Would you consider it a TLM abuse?

Are you saying that the Traditional Mass was not instituted by Christ at the Last Super, that is all man’s doing? Your statement (those who prefer the Mass in the vernacular,…is the very reason Mass in Latin started to begin with). I’m totally confused here? Now what Mass are you talking about? The Traditional Mass or the NO said in Latin?

While elements of the Tridentine liturgy were in place by the 600’s or so, and continued to develop, the TLM unquestionably does not go back to the time of Christ, and in the complete form in which we recognize it only goes back to Trent–thus its name. Some of the prayers of the liturgy go back to the beginning, but certainly not in the form in which “mass” later came to be celebrated.

As to the Latin, the reason the liturgical language became Latin was because by the late 300’s there were very few left in the Roman church who still spoke the Greek that had been the language of the empire. The liturgical language was changed to Latin over the next 100 years or so, which was the vernacular of that time, simply so people would be able to understand what was being said. That is what is so ironic about the stance of people being opposed now to the Mass being in the vernacular.

Peace,

Whenever I read someone complaining of latin or in your statement having to translate back and forth…it reminds me of the statement John Kerry made to a group of college students regarding those that joined the military.

I’m not complaining about Latin in any way. I served in latin masses and know the responses. Nor do I begrudge anyone the right to use the Latin if they prefer it.

The Church has expressed a preference for NOT using a missal in the vernacular Mass, preferring that we use our hearing sense instead since most of us tend to take things in better and pay better attention to the spoken word. Why then would it be considered an advantage to go to not only reading but having to translate or go back and forth? Again, I don’t begrudge anyone’s right to do so if they wish. I only point out that there is no inherent value in doing so and it would seem not in line with the Church’s preference.

Where I do have a problem is the arrogance of thinking that any one of us has the answer to fit all other people, or that God isn’t big enough to communicate with us in multiple languages.

And again I would ask why it bothers people so much that someone else says their prayers in a different language? Are we so insecure that someone not doing something “my way” is a threat to us? And why is that only people using the verncular or the NO liturgy in the Roman rite? Why not be consistent and then say that the Eastern liturgies must be unacceptable and inferior since they are different?

What possible relation John Kerry has with all of this I haven’t a clue. But maybe you can tell me why it bothers you if I prefer the NO Mass and the vernacular. And if you think it is ok for you to do so, why it would NOT be ok for me to assume an equally strident and unbending stance of thinking the TLM unacceptable (which I absolutely do not). Why was it ok to switch to Latin to accomodate people’s ability to understand at the time, but not ok to switch to the verncular of today for the same reason?

Finally, do you question whether those of us who prefer the NO and the vernacular are as devoted as you? I’m especially interested in the answer to that one. I don’t claim to be particularly holy, but it sure isn’t for lack of trying.

Peace,


Council of Trent XII

On the reason of the Institution of this most holy Sacrament.

Wherefore, our Saviour, when about to depart out of this world to the Father, instituted this Sacrament, in which He poured forth as it were the riches of His divine love towards man, making a remembrance of his wonderful works; and He commanded us, in the participation thereof, to venerate His memory, and to show forth his death until He come to judge the world. **And He would also that this sacrement should be received{/B} as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with His life who said, He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me; and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults, and be preserved from mortal sins

whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author Himself of sanctity. For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. For not therefore is it the less to be adored on this account, that it was instituted by Christ, the Lord, in order to be received:**

Catholics lived for 1600 years without that problem. Otherwise they would have jumped on any vernacular before.

As an aside, Latin had been taught at public schools, even public universities. Seems as if the Catholic Church was the leader in at least preserving that language for well over 1600 years.

Now the Church can’t even lead its own Catholics.

But glad it made people who can’t be bothered with learning or appreciating their own heritage more “experiencing” with their calls, whatever that is. :frowning:

I understood that the Mass in Latin was introduced in Africa around the 4th century or so. Then why did Catholicism flourish wherever it was said, even in places where it wasn’t in their vernacular? Maybe it indeed was (and is) a much more unifying language than you give it credit to be? Maybe people of different nationalities and speaking different tongues could go to Church together to experience the same Catholic Faith?

English is ok, I write and talk it, but would a hispanic or German be that comfortable in going to that Mass with me? Probably not, and I’d just tell him/her to petition for his own Mass if he didn’t like it. Some Universality.

I guess you didn’t hear Kerry’s statement or the group of military member’s response. I just don’t buy the claim I’m too stupid to understand Latin. But it really isn’t the language it is the rite itself, that traditionalists argue IMO. Who says you have to use a missale at the Tridentine Mass. One doesn’t have to even understand the language all you need to understand is what is taking place on the Altar. I’m sorry if I came across as to you as arrogant. I’m certainly not threatened by anyone attending the NO Mass doesn’t bother me, when did I say it did?. Using Padre Pio’s Last Mass to hit a nerve with Traditionalists is not arrogant or insecure? I believe many Catholics that attend the NO Mass love Jesus and are devote, they are just asleep.

Speaking of Kerry, I don’t think his stand on abortion is the only reason he shouldn’t be given Communion. It’s his attachment to that stupid Masonic Skull and Bones that his excommunicated him. Just why do these devil-worshippers insist on giving real Christians a hard time?

If you get a chance read…Pope Leo XIII

Humanum Genus Freemansonry
Inimica Vis Freemansonry
Custodi di Quella Fede Freemansory

Assuredly ncjohn is not saying that Christ did not institute the Sacrament. What he is saying is that Christ didn’t start saying *Suscipe Sancte Pater *or Te igitur, or any of the prayers of the TLM, neither did He tell His apostles to.

Then why did Catholicism flourish wherever it was said, even in places where it wasn’t in their vernacular? Maybe it indeed was (and is) a much more unifying language than you give it credit to be? Maybe people of different nationalities and speaking different tongues could go to Church together to experience the same Catholic Faith?

Small question…how would everyone have understood what was being said in say, the 17th century? Are you saying they ALL spoke Latin?

And when the Greeks and the Latins (the Franks) were competing for converts in the 8th century it was the Greeks who were winning out because they used the vernacular.

And actually Catholics were continuously jumping for the vernacular. In the USA itself, Bp. Carrol was a great advocate of the vernacular and had much of the rituals in it as was possible before this was reversed later by the Third Council of Baltimore and the SCR.

Yes, I saw both. I just can’t make any connection to the topic at hand.

I’m sorry if I came across as to you as arrogant.

I believe many Catholics that attend the NO Mass love Jesus and are devote, they are just asleep.

Alrighty then…

Nope, no arrogance there at all. Anyone with a different opinion is just “challenged” in some way. :rolleyes: When you made this statement

[quote=Uxor] I think to understand the traditionalist side, one needs to study church history, read the Pope’s encylicals, read vatican papers, find out who sat on the council and why the changes were implemented and read scripture. I would love to talk about these subjects…
[/quote]

I guess I mistakenly thought you had done those things. Since I had done so I thought maybe there was an actual discussion to be had there. But since I am not up to par, and just “asleep”, I’ll bow out rather than saying anything that might further “hit a nerve”.

It’s just a shame that so many who want to lay claim to being the defenders of the Church and her traditions find themselves trapped in being selective about which traditions and seem to come to near idolatry when it comes to the one(s) they have chosen.

Peace,

Yes, I saw both. I just can’t make any connection to the topic at hand.

I’m sorry if I came across as to you as arrogant.

I believe many Catholics that attend the NO Mass love Jesus and are devote, they are just asleep.

Alrighty then…

Nope, no arrogance there at all. Anyone with a different opinion is just “challenged” in some way. :rolleyes: When you made this statement

[quote=Uxor] I think to understand the traditionalist side, one needs to study church history, read the Pope’s encylicals, read vatican papers, find out who sat on the council and why the changes were implemented and read scripture. I would love to talk about these subjects…
[/quote]

I guess I mistakenly thought you had done those things. Since I had done so I thought maybe there was an actual discussion to be had there. But since I am not up to par, and just “asleep”, I’ll bow out rather than saying anything that might further “hit a nerve”.

It’s just a shame that so many who want to lay claim to being the defenders of the Church and her traditions find themselves trapped in being selective about which traditions and seem to come to near idolatry when it comes to the one(s) they have chosen.

Peace,

I would like to make one thing clear here…the Traditional Mass is a Sacrament…Sacrament means instituted by Christ. I don’t understand this separation here, which is quite scary. Even Pope John Paul II in his Redemptro Hominis says that the Eucharist is a sacrament three times overs. The Eucharist is sacrament as presence, it is a sacrament as sacrifice, and it is a sacrament as communion. He is saying the Mass is a sacrament.

Now the Suscipe Sancte Pater…

Receive, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for mine own countless sins, offenses and negligences, and for all her presnet, as also for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may avail both for my own and their salvationunto everlasting life. Amen.

It meantions unworthy, sin why would Christ say that?

The Council of Trent
The Twenty-Second Session

CHAPTER IV
On the Canon of the Mass.
And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently [Page 156] offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, **the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs. **

This is something you must believe for the Church in its magisterial teaching cannot lie to us.

I think the confusion might come from the fact that the TLM refers specifically to the Tridentine liturgy, named for the Council of Trent, which is a specific liturgy and* not *the Mass.

Jesus instituted the Eucharist, which is a sacrament, at the Last Supper. The Mass, to the best of my knowledge, is not a sacrament and was the result of traditions in celebrating a Eucharistic meal that sprang up after Christ and which were formalized in different forms along the way. It has had continual development since that time as dogma, doctrines, the Creed, and the Canon of scripture were understood and put in place.

No Mass no Real Presence, No Real Presence, No Holy Communion. Sacrament means instituted by Christ that confers grace. Where do we get the graces from that Christ merited for all salvation when he died on Calvary, at the Mass.

The Mass is not a meal it is meant to both glorify God and sanctify man.

It may be an abuse, but it looks like it wasn’t due to purposeful intent by Padre Pio, as opposed to what goes on in the NO churches…

Of course one believes it! What is being said is that Christ did not institute the specific prayers of the TLM. He said “This is my Body” and “This is my blood”. For that matter one could say Christ instituted the NO. The essence of each liturgy is what Christ said and everything has has grown up around it. I don;t think you believe Christ said the specific prayers of the TLM, do you… (and if you do, what are they?)

The Mass is not a sacrament. There are seven sacraments in the Church: baptism, penance, Eucharist, confirmation, matrimony, holy orders, and annointing of the sick. The Mass is the “Eucharistic banquet”, and yes, it is the meal to which we are all called and described as such by the Church. It is not a sacrament in and of itself, though the Eucharist, which is a sacrament, takes place within its context.

Finally, the Real Presence does NOT depend on the Mass. Jesus is really present whether in the Mass or not. Yes, the consecration takes place during the Mass, but the consecration is not the Mass itself. Nor is the “liturgy” (such as the TLM–the Tridentine liturgy) the Mass itself, but a form in which the Mass takes place. If the Real Presence depended on the Mass then there could be no Eucharistic Adoration. If there was never another Mass celebrated, there would still be Real Presence through those hosts which have already been consecrated. And of course Jesus is always and at all times “really present” in the Body of Christ which is the Church.

You seem to have a lot of concepts mixed up and many of them are outside the teaching of the Church. Rather than condemning people based on things you don’t really seem to fully understand, it might be a good idea to listen to people who have done their study and do some study yourself to come to a clearer understanding. To continue to make obvious misstatements is to ask to not be taken seriously, which would be a shame as you are obviously very devoted and would have much to offer.

Peace,

I refer to the new thread I posted By Father Hardon on the Mass.

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.