The Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter thistle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
To receive the Chalice is no denial that the fullness of Christ’s Presence, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is present in Both and in Either Sacred Species. So, doctrinally, no. But the argument that only the Apostle’s received the Sacred Blood under It’s seperate species OR that only the Apostles (and thus those who succeed them, ie, bishops and priests) can receive the Most Sacred Body in their hands is a specious one and one that would perplex the Patristic Church, since they received Both Sacred Species and they received the Sacred Body in their hands. I wasn’t being an antiquarian, I was answering the charge that the Mass has become Protestantized and that one sign of that is the reception of the Chalice by the laity (Michael Davies’ assertion) and that reception in the hand was another sign. A reading of history shows that both practices predate by CENTURIES the “Reformation.” The young man then made his assertion (see Servo Pio XII’s last post) and I answered it. If “traditionalists” (I put that in quotes because I think it’s a relative term) don’t want anyone invoking “antiqurianism,” then they ought not do it themselves. The Church has good reason for the disciplines she imposes surrounding the Sacraments. I don’t question that. There are times when the Chalice shouldn’t be offered (mega Masses, for example). If tomorrow the Holy Father banned reception in the hand, I would bend to his will. The same with the Chalice. I also didn’t intend to hijack the thread.
Click to expand...
God rest Michael Davies’ soul. He does have a point that some of the modern innovations were exactly the same things the “Reformers” introduced. I’m not saying that was the intent of the innovations, but they are similair in many respects.
 
Dr. Bombay:
God rest Michael Davies’ soul. He does have a point that some of the modern innovations were exactly the same things the “Reformers” introduced. I’m not saying that was the intent of the innovations, but they are similair in many respects.
Click to expand...
I agree…that was my thinking when I read this little pamplet some time ago:
catholictradition.org/sanctuary.htm

Some good insights and some beautiful images. I hope those can be appreciated without resorting to labelling (which I thought I read was discouraged on these forums anyway).
 
40.png
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…
Click to expand...
I beg to differ… While the “observers” were not allowed into the actual morning sessions, they were (by their own admission) a very active part of the “unofficial” afternoon meetings which in effect determined the following morning’s direction. Their (name removed by moderator)ut was real.

Before VatII, a Protestant Communion Service, like today, consisted of:
1-service in the vernacular (Catholic was in Latin)
2-the liturgy was/is all audible (Catholic mostly inaudible)
3-three readings (Catholic two readings)
4-use of lay readers (Catholic no lay readers)
5-meal served on a table facing the congregation (Catholic on an altar leading the people)
6-receive communion standing, (Catholic much kneeling, including communion)
7-communion in the hand (Catholic on the tongue)
8-communion under both kinds (Catholics one kind)
9-no or little real reference to Real Presence (Catholics frequent reference to Real Presence)

So… what does the NO resemble ???
 
Also, for those who argue that the theology behind the Mass makes it forever and always distinct from a Protestant Service (appearances aside), please remember that although that IS true, the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi applies. Particularly in as much as the new Mass downplays the Real Presence and the sacrificial aspect of the Mass in the words that are used in the prayers at Mass, it leads the poorly catechized even further away from an authentic Catholic faith.
 
There’s more to read that wouldn’t fit here from Mediator Dei:
  1. Additional proof of this indefeasible right of the ecclesiastical hierarchy lies in the circumstances that the sacred liturgy is intimately bound up with doctrinal propositions which the Church proposes to be perfectly true and certain, and must as a consequence conform to the decrees respecting Catholic faith issued by the supreme teaching authority of the Church with a view to safeguarding the integrity of the religion revealed by God.
Click to expand...
  1. On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed that the sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise. Hence the epigram, “Lex orandi, lex credendi”-the law for prayer is the law for faith.
Click to expand...
  1. But this is not what the Church teaches and enjoins. The worship she offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous profession of Catholic faith and a continuous exercise of hope and charity, as Augustine puts it tersely. “God is to be worshipped,” he says, “by faith, hope and charity.”[44] In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly, not only by the celebration of the mysteries, and by offering the holy sacrifice and administering the sacraments, but also by saying or singing the credo or Symbol of the faith-it is indeed the sign and badge, as it were, of the Christian-along with other texts, and likewise by the reading of holy scripture, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.
Click to expand...
  1. For this reason, whenever there was question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils in their recourse to the “theological sources,” as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the liturgy. For an example in point, Our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, so argued when he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Similarly during the discussion of a doubtful or controversial truth, the Church and the Holy Fathers have not failed to look to the age-old and age-honored sacred rites for enlightenment. Hence the well-known and venerable maxim, “Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi”-let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief.[45] The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine. But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, “Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi”-let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer. The same holds true for the other theological virtues also, “In fide, spe, caritate continuato desiderio semper oramus”-we pray always, with constant yearning in faith, hope and charity.[46]
Click to expand...
continued…
 
  1. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow-keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact-to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]
Click to expand...
  1. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the “Christian instinct.”
Click to expand...
adoremus.org/MediatorDei.html
 
Mr. S: I couldn’t reply to your post with a quote, but I would like to see a citation of works NOT associated with a radical traditionalist site that the protestant observers had a hand in the formation of the Mass. I’ve already answered your assertion that the Pauline Mass is protestant or that , to whit, that would certainly be a surprise to most protestants!

I) Latin (and Greek) were originally the vernacular languages or at the very least, the languages of empire. Most people would have understood it in the days of the Apostles and then the patristic church. It just happened to be the language used, it wasn’t particularly “sacral.”
  1. So what? What an improvement that it’s no longer inaudible!
  2. In most Protestant services, there’s but ONE reading. Go to a Baptist, CoC, Assembly of God, etc. The only exception to this in the Anglicans (though I do confess I’ve never attended a Lutheran service).
  3. I can’t answer this charge, but again, just because Protestants DO it doesn’t make it Protestant in character. They bow their heads to pray, pray in “Jesus Name,” say “amen,” use the Trinitarian formula for Baptism. Are those things “Protestant” in nature?
  4. The nature and position of the altar has changed over time. No Catholic could intelligently deny that the altar of today was the table of yesterday! When the Church met in homes, the Mass was celebrated on a table, when in the Catacombs, on top of tombs. We didn’t have “altars” in a liturgical sense until the persecution ceased and we could build churches. I think it’s a specious argument, because the Catholic Church has never changed her theology, ie., that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, and THAT’s what seperates us from Protestants.
  5. One more time: In all the years I was protestant, I only ever receieved communion standing when I was an Episcopalian at the diocesan convention, when there were too many people to reasonably have everyone kneel (this happened twice). Episcopalians and all the Methodists that I ever knew KNEEL to receive Communion. Baptists (the Anabaptist line, which I was raised in) and Presbyterians (the Calvinist line) all SIT. They SIT, not stand, and the species are passed to them like collection plates. The only time I’ve ever stood to receive Communion (other than twice as an Episcopalian) was as a CATHOLIC. Following that to it’s logical conclusion, would that make standing for communion CATHOLIC in nature? Because it sure isn’t Protestant! This assertion that “standing for communion” is a protestant innovation is simply not so. It’s repeated so often in these forums, but it is untrue.
7)-9) Now you’ve just started repeating what Davies said in the site I quoted from!!! Communion in the hand-ancient practice of the patristic church, not protestant since it has an antecedent in OUR historical practice. They may do it, but it isn’t Protestant in nature. Reception of the Chalice by the laity-widespread until the 12th Century, allowed again now. The laity received the Chalice for far longer than they didn’t, ancient practice of the Church, etc. The Pauline Mass makes it sufficiently clear that the Real Presence is real and that it is propitiatory. More signs of the cross won’t make this MORE true, less won’t make it less true.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Mr. S: I couldn’t reply to your post with a quote, but I would like to see a citation of works NOT associated with a radical traditionalist site that the protestant observers had a hand in the formation of the Mass. I’ve already answered your assertion that the Pauline Mass is protestant or that , to whit, that would certainly be a surprise to most protestants!

.
Click to expand...
That would probably be an effort in futility… I assume (correctly or not) that you might perceive any site that would agree with these nine points as being “radical traditinalist”.

What a shame that you included the word radical. You branded your post with this silly bias.

It is not radical to either love, or love & appreciate, or love, appreciate and desire the TLM. I am a Traditionalist. AND, I hope that the NO is given a major re-think with set rubrics that cannot be changed on a whim of a “radical” :whistle: liberal (priest, bishop or lay person).

However, I do enjoy your posts as they keep me alert… thanks.
 
40.png
MrS:
That would probably be an effort in futility… I assume (correctly or not) that you might perceive any site that would agree with these nine points as being “radical traditinalist”.

What a shame that you included the word radical. You branded your post with this silly bias.

It is not radical to either love, or love & appreciate, or love, appreciate and desire the TLM. I am a Traditionalist. AND, I hope that the NO is given a major re-think with set rubrics that cannot be changed on a whim of a “radical” :whistle: liberal (priest, bishop or lay person).

However, I do enjoy your posts as they keep me alert… thanks.
Click to expand...
No, no, not at all…I don’t mind people loving the TLM. I have a great deal of empathy for them. I cannot imagine thanking anyone for coming in and diddling up the Pauline Mass (which is why I’ve been so appalled the handful of times when I’ve attended upon a Mass where the priest paraphrased the entire canon of the Mass or, at the sign of peace, invited us to “ask the Jones about that new baby!”-true story, I’m afraid, or wanted us all to gather around the altar, or allowed the congregation to serve each other communion, kind of an ecclesiastical tag game with the Sacred Body and the Most Precious Blood). It isn’t the love of the TLM that bothers me, it’s the attempt to denigrate the Pauline Mass as protestant that gets me (and you are always a polite and reasonable poster), because A) as it was promulgated by the Vicar of Christ on earth, it is by definition Catholic, B) it has the virtue of harkening back to the ancient Church in its simplicity, AS FAR AS THAT CAN BE A VIRTUE (I realize “antiquarianism” has it’s own faulty pot holes, as Dr. Bombay has very reasonably pointed out in several threads), since the Church has the authority to govern her sacraments as she sees fit (ie, extend to the laity the Chalice, withold it, etc.) and finally because C) there is nothing in the Pauline Mass that has any resemblance to anything Protestant and most Protestants of my acquaintance would recoil in horror at the suggestion (except Anglicans)! There is some semblance in the Pauline Mass and the Anglican service, but that’s because their service was based on the Mass during the Edwardian reformation (Henry VIII’s son. Remember, Henry didn’t reform the Church in England at all. He just assumed the “headship” of it and stole all of it and stole all the English Church’s property. Under Henry, it was all still Latin, etc.) and the old Sarum rite (not supressed until Trent). Those are my objections. I wouldn’t, for instance, discount what the Holy Father said about the Pauline Mass being somewhat “cobbled” together. I just don’t want ONLY the TLM. As the Mass is what “evangelized” me into the Church, I see the value people being able to understand the words, I see the value of the audible canon. I don’t mind that YOU want the TLM, I hope you get it, I’d go so far as to say that in justice, they might ought to make a seperate sub-rite for it in the Latin Rite, with different jurisdictional authority, like the Melkites, etc. BUT it ain’t Protestant! You can take that from a former Protestant.
 
Servus Pio XII:
Yes, but do think about this for a second: who in the Church to-day were the apostles equivicable to? Not laity, not even priests, but Bishops and a Pope. Therefore, the way in which they received is no model for the way which we should receive.
Click to expand...
Your comment doesn’t really make much sense to me. The early church and for a number of centuries the Roman rite (other rites since the time of the Aposltes to today) gave Communion under both species to all communicants. It wasn’t Bishops and Popes who received that way, it was everyone.
 
40.png
MrS:
I beg to differ… While the “observers” were not allowed into the actual morning sessions, they were (by their own admission) a very active part of the “unofficial” afternoon meetings which in effect determined the following morning’s direction. Their (name removed by moderator)ut was real.

Before VatII, a Protestant Communion Service, like today, consisted of:
1-service in the vernacular (Catholic was in Latin)
2-the liturgy was/is all audible (Catholic mostly inaudible)
3-three readings (Catholic two readings)
4-use of lay readers (Catholic no lay readers)
5-meal served on a table facing the congregation (Catholic on an altar leading the people)
6-receive communion standing, (Catholic much kneeling, including communion)
7-communion in the hand (Catholic on the tongue)
8-communion under both kinds (Catholics one kind)
9-no or little real reference to Real Presence (Catholics frequent reference to Real Presence)

So… what does the NO resemble ???
Click to expand...
Again you are using very limited comparisons. Only the Roman rite was in latin. There are 22 or 23 other rites in the Catholic Church, many of them using the vervnacular, some using a mix of languages, dating back long before Vatican 2. Your unfamiliarity with eastern ritesa, all part of the Catholic Church and just as Catholic as the Roman rite, as well as your lack of familiarity with the multitude of practices within the Protestant world show that you have bought into a very poorly constructed arguement by some people who lack much understanding of the Mass from a historical perspective, let along a rite perspective, and just simply don’t like the Pauline rite.

By the way, we didn’t have two readings and now three; we had three and now four, as you are ignoring the Psalms.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I don’t mind that YOU want the TLM, I hope you get it, I’d go so far as to say that in justice, they might ought to make a seperate sub-rite for it in the Latin Rite, with different jurisdictional authority, like the Melkites, etc. BUT it ain’t Protestant! You can take that from a former Protestant.
Click to expand...
Not a sub-rite, Kirk. I like the idea of a Traditionalist personal prelature, similar to the one set up for Opus Dei.

Oh, the delicious irony that Traditionalists could benefit from the idea of personal prelatures introduced by Vatican II. :bounce:
 
40.png
MrS:
That would probably be an effort in futility… I assume (correctly or not) that you might perceive any site that would agree with these nine points as being “radical traditinalist”.

What a shame that you included the word radical. You branded your post with this silly bias.

It is not radical to either love, or love & appreciate, or love, appreciate and desire the TLM. I am a Traditionalist. AND, I hope that the NO is given a major re-think with set rubrics that cannot be changed on a whim of a “radical” :whistle: liberal (priest, bishop or lay person).

However, I do enjoy your posts as they keep me alert… thanks.
Click to expand...
I thin the suggestion was to show somewhere a site that isn’t bound to the radical traditionalists which states that the Mass of Paul is a Protestantized service.

That you like and appreciate the Tridentine rite is nice, but you are the one making the assertion that the Pauline rite is somehow “infected”.

Further, the Pauline rite has set rubrics, and many are the priests who follow them. any priest who chooses to change rubrics is going to do so whether they are set in the Pauline rite or they are set in the Tridentine rite. It is not the “setting” of the rubrics that is the issue, it is the following of the ones set. And sadly, because some prefer the Tridentine rite over the Pauline rite, the Pauline rite is damned with faint praise by them as if the irresponsibility of the priests in changing the rubrics were the fault of the rite, rather than the disobedience of the priests.
 
Dr. Bombay:
Not a sub-rite, Kirk. I like the idea of a Traditionalist personal prelature, similar to the one set up for Opus Dei.

Oh, the delicious irony that Traditionalists could benefit from the idea of personal prelatures introduced by Vatican II. :bounce:
Click to expand...
But would they “get it”?
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
While it is true that the Mass does not resemble the Baptist service, or the services of non-denominational evangelitcal churches, it DOES resemble the Luteran, Methodist, the Episcopalian and to some degree the Presbyterian services. Execpt for the Euraristic Prayer, you could drop any of these servides into the Mass, and you would feel comfortable.

When I fist became a Catholic, on of my first observations were: Wow…The Catholic Church has become Protestant…I felt very much at home, because the Mass so closely resembled the Lutheran and Methodist churches I was used to…Even though the Methodist Church, and the Presbyterian Chruch do not have communin weekly (as the Chruch of Christ does), the other parts of their service are much like the Mass…The Protestant influence on the NOM is unmistakeable…
 
Catholic Heart:
While it is true that the Mass does not resemble the Baptist service, or the services of non-denominational evangelitcal churches, it DOES resemble the Luteran, Methodist, the Episcopalian and to some degree the Presbyterian services. Execpt for the Euraristic Prayer, you could drop any of these servides into the Mass, and you would feel comfortable.

When I fist became a Catholic, on of my first observations were: Wow…The Catholic Church has become Protestant…I felt very much at home, because the Mass so closely resembled the Lutheran and Methodist churches I was used to…Even though the Methodist Church, and the Presbyterian Chruch do not have communin weekly (as the Chruch of Christ does), the other parts of their service are much like the Mass…The Protestant influence on the NOM is unmistakeable…
Click to expand...
That has not been my experience in either the Presbyterian Church or the Methodist Church either. Depending upon your age (I’m 43), you may be witnessing another phenomenon you didn’t see before: more and more Protestant Churches, even Evangelical ones, have come to see the value of more liturgical woship and are freely borrowing from more liturgical traditions. I’ve seen pictures of Methodist pastors wearing chasubles. This wasn’t the case 15-20 years ago. You say you thought wow, the Church has become Protestant. What experience did you have with the Catholic Church before that? Did it occur to you that they may have begun to copy certain things from the Church. And specifically what in the Presbyterian/Methodist service is like the Pauline Mass?
 
An excellent example of “copying” is the following link, where some Methodist ministers are adding to their service from obviously more Catholic sources. The Litany of the Saints (any saints) wasn’t a part of Methodist worship 20 years ago. Note at one place the use of the sign of the Cross. Now, if Methodists do this (or start to emphasize
Mary, as a recent TIME article outlined, does the sign of the Cross or the Blessed Mother assume a Protestant nature?

homiliesbyemail.com/Special/Saints/worship.html

I’m trying to find sites with the Methodist and Presbyterian orders of worship so we can do some comparing, along with the dates this services came into use.
 
40.png
otm:
Again you are using very limited comparisons. Only the Roman rite was in latin. There are 22 or 23 other rites in the Catholic Church, many of them using the vervnacular, some using a mix of languages, dating back long before Vatican 2. Your unfamiliarity with eastern ritesa, all part of the Catholic Church and just as Catholic as the Roman rite, as well as your lack of familiarity with the multitude of practices within the Protestant world show that you have bought into a very poorly constructed arguement by some people who lack much understanding of the Mass from a historical perspective, let along a rite perspective, and just simply don’t like the Pauline rite.

By the way, we didn’t have two readings and now three; we had three and now four, as you are ignoring the Psalms.
Click to expand...
very limited??? Gee, I thought the Mass consisted of the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The nine points mentioned that I “bought into” deal with both.

Perhaps “unlimited” would/should include all the abuses started by “people who lack much understanding of the Mass” from any perspective. Persistence, not correctness, has made those abuses norms

Our Pope, elevated 40 years after VatII, will lead us out of the desert of ambiguity of these past 40 years… God willing.

My comments were bases on the Latin Rite… I had no intention to address my “unfamiliarity with eastern ritesa… as well as multitude of practices within the Protestant world…”

Afterall, the ambiguities just might be “blamed” on the weakness of Latin Rite bishops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top