Tridentine Mass.

[LVCIVS_DEI]

:dts:

That is what they told me.

 

[wssjmy]

Are you calling the dutch clergy liars than?
Only the ones who are evil in there heart go to hell.
That is what i have been taught.

Only those who willfully reject God go to hell.

However, Jesus Christ has given His Church the power to bind and loose
(And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [Matthew 16:19])

The Church says that every Catholic has a obligation to attend Holy Mass on Sundays, and that to fail to do so without good reason, is a grave sin.
(The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. [Catechism of the Catholic Church #2181])

It is the case, therefore, that one who knowingly and willfully rejects the commandment of the Church, is knowlingly and willfully rejecting the commandment of God, and that person does have evil in their heart.

Of course, God is forgiving. God freely forgives all who repent.
Those who do not repent are not forgiven, and will be dammed.*

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Only those who willfully reject God go to hell.

However, Jesus Christ has given His Church the power to bind and loose
(And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [Matthew 16:19])

The Church says that every Catholic has a obligation to attend Holy Mass on Sundays, and that to fail to do so without good reason, is a grave sin.
(*The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. [Catechism of the Catholic Church #2181]**)

It is the case, therefore, that one who knowingly and willfully rejects the commandment of the Church, is knowlingly and willfully rejecting the commandment of God, and that person does have evil in their heart.

Of course, God is forgiving. God freely forgives all who repent.
Those who do not repent are not forgiven, and will be dammed.
So does that mean we should blindly obey the conservatives?

 

[MartyrForJesus]

So does that mean we should blindly obey the conservatives?

You must as a Catholic accept the teachings of the Church. If your parish priest tells you something that contradicts Catholic doctrine, then he is wrong. Simply as that.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

You must as a Catholic accept the teachings of the Church. If your parish priest tells you something that contradicts Catholic doctrine, then he is wrong. Simply as that.

And catholic doctrine states that only those who perpetrate unforgivable sins such as murder go to hell.
And even they can be saved if they repent.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

You must as a Catholic accept the teachings of the Church. If your parish priest tells you something that contradicts Catholic doctrine, then he is wrong. Simply as that.

Also:
I can not and will not force myself hate people for what they do in there lives, and if that is wrong according to catholic teaching than so be it.
And if you can not forgive people than that is your curse.

 

[TrueLight]

Maybe we need to move this to a new thread?

 

[Filii_Dei]

Let’s not enter into the debate of whether missing mass is a mortal sin or not. Regardless, it is accepted to be a grave matter, and one should not worry about whether one is going to hell for missing mass, but rather aiming to attend mass every week. And to restate a belaboured point, it is not valid to refuse to attend a mass celebrated in the OF simply because there is no EF mass around.

And I agree, this thread is in danger of being derailed.

 

[ProVobis]

Let’s not enter into the debate of whether missing mass is a mortal sin or not. Regardless, it is accepted to be a grave matter, and one should not worry about whether one is going to hell for missing mass, but rather aiming to attend mass every week. And to restate a belaboured point, it is not valid to refuse to attend a mass celebrated in the OF simply because there is no EF mass around.

But by the same token, it is not valid to refuse to attend an Italian or German Mass if there are no convenient English Masses around. Is that a true statement?

I was once in that position, by the way.

 

[FrancisB]

But by the same token, it is not valid to refuse to attend an Italian or German Mass if there are no convenient English Masses around. Is that a true statement?

I was once in that position, by the way.

So long as the Italian or German masses are approved by the Holy See, that is true. I’m not sure where you are going with this, Pro Vobis, but the Holy Father has certainly used both of these languages in masses. If the point is that the language doesn’t matter, and Latin is fine, that is also true. I don’t think anyone here has come out in direct opposition to people having a Latin mass. That said, no matter how much you, I, or anyone else loves Latin, there is no way of denying that returning to the vernacular is the restoration of an ancient practise of the universal church, one still preserved in the East without any problem.

 

[ProVobis]

…there is no way of denying that returning to the vernacular is the restoration of an ancient practise of the universal church, one still preserved in the East without any problem.

I wouldn’t agree with you that the East is without problems. And I wouldn’t agree with you that the vernacular is a restoration of anything. Trent didn’t ban the vernacular and I don’t think any of previous councils had banned it either. But where’s the advantage of dropping the Latin in the liturgy altogether? Certainly not everyone is offended by occasional use of the “oos” or “eebus” or “um” sounds.

 

[FrancisB]

I wouldn’t agree with you that the East is without problems. And I wouldn’t agree with you that the vernacular is a restoration of anything. Trent didn’t ban the vernacular and I don’t think any of previous councils had banned it either. But where’s the advantage of dropping the Latin in the liturgy altogether? Certainly not everyone is offended by occasional use of the “oos” or “eebus” or “um” sounds.

You keep acting like I have ever voiced an anti-Latin sentiment. I’ve not. I love the Latin language. The reason for advocating for the vernacular has nothing to do with being anti-Latin and everything to do with the reason why we ever had a vernacular liturgy and didn’t just pray in Hebrew and Aramaic.

I also never said that the vernacular had been banned. Restoration does not imply that something had been suppressed; merely that it had fallen into disuse. The “Traditional Latin Mass” is rather a misnomer in that it was never universally in Latin. The use of Church Slavonic (not really the vernacular by Trent, but nevertheless not Latin) had been preserved and even spread in Central and Eastern Europe. There were vernacular usages in missionary areas. But still, Latin was predominant, and it was a linguistic barrier between the illiterate masses and the liturgy.

Is it ironic that we restored the vernacular at a time when world literacy is at an all-time high? Certainly. We are more capable now than ever of following a translation in a missal. We are more capable now than ever of teaching our children to speak Latin. The fact remains, however, that we are a missionary church. We are always and at all times a missionary church. The pope has asked us to reconvert Western culture. That underscores the fact that we need to help people to understand the beliefs of the church. It is far easier to do that when the liturgy is understandable to the people.

I do not understand why you are so hostile to the vernacular, when the only reason that we ever had Latin is that it was the vernacular before it became calcified as the liturgical language in the western half of the Empire.

 

[Warrenton]

Forgive me, when it said it was not “solid” I assumed that you were referring to the fact that the mensa rested on discrete supports rather than a filled-in base forming a box.

You understood me correctly.

Obviously the design is different – this one isn’t on little corinthian columns and there’s no dinky gradine or reredos behind it …I’m genuinely curious what your reasoning is here

It is not supported on columns at all. The mensa rests on what appears to be a rectangular masonry slab.

I’ll try to explain my reasoning, though.

Ultimately, however, it comes down to a jugment about what we are looking at. The post that prompted my comment said that the pictured altar was consistent with ancient altars. I disagreed.

I contend that ancient altars, at least the ones I have seen in pictures and in life appear very different.

To me, the picture shows a massive stone picnic table, for lack of a better description.

I hope I have been clear so far. If so, I’ll try to make equally clear where I take my observations.

Mark, as you know from our many other discussions, I contend that the way things are built are meant to communicate non verbally. Many disagree with me on this, and as you also know, I think they are being “modernist” in their denial (and I maintain the old "Pope Pius X understanding of the word, with all of the flaws you have often pointed out for me).

To me, the altar design in the picture is meant to convey a very different message from the altar you posted, and the one I have in mind, which I would give you a picture of if I knew how to do that. Lacking a photo, I will try to describe the altar in mind, which is in southern France, made of stone, roughly square, 4 by 4 viewed strait on, and very plain. It dates from the early middle ages/late dark ages. No reredos, no screen, no ornamentation save the sculptor’s attempt to mimic a rather severe classical (Roman) design: bevels, but no acanthus leaves or fluting.

Ultimately, I must speculate on the message of the newer altar in the photo. I know it is a different message than Catholic altars I am familiar with. I also know it looks like a table. I conclude therefore that, as you said, the builder, and by extension, the user, wanted to emphasise the “meal” rather than the sacrifice.

Hence, I am greatly out of sympathy with the design of that altar. Further, I think that that the use of stone either serves to make permanent a false, or at least non-traditionally Catholic mentality, contain a definitional adherence to tradition (i.e., make feasible a defense along the lines you offered), or both.

We might add, just to round out our discussion of traditional altars, that in the pre-Gregorian period through 1965, the dressing of the altar and its furnishing was very important and elaborate. There is a wonderful study of Roman ritual in the 6th/7th Century with illustrations that can be accessed free on line because the copyright has expired. It must have taken 20 minutes to get all the cloths, candles, palls, and coverings prepared! This leads me to think that while some pre=Gregorian churches may have been plain (and some were not), the altar was treated with special care to make it beautiful. The old thought was that the altar itself was a symbol of Christ, long before the tabernacle was placed upon it.

Have a merry Christmas!

 

[ProVobis]

…when the only reason that we ever had Latin is that it was the vernacular before it became calcified as the liturgical language in the western half of the Empire.

If this were true, we’d be using “voscum” instead of “vobiscum” in the Mass. The truth is that Classical Latin (which became Christianized) differed from the Vulgar Latin, more the vernacular of the period when Pope Victor changed the Mass to Latin. (Maybe because part of the inscription on the cross was in Latin?) The differences can be found in the Appendix Probi, a discovered document which gives a sample as to how the Latin language changed syntax and started to morph into the Romance languages. That’s not to say Latin was not used in the Mass before Pope Victor I but that’s another thread.

There were other vernaculars available to be “calcified” at the time. But there was a reason why the Church used Latin and its nuances in its documents and liturgy and 250 Popes (count them) since Pope Victor who have upheld the use of Latin in the Roman Rite, some more strongly than others, of course.

There is nothing wrong with using your own selected vernacular in following the Mass. There are handmissals, booklets, websites, and handouts which give side-by-side Latin-vernacular but to remove the Latin altogether in favor of controversial translations used in the actual liturgy? Why, you’ve already admitted we have become more literate so we should be able to follow a side-by-side for added meaning.

 

[archangel04]

Also:
I can not and will not force myself hate people for what they do in there lives, and if that is wrong according to catholic teaching than so be it.
And if you can not forgive people than that is your curse.

You have derailed the thread which is a big no no :tsktsk:

If someone can’t forgive someone who are you to judge? That needs to be worked out by that person and God.

 

[StephenEstes]

There is some evidence that the painting of Michalangelo “last supper” is accurate in the way they sat. The other evidence was that the table was in a “U” shape but with 90 degree angles. I wish I had the sources but I know one of these came from the book “Spirit of the Liturgy” by then Card. Ratzinger.

I’m assuming you mean Leonardo?

 

[MarkThompson]

I’m assuming you mean Leonardo?

Already well covered by Monty Python.

 

[Filii_Dei]

But by the same token, it is not valid to refuse to attend an Italian or German Mass if there are no convenient English Masses around. Is that a true statement?

I was once in that position, by the way.

I’m not sure if I’ve overlooked the meaning behind your post, but yes, that statement is true. As with the Latin-illiterate attending an EF or Latin OF mass (cf. Christmas mass in St. Peter’s Basilica), the same principles apply. One should attend and attempt to pray and follow in spirit, even if they cannot understand what is being spoken or sung.

The mass is common to all Roman Rite Catholics, and nobody can be so unacquainted with the liturgy that they cannot recognise the Eucharistic actions when they are performed, or the process of communion. It is suboptimal, of course, but it is an acceptable substitute when you are unable to find an appropriate English-language mass.

What is not an acceptable substitute by any means, however, is watching a televised mass, even if it is in your language. It may help you spiritually, but it is no substitute for a mass in fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

You have derailed the thread which is a big no no :tsktsk:

If someone can’t forgive someone who are you to judge? That needs to be worked out by that person and God.

I am not judging him i feel sorry for him that he can not shake this spite towards his fellow man.
But ok back to the topic at hand:
The main reason i dislike the novus ordo is the fact that in my country they translated the Latin songs into dutch.
And now the lyrics do not match up with the tunes anymore and it just sounds awful.
Furthermore i think the fact that laymen now are permitted to even touch the holy host is wrong.

 

[FrancisB]

If this were true, we’d be using “voscum” instead of “vobiscum” in the Mass. The truth is that Classical Latin (which became Christianized) differed from the Vulgar Latin, more the vernacular of the period when Pope Victor changed the Mass to Latin. (Maybe because part of the inscription on the cross was in Latin?) The differences can be found in the Appendix Probi, a discovered document which gives a sample as to how the Latin language changed syntax and started to morph into the Romance languages. That’s not to say Latin was not used in the Mass before Pope Victor I but that’s another thread.

There were other vernaculars available to be “calcified” at the time. But there was a reason why the Church used Latin and its nuances in its documents and liturgy and 250 Popes (count them) since Pope Victor who have upheld the use of Latin in the Roman Rite, some more strongly than others, of course.

There is nothing wrong with using your own selected vernacular in following the Mass. There are handmissals, booklets, websites, and handouts which give side-by-side Latin-vernacular but to remove the Latin altogether in favor of controversial translations used in the actual liturgy? Why, you’ve already admitted we have become more literate so we should be able to follow a side-by-side for added meaning.

While I understand what you are saying, ProVobis, there are a number of points here that are askew:

1. Classical Latin was still being spoken as the vernacular when the mass was first translated and prayed in Latin. The original Latin translation was into the vernacular language of the city of Rome.
2. Pope Victor’s reign is on what linguists consider the cusp between the age of Classical and Vulgar Latin, and being in Rome, where education was better and the language was better preserved, he would undoubtedly have viewed this language as his vernacular, even if it is true that in other parts of the empire (where he was not) the switch had already begun. Vulgar Latin, however, was never a language, so much as a series of dialects created by the breakdown of Latin grammar rules and the influx of loan words taken from other languages, particularly along the borders of the empire. This is why the French language is so different from Italian: Italian preserved much of Latin’s vocabulary, but the grammar was destroyed by a lack of education, which didn’t happen until after the Western Empire began to crumble, much later than Pope Victor. Considering that the Latin mass translation does have some elements of early Vulgar Latin constructions (in places where the genitive case is expected we get constructions using “de”), I don’t see how you claim any kind of linguistic purity. This was a rarity in Cicero’s time, but had become commonplace by the third century (that, you will note is after Pope Victor).

A parallel here could be drawn with the fact that the grammar rules of English are rapidly shifting right now, even though the vocabulary has remained mostly intact in the last hundred years. I wouldn’t argue that our vernacular translation should lose its grammatical accuracy just because people are forgetting their grammar; we haven’t got that far astray yet. I would, however, argue against using archaic words or constructions that haven’t been normal for several centuries.

1. You are assuming a literate population with the means to afford missals in translation. That was not the reality in much of the world for most of the time that the Latin mass existed. Furthermore, it is not the case in much of the Catholic world right now. Consider this, in the places where the church is most vibrant, the literacy rate is still low. In the industrialised world, where missals would be more readily useful, mass attendance is low. Beyond that, I don’t see why you are so hostile to the authentic tradition of the church, which has been to use the vernacular. This was as true in the first century as it is to-day, and has been reaffirmed by councils up to and including Vatican II. The use of the vernacular was still allowed in the church before Vatican II; it was just not as widespread. There has never been an issue of validity by using the vernacular, and there is only the likelihood that people will better understand the faith by hearing the words in their own language. That’s why the ancient church used the vernacular.

We were a missionary church in the first century, and we are still a missionary church now. Latin is lovely for solemn high mass, but there is no reason that other levels of the mass should be said in Latin.