VATICAN: Return of the Latin Mass? "celebrate Latin Mass on a weekly basis in every parish in world"

Inside the Vatican News ^ | May 13, 2003 | Robert Moynihan

[welfareworker]

Impossible for 1000 communicants to recieve in the traditional Catholic rite in 15 minutes from 2 priests. I don't think any priest could say the required prayerthat quickly. Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.

[pseudo-ignatius]

you might be interested to know that during the Jesuit missions to China permission was given (but not ever used) by the Pope for the liturgy to be said in Chinese. This was not long after Trent.

[Tantumergo]

"Being a priest, as you say, is a commitment made out of love that encompasses every minute of every day and the priest serves as a visible witness to Christ."

As indeed is being a deacon who is meant to be an icon of Christ the servant.

[Tantumergo]

"Certainly a DEACON would know better, no?"

I would certainly be very disappointed with their knowledge of the faith if any of the deacons in training at my seminary did not understand this!

There again I have come across one or two howlers!

[Tantumergo]

"the deacons will not be needed at the altar, either."

Why do you say this? Surely a deacon and sub-deacon are required at every High Mass.

I know several deacons in this country who are learning the deacon's role in the Tridentine Rite in anticipation of a restoration.

[Desdemona]

I don't understand why people think chanting is so hard...

I don't get it either. Yes, I've been able to sing my whole life and have trained for 16, 17 years (something like that), but everybody can chant.

Aside from that, once it dawns that singing is just a manipulation of the respiratory system, it's easier to do it.

[Desdemona]

Thanks for the list. Got any more?

Plenty. The body of music written over the centuries for the church in unparalleled. That was a steady source of income for musicians and composers. There was no TV or radio in those days. You went to church. There are some vespers pieces which are just gorgeous.

Now, we perform them in the symphony halls because the liturgy nuts have decided that it's not appropriate for Mass. Something about not everyone can sing along.... Have you tried singing some of the dreck they push?

[huskyboy]

Are you SSPX?

I'm Catholic.

As I'm not a priest, I'm not a part of SSPX. Now, on the other side of things, I have no problem going to a traditional Mass said or sung by a priest or bishop of CMRI, SSPV, or one affiliated with the Most Holy Family Monastery.

I don't see how my supporting a specific organization would affect the view I'm promoting here.

[huskyboy]

Let's reply point by point here:

No pope can bind another pope on matters liturgical. Pius XII changed the Holy Week ceremonies before Vatican II.

He had every right to do so. However, he did not change the nature of the Mass. Not one time. If you look at the symbolism in the Mass, as well as the prayers, you will see that Catholic teachings are expressed and affirmed in the Mass. That is not something the novus ordo does at all. And since the Mass does involve matters of faith, the nature of it is binding. For example, you can not say something like, "This is the cup of the new and everlasting Covenant which will be shed for you and for all" because it is a denial of already established Catholic teaching.

The Mass is the Mass, no matter what Wathen says. This has been argued ad nauseam here, for two years, and the traditionalists ultimately boil down their argument to saying that the Novus Ordo doesn't emphasize the sacrificial aspect of the Mass enough.

Of course, what's behind that is the flawed logic that the Holy Spirit is somehow less with Paul VI and JP II than He was with Pius V.

Is that really what it boils down to? There is still the issue of legality. The novus ordo is not a valid Mass because Quo Primum forbade any new missals to be used. Now, since novus ordo has its own missal, we have a problem, don't we?

And here's something which completely refutes any notion that this all a completely disciplinary matter. A quote from a CFN article:

First of all, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it was something merely disciplinary. It would not follow logically, therefore, that the creation of the Novus Ordo was permissible. Because the Church's doctrine regarding liturgy is formulated in many pronouncements-----infallible pronouncements-----before Quo Primum was ever issued.

It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

By this line of reasoning, not even a pope can allow the novus ordo to exist without being condemned by the Church for it.

Again, I bring this up not to express my preference for a invalid "rite", but to explain the true Catholic position regarding the Mass.

[huskyboy]

Not enough priests know enough Latin to even begin to say Mass in the language. And that doesn't even begin to consider the huge number of rubrics or rules on how to say Mass in the traditional rite that priests would have to learn.

But you know what. . . the priest shortage too many people have been complaining about has actually been manufactured.

One also has to consider the number of men who left the priesthood after the de facto replacement of the Mass with the novus ordo service. There is the possibility that many of them who would be more than happy to come back to say Mass once again (that is, if they have not been laicized).

The biggest obstacles to the proposal are the church architecture and post-conciliar catechesis. No way Mass should be said in the Rog Mahal, for example. And the way many people think and believe, it would take quite a bit of time for them to understand why they should not receive Holy Communion at all (or why they can not just simply stand with hands out stretched).

[BlackElk]

As to suburban churches not fit for the Tridentine Mass, do you think that the space stations and arenas can be converted to the purposes allowing functions consistent with their architectural form: warehouses, storage units, theaters, indoor polo facilities, or whatever, and sold for such purposes to produce the money top build actual recognizeable Churches? You are certainly right, as ever, in suggesting that the anti-schismatic Cruise missiles be turned, at long last, toward the PT boats of the Kumbayan lavender-loving AmChurch. Let us do our part!

[ninenot]

"Chant" is regarded as difficult because it was MADE so by countless schlepps who 1) led the music FAR too slowly and 2) wanted (and got) the singers to sing FAR too heavily.

Chant is the musical realization of angels, in a way. Light, agile, always in motion. Never 'alla marcia,' nor crawling, always lifting, and MOST important, sensitive to the Word it envelopes.

But hey--I know people who can ruin a recipe for boiling water...

[BlackElk]

Furthermore, The architectural taste displayed by high altars beats the heck out of the mundane triteness of the Novus Ordo "hot dog stands" any day. Restore the high altars. Let the Novus Ordo be said on portable hot dog stands. The symbolism is appropriate to a tragic transitory trend that has done spiritual harm, at least to some. Cardinal Arinze sounds more and more papabile all the time!

[Steve0113]

mega ping

[ninenot]

Nope. Here, anyway, the only time Deac/Sub-D were used (in the Old Rite) was for Christmas, Easter, Holy Week--you get the idea.

It's also important to understand the terms: there is such a thing as a 'sung Mass,' which is not, strictly speaking, a 'solemn Mass.' The 'sung Mass' was often referred to as the High Mass, but merely used singing in place of the reciting of the Low Mass.

"Solemn Mass" requires Deac and Sub-Deac, maybe even a Master of Ceremonies. "High" (sung) requires neither, BUT they can be present and function.

[ninenot]

It is convenient (not to mention misleading) that you do not choose to recognize the Pope as the Supreme Legislator. He, alone, has the power to mandate rite. This is made perfectly obvious in the current Canon Law which reserves to Rome (e.g., the Pope's approval) ALL matters of liturgy.

You also have this small problem of explaining the existence of the Antiochan, Syro-Malabar, and Milanese Rites, since you logically imply that only ONE Rite is licit and valid. If THOSE Rites were approved by the Popes in various years BEFORE Trent, how could Trent declare in the way you choose to interpret?

Of course, if you are a sedevacantist, then whatever Paul VI and his successors did is irrelevant.

Few on this thread believe that the NO has turned out to be a raving success, and most believe that the premises on which it was launched (e.g., the IIV document on the liturgy) were just fine and dandy. But we ALL know that the crypto-poofter-disordered-liturgyNazi crowd did their best to defile that newly-delivered baby, in a fashion analogical to what many priests did to young men and boys.

[pseudo-ignatius]

I'm curious to hear whether you think Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgies to be valid... the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is older than the Missal of Pius V and is at least as old as the Roman Canon.

[ninenot]

I have 180" of shelf space taken up by outstanding music for the High Mass--Ordinaries, motets, Chant, with/without orchestra, organ, soloists, English, Latin...

Haydn, Mozart, Bruckner, Peeters, Durufle, H W Zimmermann (still living...)

[BlackElk]

Doesn't the Wanderer have a good handle on the Kumbaya crowd? Unregenerate liturgical nazis! That covers the waterfront.

Imagine how the Kumbaya will rage at the restoration of actual kneeling in recognition of God's presence in the Eucharist! What a setback for them! Will they ever recover? Fortunately not. Time to:

1. Purge the AmChurch leftist anti-Catholic Bishops.

2. Sell their space stations in recognition of the meaning of "sacred space" and use the proceeds as down payments on churches for the poor deprived suburban space-station parishes.

3. Establish missions in spiritually deprived areas of our country to evangelize those who wrongfully imagine themselves Catholic.

4. Expect massive defections among the Kumbayas. The defections have already occurred. The apostasy will merely be formalized. The Church will benefit from being leaner and meaner and FAR more Catholic.

5. Superficial ecclesiastical conservatism is not enough. Bishop Thomas Daily of Brooklyn has a generally conservative track record as to what he says. He is even the Supreme Chaplain of the Knights of Columbus (normally a very nice qualification). He has been quite publicly pro-life. However, there is another side. He has (probably by advancing age) avoided suffering quite justifiable consequences of his administrative misbehavior in Boston in shuffling the most notorious child abusers Geoghan and Slattery around the chess board. Some may say he was only following orders of his archbishop there. This week, as ordinary of the Brooklyn Diocese, he lifted the justified ban on the openly heretical and notorious Voice of the "Faithful" organization whose leadership includes heretics, apostates, agnostics and other enemies of the Church galore. He wants to welcome termites into our house. Purge widely and deeply.

[Polycarp]

You are certainly right, as ever, in suggesting that the anti-schismatic Cruise missiles be turned, at long last, toward the PT boats of the Kumbayan lavender-loving AmChurch. Let us do our part!

I love it when you put your mind to a turn of phrase!