Top 10 Whoppers (and other myths) concerning Traditionalism

[nilofc]

Pope Eugene IV–“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may,no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” – Cantate Domino, Denzinger 1441.)

You must be missing the line "unless before death they are joined with Her" , you connect this with the Baptism of Desire and you’ll see that God’s saving grace extends to all people. Please believe that Jesus died for all of us, not just a group of people. I am not promoting “indifferentism” since Jesus said that “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you” and we must pray for the conversion of all people to be catholic to receive the greatest of all sacaraments which is the Holy Eucharist but I also believe that God is not bounded by His own sacraments. Let’s leave the “Salvation” choice to God alone.

Feeneyism is just simply judging people right away to condemnation while Jesus said not to judge lest we be judged.

You can read this to be enlightened more: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

as I found it very enlightening.

Please change your views on Feeneyism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As far as the language of the Mass goes, it’s very simple Latin, Greek and Hebrew are the sacred languages written on the Cross. They are all present in the TLM with the dominance being the precise official language of the Church.

The above isn’t really the mind of the Church, either. It was condemned by a variety of synods in 794 and 815. St. Cyril refers to it as the “three language heresy.” When the issue came up as to whether Sts. Cyril and Methodius could translate the Mass and psalms chanted at Mass into the Slavonic (using the alphabet devised by Cyril), Pope John VIII said this:

"We rightly praise the Slavonic letters invented by Cyril in which praises to God are set forth, and we order that the glories and deeds of Christ our Lord be told in that same language [for we are moved by sacred authority to praise the Lord, not in 3 languages only, but in every tongue according to the tenor of the precept "*Praise ye the Lord all you nations and laud him all you peoples

Hence Paul when blowing the celestial trumpet teaches us that that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Of this too, he admonishes us in his first Epistle to the Corinthians that speaking with tongues we ought to edify the Church. Nor is it in anywise opposed to wholesome doctrine and faith to say Mass in that same Slavonic language or to chant the holy gospels or divine lessons from the Old and New Testaments duly translated and interpreted therein, or the other parts of the divine office: for He who created the three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, also made the others for His praise and glory."

 

[GerardP]

You must be missing the line "unless before death they are joined with Her" , you connect this with the Baptism of Desire and you’ll see that God’s saving grace extends to all people. Please believe that Jesus died for all of us, not just a group of people. I am not promoting “indifferentism” since Jesus said that “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you” and we must pray for the conversion of all people to be catholic to receive the greatest of all sacaraments which is the Holy Eucharist but I also believe that God is not bounded by His own sacraments. Let’s leave the “Salvation” choice to God alone.

Feeneyism is just simply judging people right away to condemnation while Jesus said not to judge lest we be judged.

You can read this to be enlightened more: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

as I found it very enlightening.

Please change your views on Feeneyism.

Actually I highlighted “unless before death” they are joined with her so they can “profit by the sacraments”

Please actually learn what Fr. Feeney believed.

Fr. Feeney believed that if anyone was saved and they had not been known to receive Baptism that somehow, someway unknown to anyone else the necessary Baptism of water had been accomplished.

There is no condemnation of anyone. There is simply a strong faith in God’s word being true as infallibly proclaimed by the Catholic Church.

I personally believe that Angels and Saints operate quite frequently and that they can dispense the Sacraments according to their nature, the disposition of the person in need and the situation they are in. (an Angel may bring the Holy Eucharist to the children of Fatima but only a priest may confect the sacrament)

The “Feeney” position exhibits more faith and mercy in the works of God than the popular position today that was championed by Karl Rahner as the “fundamental option” or the 'anonymous Christian".

There are amazing similarities between these two seemingly polar opposites. Except with one difference: Feeney holds a completely orthodox belief system. God is capable of working miracles to save those that are His.

The Rahner/Modernist position does not believe in the miraculous or the Thomistic philosophy that integrates matter and spirit into one reality.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is off topic. I will have to close it if it the discussion continues with Fr. Feeney and EENS.

If you wish to discuss these other issues, please start new threads in the appropriate fora.

Thank you.

 

[bjford]

I think you are straying a bit here from Catholic Teaching on the will of God. Organic changes in the Liturgy are present because he permits it, not because he positively wills it.

As far as the language of the Mass goes, it’s very simple Latin, Greek and Hebrew are the sacred languages written on the Cross. They are all present in the TLM with the dominance being the precise official language of the Church.

Added to that is the basic human need to worship in a special language. This is true of virtually all religions. As Charles Coulombe said, “Languages that are used in worship tend to die.”

I’m probably not as sharp as you are in theology, but when I said He “wills it” I didn’t necessarily mean his “positive” will-- all I know is that God in a sense does will it, be it His permissive will or not. Furthermore, it is my understanding that even changes made in the liturgy that were even possibly not the best are willed by God (“permissively” if you wish.)

I have a hard time believing that simply because its possible that all three languages-- Latin, Greek, and Hebrew-- were written above Christ on the cross qualifies them as “Sacred languages.” I believe Latin is a sacred language because it has been made sacred by its association in the Mass since the 2nd or 3rd century. Similarly, Aramaic, Old Church Slavonic, Greek, etc. are sacred because of their associations with their particular Divine Liturgies. As I understand it, Latin is only sacred because of its association with the mass-- but it is not a sacred language on its own. If that was the case, I don’t think we should be writing legal documents in Latin as many have done. Furthermore, I would refrain from saying Latin jokes that some of my friends learn from taking latin courses at my university.

I understand the value of Latin and agree with you that it should be the primary language used in the liturgy (although I do think that the readings and perhaps the propers could be in the vernacular).

 

[GerardP]

GerardP;2529636:

As far as the language of the Mass goes, it’s very simple Latin, Greek and Hebrew are the sacred languages written on the Cross. They are all present in the TLM with the dominance being the precise official language of the Church.

The above isn’t really the mind of the Church, either. It was condemned by a variety of synods in 794 and 815. St. Cyril refers to it as the “three language heresy.” When the issue came up as to whether Sts. Cyril and Methodius could translate the Mass and psalms chanted at Mass into the Slavonic (using the alphabet devised by Cyril), Pope John VIII said this:

"We rightly praise the Slavonic letters invented by Cyril in which praises to God are set forth, and we order that the glories and deeds of Christ our Lord be told in that same language [for we are moved by sacred authority to praise the Lord, not in 3 languages only, but in every tongue according to the tenor of the precept "*Praise ye the Lord all you nations and laud him all you peoples

“. And the Apostles full of the Holy Spirit spoke in all languages the wonderful works of God. Hence Paul when blowing the celestial trumpet teaches us that that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Of this too, he admonishes us in his first Epistle to the Corinthians that speaking with tongues we ought to edify the Church. Nor is it in anywise opposed to wholesome doctrine and faith to say Mass in that same Slavonic language or to chant the holy gospels or divine lessons from the Old and New Testaments duly translated and interpreted therein, or the other parts of the divine office: for He who created the three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, also made the others for His praise and glory.”

Can you source this for me? It’s interesting. With respect to the Easterns I was making no implication that the three languages were absolutely necessary or the only languages. I was simply stating the fittingness of the three languages in the Roman Rite.

But the observance that languages in worship tend to die and be reserved for worship holds since the Old Slavonic is a dead language.

 

[stmaria]

Doesn’t Denzinger have a statement in it regarding the phrase “Mysterium Fidei” in which the Pope determined that the phrase was of Apostolic Origin and goes to the Lord himself?

In Annibale Bugnini’s book *Reform of the Liturgy *he says that the Consilium, of which he was the secretary, decided to remove the words ‘Mystery of Faith” because:

Pg 454 “ The addition “mystery of faith” in the formula for the consecration of the wine in the Roman Canon: is not biblical; occurs only in the Roma Canon;** is of uncertain orgin**.”

Catechism council of Trent contradicts his statement.

Form of the Eucharist
With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew.** But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.**
According to Bugnini it was the decision of Pope Paul to keep the words “Mystery of Faith” but have them moved outside of the Consecration formula.

 

[GerardP]

I’m probably not as sharp as you are in theology, but when I said He “wills it” I didn’t necessarily mean his “positive” will-- all I know is that God in a sense does will it, be it His permissive will or not. Furthermore, it is my understanding that even changes made in the liturgy that were even possibly not the best are willed by God (“permissively” if you wish.)

I have a hard time believing that simply because its possible that all three languages-- Latin, Greek, and Hebrew-- were written above Christ on the cross qualifies them as “Sacred languages.” I believe Latin is a sacred language because it has been made sacred by its association in the Mass since the 2nd or 3rd century. Similarly, Aramaic, Old Church Slavonic, Greek, etc. are sacred because of their associations with their particular Divine Liturgies. As I understand it, Latin is only sacred because of its association with the mass-- but it is not a sacred language on its own. If that was the case, I don’t think we should be writing legal documents in Latin as many have done. Furthermore, I would refrain from saying Latin jokes that some of my friends learn from taking latin courses at my university.

I understand the value of Latin and agree with you that it should be the primary language used in the liturgy (although I do think that the readings and perhaps the propers could be in the vernacular).

“Sacred” simply means to “set aside” for a specific purpose. I’m not attributing a mystical property to it like “Holy language” or something like that. I’ve just been pointing out as I stated above a certain fittingness to having those three languages in the Roman Rite. I mistakenly forgot to qualify it with deference to the Eastern rites.

Virtually every TLM I’ve ever been to has been read in Latin as well as in English. The exception being during the Passion, where some priests have only read it in Latin and others have kept the maniple on and read it in English.

There is something to be said for hearing it in Latin and knowing the story or following along. But it’s an aesthetic preference only. I’ve been engaged in the Mass either way.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But the observance that languages in worship tend to die and be reserved for worship holds since the Old Slavonic is a dead language.

Contact our friend AJV, here in the forums, for the source, he was the one who sent me the quote.

I’ve never bought the idea of a dead language being beneficial for worship, inasmuch as God doesn’t need it to be in any particular language and it has to translated into a “base” or “corrupt” anyway. That’s the standard argument when one supports the vernacular: “But with the Latin, it’s translated for you on the opposite page!” Yes, but by definition, that’s a debased understanding of the original, isn’t it? So the laity are getting less than the full message? Somehow, I don’t believe that to follow Christ or to worship Him fitly, one has to learn a different language. And I don’t care what Moslems or Jews do. Latin is not more or less ontologically sacred than any other tongue. We regard it as a sacred language because it has been used to convey sacred things. It’s fitting for international gatherings, etc., but I think it’s usefullness as opposed to the vernacular for daily or weekly worship in your typical parish is overplayed.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

.

Virtually every TLM I’ve ever been to has been read in Latin as well as in English. The exception being during the Passion, where some priests have only read it in Latin and others have kept the maniple on and read it in English.

quote]

That’s another thing that I just consider odd. The readings, the Word of God, are read aloud in a language that the laity doesn’t understand. For whom? God? I rather think He doesn’t need reminding. The readings are obviously intended to be for the congregation. What’s the point of reading them in Latin at all (never mind that the Church’s switch to Latin was a switch to a vernacular)? Hopefully, that’s something that will be pruned in any continued organic dev. of the TLM (hopefully, the whole of it will be translated into the vernacular).

 

[AlexV]

Never mind that numerous popes have said that it’s unacceptable to argue that the readings MUST be read aloud in the vernacular at Mass (especially since Mass isn’t, overall, a primarily didactic moment).

I’ve never quite understood this near-obsession some have with having every little word in their own language, as if they are helpless without it. Closely linked to this attitude is the dislike of anything (hint, the Canon) being said silently by the priest.

I suggest for such people a slow reading of John XXIII on Latin (“Veterum Sapientia”, 1962). It makes for educational…even shocking reading.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually, Gerard P, I was able to find you some citations:

carpatho-rusyn.org/spirit/chap5.htm

istrianet.org/istria/linguistics/glagolitic/cyril-meth1.htm

geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chron9.htm
(save yourself a slog and scroll down to the year 867)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Never mind that numerous popes have said that it’s unacceptable to argue that the readings MUST be read aloud in the vernacular at Mass (especially since Mass isn’t, overall, a primarily didactic moment).

I’ve never quite understood this near-obsession some have with having every little word in their own language, as if they are helpless without it. Closely linked to this attitude is the dislike of anything (hint, the Canon) being said silently by the priest.

I suggest for such people a slow reading of John XXIII on Latin (“Veterum Sapientia”, 1962). It makes for educational…even shocking reading.

You know, Alex, you might not understand, but lots of people DO.

And your remark about “slow” reading is no more than I’ve come to expect. If this is what devotion to the TLM engneders, then the Church will not be shed of the liturgy wars any time soon.

 

[GerardP]

That’s another thing that I just consider odd. The readings, the Word of God, are read aloud in a language that the laity doesn’t understand. For whom? God? I rather think He doesn’t need reminding. The readings are obviously intended to be for the congregation. What’s the point of reading them in Latin at all (never mind that the Church’s switch to Latin was a switch to a vernacular)? Hopefully, that’s something that will be pruned in any continued organic dev. of the TLM (hopefully, the whole of it will be translated into the vernacular).

One reason is the ritual reading that is part of the Mass. Prior to microphones no one would have been able to hear it in Cathedrals in any case no matter what the language. Repeaters were often used and I’m guessing it was probably a mess when that happened.

The reading with the priest wearing the maniple is while he is in the role of the offerer of sacrifice.

When he takes the maniple off and gives the readings in the vernacular and gives the sermon he has stopped being an offerer of sacrifice and is at that moment the teacher of the people.

 

[GerardP]

Actually, Gerard P, I was able to find you some citations:

carpatho-rusyn.org/spirit/chap5.htm

istrianet.org/istria/linguistics/glagolitic/cyril-meth1.htm

geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chron9.htm
(save yourself a slog and scroll down to the year 867)

Thanks. I’ll dig into it tomorrow. I have to call it quits for today.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

One reason is the ritual reading that is part of the Mass. Prior to microphones no one would have been able to hear it in Cathedrals in any case no matter what the language. Repeaters were often used and I’m guessing it was probably a mess when that happened.

The reading with the priest wearing the maniple is while he is in the role of the offerer of sacrifice.

When he takes the maniple off and gives the readings in the vernacular and gives the sermon he has stopped being an offerer of sacrifice and is at that moment the teacher of the people.

And this is where it becomes just a tad too precious for words! Anyone can say what they want about Buggsy, properly celebrated, the noble simplicity of the Pauline Missal is just that: a noble simplicity.

 

[bjford]

Although it may be the case that before microphones nobody would be able to hear the readings, nowadays we have it, and organically, people have yearned to hear the readings. This is why both Pius XII, Bl. John XXIII and other popes had called for the use of vernacular in certain parts of the mass.

At the same time, however, I see the Latin as a real way of making the feel mass sacred-- for aesthetic reasons, I know, but without aesthetics we wouldn’t be able to have a proper mass. This is why I beleive Gregorian chant to be very valuable in the liturgy, even though it is in Latin. I think it would really diminish the value of Gregorian Chant if it was said in English instead of Latin.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Although it may be the case that before microphones nobody would be able to hear the readings, nowadays we have it, and organically, people have yearned to hear the readings. This is why both Pius XII, Bl. John XXIII and other popes had called for the use of vernacular in certain parts of the mass.

At the same time, however, I see the Latin as a real way of making the feel mass sacred-- for aesthetic reasons, I know, but without aesthetics we wouldn’t be able to have a proper mass. This is why I beleive Gregorian chant to be very valuable in the liturgy, even though it is in Latin. I think it would really diminish the value of Gregorian Chant if it was said in English instead of Latin.

In my parish, we sing the “common parts” in Latin, but everything else is in English. It seems like a decent compromise.

 

[mao_now]

GerardP;2531450:

.

Virtually every TLM I’ve ever been to has been read in Latin as well as in English. The exception being during the Passion, where some priests have only read it in Latin and others have kept the maniple on and read it in English.

quote]

That’s another thing that I just consider odd. The readings, the Word of God, are read aloud in a language that the laity doesn’t understand. For whom? God? I rather think He doesn’t need reminding. The readings are obviously intended to be for the congregation. What’s the point of reading them in Latin at all (never mind that the Church’s switch to Latin was a switch to a vernacular)? Hopefully, that’s something that will be pruned in any continued organic dev. of the TLM (hopefully, the whole of it will be translated into the vernacular).

The Priest who baptized me said, “If Christ himself gave the readings in the Mass, including the Gospel, It would not be as important as the consecration”…
I agree,
you may read all the scripture you want…at home.
having been born and raised a “Fundy” I have had enough bible screamed at me in Church, to last the rest of my life!
Thats why I love the Tridentine Mass, Its quiet Theocentric dignity draws you into the Divine…
God Bless

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV;2531489:

The Priest who baptized me said, “If Christ himself gave the readings in the Mass, including the Gospel, It would not be as important as the consecration”…
I agree,
you may read all the scripture you want…at home.
having been born and raised a “Fundy” I have had enough bible screamed at me in Church, to last the rest of my life!
Thats why I love the Tridentine Mass, Its quiet Theocentric dignity draws you into the Divine…
God Bless

The Mass is no less theocentric for having three readings as opposed to two. And talk about what we’ve rec.from apostolic times! Hasn’t scripture always been included in the Mass?

Either of the Masses of the Latin Rite draws us into the Divine (as do the Eastern Divine Liturgies).