Traditional Latin Mass

The traditional Latin Mass is a treasure of the Catholic Church’s magnificent heritage and Tradition. It seems that the “novus Ordo” is literally a new Rite, similar to the Eastern Orthodox. Why should the old , traditional Mass be subject to special “indult” or exceptional permission?
Karl Heidbrink
Barnesville GA

I have yet to hear on intelligent reply as to why an indult is ever needed either. I believe the right to say it should be up to the individual priest. I used to believe the pope should do away with the NO liturgy. However, I have changed my mind entirely on this. Please pray for those holy men in the Fraternal Order of St. Peter and for various other great and holy men worldwide in some other organization founded under some French ordinary whose name I am unable to remember right now.

The traditional Latin Mass is a treasure of the Catholic Church’s magnificent heritage and Tradition. It seems that the “novus Ordo” is literally a new Rite, similar to the Eastern Orthodox -----------Karlheid

What do you mean “similiar to the Eastern Orthodox?” The current missal has been around since 1970. The Eastern Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrystosom has been around for about 1700 years.
You comment was vague, uniformend and unintelligent.

Not to mention the Presanctified Liturgy, the Liturgy of St. Basil, St. James, and so forth…

Please, before you compare Eastern Orthodoxy to the incorrect term for the Mass, do a little research.

[quote=mgy100]Not to mention the Presanctified Liturgy, the Liturgy of St. Basil, St. James, and so forth…

Please, before you compare Eastern Orthodoxy to the incorrect term for the Mass, do a little research.
[/quote]

I don’t believe he was comparing Eastern Orthodoxy to Novus Ordo, he was simply saying their relationship to the TLM is the same.

The problems with the archbishop who founded Pius X breakaway group didn’t start over night; there was a very conservative faction which fought any changes to the Liturgy every step of the way. Reading through the various threads shows that there is a good bit of selective sourcing as to why the Pauline rite was promulgated. Given that there was going to be a shift, and that post Trent, the majority of liturgies existing pre-Trent were surpressed, with only a few liturgies continuing along with the universal Tridentine rite, I woud assume that the Church felt that there was validity in having one rite as the norm and replaced the Tridentine rite with the Pauline rite as the norm of the Church. It was in an attempt to prevent the spreading of the Pius X influence that the Tridentine rite was allowed by indult. And given the comments by a few who speak in favor of the Tridentine rite and completely dis the Pauline rite, it certainly gives one pause to wonder how they are defining orthodoxy.

[quote=karlheid]The traditional Latin Mass is a treasure of the Catholic Church’s magnificent heritage and Tradition. It seems that the “novus Ordo” is literally a new Rite, similar to the Eastern Orthodox. Why should the old , traditional Mass be subject to special “indult” or exceptional permission?
Karl Heidbrink
Barnesville GA
[/quote]

Karl,

Why would Pope Pius V in Quo Primum not allow rites which could not date back beyond 200 years? He has the authority to do that. The Pope has authority over the Liturgy. He does not have the authority to say “This is the only liturgy/missal that can ever be used from here on out.” And, Pius V did not say that. If he meant that, which he didn’t I don’t believe, but if he meant that, then he would have intended to do something that even he, as a Pope, has not the authority to do.

It’s too bad many “NO” masses are illicit. But they are not illicit because they are in the vernacular, Popes before Pius XII allowed the Tridentine Mass to be said in the vernacular. Did that make them illicit? Those Popes gave them permission. Yes, I can tell you who and when, and why, if you want.

And the Tridentine Mass saw certain corrections/changes long before Vatican II and before “Missale Romanum.”

It seems that Pope Paul VI also shares your heartfelt love for the Tridentine Missal. But things change. In many ways, I think a case can be made for the “NO” being more traditional than the Tridentine one, simply because of some old manuscripts were found, giving the magesterium more to go on than they had 400 years prior.

Just some comments from a Protestant who cares

[quote=otm]. Reading through the various threads shows that there is a good bit of selective sourcing as to why the Pauline rite was promulgated. Given that there was going to be a shift, and that post Trent, the majority of liturgies existing pre-Trent were surpressed, with only a few liturgies continuing along with the universal Tridentine rite, I woud assume that the Church felt that there was validity in having one rite as the norm and replaced the Tridentine rite with the Pauline rite as the norm of the Church. .
[/quote]

Lets not confuse the issue. The reason St. Pius V suppressed other missals was not just because he one day decided that he felt like it, but rather because he thought he had to in order to guarantee that a missal was authentically Catholic. After the reformation the protestant errors began spreading all throughout Europe. Some of these errors started to show up in local “usages”. In order to guarantee that a rite of Mass was free from the protestant errors St. Pius V suppressed rites which could not demonstrate authenticity prior to the protestant revolution. By only allowing rites over 200 years old to continue St. Pius V could guarantee that all Catholic rites were free of the protestant errors.

What Paul VI did after Vatican II no other Pope had ever done. He set one missal up against another.

By the way: Pope Benedict XVI completely backs up what I have just said. Quote:

"I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since* nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy.** The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal.

The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries.

Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a “Missal of Pius V”, created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. The new feature that came to the fore after the Council of Trent was of a different nature. The irruption of the Reformation had above all taken the concrete form of liturgical “reforms”. It was not just a matter of there being a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church alongside one another. The split in the Church occurred almost imperceptibly and found its most visible and historically most decisive manifestation in the changes in the liturgy. These changes, in turn, took very different forms at the local level, so that here, too, one frequently could not ascertain the boundary between what was still Catholic and what was no longer Catholic.

Consequences could only be tragic.

** In this confusing situation… and by the existing liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the pope decided that now the Missale Romanum **- the missal of the city of Rome - was to be introduced as reliably Catholic in every place that could not demonstrate its liturgy to be at least two hundred years old. [size=4]Wherever the existing liturgy was that old, it could be preserved[/size] because its Catholic character would then be assured. In this case we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic…

"…the old building was demolished… setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something “made”, not something given in advance…
*
(Milestones, Pope Benedict XVI)

"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 centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process -* with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."***
Pope Benedict XVI
Preface to the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Mgr. Klaus Gamber.

Dear Readers:

I am a traditional Catholic and by this I mean: I attend mass at a Society of Saint Pius X chapel.

It seems, pardon the vulgarity, but it seems very stupid to think that any mass at any time by any pope ever said, no mass shall be given in the vernacular.

The unchangeable parts of the mass of a 1955 missal, contrasted against a 1999 missal show dramatic differences not only in shoddy craftsmanship and writing, and I do mean “shoddy”, but also in substance in the holiest of all substances with respect to theology of the liturgy, of the mass right down to the consecration of wine. Communion never is for all, but for many, and Jesus never came to save all, but many. Jesus died, because of all sinners, and for all sinners–this of course never in itself exonerated anyone.

The point of what Saint Pope Pius V and Saint Pope Pius X committed to have the unchangeable parts of the mass not in vernacular, but in Latin to my understanding is simple: One, Latin is the universal language of The Church it always has been–this is a very important tradition. This universal language of the Church does much to determine what interpretations of scripture and of tradition are authoritative, because the language of Latin is consistent among those who study theology in the Catholic Church.

The mass was canonized by St. Pope Pius V, because not only were Protestants breeding errors, but also masses were given in the vernacular and we know that discrepancies and complications and interpretations are difficult in translating one language to another language.

Latin as a universal language is practical for the same reason English in America is practical to be taught uniformly among its citizens. Remember The Tower of Babel? Confusion exists among differing languages.

The Order of the Mass should remain as it was from The Council of Trent. The vernacular is used; has been used; will always be used during mass for those parts of the mass, which we know are changeable. This is the reason that I think it stupid that anyone would emphasise such an importance on the vernacular as though the vernacular throughout the past two centuries never existed side-by-side as they do in my 1955 missal.

Clearly Saint Pope Pius V never intended one missal to be pitted against another missal, such is the work of American Bishops and the followers who refuse to go against the Herd Instinct and the Bandwagon.

As we, Catholics, lose among our priests the universal language of Latin, we lose our Catholic culture.

It seems lame to spell out the shift of focus in a Nuvos Ordo mass; nonetheless, the heart of Catholicism is The Eucharist–why then do we insist or comply with priests who stand before us with the Eucharist between his face, the altar, and the congregation.

He should face the wall and the Crucifix hanging above the Blessed Virgin Mary’s tabernacle with the Eucharist, my Lord, my God, over his head that I may see my God without distractions!

I am at mass for my Lord not for my brothers and my sisters who often at the pathetic request of some bishop, of some priest, cannot have enough humility in their hearts to genuflect, to bend two knees as they receive their Lord on their tongue.

The mass has unchangeable parts. It is spelled out in red ink in a missal dated 1955. How on God’s green earth with a common language in the vernacular do we manage to originate new meanings of the word “unchangeable”? One would think that such people are now Protestants and should therfore, go to them with open arms. Stop the sacriledge and remove yourself from the Eucharist if you cannot figure out the meaning of the word “unchangeable” as it refers to the Latin elements of the mass, thank you!

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

[quote=Kristopher]Dear Readers:
I am a traditional Catholic and by this I mean: I attend mass at a Society of Saint Pius X chapel.
[/quote]

Protestants of all sorts are, I’m sure, welcome here to seek to know more about God’s church. So you are welcome here! :wink:

Sorry, was a protestant and now I’m not. I recognize protestants.
And I think you are a protestant. :smiley:
I now accept the majesterium.
Evidently you don’t.:tsktsk:
[and my Calvinistic/Reformed Baptist upbringing recognizes the siren call of the all/many debate. If that word were changed would you stop being a protestant and join the Church?]
… and Doesn’t your diocese have Tridentine masses?
The pride and condecension in your post’s rejection of the magesterium concerns me.
Wayne

Anyone who would willfully break with Rome over what language the Mass is being said in has no crediblility as far as I’m concerned.

There may be some things wrong with the way Mass is celebrated in some places, but lets work to improve things. Be positive, encourage your priest, tell him what you like about the liturgy. Talk to whoever is the main liturgist, but in a positive encouraging way. Look out for “best practice” and commend them to your priest/lituguists

Priests get so many brickbats they need our support.

Don’t just separate yourselves off and appear like a bunch of grumbling misfits who want to return to a golden age that never was.

Songs have moved on from “Kumbaya” and “Rock around the Tabernacle” (I made that up). There are some lovely modern songs, and modern liturgical settings. So find them and bring them to the attention of your choir/music group.

Be part of your parish; find ways to (lovingly) educate people. These are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Read the parable of the Treasure in the Field (Mtt13:44). The treasure is your relationship with God. But what is the field, and why did the man have to buy the field to own the treasure and not just steal it? Because the field represents the community where the treasure is to be found, your community. You have to own it, live in it. God has put his treasure for you in your community. Don’t run off elsewhere.

Right! Got that off my chest!

Kristopher, you wrote:

It seems, pardon the vulgarity, but it seems very stupid to think that any mass at any time by any pope ever said, no mass shall be given in the vernacular.

I am sorry, but the above is a rather confusing sentence.

Do you mean that no pope could ever authorize a vernacular translation of an authorized Liturgy of the Mass? Or that it is stupid to believe that no pope could never do the above?

or,

Do you mean something else? If so, what?

As to:

Latin is the universal language of The Church it always has been–

Inasmuch as the universal language at the time of the first Mass was the vernacular Hebrew; and

For centuries afterwards, the vernacular Greek, and

for many centuries thereafter, the vernacular Latin -

and, for many of the approved Rites in union with Rome, in the vernacular for many - e.g., the Maronites, the Syriacs, etc.?

and, that Pope Pius XII gave permission for the vernacular in the Chinese Rites,

do you not think that you are exaggerating, just a tad?

Comparing the SSPX and portestants is intellectually dishonest. They ae not the same.

The SSPX is in shizm, and currently trying to work out a deal with the Holy See. Every correspondance coming from the Vatican - indicates to me, that the Holy See looks at this as an internal situation.

Kristopher…What do you think of the 1962 Missal? I have been told that this is the Missal used by a an SSPX church here in Cincinnati.

[quote=Affirmed]Anyone who would willfully break with Rome over what language the Mass is being said in has no crediblility as far as I’m concerned.
[/quote]

It’s not just the Mass!
The Mass is the banner but the main problem the SSPX has the degradation of the Catholic Faith so that a false “ecumenical” unity maybe obtained with sectarians,heretics, schismatics, and even pagans in some cases!

and, that Pope Pius XII gave permission for the vernacular in the Chinese Rites,

actually, well before that, vernacular was used in the slavic countries as well in the latin rite. i think also saints cyril and methodius were given permission to use vernacular but i’m not sure which rite they employed -probably used the byzantine rite.

[quote=Catholic Heart]Kristopher…What do you think of the 1962 Missal? I have been told that this is the Missal used by a an SSPX church here in Cincinnati.
[/quote]

Dear Catholic Heart:

Many 1962 missals are in print. You will do as well or better with any missal prior to 1963. Missals ante-1962 are inherently corrupt by-and-large. Modernism, the enemy of St. Pope Pius X, crept into missals as early as the 1930’s from what I understand.

How sincere are you about attending an SSPX mass?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

[quote=Adonis33]Comparing the SSPX and portestants is intellectually dishonest. They ae not the same.

The SSPX is in shizm,…the Holy See looks at this as an internal situation.
[/quote]

Dear Adonis33:

There is no evidence SSPX is in schism, none! There never has been. There can never be any honest evidence to support the claim SSPX is in schism. It simply is a lie propagated by people such people as Fr. Vincent Serpa O.P., Michelle Arnold, and others to include a theologian in the Sacramento Diocese who is an advisor to the bishop of the diocese there, to include another liar at EWTN, a theologian to whom I spoke. I spoke with them. They all lied. Bald faced lies.

How can a society be in schism, when the schism is still only an allegation? No guilt has been placed on the shoulders of the society. Furthermore, there is no proof Archbishop Lefebvre at the time of his death was in a state of excommunication, if he ever incurred excommunication in the 1980’s, which is so unlikely according to The Code of Canon Law 1323, 5/.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

Adonis33 wrote:

Comparing the SSPX and portestants is intellectually dishonest. They ae not the same.

The SSPX is in shizm, and currently trying to work out a deal with the Holy See. Every correspondance coming from the Vatican - indicates to me, that the Holy See looks at this as an internal situation.

Perhaps a better description of the SSPX may be “protholics” - protesting Catholics? Well, actually, it is sufficient to call them schismatics!

It is well to note, however, that while Adonis33 agrees to the SSPX being in schism - Kristopher denies that fact!

As to “internal situation” type arguments - it falls under the “job description” of a pope to endeavour to reconcile ALL who are outside of full communion with the Church. Let us pray to God that he succeed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.