The parts of the Tridentine Mass that need to be understood(the sermon and the epsitle+gospel reading) are in vernacular. The epistle and gospel are first chanted in Latin, then read in vernacular. The sermon has always been in vernacular, the rest of it is in Latin because it is the preist praying directly to God, not praying out loud with a microphone so everyone can hear him (which is forbidden in the Bible).
Also, people forget that the prayers being offered in the Mass are completely different than a protestant service. You don't need to understand him, he is praying for you. Much of the service is silence or near silence, for personal devotion and contemplation. The entire point is to recieve the Most Blessed Sacrament, and you only need a cursory knowledge of Latin to get what's going on.
I understand your views as i would not be able to do it either. It is a mark of dedication and belief to be able to do so. :) Pax Vobiscum! Don in Vegas
Yep, I remember reading that Papa Benny is making it easier for priests to say tridentine Masses and that he wants more Masses said in Latin, even if we structure them the way we do now, (priest facing congregation and everything else as we know them today.
This is the traditional mass, or tridentine mass, used until the 60's, and yes, the priest is not facing the congregation all the times (but at certain instances he is), like in all other traditional liturgies. Many of us want this mass back freely, for many reasons, amog them some that you've said.
@kiwichristian2009 No, actually we don't believe that, we believe that the sacrifice of Christ was ONE, it is not "repeated" or "done it again" but actualized, that means, made present. The mass is the same sacrifice of the Calvary, not a new, the mass is the way we have to be present at that moment. Think of a digital archive opened many times, it's not a new archive but the same made present.
No, the priest is praying directly to God, so praying in a different language contributes to keeping him from being showy about it, making it more about him than God. For the same reason, the priest is facing the altar, not the people.
Acts 4:12 doesn't say we can't call on anyone in heaven besides Jesus, it says that no one else is our savior. It borders on heresy to say Mary is our savior. And continuing from below, Mary is sinless because she gave birth to Jesus, and the angel called her "full of grace", a term unique to her. Popes come from the early church leaders, and what problem do you have with confirmation??
The official position on purgatory is not the same as the medieval thought. The only official doctrine is that there is cleansing before we go into heaven, not necessarily years and years of suffering. Individual Catholics are allowed to interpret that as they will. Also, the Mary as co-redeemer is not an official doctrine, it is simply held by many Catholics. I am not one of them. Mary is the co-mediator in the sense that you could be a mediator, if i asked you to pray for me.
@kiwichristian2009 First: He says bread and wine are OFFERED, so he thinks it is a sacrifice. Second: what's the greek term he uses that you translate as "figure"? The separation between symbolic and real is modern, the ancient understood these terms otherwise.
@kiwichristian2009 That's false. If you read Justin Maryr, implies clearly that the bread and wine were not merely bread and wine but the body and blood of Chist. Also you're confusing real presence with transubstantiation. Its "early hint" cannot be the early 4th century but the 12th century, it is an aristotelic account of how real presence is possible. But belief in the real presence is much much earlier and it is clear from the reading of the same authors you mention.
Having a sacred language also unites the church as a cultural group apart from secular society. In the same way that Jews use hebrew to distinguish themselves from gentiles, Catholics used to use latin. You should be a Christian before you're an American or whatever, nationality is unimportant.
@catholicandproud1 What are you talking about? The Bible, and I assume you mean the New testament, is a collection of writings, made at different times, by ppl who never knew Christ and which seem to be about more than one person. Paul's letters are the earliest documents: he also never knew Christ. Some other apostolic letters are forgeries and as for Revelation, the Church hesitated a long time about including it because they knew ppl would have dumb ideas about it. There is no Catholic Bible!
@JP2gr8 Don't suppose Paul spoke Latin. Greek and Aramaic, probably. Greek was the lingua franca of the educated in the Roman Empire. Since Paul had Roman citizenship, he doubtless spoke it. Worst thing that ever happened to the world was those four words of Paul: "I am a Roman" because without that, he would have swiftly executed and Christianity would have fallen apart. Apostles were already bickering and splitting but Paul took it to Rome, got it heard, bad luck for the world!
I know contempt for humanity, distaste for human inheritance, and imbalanced hatred of Christianity when I see it. Also, for your information, Paul did not found the Church of Rome, Peter did. Peter was the foundation of unity, not Paul.
That shows that you don't understand the meaning of the mass =) Why 1700 years? YOu also believe in that myth of Constantine changing christianity to his own benefit? Calvin was wrong, I'm sorry.
Jesus' work on the cross continues today, the Mass is not another sacrifice, it is the continuance of the original sacrifice. It is better to trust God than man, but tradition should only be abandoned where it contradicts the bible.
@deercreek7 Jesus didn't begin any church. He spent his life as an observant Jew and was quite clear that his message was for the Jews alone, as when he refused to help a Canaanite woman with a dying child because she wasn't Jewish. (that was until she made a witty reply that made Jesus laugh). Jesus teachings seem very mixed-up, some appear Indian in origin and some Jewish: possibly there are the stories of two ppl in the gospels, maybe 3
@kiwichristian2009 erm.. that does mean married only once. It doesn't mean must be married. I would like to point out that the early church permitted men and women both to preach and to witness, presumably that included assemblies presided over by the apostles and it was only with the advent of the misogynist Paul that women were banned. Paul is the true founder of Catholicism, a man who never met Christ and whose teachings were full of bigotry and a nasty physical puritanism that seems sick.
Hmm.. Let's see, without Christianity you would have no Madonna and Child, no Gregorian Chant, no Western Civilization, no Bach, no Michelangelo, no Tolkien, no G.K. Chesterton, no Divine Comedy and no Dante, no C.S. Lewis, no John Henry Newman, no Thomas Aquinas, no rebound from the collapse of the Roman Empire, no spiritual classics like Augustine's Confessions, John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul or Spiritual Canticles, no classical philosophy, no Interior Castle, etc ad infinitum.
with all due respect to my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, i would hate to have to memorize all the movements of the hands and stuff. it's pretty, yes. pretty useless if you ask me though.
All these dumb arguments. What a waste of productive time. Arguing over whether bread is bread. How is it that all this rubbish wasn't left behind centuries ago?
Evviva la Messa tridentina! Che solennità!
Essa esprime veramente in toto la Fede cattolica! :)
The parts of the Tridentine Mass that need to be understood(the sermon and the epsitle+gospel reading) are in vernacular. The epistle and gospel are first chanted in Latin, then read in vernacular. The sermon has always been in vernacular, the rest of it is in Latin because it is the preist praying directly to God, not praying out loud with a microphone so everyone can hear him (which is forbidden in the Bible).
absolutely... This most holy priest is a examply for all priests across the world.
Also, people forget that the prayers being offered in the Mass are completely different than a protestant service. You don't need to understand him, he is praying for you. Much of the service is silence or near silence, for personal devotion and contemplation. The entire point is to recieve the Most Blessed Sacrament, and you only need a cursory knowledge of Latin to get what's going on.
anybody know why we don't do the tridentine style Masses any more, they are amazing.
I understand your views as i would not be able to do it either. It is a mark of dedication and belief to be able to do so. :)
Pax Vobiscum!
Don in Vegas
What a lovely mass!
what a beautiful priest. this video is great.
Yep, I remember reading that Papa Benny is making it easier for priests to say tridentine Masses and that he wants more Masses said in Latin, even if we structure them the way we do now, (priest facing congregation and everything else as we know them today.
Lord have mercy.
This is the traditional mass, or tridentine mass, used until the 60's, and yes, the priest is not facing the congregation all the times (but at certain instances he is), like in all other traditional liturgies. Many of us want this mass back freely, for many reasons, amog them some that you've said.
what a beautiful priest.
Beautiful
well said!
These offensive comments should be removed...
When will we have it back?
=(
Forgive him, Lord, because he does not know what he is doing.
What chimes?
Maybe you mean the bells, the bells are rung during the most important moments of the mass, in this case, the consecration.
thank you :)
@kiwichristian2009 No, actually we don't believe that, we believe that the sacrifice of Christ was ONE, it is not "repeated" or "done it again" but actualized, that means, made present. The mass is the same sacrifice of the Calvary, not a new, the mass is the way we have to be present at that moment. Think of a digital archive opened many times, it's not a new archive but the same made present.
No, the priest is praying directly to God, so praying in a different language contributes to keeping him from being showy about it, making it more about him than God. For the same reason, the priest is facing the altar, not the people.
Acts 4:12 doesn't say we can't call on anyone in heaven besides Jesus, it says that no one else is our savior. It borders on heresy to say Mary is our savior. And continuing from below, Mary is sinless because she gave birth to Jesus, and the angel called her "full of grace", a term unique to her. Popes come from the early church leaders, and what problem do you have with confirmation??
feel free to explain to me the hand movements of the priest.
The official position on purgatory is not the same as the medieval thought. The only official doctrine is that there is cleansing before we go into heaven, not necessarily years and years of suffering. Individual Catholics are allowed to interpret that as they will. Also, the Mary as co-redeemer is not an official doctrine, it is simply held by many Catholics. I am not one of them. Mary is the co-mediator in the sense that you could be a mediator, if i asked you to pray for me.
@kiwichristian2009 First: He says bread and wine are OFFERED, so he thinks it is a sacrifice. Second: what's the greek term he uses that you translate as "figure"? The separation between symbolic and real is modern, the ancient understood these terms otherwise.
@kiwichristian2009 Show me an instance where the apostles didnt forgive sins and didnt hear confessions.
@kiwichristian2009 What does "symbol" mean to you?
NO! you are wrong, we are the church Jesus founded on earth and have not changed in 2000 years.
@kiwichristian2009 That's false. If you read Justin Maryr, implies clearly that the bread and wine were not merely bread and wine but the body and blood of Chist. Also you're confusing real presence with transubstantiation. Its "early hint" cannot be the early 4th century but the 12th century, it is an aristotelic account of how real presence is possible. But belief in the real presence is much much earlier and it is clear from the reading of the same authors you mention.
Having a sacred language also unites the church as a cultural group apart from secular society. In the same way that Jews use hebrew to distinguish themselves from gentiles, Catholics used to use latin. You should be a Christian before you're an American or whatever, nationality is unimportant.
@catholicandproud1 What are you talking about? The Bible, and I assume you mean the New testament, is a collection of writings, made at different times, by ppl who never knew Christ and which seem to be about more than one person. Paul's letters are the earliest documents: he also never knew Christ. Some other apostolic letters are forgeries and as for Revelation, the Church hesitated a long time about including it because they knew ppl would have dumb ideas about it. There is no Catholic Bible!
@kiwichristian2009 No, Rome doesn't teach that. Read the Cathecism 1330 and 1366.
@JP2gr8 Don't suppose Paul spoke Latin. Greek and Aramaic, probably. Greek was the lingua franca of the educated in the Roman Empire. Since Paul had Roman citizenship, he doubtless spoke it.
Worst thing that ever happened to the world was those four words of Paul: "I am a Roman" because without that, he would have swiftly executed and Christianity would have fallen apart. Apostles were already bickering and splitting but Paul took it to Rome, got it heard, bad luck for the world!
I know contempt for humanity, distaste for human inheritance, and imbalanced hatred of Christianity when I see it.
Also, for your information, Paul did not found the Church of Rome, Peter did. Peter was the foundation of unity, not Paul.
That shows that you don't understand the meaning of the mass =)
Why 1700 years? YOu also believe in that myth of Constantine changing christianity to his own benefit? Calvin was wrong, I'm sorry.
Jesus' work on the cross continues today, the Mass is not another sacrifice, it is the continuance of the original sacrifice. It is better to trust God than man, but tradition should only be abandoned where it contradicts the bible.
why does the priest talks to the cup and the christ cookie? I would like to understand this symbol but I dont find any information....Help! :)
@deercreek7 Jesus didn't begin any church. He spent his life as an observant Jew and was quite clear that his message was for the Jews alone, as when he refused to help a Canaanite woman with a dying child because she wasn't Jewish. (that was until she made a witty reply that made Jesus laugh). Jesus teachings seem very mixed-up, some appear Indian in origin and some Jewish: possibly there are the stories of two ppl in the gospels, maybe 3
@kiwichristian2009 erm.. that does mean married only once. It doesn't mean must be married. I would like to point out that the early church permitted men and women both to preach and to witness, presumably that included assemblies presided over by the apostles and it was only with the advent of the misogynist Paul that women were banned. Paul is the true founder of Catholicism, a man who never met Christ and whose teachings were full of bigotry and a nasty physical puritanism that seems sick.
wtf,
Hmm.. Let's see, without Christianity you would have no Madonna and Child, no Gregorian Chant, no Western Civilization, no Bach, no Michelangelo, no Tolkien, no G.K. Chesterton, no Divine Comedy and no Dante, no C.S. Lewis, no John Henry Newman, no Thomas Aquinas, no rebound from the collapse of the Roman Empire, no spiritual classics like Augustine's Confessions, John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul or Spiritual Canticles, no classical philosophy, no Interior Castle, etc ad infinitum.
with all due respect to my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, i would hate to have to memorize all the movements of the hands and stuff. it's pretty, yes. pretty useless if you ask me though.
All these dumb arguments. What a waste of productive time. Arguing over whether bread is bread. How is it that all this rubbish wasn't left behind centuries ago?
Solo questa si può chiamare SANTA MESSA.