TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[Luigi]

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

@Luigi I believe we basically agree, to enough of a degree.  I was replying more to an absolute, "none of the externals express or guarantee holiness."

I actually do know enough not use absolutes like 'none' and 'always' in writing. I let one slip in that post. I'm going to blame it on being tired. Yeah, that's it!

[Nihil Obstat]

On 9/9/2021 at 9:43 AM, fides' Jack said:

 

 

He joined the forum at some point?

Agreed that all I have said on the issue thus far is speculation, but it is speculation based on multiple perspectives (including magisterial) on current events.

I'm a fan of Desmond Birch.  I admit I haven't completely read his work on the end times, and I'm sure he's done a lot of work outside of just T, T, & T.

It would be especially interesting to hear his take on current events.  This inspired me to look him up and he has a rather strong take on the Pachamama scandal - still very much in line with my own.

 

 

Desmond is active on Facebook, I correspond with him semi-regularly.

Yes, he was a member here for a short time, primarily in order to correct a former member (Kafka, I think) who was a bit obsessed with Ron Conte's end times eccentricities. He (Desmond) found the overall lack of decorum and level of discourse rather appalling, and I do not blame him.

[KnightofChrist]

 

On 9/10/2021 at 5:33 PM, Luigi said:

We DO need Mass. We need to be respectful of the Mass at the Mass and open ourselves to God's Word and sacrament. 

I've attended Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. It was hard for me to maintain a respectful and open-to-God attitude because of all the Catholic tourists walking around. I've attended High Mass at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on a Sunday morning. It was hard for me to maintain a respectful and open-to-God attitude because of the hundreds of non-Catholic tourists walking up and down the aisles taking  flash photographs of "Catholics at Prayer."

I've also attended Mass on the side of a state highway in Kentucky, under a picnic pavilion, with semis rolling by kicking up dust and ruckus - but the people had come from all over the county to the nearest/only Mass that was available to them; they were all there because they wanted to be there, to hear the Word and receive the sacrament. I've attended Mass sitting on the bank of river on a Saturday evening after a day of canoeing - it was pious, and peaceful, and beautiful, and moving. (A lady camped just downstream - I seriously doubt she was Catholic - sang O Holy Night during communion; it wasn't terribly appropriate, but it was beautiful and she was contributing what she could to the sanctity of the event.) I've attended Mass in my grandmother's living room with all thirteen of her children, their spouses (except for the three religious), and most of my 39 cousins, on the anniversary of my grandfather's death. Everyone was respectful, open to the Word of God and the Eucharist - there were no mosaics, no stained glass, no organ, no statues (other that what Grandma always had on her mantelpiece - and a picture of my grandfather who died when he was 51 and left her with all those children), no incense, no bells, no Latin. It was infinitely "holier" than what I experienced at St. Peter's or at Notre Dame. 

Yes, the priest should wear vestments; yes, there should be candles; yes, there should be music; yes, people should dress respectfully; yes.. and yes... and yes... BUT the single most important factor contributing to the holiness of a Mass (other than the ritual itself) is the attitude of those in attendance. 

I've wanted to follow up in greater detail but hadn't found time or a source that better explains my position.

I agree, the single most important factor contributing to the holiness of the Mass depends upon the intentions of the priest and the people. A lack of proper solemnity by the priest or the people will not please God as much as a priest and a people who hold greater solemnity.

If the faithful in the park had filled the pews of Saint Peter's or Notre Dame, rather than gawking tourists, those holy sacrifices would have had greater efficacy than the same rituals with the tourists. But as Father Nicholas Gihr below explains if the same faithful of the park attended a High Mass it would have greater efficacy than if the same faithful attended a Low Mass. 

This may still not sound very fair, I guess. But I'm not sure our understanding of fair is the same as God's. Even in heaven some will be given greater graces than others.  Which isn't a slight against anyone. We are all to please God, yet some solemn things please God more than others, some holy people please God more than others. And that's ok. 

 

"But since the holiness of the Church consists in the sanctity of her members, it is not always and invariably the same, but greater at one period than another; therefore, the Sacrifice of the Church is also at one time in a greater, at another in a lesser degree pleasing to God and beneficial to man.” 

...

"High Mass solemnly celebrated has greater value and efficacy than merely a low Mass…At a Solemn High Mass the external display is richer and more brilliant than at a low Mass; for at a solemn celebration the Church, in order to elevate the dignity of the Sacrifice, manifests greater pomp, and God is more glorified thereby…This grander and more solemn celebration of the Sacrifice is more acceptable to God and, therefore, more calculated to prevail upon Him to grant us, in His mercy, the favors we implore; – that is, to impart greater efficacy to the petitions and supplications of the Church.” - Father Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, ch. 3, art. 2, sect. 17, p. 144-145 Link:http://www.archive.org/details/holysacrificeofm00gihriala

[Peace]

10 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

 

I've wanted to follow up in greater detail but hadn't found time or a source that better explains my position.

I agree, the single most important factor contributing to the holiness of the Mass depends upon the intentions of the priest and the people. A lack of proper solemnity by the priest or the people will not please God as much as a priest and a people who hold greater solemnity.

If the faithful in the park had filled the pews of Saint Peter's or Notre Dame, rather than gawking tourists, those holy sacrifices would have had greater efficacy than the same rituals with the tourists. But as Father Nicholas Gihr below explains if the same faithful of the park attended a High Mass it would have greater efficacy than if the same faithful attended a Low Mass. 

This may still not sound very fair, I guess. But I'm not sure our understanding of fair is the same as God's. Even in heaven some will be given greater graces than others.  Which isn't a slight against anyone. We are all to please God, yet some solemn things please God more than others, some holy people please God more than others. And that's ok. 

 

"But since the holiness of the Church consists in the sanctity of her members, it is not always and invariably the same, but greater at one period than another; therefore, the Sacrifice of the Church is also at one time in a greater, at another in a lesser degree pleasing to God and beneficial to man.” 

...

"High Mass solemnly celebrated has greater value and efficacy than merely a low Mass…At a Solemn High Mass the external display is richer and more brilliant than at a low Mass; for at a solemn celebration the Church, in order to elevate the dignity of the Sacrifice, manifests greater pomp, and God is more glorified thereby…This grander and more solemn celebration of the Sacrifice is more acceptable to God and, therefore, more calculated to prevail upon Him to grant us, in His mercy, the favors we implore; – that is, to impart greater efficacy to the petitions and supplications of the Church.” - Father Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, ch. 3, art. 2, sect. 17, p. 144-145 Link:http://www.archive.org/details/holysacrificeofm00gihriala

Well then you should be attending the NO, because Vatican 2 clearly teaches that reforms to the TLM were needed such that "the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy".

Or are you taking the ridiculous position that holy Mother Church reformed the liturgy with the intention that it would be less effective and such that less graces would be derived from it?

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Quote

 

21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Peace

[Peace]

15 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

"High Mass solemnly celebrated has greater value and efficacy than merely a low Mass…At a Solemn High Mass the external display is richer and more brilliant than at a low Mass; for at a solemn celebration the Church, in order to elevate the dignity of the Sacrifice, manifests greater pomp, and God is more glorified thereby…This grander and more solemn celebration of the Sacrifice is more acceptable to God and, therefore, more calculated to prevail upon Him to grant us, in His mercy, the favors we implore; – that is, to impart greater efficacy to the petitions and supplications of the Church.” - Father Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, ch. 3, art. 2, sect. 17, p. 144-145 Link:http://www.archive.org/details/holysacrificeofm00gihriala

Yeah I find this whole line of logic highly suspect, which is why we need to go back 120 years to find the idea in a singular teaching by a lesser-known priest.

The Church teaches clearly teaches that the value of the Mass is infinite. The principal thing that pleases our Father at Mass, and which glorifies him, is the sacrifice that our Lord makes of himself, which is infinite in value as the Church teaches.

His line of reasoning comes down to Our Lord's Sacrifice << Our Lord's Sacrifice + Incense (or whatever other "pomp" applies).

It seems fairly ridiculous to compare things like the amount of incense used, the pace of the music, or whatever other externals that distinguish the various forms of the Mass, to the infinite sacrifice that our Lord makes in offering himself to the Father during Mass.

It's kind of like getting to Heaven and exulting about a trinket that you picked up along the way.

So the idea that there is a difference in the value of a High Mass versus a Low Mass, or whatever, is highly suspect, although I'll grant that the graces that particular individuals receive from Mass (the "effect of the Mass" if you will) may vary according to the dispositions of the particular priests and the laypersons that celebrate the Mass.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Peace