The Mass

[thistle]

Since I joined these forums some weeks back I have noticed a kind of battle between so-called traditionalists and so-called liberals and in threads about various aspects of the Mass. Some of the exchanges have been decidedly vitriolic and it hasn’t always been clear to me why.
Before I say any more I need to know exactly what the debate is about and so I would like to ask if what the traditionalists are trying to defend and would like to be able to attend is the Mass according to the Roman Missal decreed in 1570 by Pope Pius V after the Council of Trent?

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

There are two sorts of traditionalists:

Traditionalist (myself)- They wish to see the Church obey the proclamations of the Curia and Pope. They like things followed to the letter, and are opposed to so-called innovations in the Mass. They most definately prefer the Tridentine Mass, but due to the fact that it is not conductive to liturgical abuse, not because they feel the NO Mass is heretical or anything.

Ultra-Traditionalist- They believe that the Second Vatican Council was a betrayal of the “True Church” and seek to return to where the Church was prior to that. They are more extreme, and believe that the NO is not really a Mass, sometimes refusing to attend, despite it being the only availible.

 

[thistle]

Servus Pio XII:

There are two sorts of traditionalists:

Traditionalist (myself)- They wish to see the Church obey the proclamations of the Curia and Pope. They like things followed to the letter, and are opposed to so-called innovations in the Mass. They most definately prefer the Tridentine Mass, but due to the fact that it is not conductive to liturgical abuse, not because they feel the NO Mass is heretical or anything.

Ultra-Traditionalist- They believe that the Second Vatican Council was a betrayal of the “True Church” and seek to return to where the Church was prior to that. They are more extreme, and believe that the NO is not really a Mass, sometimes refusing to attend, despite it being the only availible.

So its the Mass decreed 400 years ago by Pius V.
Do Traditionalists and/or Ultra-Traditionalists want that Mass reintroduced and imposed on everyone or do they just want permission from Rome to have such a Mass if local bishops, priests, and congregations agree to have it?

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Thats precisely what we don’t want (I mean the latter). Instead, we want a universal right for all clergy to celebrate the Tridentine Rite of Mass, without needing approval of the bishopric to do so.

 

[thistle]

Servus Pio XII:

Thats precisely what we don’t want (I mean the latter). Instead, we want a universal right for all clergy to celebrate the Tridentine Rite of Mass, without needing approval of the bishopric to do so.

Sorry but I’m not clear on that. You don’t want it imposed but you want the right to celebrate the Tridentine without requiring approval? I don’t get it.
Who would decide at local level if a parish church celebrated that Mass or not?

 

[Dropper]

Servus Pio XII:

There are two sorts of traditionalists:

Ultra-Traditionalist- They believe that the Second Vatican Council was a betrayal of the “True Church” and seek to return to where the Church was prior to that. They are more extreme, and believe that the NO is not really a Mass, sometimes refusing to attend, despite it being the only availible.

I guess I would probably fall under this definition. I don’t believ that Vatican II was a betrayal of the True Church in and of itself. I do believe that many of the Fathers of Vatican II very possibly had sinister agendas. I do believe that Vatican II was a mistake because of its ambiguity. Church documents before Vatican II were anything but ambiguous. Vatican II was pastoral not doctrinal or dogmatic. I also see problems with documents like Lumen Gentium.

Do I think that the Council was heretical? No. But as it was a pastoral council we aren’t bound to it except where it has restated what has been in the past.

Most of us in this groups also don’t believe that the NO is not a valid Mass. I believe that it is a valid Mass, but that it is open to so much abuse because of all the options that a priest has when saying it. It’s valid. It IS protestantised. That is a major problem that many of us have with it. There were six protestants in the group that helped creat the NO. That should have been a red flag long ago…

I attend the NO when necessity dictates that I do. It is often an occasion of sin for me (the reason that I attend only out of necessity), but I do attend. The only reason I attend even out of necessity is that it IS Jesus Christ in the Tabernacle. It is Jesus Christ that is being received from the priest.

That being said, I have heard that some Traditionalists have a problem with the English words of Consecration (the “Many” versus the “All” controversy). It is understandable, but I think that the Host and the Precious Blood are still confected in spite of the problem through Our Lord.

Oh, and I do pray every day for a restoration of the Church.

That is in a nutshell most of the positions I hold as a Traditionalist.

 

[Dropper]

thistle:

Sorry but I’m not clear on that. You don’t want it imposed but you want the right to celebrate the Tridentine without requiring approval? I don’t get it.
Who would decide at local level if a parish church celebrated that Mass or not?

The Mass (Tridentine) has to be said with the approval of the local Bishop as it is set up today. A universal Indult would, in effect, be at least a partial loosing of the Mass.

Priests would be able to say it without necessarily getting the approval of the local Bishop.

We’ll see. I hear that there might be big news on this front come November 19.

 

[thistle]

Dropper:

The Mass (Tridentine) has to be said with the approval of the local Bishop as it is set up today. A universal Indult would, in effect, be at least a partial loosing of the Mass.

Priests would be able to say it without necessarily getting the approval of the local Bishop.

We’ll see. I hear that there might be big news on this front come November 19.

Okay I get that part now about not necessarily needing approval from the bishop. When you say the priests would be able to say it I guess you mean the priests in agreement with the congregation otherwise it could be imposed on a congregation which might not want it?

 

[Dropper]

thistle:

Okay I get that part now about not necessarily needing approval from the bishop. When you say the priests would be able to say it I guess you mean the priests in agreement with the congregation otherwise it could be imposed on a congregation which might not want it?

I don’t think that it would be imposed on a congregation that doesn’t want it.

But there are a lof of parishes where it is wanted and the priest is willing, but they cannot get an indult.

Hopefully this situation would be rectified if/when a universal indult is issued.

 

[thistle]

My next question then is about why traditionalists (ultra or not) feel they are just that. What tradition is being defended. From the reading I have done around 150 A.D. Saint Justin described a celebration of the Eucharist that closely resembles today’s Mass and in essence the Mass we have now is actually a return to what was done in the early days of the Church up until 1570. It seems to me that the 400 year Latin Mass was celebrated for only 20% of our Church’s history and the Mass we have now (since Vatican II) is a return to the traditional Mass celebrated for 80% of our history.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dropper:

Most of us in this groups also don’t believe that the NO is not a valid Mass. I believe that it is a valid Mass, but that it is open to so much abuse because of all the options that a priest has when saying it. It’s valid. It IS protestantised. That is a major problem that many of us have with it. There were six protestants in the group that helped creat the NO. That should have been a red flag long ago…

Protestants did NOT assist in the formation or promulgation of the Mass. There were protestant observers AT the Council and in all it’s deliberations, but they did not help “write” the Mass. Also, the Pauline Mass does NOT resemble anything in evangelical protestantism nor in mainline liberal prostestantism. I was raised Baptist and the notion that anything they or any of the Ana-baptist line (Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Independent Baptists, etc.) do anything that resembles the Catholic Mass is laughable and indicative that those who assert those things have bought into radical traditionalist propaganda (like Bugnini being a Mason, John XXIII being a mason, the "Otavanni Intervention, et al) and that they know next to nothing about our Protestant brethren. The Calvinist line (Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, et al) likewise does nothing resembling the Catholic Mass. Anglicans (Episcopalians)do, but they were longer “Catholic” in culture, if not obedience, than the other reform communities (Henry VIII did not “reform” the Church, he merely cut England off from papal authority and stole all the Church’s property. Reforms were begun under his son and then THOSE reforms were modified and confirmed under his daughter, Elizabeth) and the Anglican service is built largely on the Old Sarum Rite, an accepted rite of the Church that was not suppressed, I think, until Trent. In other words, their service was already based on the Catholic Mass.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

thistle:

My next question then is about why traditionalists (ultra or not) feel they are just that. What tradition is being defended. From the reading I have done around 150 A.D. Saint Justin described a celebration of the Eucharist that closely resembles today’s Mass and in essence the Mass we have now is actually a return to what was done in the early days of the Church up until 1570. It seems to me that the 400 year Latin Mass was celebrated for only 20% of our Church’s history and the Mass we have now (since Vatican II) is a return to the traditional Mass celebrated for 80% of our history.

Traditionalists feel they are just that because the more intellectually honest ones (not the total radicals) recognize that Catholic tradition and Tradition are living things. Most people should know that the Mass of 1962 is not exactly the same as the Mass of 1570. There were slight alterations. But they are basically the same rite. It’s one missal that underwent slight revisions. As far as I know, that Pian missal of 1570 was basically a codification and universalization of the Gregorian missal from ca. 600. That skews your percentages a little, but that’s not the point I’m going for.

The Mass developed through time. Fidelity to tradition does not mean fidelity to the Church exactly as she was in 150 a.d. That would mean that we would have to reject all the ecumenical councils and the significant chunks of doctrine and dogma that go with them. Traditionalism is a fidelity to the organic growth of tradition, which was transgressed in the creation of the new missal, which Cardinal Ratzinger described as a “fabrication.” No one wants a “banal” liturgy, but that’s what he said we got out of the deal. Traditionalism as I see it does not reflect a “one size fits all, this is the way we did it in the year X, so it must be the only way” mentality. Many manifest that thinking, but I think some criticial self-reflection would show how unsustainable that is since the Tridentine missal does reflect refinement in the Church’s thinking and changes in previous praxis (kneeling, for instance, only has a roughly 1000 year history).

Just as we believe in the development of doctrine as our understanding of principles and ability to artculate them becomes more refined, so also we have held that our liturgy is subject to refinement as we come to understand the sacred action more deeply. We figure out what we’re trying to convey and then try to find the tools to do that with. To reinforce that we actually worship the Eucharist Christ we found the most extreme posture of veneration we could - kneeling - and replaced what was, while a posture showing honor, something not quite as forceful -standing. I think this means, of course, that a development to what we have in the Pauline Mass would not be a priori out of the question; change is, after all, possible.

My beef, then, with the Novus Ordo (I know that’s considered a polemical term by some, but NO is such a handy abbreviation) is not that it is different but that I think those differences do not reflect a deep reflection on the tradition and an organic growth out of it. Some of these problems I think are inherent in the rite, others simply in its celebration. For instance, the lack of even the concept of reverence which is displayed in many NO celebrations is not inherent to the rite. I understand that. It can be done very reverently. It’s the means of creating the rite that, in my mind, makes it untraditional.

Because of the lack of organic growth in the NO, I consider the missal of 1962 more traditional, even though it is not more antique. Since we know Vatican II warned against antiquarianism, I don’t think that’s a problem.

 

[Confiteor]

The following gives some ways in which the Mass now resembles a Protestant service…(You can judge for yourself.) .One other that is not mentioned is the suppression of the many of the words referring to the Mass as a sacrifice. Depending on the Eucharistic Prayer, this is downplayed in the Pauline Mass.

catholictradition.org/sanctuary3.htm

 

[palmas85]

Confiteor:

The following gives some ways in which the Mass now resembles a Protestant service…(You can judge for yourself.) .One other that is not mentioned is the suppression of the many of the words referring to the Mass as a sacrifice. Depending on the Eucharistic Prayer, this is downplayed in the Pauline Mass.

catholictradition.org/sanctuary3.htm

As I understand it the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary and a symbolic recreation of the Last Supper. It is two fold in nature being both sacrificial and celebratory. As far as I know no Protestant Church accepts the sacrificial aspect of the Mass but all those that have communion services adhere to the symbolic Last Supper aspect.

Since the Church these days seems eager to extoll the Last Supper aspect at the expense of the Sacrificial aspect, when was the last time you heard the Mass referred to as a sacrifice?, right down to renaming the altar, the Lords table, in many cases, it does appear that they seem to be edging towards the Protestant variety services, however slowly.

It is also useful to remember that Luther, the seeker of truth, referred to the Mass and the ordained Priesthood as abominations as did the other piomeers of the Reformation.

Just an observation.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Confiteor:

The following gives some ways in which the Mass now resembles a Protestant service…(You can judge for yourself.) .One other that is not mentioned is the suppression of the many of the words referring to the Mass as a sacrifice. Depending on the Eucharistic Prayer, this is downplayed in the Pauline Mass.

catholictradition.org/sanctuary3.htm

Thank you for the link. Here it is below in full (I couldn’t manage to get to the home page, so I’ve no idea if it’s a radically traditionalist site or not). My observations are in bold.

The line of demarcation between Catholic and Protestant worship was laid down clearly at the Reformation. The most striking differences were as follows: The Catholic Mass was celebrated in Latin; the Protestant Lord’s Supper in English. **Orignially, the Mass was celebrated in Greek and Latin, basically the vernacular of the time. And I wonder how the Protestants of Germany, Switzerland, and France would have reacted to the assertion that the “Protestant Lord’s Supper” was “in English.” It was in the language of the congregation listening to it. Also, Trent said that it didn’t seem propitious at that time to celebrate the Mass in the vernacular. It didn’t say the Mass could NEVER be celebrated in the vernacular. AND Protestant observers were also invited to Trent, given safe conduct, etc. They didn’t take advanatage of it, but they were invited. **Much of the Mass was celebrated in an inaudible tone; the Lord’s Supper was spoken audibly throughout. **I find it laudable that the congregation is able to hear and understand the words (form)that confects the Sacrifice that proptiates their sins. Something done by Protestants doesn’t have to be regarded as Protestant in character simply BECAUSE it’s done by Protestants. **The Mass began with the Psalm Judica me, in which the priest stated specifically that he was going unto the altar of God, and ended with the sublime Last Gospel; in the Lord’s Supper the Judica me and the Last Gospel and many traditional prayers were abolished, particularly the sacrificial Offertory Prayers. **The Pauline Mass is clearly a Sacrifice because the Church teaches that it is a sacrifice, that it is offered and intended to BE a sacrifice. And what has the deletion of prayers to do with Protestants. Surely the Church has the power to regulate the liturgy? The Leonine Prayers are an example. They were promulgated by Pope Leo XIII, who died at the beginning of the last century. Surely that COULD be regarded as an innovation? I would argue that it was AND that he was well within his authority to undertake it. **The Mass was celebrated on a sacrificial altar facing the East; the Lord’s Supper was celebrated on a table facing the people. **I would argue with Mr. Davies as to what constitutes a sacrificial altar. I think the old fashioned altars favored for the TLM look more like sideboards and the ones in use now, at least those made of marble or stone, look more like the depictions of the altars raised by the Hebrews, at least in my parish and the monastery where I entered the Church. They were so massive they both had to be lowered into place and the church/chapel built around them. **In the Mass, Holy Communion was placed on the tongue of the communicant by the anointed hand of a priest; in the Lord’s Supper it was placed in the hand of the communicant. Not necessarily, except in the Anglican tradition and in some Lutheran churches. Most places, it’s passed in plates or trays, in both species. Former Protestants in this forum would be glad to confirm this. In the Mass, Holy Communion was given to the laity under one kind only; in the Lord’s Supper it was always administered under both kinds. The denial of the Chalice only finally and firmly occured in the 12th century. It was the Church’s original practice to give the Most Sacred Body and Most Precious Blood under both species, indeed, it would seem odd not to do so, as that’s how Our Lord GAVE It. We’ve given It under both species for far longer than than we haven’t given it. Granted, it’s sufficient to receive under one Sacred Species, but the Church has said that it is a “fuller sign” (a visual, I suppose would be one way of putting it) to receive both.

 

[otm]

Dropper:

so much abuse because of all the options that a priest has when saying it. It’s valid. It IS protestantised. That is a major problem that many of us have with it. There were six protestants in the group that helped creat the NO. That should have been a red flag long ago…

I attend the NO when necessity dictates that I do. It is often an occasion of sin for me (the reason that I attend only out of necessity), but I do attend. The only reason I attend even out of necessity is that it IS Jesus Christ in the Tabernacle. It is Jesus Christ that is being received from the priest.

That being said, I have heard that some Traditionalists have a problem with the English words of Consecration (the “Many” versus the “All” controversy). It is understandable, but I think that the Host and the Precious Blood are still confected in spite of the problem through Our Lord.

Oh, and I do pray every day for a restoration of the Church.

That is in a nutshell most of the positions I hold as a Traditionalist.

 

[otm]

JKirkLVNV:

Protestants did NOT assist in the formation or promulgation of the Mass. There were protestant observers AT the Council and in all it’s deliberations, but they did not help “write” the Mass. Also, the Pauline Mass does NOT resemble anything in evangelical protestantism nor in mainline liberal prostestantism. I was raised Baptist and the notion that anything they or any of the Ana-baptist line (Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Independent Baptists, etc.) do anything that resembles the Catholic Mass is laughable and indicative that those who assert those things have bought into radical traditionalist propaganda (like Bugnini being a Mason, John XXIII being a mason, the "Otavanni Intervention, et al) and that they know next to nothing about our Protestant brethren. The Calvinist line (Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, et al) likewise does nothing resembling the Catholic Mass. Anglicans (Episcopalians)do, but they were longer “Catholic” in culture, if not obedience, than the other reform communities (Henry VIII did not “reform” the Church, he merely cut England off from papal authority and stole all the Church’s property. Reforms were begun under his son and then THOSE reforms were modified and confirmed under his daughter, Elizabeth) and the Anglican service is built largely on the Old Sarum Rite, an accepted rite of the Church that was not suppressed, I think, until Trent. In other words, their service was already based on the Catholic Mass.

I agree with you whole heartedly. I get so tired of the “protestantization” refrian; it is patently obvious to anyone who has been in the vast majority of Protestnat services that the Mass according to the Pauline rite has nothing to do with them.

You missed, however, the high Lutherna service/ Mass, which actually looked more like Tridentine rite that Pauline rite, last time I attended one (my secretary’s wedding).

Trent, as I recall, did not supress all rites at the time, but only those that had been in existence fr less than 200 years - was the Saurum rite one of those?

 

[otm]

Andreas Hofer:

Traditionalists feel they are just that because the more intellectually honest ones (not the total radicals) recognize that Catholic tradition and Tradition are living things. Most people should know that the Mass of 1962 is not exactly the same as the Mass of 1570. There were slight alterations. But they are basically the same rite. It’s one missal that underwent slight revisions. As far as I know, that Pian missal of 1570 was basically a codification and universalization of the Gregorian missal from ca. 600. That skews your percentages a little, but that’s not the point I’m going for.

The Mass developed through time. Fidelity to tradition does not mean fidelity to the Church exactly as she was in 150 a.d. That would mean that we would have to reject all the ecumenical councils and the significant chunks of doctrine and dogma that go with them. Traditionalism is a fidelity to the organic growth of tradition, which was transgressed in the creation of the new missal, which Cardinal Ratzinger described as a “fabrication.” No one wants a “banal” liturgy, but that’s what he said we got out of the deal. Traditionalism as I see it does not reflect a “one size fits all, this is the way we did it in the year X, so it must be the only way” mentality. Many manifest that thinking, but I think some criticial self-reflection would show how unsustainable that is since the Tridentine missal does reflect refinement in the Church’s thinking and changes in previous praxis (kneeling, for instance, only has a roughly 1000 year history).

Just as we believe in the development of doctrine as our understanding of principles and ability to artculate them becomes more refined, so also we have held that our liturgy is subject to refinement as we come to understand the sacred action more deeply. We figure out what we’re trying to convey and then try to find the tools to do that with. To reinforce that we actually worship the Eucharist Christ we found the most extreme posture of veneration we could - kneeling - and replaced what was, while a posture showing honor, something not quite as forceful -standing. I think this means, of course, that a development to what we have in the Pauline Mass would not be a priori out of the question; change is, after all, possible.

My beef, then, with the Novus Ordo (I know that’s considered a polemical term by some, but NO is such a handy abbreviation) is not that it is different but that I think those differences do not reflect a deep reflection on the tradition and an organic growth out of it. Some of these problems I think are inherent in the rite, others simply in its celebration. For instance, the lack of even the concept of reverence which is displayed in many NO celebrations is not inherent to the rite. I understand that. It can be done very reverently. It’s the means of creating the rite that, in my mind, makes it untraditional.

Because of the lack of organic growth in the NO, I consider the missal of 1962 more traditional, even though it is not more antique. Since we know Vatican II warned against antiquarianism, I don’t think that’s a problem.

Perhaps, as a short hand, you could us PR (Pauline Rite) the, as I agree that the use of NO is often done as a put down?

Your response is one of the more reasoned ones I have seen. Having been raised in the Tridentine rite, howeve, I see more similarities than dissimilarities in the overall structure and format. Prayers have been changed, and there appears a lot of negaive commentary about concerning the re-write from the Tridentine rite; however, I have also seen some criticisms of certain prayers in the previous rite from a theological standpoint.

 

[otm]

Confiteor:

The following gives some ways in which the Mass now resembles a Protestant service…(You can judge for yourself.) .One other that is not mentioned is the suppression of the many of the words referring to the Mass as a sacrifice. Depending on the Eucharistic Prayer, this is downplayed in the Pauline Mass.

catholictradition.org/sanctuary3.htm

That, however, often becomes the lament of those who border on refusing to even consider that the Mass is both Sacrifice and Meal.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

Thisle thank you

but I must say WHY MUST WE ALL CAUSE DISSENTION? You have pained my lovely Saturday, finally free of work and a chance to go to morning mass. I have never known or seen a TLM i am a new three year old C ( an old ex-Calvinist). I love chanting, incense, gregorian chants, the paten being reintroduced, instructions from the ambo on bowing etc. Stop this pissing contest. Go to what you like and leave it alone.

Is it time for me to say the ROSARY again? I am sorry but I could not in all good faith read this all today

PS Confeitoer I don’t know which P service you are referring to but my parents service in the CRC (Christian Reformed Church) (dutch reformed)is nothing like my C Mass.

Some days it sounds like a buntch of P’s here. Everybody with there own D.

I pray for us all. AMEN