Posted on 10/10/2006 5:35:42 PM PDT by Petrosius
THE Pope is taking steps to revive the ancient tradition of the Latin Tridentine Mass in Catholic churches worldwide, according to sources in Rome.
Pope Benedict XVI is understood to have signed a universal indult — or permission — for priests to celebrate again the Mass used throughout the Church for nearly 1,500 years. The indult could be published in the next few weeks, sources told The Times.
This led to the introduction of the new Mass in the vernacular to make it more accessible to contemporary audiences. By bringing back Mass in Latin, Pope Benedict is signalling that his sympathies lie with conservatives in the Catholic Church.
One of the most celebrated rebels against its suppression was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who broke with Rome in 1988 over this and other reforms. He was excommunicated after he consecrated four bishops, one of them British, without permission from the Pope.
Some Lefebvrists, including those in Brazil, have already been readmitted. An indult permitting the celebration of the Tridentine Mass could help to bring remaining Lefebvrists and many other traditional Catholics back to the fold.
The priests of England and Wales are among those sometimes given permission to celebrate the Old Mass according to the 1962 Missal. Tridentine Masses are said regularly at the Oratory and St James’s Spanish Place in London, but are harder to find outside the capital.
The new indult would permit any priest to introduce the Tridentine Mass to his church, anywhere in the world, unless his bishop has explicitly forbidden it in writing.
Catholic bloggers have been anticipating the indult for months. The Cornell Society blog says that Father Martin Edwards, a London priest, was told by Cardinal Joseph Zen, of Hong Kong, that the indult had been signed. Cardinal Zen is alleged to have had this information from the Pope himself in a private meeting.
“There have been false alarms before, not least because within the Curia there are those genuinely well-disposed to the Latin Mass, those who are against and those who like to move groups within the Church like pieces on a chessboard,” a source told The Times. “But hopes have been raised with the new pope. It would fit with what he has said and done on the subject. He celebrated in the old rite, when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.”
The 1962 Missal issued by Pope John XXIII was the last of several revisions of the 1570 Missal of Pius V. In a lecture in 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger said that it would be “fatal” for the Missal to be “placed in a deep-freeze, left like a national park, a park protected for the sake of a certain kind of people, for whom one leaves available these relics of the past”.
Daphne McLeod, chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, a UK umbrella group that campaigns for the restoration of traditional orthodoxy, said: “A lot of young priests are teaching themselves the Tridentine Mass because it is so beautiful and has prayers that go back to the Early Church.”
TRADITIONAL SERVICE
"Keep in mind that in those days, there were only 2 Masses celebrated each week - 9am and noon - both on Sunday."
My parish in those days had three daily Masses and at least five Sunday Masses.
"The majority of catholics attended Mass out of fear of eternal damnation."
This opinion does not jive with my experience.
"Today, those who do attend Mass, be it the ITLM or the NO, do so from a conscientius desire to worship our Lord."
Unfortunately then and now some folks likely attend Mass for social reasons.
Domine, non sum dignus, utintres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea.
Yeah, your version is dead on...
It would be nice if you could actually read. Forget Latin for a minute. We culd very easily have the same Mass in the vernacular. Why was there a need to make wholesale changes. Almost 40 years have passed, and they still can't correctly translate what was written in 1969, let alone what the Mass originally said.
You are obviously uninformed. The Mass we have today is NOT the same Mass, just in the vernacular. It is a new Mass that was created in 1967. Pope Benedict has written about this.
Reverence is, of course, importance, but it is not the point of the Mass. There could be a reverent Muslim service or Jewish service. The point of the Mass is that it is the Sacrament that Jesus gave us, for oue benefit. Any other purpose is secondary. Of course, you could not do this properly without reverence, but that is not the critcal part of Mass. I think reverence can be a Red Herring, that takes us away from the real purpose of the Mass.
Non illigitamus carborundum
I have described my conviction that it is impossible to retain reverence and worship without their traditional forms. Of course there will always be people who are so filled with grace that they can pray even when the means of prayer have been ripped from their hands. Many people, too, concerned about these issues, will ask, "Isn't it still possible to celebrate the new liturgy of Pope Paul VI worthily and reverently?" Naturally it is possible, but the very fact that it is possible is the weightiest argument against the new liturgy.(Emphasis supplied.) How odd that I hear proponents of the Novus Ordo point out that 'it's a valid Mass', the equivalent to pointing out that 'it meets the Sunday obligation'.
...
Perhaps the greatest damage done by Pope Paul VI's reform of the Mass (and by the ongoing process that has outstripped it), the greatest spiritual deficit, is this: we are now positively obliged to talk about the liturgy. ... Those of us who are defenders of the great and sacred liturgy, the classical Roman liturgy, have all become -- whether in a small way or a big way -- liturgical experts. In order to counter the arguments of the reform, which was padded with technical, archaeological, and historical scholarship, we had to delve into questions of worship and liturgy -- something that is utterly foreign to the religious man. We have let ourselves be led into a kind of scholastic and juridical way of considering the liturgy. What is absolutely indispensable for genuine liturgy? When are the celebrant's whims tolerable, and when do they become unacceptable? We have got used to accepting liturgy on the basis of the minimum requirements, whereas the criteria ought to be maximal. And finally, we have started to evaluate liturgy -- a monstrous act! We sit in the pews and ask ourselves, was that Holy Mass, or wasn't it? I go to church to see God and come away like a theatre critic.
"Everybody knows that Latin wasn't the original language of the Mass. The Aramaic fell by the wayside quickly as Christianity spread, and Greek took over. But by 250 A.D. Latin was the Church's primary tongue."
Who's tradition? For the eastern Christians (Orthodox and Catholic) the traditional language was certainly not latin. I happen prefer the 'other' substantial tradition that says Divine Liturgy should be celebrated in the vernacular. And chanted.
"If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema ." - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9)"
"It appears as if quite a few of our bishops and priests fall ito this category."
Not to mention eastern Catholics!
Hmm, I would think it WOULD be the clergy over 50 who would want to return to the Latin mass. They must all remember it from their childhood, along with the Latin songs (O Salutaris Hostia, Tantum Ergo Sacramentum). Why do you think they wouldn't?
"Whereas the lust for the vernacular seems to emanate from prideful spirits such as Martin Luther and other heretics."
Would the list of such "heretics" include St. Basil, St's Cyril and Methodius, and St. John Chrysostom?
While identifying "heretics", let's be certain we have a complete list. Or perhaps I misunderstood and you'd like to clarify your comment?
"What the Pope is supposed to have done is something affecting only Latin Roman Catholics, not eastern Catholics or Orthodox."
Of course. But in the zeal to show who is more faithful to tradition, western Catholics (read: the vast majority) tend to gloss over the fact that there is another parallel tradition within the universal Catholic church that uses the vernacular and has done so since the very early days of Christianity.
Sure, but there seems to be a group that doesn't want that. Until now, they seem to have had the upper hand. But that is no reason to go back to Latin.
What I meant was that today's Mass in English was (and is) just as valid as, for instance the early Mass in Coptic (for instance). All the rites Masses are different in detail, but identical in essence. So, no, the "Novus Ordo" is NOT a "new mass".
Having spent my formative years as an Episcopalian, I can tell you (and Dr. Blosser) that it IS possible to "retain reverence and worship" IN ENGLISH. The Episcopal Church's problems weren't caused by a lack of reverence in the service, but the same secular forces that are now attacking the Roman Catholic church. The language of the liturgy has zip to do with it.
" All the rites Masses are different in detail, but identical in essence. So, no, the "Novus Ordo" is NOT a "new mass".
All the rites Masses developed over time with traditional prayers and actions being passed down through the ages.
The "Novus Ordo" was created by committee, and deliberately mistranslated into the vernacular to boot.
I was speaking of the Western Catholic church and meant it in that context. However if you can post Anything by those illustrious Saints where they advocate vernacularism, please do.
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.