"Per se" ideas of Luther & Protestants

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Eugene, I hope you don't mind me extracting your response below, from another thread. It was in response to my seeking from Mateo an explanation of why the ideas of Luther are embodied in the Novus Ordo Missae (see the links found in Note of Thank You thread). Here is your reply:

Luther was a Catholic. He disobeyed the Pope and was excommunicated. Ideas aren't heresy; not when the 2nd Vatican Council with the Holy Spirit implements one. You just have it in for anything protestant, including Mass in vernacular languages.

But the ideas per se of protestants aren't necessarily offensive to the Holy Spirit; or contrary to Catholicism. What the Holy Spirit rejects is a church not founded by Christ and His apostles. When Luther went that far, his idea flopped.

First, I thank you, Eugene, for responding to my questions. Perhaps Mateo will be emboldened to follow suit.

Second, I'd like to give you a chance to elaborate, before I assume you believe anything I might imply from your comments above. Specifically, I might imply you hold,

1. Luther's ideas regarding the Mass were of little consequence. 2. "2nd Vatican Council" could change a heresy into a non-heresy. 3. Mass in "vernacular languages" is protestant. 4. Protestant ideas "per se" do not offend the Holy Ghost, even if they involve denial of His Presence, denial of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, denial of the true nature of the Mass, denial of the universality of the Catholic Church. 5. All Luther did was start a new church; he did not put into practice any heretical ideas, he did not promulgate heretical beliefs, he did not teach heretical theology.

Please elaborate. I warn you also that you are coming near to defending Luther; but I guess that's part of my point, since you accept his ideas are embodied in the Novus Ordo Missae.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003

Answers

Mateo, just read your post from the other thread --

If you want to put in some effort (a little more than pointing us to a schismatic website) and actually ask a specific question on a new thread, I'd be happy to answer you.

*How do you explain Luther's instructions in the preface to his german missal (which is the link I provided -- a historical text, posted on a university web site repository for primary sources) that high altars be removed and priests face the people are now part and parcel of the Novus Ordo Missae?

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.


Glad you asked, Jaime.
The proper word is ''I infer'' (you, Jaime) not I imply.

1. Luther's ideas regarding the Mass were of little consequence.Depends on which ideas. 2. "2nd Vatican Council" could change a heresy into a non-heresy.Not at all. Neither could the Holy Spirit; nor have they. 3. Mass in "vernacular languages" is protestant.Vernacular isn't a heresy. Luther's not the only one to sponsor that. It's a good idea. The Holy Spirit sponsored it for Vatican II; certainly. 4. Protestant ideas "per se" do not offend the Holy Ghost, even if they involve denial of His Presence, denial of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, denial of the true nature of the Mass, denial of the universality of the Catholic Church. Not all protestant ideas, per se. The ones you named there would not pass muster. None of them are implemented in Vatican II. Anybody who says so is a liar. WHY ''even if''--? 5. All Luther did was start a new church; he did not put into practice any heretical ideas, he did not promulgate heretical beliefs, he did not teach heretical theology.He is guilty of these sins, not us.

But what has that to do with some of the otherwise good ideas? What is Luther; Satan himself, or just a poor heretic? If we paid ANY attention to Satan, I wouldn't question your reasonable objections. But just to hate whatever a protestant might like, or propose; that's hardly being a good Catholic. God loves protestants; they're not His Church, but He wants to save them.

By adapting some things for their sake, we can bring SOME back to the True Faith. It's for our brethren, Jaime; not Martians!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.


"Mass in "vernacular languages" is protestant.Vernacular isn't a heresy. Luther's not the only one to sponsor that. It's a good idea."

Vactican II did not change it show me in one document where it stated that we need to trow away the latin mass and go to "vernacular languages"?

KeV

-- kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 18, 2003.


Mateo, fyi, here's the Luther preface link.

And here again is a quote found in Luther's preface:

The Mass vestments, altars, and lights may be retained till such time as they shall all change of themselves, or it shall please us to change them: though, if any will take a different course in this matter, we shall not interfere. But in the true Mass, among sincere Christians, the altar should not be retained, and the priest should always turn himself towards the people as, without doubt, Christ did at the Last Supper.

Awaiting your explanation per above post.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.


Jaime,

Spare yourself some grief. Read some of the accounts of the mass from the early church fathers first, things weren't initially done as they were when the Tridentine rite was established. The Holy Spirit, not you, determines what is proper for Catholics. You are right too in that Luther was a Catholic priest, so regardless of his later heresy, he at least was formally trained in the faith. Why should it suprise you that he was familiar with it? He just placed his own ideas over the church's, much like the Lefebvrite schismatics are doing now.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 18, 2003.



Thanks for reminding Jaime, Frank;

His knee-jerk reaction to anything resembling Luther and his world is pathetic. Luther was a Catholic; and without the heresy is only somewhat reprehensible. He pushed for ''reform''.

Jaime would presume to say the Holy Spirit CAN'T push for reform, even what is beneficial to the Church. Not unless there is NO trace of protestantism. Which on the face of it is ridiculous. Protestants are invited with Christian love to return to mother Church. Invited by the Holy Spirit, no less!

Jaime doesn't care if they return or not. To him, they're all ex-communicated and never coming back, and the Holy Spirit can't change his mind. Not if it means Mass in the vernacular with our priest facing us. Too big a concession to the heretics ! ! !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.


"How do you explain Luther's instructions in the preface to his german missal (which is the link I provided -- a historical text, posted on a university web site repository for primary sources) that high altars be removed and priests face the people are now part and parcel of the Novus Ordo Missae?"

So, the isolated argument is with regard to

1) the placement of the altar; and

2) the direction the priests face.

Is this the totality of this particular thread?

Let's begin with the first fact: we are not dealing with doctrine. This is a discussion about traditions of the Church, albeit with certain symbolic meaning.

A Little background on me

OK, the churches in my neck of the woods typically have two altars: one high altar for the tabernacle, and one altar used by the priest during mass. At our church, we have a third altar in an adjacent chapel. At my church, the priests face the people during Sunday masses. During the weekday masses, they sometimes face away from the people.

The Tradition of Altars

I should begin with a fact: a single altar is not a Lutheran innovation. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, having multiple altars in a church was an innovation that appeared ~400 AD. Quoting them:

"In olden times there was but one altar in a church. The Christian Fathers speak of one altar only, and St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Philadelph., 5) refers to this practice when he says: 'One altar, as there is one bishop' (Unum altare omni Ecclesiae et unus Episcopus)."

[Minor note: When you refer to the removal of the "high altar," you may be referring to the removal of the tabernacle's altar. In reality, the high altar is simply the most important altar in a church. So, if Luther wanted to remove the tabernacle's altar, the remaining altar would become (ipso facto) the high altar.]

Now, by "removing the high altar," I think you mean either the removal of the tabernacle's altar from view or all together. I have never seen the latter (total removal from a church), though I have seen the former. In some larger churches/basilicas, the Most Blessed Sacrament (and the high altar) are moved to a separate chapel. In smaller churches, the tabernacles' placement away from the center of the focus is a little more dubious (and contrary to Canon Law) when it occurs. Here is one of the Canon Laws regarding the tabernacle:

"Can. 938 §1 The blessed Eucharist is to be reserved habitually in only one tabernacle of a church or oratory.

§2 The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in the church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer.

§3 The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is habitually reserved is to be immovable, made of solid and non­transparent material, and so locked as to give the greatest security against any danger of profanation."

Though early tradition called for a single altar, this tradition has been changed (just as the long tradition of wooden altars was changed over time). Martin Luther may have wanted to return to the early tradition of a "one altar" church; but it wasn't his place to second-guess the Catholic Magesterium.

The Priest Faces...?

This is another interesting discussion. As my church priests practice both facing with the faithful and toward the faithful (both are accepted by the Catholic Church), I don't really have a strong opinion on either.

Here's some words from Joseph Fessio, S.J. regarding the orientation of the priest:

"The Council did not say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people. That is not in Vatican II; it is not mentioned. It is not even raised in the documents that record the formation of the Constitution on the Liturgy; it didn’t come up. Mass facing the people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican II; it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something introduced in 1969.

And, by the way, never in the history of the Church, East or West, was there a tradition of celebrating Mass facing the people. Never, ever, until 1969.

But in any event, I can say without fear of contradiction from anyone who knows the facts that there is simply no tradition whatsoever, in the history of the Church, of Mass facing the people. Now, is it a sin? No. Is it wrong? No. Is it permitted? Yes. It is required? Not at all. In fact in the Latin Roman Missal, which is the typical edition that all the translations of the Missal are based on (not always translated properly, but at least based on it) the rubrics actually presuppose the Mass facing East, the Mass facing the Lord."

Facing the East...facing the Lord. Now, this is the fun part of the symbolism. The "facing the East" stuff is actually not something that originated in Christianity; it is a pagan practice that was handed down to us. I suppose that it made sense when we started converting old pagan temples into Christian churches. From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

"The custom of praying with faces turned towards the East is probably as old as Christianity. The earliest allusion to it in Christian literature is in the second book of the Apostolic Constitutions (200-250, probably) which prescribes that a church should be oblong "with its head to the East". Tertullian also speaks of churches as erected in "high and open places, and facing the light (Adv. Valent., iii). The reason for this practice, which did not originate with Christianity, was given by St. Gregory of Nyssa (De Orat. Dominic., P. G., XLIV, 1183), is that the Orient is the first home of the human race, the seat of the earthly paradise. In the Middle Ages additional reasons for orientation were given, namely, that Our Lord from the Cross looked towards the West, and from the East He shall come for the Last Judgment (Durand, Rationale, V, 2; St. Thomas, Summa Theologica II-II:84:3). The existence of the custom among pagans is referred to by Clement of Alexandria, who states that their "most ancient temples looked towards the West, that people might be taught to turn to the East when facing the images" (Stromata, vii. 17, 43)."

--------------

So in conclusion, we're dealing with:

1) the "novelty" of multiple altars, in contrast to Luther's call to return to the traditions of the earliest centuries of Christianity; and,

2) the defense of priests facing East, a practice shown to be the result of pre-Christian (pagan) influence on early church design and symbolism.

This is why I would prefer to let the Church Magesterium decide what is right for the Church instead of second-guessing its decisions and claiming that the Church is too influenced by either the now irrelevant heretic Martin Luther or paganism.

AMDG,

Mateo

PS--Please forgive the typos. It's late!

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 19, 2003.


Jaime,

Reading through your link, it's interesting how much importance these Lutherans placed on study and worship in Latin.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 19, 2003.


Good work, Matty. A home run is a beautiful thing!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.

Thanks for the reply, Mateo.

one altar used by the priest during mass

Is this found in the middle of the sanctuary, as I've seen in most modern churches (I've seen churches where there's no sanctuary at all -- with table in middle, in an "arena" configuration, but I won't ask you to defend that; esp. since it's indefensible)? I assume the churches in your "neck of the woods" appear much as they did before 1969 (if built before then) -- statuary, communion rail preserved, etc., save an "altar" table placed in the middle of the sancutary. Correct?

At my church, the priests face the people during Sunday masses. During the weekday masses, they sometimes face away from the people.

On what basis is it decided? Depends on the priest? Or the time/day?

With the Fessio quote, if you adopt that position, you admit that priests facing is emphatically not part of Tradition. According to Fessio, it's not even in the sprit or letter of Vatican II. So my next question is:

Why do so many priests today (including yours, on particular days, at least) face the people?

If you're defending the position that Vatican II never said anything about -- never mandated -- priests facing the people, then why is it happening? Why is it being allowed to happen? Surely, if it's not part of 1,969 years of tradition, and not part of Vatican II, where is it prescribed or permitted? Who started doing this? Why is it so widespread?

Fessio says it's "permitted." Where? What is the source of permission? Fessio contradicts himself. Perhaps if you give me more context for Fessio's quote -- but as I read the quote he's saying:

"There's no Tradition whatsoever -- not in 1,969 years of liturgy, not in the documents of Vatican II -- for priests facing the assembly. But trust me, it's permitted."

Dubious.

I would prefer to let the Church Magesterium decide

Did it? According to Fessio, no authority decided such changes could take place. Then why do priests face? Why do they use tables in the middle of the sanctuary? If they shouldn't, why is it allowed?

Reading through your link, it's interesting how much importance these Lutherans placed on study and worship in Latin.

. . . with intention of "easing" people into the vernacular, as the preface discusses.

Thank you again for the response; you've supported the observation that so much of what goes on ("altar" tables in the middle of the sanctuary; priests facing the assembly -- to name the two in question) in the Novus Ordo Missae churches is innovation, without precedent or authority.

It was the purposeful effort of protestant innovators to undermine, as you correctly call them, "traditions of the Church." These innovations have wrought the Novus Ordo Missae from the moorings of Tradition, and the current state of rampant disbelief and disobedience is the result. It's a simple thesis, really:

Unprecedented changes in "traditions" have undermined belief.

And as your response shows, these changes really are unprecedented.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 19, 2003.



''These innovations have wrought torn? (wrought means worked) the Novus Ordo Missae from the moorings of Tradition, (moorings? Isn't the Church ''moored'' in her faith?) the current state of rampant disbelief and disobedience is the result.''

--Acually, Jaime, no such state is evident, much less rampant. Disobedience is mainly a symptom of your false ''movement,'' not Novus Ordo's people. Disbelief is your entire cause, for you disbelieve a validly convened, Holy Church Council. As the following of God the Holy Spirit!

Now to add to your rampant dissent, you bring lies here. Who has told you these lies about our Catholic Church? How do you ascertain anybody's private beliefs? How have you seen us ''disobey''-- did you REALLY think these were ''rampant?'' Isn't all this merely fabricated to promote the schismoidal agenda?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.


Disbelief is your entire cause, for you disbelieve a validly convened, Holy Church Council.

Vatican II?

Where do they say priests may face the assembly?

Where do they say rip out the statues and high altars?

Where do they say set up a table in the sanctuary?

If your Holy Church Council does not say to innovate in these and so many other ways, then why have the innovations happened?

Who has told you these lies about our Catholic Church?

What "lies"? That there is disorder and disbelief in the Novus Ordo? What evidence would satisfy you? You and others have here dismissed both statistical and anecdotal.

Don't ignore what your God-given senses should tell you:

The modernist church bears little resemblance to the Church of Our Fathers. The evidence is everywhere (it's been brought up here -- you others continue to dismiss it).

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 19, 2003.


then why have the innovations happened?--
We saw some innovations. They are mainly external, with great sentimental value. I hated to see some things go. I disliked women entering Church without headcoverings. I loved fine statues and refined hyms.

You call it innovation, I call it concessions to poor taste. It started with giving input to the Parish Councils. None of this pleased me. I've often been accused of being too conservative. I'm 65!

But we have opposite views of the THINGS THAT MATTER--

You are impressed by visual and nostalgic qualities. I'm not; and I doubt very much God is so judgmental. God has always had great cathedrals, with grand design and large choirs singing Latin. He still does! We haven't wiped out all that. The Church preserves unlimited splendor and glory for Our Lord all over the world. It is hardly ''innovative'' to build less extravagant places of worship. Money doesn't grow on trees.

The Church today is spending more on the poor and forsaken all over the world, and there is much more yet to do. It's THESE THINGS THAT MATTER, not whether you are thrilled by marble altars and gingerbread carvings around the sanctuary. LOVE matters more than visual extravagance! Jesus Christ went around DOING GOOD! His people were the anawin, the lowly and unpretentious. You will no longer please Him with Latin phrases alone.

We are certainly NOT offending Him since Vatican II, with the different emphasis; no matter what you think of externals. They can't matter to a truly Holy Church.

You fall into the trap of materialism and love of the world, when you claim, The ''modernist church'' bears little resemblance to the Church of Our Fathers; the Catholic Church doesn't HAVE to be the Church of ''our fathers''. We are only asked to continue in the FAITH of our fathers, not the customs, Jaime! And there is no ''modernist church. There's only the Holy Catholic Church and she doesn't take marching orders from ''traditionalists.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.


Jaime,

We've heard it all before, the church is wrong, you dissidents are correct. Ho hum. When you can show me where the Holy Spirit is guiding every individual with a gripe against the church, I'll listen. Until then, I'll obey the Magesterium and the Pope.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 19, 2003.


Jaime,

I would say that my own position isn't too far from Fr. Fessio's. I remain unmoved by your logic because I haven't seen anything new in what you wrote. I will correct you in two things, though:

1) The statement "Fessio contradicts himself" is not true. You have not shown his statements to contradict one another.

2) Regarding Luther and Latin, you wrote: "...with intention of "easing" people into the vernacular, as the preface discusses."

This is also not true. Here is a quote from the preface:

"The first [Divine Service], in Latin; which we published lately, called the Formula Missae. This I do not want to have set aside or changed; but, as we have hitherto kept it, so should we be still free to use it where and when we please, or as occasion requires. I do not want in anywise to let the Latin tongue disappear out of Divine Service; for I am so deeply concerned for the young."

Luther was deeply concerned for the young...

I think that Frank's last post sums up the problem with this dialog.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 19, 2003.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ