[Good Friday]

Quote

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]

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

This post has been edited by Donna: 21 August 2003 - 09:42 PM

[Good Friday]

Quote

"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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

Quote

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:

[quote]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.[/quote]
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.

[quote]Friday seems unaware that even the Second Vatican Council ordered that Latin be retained in the Mass[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.[/quote]
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.

[quote]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?[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.[/quote]
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?

[quote]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.[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.[/quote]
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...

[quote]"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.[/quote]
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.

[quote]"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.[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.[/quote]
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.

[quote]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,[/quote]
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.

This post has been edited by Good Friday: 22 August 2003 - 06:00 PM

[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.

[mark4IHM]

No sooner had I said that I had no more time to spend on this thread than I
got a private e-mail from a poster, asking me to look at the latest
postings.

By now many of you are probably aware that I don't change my mind easily.
But in deference to the author of the private e-mail (no, it wasn't Donna),
and against my better judgment, I gave the new postings a once-over.

Regarding the information stating the Roman Rite did not extend back to the
Apostles, I found portions articulate and plausible; other parts
were unconvincing. I have no problem agreeing with those portions
that conform to the following definition of the Roman Rite in the Catholic
Encyclopedia:

"The Roman Rite evolved out of the (presumed) universal, but quite fluid,
rite of the first three centuries during the (liturgically) almost unknown
time from the fourth to the sixth... How and exactly when
the specifically Roman qualities were formed during that time will, no
doubt, always be a matter of conjecture."

We may never know in our earthly lifetimes the exact form of the first
Christian Masses. Obviously popes changed portions of the Mass like the
Propers and the Saints calendar, and most likely some of the priest's
"private prayers" (ie, the offertory and the prayers at the foot of the
altar) developed over time and were subject to variation by locality and custom.

What appears to have remained unchanged was the Order of the Mass, what we
call the Canon. According to Msgr. Gamber, this is what popes always guarded
zealously, many of them asserting that this "essence" of the Mass originated
with the Apostle Peter.

And if you think about what Tradition is, this makes sense. Tradition is the
vehicle by which the Church has safeguarded and transmitted Divine
Revelation, as it was handed orally from Our Lord to the first Apostles.
This is the origin and mechanism of the Church's infallible Magisterium.

If we believe that there has been no error of transmission with dogmatic
truths, the same applies, I believe, with respect to the Canon of the Roman
Rite, which embodies dogmatic truth. Since the Mass would have been treated
with at least as much care as revealed dogmas, it is reasonable to conclude
that what became known as the Roman Rite was in its essence identical to the
first Masses.

The term "The Mass of All Time" implies an extension not merely back in
time, but forwards as well, to our present lives, and into the future. That
is the best vocabulary we have to describe "the eternal Sacrifice." Inside
the Vatican called it "the immemorial Mass." Immemorial is defined as "Reaching beyond the limits of memory, tradition, or recorded history." (American Heritage Dictionary)

The Mass was prefigured by Melchisedek's offering of bread and wine
in the Old Testament. If we believe God gave his Church the ability to
faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith, we may also reasonably believe
that the essence of the Eternal Sacrifice remained unbroken from Melchisedek
to The Last Supper to the Roman Rite.

Tradition is all of one piece, and to disregard or contradict part of it
leads to a disregard and contradiction of the whole - which is what we are
living through today. For what appears seamless to us in retrospect was in
fact the working out of salvation of every saint and pope who labored over
the Mass, under the slow, steady influence of the Holy Ghost. Thus the Faith
and the Mass developed over the ages without losing their essential
character and meaning.


That's all, folks. I'm back to the real world.

[Good Friday]

Finally Mark, we agree on something. I agree with you that the essence of the Mass has not changed, but I'd imagine we disagree again in that I believe the Novus Ordo Mass still contains the essence of the Mass, as you call it. I believe all that's changed in the Novus Ordo Mass are disciplines, which have changed in Masses before.