Author Topic: Francis: "The Latin Mass is rather a kind of fashion." (Read 7960 times)

Memento · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2014, 12:04:51 PM »

Mr. Read-a-book, read this:

https://archive.org/stream/massstudyofroman00fort#page/208/mode/2up

The pre-1962 traditional Mass is still the same as St. Pius V's.

SJB · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2014, 12:06:24 PM »

Quote from: icterus

On the other hand, the part of the glass that it half full is his assertion that going deeply into liturgy is salvific.

Except he didn't say that, nor could it be inferred, given the fact that he believes the traditional form of the liturgy, with it's precise form, could be called a fad or a fashion.

The Novus Ordo is the fad and the constantly changing fashion, and an ugly one at that.

icterus · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2014, 12:19:42 PM »

Quote

The pre-1962 traditional Mass is still the same as St. Pius V's.

But your book page say 'later revisions are of slight importance'. So, there were later revisions. Why are they of slight importance? That's essentially what Francis is saying about changing missals. Provide some sort of reason for what you think.

Memento · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2014, 02:19:59 PM »

Quote from: icterus

Quote
The pre-1962 traditional Mass is still the same as St. Pius V's.

But your book page say 'later revisions are of slight importance'. So, there were later revisions. Why are they of slight importance? That's essentially what Francis is saying about changing missals. Provide some sort of reason for what you think.

Meadowlark lemon- quit defending the indefensible. You are splitting hairs. The True Mass and the New Mass are not the same; the substance and form are different.

Your modernism is showing and your reading skills ain't so hot.

From Fr. Adrian Fortescue : " Our Canon is untouched, and all the scheme of the Mass. Our Missal is still that of Pius V. "

'bye sir.

icterus · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2014, 02:55:39 PM »

Or, in other words 'because I say so, bye'.

Par for the course.

Mama ChaCha · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2014, 03:23:11 PM »

The Latin Mass...trending for 2,000 years!
:rolleyes:

Seriously, though I really do hope he converts.

icterus · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2014, 03:49:19 PM »

Quote

The Latin Mass...trending for 2,000 years!

Maybe 1700.

You know the Greek Mass predated any in Latin, right? The Fathers didn't start even start writing theology in Latin until after 200 AD.

Mama ChaCha · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2014, 04:33:18 PM »

So, St. Peter celebrated mass in Greek, then?

icterus · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2014, 04:38:46 PM »

Unknown. It would apparently have been either Greek or Aramaic. Almost certainly he was illiterate given that he had a personal scribe (St. Mark) as attested by St. Irenaeus.

Mama ChaCha · « **Reply #24 on:** February 16, 2014, 04:53:56 PM »

That's interesting.
I would have just assumed he celebrated in Latin because he was in Rome, and having grown up in judea while it was a Roman province, I'd expect him to have been familiar with Latin.

SJB · « **Reply #25 on:** February 16, 2014, 05:54:14 PM »

Quote from: icterus

Or, in other words 'because I say so, bye'.

Par for the course.

I think Fr. Adrian Fortescue was quoted, not "because I said so."

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #26 on:** February 16, 2014, 05:59:40 PM »

On languages, I certainly give the nod to St Peter speaking Aramaic while out and abouts but Hebrew when in a ѕуηαgσgυє. Jews are picky about that. Aramaic, while the lesser of the two in the Jєωιѕн world, is said by the same Jєωιѕн world to be the older of the two. Aramaic is held in high esteem because it is said to be the language of Abraham. As for Aramaic and Hebrew, they use the same alphabet and have the same pronunciations.

The switch to Latin, while I don't have the details in front of me, can be safely trusted to the guidance of the Holy Ghost and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. We can trust the Church on matters from the days of Our Lord to the election of Pope John XXIII. We can trust the Church now but that's an act of supernatural faith.

Pope Francis' words can be construed as a sloppy Hermeneutics of Continuity. He can think it's all a fad and he can be surprised at the youngsters who are attracted to Catholicism.

I myself will always be baffled by people who enjoy the novus ordo. When it's a clown mass, you can at least laugh.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #27 on:** February 16, 2014, 06:03:46 PM »

ICTERUS is correct in saying that there were some minor word changes here and there. Some of those changes may have been with the addition of new dogmas or adding prayers for new saint days. Some changes may have just been clarifications or additions to procedural prayers.

Geremia · « **Reply #28 on:** February 16, 2014, 09:38:32 PM »

Quote from: Mama ChaCha

That's interesting.
I would have just assumed he celebrated in Latin because he was in Rome, and having grown up in judea while it was a Roman province, I'd expect him to have been familiar with Latin.

Of course, if not for the sole reason that the Holy Ghost gave them all the gift of tongues

icterus · « **Reply #29 on:** February 16, 2014, 09:56:39 PM »

SJB wrote:

Quote

I think Fr. Adrian Fortescue was quoted, not "because I said so."

As usual, you don't know what's going on. You have a real talent for that.

I questioned why Fr. Fortescue can blithely say changes are insignificant and a poster can blithely cite him as an authority on that without offering any real argumentation. If the Pope calls down the vengeance of heaven for any changes, the one thing you cannot then do in debate is say 'well, any changes that were made are not significant'. That's dodging the issue and dishonest.