New Vatican Document Concerning Liturgy

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Just received the email newsletter below.

If anyone of you wants to receive this newsletter, you can subscribe for free at www.insithevatican.com (link "news"). There's an archive of old newsletters in the site also.

God Bless

_____________________________________

nside the Vatican News May 13 2003 The Return of the Latin Mass?

Robert Moynihan

Exclusive: The Vatican is preparing to call, in the clearest way since the Second Vatican Council, for an end to liturgical abuses -- and for far wider use of the old Latin Mass “The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace.”

By Robert Moynihan

VATICAN CITY, May 13, 2003 – Forty years after the Second Vatican Council, after four decades of liturgical "experimentation" which has troubled many of the faithful, Rome is about to issue a major disciplinary document, ending years of a generally "laissez faire" attitude toward liturgical experimentation and “do-it-youself” Masses. The document is now in draft form and is expected to be published between October and chrstmas this year.

In a bombshell passage, the document will also encourage far wider use of the “old Mass”, the Tridentine rite Mass, in Latin, throughout the Roman Catholic Church.

The new, stricter guidelines for celebrating the liturgy, and the mandate to celebrate the old Latin Mass more widely, even on a weekly basis, in every parish in the world, will be contained in a document to be published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, headed by Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze.

“We expect the document to be published before Christmas,” Arinze told "Inside the Vatican" in an exclusive interview. “We want to respond to the spiritual hunger and sorrow so many of the faithful have expressed to us because of liturgical celebrations that seemed irreverent and unworthy of true adoration of God. You might sum up our document with words that echo the final words of the Mass: ‘The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace.’”

We will be reporting in more detail on this historic document in future issues of "Inside the Vatican."

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), May 14, 2003

Answers

bump

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), May 14, 2003.

I would be very surprised to see the Church issue a document that actively encourages the "wider use of the Old Rite". Wow. As for the formal end to the few remaining free love clown masses and other abuses etc...about time.

I guess we will have to wait ands see what the Church actually says.

Nice to see you back Atila.

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.


I might understand an encouragement towards the Sacrosanctum Concilium rite in Latin - but never the Rite of Pius V. That would be simply absurd; it would jettison every *really good* thing about the new rite - the "whole Bible" lectionary, revival of Scripturally- based homiletics, and the best elements of the radically Christocentric pre-Medieval Roman rite.

I would severly doubt that this document will do anything in the way of encouraging the Tridentine rite.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.


The 1962 missal can be used with the currenct lectionary, and it is done that way in a few cases. If one includes the Introit and the collect, the Tridentine missal actually includes quite a bit of scripture, but again, the addition of extra scipture can and has been done to the tridentine missal. As for scripture based homiletics, that has nothing to do with the missal and everything to do with the priest, and how he writes up the sermon. Lastly with the pre medieval Roman Rite, look at the liturgy of St Gregory the great, that liturgy is the basis of the Tridentine missal, and when it was codified by the council of Trent almost 1000 years later, it was little changed.

I do not know what they teach you in your seminary in Belgium, though from what I understand it has a very liberal reputation, but the Tridentine missal roots go far deeper into eraly Christianity that progressives care to admit.

If Rome really wants to throw out a bombshell, it shoulkd revive the 65 missal, make it the normative mass, and supress the 62 and Novus Ordo missals. The 65 missal is the missal that came directly out of Vatican II.

Again with everything, I will see it when I believe it, but the rumors are that Rome will grant a global indult for the 62 missal, and allow any priest who wants to celebrate the 62 mass be able to do so publically without the permission from the Bishop.

-- John_B (rftech10@yahoo.com), May 14, 2003.


I think its a great thing. I think they should return or mention the old rite. Its sad to hear people talk about the youth, I my self being a 16 teen find that the tridentine mass is just, I don't know how to express it. There is so much reverence and sense of holiness. The novus ordo mass at our parish, teens don't really care, you see them smile after recieveing, go outside the church and smoke or talk, but with the old rite its a total different story. I think that the church should take the opinions of the teens then presuming that more activities within the church will bring us back, when the old rite does it all. Nate

-- nate (nate_santos@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.


No, it isn't that. Part of it is that, after going to Palm Sunday Mass at Brompton Oratory in London (New Rite, Ad Orientam, Latin, chant, reverent music), I do not know what substantial advantage the Tridentine rite has. I am really sorry for goofing about scripture. This seminary teaches that the rite of Pius V mostly just codified liturgical practices that were already in common practice for some hundreds of years. So, don't go believing everything you hear about seminaries. :)

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.

i dont see the church pushing for the tridentine, although the new GIRM just released has shown a major push for conformity along the 65 missal, as was mentioned in a previous post. there is some confusion, however. people seem to think that the VII let in an erra of laizez-faire church policy, but it hasnt. the problem lies in priests not following instruction. its about time the vatican cracked down on such priests.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 14, 2003.

That's great! Hopefully, it will pull back some traditionalists who have left the Church. (I love their zeal)

I wonder what it will mean, specifically. Could someone give perhaps a hypothetical?

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 14, 2003.


gail, i know what you mean about the zeal of traditionalists. i wish they would join us in the new rite to fight off liberal infractions of the rules. if we all joined forces we could beat back the infringements on the GIRM.

as ive heard, the new one contains all sorts of great stuff, from banning holding hands during the Our Father, to mandating kneeling during the pronunciation of the Eucharist, to the necessity of bowing during the two lines in the creed and back again to genuflecting in front of the tabernacle. its a pretty authoritative book.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 14, 2003.


Gail,

You know, I thought about schismatics "coming back" to church as well, but am not sure this will make a difference.

What I mean is, the act of *leaving* the church, and assuming that one as an individual is more correct than the magesterium will not disappear when they go to a different building to hear the same rite. The attitude will remain. Therefore, just as we now have liberals freely interpretting the mass, bringing these people back will just result in having people with a conservative bent feeling like they can interpret what they believe is correct or incorrect in the church.

I just don't know if increasing the dissidents in the church is going to be a good thing. What I think WOULD be a good thing is for these people to reject schism and follow the teachings of the church, and if this results in their getting to hear a Tridentine mass, so much the better.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 14, 2003.



Hey Paul, I'm just getting use to the mass (only been a year). I'm still afraid I am going to break out in song at the wrong time! You don't suppose they will change the musical part of the liturgy, do you? I know one time I was in front pew kneeling when I should have been standing. Of course, I didn't realize this till I stood up and looked around. (I learned not to sit in the front pew again -- you can't "do as the Romans do" unless you can SEE the Romans! LOL)

Frank, I really hope you're wrong. Having been in Protestant churches for so long, I am really sick of schisms! The return of the traditionalists would be a great BOON for the Church NOT to mention a great DEFEAT for Satan! (The liberals CANNOT be happy about this announcement!)

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 14, 2003.


gail,

thats wonderful. welcome to the roman church. dont worry if you dont know when to sing or when to kneel... that comes with time. think of it this way, even if you kneel too long, that is just more kneeling in humility before God. if you go to a conservative church, then you can just watch others... if not, pick up a wonderful text called 'mass confusion.' its a great book on EXACTLY is to occur at every point in the mass, although it gets a bit lengthy because he backs everything up with cannon and decrees.

does somebody know how to describe to her what times are appropriate to kneel?

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 14, 2003.


Okay, I guess I just don't understand, why would speaking in a language that the listener doesn't understand make it better.

Jesus didn't speak that way, why do you think we should.

As I understand it, Latin was first used by the church and the scientific community because it was a "dead" language and as such was unchanging. It was not in use and therefore it was not being added to or changed. It was a language that remained constant so it could be used by the church to keep the truths of the church in it's purest form. It worked the same way in the scientific community. The latin naming system was an unchanging system and not subject to missinterpretation.

That being the case, it isn't a good language to use in communicating the truth, because nobody uses it as their native language, nobody understands it. If you want to communicate a truth to someone, you use their language. Saying the Mass in Latin or saying it in a native tongue doesn't give it any more validity. Christ is present among us. If being more mysterious makes you feel better or feel more reverant. I don't think you are more filled with Christ, I think you are more filled with yourself.

Just my opinion.

Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Peace be with you

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 14, 2003.


leon, thats not what we're discussing...

the new GIRM is correcting liturgical errors to bring the church back to the post VII mass, not back to the latin rite mass.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 15, 2003.


Here's his Open Letter to the Church.

Dear Fellow Catholics in the Roman Rite,

I am a priest who for over ten years collaborated in a work that became a notable harm to the Catholic Faith. I wish now to apologise before God and the Church and to renounce decisively my personal sharing in that damaging project. I am speaking of the official work of translating the new post-Vatican II Latin liturgy into the English language, when I was a member of the Advisory Board of the International Commission on English Liturgy (ICEL).

ICEL (Strand Place Hotel, London), September 1969. (Clockwise from bottom to left) Fr. Stephen Somerville, Bp. Denis Hurley, Bp. George Dwyer, Bp. Harry, Card. Gordon Grey, Bp. Dougherty, Bp. Snedden, Fr. Harold Winstone, Prof. Herbert Finberg,

I am a priest of the Archdiocese of Toronto, Canada, ordained in 1956. Fascinated by the Liturgy from early youth, I was singled out in 1964 to represent Canada on the newly constituted ICEL as a member of the Advisory Board. At 33 its youngest member, and awkwardly aware of my shortcomings in liturgiology and related disciplines, I soon felt perplexity before the bold mistranslations confidently proposed and pressed by the ever- strengthening radical/progressive element in our group. I felt but could not articulate the wrongness of so many of our committee's renderings.

Let me illustrate briefly with a few examples. To the frequent greeting by the priest, "The Lord be with you," the people traditionally answered "and with your (thy) spirit": in Latin, Et cum spiritu tuo. But ICEL rewrote the answer: "And also with you." This, besides having an overall trite sound, has added a redundant word, "also." Worse, it has suppressed the word "spirit" which reminds us that we human beings have a spiritual soul. Furthermore, it has stopped the echo of four (inspired) uses of "with your spirit" in St. Paul's letters.

In the "I confess" of the penitential rite, ICEL eliminated the threefold "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault," and substituted one feeble "through my own fault." This is another nail in the coffin of the sense of sin.

Before Communion, we pray "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst (you should) enter under my roof." ICEL changed this to "...not worthy to receive you." We lose the roof metaphor, clear echo of the Gospel (Mt. 8:8), and a vivid, concrete image for a child.

ICEL's changes amounted to true devastation especially in the oration prayers of the Mass. The Collect or Opening Prayer for Ordinary Sunday 21 will exemplify the damage. The Latin prayer, strictly translated, runs thus:

O God, who make the minds of the faithful to be of one will, grant to your peoples (grace) to love that which you command and to desire that which you promise, so that, amidst worldly variety, our hearts may there be fixed where true joys are found.

Here is the ICEL version, in use since 1973:

Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world. In our desire for what you promise, make us one in mind and heart.

Now a few comments: To call God "Father" is not customary in the Liturgy, except "Our Father" in the Lord's prayer. "Help us to seek" implies that we could do this alone (Pelagian heresy) but would like some aid from God. Jesus teaches, '''without me you can do nothing.'''' The Latin prays "grant (to us)," not just "help us." ICEL's "values" suggests that secular buzzword-"values" that are currently popular, or politically correct, or changing from person to person, place to place. "Lasting joy in this changing world," is impossible. "In our desire" presumes we already have the desire, but the Latin humbly prays for this. "What you promise" omits "what you (God) command," thus weakening our sense of duty. "Make us one in mind (and heart)" is a new sentence, and appears as the main petition, yet not in coherence with what went before. The Latin rather teaches that uniting our minds is a constant work of God, to be achieved by our pondering His commandments and promises. Clearly, ICEL has written a new prayer. Does all this criticism matter? Profoundly! The Liturgy is our law of praying (lex orandi), and it forms our law of believing (lex credendi). If ICEL has changed our liturgy, it will change our faith. We see signs of this change and loss of faith all around us.

The foregoing instances of weakening the Latin Catholic Liturgy prayers must suffice. There are certainly thousands of mistranslations in the accumulated work of ICEL. As the work progressed I became a more and more articulate critic. My term of office on the Advisory Board ended voluntarily about 1973, and I was named Member Emeritus and Consultant. As of this writing I renounce any lingering reality of this status.

The ICEL labors were far from being all negative. I remember with appreciation the rich brotherly sharing, the growing fund of Church knowledge, the Catholic presence in Rome and London and

elsewhere, the assisting at a day-session of Vatican II Council, the encounters with distinguished Christian personalities, and more besides. I gratefully acknowledge two fellow-members of ICEL who saw then, so much more clearly than I, the right translating way to follow: the late Professor Herbert Finberg, and Fr. James Quinn, S.J., of Edinburgh. Not for these positive features and persons do I renounce my ICEL past, but for the corrosion of Catholic Faith and reverence to which ICEL's work has contributed. And for this corrosion, however slight my personal part in it, I humbly and sincerely apologize to God and to Holy Church.

Fr. Stephen Somerville

-- Ari (A@whychange.com), May 15, 2003.



Dear Ari,

I ahev no idea what your posting said, it was so convoluted!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.


Karl, Ari was simply pointing out, using the words of a priest, how those who translate from the Latin to the vernacular have in so doing, lost much of the meaning, direction, and spiritual foundation that was present in the original Latin text.

Unless the translation is pure and absolute, we get a watered-down version of what the original actually said in Latin.

Atila, I think this is wonnnnnnnderful news. I would love the priviledge of attending the Latin Mass.

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), May 15, 2003.


I personally think "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" is a bit redundant. What's wrong with a *single* mea culpa or even mea maxima culpa?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 15, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, "little paul" and Gail.

That good book you mentioned, "Mass Confusion," paul, was prepared with the use of the old edition of the G.I.R.M.. Someone has led you to believe that the new (2000) edition of the G.I.R.M. has tons of new stuff that the old one didn't have, but that's not actually true. The new is definitely an improvement (clarifying some things, to help ward off abuses), but the old already had numerous rules that people (especially priests) chose to ignore.

You wrote: "as ive heard, the new [G.I.R.M.] contains all sorts of great stuff, from banning holding hands during the Our Father, to mandating kneeling during the pronunciation of the Eucharist, to the necessity of bowing during the two lines in the creed and back again to genuflecting in front of the tabernacle. its a pretty authoritative book."

Actually ...
(1) neither the old or the new mentions "holding hands" ...
(2) the old G.I.R.M. told us when to kneel, just as the new one does [no change] ...
(3) the old G.I.R.M. told us to bow during the Creed, just as the new one does [no change] ...
(4) the old G.I.R.M. told us to genuflect when passing in front of the Tabernacle, just as the new one does [no change].

Now, the opening message of this thread refers to a completely new document that may be coming out -- not a G.I.R.M. edition -- that is intended to do away with all kinds of liturgical abuses. That would be nice, as long as the defiantly disobedient people just ignore it.

You asked if someone can tell Gail about when we kneel. That depends on what her nation's bishops' conference has decided (i.e., if they decided to override the universal practice). Wherever a bishop's conference has not implemented a (Vatican-approved) adaptation, the rule is that people must kneel during the consecrations of the bread and wine. For anyone living in the U.S. (and Canada, I think), the bishops have extended the period of required kneeling as follows:
(1) from the end of the "Holy, holy, holy" (Sanctus) through the end of the "Great Amen" (before the Holy Father) ... and
(2) from the end of the "Lamb of God" (Agnus Dei) until people rise to receive Communion.
(3) people are permitted to stand, sit, or kneel after receiving Communion.


Gail, you seemed alarmed about the possible loss of the rite of the Mass to which you have just become accustomed. I don't think that you need to worry about that. The newer rite isn't going anywhere. It's just that, if "Inside the Vatican" magazine is correct (and it does have a good reputation), the older rite will gradually become far more widely available than it has been in the past few decades. An explosion wouldn't happen overnight, because younger priests who would want to celebrate the older rite [and no one knows how many there would be] would need to be trained to do so. Almost all priests who learned the older rite in seminaries before Vatican II (1962-1965) are now 65 or older. Some of them would not be interested in celebrating that rite, while some [most?] who would want to celebrate it would need a "refresher course." If this change really is going to be implemented, I predict that, eventually, most parishes will have one older-rite Mass per week, while some will have one per day, and others will not have any at all.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.


Correction ... adding the missing word, now in bold type:
"That would be nice, as long as the defiantly disobedient people don't just ignore it."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.

We seem to be entering a time of rumors about the New Vatican playing around with the "Latin Mass." Certain articles have appeared about various "developments," mostly based on very thin information. Even if any of the rumors turn out to have a scintilla of truth, as the expression goes, "the devil is in the details."

The most important point, however, is that all of this is being stage- managed by the New Vatican, the Newchurch, the New Order, the Great Facade, the Counterfeit Church. There is no talk of Sacred Tradition, Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V, the dogmatic Council of Trent, or anything else that would show that the "New Mass" is unCatholic and invalid and that the Mass of St. Peter, the Traditional Latin Mass, is the only Mass permitted for the precedential rite of the Church, the Roman rite.

No, the New Vatican speaks in terms of "indults" or of Vatican II. How can the true Roman Catholic Mass and Faith "coexist" alongside the Novus Ordo counterfeit Mass and Faith? The pope might as well bring in the Lutheran service and give it an "indult" too! That would make just as much sense.

Just conceive of the following scenario. Fr. Indult processes in to start the new "Latin Mass" at Blessed John XXIII parish. He skips the prayers at the foot of the altar because they were made optional in 1965. He uses the Novus Ordo triple "readings" instead of the traditional Epistle and Gospel. He gives an impassioned sermon about how Vatican II brought a New Advent to the Church. When communion time comes along, he distributes the extra hosts "consecrated" at the previous day's Novus Ordo service. The "Latin Mass" ends with the blessing. Since the Last Gospel and the Leonine Prayers were "done away with" in 1965, he skips these.

Fr. Indult beats a hasty retreat because the guitarists are already arriving for the "Fiesta Mass" to follow. The players are already hooting it up with one another at the back of the Church in the Rite of Greeting. Before the strains of the traditional organ recessional have ended from the "Latin Mass," the guitarists are already strumming their instruments. Women in pedalpushers are already swarming around the altar doing their Novus Ordo preparations. The song-leader starts tapping frantically at the microphone. "Testing, testing. Kumbaya! Kumbaya!"

Those who are trying to make their thanksgiving after the "Latin Mass" give up. They meet up briefly in the vestibule. "This is a Traditional Latin Mass? Next week I'm going to the independent Mass on the other side of town, or the SSPV Mass in the next city. The pope and the bishop can have this mess! We've been had again!"

-- Ben Had (Ben@bellsouth.com), May 15, 2003.


john, the document i am reffering to is not the 2000 GIRM.

from rumors ive heard, there is going to be a new GIRM coming out. yes, it will be great if the disobedient will only follow it. I'll make a couple calls and see if i can find the article on this, my dad told me he saw something on it.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 16, 2003.


This whole thing of Vatican moving toward Traditional Mass is reminiscent of the Trojan horse---and outpops the 'still abusing priests'; the 'still pedohiling ones', and the 'bishops who do as they damn well please. I think we have learned that trusting the Vatican is like trusting your wee one with a deranged idiot!

-- Louisa (SweetLou@central.com), May 16, 2003.

Thanks so much, Ben and Louisa. You have made such a helpful contribution to the thread ... not.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.

Holy Mass is supposed to be suited to the needs of all times, not just our times. Herein, therefore, lies the real nub of the problem with the General Instruction to the Roman Missal and thus the Novus Ordo itself: a reliance upon the spirit of one particular time in history results in the glorification of the human spirit and not that of the Blessed Trinity. It is really that simple. God exists outside of time and space. The worship of God must convey, as noted earlier, the timelessness of God and the immortality of our own souls, which will live forever either in Heaven or in Hell once the Last Judgment has taken place. The Mass is supposed to be a refuge from the world, not a glorification of it.

-- Louisa (sweet lou @central.com), May 16, 2003.

That Old Modernist Line

The following was written by a conservative Novus Ordo Brother. Is there something wrong with this statement? "The traditional Mass is a 'form,' not a dogma, as it is limited to the Latin Rite alone. The Church can change the form of the liturgy at any time she pleases."

Reply;

Yes, there is something wrong with that statement. It is not in accordance with Catholic doctrine, but is one of the false Modernist lines that has lead to the practical destruction of the Mass in the New Order.

The Mass is dogmatic -- more than any catechism, any encyclical, or any council. It is Christ's own teaching, conveyed through his Apostles, the true Church being one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Doctors of the Church have consistently taught that anyone, including a pope, who significantly touched the Apostolic Mass, was acting illegally and is not to be obeyed. The Limitations of Papal Authority from the Writings of Roman Catholic Popes, Councils, Saints, and Theologians.

The Roman Rite is the precedential and universal rite of the Church, being the rite of the Apostolic See at Rome, the rite of Sts. Peter and Paul. There are a few Eastern rites, but they not universal, but restricted to limited areas. Thus, the Roman rite is not just a rite, but the rite of the Church.

If you read any book before the Modernist period of the 20th century, you will find that this understanding is clear. It was only when the Modernists wished to change the Faith that they came up with this novel and unCatholic notion of the Mass not being dogmatic, but changeable willy-nilly at the whim of any pope. Any pope before Paul VI, including John XXIII, called that idea anathema!

-- Louisa (Sweetlou@central.com), May 16, 2003.


Yes, the essence of the Mass is dogmatic. The transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior are still exactly the same as at the Last Supper, and will be the same until the end of time. Dogma cannot change. However, NO other aspect of the Mass is dogmatic. Other parts of the Mass have been designed to introduce, approach, surround and support the dogmatic essence, but no such prayers or rituals are dogmatic in themselves. Every other aspect of the Mass has been added by the Church subsequent to the Last Supper, and is subject to change by the Church at any time. Indeed, most parts of the Mass have been changed multiple times, and will be changed again. Obviously the language in which Mass is celebrated has nothing to do with dogma, or the New Latin Mass could never have been imposed.

The Doctors of the Church most certainly have NOT consistently taught that the rite of the "Apostolic Mass" (whatever that is) could not be changed. And even if they had done so, no Doctor of the Church had any authority to impose anything on the Church, even contemporarily, let alone for all future generations. Likewise, no Pope has authority to impose a discipline or rite in perpetuity. I assume an "Apostolic Mass" would consist of sitting around a table, with the priest facing the congregation, reciting the words of consecration in Aramaic over a dinner roll and a cup of wine, and distributing Communion under both species, in the hand? Those are the only aspects of the "Apostolic Mass" we are aware of. All else has been added in post- Apostolic times by the Church, and changed as necessary, to meet the needs of the Church in every age.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 16, 2003.


good call, Paul

but the diciples could also have been speaking greek... we dont know which.

louisa: The worship of God must convey, as noted earlier, the timelessness of God and the immortality of our own souls

our worship of God must convey the immortality of our own souls? and you accuse the novus ordo mass of focusing its mass on the human spirit... humph. i've gone to novus ordo mass all my time as a catholic and the first thing ive ever heard about the mass focusing on the human spirit was at this forum. Go to a novus ordo mass led by a conservative novus priest and you'll find NOTHING about the human spirit.

but i'll settle your arguement. the tridentine mass is NOT the original mass. the latin rite, as it is called by ACTUAL scholars, is preceeded by the greek rite. At the council of trent they changed the mass and its language, much the same as at the VII council. same thing happened. some people stuck with the greek rite, although that schism was smaller because loyalty to the pope was higher at the time. given a hundred or so years, they all died out of the church as this schism will too.

its also reasonable to suspect that in the early days of the church the greek rite was not even used, so there was definately a mass which preceeded the greek rite. so you really cant argue that the 'tridentine' mass was the original mass, because we know there was at least one right before that.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 17, 2003.


Paul, as I stated in a earlier post, the Council of Trent did not change the mass, it simpily standardised the rite used in Rome as the rite of the Catholic church. The various rites in the West such as the Sarum rite and the Dominican rite were all very similar to each other. Also as previously stated, Vatican II did not come out with a new missal either, the 65 missal was still the Tridentine mass with permission to use some parts in the vernacular. The current mass being used largely came out of a comittie after Vatican II ended.

-- John B (hhh@hhh.org), May 18, 2003.

If Skoobuoy's seminary taught him the official language of the Catholic Church, he'd know that oriens is third declension, not first, so the phrase is "ad orientem", not "ad orientam"!!

-- Kieron Wood (kieronwood@hotmail.com), May 21, 2003.

In reply to John Gecik's point about the training of young (and not- so-young) priests to celebrate the old rite, I have produced a one- hour video, The Most Beautiful Thing This Side Of Heaven, which sets out the rubrics of the old rite with the help of an accompanying booklet. It has already sold several thousand copies and is available in PAL format (from me) and NTSC format (from www.ecclesiadei.org).

-- Kieron Wood (kieronwood@hotmail.com), May 21, 2003.

Kieron, relax. I'm only a first year student. Latin comes next year. Geez.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), May 29, 2003.

Although the Communist Agent AA 1025 admitted that the enemies of Christ and His Church were generally defeated at the Council in not being able to alter any dogmas of the Church, they were able to influence the wordings of the documents, creating fatal ambiguities. This allowed the lax Bishops to interpret these documents in a Modernist direction, justifying by saying they just followed the "Spirit of the Council." In that sense, the enemies of the Church lost the document-writing battle for Vatican II but have almost won the ensuing implementation war. The reader can compare what actually happen today in the local Parishes with what their Guidelines say. It is already a near complete devastation of the Church.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), June 02, 2003.

We are in 21st century... Europe is losing its faith in Christ... Asia, especially China, must be evangelized... And still there are people who fight for Tridentine Rite. If there are theological problems with novus ordo (and I think there aren´t), it´s simple: corret them, but maintaining Vernacular Language. Why Latin is better than portuguese or english? No one can affirm this, its a non-sense. But I think these tradicionalists or filo-tradicionalists simply don´t live in a real world... They are not humble, they think Church is lost and that they´re her saviors... What a joke!!! Thank you all, we are better without you, we don´t want that kind of things of decades ago.

-- Fr.Clecio Santos (cletius@hotmail.com), June 11, 2003.

I think some of you just do not get it.. The whole debate about the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass is less about the language and more about reverence. I go the Novus Ordo Mass and it drives me up the wall to see the lack of respect for the presence of Christ witch starts from the little dance the dancers do before Mass to treating the church like it is the place you go to just to get the weekly gossip, These the actions of the faithful and the actions of people who are supposed to be submitting themselves to Christ and to his bride. So many criticize the groups that practice the Tridentin Mass exclusively, but have you gone to one of these Masses lately? Most of the faithful that attend show the greatest form of true reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament and to the building that stands around it. I feel that the “form” (as some may call it) promotes this outstanding show of reverence and this is the respect that Christ deserves. The next thing that I do not get with the Novus Ordo mass is that so many letters and such come out to change the way the Mess is to be observed in the name of unity i.e read the latest G.R.I.M but yes F.r X can ad live (ad live used for lack of better term) so much hence ‘The do-it-yourself Mass” and in the Tridentine Mass it is writing one way with out all the options.

Now so many get on the defensive about Communion in the hand and ministers of the Eucharist, but from the “Dominicae Cenae” written by Pope John Paul II I quote. “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained”, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.” What do we call a “just need” and what do you see people doing in order to get” adequate preparation”?” and I have one more quote on Communion in the hand and ministers of the Eucharist From St Tomas. “The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency”. (Summa Theologica Part 3 Question 82 Article 3.

S.S.

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), October 01, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ