The Mass Of All Time?!?

[Good Friday]

In a charitable effort to understand, did you say that the fruit of the Saints, doctors of the Church, and Popes, ie The Tridentine Mass is responsible for the Culture of Death? Please clarify, because I certainly would not want to misunderstand you in this.

Yes, I said (and will obviously say again) that the fruit of the Tridentine Mass is the culture of death. You cannot have a Mass that has a dead language, inaudible prayers, and no lay participation and have a Catholic culture. The laity will not be involved in the Mass anymore, and their lack of involvement in the Mass will make them not involved in the Church anymore, either. Had Latin not become a dead language, then perhaps the Tridentine Mass could have thrived. But it is a dead language, no one knows it, so it's not going to work anymore.

I would not have converted if the Tridentine Mass had still been in effect. I don't know Latin, it would have been utterly pointless. I would no doubt have gone to a Protestant church that speaks English. You can gasp and say "blasphemy!" all you want, but if you stop and think about it, how effective is a dead language in evangelizing a culture that speaks English?

[PedroX]

So, again in an effort to be charitable, how is your slandering 1900 + years of church history different from what you accuse Donna and Mark of doing? I see these statements are rather similar. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying.

Also, I'm not sure that Donna and Mark are insisting on Latin, as much as on forms and correct translations. Donna and Mark, perhaps you could clear this up?

peace...

[Good Friday]

So, again in an effort to be charitable, how is your slandering 1900 + years of church history different from what you accuse Donna and Mark of doing? I see these statements are rather similar. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying.

For one thing, I'm not slandering anything. The simple fact of the matter is that our culture of death started before the Novus Ordo Mass, so if there is a Mass to be blamed, it's the Tridentine. Not the Novus Ordo. This makes much more sense, I'm saying, because people can understand the Novus Ordo. There's no reason for the Novus Ordo to have caused the problems in the world today. There was a reason for the Tridentine Mass to have caused the problems, and it was the Latin, the inaudible prayers, etc. I'm not saying this is the Tridentine Mass's fault, per se. If something had been done to prevent Latin from becoming a dead language, maybe it wouldn't have happened.

I'll say what I've always said: that there's nothing wrong with the Tridentine Mass in and of itself, but prior to the institution of the Novus Ordo abuses had begun to occur in the Tridentine Mass (such as praying the Rosary during Mass, the people not knowing the language, etc.). You're right, it would be unfair for me to criticize the Tridentine Mass and yet be annoyed that they're criticizing the Novus Ordo. I'm not criticizing the Tridentine Mass itself; it worked for hundreds of years. But what I'm saying is simply that it won't work toward its purpose anymore (the evangelization of all people), and that in fact it stopped working toward that purpose prior to the institution of the Novus Ordo Mass. I think that was the whole reason for the institution of the Novus Ordo Mass, because the Tridentine Mass was failing to evangelize.

Also, I'm not sure that Donna and Mark are insisting on Latin, as much as on forms and correct translations. Donna and Mark, perhaps you could clear this up?

As far as I've been able to tell, Donna and Mark are insisting on the Tridentine Mass in its entirety -- that includes Latin. If they were just insisting on forms and correct translations, I could agree with them somewhat, except that I don't believe there are incorrect forms or incorrect translations in the Novus Ordo Mass. But I will never agree with the use of Latin, because a dead language can't work for a Living Church, nor can it continue to evangelize the world. Jesus would not want us to sacrifice souls so that we can have Latin.

[Donna]

Which of the dozens of comments do I address first?

PeDrox, thank you. Blessed are the peacemakers; and, I would add, the civil speaking gentlemen.

To Nathan: here is the quote, in about the middle of the 3-page 'Ecclesia Dei Afflicta' of July 2, 1988:

"Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty

to inform the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this

sad event has highlighted."

[here follows three points: the first, on adhering to the Church's authentic Tradition; the third, to exhort all supporters of A. Lefebvre to cease support of

"that movement"; sandwiched inbetween, my emphasis in red, is:]

"b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other

experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel

called upon to answer in the present circumstances. inDouche,

the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican

Council call for a renewed committment to deeper study in

order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition,

especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they

are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections

of the Church."

I guess the Church had it wrong for... what, maybe 75 years, in retaining Latin?

Is THAT when the culture of death started in America?

Glad to see an obedient son of our Holy Mother adhering to the Second Vatican Council's statement that Latin should retain "pride of place" in the liturgy.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of your foul slander of the Rite of Mass so venerable in the Church. I pray God you drop it: in print, in word, in thought.

I am done.

Edited August 22, 2003 by Donna

[Good Friday]

"b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other

experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel

called upon to answer in the present circumstances. inDouche,

the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican

Council call for a renewed committment to deeper study in

order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition,

especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they

are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections

of the Church."

Points of doctrine. There are new points of doctrine, because the doctrine has developed. It does not say new doctrine; it says new points of doctrine.

I guess the Church had it wrong for... what, maybe 75 years, in retaining Latin?

Is THAT when the culture of death started in America?

The culture of death began prior to the Novus Ordo. Draw your own conclusions, I've drawn mine.

Glad to see an obedient son of our Holy Mother adhering to the Second Vatican Council's statement that Latin should retain "pride of place" in the liturgy.

This statement was disciplinary in nature (it's not doctrinal), and the discipline has since been changed by the Popes.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of your foul slander of the Rite of Mass so venerable in the Church. I pray God you drop it: in print, in word, in thought.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of your foul slander of three Popes, an ecumenical council, and the standard Mass of the Roman Rite. The Latin language is not God, nor is it somehow God's preferred language. I'm glad the Tridentine Mass is gone, and I hope it never experiences a revival.

[Good Friday]

Hmm... I don't think I meant to say the above, as I don't honestly have any problem with the Tridentine Mass. I'm just tired of people leaving the Church over it. I would edit the above, but alas the edit function seems to work half the time and not work the other half of the time.

Anyway, I apologize for my comments about the Tridentine Mass. I didn't mean them.

[mark4IHM]

Also, I'm not sure that Donna and Mark are insisting on Latin, as much as on forms and correct translations. Donna and Mark, perhaps you could clear this up?

Pedrox,

I try to insist on only what the Church insists. The Church has insisted on Latin in order to protect the form and substance of the Sacrament. Given the recent translation scandals and controveresies regarding the liturgy, it appears in retrospect that once again the Church was right.

Friday seems unaware that even the Second Vatican Council ordered that Latin be retained in the Mass, that the present Holy Father is advocating its use in seminaries, and has even set up a commission to expand the use of Latin in the Church.

[mark4IHM]

I have an admission to make. Good Friday has proved me wrong.

For as soon as I told him what a good will I thought he had, Good Friday became Bad Friday, and he seems unable to turn himself off.

Friday, reading your latest posts is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The cars keep piling into each other, crash, crash, crash, flipping around, landing on each other, and it just keeps going and going. I've seen you do this before, and I know you will recover yourself. I forgive you in advance.

I don't subscribe to all of Michael Davies' views either, but of his orthodoxy there is no question. He has been (still is, I think) the President of the Church approved organization International Una Voce, and enjoys relatively free access to Cardinals Hoyos and Ratzinger. How come they are not as scandalized by him as you are?

I don't take your bile personally Friday, though it would be very easy too. I don't think you're really mad at me, or Donna. Your gripe is with the Church of all Time, and she will not change no matter how much you fume. You are not a Freemason so don't think and talk like one. Hatred of the immemorial Mass is not a sign of election, my friend.

[mark4IHM]

Dear C-Mom,

To be precise, I don't think you ever started talking to me. Your posts on my last two threads show that you talked about me and at me, but not to me. It is no matter however, because I knew that as a good Catholic you were praying for me even while I was irritating you. I have done likewise. As for the stones cast my way, I praise God for them: they are just punishment for my sins, and avail my salvation. So I thank you.

I also thank you very much for responding directly to a thread topic of

mine. I appreciate your efforts.

I read the article you posted on Msgr Gambe with interest. It is certainly true that his book, although learned and erudite, was not any more well received when it was published than when I quoted him to begin this thread. There were two problems. First, he was saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. Second, he was too influential to be dismissed as "schismatic" or "out of Communion". So the progressives and conservatives set to work carving him up.

I would encourage anyone reading this post to consider getting the real

story by reading The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, published by Una Voce

International. It is short, simply written, easy to understand, and very

informative.

Msgr. Gamber's book received the enthusiastic praise of that notorious

schismatic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who wrote:

"Perhaps the fact that Gamber was ostracized was providential for him, for

it forced him to pursue his own way and avoid the path of conformism." J.A.

Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the

litugy as.."the fruit of development." What happened after the Council was

something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development

came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth

and development over centureis, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing

process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the -spot product.

"Gamber, (Ratzinger continues) with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true

witness, opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich

knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true

liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple

forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history

from the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible

reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our

action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite

ourselves intimately with its mystery. The death of this eminent man and

priest should spur us on; his work should give us a new impetus."

My prayer for everyone on this thread is that one day each of you will

understand what Cardinal Ratzinger means; that one day each of you will be

freed to drink deeply from the living waters of the truest expression of

worship of the Almighty God that the infallible Magisterium has, through the

Holy Ghost, condescended to give us - that pearl of faith and grace known as

the Mass of all Time.

[mark4IHM]

A Turning Point for the Church's Liturgy?

This was the question Inside the Vatican asked about the celebration of the

Tridentine Mass by Cardinal Hoyos at the Basilica of St. Mary Major. Inside

the Vatican took this question seriously enough to make the topic the cover

and (eight page) feature article of its June/July issue. I'll quote just a

few excerpts, but I'd encourage everyone to read the entire article.

"The rite of St. Pius V cannot be considered extinct," Castrillon Hoyos said

in his homily, which was the only part of the Mass not in Latin...

"It was a landmark in modern Church history when Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos

proclaimed that the Tridentine Mass is not banned and never has been banned.

It is wrong, he explained, to suggest that the last Ecumenical Council

(Vatican II) placed such a ban. Such ideas involve a misreading of that

Council, he argued...Castrillon Hoyos implied, but stopped short of saying,

that a war on the Tridentine Mass amounts to a war against Vatican II.

"This ceremony at St. Mary Major did away with the idea that the Tridentine

Mass is scarcely legitimate or was radically eliminated from the

Church...The negative position taken up at the Council by Siri, Lefebvre,

Ottaviani and McIntyre, is tacitly recognized as Catholic.

Baron de Mattei said, "A spell has finally been broken, a veil has been torn

aside. Many believe the myth that this rite in force till 1969 was created

by St. Pius V and abolished by Paul VI. But neither of the two is true. St.

Pius V simply restored and purified a rite dating back to Apostles' time.

Likewise, it was not abolished by Paul VI, but continued to co-exist with

the Novus Ordo, the new reformed rite, though marginalized and left to fall

into oblivion. He went on noting that despite the Pope's appeal with his

Motu Propriu Ecclesia Dei, too many bishops persisted in prohibiting the old

rite in their dioceses. Unless a full freedom of celebrating the Mass is

conceded, he said, the risk is for the traditionalist to be confined into

some sort of a "ghetto"...

"Cardinal Arinze revealed to Inside the Vatican that Rome expects to publish

a document this fall mandating the celebration of the Old Latin Mass in

parishes around the world wherever groups of parishioners petition their

bishop to allow it.

"If one considers recent developments in favor of the pre-Vatican II

liturgy, the progressives' concern - that Rome is engaged in a slow but

clear movement toward more traditional forms of liturgy and catechesis -

appears amply justified.

"On February 26 (Pope John Paul II) called for greater "reverence" and

"beauty" in the liturgy, saying that Catholics must pray to God not only

with theologically precise words, but also with beauty and dignity. "It is

necessary to purify worship of deformations, of careless forms of

expression, of ill prepared music and texts, which are not very suited to

the grandeur of the act being celebrated," the Pope said. But the immemorial

Mass is characterized by "beauty," "reverence", and "theologically precise

words" - features of the Tridentine Mass praised by the Pope on previous

occasions.

"Pope John Paul II published Ecclesia de Eucharistia. In it, traditional

devotional practices are restated, so much so that Bishop Bernard Fellay,

superior of the Society of St. Pius X, was enthusiastic...A further proof of

the truly universal character of the Tridentine Mass is shown by the fact

that it is making inroads in places which could not be more poles apart, in

African countries such as Kenya and Nigeria, and in Scandinavia."

Inside the Vatican concluded, "Another ceremony like this, and the

traditional liturgy will soon be reinstated in churches around the world."

My reaction: thus Msgr. Gamber is vindicated, and even appears as a prophet.

The changes toward what Inside the Vatican calls "the immemorial Mass", are

welcome in that they may begin to heal the rupture with Tradition and

consequent division caused by the imposition of the Modern Rite, and its

rapid decline into decadence.

[mark4IHM]

I intended this thread as informational only, a sort of addendum to a previous thread on another topic. I intended not to discuss the Novus Ordo, as these discussions inevitably become heated and give rise to misunderstandings and hard feelings. I won't revisit that tangent here, except to say expressly what I implied in a post to Dust: I believe in the indefectibility of the Church in her promulgation of rites. The rest is polemics.

I am happy to have had the occasion to speak with all of you however, and I will respond to the private messages I have received as soon as I can. Should this thread continue, I will be in absentia. I simply don't have the time for this; my station in life is hollering at me much louder than any of you have. I have conveyed enough information about the Mass of all Time for those of good will to make up their own minds about things.

As a traditionalist I am a friend of the Church. I love her with all my heart, and in my own meager fashion extend that charity to everyone here. Please, let us bear one another in all patience and charity. If I have failed in this please chalk it up to my own imperfections, and not ill will.

Having said that, however, I must add that I fully intend to cleave to Tradition and the Mass, as they are the perennial lifeline that extends back to the Divine Revelation Our Lord entrusted to his first pope and bishops. God willing, I will not deviate an inch from this course.

Well, I've said more than enough.

[cmotherofpirl]

When I want clarification on a topic I check with another message board that is frequented by theologians, priests and deacons, lawyers and knowledgeable laypeople.

I will post the comments here pertaining to this thread.

HERE IS THE FIRST HISTORIC P0INT

WHICH CANNOT BE RECONCILED

WITH ANY CLAIM THAT THE ROMAN

RITE IS THE OLDEST RITE OF THE

CHURCH.

In the persecuted infant Church, certainly UP UNTIL

THE EDICT OF MILAN IN 313 A.D., (which freed the Church

from persecution by the Roman Empire) THE MASS

WAS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL IN ALL PARTS

OF THE WORLD!!! There are only a couple of exceptions,

and the Roman Rite isn't one of them.

All the historic documents prove this.

After the Edict of Milan freed the Church

from persecution, individual Liturgical Rites of

the Catholic Church began developing all over

the world.

For example: The 'individual' character of the Rites

which developed in what we now refer to as Egypt,

Ethiopia, Syria, Jerusalem, Greece, Turkey,

Persia (Iran), and Rome, etc., all developed their

own individual characters - essentially after 313.

But all the essential elements of the Mass remained

the same in all of those liturgies.

I.e., it is an impossible to claim that the Roman Rite

is the oldest Rite of the Church. Why? Because there

was not even what we today call a Roman Rite, till after 313.

And that developed at the same time that all the other

Eastern and Western Rites developed. All the oldest

Catholic Liturgical Rites developed at the same time.

So it is historically ludicrous to claim that any of

them is any older than the others.

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

You will remember that in the first post,

we demonstrated that all the truly ancient Liturgical

Rites of the Catholic Church developed at the same time.

So - it is historically ludicrous to

claim that the Roman Liturgical Rite is the

oldest in the Catholic Church.

"The Reform of the Roman Liturgy":

"...it can be shown that not a single predecessor of

Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the

Roman liturgy"

Let's take a look at what the most prestigious

expert of the 20th century on the history of the

Roman Liturgy has to say about this. His name is

Fr. J.A. Jungmann, SJ.

In the 1930's and 1940's he did the benchmark

modern studies in the history of the development

of the Roman Rite/Liturgy. In Jungmann's Two Volume

set, "The Mass of the Roman Rite, Missarum Sollemnia",

he cited all the available evidence about the

development of the Latin Rite. Here are a couple of

his observations which you should find very

interesting:

"The beginnings of the Latin Mass in Rome are

wrapped in almost total darkness. The oldest

documents to register such a Mass are nearly

all the work of diligent Frankish (French)

scribes of the eighth and ninth centuries,

and even with all the apparatus of literary

criticism and textual analysis, WE CAN

HARDLY CONSTRUCT ANY RECORDS BACK BEYOND

THE SIXTH CENTURY, CERTAINLY NOT BEYOND THE 5TH."

"The Mass of the Roman Rite", Vol. 1, page 49.

The fact of the matter is, that great changes

(which we will be demonstrating) were made to the

Roman Rite prior to that time!

Those changes could not have taken place without

the approval of the Pope at the time!!!

We simply cannot demonstrate WHICH Popes

made/authorized those changes - but they did

make very major changes!!! The changes they

made were much more radical than the changes

which took place in the Eastern Rites of

the Catholic Church.

Now here is the next quote from Fr. Jungmann

on this point:

"We are thus brought face-to-face with a sharp

contrast: the Latin Mass as it has been practiced

ever since (the 6th century), and the Greek (Roman)

Mass to which Hippolytus attests - AND A BROAD

GULF BETWEEN."

What is Fr. Jungmann getting at here?

What is this "BROAD GULF" he is referring to?

Fr. Jungmann is referring to the radical changes

which took place within the Mass of the Roman Rite

between the early 3rd and the 6th centuries!

And, quite obviously, Popes approved those changes!

Therefore, if someone attempts to say (as Fr. Gamber

so attempts:

"...it can be shown that not a single predecessor of

Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the

Roman liturgy" ---

Such a person is essentially playing word games.

Why? Because the Mass of the Roman Rite went through

very MAJOR changes from the early third to the 6th

centuries. And Popes approved those changes.

Does Gamber wish to say something like,

"OK, I am going to define the term 'Roman Liturgy'

as something which begins in the 5th or 6th century"???

That would be fair - but terribly misleading.

In the context of this discussion - it would be

completely misleading.

Why?

It would be misleading because Gamber claims

- in the same breath - that the Roman Rite is

the oldest Eucharistic Rite of the Catholic

Church.

But if you claim the Roman Rite begins in the

5th or 6th century - then you cannot claim that

it is the oldest.

Why would that be impossible?

It would be impossible - Because - (just as examples:)

1. the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, and

2. the Alexandrian Rite in Egypt, and

3. the Coptic Rite in Ethiopia, and

4. the Byzantine Rite in Athens, and

5. the two Syrian Rites in Syria and the Middle East,

those Rites were all essentially in place at least

a century and a half prior to the time that Gamber

is referring to when the Roman Rite was done going

though major changes - that's why!

In the next post, I'm going to show just how

radical the changes - which were approved by Popes

in Rome were.

- between the time of the Liturgical Rite at Rome

in 215 A.D. -- cited by St. Hippolytus of Rome), and

- the later Roman Rite which is not fully established

till the 5th or 6th century - which Gamber also tries

to claim is the oldest Eucharistic Rite of the

Catholic Church.

His claims contradic each other historically -

running directly counter to the historic facts.

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

This is the continuation of the discussion

of whether it is historically accurate to describe

the 'Latin Mass' as, "The Mass of All time", or

to say as Gamber does:,

"There is no question that the Roman liturgy

is the oldest Christian rite."

As we have been discussing, that statement

of Gamber's is an historic impossibility. Now we

are going to see exactly why is is impossible!

Basically, it is impossible for the simple

fact that in the infant Church, the Liturgy of the

Eucharist was celebrated virtually identically

in all places!

So - there was no such thing as an

"oldest Christian rite" which was associated with

a particular city or region could have existed.

How do we know that?

Here is a classic example of what we're

talking about – and it is a fascinating part of

the history of the infant Church:

In the 2nd century, a debate broke out

about the correct manner of calculating the date

of the Resurrection of Our Lord.

Why was that important to those who were

arguing about it? It was important because there

were different opinions on what day to liturgically

celebrate the Resurrection of Our Lord.

We would call that an argument about which

Sunday to celebrate Easter Sunday on. :-)

In the Eastern regions or parts of the

Church, they were celebrating what we call

Easter Sunday on a different date than they

were celebrating it in the Western part of

the Church.

The discussion became very heated

amongst some protagonists. So – in an effort

to reconcile all parties on the issue –

St. Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna (in modern

day Turkey) traveled to Rome to discuss it

with Pope Anicetus. [The date of that trip

is not certain, but most Church historians

place it around the year 155 A.D.]

This was an important meeting –

because St. Polycarp was actually a disciple

of the Apostle John. Tradition records that

St. John died as a very old man. And St.

Polycarp was already in his 80's when he met

with Pope Anicetus. [st. Polycarp was martyred

shortly thereafter at the age of 86.]

So here we have the oldest living

disciple of the Apostles – meeting with

the Successor of St. Peter, the Bishop

of Rome, Pope of the Catholic Church.

Now, here is the most interesting part.

Pope Anicetus was a proponent of the Western

method of dating Easter Sunday. St. Polycarp,

was a proponent of the Eastern method of

calculating the date.

After a protracted discussion of the matter,

neither one could convince the other. But they were

mutually agreed to respect each others views, and

to love one another in the peace of Christ.

They decided to celebrate that 'peace' by

concelebrating the Liturgy of the Eucharist together.

Guess what? St. Polycarp was the principle

celebrant. All of this is recorded by the early

Church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (and others).

The Liturgy had never been committed to

writing at that point in history!!!

So how was it possible for Pope Anicetus

and St. Polycarp to concelebrate the Mass???

All the great students of Liturgical history

have observed the same point about this. The Mass

had to have been virtually identical in Polycarp's

Diocese (Smyrna, Turkey)and in Rome. That's how

they were able to concelebrate the Mass in 155 A.D.

And of course language was no problem,

because the Mass was virtually universally celebrated

in Greek throughout the worldat that point in

Church history.

So – we can see from just this one

example that:

Unless someone is playing word games -- Any claim that;

"There is no question that the Roman liturgy

is the oldest Christian rite."

any such claim is historically bankrupt – because

the oldest Christian Rite of the Liturgy is the

Universal Rite of the infant Church - which was

virtually universally celebrated in Greek.

And THAT RITE WAS FIRST CELEBRATED

IN JERUSALEM BY THE APOSTLES – and then carried

to the rest of the world by the Apostles as

they proceeded to "Go forth and preach the

Gospel of all nations, baptizing them in

the name of the Father, and of the Son, and

of the Holy Spirit."

That Rite was no more Roman than it

was Alexandrian, or Antiochene, etc. It was

the Universal Rite of the Apostles.

[Good Friday]

First, I'm going to start with a prayer, in Latin no less:

Concede mihi, benignissime Iesu, gratiam tuam, ut mecum sit et mecum laboret mecumque in finem usque perseveret. Da mihi hoc semper desiderare et velle, quod tibi magis acceptum est carius placet. Tua voluntas mea sit, et mea voluntas tuam semper sequatur, et optime ei concordet. Sit mihi unum velle et nolle tecum, nec aliud posse velle aut nolle, nisi quod Tu vis et nolis. Amen.

Now:

I try to insist on only what the Church insists. The Church has insisted on Latin in order to protect the form and substance of the Sacrament. Given the recent translation scandals and controveresies regarding the liturgy, it appears in retrospect that once again the Church was right.

Other than from you and Donna, I honestly haven't heard about any translation scandals. The "pro multis" issue does not seem to me a scandal, since it has been adequately explained by an article already posted here. The Church also has not insisted on Latin, more on that in a minute.

Friday seems unaware that even the Second Vatican Council ordered that Latin be retained in the Mass

The language of the Mass is a discipline and not a doctrine, so no ecumenical council can effectively order that a language be set in stone for the Mass until Jesus comes again. I'm aware that the Second Vatican Council retained the use of Latin in the liturgy, but Pope Paul VI decided that was no longer a worldwide requirement, and he had the authority to do so.

that the present Holy Father is advocating its use in seminaries, and has even set up a commission to expand the use of Latin in the Church.

I'm aware of this, as well, and I'm thrilled about it. I certainly think that Latin should be used in seminaries, and that every clergyman should at least have a basic knowledge of Latin because of its firm roots in the Church's history, and because in other parts of the world Latin is used rather than the vernacular language. I'm also fine with Latin being used more in the Church. I'm not fine with a Mass that people don't understand, though, and I'm not going to be fine with it any time soon. I also don't think it's the Holy Father's intention to restore Latin completely, but only in parts. But we'll see what his intention is. Whatever it is, I accept it.

For as soon as I told him what a good will I thought he had, Good Friday became Bad Friday, and he seems unable to turn himself off.

You're right. I sent Donna an apology early this morning, for both of you, but she probably hasn't gotten it yet. I am sorry, I get a bit carried away sometimes.

I don't subscribe to all of Michael Davies' views either, but of his orthodoxy there is no question. He has been (still is, I think) the President of the Church approved organization International Una Voce, and enjoys relatively free access to Cardinals Hoyos and Ratzinger. How come they are not as scandalized by him as you are?

I'm frankly not familiar with Cardinal Hoyos, so I can't speak to that issue one way or another. I do know that Cardinal Ratzinger is an authentic traditionalist, in that there are traditional things about the Mass that he'd like to see restored -- such as the priest facing East with the laity. Although I don't agree with His Eminence on everything and not on the issue of facing East, I respect his views because he is an authentic traditionalist. I can't speak to whether or not he is actually scandalized by Michael Davies, I'm not familiar with his interpersonal relationships. I'm scandalized by Michael Davies because he has made remarks that I feel are not conducive to the Church's unity.

Your gripe is with the Church of all Time, and she will not change no matter how much you fume. You are not a Freemason so don't think and talk like one. Hatred of the immemorial Mass is not a sign of election, my friend.

My gripe is with schism, in all forms. The Church of All Time is the Church currently headed by His Holiness John Paul II; I know no other Catholic Church. I was wrong for my statements about the Tridentine Mass, but my statements against schismatic traditionalism still stand. Please do not presume to know whether or not I am "elected" or not -- you do not lead my life, nor I yours, so let's stick to the issue as I should have done in the first place, okay?

I would encourage anyone reading this post to consider getting the real

story by reading The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, published by Una Voce

International. It is short, simply written, easy to understand, and very

informative.

I would encourage anyone reading this post not to support Una Voce International by buying their books, because they are schismatic. I can prove it with statements from their website.

My prayer for everyone on this thread is that one day each of you will

understand what Cardinal Ratzinger means; that one day each of you will be

freed to drink deeply from the living waters of the truest expression of

worship of the Almighty God that the infallible Magisterium has, through the

Holy Ghost, condescended to give us - that pearl of faith and grace known as

the Mass of all Time.

Is it your contention, then, that Cardinal Ratzinger doesn't accept the Novus Ordo Mass? Funny how he celebrates it, instead of the Tridentine Mass...

"It was a landmark in modern Church history when Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos

proclaimed that the Tridentine Mass is not banned and never has been banned.

It is wrong, he explained, to suggest that the last Ecumenical Council

(Vatican II) placed such a ban. Such ideas involve a misreading of that

Council, he argued...Castrillon Hoyos implied, but stopped short of saying,

that a war on the Tridentine Mass amounts to a war against Vatican II.

I don't think anyone here has said that Vatican II placed a ban on the Tridentine Mass, or that there is any kind of ban on it, or that there has ever been.

"Cardinal Arinze revealed to Inside the Vatican that Rome expects to publish

a document this fall mandating the celebration of the Old Latin Mass in

parishes around the world wherever groups of parishioners petition their

bishop to allow it.

This may surprise you, but I think this is a good thing. Despite my recent comments made in anger, I have never before this opposed the Tridentine Mass being celebrated. I'm fine with it being celebrated, and I think that it should be more available, although I also think that's up to the Bishop until Rome decides it's not up to individual Bishops anymore. What I'm not fine with is the elimination of the Novus Ordo Mass in favor of the Tridentine Mass. There's no reason the two Masses can't co-exist.

My reaction: thus Msgr. Gamber is vindicated, and even appears as a prophet.

The changes toward what Inside the Vatican calls "the immemorial Mass", are

welcome in that they may begin to heal the rupture with Tradition and

consequent division caused by the imposition of the Modern Rite, and its

rapid decline into decadence.

I couldn't draw this conclusion from the Inside the Vatican article. I also have yet to see any evidence from you or Donna that there has been a rupture with Tradition; everything you have stated about this alleged rupture has been easily refuted, including your most convincing argument, the "pro multis" issue. I also contend that division was not caused by the Novus Ordo Mass, but by the inability of stubborn human beings to accept it. The Novus Ordo Mass itself has not declined into decadence, human beings have declined into decadence. As much as I'd like it to be the case, I doubt a change in liturgy will stop liturgical abuse.

I intended this thread as informational only, a sort of addendum to a previous thread on another topic. I intended not to discuss the Novus Ordo,

I'm sorry Mark, but whenever you post something about the superiority of the Tridentine Mass in a Catholic debate forum, you're going to get an argument about the Novus Ordo Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is the standard Mass of the Roman Rite now, it would be wrong of us not to defend it. If Rome abolished the Novus Ordo Mass tomorrow and reinstituted the Tridentine Mass, as much as I would probably not like it, I would accept it. But as it is, the Novus Ordo Mass is the standard Mass of the Roman Rite and I will defend it against its enemies, and frankly you appear to be its enemy.

Edited August 22, 2003 by Good Friday

[cmotherofpirl]

THis si part 4 on the Mass:

In response to a question, we are going to create #4 in our

series in order to answer this question -- which was:

"can you define what you mean by 'accidentals'"

The 'ACCIDENTALS' of ANY Sacramental Liturgy - refer to things

which are NOT 'ESSENTIAL' to the confecting of that Sacrament.

[Example: When a priest or deacon conducts the Sacrament of Baptism,

there is a thorough set of Liturgical prayers and formula required.

But in danger of death, anyone can baptize someone with water, in the

name of the Rather, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The essential elements are pouring water on the candidate, and

the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son

and of the Holy Spirit".

All the other elements of the Liturgical Rite of Baptism are

ACCIDENTAL to the Sacrament. But those prayers come to us from the

ancient practice of the Church - are are required to be used by the

Church in formal Sacramental Baptisms by a Priest or Deacon.

'Essentials' constitute basic elements of a Sacrament, which have

always been in virtually all of the Eucharistic Liturgies of the

Church.

There are Liturgies for all the Sacraments -- whether that

Sacrament is the Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Confession, Holy

Orders, Marriage, or Annointing of the Sick, etc.

Where there are differences from Rite to Rite within the Church -

those differences are in the areas of "ACCIDENTALS". They are not

essential to the Mass.

What are these "essentials" - which appear in virtually every

Liturgy of the Eucharist?

The essential elements of the 'Canon' or 'Eucharistic Prayer' is all

that is required for a valid Mass. But you will NOT have a Licit Mass

if - the Liturgical Prayer authorized by the Magisterium is willfully

disobeyed.

In the West this essential core of the Mass is called "The

Eucharistic Prayer", or, as the 'Canon' of the Mass. In the Eastern

parts of the Church, it is referred to as the 'Anaphora'.

CENTRAL POINT: We must remember that up until the 3rd century,

the 'Thanksgiving' or 'Eucharistic' Prayer was improvised by the

Celebrant at each Mass. There was no written copy of the prayers of

the Mass.

The central required core of the Eucharistic Liturgy was

delivered by the celebrating Bishop/Priest EXTEMPORANEOUSLY.

How did they know what was essential???

Each Bishop/Priest was orally taught this by the Bishop who

ordained him, and he committed those essential elements to memory.

In both Justin Martyr's cryptic description of the Mass in 155

A.D., (cryptic because of the requirements of the 'Disciplina

Arcani' - the 'Discipline of the Secret'), and in St. Hippolytus'

extensive description of the Mass in 215 A.D. -- this point is made

very clearly.

What St. Hippolytus does for the first time in 215, is lay down

an exemplar version of how the Eucharistic Prayer is prayed by the

Bishop/Priest celebrant. [Why he committed this to writing in the

face of the 'Disciplina Arcani' is a mystery yet unsolved.]

Therein we find the 'essential' elements of the Mass.

That doesn't mean that every word in Hippolytus' "Eucharistic

Prayer" is 'essential' to the Mass. What it means is that all

the 'central events' of that prayer are essentials of the Eucharistic

Prayer.

All other elements of the Mass are what are called ACCIDENTALS.

i.e., They are accidental to (not essential to) to a valid Mass.

For instance, while it would violate the current Liturgical law

of the Church, you could have a public Mass without any reading of

the Word. That is why the Scripture readings are referred to as "the

Liturgy of the Word" [NOT "the Liturgy of the Eucharist"].

Another Example: The Mass could be said without most of the

intercessory prayers. They are NOT essential to the Mass. But the

Church requires by Liturgical Law based in ancient practice that they

be said at each and every Mass - in both the Eastern and Western

Rites of the Church - as the Church has done since Her infancy.

The essential elements of the Mass are traditionally taught as

1. The Thanksgiving given to the Father in the name of the Son and of

the Holy Spirit.

2. Christ's 'Words of Institution' - repeated by the celebrating

priest in Persona Christi (in the Person of Christ). [st. thomas

Aqiunas teaches that the essential parts of those words are: "This is

my body" and "This is my blood."

3. The Anamnesis - Christ's words "Do this in remembrance of me"

4. The 'Great Amen'. [There are those who argue that this is not an

essential of the Mass. But the vast bulk of the best Sacramental

Theologians say that it is. Why, because it is found as a central

element in each and every Liturgical Rite of the Eucharist in the

infant Church.]

Additionally, the Epiclesis appears to be an essential if not

a 'quasi-essential'.

The theology of the Epiclesis (the invoking of the Holy Spirit)

appears in the Eucharitic Prayer of Hippolytus. As a matter of fact,

there in an "Epiclesis" to the Holy Spirit in each Sacrament of the

Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states about this

developing understanding and theology of the Eucharist:

1106. "Together with the anamnesis, the EPICLESIS is at the heart of

each sacramental celebration, most especially of the Eucharist:

Those would appear to be the essential elements. Everything else

in the Mass is what is referred to as "Accidentals".

[cmotherofpirl]

part 5

When presenting the 'fixed elements' of the early Masses, I

accidentally left two elements out.

While they would not technically be necessary for a valid Mass -

they are basically a fixed part of every early Mass Liturgy in the

Church, and in every Mass Liturgy today - whether of the Eastern or

Western Rites.

Those two additional fixed elements of the earliest Mass

Liturgies are:

1. The "Holy, Holy, Holy", and,

2. the immediately prefatory prayers to the Eucharistic Prayer.

I know all of you know what the "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of

hosts..." is.

The prephatory prayers I'm referring to we are also all familiar

with - but you might not recognize them from their title.

Here is the way they are found in the Eucharistic Liturgy of St.

Hippolytus - the oldest surviving text of a Eucharistic Liturgy from

the Infant Church:

Bishop/Priest: "The Lord be with you"

Faithful: "And with your spirit"

Bishop/Priest: "Lift up your hearts".

Faithful: "We have lifted them unto the Lord."

Bishop/Priest: "Let us give thanks to the Lord"

Faithful "It is fitting and right"

This series of prayers on thepart of the Bishop or Priest -

andswered by prayers of the faithful, in this initial form - or some

later expansion of it - is found in all the ancient Liturgies of the

Church down to the present day.