Would you consider it a TLM abuse?

[ncjohn]

I refer to the new thread I posted By Father Hardon on the Mass.

Which is very interesting, but doesn’t change anything. The Mass is sacrament to the extent that it is a “visible sign of God’s invisible presence”, which is the definition of sacrament, but that does not make it one of the sacraments of the Church.

The sacraments of the Church, according to the Catechism

1113 The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

The Eucharist was indeed instituted at the Last Supper, and is one of the sacraments. The idea of the Mass was correspondingly initiated as the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice (“do this in memory of me”). To equate that however with the TLM, which is a specific liturgy from the Council of Trent, and NOT the same as “the Mass”, is still totally incorrect. Jesus did not institute the TLM. The TLM is one man-made form of celebrating the Mass. The liturgy is a changeable discipline of the Church, not some irreformable dogma handed down by Jesus himself.

I don’t know how else to say it so I’ll just stop trying. Maybe someone else can say it more clearly.

Peace,

 

[Uxor]

Which is very interesting, but doesn’t change anything. The Mass is sacrament to the extent that it is a “visible sign of God’s invisible presence”, which is the definition of sacrament, but that does not make it one of the sacraments of the Church.

The sacraments of the Church, according to the Catechism

The Eucharist was indeed instituted at the Last Supper, and is one of the sacraments. The idea of the Mass was correspondingly initiated as the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice (“do this in memory of me”). To equate that however with the TLM, which is a specific liturgy from the Council of Trent, and NOT the same as “the Mass”, is still totally incorrect. Jesus did not institute the TLM. The TLM is one man-made form of celebrating the Mass. The liturgy is a changeable discipline of the Church, not some irreformable dogma handed down by Jesus himself.

I don’t know how else to say it so I’ll just stop trying. Maybe someone else can say it more clearly.

Peace,

I don’t know how you can disagree with Father Hardon. (that is interesting, but doesn’t change anything) He was a close associate and advisor of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity. He wrote his papers, books before the Our Lord in the Blessed Eucharist. He was one of the leading catechists in the world–>who highly influenced the Catechism of the Catholic Church and an expert in the field of comparative religion. He is an orthodox giant of our times. Always faithful, obedient to the Church and the Holy Father. He has written many books. He was instrumental in establishing the annual Call to Holiness conference in Michigan. He founded the magazine The Catholic Faith. Had a huge influence on Tom Monaghan. He has a huge list educational and academic achievements and credentials.

[Edited by moderator]

 

[Swiss_Guard]

I don’t know how you can disagree with Father Hardon. (that is interesting, but doesn’t change anything) He was a close associate and advisor of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity. He wrote his papers, books before the Our Lord in the Blessed Eucharist. He was one of the leading catechists in the world–>who highly influenced the Catechism of the Catholic Church and an expert in the field of comparative religion. He is an orthodox giant of our times. Always faithful, obedient to the Church and the Holy Father. He has written many books. He was instrumental in establishing the annual Call to Holiness conference in Michigan. He founded the magazine The Catholic Faith. Had a huge influence on Tom Monaghan. He has a huge list educational and academic achievements and credentials.

[Edited by moderator]

I had the privelege of being on two retreats given by Fr. Hardon. He truly was an orthodox giant of our time. His quote about contraception in my signature was said in one of his retreats.

Fr. Hardon also wrote a catechism in the 1970’s. Pope Paul VI commissioned him to write it. It’s not the same format as the Catechism of the Catholic Church or a question and answer form like most catechisms. It’s a long read, but well worth it.

Fr. Hardon was the spiritual director for the Missionaries of Charity for many years. He concelebrated the funeral Mass for Mother Teresa.

Fr. Hardon was a deeply spiritual man with a brilliant mind. There was no more orthodox priest than Fr. Hardon. He converted many people to the Catholic faith. He said he was asked to teach classes on Catholicism at Protestant universities. I believe he was fired from one Protestant universities because too many of his students were converitng to the Catholic faith.

I would trust what Fr. Hardon says over anything anyone on this forum says.

Anyone who disagrees with Fr. Hardon is mistaken, doesn’t know the Catholic faith, or isn’t an orthodox Catholic.

 

[ncjohn]

Anyone who disagrees with Fr. Hardon is mistaken, doesn’t know the Catholic faith, or isn’t an orthodox Catholic.

If you are saying this to imply that I disagreed with him, that is not the case. I disagree vehemently with another poster’s interpretation of what he has said, since that interpretation is outside the teachings of the Church through its catechism as I have read it.

Trying to take Fr Hardon’s comments to mean that Jesus instituted the Tridentine liturgy at the Last Supper is just way beyond the pale. I have given up trying to make that point though since there is no attempt to understand no matter how many people have tried to explain it.

And by the way, one could very well disagree with something that Fr Hardon said–though I am not doing so here–as he has not been proclaimed as infallible and no one is bound to accept anything he has written. Doing so would not define anyone as unorthodox or unfamiliar with the Catholic faith, and certainly would not make them “mistaken”. It would just mean they disagreed with him on something. Even Thomas Aquainas has been shown to have been wrong about some things, so disagreeing with him on those things would not make someone unorthodox or unfamiliar with the Catholic faith or mistaken. We must be careful to not be assigning infallibility where it doesn’t belong, or to be condemning someone because they might question a fallible human being.

Peace,

 

[Uxor]

If you are saying this to imply that I disagreed with him, that is not the case. I disagree vehemently with another poster’s interpretation of what he has said, since that interpretation is outside the teachings of the Church through its catechism as I have read it.

Trying to take Fr Hardon’s comments to mean that Jesus instituted the Tridentine liturgy at the Last Supper is just way beyond the pale. I have given up trying to make that point though since there is no attempt to understand no matter how many people have tried to explain it.

And by the way, one could very well disagree with something that Fr Hardon said–though I am not doing so here–as he has not been proclaimed as infallible and no one is bound to accept anything he has written. Doing so would not define anyone as unorthodox or unfamiliar with the Catholic faith, and certainly would not make them “mistaken”. It would just mean they disagreed with him on something. Even Thomas Aquainas has been shown to have been wrong about some things, so disagreeing with him on those things would not make someone unorthodox or unfamiliar with the Catholic faith or mistaken. We must be careful to not be assigning infallibility where it doesn’t belong, or to be condemning someone because they might question a fallible human being.

Peace,

Your comment—>Trying to take Fr Hardon’s comments to mean that Jesus instituted the Tridentine liturgy at the Last Supper is just way beyond the pale.<—Your Comment.

Below is what I posted in reference to Father Hardon’s comments which you totally disagreed with further went on to say the Real Presence does NOT depend on the Mass and that I was outside the church, I had concepts mixed up, condeming people, which I hadn’t etc. Father Hardon teaches what the Church teaches. I think it is you that is very confused by what you have been taught.

“No Mass no Real Presence, No Real Presence, No Holy Communion. Sacrament means instituted by Christ that confers grace. Where do we get the graces from that Christ merited for all salvation when he died on Calvary, at the Mass.”

“The Mass is not a meal it is meant to both glorify God and sanctify man.”

Next my comment that the Traditional Mass was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper…I quoted the Council of Trent, a Magisteral Teaching that You Have To Believe As A Catholic.

CHAPTER IV
On the Canon of the Mass.
And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently [Page 156] offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

I have no problem what the Church teaches, nor do I doubt it or say anything contrary to what the Church teaches. Your disagreement with me is a disagreement with the Church actually.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The priest not consecrating ad orientem (High Mass)
The priest skipping some words during Mass
Two girls receiving their first communion by walking to the altar and not kneeling while receiving
People waving the rosaries in the air in the fashion of the charismatic movement
People in church chatting while the Mass goes on

Would have you complained about it on CAF?

I recently saw again the tape of this Mass celebrated ~40 years ago by Padre Pio. I loved it and I had tears in my eyes.

I don’t really see how or why this is designed to bait people. Abuse is abuse, no matter what rite it occurs in, and any good traditionalist will condemn abuse whenever it happens, no matter who perpretrates it. Of course, as some have pointed out, there can be other explanations for what looks like abuse. The congregation doesn’t really have any excuse for its poor behavior, but standing could be for a health exception, what appeared not to be ad orientem could be so in fact and simply not versus apsidem, and, of course, skipping words could be unintentional. If Padre Pio intentionally abused the Mass, he did wrong. There’s nothing controversial about that conclusion. I would have complained about what seemed to be a real abuse on CAF, though I don’t initiate threads on the topic.

 

[ncjohn]

the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

I have no problem what the Church teaches, nor do I doubt it or say anything contrary to what the Church teaches. Your disagreement with me is a disagreement with the Church actually.

Whatever.

Your belief that the words Jesus said at the Last Supper are the Tridentine Liturgy just is incomprehensible to me. There is nothing in what you have quoted that says any such thing, either from the above or from Fr Hardon, nor is there anything in any Church teaching that says any such thing. The Canon noted above is not the liturgy though it is included in the liturgy.

Liturgies are changeable disciplines that come down from men, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Just as Pius V was free to assemble and codify things at Trent, Paul VI was free to do the same after Vatican II as no pope can bind future popes in the matter of disciplines. Neither liturgy is “the Mass” and neither was directly handed down by Jesus.

I’m not sure what about that you don’t understand, or how you think I am disagreeing with the Church, but I’m not going to waste any more time on this.

 

[AJV]

Fr. Hardon, eternal memory, was not going into fully technical descriptions.

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and Luther, repudiated the Mass as “idolatry”, while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good. Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, without the use of the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place.

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

Since Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine in a sacramental way, the Blessed Eucharist is unquestionably a sacrament of the Church. Indeed, in the Eucharist the definition of a Christian sacrament as “an outward sign of an inward grace instituted by Christ” is verified.

The investigation into the precise nature of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, whose existence Protestants do not deny, is beset with a number of difficulties. ]

Its essence certainly does not consist in the Consecration or the Communion, the former being merely the sacrificial action, the latter the reception of the sacrament, and not the sacrament itself.

The question may eventually be reduced to this whether or not the sacramentality is to be sought for in the Eucharistic species or in the Body and Blood of Christ hidden beneath them. The majority of theologians rightly respond to the query by saying, that neither the species themselves nor the Body and Blood of Christ by themselves, but the union of both factors constitute the moral whole of the Sacrament of the Altar.

The species undoubtedly belong to the essence of the sacrament, since it is by means of them, and not by means of the invisible Body of Christ, that the Eucharist possesses the outward sign of the sacrament. Equally certain is it, that the Body and the Blood of Christ belong to the concept of the essence, because it is not the mere unsubstantial appearances which are given for the food of our souls but Christ concealed beneath the appearances.

The twofold number of the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine does not interfere with the unity of the sacrament; for the idea of refection embraces both eating and drinking, nor do our meals in consequence double their number. In the doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, there is a question of even higher relation, in that the separated species of bread and wine also represent the mystical separation of Christ’s Body and Blood or the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Lamb.

newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

I quote from another manual by Oxenham (I think this one was written shortly after he was received into the Church) and in honour of noted theologian Dollinger (I’m saying this to ‘establish’ its theological accuracy to an extent)

Therefore, that sacrificial act must continue to be the supreme and characteristic worship of God on earth, from which all other kinds of worship derive their consecration and their worth. Mankind cannot celebrate its solemn Easter without the Easter Lamb. It was impossible but that the Cross should become an altar, the material sacrifice of Christ offered up in blood be perpetuated in an unbloody rite, that is in the sacrifice of the Mass.

But the Mass is a Sacrament as well as a sacrifice; the sacrifice sets forth the death of the Son of Man in its relation to God, in the Communion is shown the death of the Second Adam in its relation to humanity; in the former He is present as representative of the race, in the latter as the Fountain of their new life. As in the Mass there is offered with the Body and Blood of Christ the whole family of believers, so in Communion the redeemed are made partakers of that Body and Blood, that they may have life in themselves. And thus are His words fulfilled ; " If I be lifted up, I will draw all things unto Me."

 

[AJV]

Below is what I posted in reference to Father Hardon’s comments which you totally disagreed with further went on to say the Real Presence does NOT depend on the Mass …

“No Mass no Real Presence, No Real Presence, No Holy Communion. Sacrament means instituted by Christ that confers grace. Where do we get the graces from that Christ merited for all salvation when he died on Calvary, at the Mass.”

The statement may seem a little strange but if you read the rest of ncjohn’s post he does clarify that he believes that the Real Presence can be “confected” at Mass only. What he meant by saying that it doesn’t depend on the Mass is that the Presence remains even after the Mass is ended.

Next my comment that the Traditional Mass was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper…I quoted the Council of Trent, a Magisteral Teaching that You Have To Believe As A Catholic.

CHAPTER IV
On the Canon of the Mass.
And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently [Page 156] offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

I have no problem what the Church teaches, nor do I doubt it or say anything contrary to what the Church teaches. Your disagreement with me is a disagreement with the Church actually.

As Trent itself says it is composed out of the pious instituions fo holy pontiffs. It doesn’t give a ratio of words of Our Lord: apostles: pontiffs. I’m very inclined to think that what they meant by words of our Lord is the form of consecration (to an extent). Would you kindly identify which prayers of the TLM you think Christ said at the Last Supper?

 

[Uxor]

Whatever.

Your belief that the words Jesus said at the Last Supper are the Tridentine Liturgy just is incomprehensible to me. There is nothing in what you have quoted that says any such thing, either from the above or from Fr Hardon, nor is there anything in any Church teaching that says any such thing. The Canon noted above is not the liturgy though it is included in the liturgy.

Liturgies are changeable disciplines that come down from men, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Just as Pius V was free to assemble and codify things at Trent, Paul VI was free to do the same after Vatican II as no pope can bind future popes in the matter of disciplines. Neither liturgy is “the Mass” and neither was directly handed down by Jesus.

I’m not sure what about that you don’t understand, or how you think I am disagreeing with the Church, but I’m not going to waste any more time on this.

Father Hardon said the Mass is a Sacrament, I agree with Father Hardon. I didn’t meantion (for the 3rd time) Father Hardon in reference to the Traditional Mass instituted by Christ. When Father Hardon is talking about the Mass as a Sacrament he is talking about all the rites.

 

[BobP123]

" What he is saying is that Christ didn’t start saying *Suscipe Sancte Pater *or Te igitur, or any of the prayers of the TLM, neither did He tell His apostles to."​

Christ didn’t say “for you and for all” either. Gotcha.

---

“Small question…how would everyone have understood what was being said in say, the 17th century? Are you saying they ALL spoke Latin?”​

It’s called bilingual. Or if you prefer, a worship language, just like Hebrew, sanskrit, and Arabic. Guess people don’t study multiple languages anymore? Pity.

---

And when the Greeks and the Latins (the Franks) were competing for converts in the 8th century it was the Greeks who were winning out because they used the vernacular.​

Did they? Where are they today? Where were they in the 9th century?

---

And actually Catholics were continuously jumping for the vernacular.​

Of course, what are we conversing in? I’d rather talk to you in English but talk to God in Latin, how’s that? I have to make the distinction somewhere, don’t I?

 

[AJV]

Christ didn’t say “for you and for all” either. Gotcha.

Too true. My point was that He was not saying the prayers of the TLM, since I’m getting a bit confused with Uxor’s statement.

“Small question…how would everyone have understood what was being said in say, the 17th century? Are you saying they ALL spoke Latin?”

It’s called bilingual. Or if you prefer, a worship language, just like Hebrew, sanskrit, and Arabic. Guess people don’t study multiple languages anymore? Pity.

Oh, we do. Else how would I be talking with you in English?

So they were all bilingual?

Did they? Where are they today? Where were they in the 9th century?

Where are who?

Of course, what are we conversing in? I’d rather talk to you in English but talk to God in Latin, how’s that? I have to make the distinction somewhere, don’t I?

The vernacular in the Mass. I was supposed ot be sleeping, so tomorrow I think I’ll post what Bp. Carroll wrote (unless you’ve already read it).

 

[Leeta]

Pradre Pio wasn’t celebrating a Tridentine Mass, so what is the point? The New Mass had begun to be implemented with all its inconsistencies.

As for rosaries being waved in the air and chatting during Mass, this is not surprizing for Italians. In fact, I’m acquainted with an Italian woman from Pietrelcina. They are sometimes almost superstitious.

 

[Joseph_Mary]

Almost?

 

[Uxor]

The statement may seem a little strange but if you read the rest of ncjohn’s post he does clarify that he believes that the Real Presence can be “confected” at Mass only. What he meant by saying that it doesn’t depend on the Mass is that the Presence remains even after the Mass is ended.

As Trent itself says it is composed out of the pious instituions fo holy pontiffs. It doesn’t give a ratio of words of Our Lord: apostles: pontiffs. I’m very inclined to think that what they meant by words of our Lord is the form of consecration (to an extent). Would you kindly identify which prayers of the TLM you think Christ said at the Last Supper?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_(liturgy

The Council of Trent reaffirmed traditional Christian teaching **that the Mass is the same Sacrifice of Calvary offered in an unbloody manner: **“The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different. And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner… this sacrifice is truly propitiatory” (Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2, quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1367). The Council declared that Jesus instituted the Mass at his Last Supper: “He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.”[2]

The Roman Catholic Church sees the Mass as the most perfect way it has to offer latria (adoration) to God. It is also Catholic belief that in objective reality, not merely symbolically, the wheaten bread and grape wine are converted into Christ’s body and blood, a conversion referred to as transubstantiation, so that the whole Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the Eucharist.[3]

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Pradre Pio wasn’t celebrating a Tridentine Mass, so what is the point? The New Mass had begun to be implemented with all its inconsistencies.

As for rosaries being waved in the air and chatting during Mass, this is not surprizing for Italians. In fact, I’m acquainted with an Italian woman from Pietrelcina. They are sometimes almost superstitious.

There is a reason the Irish American clergy referred to “the Italian problem” and superstition was certainly a part of it.

I don’t know if anyone has really nailed down, though, which missal was being used. I didn’t see the video, so I couldn’t say, but there seems to be disagreement as to whether St. Pio received his indult to continue using the '62 missal (which was supposedly one granted fairly generally to elderly priests).

 

[AJV]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_(liturgy

The Council of Trent reaffirmed traditional Christian teaching **that the Mass is the same Sacrifice of Calvary offered in an unbloody manner: **“The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different. And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner… this sacrifice is truly propitiatory” (Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2, quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1367). The Council declared that Jesus instituted the Mass at his Last Supper: “He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.”[2]

The Roman Catholic Church sees the Mass as the most perfect way it has to offer latria (adoration) to God. It is also Catholic belief that in objective reality, not merely symbolically, the wheaten bread and grape wine are converted into Christ’s body and blood, a conversion referred to as transubstantiation, so that the whole Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the Eucharist.[3]

It is true that Christ instituted the Mass-no one is arguing against it. And no one is arguing that the Mass is not a Sacrifice. What people are disputing is that Christ did not use most of the words and prayers of the TLM but offered the Mass by saying "This is my Body"and “This is My Blood” and little else.

The sense that one interprets the statement of Christ instituting the Mass is not that He used the prayers of the Mass but that the essence of the Mass was instituted by Him. For that reason every (valid) liturgy on the planet is instituted by Christ. We can say the the TLM, the Liturgy of St. James, the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Liturgy of St. Mark, which have little in common with regard to their texts are all instituted by Christ. All preserve the essence of the Mass while dignifying it with certain prayers which are human.

In any case perhaps you would like to hear St. Gregory on the subject. He was speaking of the new custom he introduced of moving the Our Father to after the Consecration.

But we say the Lord’s Prayer (Orationem)immediately after the Prayer precem i.e. the Canon] because it was the custom of the Apostles to consecrate the victim of the oblation by that Prayer *orationem ] itself only. And it seems to me very unfitting that we should say over the sacrifice a Prayer (precem)which some learned man scholasticus: some authors say it was the name ] had composed, and that we should not say over His Body and blood that * which is handed down as our Redeemer’s own composition."

If the Canon of the Mass doesn’t have claim to being said by Christ, then what other prayer of the Mass does? Most of them are of much later date than the Canon. Moreover if Christ had used the Canon of the Mass (even in a rearranged orderly form) the early Christians would have been desirous of sticking to that only. Which is not the case, since we don’t see records of the Canon of the Mass at Rome before the 4th century, and the treatise De Sacramentis gives a version that greatly resembles (but isn’t) it. Plus there were and are so many other liturgies in use which would not be the case had Christ said the Canon at the Last Supper.

 

[AJV]

There is a reason the Irish American clergy referred to “the Italian problem” and superstition was certainly a part of it.

I don’t know if anyone has really nailed down, though, which missal was being used. I didn’t see the video, so I couldn’t say, but there seems to be disagreement as to whether St. Pio received his indult to continue using the '62 missal (which was supposedly one granted fairly generally to elderly priests).

Can be seen from the video (whcih I also haven’t seen): if he hasn’t said the Last Gospel, and if there are fewer signs of the cross in the Canon then it wouldn’t be 1962. Perhaps someone who has seen it can say?

 

[Uxor]

It is true that Christ instituted the Mass-no one is arguing against it. And no one is arguing that the Mass is not a Sacrifice. What people are disputing is that Christ did not use most of the words and prayers of the TLM but offered the Mass by saying "This is my Body"and “This is My Blood” and little else.

The sense that one interprets the statement of Christ instituting the Mass is not that He used the prayers of the Mass but that the essence of the Mass was instituted by Him. For that reason every (valid) liturgy on the planet is instituted by Christ. We can say the the TLM, the Liturgy of St. James, the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Liturgy of St. Mark, which have little in common with regard to their texts are all instituted by Christ. All preserve the essence of the Mass while dignifying it with certain prayers which are human.

In any case perhaps you would like to hear St. Gregory on the subject. He was speaking of the new custom he introduced of moving the Our Father to after the Consecration.

If the Canon of the Mass doesn’t have claim to being said by Christ, then what other prayer of the Mass does? Most of them are of much later date than the Canon. Moreover if Christ had used the Canon of the Mass (even in a rearranged orderly form) the early Christians would have been desirous of sticking to that only. Which is not the case, since we don’t see records of the Canon of the Mass at Rome before the 4th century, and the treatise De Sacramentis gives a version that greatly resembles (but isn’t) it. Plus there were and are so many other liturgies in use which would not be the case had Christ said the Canon at the Last Supper.

The Canon is Christ’s words. Council of Trent stated…It is composed of the very words of the Lord…and you have to believe that. The Church in its Magisterial teaching cannot lie to us. Pope ST. Gregory added 19 words to the prayer Hanc Igitur. There were additions added over time by Popes outside the Canon. Additions are different than deletions is what happen with the Novus Ordo Mass, 60 to 80% was deleted. The Canon was memorized by heart and was not written down till 4rd Century and written in letters of gold… It was referred to as the arcana, the secret that could not be disclosed to the profane. The true words are are not based on scripture, but on the words specified as the traditional texts state - by Christ Himself. All 83 rites, the words of consecration are essentially the same and they use the words “many” not “all”. St. Thomas Aquinas and saints have explained, Christ died for all men, not all are saved…

I think it is heresy what your’re saying…frightening…I rather not continue this conservation.

 

[AJV]

The Canon is Christ’s words. Council of Trent stated…It is composed of the very words of the Lord…and you have to believe that. The Church in its Magisterial teaching cannot lie to us. Pope ST. Gregory added 19 words to the prayer Hanc Igitur. There were additions added over time by Popes outside the Canon. Additions are different than deletions is what happen with the Novus Ordo Mass, 60 to 80% was deleted. The Canon was memorized by heart and was not written down till 4rd Century and written in letters of gold. It was referred to as the arcana, the secret that could not be disclosed to the profane.

The true words are are not based on scripture, but on the words specified as the traditional texts state - by Christ Himself. All 83 rites, the words of consecration are essentially the same and they use the words “many” not “all”. St. Thomas Aquinas and saints have explained, Christ died for all men, not all are saved…

I think it is heresy what your’re saying…frightening…I rather not continue this conservation.

Alas, I am too often heretical nitwit! of the first order. But don’t give up on me just yet.

But I would be very interested to know how you interpret the quote of St. Gregory.

The interpretation I have provided is totally in sync with the Council of Trent and with the interpretation consistently given. I think you would be hardpressed to find any pre-conciliar authority that supports that the Canon was said verbatim by Christ. Or any traditional priest or if I can be so bold to say it, any of the people on this sub-forum

The question of the NO Mass does not come into the equation at all. Why have you suddenly pulled “for all” into the discussion? How does that affect whether Christ said the TLM or not?

Pope Benedict XIV dealt with this question very extensively in De Missae Sacrificio and also admitted that contrary opinions notwithstanding the text of St. Gregory had particular significance. You can also examine end-number of preconciliar books- “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” by Dr. Gihr, “The Mass” by Fr. Fortescue, the commentary on the rubrics of the missal by Merati. They are all extremely learned and all highly aware of the Canons of Trent.

Indeed the Church in its Magesterial teaching does not lie. The problem is, if I can be so arrogant as to say it bluntly, that you are not interpreting the teaching correctly. The way your interpretation goes of the Canons of Trent is a very narrow one that has not been supported by any writers from Trent till the 50’s. If indeed the Church believed so, she would have no allowed treatises to be published decalring the opposite. Neither would have a Pope who was highly knowledgeable published one such treatise himself. Morin even put forward the name of the scholasticus who composed it (he thought it was Maternus)

In the first place, even if one accepts the idea of the sacrosanct displcina arcani Canon, the fragment of De Sacramentis which is the 4th century is NOT the same as the Canon though it very closely resembles it.

And you have also not addressed how the Eastern Church departs from the Canon if it is directly from Christ. Was it that only the Roman Church kept what Christ said? And if the East had departed , would it not be reasonable to suppose that they would have been corrected on departing from the teaching of the apostles? Countless times we find them being reproved for this or that as not being in sync with the primitive teaching. So why not in the matter of the Canon?

And moreover, even if one wishes to ascribe the Canon to Christ it must be admitted that over half is the work of men by reading of text using the same logic that you earlier employed to state that Christ would not have said Suscipe Sancte Pater.

the Te igitur- Christ is not likely to say “per Iesum Chrstum Filium tuum dominum nostrum”
The Communciantes: because thoguh he would have known by His omnipotence who was going to be a martyr, he would have hardly commanded His apostles to ask for their intercession before they were born.
The Hanc igitur, you dealt with.
The Quam oblationem because Christ could not have said “ut nobis Corpus et Sanguinus fiat dilectissimi Filii tui, DNJC”
The first part of the Qui pridie nbecause it refers ot what Christ did.
The Unde et memores because it is in memory of Christ’s Passion, resuurection adn ascension.
The Nobis quoque-same argument as the Communicantes.

For which there is thus good reason to believe that the Words being refered to in the Canon as those of Christ by the Council of Trent are the Words of Consecration “This is My Body” and This is the chalice of My Blood"

And further, one wonders what to make of the testimony of Justin Martyr who visited Rome. What was he describing?

Neither have you dealt with the quote of St. Gregory the Great which I provided earlier regarding the Canon being written by a scholasticus.

Even in the times when the pious belief prevailed still people did not attribute it to Christ but ot an earlier Pope e.g. the Stowe missal to “dominicus papae Gilasi”