A
Aquinas11
Guest
Again we just fundamentally disagree , which is fine. We can’t even agree on basic meanings of terms, so unfortunately a discussion won’t be fruitful. NO disrespect.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Theprodigalson84j
Guest
Did this document propagate an entirely new Mass or just to allow vernacular and update the Mass of Pius V? What I mean is did they vote for a new typical edition of the Mass of Pius V or actually vote for a completely new Mass which was not a new typical edition but became the Mass of Paul Vl? As we know the last typical edition of the Mass of Pius V was by Pope Saint John XXlll in 1962, I believe that was the seventh typical edition of that Mass which is now the EF. And the OF is the third typical edition of the Mass of Paul Vl by Pope Saint John Paul ll in 2000.
I’m just curious. I haven’t read it and I should but am curious what they actually were voting on in that sense?
Personally I used to wonder why there hasn’t been a new typical edition of the EF since 1962, though I suppose that option has only really been open since Summorum Pontificum in 2007, but it would be cool to have an updated calendar in the EF with newer saints etc. Though I also realize many traditionalists would probably be opposed to that as well.
But Pope Benedict XVl did say it could be updated and I believe even promoted that idea if I am not mistaken.
I’m just curious. I haven’t read it and I should but am curious what they actually were voting on in that sense?
Personally I used to wonder why there hasn’t been a new typical edition of the EF since 1962, though I suppose that option has only really been open since Summorum Pontificum in 2007, but it would be cool to have an updated calendar in the EF with newer saints etc. Though I also realize many traditionalists would probably be opposed to that as well.
But Pope Benedict XVl did say it could be updated and I believe even promoted that idea if I am not mistaken.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
You need to learn a bit about language used in Trent. The Church does not consider the use of “anathema” to be a sign that an infallible statement is being made.
Language 400 years ago marched to some different rules than it does today - or for that matter, a century ago.
“Let him be anathema” was a short hand way of saying that the Church was not going to brook an argument. Hint: the Church had already been burned by arguments starting well before Luther nailed his theses to the door.
A short-hand and rather crude current equivalent would be "Suck it up, buttercup; that’s the rule’. With God’s good grace, the Curia is not made up of Millennials…
There have been extensive arguments in other threads of people trying to use Trent’s language as an indication that something was not disciplinary. But the rules changed anyway.
As noted, I invite you to quote/cite any authority in doctrinal theology which makes the language of the Mass an infallible doctrine. What you are doing now is citing Trent’s statement to prove that Trent made an infallible statement. That is not proof.
Again, any recognized source in doctrinal theology which states that Trent made an infallible statement concerning the language of the Mass please cite.
Language 400 years ago marched to some different rules than it does today - or for that matter, a century ago.
“Let him be anathema” was a short hand way of saying that the Church was not going to brook an argument. Hint: the Church had already been burned by arguments starting well before Luther nailed his theses to the door.
A short-hand and rather crude current equivalent would be "Suck it up, buttercup; that’s the rule’. With God’s good grace, the Curia is not made up of Millennials…
There have been extensive arguments in other threads of people trying to use Trent’s language as an indication that something was not disciplinary. But the rules changed anyway.
As noted, I invite you to quote/cite any authority in doctrinal theology which makes the language of the Mass an infallible doctrine. What you are doing now is citing Trent’s statement to prove that Trent made an infallible statement. That is not proof.
Again, any recognized source in doctrinal theology which states that Trent made an infallible statement concerning the language of the Mass please cite.
O
otjm
Guest
I don’t think you are disrespectful; I just think you are wrong. I have no idea where you picked up this idea, but I certainly invite you to defend your comment with something besides a citation to Trent.
T
thistle
Guest
The FORM of the Mass is not doctrinal, never mind infallible doctrine. The FORM of the Mass falls under disciplinary law. It does not fall under doctrine. The only things in a Mass that cannot be changed are the consecration and the priest receiving. Everything else can be changed.Not true. The former can’t be the only mass offered, whereas the latter can. So they’re not technically “equal”, per infallible doctrine.
T
Theprodigalson84j
Guest
This argument has nothing to do with what I intended with this thread. I apologize.
O
otjm
Guest
Let me try this one more time.
What exists in the world is the Catholic Church, not the “Roman Catholic Church”. There are 20+ other rites in the Catholic Church, all in union with Rome, and I am not aware of a single one of them which uses Latin in their Eucharistic celebration.
However, they are all bound by doctrine with the Pope.
If Trent had stated an infallible doctrine, then all of them would have had to change their form of the Mass/Divine Mysteries and use Latin.
None of them changed (and granted that some of them reunited with Rome subsequent to Trent; the Maronite Rite has never broken that unity); and all of them use languages native to their area (for example, the Maronites use Arabic and Aramaic).
There is no infallible doctrine which is infallible for part of the Church, and not infallible for other parts. That is an oxymoron.
The use of Latin in the EF dates back about 1200 years before Trent, as Rome moved from Greek to Latin. and other local languages were likely used until Rome consolidated more influence and power over Europe. Trent was consolidating both rubrics and language as a consistent, single discipline. Trent, however, did not make the Mass as set forth, absolutely cast in stone; there were minor modifications over the last 400 years.
There also was a move, over a good bit of time, to “Latinize” the eastern Churches, a matter that John Paul 2 vociferously objected to. They were to get back to their roots, which stretch back to the Apostles.
If Trent made Latin an infallible doctrine, then use of the vernacular would have to be absolutely forbidden, as it goes against a doctrinal position. There was no doctrinal position, however. It was disciplinary, your reading of Trent to the contrary. You are not by any means alone in your assumption of what the language used in Trent meant; but it is wrong.
What exists in the world is the Catholic Church, not the “Roman Catholic Church”. There are 20+ other rites in the Catholic Church, all in union with Rome, and I am not aware of a single one of them which uses Latin in their Eucharistic celebration.
However, they are all bound by doctrine with the Pope.
If Trent had stated an infallible doctrine, then all of them would have had to change their form of the Mass/Divine Mysteries and use Latin.
None of them changed (and granted that some of them reunited with Rome subsequent to Trent; the Maronite Rite has never broken that unity); and all of them use languages native to their area (for example, the Maronites use Arabic and Aramaic).
There is no infallible doctrine which is infallible for part of the Church, and not infallible for other parts. That is an oxymoron.
The use of Latin in the EF dates back about 1200 years before Trent, as Rome moved from Greek to Latin. and other local languages were likely used until Rome consolidated more influence and power over Europe. Trent was consolidating both rubrics and language as a consistent, single discipline. Trent, however, did not make the Mass as set forth, absolutely cast in stone; there were minor modifications over the last 400 years.
There also was a move, over a good bit of time, to “Latinize” the eastern Churches, a matter that John Paul 2 vociferously objected to. They were to get back to their roots, which stretch back to the Apostles.
If Trent made Latin an infallible doctrine, then use of the vernacular would have to be absolutely forbidden, as it goes against a doctrinal position. There was no doctrinal position, however. It was disciplinary, your reading of Trent to the contrary. You are not by any means alone in your assumption of what the language used in Trent meant; but it is wrong.
T
Theprodigalson84j
Guest
I thought the eastern Churches split in the east west schism of 1054 and believe the Patriarch of Constantinople is the first among equals, no?
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Ok I realize you believe that but is it a mere personal belief? Or has Church made official Canon teaching saying that? Honestly curious thxThe Church does not consider the use of “anathema” to be a sign that an infallible statement is being made.
O
otjm
Guest
I don’t have the complete history; at least the Maronites did not split (although they were isolated, and had no contact with Rome for a long period, through no fault of their own.
And at least theoretically, the Patriarch is first among equals, but within the last few weeks, Russian Orthodox have been stirring the pot. Again.
And at least theoretically, the Patriarch is first among equals, but within the last few weeks, Russian Orthodox have been stirring the pot. Again.
O
otjm
Guest
I don’t know that I would say it is “official”, as in something in a formal document. I do know that it is clearly and consistently held. And I have come across it a number of times, including one or more apologists with Catholic Answers.
D
Dovekin
Guest
There is a great deal more in Sacrosanctum Concilium, but paragraph 14 gives the central idea behind the reform:
One part of this is bringing people to a better understanding of their relationship to Christ. Mass is the source of that relationship as well as the summit of all our faith, and the continuing connection of each of us to Christ and one another. The voice of the Father at the baptism of Jesus echoes for each of us, “This is my beloved child.” This dignity, often obscured by clericalism, is a central part of the changes.
Your original question about “so many responses” should be looked at in this context, as an attempt to get people more involved and better understanding the mass. The SSPX and other adherents to the EF have implemented this purpose to some degree, but the OF was designed to reflect this purpose.
- Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.
One part of this is bringing people to a better understanding of their relationship to Christ. Mass is the source of that relationship as well as the summit of all our faith, and the continuing connection of each of us to Christ and one another. The voice of the Father at the baptism of Jesus echoes for each of us, “This is my beloved child.” This dignity, often obscured by clericalism, is a central part of the changes.
S
stephenSTOSS1
Guest
Your assertions are not correct. Below is a quote from a different thread on CA Forums that deals with Trent.I’m simply reading text of infallible Canons of Trent. Mass only in vernacular not permitted, thus masses can’t be equal, per this teaching.
Here is another good post for you: https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/council-of-trent-and-mass-in-the-vernacular/430558/4Perhaps this is part of the confusion expressed by the OP, and what we have here is the common misunderstanding of the difference between doctrine and discipline, and between Church teaching and Church law. The prescription of the language to be used in the mass was disciplinary, not doctrinal, and so can be changed or reformed; and such canonical provisions are, by their very nature, not infallible. Canon 9 not infallible.
You also are not taking into account the background behind the convening of the Council of Trent. More can be read at Trent and the vernacular Liturgy. The language of the liturgy is NOT part of the requirements for a sacrament, i.e. form and matter. The wording is the form part. The language is not. If what you are saying is correct, than the first 500 years of the Church would have been offering an invalid Eucharist (those Masses were said in Greek … the vernacular at the time). Consequently, your justification for offering the Latin Mass as more perfect is simply groundless.
Furthermore, you seem to completely miss the point I was making. Jesus, the High Priest is the one actually making the perfect offering. It is impossible for Jesus to offer any sacrifice that is less than fully perfect. If it were, then Jesus would not be God.
Can a priest in mortal sin lessen the perfection of the offering. Can the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, who are part of the royal priesthood by virtue of their Baptism, lessen the perfection of the Sacrament? NO!!! If they could, then you would be forced to say that sin is more powerful than the Son of God.
You didn’t even address this issue in your reply.[even in the case of a sinful minister,] the sacrament would be valid; that is, there would be a true consecration and a true sacrifice. The reason is: Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister. As St. Thomas Aquinas says: Christ may act even through a minister who is spiritually dead. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur68.htm
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
A quote from CA forum asserting that an infallible Canon teaching isn’t infallible? I don’t put more weight in posters on CA than infallible text of a Canon and that three successive popes validated it. If we’ve gotten to point that CA posts trump infallible Canon teachings, thats not good. Now if there is quote from a subsequent Council revoking that infallible Canon I’m all ears.Below is a quote from a different thread on CA Forums
A
Aquinas11
Guest
No because those weren’t after TrentThe wording is the form part. The language is not. If what you are saying is correct, than the first 500 years of the Church would have been offering an invalid Eucharist (those Masses were said in Greek … the vernacular at the time
Last edited:
A
angel12
Guest
I’m sure it is. And really, it sounds like you’re doing pretty well. It will be a process.It’s just hard to adjust I suppose.
A
angel12
Guest
No need to apologize. Not your fault. This kind of thing happens fairly often on CAF.This argument has nothing to do with what I intended with this thread. I apologize.
S
stephenSTOSS1
Guest
Yes it is your opinion. You are referring to Canon 9, but you are applying your (incorrect) interpretation as to its weight and meaning. You keep claiming it is infallible teaching. All dogmas (infallible) and all doctrines (both infallible and not infallible) are Divinely revealed Truth. Revealed Truth can never ever change. Our depth of understanding of that revealed Truth can deepen, but the underlying Truth can never change. Furthermore, the fact that a Truth is solemnly defined in 1950, for example, does not mean that the infallible Truth was not also true in 1900. A revealed Truth is true in all times. An eternal Truth that can never be altered.Not my opinion. I’m simply reading text of infallible Canons of Trent. Mass only in vernacular not permitted, thus masses can’t be equal, per this teaching. I realize subsequent Councils (Vat II) discussed other masses, but can’t trump infallible Canon. If I’m wrong tell me but I’m not seeing it?
It is also your opinion, based on your interpretation of Canon 9, that the Mass in the vernacular is less perfect than the Latin Mass. If that is true, then you are granting Latin (not the words themselves, but the language in which the words are spoken) power to perfectly or imperfectly confect a Sacrament, i.e. be an integral part of the Form and Matter necessary for a valid Sacrament to be confected. This, on its face, is false theology. All Sacraments are either valid (perfectly confected) or invalid (not perfectly confected). There are zero shades of grey, so to speak, in between.
So, if Canon 9 is defining a dogma, then the Truth it conveys would be valid at all times past, present, and future, including the time of the Last Supper … the first Mass. It is certain that Jesus did not say that first Mass in Latin. He said it in the vernacular (Aramaic or Greek). Since dogmatic Truth never changes, then by your interpretation of the degree of perfection achieved by offering the Latin Mass versus the Mass in the vernacular (according to your interpretation of Canon 9), Jesus offered a less perfect Sacrament (which would be an invalid Sacrament) than that of the Latin Mass, which wouldn’t be offered for many hundreds of years later. Again, theological hogwash.
If it can be validly changed, it is not a dogma or a doctrine. It is not infallible. It is, in fact, a discipline, which can also be anathematized. All liturgical rites are equal. According to the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, _SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM,
There are valid reasons why Trent wanted to maintain the use of Latin, but it has nothing to do with the degree of perfection of the offering being made. It has more to do with Latin being a dead language than the power to perfect the offering that you are attributing to it.In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
We’ll just agree to disagree. I don’t doubt your passion or sincerity but personal opinions and analysis in CAF posts don’t trump the text of infallible Canon teaching. If that were true there’d be nothing left of Church doctrine as many CAF posts say many things contradictory to Church doctrine. Now if Church issued subsequent infallible Canon revoking that Canon I’m all ears.
T
thistle
Guest
These are not personal opinions.We’ll just agree to disagree. I don’t doubt your passion or sincerity but personal opinions and analysis in CAF posts don’t trump the text of infallible Canon teaching. If that were true there’d be nothing left of Church doctrine as many CAF posts say many things contradictory to Church doctrine. Now if Church issued subsequent infallible Canon revoking that Canon I’m all ears.
The FORM of the Mass, and that includes the language is not dogma/doctrine. It falls under Church disciplinary law. The FORM of the Mass is NOT doctrinal. The only things in a Mass that cannot be changed is the consecration and the priest receiving. Everything else can be changed.
You should also be aware that in matters of disciplinary law one Pope cannot bind a future Pope.
The issue of Latin in Trent is NOT INFALLIBLE.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.