Well I guess the Rumors are True(Traditional Mass Back)

[BobP123]

Do you think the Jews would have been celebrating the TLM, but some of our Bishops have been holding them back?

Well, if they interpret the Scriptures as “ALL Jews are perfidious,” then I can understand why they wouldn’t want the TLM.

 

[BobP123]

St Isidore,

Good way to look at it. “This is My Body.” is not a lie.

However “This is My Body only for those of German ancestry.” is a lie.

The qualification does disqualify it.

 

[AJV]

I’m genuinely asking (really): while the Catechism of Trent adequately explains the “for many” vs. “for all” why does it have to be that “for all” implies the fruits and efficiacy? I’m thinking with reference to the Summa when St. Thomas says:

Further, as was already observed Christ’s Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: “Which shall be shed for all,” or else “for many,” without adding, “for you.”

 

[MTD]

But this is not what Benedict XVI is saying on frequent basis. For example you are contradicting him:

In section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states: “…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the
Bible is a possible one…”( vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popoloebraico_
en.html)

Is Benedict XVI saying we should believe that denial of Christ is possible?

The following does not look like Benedict XVI is trying to win souls to the Catholic Faith:

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts… There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”(Benedict XVI, God and the World, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000, p. 209.)

This sounds like a denial of the Christian Faith to me.

I believe this:
1 John 2:22 – “… he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist…”

Pope Benedict XVI is explaining the good faith of these Jews based on their interpretation of the Old Testament, which is based on human reason alone. Remember that St. Paul said, “And no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except in the Holy Spirit.” (1 Cor. 12:3) Without this gift of the Holy Spirit, the unaided human reason can and in many cases will come to the conclusion that the Old Testament does not point to Christ.

Maria

 

[Al_Masetti]

My guess is that the transition back will be very gradual.

 

[MTD]

You cannot choose what is essential. This is a partial consecration (which of course is null and void). By your definition that is all we need for the consecration. It must be in totality in order to effect the sacrament.

There are two valid theological opinions on what is essential for transubstantiation: 1) Only “This is My Body/This is My Blood” are essential; this was the opinion held by St. Pius X. 2) The whole formula is essential for transubstantiation; this opinion was held by St. Thomas Aquinas.

I agree that the second opinion is more likely the correct opinion. However, I do not understand it the way you are understanding it. In other words, I understand it to mean that the long form is whatever formula has been approved by the Church for use in a rite.

So for example, in the Tridentine Rite, the long form would be:

Hic est enim calix Sanguinis Mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

In the Byzantine Rite, the long form would be:

This is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.

In the Armenian Rite, the long form would be:

This is My Blood for the New Covenant, which is shed for you and for many, in expiation and in remission of sins.

In the Ethiopian (Ge’ez) Rite, Anaphora of the Apostles, the long form would be:

This is My Blood which is shed for you.

In the vernacular Pauline Rite, the long form would be:

This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

You see, the long form opinion can’t mean that only the Tridentine formula is the valid one because that would mean that the Eastern rites are invalid. It can only mean that the long form required for transubstantiation is whatever form has been duly approved for use in a particular rite.

I’m not sure I’m explaining this very well.

Maria

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You are playing on words. You cannot choose what is essential. This is a partial consecration (which of course is null and void). By your definition that is all we need for the consecration. It must be in totality in order to effect the sacrament. ( I am not sure I understand you implication here, please correct me if I am wrong: Are you saying that what is essential is less than what Christ said in scripture (i.e. …which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins…)?

In English, a play on words would be something like:

“Today, I paid the plumber to unclog my sink. It was money down the drain.”

I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. I attempted to explain (poorly) what Maria has explained. The liturgies of the East, from Apostolic and Patristic times, do not always include the exact wording included in ours. “This is MY Body” and “This is My Blood” is always included, as far as I can recall.

At any rate, my effort was addressed at clarifying that Masses that had used (and in the English speaking world, WILL BE USING for about the next two years) “for all” were still considered valid by the competent authority, the Holy See.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m not sure I’m explaining this very well.

Maria

It’s been attempted before.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2036526#post2036526

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Forgive me if this is OT and somewhat ignorant of me:

I’m a cradle Catholic who’d never heard of a “Tridentine Mass” until I came to the CA forum…even now, I’m only 90% sure that the Tridentine is the Latin Mass that predates Vatican II.

I haven’t read all of this thread, but I get a sense that those who prefer the Latin Mass have varying degrees of disdain for Mass in the vernacular. I personally know almost zero Latin; the nuances of the translations would be completely lost on me unless I spent time studying Latin.

I don’t care to study Latin.

I’m hoping that nobody here would sneer at a sincere preference for vernacular Masses. Certainly, that wouldn’t make one less Catholic…right?

Peace,
Dante

 

[AJV]

But this is not what Benedict XVI is saying on frequent basis. For example you are contradicting him:

In section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states: “…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the
Bible is a possible one…”( vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popoloebraico_
en.html)

Is Benedict XVI saying we should believe that denial of Christ is possible?

The following does not look like Benedict XVI is trying to win souls to the Catholic Faith:

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts… There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”(Benedict XVI, God and the World, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000, p. 209.)

This sounds like a denial of the Christian Faith to me.

I believe this:
1 John 2:22 – “… he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist…”

And just before the part you quoted:

Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins?

In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

 

[padreden]

The words of St. Paul should be instructive here:

1st Corinthians 14:9-11 “So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.”

14:16 “If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not understand what you are saying?”

14:18 “But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.”

 

[rlg94086]

And just before the part you quoted:

Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins?

In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

Thanks AJV!

 

[Al_Masetti]

Forgive me if this is OT and somewhat ignorant of me:

I’m a cradle Catholic who’d never heard of a “Tridentine Mass” until I came to the CA forum…even now, I’m only 90% sure that the Tridentine is the Latin Mass that predates Vatican II.

I haven’t read all of this thread, but I get a sense that those who prefer the Latin Mass have varying degrees of disdain for Mass in the vernacular. I personally know almost zero Latin; the nuances of the translations would be completely lost on me unless I spent time studying Latin.

I don’t care to study Latin.

I’m hoping that nobody here would sneer at a sincere preference for vernacular Masses. Certainly, that wouldn’t make one less Catholic…right?

Peace,
Dante

This is just me talking, but I don’t think that words like “disdain” or “sneer” accurately reflect a preference for a Latin Mass.

My “feeling” is that there are inaccuracies in the English translation from the Latin that have caused some folks to get shivers up their spine.

It’s not necessary to start a war over which translation is most faithful. [Translations are always somewhat shaky.] Although wars have been started over such things in the past.

A few years back, I had to read some of the writing of St. John of the Cross, famous for “the dark night of the soul”. I found several translations and they were all substantially different.

Anyway, for example, just read up on the controversy over “pro multis”.

 

[St_Isidore]

In English, a play on words would be something like:

“Today, I paid the plumber to unclog my sink. It was money down the drain.”

I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. I attempted to explain (poorly) what Maria has explained. The liturgies of the East, from Apostolic and Patristic times, do not always include the exact wording included in ours. “This is MY Body” and “This is My Blood” is always included, as far as I can recall.

At any rate, my effort was addressed at clarifying that Masses that had used (and in the English speaking world, WILL BE USING for about the next two years) “for all” were still considered valid by the competent authority, the Holy See.

 

[Uxor]

Forgive me if this is OT and somewhat ignorant of me:

I’m a cradle Catholic who’d never heard of a “Tridentine Mass” until I came to the CA forum…even now, I’m only 90% sure that the Tridentine is the Latin Mass that predates Vatican II.

I haven’t read all of this thread, but I get a sense that those who prefer the Latin Mass have varying degrees of disdain for Mass in the vernacular. I personally know almost zero Latin; the nuances of the translations would be completely lost on me unless I spent time studying Latin.

I don’t care to study Latin.

I’m hoping that nobody here would sneer at a sincere preference for vernacular Masses. Certainly, that wouldn’t make one less Catholic…right?

Peace,
Dante

The Tridentine Mass is pre-Vatican II. You don’t have to know Latin in order to attend a Traditional Mass. All you need to know is what is taking place on the Altar. Also Missals are provided with the English translation. It only takes about a month to learn the responses in Latin. It doesn’t make one less Catholic because they perfer the vernacular Mass, certainly not. You might want to attend a Traditional Mass sometime, to see how your parents and grandparents worshiped when they were growing up and how the Saints worshiped.

 

[bear06]

Forgive me if this is OT and somewhat ignorant of me:

I’m a cradle Catholic who’d never heard of a “Tridentine Mass” until I came to the CA forum…even now, I’m only 90% sure that the Tridentine is the Latin Mass that predates Vatican II.

I haven’t read all of this thread, but I get a sense that those who prefer the Latin Mass have varying degrees of disdain for Mass in the vernacular. I personally know almost zero Latin; the nuances of the translations would be completely lost on me unless I spent time studying Latin.

I don’t care to study Latin.

I’m hoping that nobody here would sneer at a sincere preference for vernacular Masses. Certainly, that wouldn’t make one less Catholic…right?

Peace,
Dante

No sneering from me and you’re not less of a Catholic. That said, from what I’ve heard more than one exorcist say, the devil hates Latin. That said, there is much debate on why that is. The most reasonable answer I’ve heard is that it unifies the Church. You should know some Latin though because there should be some in every Mass. I think that you’d find that it’s not that hard to pick up. When I started going to the Novus Ordo in Latin (not the Tridentine) it was amazingly easy to take the prayers I knew by heart and translate them into Latin.

 

[mary_bobo]

No sneering from me and you’re not less of a Catholic. That said, from what I’ve heard more than one exorcist say, the devil hates Latin. That said, there is much debate on why that is. The most reasonable answer I’ve heard is that it unifies the Church. You should know some Latin though because there should be some in every Mass. I think that you’d find that it’s not that hard to pick up. When I started going to the Novus Ordo in Latin (not the Tridentine) it was amazingly easy to take the prayers I knew by heart and translate them into Latin.

I’m sure this has probably been mentioned before, but in any missal I have ever seen the Latin and English (or vernacular) are side by side on the page. If you don’t want to read the Latin, just follow on the other side of the page.

 

[rlg94086]

No sneering from me and you’re not less of a Catholic. That said, from what I’ve heard more than one exorcist say, the devil hates Latin. That said, there is much debate on why that is. The most reasonable answer I’ve heard is that it unifies the Church. You should know some Latin though because there should be some in every Mass. I think that you’d find that it’s not that hard to pick up. When I started going to the Novus Ordo in Latin (not the Tridentine) it was amazingly easy to take the prayers I knew by heart and translate them into Latin.

My 7-year-old is in the process of learning the Sign of the Cross, Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be in Latin. The rest of the family is going to learn right along with her.

During our Mass, we pray the Holy, Holy (Sanctus); the Memorial Acclamation (Mysterium Fidei); and the Breaking of the Bread (Agnus Dei). I don’t have them memorized yet, but I’m sure it won’t take long.

As far as the devil hating Latin, I understand that may be due to the frustration of learning how to conjugate the verbs.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

You might want to attend a Traditional Mass sometime, to see how your parents and grandparents worshiped when they were growing up and how the Saints worshiped.

Thanks everyone – Uxor in particular (a great point!) – for your wonderful responses. You’ve been very helpful.

Can someone point me in the direction of some reading on pro multis? Based on what little Latin/Italian/Spanish I do know, I gather it’s a debate over the use of the phrase “for all” instead of “for many” during the Consecration?

Peace,
Dante

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m sure this has probably been mentioned before, but in any missal I have ever seen the Latin and English (or vernacular) are side by side on the page. If you don’t want to read the Latin, just follow on the other side of the page.

But that, of course, begs the question: why would you want to have to follow along in the book (besides not being able to hear big parts of it anyway)? I can attend Mass in my own langauge, understand precisely what is being said, and make the responses without the aid of the book. My experience is that most attendees of the NO don’t follow the missalettes for anything, but the readings (why they do that I don’t know, we’re hearing the readings from the ambo). No script is needed for the parts of the faithful, generally. I rather like that.