On the Name Traditional Mass

[CatholicCrusader]

This came from the closed SSPX thread, but IT IS NOT A CONTINUATION thereof. I would like to have a discussion based upon why the Traditional Mass is called such instead of the non-schismatic state of the SSPX (which what the debate was).

"I know this is off topic, but I've been wondering. Why is it the 'Traditional Mass,' for the Traditions of the Mass began well before Trent, and I'm sure that wasn't the end or beginning of our Tradition. Also, wouldn't there be other Masses, the older ones, that are actually more traditional?"

The Mass was codified by Pope St. Pius V after Trent (1570). That was not the beginning of the Mass. It seems since the post Concilliar ideas are what completely formed a new Mass of Vatican II, most think that the same was true in 1570. The Pope just sat down with some Cardinals and wrote a new Mass. That is not how it happened at all. The Traditional Mass was the natural development over the centuries of the Mass. For example, after the persecutions and the legalization of the Church, and especially once Catholicism became the religion of the Roman Empire some 50 years later, the Liturgy and Churches themselves were able to grow to what they would have been outside of a persecution.

It only makes sense that the Mass should be as ornate and "ritualized" as possible, in order to appeal to the senses the greatness of God. This is precisely what happened in the fourth century once the Church was legal in the State. Could you imagine bells, incense, processions, songs, etc. at the Mass when the Roman Catholics (that is the Catholics in Rome) had to keep their Masses a secret? That would be simply impossible. There would be no Tabernacles, of course, as there were no churches. All of the Blessed Sacrament would be received since there would be no church in which to have a Tabernacle. However, in the fourth century, the first churches were built. There were beautiful statues made. The most ornate altars and vestments possible were had. Incense, processions, bells, and song were introduced for the first time (as it was the first possible time) to the Mass.

By the end of the sixth century the Mass was nearly identical to what the Church had until the new Mass. At the end of the sixth century, Gregorian chant was developed, which pretty much capped off any real change to the Liturgy until c. 1960. That is why the Traditional Mass is called such. It is the logical, natural, unchanged Tradition of the Church from the earliest possible development, which was finalized as unchangeable and to last in perpetuity by Pope St. Pius V.

The new Mass, however, is not considered a part of the Traditional Mass. It was written by a committee, which 6 protestants oversaw and which was headed by Archbishop Bugnini, a discovered freemason who was exiled by the Church after the new Mass was promulgated by the committee he headed. The new Mass devled into the actual essence of the Mass, which was unthinkable for such a long time. For example, when asked to add St. Joseph's name to the Canon, so many Popes of the Middle Ages and after said: "I am merely the Pope; what power do I have over the Holy Mass?" They recognized, even the Popes, their unworthiness to change the Mass. The addition of St. Joseph's name to the Canon seems like such a small matter compared to the drastic and sweeping changes that insued after Vatican II.

So, to answer your question, qfnol31, that is why the Traditional Mass is called such: the Mass was written by the Holy Ghost in the Tradition of the Church, the natural development of such. The new Mass was written by a committee consisting of protestants and freemasons.

This is not written to disparage any Mass, whether Traditional or new. It is merely written to exaplain the names of the two.

[qfnol31]

Before I go further, have you seen an outline of the Masses side-by-side? They look almost exactly the same.

Also, go read Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi from the other day.

Edited November 8, 2004 by qfnol31

[Guest JeffCR07]

CforC, just a single thought on the above post, for I certainly dont want to take away from the discussion that you and qfnol are having.

It seems to me that it must be the case that one of two options is true. Either the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] is valid (that is, has no theological errors and is the perfect sacrifice of Christ) or it is not. If it is not, then we fall into the discussion of schismatics, but I know that this is not what you are asserting. This leaves us with the fact that the mass is valid. Now it seems to me that if we take your statements about the committee as being true, then we cannot help but admit that the Holy Ghost was certainly at work in the promulgation of the [i]Ordo Missae[/i]. There seems to me to be no explanation on how a supposedly heavily-Protestant-influenced, excommunicato-headed committee could create a valid, legitimate mass other than by noting that the Holy Spirit would not allow for such a thing to happen. As such, it seems to me that the Holy Ghost must have been active in [i]both[/i] the Tridentine Mass [i]and[/i] the [i]Novus Ordo[/i].

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 8 2004, 05:30 PM'] The new Mass was written by a committee consisting of protestants and freemasons.

This is not written to disparage any Mass, whether Traditional or new. It is merely written to exaplain the names of the two. [/quote]
This, of course, does disparge the Mass. It is also a lie.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 8 2004, 05:41 PM'] CforC, just a single thought on the above post, for I certainly dont want to take away from the discussion that you and qfnol are having.

It seems to me that it must be the case that one of two options is true. Either the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] is valid (that is, has no theological errors and is the perfect sacrifice of Christ) or it is not. If it is not, then we fall into the discussion of schismatics, but I know that this is not what you are asserting. This leaves us with the fact that the mass is valid. Now it seems to me that if we take your statements about the committee as being true, then we cannot help but admit that the Holy Ghost was certainly at work in the promulgation of the [i]Ordo Missae[/i]. There seems to me to be no explanation on how a supposedly heavily-Protestant-influenced, excommunicato-headed committee could create a valid, legitimate mass other than by noting that the Holy Spirit would not allow for such a thing to happen. As such, it seems to me that the Holy Ghost must have been active in [i]both[/i] the Tridentine Mass [i]and[/i] the [i]Novus Ordo[/i].

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
I don't think that is necessisarily the case. Many of the innovations that the Consilium (the committee) came up with were rejected. I cannot remember all of them right now, but some seemed at least boarder-line heretical. The Mass was reviewed, of course, by Paul VI and Bishops. They made sufficient changes. Basically what I'm saying is the New Mass was taking the Traditional Mass, making changes as they would like, some of which were at best boarder-line heretical (which Paul VI and others removed), and then it was published. I don't see how that means the Holy Ghost wrote it. Many of the members of the Consilium were heretics, whether publically or privately, so they certainly were capable of error. Any of the errors that came up that needed to be changed were done so by theologians who knew better (Paul VI et. al). I still don't know how changing the Words of Consecration was kept, but I suppose that doesn't invalidate the Mass. In any event, it is not necessary that the Holy Ghost write the Mass for it to be valid, and it is not necessary that it be without theological error to be valid.

For example, in the original Mass (which was not changed until the 80s, over 10 years later), a Preface to "Eucharistic Prayer VI" (which became known as the Arian Preface), when directing prayer to God the Father stated: "You ALONE are God." I don't know how it took 10 years to fix such an error, but it was fixed in the 80s. This just goes to show that there can be errors in the Mass, and it can still be valid.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2004, 05:03 PM'] Before I go further, have you seen an outline of the Masses side-by-side?  They look almost exactly the same.

Also, go read Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi from the other day. [/quote]
That is not true--the Masses are quite different. Any mention of Sacrifice is removed from the Mass, the Offertory was completely removed and a Jewish Table Prayer was put in its place (removing the Sacrificial Nature). The prayers at the Foot of the Altar were removed, again taking out Sacrifice, etc., etc.

Moreover, the prayers themselves (the propers) have been completely renovated, even when they were over 15 centuries old.

Edited November 8, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[dUSt]

Closed. Stop it.