The Roman Catholic Buzz

on the mass...

From what I can understand (from a Protestant and very brief point of view), here's the scoop (after reading Jimmy Akin).

The Roman Catholic Church has a "Mass" (not sneer quotes, simply putting quotes around a specific term used in a specific way - that is the document of the translation) that is universally used. The Council of Trent established the mass in Latin - and each local parish had to use that Latin Mass in that language, regardless of what the vernacular was.

Vatican II introduced that same "Mass", only approved to be translated and used in other languages (the vernacular). Because of the language used in that document, it was translated to mean that the Latin form was prohibited (although permission could be granted to use the Latin form). Jimmy Akin wrote, "The use of the phrase "a special indult" is noteworthy here. The establishment of so-called "indult" Masses suggested to many that the former use of Mass had been prohibited and that it could now only be celebrated by indult (concession), requiring permission."

From what I understand, in this new document the Bishop of Rome is stating that in masses (no quotes here because it's referring to the ceremony, not the document) celebrated without "the people", the priest can use whichever form he desires (except on "any day except in the sacred triduum").

For public masses,

Art. 5.1. In parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably, let the pastor willingly accede to their requests for the celebration of the holy Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962.

There is a group of Roman Catholics (who have broken from "the church" - again not a sneer quote, merely a designation of the difference between Christ's bride and the structure of the Roman Catholic Church) in defiance of Vatican II; one of the points of difference is that they continue to celebrate mass in Latin. This document is pretty much wooing them back, saying "okay. If there is a group of faithful that prefers the old language, let the pastor accede."

So (my understanding is that) if there is a congregation that prefers to use the Latin Mass, they can do that without special permission.

And? I guess I don't understand what the big deal is about letting a congregation worship in the language of their choice. I realize that Rome has the "Mass", and it's still "Mass" whether it's in Latin or Chinese.


Unless a congregation is in full subjection to Rome, it is not a "true church" (according to the Roman Catholic definition).

"That document set off a storm of criticism from Protestant and Anglican leaders who felt that the Vatican was failing to take into account progress made towards re-establishing Christian unity in talks with Rome over a period of many years."

Um...this should come as no surprise. It's no secret that the Roman Catholic Church believes herself to be the only true leader of the Christian religion. Take a look around the blogosphere to find out how Roman Catholic apologists see Protestants.
Those Protestant and Anglican leaders who felt that the Vatican was failing to take into account progress...

have themselves failed to take into account that what the Vatican sees as progress is...working toward a time when

"..all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time." (Unitatis Redintegratio)

In short, the Vatican's definition of "ecumenism" is bringing all Christians under the subjection of the Bishop of Rome.

Any Protestant or Anglican that believes the Vatican did not take into account this definition has a case of "cranial-rectal inversion".

The Vatican has had no intention of cooperating. The Vatican intends to subjugate.

This statement by the Bishop of Rome is no different than any of the councils in all of history; Rome has never had any intention of anything other than bring all together in the name of Rome.

Hat Tip for the Gledhill article, "The Boar's Head Tavern"

Share Button

5 thoughts on “The Roman Catholic Buzz

  1. KitKat

    You have a very nice blog that is full of information without putting a "spin" on things. I'm sure that you'll see me lurking around here again. πŸ™‚

  2. And? I guess I don’t understand what the big deal is about letting a congregation worship in the language of their choice.

    The big deal may be ecumenical, from ("epiclesis"), emphasis mine:

    Some Orthodox commentators, however, object to the Tridentine liturgy on the grounds that its epiklesis is too weak. When groups of Traditionalist Catholics have joined a canonical Orthodox jurisdiction with permission to celebrate the Tridentine Liturgy, they have been required to interpolate the epiklesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom into the Tridentine Mass in order to correct this perceived defect.

    No such difficulties arise with the additional Eucharistic Prayers introduced into the Roman Rite in its post-1969 form.

    Is this why the rite was changed? I don't know.

    But, you realize that not only is the language different, the prayers are different as well.

    What's the expression, "damned if you do, damned if you don't?" Granting greater freedom in the celebration of the Tridentine to placate the Lefebvrians may alienate the Orthodox.

  3. It was not clear (or at least I didn't get it) that the prayers were different. At any rate, my feeling is that if the Orthodox don't like the congregation that they are worshiping in, now they are given a choice.

  4. Let me hasten to add that you won't hear a Roman Catholic labeling the Tridentine Liturgy "defective" ... at least not publically. πŸ™‚

  5. I would think not - if it was "official" it would seem to be dangerous ground to think it might be "defective"

    Because of the the history, this is an interesting topic. The other (for me) is old news, but too many people don't know that it's old.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments links could be nofollow free.