Traditional Latin Mass

[Sean_O_L]

Detroiter wrote:

It’s not just the Mass!
The Mass is the banner but the main problem the SSPX has the degradation of the Catholic Faith so that a false “ecumenical” unity maybe obtained with sectarians,heretics, schismatics, and even pagans in some cases!

This is an emotionally false claim! For example: Ecumenism has nothing to do with pagans! Nothing! It DOES have something to do with Our Lord, Jesus Christ’s prayer that “they all be one” - they being, in this case, Christians.

 

[Sean_O_L]

oat soda wrote:

and, that Pope Pius XII gave permission for the vernacular in the Chinese Rites,

actually, well before that, vernacular was used in the slavic countries as well in the latin rite. i think also saints cyril and methodius were given permission to use vernacular but i’m not sure which rite they employed -probably used the byzantine rite.

Well, actually, Saints Cyril and Methodious were denied permission to use the vernacular in the Slavic countries - which resulted in those countries coming under the control of Constantinople.
**

Stephen V (VI)

{111th P.} (885 - 14 Sept. 891)
He forbade the Slavonic liturgy. As a result the small group of St Methodius’ disciples reverted to the Byzantine rite in the Slavonic tongue. The foundations were thus laid for a Slav speaking church which would eventually spread to include Russia, but which would be alien from Rome. (Oxford Dictionary of Popes.)**
Huge mistake on the part of the Vatican at that time!

 

[A.Pelliccio]

It goes well beyond just what language the priest says the mass in. It goes to the heart of the mass, to how and why he does certain things during the sacrifice. It also goes to the unity of the church. Every Sunday Catholics black, white, brown, green, ECT would all gather in one place, to celebrate one event in one common way. Not anymore… I was in little Italy last week in NYC(which borders China Town). I saw a Catholic church there and on the bulletin was English Mass, Italian Mass, Chinese Mass, Cantonese Mass, Mandarin Mass, etc. Its sad that we have dismantle what unity we have.

To replace the unity, humility, and sanctity of the most holy mass we have hand holding during the pater noster, protestant intrusions in our holy mass, women waltzing around in shorts and flip flops etc. On top of the frequent chatting during the mass, breaking of the communion fast(during mass), genuflections towards the altars, instead of the tabernacle. This is because we have decided to play ‘hide and good seek’ with the lord.

We live in a sad state when the fires of hell seem like they are breathing fire down the necks of every Catholic in this world. They shall not prevail for we are the church. We must fight and sometimes be critical of ourselves and each other in order to preserve our way. We need a new inquisition. I

 

[Kristopher]

Sean O L:

Kristopher, you wrote:

I am sorry, but the above is a rather confusing sentence.

Do you mean that no pope could ever authorize a vernacular translation of an authorized Liturgy of the Mass? Or that it is stupid to believe that no pope could never do the above?

or,

Do you mean something else? If so, what?

As to:

Inasmuch as the universal language at the time of the first Mass was the vernacular Hebrew; and

For centuries afterwards, the vernacular Greek, and

for many centuries thereafter, the vernacular Latin -

and, for many of the approved Rites in union with Rome, in the vernacular for many - e.g., the Maronites, the Syriacs, etc.?

and, that Pope Pius XII gave permission for the vernacular in the Chinese Rites,

do you not think that you are exaggerating, just a tad?

Dear Sean O L:

It is stupid to think that Vat. II allowed for, or made such a dramatic change to the mass as to have it done in the vernacular. The vernacular always was there in every mass, side-by-side with the Latin.

Jesus largely spoke throughout his mission, Latin, because Latin was the language of The Roman Empire. Jerusalem was part of The Roman Empire. Pontius Pilate was the authority Jewish Rabbies, Pharisees, etc. sought, because it was this Roman authority alone, whom they knew could sentence Jesus to death. Such was the influence of Rome at the time.

Thus, Jesus spoke throughout his life by-and-large, Latin to his Apostles, why? Because they were common people, whom it was required of people to speak in the vernacular to. As a Rabbi, Jesus spoke Greek, why? Because Greek was the vernacular from the time of Alexander the Great, which dictated The Old Testament to be written in Greek as it was the language of his empire.

The stupidity of Nuvos Ordo advocates is utterly astounding, when the claim is given: It is present in the Catholic Church for mass to be given in the vernacular. No more of a stupid statement could be spoken and therefore, it is an insult and anyone who speaks it to a member of SSPX should be going before attending confession, to the offended member of SSPX, to apologuise for such an insult to ones intelligence.

Saint Pope Pius V canonized The Tridentine, Latin Mass, because there was such a polyglot, many spoken languages, among Catholics and therefore, standardized the mass. Truly Nuvos Ordo Mass members have gone back in time to greater error on their side, because unlike Nuvos Ordo changes, the changes Saint Pope Pius V gave at The Council of Trent truly demonstrated learning and a need was satisfied by canonizing the Latin Mass.

The vernacular existed side-by-side all throughout the past four or so centuries. A 1962 missal will show this as will a 1955 missal. The mass is supposed to be in LATIN with respect to those unchangeable parts of the mass, which no longer exist in a 1963 missal, but do exist in missals prior to 1963. The changeable parts of the mass most necessarily are given in the vernacular.

Was this much more clear to you?

As to your comment about a “vernacular Hebrew”, Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Christ. This is undisputed. It became a dead language at the time Alexander the Great conquered Mesopatamia. Every Bible teacher in every Protestant church that I have ever attended stated this fact very clearly; I attended a Calvary Bible Church, and the church fits the name especially with respect to the word “Bible”. Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Christ. How can you possibly call it “vernacular”? The temptation to label you an idiot for such knowledge is next to overwhelming, but I refrain on the ground that I want to remain amicable with you.

Stupidity among those whom should know better about such matters angers me as it rightly should do.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Sean O L:

Under what circumstances did Pope Pius XII give permission for mass to be given in the vernacular? Was it during the time of WWII, when a Baptist man of God, John Birch, was being gunned down after the cease fire, which ended WWII in China–yes–we fought against the Chinese during WWII; and John Birch was awarded, while alive, The Medal of Honor before Chinese Communists gunned him, an unarmed man, down; and our pathetic government of the time covered-up the story and attributed, falsely, the death to “agrarian reformers”, which you might like to connect with various organic farmers in co-operatives within the U.S., and I do belong to one such co-op. not as a Communist, but as an individual unsupportive of many corporate operated food industries–but back to the topic: Under what circumstances was such permission given?

Under what circumstances did Pope Paul VI remove the Latin from the unchangeable parts of the mass–was it WWII? No, not at all, but at a time when what was happening? Demonstrate a little more consideration toward your reader by allowing a reasonable explanation, which gives more meaning to such a meaningless assertion such as what you gave, Pope Pius XII gave permission for mass to be given in the vernacular to which I respond, and you should never give me this opportunity–SO WHAT!

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Readers:

You can suffer in your mediocrity for as long as you like, however, please alleviate the suffering for others, and rather than blandly assert incessantly: SSPX is in schism! Show some proof, please, thank you!

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[Sean_O_L]

Kristopher wrote:

Many 1962 missals are in print. You will do as well or better with any missal prior to 1963. Missals ante-1962 are inherently corrupt by-and-large. Modernism, the enemy of St. Pope Pius X, crept into missals as early as the 1930’s from what I understand.

Kristopher, you really do not know what you are saying! For example, while you write “Missals ante-1962 are inherently corrupt” (for which you provide absolutely no evidence) - you do not appear to know what the word “ante” means! I think that you really mean “post” 1962 - but, again, no evidence is produced!

May I suggest that you take the trouble to actually research the matter? May I suggest that you start with something like “The Liturgy of the Mass” by Dr. Pius Parsch, B. Herder Book Co, 1946, translater from the original of 1936?

I can provide evidence of SSPX “picking and choosing” (the style of the heretic) among those things which pleased or displeased a particular priest, Fr. Angele - from my records:

These appear to be not the only cases of selectivity practiced by Society priests. The Society’s clay feet have been exposed by another matter. For the several years that Fr Angele has performed the Holy Week ceremonies at Hampton, he has NOT conformed with the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII, and refused to conformed with the 1958 reform of the Holy Week ceremonies as instituted by Pope Pius XII and as contained in the 1962 and earlier Missals. He had told the choir on April 1, 1994 he would be omitting the Oremus, Flectamus genua and Levate (in the Prayers for the Jews) because the Jews had mockingly knelt before Our Lord; and, to another parishioner on June 3, 1996 he declared: “I would not genuflect for the Jews.” The 1958 reform required the Oremus, Flectamus genua, and Levate to be said in all supplicatory prayers including those “for the Jews”.
In a letter of June 26, 1995 to me, Fr Violette stated that:

“With regard to the rubrics of Holy Week, it is unfortunate that all priests do not follow exactly the same. But these differences are not a danger to the faith and I (my personal opinion) do not consider this to be the worst of crimes. I would look at it differently if a priest totally refused the restoration of Holy Week by Pius XII. But in all honesty, if the only complaint you have is with regard to the (omission of) the Flectamus genua/Levate at the prayers for the Jews on Good Friday and the (incorrect inclusion of the) Last Gospel at the Easter Vigil Mass, excuse me, but I find that petty.”

Later, in a letter of March 19, 1996 to Mr Max Longford, he stated that:

“…the SSPX uses the reformed Holy Week of Pope Pius XII as it was a legitimate reform done by a legitimate pope. I know it is a debated question amongst some traditionalists, but a legitimate order from a legitimate superior must be obeyed (Emphasis added.)… All the Pope did was to restore Holy Week and especially Holy Saturday to the way it was before.the way it had been for nearly 1000 years, until the 11th century.”

In a letter of July 4, 1996 to Fr. Angele, (a five page letter plus twenty two pages of appendices - reproduced in reduced form herein on pp.111/27), I contended that “A portion of my records and arguments are contained in the attached appendices marked ‘1’ to ‘12’ inclusive, which, I submit, present a prima facie case to justify a certain ‘uneasiness’ in respect of some aspects of youradministration of the parish**.”** Further, I asked:

“Would you please provide to me a copy of an official order to you from Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Schmidberger or Bishop Fellay directing you not to comply precisely with the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII, and specifically to delete the ‘Oremus, flectamus genua and levate’ from the Prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy?”, And, “Would you please, Fr. Angele, provide to me evidence of your Superiors’ command that you not adhere to the spirit of the apparently ‘legitimate order from a legitimate superior (which) must be obeyed’.”

Further, I put the question to Fr Angele: “To whom ARE you being obedient?” without receiving a response.

 

[Kristopher]

A.Pelliccio:

We need a new inquisition. I

Dear A. Pelliccio:

The Inquisition never ended. The office exists to this day. The papacy never was involved with The Spanish Inquisition. It was murderously headed by the kings of Spain.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Readers:

The similarities between a Nuvos Ordo Mass, and a Protestant Mass warrant enough evidence to demonstrate who is likened to Protestants–Nuvos Ordo Catholics, with their Masonic and Protestant druaghted Vatican II.

Ecumenism is to mean: Reaching out to people of other faiths; it has nothing to do with all being granted permission to participate in The Eucharist.

The Eucharist is not for all, but for many. Never be confused about Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross: It was for all. The Eucharist is for many.

Are you a confused Catholic?

Read Marcel Lefebvre’s letter to you.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[A.Pelliccio]

I wasnt generally talking about the secular one (headed by the one in Spain after the liberation of Grenada), which wasnt even that bad. What I am talking about is holding priests, bishops, politicians ect to account for thier actions.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Kristopher wrote:

There is no evidence SSPX is in schism, none! There never has been. There can never be any honest evidence to support the claim SSPX is in schism. It simply is a lie propagated by people such people as Fr. Vincent Serpa O.P., Michelle Arnold, and others to include a theologian in the Sacramento Diocese who is an advisor to the bishop of the diocese there, to include another liar at EWTN, a theologian to whom I spoke. I spoke with them. They all lied. Bald faced lies.

How can a society be in schism, when the schism is still only an allegation? No guilt has been placed on the shoulders of the society. Furthermore, there is no proof Archbishop Lefebvre at the time of his death was in a state of excommunication, if he ever incurred excommunication in the 1980’s, which is so unlikely according to The Code of Canon Law 1323, 5/.

Talk about being in a state of denial!!!

Here is the evidence of the schism of Lefebvre, including the suspension from all ecclesiastical functions from the mid-1970’s:
jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex2.htm and
a summary of the above at
jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex1.htm
and an attempted debate between Captain Roniel Aledo and Bishop Fellay at jloughnan.tripod.com/afdebate.htm

 

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

Kristopher:

Dear Readers:

The similarities between a Nuvos Ordo Mass, and a Protestant Mass warrant enough evidence to demonstrate who is likened to Protestants–Nuvos Ordo Catholics, with their Masonic and Protestant druaghted Vatican II.

Ecumenism is to mean: Reaching out to people of other faiths; it has nothing to do with all being granted permission to participate in The Eucharist.

The Eucharist is not for all, but for many. Never be confused about Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross: It was for all. The Eucharist is for many.

Are you a confused Catholic?

Read Marcel Lefebvre’s letter to you.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

Kristopher, thank you for your posts! They are A pleasure to read. I do not attend a SSpx chapel. We have the Indult at my Parish. However I was wondering ,are you a convert? I am, and i sense from your posts that you may be, the reason i am asking is this. It seems we converts know something that “cradle” catholics just dont get. That is. This Ecumenism the Church is promoting is False. Protestants, evangelicals, fundamentalists , and jehovas witness, LDS, SDA, These “Churches” are not just going to take a vote one day, and decide the next to come into the Catholic Church. As converts we know this. If you make the Faith more Protestant, then why would anyone convert?

My own Faith journey was one of seeking the truth. Found it in the Catholic Church. See it most visibly expressed in all of its glorious theology in the Tridentine Mass.

God bless

PS Dont let A certain poster rile you up. he’s ex SSPX
He sees Schism in everthing and everyone. sad sad sad

 

[Sean_O_L]

Kristopher wrote:

It is stupid to think that Vat. II allowed for, or made such a dramatic change to the mass as to have it done in the vernacular. The vernacular always was there in every mass, side-by-side with the Latin. etc.

Which did not address the questions asked! - yet he declared everything and anybody “stupid” who does not agree with his statements. Ah, well!

Must I point out to him another false statement he makes - as well as exaggeration? Let me say this: It is a false exaggeration to claim that “The vernacular always was there in every mass, side-by-side with the Latin.”

Why is it false and an exaggeration? The words “always”, “ever” and “never” are absolute terms. The facts are that there were NO vernacular translations of the Mass "side-by-side with the Latin during the, at least, first 1400 years of the history of the Church.

Claims as to Jesus speaking Latin and/or Greek at the first Mass are unsubstantiated. Hebrew was, in the liturgical language of the Temple and the Synagogues, where Our Lord preached. The probabilities are that Aramaic, the vernacular of the region was used at the Last Supper.

 

[otm]

Kristopher:

Dear Readers:

I am a traditional Catholic and by this I mean: I attend mass at a Society of Saint Pius X chapel.

It seems, pardon the vulgarity, but it seems very stupid to think that any mass at any time by any pope ever said, no mass shall be given in the vernacular.

The unchangeable parts of the mass of a 1955 missal, contrasted against a 1999 missal show dramatic differences not only in shoddy craftsmanship and writing, and I do mean “shoddy”, but also in substance in the holiest of all substances with respect to theology of the liturgy, of the mass right down to the consecration of wine. Communion never is for all, but for many, and Jesus never came to save all, but many. Jesus died, because of all sinners, and for all sinners–this of course never in itself exonerated anyone.

The point of what Saint Pope Pius V and Saint Pope Pius X committed to have the unchangeable parts of the mass not in vernacular, but in Latin to my understanding is simple: One, Latin is the universal language of The Church it always has been–this is a very important tradition. This universal language of the Church does much to determine what interpretations of scripture and of tradition are authoritative, because the language of Latin is consistent among those who study theology in the Catholic Church.

The mass was canonized by St. Pope Pius V, because not only were Protestants breeding errors, but also masses were given in the vernacular and we know that discrepancies and complications and interpretations are difficult in translating one language to another language.

Latin as a universal language is practical for the same reason English in America is practical to be taught uniformly among its citizens. Remember The Tower of Babel? Confusion exists among differing languages.

The Order of the Mass should remain as it was from The Council of Trent. The vernacular is used; has been used; will always be used during mass for those parts of the mass, which we know are changeable. This is the reason that I think it stupid that anyone would emphasise such an importance on the vernacular as though the vernacular throughout the past two centuries never existed side-by-side as they do in my 1955 missal.

Clearly Saint Pope Pius V never intended one missal to be pitted against another missal, such is the work of American Bishops and the followers who refuse to go against the Herd Instinct and the Bandwagon.

As we, Catholics, lose among our priests the universal language of Latin, we lose our Catholic culture.

It seems lame to spell out the shift of focus in a Nuvos Ordo mass; nonetheless, the heart of Catholicism is The Eucharist–why then do we insist or comply with priests who stand before us with the Eucharist between his face, the altar, and the congregation.

He should face the wall and the Crucifix hanging above the Blessed Virgin Mary’s tabernacle with the Eucharist, my Lord, my God, over his head that I may see my God without distractions!

I am at mass for my Lord not for my brothers and my sisters who often at the pathetic request of some bishop, of some priest, cannot have enough humility in their hearts to genuflect, to bend two knees as they receive their Lord on their tongue.

The mass has unchangeable parts. It is spelled out in red ink in a missal dated 1955. How on God’s green earth with a common language in the vernacular do we manage to originate new meanings of the word “unchangeable”? One would think that such people are now Protestants and should therfore, go to them with open arms. Stop the sacriledge and remove yourself from the Eucharist if you cannot figure out the meaning of the word “unchangeable” as it refers to the Latin elements of the mass, thank you!

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

Your theology is skewed. You might try re-reading the Gospels and the Epistles, for starters.

Latin is not the universal language of the Church, but of the Roman rite of the Church. Other rites retain their native landuages.
Losing Latin is not losing Catholic culture, but it may be losing part of the culture of the Roman rite.

I am curious as to where you seem to think Christ stood when He instituted the Eucharist; you appear to be unfamiliar with the Passover meal, and early Christian liturgy.

And your issue of unchangeable is not a doctrinal teaching of the Church - Roman rite or other rites - as you are stating it.

 

[otm]

Detroiter:

It’s not just the Mass!
The Mass is the banner but the main problem the SSPX has the degradation of the Catholic Faith so that a false “ecumenical” unity maybe obtained with sectarians,heretics, schismatics, and even pagans in some cases!

Anyone who thinks that the official actions of the Church in ecuminism is in search of a false unity or a dumbed down unity is not paying any attention whatsoever to what is actually being said on the level that real ecumenical dialogue is occuring.

 

[otm]

Kristopher:

Dear Catholic Heart:

Many 1962 missals are in print. You will do as well or better with any missal prior to 1963. Missals ante-1962 are inherently corrupt by-and-large. Modernism, the enemy of St. Pope Pius X, crept into missals as early as the 1930’s from what I understand.

How sincere are you about attending an SSPX mass?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

Can you, for our edification, define Modernism?

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Hey, why mess around with the St. Pius X society! They aren’t REAL trads. The original language of the church wasn’t Latin after all. Join the ST. PIUS THE FIRST SOCIETY! “To be any more Trad, you’d have to be Jewish”

209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/1406639/posts

 

[otm]

Kristopher:

Dear Adonis33:

There is no evidence SSPX is in schism, none! There never has been. There can never be any honest evidence to support the claim SSPX is in schism. It simply is a lie propagated by people such people as Fr. Vincent Serpa O.P., Michelle Arnold, and others to include a theologian in the Sacramento Diocese who is an advisor to the bishop of the diocese there, to include another liar at EWTN, a theologian to whom I spoke. I spoke with them. They all lied. Bald faced lies.

How can a society be in schism, when the schism is still only an allegation? No guilt has been placed on the shoulders of the society. Furthermore, there is no proof Archbishop Lefebvre at the time of his death was in a state of excommunication, if he ever incurred excommunication in the 1980’s, which is so unlikely according to The Code of Canon Law 1323, 5/.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

Anyone who doubts that Lefebvre was excommunicated, along with the bishops he ordained, should join the Flat Earth Society. It is simply not a disputable point.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Kristopher wrote:

Under what circumstances did Pope Paul VI remove the Latin from the unchangeable parts of the mass–was it WWII? No, not at all, but at a time when what was happening? Demonstrate a little more consideration toward your reader by allowing a reasonable explanation, which gives more meaning to such a meaningless assertion such as what you gave, Pope Pius XII gave permission for mass to be given in the vernacular to which I respond, and you should never give me this opportunity–SO WHAT!

Well, it is again a falsity and an exaggeration to claim that Pope Paul VI removed Latin from the unchangeable parts of the mass."

Firstly, the Liturgy of Paul VI WAS lawfully promulgated in Latin in the Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum.

Secondly, the essentials of any Roman Rite Mass are: Offertory, Consecrations and Priest’s Communion - all of which are present in the various Roman Rite approved liturgies, and in those of the Eastern Rites. They are also present in the approved vernacular translations. (Those translations may not be “pretty” or “pleasing” to the intellect - but they do contain what is required for validity.)

Furthermore, the unchangeable parts of the Canon are, in fact, the words which the Church has approved for the consecration of the bread and wine to effect the transubstantiation. Those words are or are similar to “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.” Those are the unchangeable parts.

As to your request on the Chinese Rites, the following are from my records:

Consider also the Bull of Benedict XIV {245th P.}, Ex quo singulari, (July 11, 1742) in which he finally suppressed the Chinese Rites:

“…we condemn and detest their practice as superstitious…we revoke, annul, abrogate and wish to be deprived of all force and effect, all and each of those permissions, and say and announce that they must be considered for ever to be annulled, null, invalid and without any force or power.”

Was THAT irreformable? Pius XII did not think so!

Pius XII {258th P.} 1939: The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda reversed ClementXI’s decision on the Chinese rites - and Benedict XIV’s “for ever” Ex quo singulari !

Under Canon 1258**,**
As to Japan: in (S.C.Prop. Fid., 26 May, 1936) AAS 28-406,

“An Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda was sent to Japan, on 26 May, 1936…It asserts that the Faith does not reject the rites and customs of any nation if they are in no way reprehensible; in fact it desires to defend and protect them.” As to “visiting of the national temples or Jinja. The answer was that the purpose of the visits was nothing more than to express sentiments of patriotism and loyalty.” (Canon Law Digest pp.368/9.)

As to China: in (S.C.Prop. Fid., 8 Dec., 1939) AAS 32-24,

a) Catholics are permitted to be present at ceremonies in honor of Confucius in Confucian temples or in schools;

b) Erection of image of Confucius or tablet with his name on it is permitted in Catholic schools.

c) Catholic magistrates and students are permitted to passively attend public ceremonies which have the appearance of superstition.

d) It is licit and unobjectionable for head inclinations and other manifestations of civil observance before the deceased or their images.

e) The oath on the Chinese rites, which was prescribed by Benedict XIV, is not fully in accord with recent regulations and is superfluous. (CLD pp.370/2.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Kristopher wrote:

You can suffer in your mediocrity for as long as you like, however, please alleviate the suffering for others, and rather than blandly assert incessantly: SSPX is in schism! Show some proof, please, thank you!

Done that at Massage #31 Accusations of “stupidity” and/or mediocrity" can be boomerangs. I have also asked YOU to provide evidence to back up YOUR unsubstantiated claims and accusations.