The Mass Of All Time?!?

[mark4IHM]

On a previous thread (Pedophiles and "Tridentiners") I mentioned in passing the term 'The Mass of All Time'. There was some objection to my use of this term, so I'd like to clarify what I meant.

While I stand by what I said, it would have been most accurate to call "The Mass of All Time" by its proper name: the Roman rite ( as distinct from the Novus Ordo Mass, which is properly called the Modern Rite). I think some of the confusion is caused by the current tendency to refer to the Roman Rite as the "Old Mass," or the "Tridentine Mass," with the implication that it originated from the Council of Trent, specifically from Pope St. Pius V. This is not true.

To explain I will rely on Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, which contains an enthusiastic foreword from Cardinal Ratzinger. Msgr. Gamber was an eminent priest and internationally recognized liturgical historian who died in 1989.

Gamber explains that the Roman Rite "originated in early Christianity," and "has remained almost unchanged for centuries." He concludes: "There is no question that the Roman liturgy is the oldest Christian rite." (P. 10)

According to Msgr. Gamber, "In the strict sense there is no 'Tridentine Mass', for, at least at the conclusion of the Council of Trent, there was no creation of a new Mass order; and the 'Missal of St. Pius V' is nothing else but the Missal of the Roman Curia, which had seen the light in Rome centuries earlier...since the fitth century, the only thing on which the popes have unceasingly insisted is that the Roman Canon must be adopted; their argument being that it originated with the Apostle Peter." (pp. 23-24)

It is in keeping with the popes, who through the centuries who have declared that the Roman rite "originated with the Apostle Peter," that I refer to this Mass as "The Mass of All Time.".

But didn't Pope St. Pius V create a New Mass? Not according to Msgr. Gamber, who states that all Pius V did was review the existing Mass and authorize its publication as the Missale Romanum:

"The reform introduced by St. Pius V did not create anything new. It was simply a comprehensive reivew of the Missal, editing out some additions and changes, that over time had found their way into the text...We can definitely say that the Missal published by this pope was not a 'new' Missal." (pp. 16, 38)

According to Msgr. Gamber, the Novus Ordo Mass is not a development of the Roman rite, but an entirely different rite, which he calls the Modern Rite. He also makes these interesting observations:

"Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone to abolish the traditional liturgical rite; and since, furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy, the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable, to say the least." (p. 39)

"Those in positions of power in the Church hierarchy did not listen to the voices counseling caution, voices which again and again urged that the traditional Missale Romanum should not be abolished, and that the new liturgy (the Novus Ordo) should be allowed only on a limited basis. Today we are witnessing the sad spectacle of so many bishops accepting, without comment almost any new liturgical experiment, while, when the opportunity arises, severely punishing a priest who, wheher for practical reasons or as a matter of personal conscience, prefers to offer the traditional Mass." (p. 6).

[dUSt]

mark4IHM,

Do you accept the Novus Ordo mass as valid?

[Donna]

Recommended: The Ottaviani Intervention.

P.S. Thanks for the post, Mark.

[Good Friday]

Mark, I have to say that you're wrong here. The Novus Ordo Mass is a part of the Roman Rite, that's why the Missal that's used for it is called the Roman Missal. The Tridentine Mass was the Mass formerly used in the Roman Rite, which is still permitted because people can't move on from the past. The Novus Ordo Mass is the same Mass as the Tridentine Mass; for that matter, the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Masses are the same as the Eastern Rite Masses. The rubrics may differ, but they are the same Mass offering the same Holy Sacrifice of the Altar.

Despite what you say, there's no evidence that the Tridentine Mass would have originated with the Apostle Peter. It doesn't make sense. For one thing, it's highly unlikely that a fisherman from Galilee ever, at any time in his life, spoke Latin fluently enough to form the Tridentine Mass we have today. It's also highly unlikely that the use of the bells, the inaudible prayers, and kneeling to receive Communion would have been the custom at the time. St. Peter received his First Communion reclining at table... how do you know that's not how he did things?

I'm sorry, but I find the idea that St. Peter would have invented the Tridentine Mass blatantly absurd, and I don't think the Church teaches it. Furthermore, I think you're bringing it up now to try to give undue supremacy to the Tridentine Mass. If it actually came from St. Peter, of course many would consider it to be of greater importance and validity than the Novus Ordo. But I simply don't think it did come from St. Peter. When St. Paul wrote his letters, they were still receiving the Eucharist at table. I have trouble believing that they leaped from reclining at table to the Tridentine High Mass in a period of a few years.

[Good Friday]

Recommended: The Ottaviani Intervention.

This is totally and completely irrelevant. Cardinal Ottaviani was one Cardinal. The Tridentine Mass was suspended and the Novus Ordo made its replacement by Pope Paul VI, based on the teachings of an ecumenical council. The Tridentine Mass has not been reinstated by Pope John Paul I or Pope John Paul II, though the Pope has generously allowed that the Tridentine Mass can be used even though it is not the standard Mass for the Roman Rite anymore.

Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles has allowed a nearly hermaphroditic statue of Our Lady to be placed in Our Lady of Angels Cathedral. Cardinal Martini, one of the most prominent Cardinals in the Church during his time, is a notorious liberal. I am not inclined to accept what any Cardinal -- be they Mahoney, Martini, or Ottaviani -- has to say over what three Popes have done.

If you are, you seriously need to consider why you're even a Catholic.

[Donna]

Nathan, I think the Canon of the Mass originating with St. Peter was what Msgr. Gamber (not Mark) referred to.

[Good Friday]

I'm sorry if that seemed harsh, but I don't understand you two. Other than this matter, you are good Catholics. Why, why do you insist on disobeying three Popes and the Universal Church because of the discipline (not doctrine) of the Mass? I seriously don't understand. I don't know why anyone would go against the authority of the Church over a matter of discipline, custom, etc.

[Donna]

Lord, grant us Thy peace.

Nathan, have you read the O. Intervention?

[Dave]

I can say this regarding Cardinal Ottaviani:

What about Cardinal Ottaviani’s Letter?

The Ottaviani Intervention is one of the most often peddled pieces of the so-called traditionalist movement. Cardinal Ottaviani expressed many concerns about the New Mass, and the so-called traditionalists have played this letter up very much. If you go to any site that rejects the Pauline Rite Mass, this letter by the Cardinal will probably be very prominent. Let us look parts of the letter and his most strenuous objection. This is tied into to objections to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Cardinal Ottaviani did have sincere problems with some of the changes, no doubt. He wrote this before New Mass was finalized:

“The Novus Ordo Missae-considering the new elements, susceptible of widely differing evaluations, which appear to be implied or taken for granted-represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent. . . . Therefore, we most earnestly beseech your Holiness not to deprive us--at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church--of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by your Holiness and so deeply venerated and loved by the whole Catholic Church” (In Triumph. December, 1969).

The first thing to note that this criticism was leveled before the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass was completed. However, few of those in the schismatic circles who circulate the “Ottaviani Intervention” , publish Cardinal Ottaviani comments on the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the Pauline Rite Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing:

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)

What was Cardinal Ottaviani’s view of who truly followed the Roman Catholic faith? What was his view of the papacy?

“The words of Christ ‘feed my sheep’ are words which have been addressed only to his vicar, and it follows that whoever would wish to be counted among the Flock of Christ must submit to the Universal Pastor appointed by Christ. No one can be a exception to this rule, not even Bishops.” (Whitehead, 130, From Leroy Philippe, “Pierre a Parle,” Chevaliers #32, 1976).

The two ensuing letters by Cardinal Ottaviani, after ‘the Ottaviani intervention’ have been a matter of public record for all to see. However, none of those who use this intervention as a way to smear the Pauline Rite Mass, ever let people in on the fact that Ottaviani subsequently wrote that no one could any longer be scandalized. The fact that people continue to publish his original attacks on the Pauline Rite Mass without letting anybody seeing his ensuing letters show deceit of the so-called Traditionalist movement. Maybe we can give the benefit of the doubt and say that many who do tout his original intervention do not know of his subsequent letters in which he affirmed the purity of the faith that was preserved in the Pauline Rite Mass; Nevertheless, these ensuing letters show that inDouche that Cardinal Ottaviani did not end up holding the position of those who reject the Pauline Rite Mass. No doubt he was attached to the Tridentine Mass, and in fact now, for those who get indults, that is fine. But Cardinal Ottaviani in the end rejoiced over the fact that the Pauline Rite Mass was preserved and protected against the infiltration of errors and that the Supreme Magisterium upheld the purity and unity of the faith.

As one of the most erudite Thomistic theologians of our time, Charles Cardinal Journet, in referring to the Pauline Rite Mass, writes:

“Let me take care to say, there is no renouncing of anything essential. . . The substance of the Mass remains absolutely the same: there is the Offertory, the Consecration. . . And the Sovereign Pontiff has recalled expressly what was not expressed sufficiently in the rubrics of the new Ordo: that the Mass is a sacrifice. He has recalled that there is a change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. All these things, which are not Protestant, are truly Catholic- and also orthodox. Thus there is the reaffirmation of the classic Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist sacrifice.” (Whitehead, 131, from Cardinal Journet and the New Order of the Mass,” in Documentation Catholique #9, May 1, 1977, pages 444-445).

Source: Matt1618's page

Edited August 18, 2003 by davejc29201

[Good Friday]

Donna:

Please understand that I'm trying to remain calm, but traditionalism has always gotten under my skin, and I have no doubt that it will continue to.

Nathan, I think the Canon of the Mass originating with St. Peter was what Msgr. Gamber (not Mark) referred to.

I don't care if it was Mark, Msgr. Gamber, Cardinal Ratzinger, or an angel allegedly sent down from Heaven. They have zero authority. The Pope has the authority to change the Mass, and no one -- not Mark, not Msgr. Gamber, not Cardinal Ratzinger -- has the right to disobey him or deny his authority.

Msgr. Gamber says that there's no document saying the Pope can change the Mass. Maybe he missed the memo:

"I will give you [Peter, and his successors] the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whtever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:19.

I don't care if Msgr. Gamber was an eminent priest and internationally recognized liturgical historian. Is this as far up in the hierarchy as Mark can get to support his schismatic views? Hans Kung is a priest too, and he is an internationally recognized theologian. That doesn't mean he's right about much of anything.

Someone has changed the Mass at some point, Donna and Mark. Here is the first Mass. It's not the Tridentine Mass, so allegedly some Pope at some point in time changed it at least once:

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, 'Take and eat, this is my body.' Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many fo the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I will not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.'" - Matthew 26:26-29.

Obviously, the Tridentine Mass contains quite a bit more than that. It becomes apparent, then, that somewhere along the line a Pope did change the Mass. If one Pope can do it (even if that Pope was St. Peter), then any Pope can do it.

[Good Friday]

Donna, I don't need to read the Ottaviani Intervention. First of all, I already knew what Dave posted (though I thank him for posting it), because I had this same argument over Cardinal Ottaviani's "Intervention" with a poster on Phatmass quite some time ago. Cardinal Ottaviani recanted, therefore the Ottaviani Intervention is completely irrelevant. However, even if he had not recanted, Cardinal Ottaviani was not the Supreme Pontiff. Neither is Msgr. Gamber, Cardinal Ratzinger, you, or Mark.

[hyperdulia again]

Nathan calm down. Perhaps you shouldn't read threads relating to the Tridentine Mass.

[Donna]

The Otavianni Intervention is not irrelevant. It's informative.

But even if Cardinal O. said what the Trads say he did, why should that bother you, Nathan, or anyone?

[Good Friday]

But even if Cardinal O. said what the Trads say he did, why should that bother you, Nathan, or anyone?

It bothers me because no clergyman, and especially not a Cardinal, should be going against the authority of the Holy Father. It leads to confusion among the faithful. The fact that many traditionalists tell only half of what the Cardinal said, leaving out his letters that later accept the Novus Ordo Mass, only serves to irritate me more. If what the traditionalists are saying is based in truth, why do they feel the need to tell lies and half-truths?

Do you agree or disagree that a Pope has, at some point prior to the Novus Ordo, changed the Mass?

[PedroX]

Nathan,

I'm not sure that we should be calling people schismatic, simply because they prefer one order of the Mass to another. It is clearly permissible (with the permission of the Local Ordinary) to participate in the Tridentine Mass. Mark did quote an historian who questioned the Novus Ordo, but Mark himself was careful not dispute its legitimacy. I know that Donna has not posted anything that undermines the authority of the Holy Father. Please, lets not throw dangerous charges around. This makes us little better than Protestants.

peace...