Very nice. Unfortunately I have never seen anything like this done in practice. The only place I've seen something similar to this is at a very high-church (Anglo-Catholic) Episcopalian parish and an Anglican Ordinariate mass. The only Roman Rite churches that practice anything similar to this is churches where the Tridentine Mass is offered. Use of a vernacular language is not the main defect in the Novus Ordo Mass anyway. It is less about the lack of Latin and more about the simplicity, lack of uniformity, the confusing rubrics etc.
@agentjs09 As it is now, most Catholics can't fully participate in the Mass whenever they travel abroad, unless they happen to know the local language. Anyone could have got a Missal for themselves to translate the Latin into their own language and be able to go to Mass anywhere, and there's no reason why parents shouldn't teach Latin to their children if they have the resources--perhaps parishes could have found a way to offer Latin instruction.
+phati129 It isn't an issue of the vernacular. It is the fact that in 1570 Pope Pius V said using full papal Authority, that no future Pope may ever dare to change the Roman Rite of the Mass or any of the Latin Rite Sacraments, lest he incur the wrath of Almighty God and blessed Peter and Paul.
Except it is not within the realm of papal authority to do so, as no pope can bind a future pope to matter of Church governance, within which the liturgy falls, so Pius V's statement has is in no way binding.
blablabubles Your statement would be 100% true, if it were, in fact, a matter of Church governance. But this is not the case. This is a matter of Faith. The holy Council of Trent, made this very clear in the decree on the Sacraments in General. Canon XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be shortened at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by whomsoever of the pastors of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema. The term used here was "whomsoever of the pastors of the churches", this includes the Pope. The holy Synod of Trent declared as dogma that it was not in the authority of any Pastor in the Church to replace or change rites of the Church. Then, in 1570 when Pope Pius V canonised the Roman Missal (essentially that of St. Gregory the Great), he declared that this was the canonised and eternal Rite of the Roman Church from thence forward and forever. Now you mention the ancient principle, "An equal cannot bind his equal". But the fallacy here is in what that means. As this is a matter of Faith and not Church governance the principle has to be used correctly. When Pius XII defined and proclaimed the truth of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother, he was not "binding future equals". He was defining a truth of the Faith that cannot be changed, undone, or rejected in the future. The same with Quo Primum.
OK. So let us admit Pius V bound all his successors. Then Paul VI is anathema. And so are John XXIII, Pius XII, Pius X, and practically all successors of Pius V. Why ? Because they all changed something in the Missal. So we must either reject all these popes... or conclude they all (including Paul VI) had the right to change the Roman Missal, and that therefore, a Missal is not a matter of faith, only of discipline; and that consequently, the Pope has the right to change it whenever he thinks it is necessary.
I second BuckDanny2314, one cannot interpret Canon XIII as meaning that the rite of St. Gregory as it developed in the mass of Pius V cannot be changed *at all* because then every change to the rite after Trent would be illegitimate and St. Pius X and Pius XII were both anathema. I actually agree that the rite of Pius V is categorically superior to the rite laid down at the second council of the Vatican, and I *even* agree that the old rite *cannot* even in principle be abolished as no pope can abolish an established rite of the Church. But theologically and liturgically, the new rite is just that- a new rite. The old one has not nor ever can be abolished. What exactly do you think the binding truth that Quo Primum declared was exactly? because it cannot have anything to do with the rite of Pius V because that is not part of the deposit of faith.
Thanks for your answer. However, I would disagree on one point: the OF is not a new rite; rather a new form of the one roman rite, just as the Missal of S. Pius V was in 1570.
Remember that Latin was an innovation and was originally seen as the Vulgar language, hence the vulgate. What sense does a Latin missionary who is evangelizing a people in the jungles of South America who don't even speak Spanish to have them pray in Latin?
Thank you for posting! My 3 year old son loves Eucharistic prayer 1 and plays mass with his little mass set. ❤
Very uplifting chanting. Heals the soul. Amen.
The purest prayer is the one which seeks to make your will conform to God’s will... to make your thinking God’s thinking.
Very nice. Unfortunately I have never seen anything like this done in practice. The only place I've seen something similar to this is at a very high-church (Anglo-Catholic) Episcopalian parish and an Anglican Ordinariate mass. The only Roman Rite churches that practice anything similar to this is churches where the Tridentine Mass is offered.
Use of a vernacular language is not the main defect in the Novus Ordo Mass anyway. It is less about the lack of Latin and more about the simplicity, lack of uniformity, the confusing rubrics etc.
@agentjs09 As it is now, most Catholics can't fully participate in the Mass whenever they travel abroad, unless they happen to know the local language. Anyone could have got a Missal for themselves to translate the Latin into their own language and be able to go to Mass anywhere, and there's no reason why parents shouldn't teach Latin to their children if they have the resources--perhaps parishes could have found a way to offer Latin instruction.
Words of institution begin at 3:47.
Need this in latin
+phati129
It isn't an issue of the vernacular. It is the fact that in 1570 Pope Pius V said using full papal Authority, that no future Pope may ever dare to change the Roman Rite of the Mass or any of the Latin Rite Sacraments, lest he incur the wrath of Almighty God and blessed Peter and Paul.
Except it is not within the realm of papal authority to do so, as no pope can bind a future pope to matter of Church governance, within which the liturgy falls, so Pius V's statement has is in no way binding.
blablabubles Your statement would be 100% true, if it were, in fact, a matter of Church governance. But this is not the case. This is a matter of Faith. The holy Council of Trent, made this very clear in the decree on the Sacraments in General.
Canon XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be shortened at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by whomsoever of the pastors of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
The term used here was "whomsoever of the pastors of the churches", this includes the Pope. The holy Synod of Trent declared as dogma that it was not in the authority of any Pastor in the Church to replace or change rites of the Church. Then, in 1570 when Pope Pius V canonised the Roman Missal (essentially that of St. Gregory the Great), he declared that this was the canonised and eternal Rite of the Roman Church from thence forward and forever.
Now you mention the ancient principle, "An equal cannot bind his equal". But the fallacy here is in what that means. As this is a matter of Faith and not Church governance the principle has to be used correctly. When Pius XII defined and proclaimed the truth of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother, he was not "binding future equals". He was defining a truth of the Faith that cannot be changed, undone, or rejected in the future. The same with Quo Primum.
OK. So let us admit Pius V bound all his successors. Then Paul VI is anathema. And so are John XXIII, Pius XII, Pius X, and practically all successors of Pius V. Why ? Because they all changed something in the Missal.
So we must either reject all these popes... or conclude they all (including Paul VI) had the right to change the Roman Missal, and that therefore, a Missal is not a matter of faith, only of discipline; and that consequently, the Pope has the right to change it whenever he thinks it is necessary.
I second BuckDanny2314, one cannot interpret Canon XIII as meaning that the rite of St. Gregory as it developed in the mass of Pius V cannot be changed *at all* because then every change to the rite after Trent would be illegitimate and St. Pius X and Pius XII were both anathema.
I actually agree that the rite of Pius V is categorically superior to the rite laid down at the second council of the Vatican, and I *even* agree that the old rite *cannot* even in principle be abolished as no pope can abolish an established rite of the Church. But theologically and liturgically, the new rite is just that- a new rite. The old one has not nor ever can be abolished.
What exactly do you think the binding truth that Quo Primum declared was exactly? because it cannot have anything to do with the rite of Pius V because that is not part of the deposit of faith.
Thanks for your answer.
However, I would disagree on one point: the OF is not a new rite; rather a new form of the one roman rite, just as the Missal of S. Pius V was in 1570.
Remember that Latin was an innovation and was originally seen as the Vulgar language, hence the vulgate. What sense does a Latin missionary who is evangelizing a people in the jungles of South America who don't even speak Spanish to have them pray in Latin?
Latin forever and ever . . . ONLY
well then you better say that in Latin.
Latine per omnia sǽcula sæculórum. . . TANTUM
@@blablabubles *sola
I still don't get why we can't just go back to the Latin Mass.
It would be near impossible to get the church on board.
@Zwei4815 Because it's harder for those who don't speak latin to fully participate. Which is like 99.9% of all Catholics. Latin is a dead language.
English changes the character of the Mass. And it translates poorly. Let's just stick with the Latin.
The mass in medieval england was in english. Thats not an argument in itself I know, but it does have a precedent.
@@blablabubles The Sarum Use wasn't in English?
English is a very rich and beautiful language. I do not understand your claim that it "translates poorly."
@@blablabubles I think you are wrong about the Mass in medieval England celebrated in English. Not even the Sarum Rite was but it was more elaborate.
Not really that much better than the old translation. Still sounds pompous.
"pompous", its addressing the king of the universe! it should be dignified.
'Pompous'?