The History of the Traditional Latin Mass: The Greatest Treasure of the West (QCH series)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 жов 2021
- In part 1 of this 2 part series, we examined the development of the Roman Rite Mass from the time of Jesus to the conversion of Constantine. In this video, we complete our historical examination of the development of the Traditional Latin Mass: the greatest treasure of the West.
Thank you for these videos. I grew up in the N.O. and have recently discovered the TLM. I couldn't believe how lost I felt when I first attended TLM, but after a few months, I can follow along and actually crave it. I honestly think in the near future, the Novous Ordo will fade away and the Traditional Latin Mass will reassert itself as the dominant expression of our faith.
I hope you are right about that.
Me too. I also am learning things about the faith which I never knew by following Fr Chad Ripperger and Catholic Unscripted and reading. Blowing my mind because all I’ve wanted from the get go was a straight answer to things that didn’t add up in N.O./CCD class /College 101 classes (went to catholic Uni under a very gay order) Thank God the Holy Spirit /TLM/ Our Lady are alive and well. I agree that Our Lady will prevail, but I think we also buckle up for bumpy times.
I also like the TLM (knowing Latin also makes that nice). However, it doesn't seem like we're going in that direction. What I think is more realistic is that the TLM will go away, but the Novus Ordo will become way more traditional, and eventually the Novus Ordo will undergo a good deal of healthy revisions that will bring it back to the TLM tradition, but still keep the elements of the NO that are truly good. Novus Ordo Masses even today can still be done reverently and beautifully.
@@GloriaJesuI do agree with your assessment. I am 74 years old and was raised with the traditional Latin Mass.
I loved seeing this walk down memory lane of how the Mass developed into its current form, and that it didn't just pop into existence after Christ's Ascension. It still blows my mind that you're able to so neatly compile all of this information and present it so clearly!
I would be very curious to hear your defense of the Novus Ordo in the future, either in passing conversation or in a video, as it seems like you greatly prefer the Traditional Latin Mass, and as one who has been to Novus Ordo pretty much all of my life, I'd like to know if some Catholics would consider me to be attending the "wrong Mass".
The novus ordo was created by committee in the 1960s. The TLM comes from Christ through the apostles. That’s really all there is to it. I’d rather go to the one created by our Lord. A really good book I’d suggest reading is “open letter to confused Catholics” by AB Marcel Lefebvre
@@Runsfrombears Screw lefebfvre, his followers are confused scismatics; and you @EpicPaul64 stop going to those half-protestant half-masonic parties called the novus ordo, our Lord Christ IS NOT THERE
I really appreciate your explanation of the Celtic rite. It had been made to seem as though the Roman rite forced themselves upon everyone, when in reality, all the western rites were sort of absorbed into the Latin rite over time.
Everyone needs to watch this video! I've heard several side comments about changes to the mass throughout the centuries but have never heard the full story until now. Very enlightening!
Thanks brother!
Thankyou for this excellent presentation of the major historical events and personalities comprising the organic historical development of the Mass of the Ages. This is of great value to the ongoing important discussion surrounding the present and future use of the TLM in the life of the church.
Excellent, amazing work! Would appreciate if you fixed the background humming noise though in these vids though 😉 Great stuff! Any book recommendations for liturgical history? I have Jurgen’s three volumes of the Fathers, but anything specific for a historical overview? Thanks again!
I was just thinking, 'What is the history of the Latin Mass?' and so I went to youtube ...
Very interesting… I learned a great deal. Thanks so much. Blessed Epiphany/Theophany.
The Latin churches had an equivalent of the iconostasis : the Jubé or rood screen. They were replaced by the altar rails by the Council of Trent, but they remained longer. Some churches have them to this day.
Although the reasonable reforms you mentioned made sense to discuss and see if they should be made, there are good arguments to why even some of them might be best kept unchanged. The weekly lectionary, for instance, implies to the Priest that it is bad to do a requiem Mass, because the requiem Mass would not use the regular weekly readings and disrupt the cycle. Many priests used to offer many requiem masses in devotion and love for the Poor Holy Souls - but now it is minimal at best.
The prayers of the faithful being added back in might be good for some but not for all. Many have a preference for praying the rosary as their way of participating in Mass or use some other devotion. Perhaps a good compromise would be to give it as an option but not a requirement.
Making a three year liturgical cycle, although intended to bring in more Scripture, ends up making it confusing. There are ways of adding more Scripture and encouraging the faithful to do so without rupturing the liturgical calendar. Also, telling the lay people that it would be better for them to pray the Divine Office ruptures the unique devotions that have developed amongst lay people as an alternative to the Divine Office - such as the many beautiful litanies, novenas, chaplets, and so on.
There are also issues with the Divine Office changes. Pieces of the Psalms have been removed for instance.
By "reasonable" I mean that these changes can be seen to have a justifiable reason in the light of Catholic tradition - one might certainly still argue they were not prudentially the best course of action. My understanding of the relationship between a laymen and the Magisterial authority is one of internal assent in matters of prudential judgement but loyal resistance in matters in which the Catholic tradition seems to be gravely contradicted.
Thanks for the video, Daniel! I've really enjoyed this video and the previous one on the first few centuries. I just wanted to make a quick note that St. Ignatius of Antioch (and St. Polycarp) were disciples of St. John the Apostle, not St. Peter. I know I'm a year late haha but just wanted to point that out.
Update: Thanks again for these two videos. Very informative. I share many of your frustrations about the Novus Ordo, however, I still believe Vatican II was a necessary and true council (I am not presuming what your stance is one way or the other). Its implementation... well, yeah, that's another question. I would also add that I have seen personally and heard a lot of good things happening with the Novus Ordo at the local level. And younger people like myself are very much involved and interested in good, reverent liturgy. Regardless of all these considerations, we receive the body of Christ in the eucharist, and we go out into the world as part of his body, his Church.
Peace be with you.
All Masses❤ ❤ ❤ ❤❤
Good afternoon, where is the first part you're referring to? Thanks!
This is excellent! Are there any books on the early roman Mass that you would recommend?
The Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina is a great short overview. A great primary source book is Springtime of the Liturgy: Liturgical Texts of the First Four Centuries by Lucien Deiss. The most comprehensive work is Fr. Josef Jungmann's 2 volume Mass of the Roman Rite, but he interjects a lot of subtle and misleading progressive thoughts. You need to be comfortable sifting through his ideological slant, but if you can do that, it's got a lot of great research behind it. I would also be happy to share an essay I wrote on the Roman Rite Mass of the first three centuries if you shoot me an email at danielsuterec@gmail.com.
How can I get to where you do family tree???
Where can I fin part 1?
I don't know if you'll see this as this video is two years old but the disuse of the paten when distributing communion is not a universal issue. Every Mass I've been to here in Mexico has used the paten when distributing holy communion.
I am not entirely convinced by this. Metropolitan Jonah discusses the topic in a series of videos. The Last Supper can not have been a regular Jewish Seder meal. The Liturgy of St James is very early and is the model for the St John Chrysostom Liturgy.
😊
Great videos and wonderful content...... Interesting argument though. That is: if you disagree that the Mass is an actual sacrifice you are condemning the entire early church. Question: Is the early church the sole arbiter of truth relative to Christian Doctrine? This view my friend seems to be implicitly incorporated into the Catholic propensity to claim wholly for themselves the Ante-Nicene Fathers. This form of argumentation is used generally as a cudgel. The fathers believed it therefore the matter is closed. Somewhat tantamount to: Rome has spoken the matter is closed. What of those of us that affirm Sola & Tota Scriptura? The real presence notwithstanding, what if those of us hold to a biblical view of the finished work of the cross such as that reflected in Hebrews 10:1-39. Does scripture require a perpetual representation of Christ's sacrifice to the Father? Hebrews 10:1-2, "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?" Now of course the standard reply that I hear from Catholics is to appeal to verse 4, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." They then argue that bulls and goats are not being offered but instead the Christ, the God-man. Granted! Which of course raises a few questions. 1) Where is the New Testament are Christians commanded to erect an altar?
Exodus 20: 22-24 provides, in pertinent part, "And Yahweh said to Moses....An altar of earth you will make for me, and you will sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your fellowship offerings...." The Lord's Supper occurred at a table set for the Passover not an altar, to wit: Matthew 26:20-21, "Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples. As they were eating...." see also, Mark 14:17-18, "When it was evening He came with the twelve. As they were reclining at the table and eating...." also, Luke 22:14-19, "And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.....And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'" also John 13:12, "Then, when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again...." By erecting an altar it appears as though the Church is connecting Christ's sacrifice with the sacrifices of the Law which was merely, "...a shadow of the good things to come..." ibid. How then is it possible to view the exercise of repetition which the Church characterizes as a representation of the sacrifice of Christ independent of the biblical admonition, "....can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near." ibid. The writer of Hebrews recognizes both the thematic and logical coherence between the requirement of continual offerings of sacrifices and the inability of the sacrifices themselves to achieve their object, to wit: make perfect those who draw near.
In stark contrast to the continual sacrifices offered under the Law the writer of Hebrews exclaims, "He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." Hebrews 10:9-14
The writer's emphasis is unmistakably clear: "once for all," and "one sacrifice for sins for all time," and "one offering". Nothing in the text bears any relation of similitude with the view expressed by Rome which requires a perpetual representation of the same sacrifice. I submit, irrespective of the views expressed by the Ante-Nicene Fathers, we have no good reason to think the Mass is an actual sacrifice.
Great show! however a few comments to think about my friend.........God bless!
Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful response. I genuinely appreciate your feedback and especially the time you took to craft your rebuttal. Below I have constructed a response to your objections. Or, if you rather, here is a link to a much more elegantly crafted summary of Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist from the official Catechism.
www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm
As the framing of your question leans, the early Church is not the sole arbiter of Christian Doctrine. The Word of God, in fact, is - a Word which was revealed to humanity through:
- The Incarnate God Man
- The Tradition He and the Holy Spirit transmitted to the Apostles, which they deposited to the legitimate bishops of the early Church for its protection
- The Divinely Inspired texts which the legitimate authorities of the Church discerned, accepting the legitimate 27 New Testament texts and rejecting the perhaps laudable yet not Divinely Inspired texts such as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, etc.
The reason the Ante-Nicene Fathers are leaned upon heavily in this video and this channel is not because the opinions of 1st-3rd century theologians constitute the source of Divine Revelation. The writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers on the Mass, rather, reflects a tradition which was handed on to them and safe guarded by the legitimate bishops who saw their role as preserving the legitimate tradition of Christ and the Apostles from alteration. Thus, we can understand the extreme emphasis on the need to maintain communion with legitimate bishops in order to avoid falling into heresy (Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian). Where we can perceive a uniformity of attitude of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century fathers of a variety of cultures toward understanding the Mass as a sacrifice, it would seem perplex to suggest that each of these fathers had significantly strayed from the original tradition handed on from Christ to the Apostles. Further, it would seem even more perplex that this significant error would not be corrected by any theologian or bishop until the 16th century.
We must look to tradition for answers where Scripture alone is not explicitly clear (though, I do believe Scripture clearly points towards an identification of the Lord’s Supper with the “given for you” body and blood of Christ, which must be consumed in order to receive eternal life. My video "Who's Right about the 12 Apostles" discusses this further.)
It was, after all, tradition which instructed the Church of the 1st century - not Scripture alone. The 27 books of the New Testament were not finished being constructed till the end of the first century. The first century Church, then, relied on the tradition of the Apostles to understand salvific doctrine. If this oral tradition was not an adequate means of transmitting Divine Revelation, Jesus would have surely left his Apostles with a finished New Testament text. Jesus did not only leave the first century Church with an adequate source of doctrine in the Apostolic tradition, but He left them with a comprehensive source of doctrine in the tradition. This is the reason that Church history is so important - it is an excellent tool to help discern the legitimate apostolic tradition.
Hebrews 10:1-39 is contrasting the inadequacy of the Old Law to offer a perfect, truly atoning sacrifice with the infinite merit of Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross. Notice Hebrews 10:11 - Every priest stands at his duties every day, offering over and over again the same sacrifices which are quite incapable of taking away sins. The Old Law had symbolic and pedagogical value, but did not substantially have the ability to cleanse the soul from sin or atone for the infinite guilt sin merits on the part of man. When the writer asks "Otherwise, would they not have ceased being offered?" (Heb 10:2) Catholics and Protestants alike agree that since the sacrifice on Mount Cavalry, God wills no more spilling of blood in sacrifice. His wrath has been infinitely satisfied by the Blood of Christ. Protestants believe that we are to participate in the sacrifice of Jesus only spiritually through faith in it - Catholics, all Ancient Churches, and the early Church believed we were to participate in the one sacrifice of Jesus through faith and through sacrament.
Jesus is the Priest of the new law, and His sacred flesh is the one offering, offered once and for all, of the new law. Catholic priests are a sacrament of Christ the Priest - they are ordained to become an “efficacious sign” both pointing to the one priest and making his priesthood present in the tangible reality of the present gathering of the faithful. Through the Eucharistic ritual, Jesus willed to offer each generation and each community of Christians a means to individually take part in the one sacrifice and personally receive the merit thereof through communion. Consider how the ancient Hebrew was not a partaker in the Paschal sacrifice unless he ate the flesh of the Lamb. In like manner, Jesus tells us “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
An “ockham’s razor” theological approach might question whether it was absolutely necessary for Jesus to institute a Catholic priesthood or whether it was absolutely necessary that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the crucified lamb in order to receive the eternal life merited by this sacrifice. Can we not receive the grace of the sacrifice simply invisibly, spiritually, through faith? Yet let me make this point very clear: applying this “ockham’s razor” theological approach to John 6 can hardly be interpreted as a “plain reading of Solo Scriptura.” It is, rather, an instance of interpretative gymnastics in order to conform the plain sense of scripture to a 16th century theological tradition that insists that salvation and grace is gained from faith alone, and in no manner from participation in a sacrament.
Also, to answer the question of whether it was necessary, I think, is to overstep man’s boundaries. We are not the designers or critics of God’s plan for salvation, we are it’s docile recipients. I think it is better to ask, “Did Jesus intend the last supper to serve as a memorial sacrifice (to be offered “as often as you do this, i.e., gather as a community) to re-present His one eternal sacrifice for each generation’s Christians?” To find that answer, as this video has shown, I have examined the Scriptural texts about the Eucharist as well as the testimony of the earliest witnesses of the Christian Eucharist to examine what they said about the liturgy. We have found that the early Church regularly referred to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Since the early Church was aware of Hebrews 10, this means they would have understood the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine to be a mysterious offering of the the Body and Blood of the Lamb to God. Since, again, the early Church was conscientious of Hebrews 10, they would not have viewed this as a re-crucifixion of the Lord, but as a mysterious participation in the one offering of Mt. Calvary.
If I had to speculate as to why Jesus chose to give us the Eucharist as a means to personally and communally participate in the offering of Mt. Calvary, I believe it is because He understands that wounded and sinful man must offer sacrifice to God. Every ancient people knew this, even if their idea of God was distorted or even depraved. Abraham and the Patriarchs certainly intuited it, and it became standardized under God’s direction on Mt. Sinai. Yet, despite this spiritual need, we simply cannot offer anything capable of canceling our debt or destroying our sins. Thus, Jesus made the one perfect offering…and instituted a ritual which would make us capable of offering it to God ourselves by participation in the Mass, which our sinful nature requires.
Regarding the question concerning the altar, Jesus transformed a simple meal ritual into the mysterious medium by which his Church could continue to offer His one perfect sacrifice to God and participate fully in the one sacrifice through bodily communion. Most historians believe that for most of the Ante-Nicene period, the Mass was celebrated on tables due to its connection with a ritualistic meal, even while it was perceived as a sacrifice by the fathers mentioned in this video. During the peace of Constantine, once more financial resources abounded, erecting stone altars became a more popular practice to emphasize the theological nature of the ritual which was always perceived. Regardless, Christian altars never ceased resembling common tables, even if made of stone, in contrast to the shape of pagan altars.
This is because the Mass is both a sacrifice and a meal.
God bless you and thanks for watching!
It's not abrogated. Abrogated means that it should not be allowed to be done. But the mass is allowed. Just because they changed, it doesn't mean it's abrogated. This anathema was speaking of protestants who tried to prevent the mass from being said in general. They are anathema.
Peter was a Galilean jew on Pentecost the Jews heard his words in many languages they came from.
John XXIII added St. Joseph to the Roman Canon in the late fifties.
Where have you heard that? I’ve always heard 1962…www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/12/on-insertion-of-st-josephs-name-into.html?m=1
@@historiaecclesiastica Yeah actually it's probably 1962. A source I saw recently said 50s but it's probably wrong. Anyway, I said that because you said in the video that the canon was unchanged until the New Mass, but didn't qualify that there was actually this minor modification a few years prior.
Talking about how the Roman Church chose to de-emphasize the MEAL aspects of the Eucharist and amp up the Sacrifice aspects instead is not going to do anything to CONVINCE any non-Catholics of the validity of Catholicism unfortunately - rather it only underscores the BREAK from a tradition that had spanned at least a couple of centuries (where the Meal and Table aspects were INGRAINED in the Eucharist).
It is very clear that your target audience is Traditional Catholics and no one else - which is fine, but you should MAKE THAT CLEAR right from the outset that you are basically just "preaching to the Catholic choir".
And I say this as someone who was born and raised Catholic, attended a Catholic school, has been to Lourdes twice, visited Fatima, and prays the Rosary. So this isn't a Protestant critique
Many, if not most, Catholics are sadly ignorant of the Faith, so there's nothing wrong with 'preaching to the Catholic choir'.
In your opinion, is the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday dispensed if there is no traditional rite to attend within a reasonable distance? This question has been on my mind a lot, because I feel like I am indirectly supporting sacrilege when the paten is not being used and when kneeling to receive Communion makes you feel like a leper in most New Order liturgies. To put it bluntly, I wonder if supporting such a "rite" does more harm than good, especially considering some of the English martyrs who died just to keep Latin in their liturgy.
However, I cannot make such decisions based only on my feelings, but would prefer a reasonable decision based on Church history.
I don’t think there’s any reason to believe one would be dispensed from attending a metaphysically valid Eucharistic Sacrifice on Sunday if one is available, even if the liturgy is arranged in a non-Catholic way. I receive kneeling on the tongue always and I think it’s important that if some people are bothered by it, they can at least begin to consider why somebody would choose to respond that way to the Blessed Sacrament. It is still the preferred way to receive since permissions were given for the less reverent form of receiving. I also tend to respond in Latin, not so much to publicly protest but because the Ancient language is objectively helpful to enter into the mystery.
You can attend an Eastern Orthodox Liturgy if there is one within reach.
@@physiocrat7143 You mean Byzantine Rite liturgy right? Because a Catholic is never allowed to attend a mass from a schismatic/heretic, although in danger of death they may confess and receive absolution and extreme unction. I guess you could also attend one as a social gathering, like a wedding of a friend who's Eastern Orthodox or something like that.
@@thereasonableman2424
I mean Eastern Orthodox ie one of the dozen or so attached to a Patriarchate. However you will not be allowed to receive communion until you are formally received.
The Greek Catholics are probably next in line to get picked off.
The Eastern Orthodox regard the Latins as heretical schismatics. Go figure. The Papal claim all rests on the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18 ie the argument is circular, which does not mean it is false, but you can say that they would say that, wouldn't they?
@@thereasonableman2424 As far as I know the Byzantines are in full communion
Most of the things you speak about that were removed were not removed due to vatican 2. They were removed for convenience, and I would agree that it was wrong in many instances to do so, but that's something that we should return as a church. That wasn't the councils decision but the people's. Instead of leaving the church or going to a tlm only church. Why not bring the good of the tlm to the novus ordo.
I think I discuss some of the things you mentioned here in this video: ua-cam.com/video/rcuQaUVGILg/v-deo.html
@historiaecclesiastica I agree with you, but I just don't see the novus ordo changing unless the TLM people bring their talents to the novus ordo.
Love the info but can we get you a straw ? 🥴
Even a Christian cannot brush aside the worship of Jehovah as God. In Revelation 1:5 the Son of God called himself "Jesus Christ, 'The Faithful Witness.'" When on earth as a man he was a Jew, an Israelite, to whose nation the words of Isaiah 43:10 were written: "'You are my witnesses, ' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'even my servant whom I have chosen.'' Jesus demonstrated that he was a faithful and true witness of Jehovah God. His genuine disciples today must be the same kind of witnesses, Jehovah's.
K now fit the entire rest of the Bible into your theology...
It didn't. The last supper was over before our Lord instituted the eternal sacrifice. The last supper jargon is a protestant heresy, they are 2 separate things with the Holy Sacrifice being essential.
The Last Supper was definitely the institution of the Sacrifice of the Mass that anticipated the merit of the sacrifice of Mt. Calvary. The Lord transfigured the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, and when He said "do this in memory of me," He was commanding his apostles to continue this new rite.
You could say that referring to the Mass as "The Lord's Supper" is Protestant jargon since the reformers began using this terminology to downplay the merit of the Eucharist as a sacrifice and emphasize only its role as a communal meal.
Ite missa est, not ita...
Can't blame vatican 2. People were leaving the church long before vatican 2. I'd say it was the failers of those who came before and didn't do more against the enlightenment and against protestantism. Also, that 30% is inaccurate. The recently did another study using the words that the church uses, and it's closer to 70% who believe in the real presence. Could novus ordo masses be more reverant and take from the TLM the good and beauty? Yes. Is it the cause of people leaving the church. I don't think so. I think it's secularism that caused that. Vatican 2 calls people to be more sacramental and to read and understand scripture more and wants the people to do more for and within the church.
ah yes the greatest treasure that was literally thrown away by freemasons in vatican ii
Drinking during your presentation is seriously irritating please stop
AMEN!!!!!
The church does not owe you a why. Popes have supreme authority. That includes over the matters of practice of the mass. Condemnation of practice are condemnations at the time . They do not bind future popes regarding changes in practice they make. The council of Trent does not bind popes regarding matters of practice.. councilarism has been condemned. I strongly suggest you look up the decrees on papal supremacy from Vatican council I. Read and study them.
Modern man needs new faith, so V2 changed the Latin Mass to have a new faith...to be more ecumenical in nature ( not in orthodox sense ).... sacrifice to meal/assembly theology !
Modern man does not need a new faith. Modern man needs the one apostolic faith handed down to us.
modern man does not need new faith he needs THE Faith. I guess though that you are (correctly) taking a critical view of the idiocy of the ideas behind Vat II - since Vatican II of course millions of priests, monks, nuns and laity fled the Catholic Church.
@@marcokite You got me there.The new Mass has different theology, it's protestantized Mass period !
Gbu
@@gch8810 exactly !
@@anthonytan7134 Absolutely not.