Discussion in 'Pope Francis' started by BrianK, May 26, 2021.
No. The Church can do what the Pope did. Jesus and Apostles did not celebrate a tridentine Mass etc
Although there was no altar bell, the cruets were there. The wine was as red as blood, and there was also some water. The Mass was short. The Gospel of St. John was not read at the end . When the Mass had ended, Mary came up to Henry, and she extended her right hand towards him, saying that it was in recognition of his purity. Then she urged him not to falter. Thereupon I saw an angel, and he touched the sinew of his hip, like Jacob. Henry was in great pain; and from that day on he walked with a limp ... "
If you do not think the restoration of the Mass of All Ages will be part and parcel of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart and Era of Peace, you haven’t been paying attention.
This is at the beginning of his conquests, not the end. It illustrates how impoverished the mass is before the Triumph and the restoration of the Church.
It is not the Mass of Jesus neither apostles and so on. It is a middle age Mass
Hardly. The TLM predates Trent by hundreds of years, and the Roman Canon dates back to apostolic times.
Busting the Myth of the “Tridentine” Mass
Brian Williams July 25, 2017 123 Comments
Mass of Saint Gregory the Great by Master of Portillo (1520-1525).
Far too often these days liturgical discussions pertaining to the Roman Rite start with the popular myth that the Traditional Latin Mass only dates back to the sixteenth century and the Council of Trent (1545-1563). While some make this claim simply due to a lack of catechesis, there are unfortunately others who perpetuate the myth to diminish the very antiquity of the ancient rite. Let us remedy this by busting the myth of the “Tridentine” Mass.
First a note on terminology. The Tridentine Mass is simply another name for the Traditional Latin Mass, also called the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite since Summorum Pontificum was issued by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007.
Now for the history. Following the Council of Trent, Pope St. Pius V issued the papal Bull Quo Primum regarding the Mass. It is important to note that Pius V did not promulgate a new Mass (as Paul VI did in 1970), but rather consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in existence. He also extended its use throughout the Latin Church, granting exception only to those rites demonstrating continuous usage of more than 200 years, such as the Ambrosian Rite found in Milan.
Since the 1570 Missal of Pius V was issued in the wake of the Council of Trent, the ancient rite has often been referred to as the Tridentine Mass. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this term, it can (and has) been used by some seeking to diminish the ancient rite by implying that it only dates back to 1570.
This, of course, is a myth.
Writing 50 years before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the promulgation of the new Mass of Paul VI (1970), Father Adrian Fortescue discussed the very antiquity of the Roman Rite in his classic, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy (1912):
Essentially the Missal of St. Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book which depends on the Leonine collection. We find the prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentisand allusions to it in the IV century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.
And this of course is the point. Not that the Mass didn’t develop organically, because it had. Nor that there were no further revisions to it, since the Missal of 1962 used in the Extraordinary Form today incorporates (as one example) the Holy Week revisions of 1955. But rather, that the Traditional Mass dates back to the oldest liturgy of all “without essential change”, to use Fr. Fortescue’s phrase. When referencing this Mass, we are speaking in terms of millennia, not centuries.
Indeed, some have referred to the traditional liturgy as the Gregorian Rite, or the Gregorian Mass, in deference to the ancient sacramentary bearing the name of that sixth century saint; a pope and liturgy which preceded Trent by one thousand years.
As liturgical discussions move forward within the Church, and both forms of the Roman Rite are studied and considered, let us hope that (at a minimum) we can finally bust the myth that the Traditional Mass is a product of the 16th century. If we are truly to restore all that has been lost for so many, we must first begin with correct information and intellectual honesty.
Originally published at LiturgyGuy.com. Reprinted with permission.
Makes sense. The Church was holding the fort at Trent, it was the Lutherans and the rest of the heretics that were causing rupture.
One fact is there are others rites in the catholic church. The rite is not essencial. Probably in the early days or in the hidden Masses at catacombs there was only an Eucharistic prayer. The essencial is only Jesus. A priest can consecrate the host in any rite.
Then, why prohibit him from consecrating it in the Latin one?
I would question if there was a certain amount of Protestant propaganda that encouraged the 'Tridentine' usage, in order to downgrade the antiquity of the Mass and, by implication, of The Church that propagated it, so that the playing field, so-to-speak between Catholicism and Protestantism could be apparently levelled. Did not the Protestants claim to be taking Christianity back to its roots, absurdly to consist of a 'magical' Bible, something which would not fit comfortably with the reality of a Catholic Church traceable back to Christ Himself.
You could have milions of answers to this question. I can think of one:
the modern man is different from the man of the middle age, in his intellectuality, capacity for concentration and understanding, etc.
the breviary used in the Tridentine period took hours to finish prayers. currently the new liturgy of the hours is very fast. it is also a question of time. Today the time goes faster etc
the novus ordus can be prayed “ad orientem” and in latim
"God's thoughts are not my thoughts"
Have you ever wondered if you are offending God without realizing it? this is what all traditionalists do.
Thanks for letting us know that. Perhaps you might enlighten us regarding your intellectuality, capacity for concentration and understanding, which we must obviously lack? Wouldn't it be an Act of Charity to relieve our ignorance or is that perhaps a concept that belongs back in the less evolved Middle Ages?
Then ALL Catholics, Saints and sinners alike, all of them, for 1400 years, were “offending God” in your humble opinion.
Why are you even on this forum? Your posts are easily refuted, yet in your arrogance and condescension you can’t grasp that obvious fact. None so blind…
Why did those misfortunates who celebrate the Roman Rite fail to evolve, while those of other rites seemingly have as there seems no effort to prohibit them?
Time is irrelevant to the Mass. The Mass is Calvary, then and there, no different to the faithful from the Middle Ages or to contemporary man than it was to those who looked on at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, several of those original witnesses would have spoken Latin.
To take your point, you criticise the Mass of the Middle Ages as not being the Mass of Jesus and the Apostles (strictly, Jesus is the Mass), surely even moreso is not the Novus Ordo?
Really great video
Cardinal Burke is a holy man
He is getting old
I think the document speaks for itself.