecutions stopped, Latin became the language of the Roman rite (and the other rites continued on with their own languages). And in fact, to a limited extent the Roman rite Mass was said in other languages, latin being the primary but not absolutely exclusive one. Historically, it si the one we are tied to (just as the Maronites are tied to ARabic and Aramaic). Latin is no holier than those two languages; but it is our heritage and has the advantage of being “fixed”.

Latin is no holier than any of the other languages used liturgically, in some circumstances longer than Latin has been used. And Latin is no holier than the vernacular; the history of the Church shows that. It is not the universal language of the Church; it is only the universal language of the Roman rite and that does imbue it with holiness. It imbues it with historical significance.

 

[ProVobis]

The Catholic Church has lost (and regained) its moral leadership more than once in Her history.

I do NOT think that VII wanted to “go with the flow.” I DO think that the “spirit” of VII DID want to “go with the flow.”

Pope Benedict (and others) said that the times following a council were always a time of turmoil. Fifty years is not a long time in terms of the Church.

I see what you’re saying and you’re right. I didn’t say anything about VII though. I don’t know what the rest of the world thought about it. Perhaps they looked at it as though it was an annual convention of some kind or perhaps one of those once-a-century open talks which were supposed to change their view of the Church to be a more progressive and “welcoming church,” as the movie “Doubt” suggests.

Now before someone blows at me and says “I don’t care what anyone else thinks,” don’t forget that ecumenism was one of the hot topics discussed at the council so it was important.

 

[cecilia97]

No, the Novus Ordo is not our true Mass. Calling it the “Ordinary Form” makes it seem like it is the true Mass, but by calling it what it is, you get a sense that it’s a man-made Mass. Saying it is the true Mass actually makes one wonder if you know what the Church teaches, and I mean prior to Vatican II.

It is a Mass of the Church, though.

And St. Thomas was wrong? I’m sorry, but you are the one that is “180 degress dead wrong” about Communion in the hands. Remember, he lived before Vatican II, so he was certainly correct when he said only Consecrated hands should touch the Host. Even if he lived after Vatican II and said that, he would still be right. If you think there’s nothing wrong with Communion in the hand, then that’s simply your opinion. But whether you know it or not, whether you want to hear it or not, it is wrong.

First…the Novus Ordo and Communion on the tongue are not mutually exclusive. I experience both at least once a week at the same Mass.

Second…while I certainly respect (and even agree with!) St. Thomas Aquinas’ opinion on the reception of Communion, didn’t he disagree with the Immaculate Conception of Mary? Is he the final word on everything?

Third…Communion in the hand, I believe, predates St. Thomas.

Fourth…the Church, under the power of the Keys, has said Communion in the hand is NOT wrong.

Then again, if you go by the teachings of the Church post-Vatican II, they completely ignore what all Saints and previous Popes said about such things, so I would recommend the pre-Vatican II teachings. If the Church still went by those teachings, then the TLM would be the Mass said in every parish today, not the NO.

I have nothing against the Latin Mass, but these arguments mix discipline and doctrine. The opinions of Popes and Saints are not doctrine. If the Church wants to change the liturgy, it can. We do not have to like it, but we are all called to be obedient. The Latin Mass does not go back to Christ and is not the way the Apostles celebrated the Eucharist. Neither is the Novus Ordo. Neither Mass is the “one” Mass.

 

[cecilia97]

I do NOT think that VII wanted to “go with the flow.” I DO think that the “spirit” of VII DID want to “go with the flow.”

Amen.

 

[otjm]

Not to mention that the practice may be Apostolic/Patristic in origin, which means what? The Apostles got it wrong? (I receive Communion on the tongue, myself, but this is an endlessly stupid argument).

Good (ie, intelligent, informed, able to be backed up by scholarship) post.

Thank you for your comment - it would help if I wasn’t in such a rush and could type decently.

I have seen nothing that any historical scholar has been able to put together showing the origin of either COTT of CITH. However, Scripture itself has Christ saying “Take and Eat… Take and Drink”; and the word “take” is repeated. It would be more arguable if He only said"Eat" and “Drink” without the “take”, as take at least arguably indicates one is going to have the Eucharist in one’s hands whereas if Scripture did not have that word, then the idea of receiving would have at least equal weight if not perhaps more. In any event, I doubt that the means of reception was something that the Apostles, the bishops they anointed, or much of anyone else for possibly several hundred years had a focus about; the silence on the issue is deafening. And the comment that we are to make the palm of the hand a throne for God clearly indcates that it was not just sort of, maybe, as a begruding alternative, a secondary way of receiving. St Thomas issued a lot of material and he was spot on in most of it. We need to keep in mind that a) he was not correct in all he said; b) he was a thologian making theological comments, all of which were subject to the Magisterium; and c) the Magisterium has as an indult allowed CITH, all of which is in their authority.

And as to the oft’ repeated claim that CITH results in lack of reverence, it flies in the face to two facts: 1) the clear reverence with which many receive that way, and 2) the undeniable fact that before CITH was widespread in the US, catechesis had already had years of being dumbed down to “Me and my buddy Jesus”, during which the vast majority of people received COTT.

 

[ProVobis]

I have nothing against the Latin Mass, but these arguments mix discipline and doctrine. The opinions of Popes and Saints are not doctrine. If the Church wants to change the liturgy, it can.

Ergo, the Novus Ordo is just an opinion?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Latin is in no way, ontologically, holier than any other toungue. That is an absurdity, an opinion that you have stated as a fact. “Crux” is not “holier” than “cross,” “cruz,” or “croix.” The Church switched from Greek to Latin because Latin WAS the vernacular at the time. The Church has also permitted the celebration of the “TLM” in other languages in the past.

If you think Latin is, of itself, holier, then you should do a little research on the graffitti found on the walls of Pompeii and Herculeum…all of it in Latin and none of it fit to be printed here.

And you will have to prove that the OF “actually runs counter to the pre-Vatican II Church.”

I’ve already proven it has. Protestants were actually allowed to give suggestions at the Vatican II Council. If anything is an absurdity, it would be that. If that doesn’t run counter to the pre-Vatican II Church, I do not know what does.

And I never claimed that Latin was holier than any other language. This is something that people who have dis-agreed with me on here have been saying. They accuse me of saying things that I have not said. I never claimed to be smarter than the Pope, either. Unless I directly say “I know I’m smarter then the Pope”, then don’t say something like “You think you’re smarter than the Pope, don’t you?”. What I said was Latin was far holier than the language currently used by the Novus Ordo. Latin is a truely holy language. And I know what I’m talking about, I can actually speak Latin. Not fluently, but I still can speak it. Why do you think my user-name is in Latin?

 

[cecilia97]

Ergo, the Novus Ordo is just an opinion?

The way Mass is said is a practice and a discipline. It is not doctrine or dogma,i.e., it can change. The opinions of Saints and Popes on the Mass are worthy of our attention, but those opinions are not doctrine or dogma or binding on us as Catholics in any way.

If the OF is an “opinion”, no less so the EF.

Do you know there were Masses said in the vernacular in Bohemia during the Middle Ages…with full consent of Rome?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Vatican 2 did not call for any of the changes of which you complain. The changes occured in spite of what the documents called for. that is the point you just don’t seem to get.

The EF is no less “man made” than is the OF; it simply occured over a much longer time. Both the EF and ther OF have Scripture ( the Liturgy of the Word); both have the Creed and the Offeratory; both have the Consecration and Communion. And the both differ from the Eastern rite liturgies, and all were put together based on what the Apostles were told to do (which interestingly is rather short - it is only the Eucharist that Christ specifically gave). From that point on, whatever we have as the Mass was “man made” to use your terms. In the beginning after the Resurrection, the Mass didn’t even all occur on the same day, as what we had was the Jewish service at synagogue on Saturday, and followers of Christ (primarily Jews) meeting on Sunday to “break bread” ( the words used in Scripture - not mine). From there, men added prayers, and the prayers differed depending on the area (which is how we got the different rites) and by the time of Trent, there were a number of canons; in fact, Trent supressed those in the Roman rite that had not been around for 200 years (and interestingly, the EF, which we get from Trent was not the only canon to survive Trent). The others are restricted to very small areas.

OK, so you do not know much if anything about the vailidity of Communion in the hand for 1000 years; it would seem you do not know the difference between discipline and dogma, and you seem to know precious little of the documents of Vatican 2 themselves. As a matter of fact, if you had actually read the diocuments, you would know the falsity of your claim. There is little purpose in continuing the dialogue if you won’t even sit down and actually read the documents.

NOTE: I am not promoting CITH. COTT is the norm in the Roman rite and I seriously doubt that is going to change. Nor would I suggest that it should. But your comments about CITH ignore Church history and seem to indicate a lack of belief in the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. "Nuf said.

1.- You did not say whether you are reffering to the real Third Secret of Fatima or the false secret that was released in 2000. You say Vatican II did not call for any of the changes I have stated that did, but they have. Our Lady said altars would be sacked. They were. They were replaced with tables to resemble Our Lord’s Last Supper. They are not altars. Don’t tell me I don’t get it when you don’t see that altars were replaced.

2.- Communion in the hand is not valid. It’s dis-respectful. We don’t need Communion in the hand, and we certainly do not need Eucharistic ministers. You can never call a Novus Ordo Mass “reverent” if it includes these things.

3.- You have gone so low as to say that I do not believe in the power and guidance of the Holy Ghost? My user-name on here is “Holy Ghost” in Latin! I know I have been given guidance from the Holy Ghost by attending the Traditional Latin Mass and knowing it’s the Mass I should be attending over the Novus Ordo.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

It is a Mass of the Church, though.

First…the Novus Ordo and Communion on the tongue are not mutually exclusive. I experience both at least once a week at the same Mass.

Second…while I certainly respect (and even agree with!) St. Thomas Aquinas’ opinion on the reception of Communion, didn’t he disagree with the Immaculate Conception of Mary? Is he the final word on everything?

Third…Communion in the hand, I believe, predates St. Thomas.

Fourth…the Church, under the power of the Keys, has said Communion in the hand is NOT wrong.

I have nothing against the Latin Mass, but these arguments mix discipline and doctrine. The opinions of Popes and Saints are not doctrine. If the Church wants to change the liturgy, it can. We do not have to like it, but we are all called to be obedient. The Latin Mass does not go back to Christ and is not the way the Apostles celebrated the Eucharist. Neither is the Novus Ordo. Neither Mass is the “one” Mass.

1.- It’s a Mass of the Church, but not a Mass of the true Church.

2.-I never said he was the final word on everything.

3.-You may want to elaborate on your third point there.

4.-It IS wrong. Just because Pope Paul VI said it wasn’t wrong doesn’t mean I should be sticking my hands out to receive Christ.

 

[ProVobis]

then you should do a little research on the graffitti found on the walls of Pompeii and Herculeum…all of it in Latin and none of it fit to be printed here.

Those darn Greeks.

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic Church lost its moral leadership in the world somewhere along the line as well. I agree with you but the question is did the Catholic Church take part in that downward spiral or did it try to prevent it somehow? My guess is that it just wanted “to go with the flow,” the HV notwithstanding.

No need for guessing.

time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19700223,00.html

The Church did not want to go with the flow. Dissidents within and without began their attack and only now is the damage being reversed.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[ProVobis]

4.-It IS wrong. Just because Pope Paul VI said it wasn’t wrong doesn’t mean I should be sticking my hands out to receive Christ.

I believe he did refer to it as an abuse, though, even though he “allowed” it where it had been practiced already.

 

[franklinf]

Both the EF and ther OF have Scripture ( the Liturgy of the Word); both have the Creed and the Offeratory; both have the Consecration and Communion.

Just a quick note.

The OF does NOT have a Offeratory - rather it is the “presentation of gifts.”

Furthermore, in the English translation, the NO has butchered the Canon as well as changed the words of consecration.

 

[cecilia97]

1.- It’s a Mass of the Church, but not a Mass of the true Church.

2.-I never said he was the final word on everything.

3.-You may want to elaborate on your third point there.

4.-It IS wrong. Just because Pope Paul VI said it wasn’t wrong doesn’t mean I should be sticking my hands out to receive Christ.

1- Wow. Where is the obedience to Christ’s Church?

2- It was a rhetorical question, a little nudge that maybe it’s not the best idea to quote Saints who denied the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady when you’re trying to defend tradition.

3- Read the Early Church Fathers and see how Catholic Christians in the first 7 centuries after Christ received in the hand. Communion in the hand is arguably a more ancient tradition than Communion on the tongue.