Posted on 12/20/2024 10:26:35 AM PST by ebb tide
On the second Sunday in Advent, television stations around the world broadcast two Catholic services: the Holy Mass for the reopening of Notre Dame de Paris and the papal mass at the end of the consistory.
What connected the two Masses, however, was by no means the unity of the celebration of the Mass according to Paul VI’s new missal; instead, it was noticeable that both Masses deviated from the prescriptions of his missal in an idiosyncratic way, thus demonstrating to the whole world that there is no such thing as the “new Mass.”
What was even more striking was that both Masses were characterized by a clear rejection of tradition: Vestments, gestures, central rites, and even parts of the Eucharistic prayer no longer gave any indication of how the Mass had been celebrated for 1,600 years. Instead, the connection with tradition seemed to have been cut with a knife, and both Masses appeared to float in an empty liturgical space.
However, tradition in the Church is a tricky thing. Anyone who sees it merely as a “custom” that can be maintained or abolished does not understand the significance of Church tradition. For the Church, tradition always means legitimacy, and nobody could claim legitimacy contrary to tradition, neither for themselves nor for their actions. This, of course, applies to the doctrine of faith as well as to the celebration of Holy Mass, and this binds the Pope as well as every bishop.
Against this background, the following seems significant to me: we Catholics have prescribed for ourselves an authoritarian, pope-oriented way of thinking. This worked as long as the popes represented the teachings of the Church. The current Pope, however, does not do this, and this also applies to the celebration of the traditional Mass. As we know, Francis persecutes this Mass wherever he can. His actions are not legitimate because they contradict tradition, but he and his followers do not care about that.
At the same time, however, he puts those Catholics who cling to the traditional Mass in a dilemma. They see themselves forced into “illegitimacy” by the Pope and believe they have to justify their legitimacy. But this is precisely not the case! The traditional Mass is fully part of the Church’s tradition, and the entire tradition is reflected in it. No one can shake its legitimacy, not even a pope who is an enemy of tradition and the traditional Mass.
Conversely, the proponents of the “new” Mass must ask themselves what their liturgical legitimacy is. All the more so if they do not adhere to the current rules and deliberately avoid any connection to tradition. Do these Masses still reflect the Catholic faith, or are they not just the reflection of a false neo-Catholicism that is half Protestant and half what is now called “synodal”?
I would like to encourage all those who are attached to the traditional Mass: don’t be intimidated and don’t get caught up in the game of being pushed into illegitimacy, imposed with bans, or otherwise harassed.
Instead, rest assured: only the traditional Mass is in the full tradition of the Church, and for that reason alone every priest has the right to celebrate it, and every believer has the right to attend it. Francis cannot change this and no one else can! So be self-confident and be self-confidently Catholic!
The synodal neo-Catholics, on the other hand, have no connection with tradition, and even if they – like the Arians of old – are in the majority today, they are not Catholic, or at least not truly Catholic.
The Pope’s Mass and the Mass at Notre Dame have strikingly demonstrated this. And they illustrated the dramatic rupture in the Church that has arisen with the “new Mass,” something that Francis has reinforced.
The whole thing had a bit of a French Revolution feel to it: at that time, a people of plebeians had devastated Notre Dame and installed a new faith and a new “goddess” there. They literally trampled on the traditional faith, and anyone who follows the traditional Mass is acting in the revolutionary spirit of these people. With the pride of the plebeians, they adopted new rites of their own and made themselves masters of the liturgy; ultimately a diabolical act.
The celebration of the Holy Mass, on the other hand, requires something else: humble entry into the stream of tradition and immersion in the traditional form of the Mass. That is truly Catholic, legitimate, and nothing else. Please remain faithful to the Catholic faith and the traditional Mass.
“When Cardinal Bacci came to see him (Padre Pio) in order to bring the authorization [of the NOM] Padre Pio let a complaint escape in the presence of the pope’s messenger: ‘For pity sake, end the Council quickly.'”
Ping
Many people find Latin Mass comforting.
Latin Mass is one way of giving the gift of Christ to people.
Simply because requiring Latin fluency for new priests would not be practical doesn’t mean Latin Mass should be banned.
My neighbors who went to Catholic school had to learn Latin. They are probably still alive and are likely to be alive for about twenty more years.
Latin is one of the easiest languages to enunciate. My kids have all had many years of Latin as part of their home school experience. A priest can learn to say the latin mass in a matter of weeks, and he can then take a lifetime to perfect his participation in the sacred tradition.
I was in line for confession the other day, and while some novus ordo soprano was screeching out the tunes for the NO mass, in line for confession at the back of the church was our latin mass choir director and two of her daughters, all who sing in our choir/schola. The awful singer at the front of the church had no idea that world class singers were getting their sins forgiven at the back of the Church.
This Pope will not outlast the latin mass, it will survive and he will go to his final judgement. At some point the younger priests will become bishops, and they will usher in a new age in the Catholic Church. And if we are lucky, we may get a Pope Pius XIII.
All Latin Rite priests are supposed to learn Latin in seminary (if not before) already.
But "Latin fluency" is not required to say the Latin Mass; you just have to know how to pronounce the words correctly. The translation is easily available.* It's not like it matters whether you know which tense the verb is in, and why.
*Not necessarily in the books or altar cards used at the altar, which are made to be (a) beautiful; and (b) easy to read from a distance. A missal with side-by-side translation is easy to find, though.
The Sacred Liturgy in Latin is the orthodox form of the mass for Catholics, and was the car the conspirators drove off the exit ramp of history after Vatican II.
Counterfeit Novus Ordo was stood up to replace as the old car exited and contains zero redeeming power towards the penitent’s salvation, NONE!
Fr. Peter Heers’ book “The Ecclesiastical Renovations of Vatican II” does a a good job outlining the compartmentalization the took place after the Synod and how that plan basically destroyed the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church.
Rome has fallen! [Roma cecidit!]
Anyone who already speaks a language written in the... Latin alphabet... hint hint can recite Latin easily by using Italian or Spanish soundings of most of the letters of the alphabet. It’s only challenging for English speakers who forget the vowels aren’t ay-ee-igh-oh-yoo, but ah-eh-ee-oh-ooh. Consonants present no difficulties as English c and g are close enough to ecclesiastical Latin. Only purists need learn Cicero (Kikero;) ) era pronunciation..
E.g., "Cicero" in restored classical is "Keekero", but in ecclesiastical it's "CheeChero". Scholars are in agreement that restored classical is closer to how it was done in Cicero's time, but it's not how it's done in church.
"...Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing...."
Is there a requirement for them to learn Greek and Hebrew?
So this is what you've got your shorts in a knot about??
I bet if they pulled pews out you'd have a stroke.
Now, compare to how the original Lord's Supper was conducted. Not with all the stuff Rome has added to it....and it wasn't in Latin.
Implication being....it wasn't done this way in the early church. In other words...it wasn't "handed down" as Rome likes to claim.
There’s not an official requirement for it; church documents aren’t written in Greek or Hebrew. But they frequently do.
The switch of the Roman liturgy from Greek to Latin started just before AD 200.
Strange thing for you to say. Pews were a Protestant invention. If you go to a Catholic church in Europe that predates the Reformation and find pews, they're a later addition.
Well, that explains a great deal. Hard to exegete the text if you don't know the languages.
I will say in fairness though....most of my preacher buddies only study the minimum required...usually two Greek and two Hebrew.
True....but it seems ebb is bent out of shape because of a change in how things have been done for a while.
*****
Your head must be spinning after reading this. Seems change is the constant theme in Roman Catholicism.
*****
Arrangement of churches
The Roman Rite of Mass no longer has the pulpitum, or rood screen, a dividing wall characteristic of certain medieval cathedrals in northern Europe, or the iconostasis or curtain that heavily influences the ritual of some other rites. In large churches of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance the area near the main altar, reserved for the clergy, was separated from the nave (the area for the laity) by means of a rood screen extending from the floor to the beam that supported the great cross (the rood) of the church and sometimes topped by a loft or singing gallery. However, by about 1800 the Roman Rite had quite abandoned rood screens, although some fine examples survive.
Chant
Gregorian chant is the traditional chant of the Roman Rite. Being entirely monophonic, it does not have the dense harmonies of present-day chanting in the Russian and Georgian churches. Except in such pieces as the graduals and alleluias, it does not have melismata as lengthy as those of Coptic Christianity. However, the music of the Roman Rite became very elaborate and lengthy when Western Europe adopted polyphony. While the choir sang one part of the Mass the priest said that part quietly to himself and continued with other parts, or he was directed by the rubrics to sit and wait for the conclusion of the choir's singing. Therefore, it became normal in the Tridentine Mass for the priest to say Mass, not sing it, in contrast to the practice in all Eastern rites. Only on special occasions and in the principal Mass in monasteries and cathedrals was the Mass sung.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.