The Latin Mass/First Masses?

[DustinsDad]

…The only people that believe the Mason conspiracy theories are the ones who made them up–the sedevacantists.

Popes from about the time of the French Revolution up to about the 1960s constantly warned about the very real dangers of freemasonry. The thing is, according to the mindset of many of today’s catholics, such warnings would be either heretical or foolish.

I’m sorry, but the fact that Christ’s Church will not fall to the gates of hell does not mean that there will not be battles in the meantime - souls won and souls lost. It does not mean that the hierarchy of the Church will always speak* clearly* - there historically have been, and will continue to be, confusing times. We’re obviously living in one of 'em.

Did freemasonry (and it’s philosophy, “modernism”) affect the Council? Perhaps only in its ambeguity. How about the Council’s* interpretation* (aka the “Spirit of Vatican II”)? I think that’s fairly obvious.

I suggest that rather than immediately moving anyone into a sedevacantist camp for having traditional concerns over the current state of Christ’s Church, it might be good to actually look at what their arguments are. In apologetics we do that much for non-Catholic religions - how about for our own brothers and sisters at the idult mass on the other side of town (or the other side of the diocese, whatever the case may be )

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

Related Article of interest: Freemasonry and the Subversion of the Catholic Church

 

[DustinsDad]

But what prayers changed from the Tridentine mass to the Novus Ordo?

This link provides some comparison and contrast, with commentary from a traditionalist point of view. And here’s a more recent follow upfrom the same author.

My friend believes these “changes” were not right.

I tend to agree with here (though I would say “not good”). This pastoral decision from Pope Paul VI isn’t covered by infallibility - it could very well not be a good decision.

And she thinks Masons sat in on VII because we are living in the final days…

See above post on the Freemason question. I haven’t met a traditionalist yet who thinks we’re living in the “last days” (as in end of the world), yet quite a few believe we could be on the verge of the chastisement (or are already in the first part of it) spoken of by Our Lady in various approved private revelations (Fatima, etc.).

And alot of folks feel this way, traditionalist and non-traditionalist alike.

…and the “true” church of the Catholics will soon have to go underground.

Such a thing is not impossible. The Church was “underground” for centuries in the beginning…it’s “underground” in many parts of the world today (China for example).

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[steve_green_2]

Seems VERY odd that the great liturgist Bugnini would be rewarded with a trip to serve the rest of his career in IRAN ???

Think a little people…

No official explaination EVER given ???

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

DustinsDad,

I wasn’t saying that Freemasonry isn’t a dangerous thing; it most certainly is! I also agree with you that it is an enemy of the Church. However, for Catholics to say that Freemasonry could have affected the outcome of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church (and lead to even the pope himself being influenced by them, even if it is only in a pastoral decision) is almost (almost, not definitely) saying that the gates of hell are prevailing, or at least making a lot of headway, against the Church.

I did read some of those articles you linked, and those are arguments that I am quite familiar with (contrary to what you may think, I actually have read MANY of the traditionalist arguments before). They give John XXIII a mocking name, criticize him for being optimistic of the world, and, like every other radical traditionalist, think that they know better than the Vicar of Christ what is or is not good for the Church. They blame Vatican II itself rather than the people who failed to properly impliment it. Vatican II was not the problem; the problem was that it still has not been implimented. Most of us traditional Catholics are quite optimistic of Benedict XVI’s papacy and that we will see the council properly put into place.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[kleary]

In the old Latin Mass and the way it was done, preists having his back to the people, speaking in Latin, etc. No Pope ever proclaimed infalliable that the Church Mass must and always be done that way or is accursed? Right? Otherwise there couldn’t have been a change as there was in Vatican II.

A friend of mine is getting into the Latin Mass and seems to be becoming a “traditionalist” and claims the mass should never have been changed. But I can find no infaliable statement saying the must must ALWAYS remain the same as it was in the Latin.

What were the first masses like? How were they set up and did the priests have his back to the people?

The first masses were said not on tables with the priest facing the people BUT ON THE TOMBS OF THE MARTYRS - the priest never faced the people - they all faced “East” and the same direction.

Mass facing the people on a table IS A PROTESTANT INVENTION that was meant to make the liturgy look like the last supper paintings. it was INVENTED by protestants.

Ken

 

[Digitonomy]

The first masses were said not on tables with the priest facing the people BUT ON THE TOMBS OF THE MARTYRS - the priest never faced the people - they all faced “East” and the same direction.

Can you provide a cite for this? I would venture that quite a few of the masses, then as now, were in places where there were no martyrs yet, and thus no martyr tombs.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

I don’t know about which direction the first Masses were said (most likely ad orientem, but I don’t know). But, what I do know from my studies towards my bachlor’s degree in history, is that one of the very first things that the Protestants did was to rip out the high altars and put in a “Communion table”. I have seen drawings that were comparisons of what the sanctuaries (this was specifically England that I was studying at the time) looked like when the Catholics had the church, and then what they looked like when the Protestants had the church. The “Communion table” looked a lot like many of the altars used in Catholic churches today.

There is nothing wrong with the altar being free-standing (provided that it is actually an altar and not a table) and not against the wall. The Greek Orthodox church I went to for a sacred music concert once had a free standing altar (behind the iconostasis, of course) with the tabernacle on it; it was not against the wall. Also, even the tabernacle does not absolutely need to be on the altar (think the basilicas in Rome). The important thing is that it be an altar, NOT a table, and I also think that Mass should be said ad orientem (though I do not have as much of a problem with versus populum that most traditionalists do).

In Christ,
Rand

 

[palmas85]

Sounds like your friend has been hanging around with too many traditionalist, schismatic conspiracy theorists.

While many people do see the TLM as being a more complete and aesthetically and theologically pleasing liturgy, the NO is still perfectly and equally valid and most certainly not sinful.

The form of the Mass is NOT set in stone for all time on pain of sin, and there never were Masons involved with Vatican 2 - has your friend forgotten that involvement Freemasonry has always been and still is a grave sin for a Catholic?

Indeed there never HAS been one single ‘Catholic’ mass. Our Eastern Catholic brothers especially use and always have used a myriad of languages and forms, all perfectly valid and fit for any of us to attend.

I myself today am planning to attend my first ever Maronite Catholic liturgy. While it may well not look or sound either like the NO which I am used to or like the TLM, it will nonetheless be valid and I am perfectly entitled to receive the Precious Body and Blood, Confession if it is offered while I am there or any of the other sacraments.

The Maronite Liturgy greatly resembles the Pauline Rite these days. There are subtle differences to be sure and communion is by intinction so no receiving in the hand,:tsktsk: but otherwise there isn’t a whole lot of difference. I’ve heard that lately Rome has been encouraging the Maronites to return to some of their prior practices which they dropped after Vatican II in the interst of unity. Rome apparently feels that the Maronites as well as many of the Eastern Churches actually lost a lot of their cultural uniqueness after Vatican II, and would like to see some of it restored.

The big difference in the Maronite Liturgy is that it is generally longer sometimes a lot longer . The sign of Peace is different as well, but very nice.

I’ve always enjoyed dropping in on the local Maronite assembly from time to time.

 

[AJV]

The first masses were said not on tables with the priest facing the people BUT ON THE TOMBS OF THE MARTYRS - the priest never faced the people - they all faced “East” and the same direction.

Mass facing the people on a table IS A PROTESTANT INVENTION that was meant to make the liturgy look like the last supper paintings. it was INVENTED by protestants.

Ken

Can you provide a cite for this? I would venture that quite a few of the masses, then as now, were in places where there were no martyrs yet, and thus no martyr tombs.

I would suggest the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

Altar

It does say that altars were made of wood and mentions tables and portable chests, but also mentions the tombs of martyrs together with the altars erected at the time of Constantine.

Not to say that everyone should revert to using table altars.

 

[The_Catholic]

The first masses were said not on tables with the priest facing the people BUT ON THE TOMBS OF THE MARTYRS - the priest never faced the people - they all faced “East” and the same direction.

Mass facing the people on a table IS A PROTESTANT INVENTION that was meant to make the liturgy look like the last supper paintings. it was INVENTED by protestants.

Ken

To be blunt, my over all point is this: Is it sinful, condeming, or against God’s will for the Priest to face the people during Mass? Are the prayers that are said now in the Novus Ordus sinful?

I’m not asking if these changes of the Mass are “not as good as the Tridentine” but if they are SINFUL and against the WILL OF GOD! And when my friend speaks of the “true” church going underground she’s not speaking of the Pope also being there, but that HE TOO will fall away and only the “true” church will live underground. As if unguided by a Pope and Papacy.

 

[demerzel85]

To be blunt, my over all point is this: Is it sinful, condeming, or against God’s will for the Priest to face the people during Mass? Are the prayers that are said now in the Novus Ordus sinful?

That is dependent on what valid Magesterial authority has said on it. What the Megesterium teaches, we listen. The laity are not given the charism to infallibly judge if Mass celeberated Versus Populum is sinful. The charism of infalibility is reserved for the Pope. It is a protestant heresy to regard every man as his own pope.

Yet one distinction must still be made. TLM can only be celebrated ad orientum. The Novus Ordo as implied in the GIRM can be celebrated ad orientum as well without need for special permission. As commonly practised for the Novus Ordo, Mass is celebrated Versus Populum.

 

[The_Catholic]

That is dependent on what valid Magesterial authority has said on it. What the Megesterium teaches, we listen. The laity are not given the charism to infallibly judge if Mass celeberated Versus Populum is sinful. The charism of infalibility is reserved for the Pope. It is a protestant heresy to regard every man as his own pope.

Yet one distinction must still be made. TLM can only be celebrated ad orientum. The Novus Ordo as implied in the GIRM can be celebrated ad orientum as well without need for special permission. As commonly practised for the Novus Ordo, Mass is celebrated Versus Populum.

I mean no disrespect, but I don’t understand a word you’re saying. Can someone just simply say YES and then give the reasons why, or NO and then give reason why?

 

[The_Catholic]

Sometimes from all these constant arguments my head feels like it’s spinning 1000 mpr. Catholics saying this, catholics saying that, catholics claimimng protestants are dammed, catholics claiming they are not, catholics claiming OTHER catholics are dammed by following the Novus Ordus. That if you’re not doing it this way, that way, or that way then you’re wrong or dammed. The early Church did this, the early Church did that.

I feel so scrambled because in one sense every person seems to have a point but what is the truth? I get so frustrated and confused that I end up taking my eyes off of God and fall into sin. I sometimes feel hollow and empty inside from NUMEROUS people, including “different” types of Catholics, coming to me saying that this is what you are to do. Really?

I plainly see why many unbelievers turn away from Christianity because of this. I however will not. I just want to focus MY LIFE on God. Whether I am saying a Tridentine prayer or a Novus Ordus prayer I don’t think He really cares AS LONG AS MY HEART IS IN THE PRAYER AND NOT EMPTY!

I know I’m rambling so PLEASE do not insult me. I am just feeling depressed right now because of confusion from every side. And God is NOT the author of confusion.

 

[tcraig]

To be blunt, my over all point is this: Is it sinful, condeming, or against God’s will for the Priest to face the people during Mass? Are the prayers that are said now in the Novus Ordus sinful?

No.

If your friend is telling you these things, please ask her to provide proof as to how they are sinful. When it comes to the priest facing the people during Mass, well, I’ve read that during the times the Irish were persecuted and forbidden from celebrating the Mass the priest used to lie down in the fields with the people so they wouldn’t be seen. Goodness, he wasn’t even standing! LOL

As for the prayers in the NO, read them yourself. You seem fairly intelligent. Do they even remotely sound sinful? Maybe some would consider that the English translations of the prayers in the NO aren’t nearly as beautiful as in the TLM (and I put myself in this category), but sinful? Hardly.

I’ll be quite honest here: I consider myself a “traditionalist” in that I prefer the TLM over the NO for aesthetic and theologic reasons (though I would be quite happy with a Latin NO), and enjoying keeping/implementing pious traditions of the past. But one must be very careful with what some self-styled traditionalists are saying. In my experience, many are just as whacky and unbalanced as the hippy-dippy liberals.

 

[demerzel85]

I mean no disrespect, but I don’t understand a word you’re saying. Can someone just simply say YES and then give the reasons why, or NO and then give reason why?

Well let me simplify what I was saying. In the first place you must make the distinction between the Traditional Latin Mass / Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass.

In the TLM, the Priest can only celebrate the Mass facing the altar. He cannot do so facing the people.

In the Novus Ordo, implied within the General Instructions of the Roman Missal, the Priest can celebrate the Mass facing the altar also. Yet as is commonly practised in the Novus Ordo, the Priest faces the people. There is however, no need for any kind of special permission to celebrate the Novus Ordo facing the altar.

It is also however not up to us lay people to declare that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid or that celebrating the Mass facing the people is evil. That authority is reserved to the valid teaching authority of the Church. As Catholic we listen to the Magesterium of the Church. Every Pope has the same authority as his predecessor. Pope Paul VI had as much authority as Pope Pius V, when the former released the Encyclical Missal Romanum that promulgated the Novus Ordo, as when the latter codified the Traditional Latin Mass in the encyclical Quo Primum. As the Supremem Legislator, the Pope has the final say on these matters.

 

[The_Catholic]

No.

If your friend is telling you these things, please ask her to provide proof as to how they are sinful. When it comes to the priest facing the people during Mass, well, I’ve read that during the times the Irish were persecuted and forbidden from celebrating the Mass the priest used to lie down in the fields with the people so they wouldn’t be seen. Goodness, he wasn’t even standing! LOL

As for the prayers in the NO, read them yourself. You seem fairly intelligent. Do they even remotely sound sinful? Maybe some would consider that the English translations of the prayers in the NO aren’t nearly as beautiful as in the TLM (and I put myself in this category), but sinful? Hardly.

I’ll be quite honest here: I consider myself a “traditionalist” in that I prefer the TLM over the NO for aesthetic and theologic reasons (though I would be quite happy with a Latin NO), and enjoying keeping/implementing pious traditions of the past. But one must be very careful with what some self-styled traditionalists are saying. In my experience, many are just as whacky and unbalanced as the hippy-dippy liberals.

Thanks alot. You’ve been helpful. I would like to attend a Tridentine Mass myself to experiance it.

 

[The_Catholic]

Well let me simplify what I was saying. In the first place you must make the distinction between the Traditional Latin Mass / Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass.

In the TLM, the Priest can only celebrate the Mass facing the altar. He cannot do so facing the people.

In the Novus Ordo, implied within the General Instructions of the Roman Missal, the Priest can celebrate the Mass facing the altar also. Yet as is commonly practised in the Novus Ordo, the Priest faces the people. There is however, no need for any kind of special permission to celebrate the Novus Ordo facing the altar.

It is also however not up to us lay people to declare that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid or that celebrating the Mass facing the people is evil. That authority is reserved to the valid teaching authority of the Church. As Catholic we listen to the Magesterium of the Church. Every Pope has the same authority as his predecessor. Pope Paul VI had as much authority as Pope Pius V, when the former released the Encyclical Missal Romanum that promulgated the Novus Ordo, as when the latter codified the Traditional Latin Mass in the encyclical Quo Primum. As the Supremem Legislator, the Pope has the final say on these matters.

Thanks and Godbless.

 

[DustinsDad]

…However, for Catholics to say that Freemasonry could have affected the outcome of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church …is almost …saying that the gates of hell are prevailing, or at least making a lot of headway, against the Church.

Christ said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail, not that there wouldn’t be a battle in the meantime. In the course of 2000 years, there have been some dark times when it looked bad, as it does today.

What Christ’s promise means, most simply put, is that the Church can’t iinfallibly bind error in matters of faith and morals. Freemasonry and modernism couldn’t do that at Vatican II - what is in the realm of possibility is that such influences could have led to ambiguous language in the documents that can be read with orthodox eyes or with less that orthodox eyes.

…I did read some of those articles you linked, and those are arguments that I am quite familiar with…They give John XXIII a mocking name, criticize him for being optimistic of the world,

I’m not sure what name you are talking about, but John XXIII’s “optimism” is something that is curious to say the least. After more than a century of warnings about the dangers of freemasonry, modernism, etc., out of the blue, we get optimism and openess to “the world”. And where has such openess and optimism taken Christ’s Church?

…and, like every other radical traditionalist, think that they know better than the Vicar of Christ what is or is not good for the Church. They blame Vatican II itself rather than the people who failed to properly impliment it. Vatican II was not the problem; the problem was that it still has not been implimented.

For the first part, the pope is the head of the Church, so some responsibility for “failing to implement it” has to fall on his shoulders - and he’d be the first to admit it. What we can’t do is sit by idly and pretend a serious serious crisis doesn’t exist. That doesn’t do the pope, the bishops, or your local parish priest any good.

Secondly, as for the implementation of Vatican II…40 years after the council, those in the hierarchy, along with various theologins and apologists, still seem unable to agree with what VII actually meant - and those with less that orthodox eyes seemingly have the reigns in many parts of the Church.

But then, it’s hard to implement something concretely when vague and platitude filled esoteric essays are the blueprints bywhich to go by.

Most of us traditional Catholics are quite optimistic of Benedict XVI’s papacy and that we will see the council properly put into place.

And I hope and pray you are right.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[The_Catholic]

Christ said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail, not that there wouldn’t be a battle in the meantime. In the course of 2000 years, there have been some dark times when it looked bad, as it does today.

What Christ’s promise means, most simply put, is that the Church can’t iinfallibly bind error in matters of faith and morals. Freemasonry and modernism couldn’t do that at Vatican II - what is in the realm of possibility is that such influences could have led to ambiguous language in the documents that can be read with orthodox eyes or with less that orthodox eyes.

I’m not sure what name you are talking about, but John XXIII’s “optimism” is something that is curious to say the least. After more than a century of warnings about the dangers of freemasonry, modernism, etc., out of the blue, we get optimism and openess to “the world”. And where has such openess and optimism taken Christ’s Church?

For the first part, the pope is the head of the Church, so some responsibility for “failing to implement it” has to fall on his shoulders - and he’d be the first to admit it. What we can’t do is sit by idly and pretend a serious serious crisis doesn’t exist. That doesn’t do the pope, the bishops, or your local parish priest any good.

Secondly, as for the implementation of Vatican II…40 years after the council, those in the hierarchy, along with various theologins and apologists, still seem unable to agree with what VII actually meant - and those with less that orthodox eyes seemingly have the reigns in many parts of the Church.

But then, it’s hard to implement something concretely when vague and platitude filled esoteric essays are the blueprints bywhich to go by.

And I hope and pray you are right.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

So what are the dangers the Church is in today?

I’ve never attended the Tridentine Mass but I would like to. Also, I just came back from Mass, the Novus Ordo, and it’s beautiful! I see no problem with it. The prayers are beautiful, the hyms, the Holy Scriptual verses, etc. What are the problems that Tridentine Mass followers have against the Novus Ordo or the second Vatican council? Or is it just they prefer the Latin Mass because it’s more beautiful and poetic?

 

[The_Catholic]

Christ said the the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church. That I understand to be the Church’s Doctrines on Faith and Morals. That NO pope would ever proclaim something “new” like homosexuality is not sin, or adultry is not sin, etc.

But I understand that dark powers could creep in and cause problems, but never the less, they will fail when it comes to the teachings of the Holy Church.

So the Mass is NOT set in stone. Anotherwords no pope has ever infallibly proclaimed that “if anyone changes the form of the Tridentine Mass or it’s prayers, then let them be accursed.” Right? Otherwise there would not be the Novus Ordo.

Does anyone know of a good book to read about Vatican II- NOT written by a traditionalist who can’t stomach V II?