The SSPX and True Catholicism

[pnewton]

Im afraid that the TLM was not ‘brought’ about by the Church.

It started in the upper room, and matured under the Church’s wings…

The TLM is from God because it was started by God.

I have no doubt you think this to be true, but for the sake of other I will point out that this is the exact same claim made by Church of Christ and Landmark Baptist, who try to fallaciously trace all the way back to the upper room. Of the three letters “TLM” only the “M” was in that room. Trent was 1500 years off and I doubt Jesus used Latin. Try Aramaic, the vernacular.

 

[AJV]

I meant active participation like in the Novus Ordo.

Such as reading the Epistle, giving the Homilies, distributing Our Lord.

And the TLM began in the upper room, because from that point onwards it evolved into the Missal we know today.

It was never ‘introduced’ or ‘written’. It evolved, side-by-side with the Divine Liturgies of the East, and the other liturgies of the West, from that one point in the Upper Room.

Not it didn’t actually. It had a very big change somewhere before the 5th century and another much smaller one at the time of Gregory the Great, which wasn’t really organic. The difference being that that was at the time of the Rite’s inception so that is what is in favour of it then whereas the NO doesn’t have much. And actually the whole Canon was written by a scholar.

What exactly is the difference between speaking the responses out loud or saying them slowly. Your comparison almost makes it seem like it is like those who crucified Christ for nefarious purposes. If that is the case, well then, is the priest at the TLM in the same boat along with the altar server?

Agree definitely that certain tasks should prudently be reserved to the priests but I really think you might want to rethink your analogy.

 

[bear06]

Sigh! I was going to respond but I’m feeling obsolete since AJV and pnewton have taken the words (roughly) out of my mouth.

 

[Sola_Roma]

Not it didn’t actually. It had a very big change somewhere before the 5th century and another much smaller one at the time of Gregory the Great, which wasn’t really organic. The difference being that that was at the time of the Rite’s inception so that is what is in favour of it then whereas the NO doesn’t have much.
And actually the whole Canon was written by a scholar.

I have never heard such a thing…

The Divine Liturgy of the East and the Mass of the West evolved from the first Eucharist in the upper room.

On what are your claims based?

And just because they are written doesnt mean they were ‘invented’ on that day.

The Missal of Pius V was written, but it was simply the writing down of the liturgy they celebrated. It wasnt the ‘start’ of that Mass.

Over the years the Lord’s Supper ended up as the TLM and the Eastern Divine Liturgies.

I had thought this was universally accepeted Truth?

 

[Sola_Roma]

I have no doubt you think this to be true, but for the sake of other I will point out that this is the exact same claim made by Church of Christ and Landmark Baptist, who try to fallaciously trace all the way back to the upper room. Of the three letters “TLM” only the “M” was in that room. Trent was 1500 years off and I doubt Jesus used Latin. Try Aramaic, the vernacular.

Trent was not the birth of the Latin Mass. It was where the TLM was made the ordinary.

 

[AJV]

I have never heard such a thing…

The Divine Liturgy of the East and the Mass of the West evolved from the first Eucharist in the upper room.

On what are your claims based?

And just because they are written doesnt mean they were ‘invented’ on that day.

The Missal of Pius V was written, but it was simply the writing down of the liturgy they celebrated. It wasnt the ‘start’ of that Mass.

Over the years the Lord’s Supper ended up as the TLM and the Eastern Divine Liturgies.

I had thought this was universally accepeted Truth?

My claims are based on the words of St. Gregory the Great who wrote that the Canon was compased by a “scholasticus” If that is what you were refering to, that is.

A small question: could you please name one thign that the NO has suppressed form the Ordinary of the Mass that was there before the 10th century (aside from the latter half of the embolism)?

 

[Sola_Roma]

My claims are based on the words of St. Gregory the Great who wrote that the Canon was compased by a “scholasticus” If that is what you were refering to, that is.

I think you are jumping to conclusions. When I said the TLM began in the Upper Room I didnt mean that Jesus celebrated the Mass in Latin with all the vestments etc.

I just meant that with the words “this is my body” and “this is my blood” the first Mass was celebrated. And over the years the Church has been adding to it.

Today we have the TLM as the final product of what the Church has done to the first Mass. Just like in the East, we also have a continuation of the First Mass.

 

[AJV]

I think you are jumping to conclusions. When I said the TLM began in the Upper Room I didnt mean that Jesus celebrated the Mass in Latin with all the vestments etc.

I just meant that with the words “this is my body” and “this is my blood” the first Mass was celebrated. And over the years the Church has been adding to it.

Today we have the TLM as the final product of what the Church has done to the first Mass. Just like in the East, we also have a continuation of the First Mass.

Apologies Sola Roma for jumping too fast.

Indeed the Church has been adding to it. And taking away also. The rearrangment of the Canon for example was not exactly organic. Many of the forms show evidence of things taken away. And the same goes for other parts of the liturgy.

Agree that the changes of the NO are not exactly organic or (maybe) prudent. But if the TLM was absolutely perfect thern what is the “squalidness of the ages” referred to below?

A great many years must pass before this liturgical edifice, which the Bride of Christ has raised up with such enlightened care to announce her piety and her faith, before, we say, this edifice will have regained all its splendor and majesty and perfection, and will seem to us to be freed from the squalidness of time

And your post very accurately identified the essence of the Mass preserved in the NO. The priest saying “This is my Body” and “This is My Blood”. Thta is what Christ has instituted, and the things surrounding it are open to change (maybe not prudent change or desirable but they are).

 

[Sola_Roma]

Apologies Sola Roma for jumping too fast.

Indeed the Church has been adding to it. And taking away also. The rearrangment of the Canon for example was not exactly organic. Many of the forms show evidence of things taken away. And the same goes for other parts of the liturgy.

Agree that the changes of the NO are not exactly organic or maybe prudent. But if the TLM was absolutely perfect thern what is the “squalidness of the ages” referred to below?

And your post very accurately identified the essence of the Mass preserved in the NO. The priest saying “This is my Body” and “Thi is My Blood”.

No need for an apology, I understand that on the forums peoples intentions cannot be fully discerened.

However, I dont claim that the TLM was perfect.

It is being edited and has been edited throughout the ages.

The problem is that the last major ‘change’ of the TLM was its basic removal.

Instead of tweaking the Mass we recieved from the Church’s tradition, a New Mass was instituted.

That is the unorganic change that took place.

Never in the history of the Church did such a sudden removal and replacement ever happen.

Its similar to how Indiana Jones swapped the statue with an object of equal weight.

So the NO is valid, but is it really as ‘valuable’ as the TLM.
No…At least I dont think so.

The TLM has been edited, and managed for 2000 years under the guidance of the Church. The NO was introduced by one Pope and a liturgical comittee.

I hold to my analogy.

The NO and the TLM weigh the same…but what would you rather have, A priceless statue or a replacement?

 

[AJV]

Never in the history of the Church did such a sudden removal and replacement ever happen.

Such an inorganic change did happen-way back before the 5th century. Not that that should be a justification.

 

[Sola_Roma]

Such an inorganic change did happen-way back before the 5th century

You keep mentioning this.

Could you please provide reading material or sources on it.

And also…I highly, highly, doubt that the changes that took place were anything like the changes the Pauline Mass introduced.

 

[AJV]

Yes, I do don’t I?

I’ll get back to you with more but the Catholic Encyclopedia articles on the Mass and the Canon are always a good place to start.

You might also want to get Jungamnn’s epic work on the Mass. Some of his conclusions are supposed to be slightly faulty, but I wouldn’t know.

 

[pnewton]

The NO and the TLM weigh the same…but what would you rather have, A priceless statue or a replacement?

The thing is, what is truly priceless is that which they have in common, the sacrifice of the Mass and the presence of our Lord. The trappngs of either pale in comparison to the value of this commonality.

 

[Sola_Roma]

The thing is, what is truly priceless is that which they have in common, the sacrifice of the Mass and the presence of our Lord. The trappngs of either pale in comparison to the value of this commonality.

Sure…but we should make those decorations and trappings as perfect and reverent as possible. In order to properly adore the truly precious person that is made present in the Mass.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Do you think Abp. Lefebvre’s reason for going ahead with the consecrations was a deliberate scorning of authority…or did he have reason to believe that he was being lied to…stonewalling until his inevitable death…he was no young man at that time. What he did was reasonable given the history…and you are so rigid that you are willing say disobedience is worse than leaving your priests with no Bishop…can you imagine from your comfortable chair what the Arbp. was going through? You may rigidly say this does not matter…but I’ll bet a good orthodox moral theologian would disagree.

There were actually quite a few bishops in the Catholic Church at the time. And since his society had no canonical status, he was not their bishop, anyway. The Abp. had already led “his priests” into perilous spiritual waters when he got them all suspended a divinis.

OF COURSE Abp. Lefebvre’s actions were a deliberate scorning of authority. I thought all parties could agree on that simple fact. He was fully aware of the authority’s express wishes and contravened them. I was under the impression that the disagreement arose over whether the deliberate act was justified or not. If he was truly suspicious that he was being lied to, two more reasonable (to use your term) avenues occur to me 1) don’t sign an accord you intend to violate within a matter of days or 2) give the other part a chance to uphold its end of the deal before backing out. Do you really think his deal breaking was more reasonable than those two alternatives?

 

[Resurrexit]

If he was truly suspicious that he was being lied to, two more reasonable (to use your term) avenues occur to me 1) don’t sign an accord you intend to violate within a matter of days or 2) give the other part a chance to uphold its end of the deal before backing out. Do you really think his deal breaking was more reasonable than those two alternatives?

He intended to keep the accord at the time he signed it. But he grew impatient as the Vatican had been messing him around for years, and was under pressure from those underneath him in the society.

And anyway, why was the Vatican not just okay with the 4 bishops he ordained? If they promised him bishops…

 

[GerardP]

Hello all,

I’ve been reading with interest and wanted to contribute a few points from my studies and experience with the SSPX and other traditional Catholics.

I believe what made Archbishop LeFebvre change his mind on the protocol was his mistake in accepting the wording that the Holy Father would consider the consecration of a bishop as believing from the conversations that he would get a bishop.
The conversations that immediately followed the signings indicated to him that the delays would be indefinite.

Second, If I recall correctly there was an apology that was written to the Holy Father in his name and he was asked to sign it. This was given to him after the signing of the protocols and LeFebvre refused to sign it since it would have been a lie.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Sigh! I was going to respond but I’m feeling obsolete since AJV and pnewton have…

… done a much better job than I could. However, since I’ve got a big mouth, I’ll put my :twocents: in with some posts below.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

---

Did Vat II “intend” for the Church to go haywire after the Council. The Church did not intend the end result but we ended up with the “spirit of Vat II” putting the Church in a downward spiral anyway.

This analogy does not work. It was the archbishop’s own actions which led to the result. It is the actions of third parties which have caused trouble in the NOM.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

The question is…what of Vatican II was neccesary.

Ive read the entire Council…and there is not a single letter of those documents that the Church needed.

Vatican II did nothing but add problems.

There was no need for such a Council.

With sincere and due respect, that fact that a private individual makes such a judgment about the necessity of these documents does not mean that they were not needed.