The Mass of the Roman Rite (A Sneak Peek Into Our New Series, "The Mass Explained") 

Same!

Exactly 😂

Is federico's 'the sacrifice of the altar ' in soft copy? Could you share the link

@@paulmaryonyia9506 yes, but I think I saw it on internet archive, you can read for free, borrow an hour at a time.

Yes, it will be.

Why speak Hebrew: Amen, Halelluiah, Hosanna? Let us Tweak!

They may get an honorable mention during discussions of language, but I don't think time will permit to do a deep dive into them. Anyone who's checked into the history of the development of rites knows they can spend the rest of their life researching the sub-component parts of how we got to here and never see the light of day. So, a consideration of available time is a huge factor in what Dr. Pitre will be covering. I'd be open to watching a series dedicated to it though!

@@CatholicProductionsGlagolitic was the onley non latin roman rite (roman catholics, not eastern catholics united with Pope). History goes back to 13. century, when bishop Filip from Senj got the permission for galgolitic liturgy (from Pope Inocent IV.) Check out The New York Missal 🫶

N.B., I SOOOO appreciate that Dr. Pitre took the time to make the qualification that the various Eastern Eucharistic rites do not use the term/word "Mass." God bless, keep up the good work!

One would be hard-pressed to suggest a rupture in the post-conciliar Mass that does not also implicate the Pian Missal of 1570, with a plenitude of change leading up to the universalized issuance of the 1570 Pian missal (additions, subtractions, contractions, expansions, rearrangements). Along these lines of your premise (which I would not espouse), one wonders how universalizing the rite in the wake of Trent was not the liturgical innovation of the millennium (though, I would maintain it was fully within the scope of Pius V's authority to disregard and retain a number of things which he did while telling the rest of Europe they can no longer use their regional missals [with qualifications]).

To be fair, while the disciplinary reach of the reforms of both the 1570 and the 1970 are comparable, the purposes and natures were very different. Even in admitting what Pius V was an innovation, and in questioning whether it was the right course of action, I think they are different enough phenomena that they need to be assessed through different lenses, even when there may be some genuine overlap. @@CatholicProductions

@@CatholicProductions - Well, that’s certainly the Modernist trope! Funny though, I’m reminded of a lesson taught to me by my dear Mom (may she rest in peace) when I was a young lad: two wrongs don’t make a right. So I’d humbly suggest that even if this “story” about Pope Saint Pius V were true, how on earth would it excuse the horrors visited on the Church in and since 1970 by Fr Bugnini and Pope Paul VI? Or, dare we consider the teaching of a certain “Jesus Christ?” (A name seldom heard in the Church hierarchy these days…….. 😢 ). Particularly at St Matthew 7:15-20. What was the “fruit” of Trent, and Quo Primum? Missionary fervor, expansion, and Fantastic growth around the world, was it not? An actual “springtime” for the Church! What has been the “fruit” of the “Spirit of v2” and the revolutionary Novus Ordo Missal? We all know - Pope Paul himself told us! “The smoke of Satan”, and a Church in Freefall. Pray for me! I will pray for you, as I pray every day for Pope Francis and for our wounded Church!!! 🙏🏼😢🙏🏼

the true Roman Rite

The Mass of Pope Paul VI is not the Roman rite. I love Dr Pitre, but the Novus Ordo is a rupture.

​@@andrejvoncina5457 Invalid?

​@@andrejvoncina5457so a mass promulgated to the universal church is corrupted?

Correct. The Council of Trent codified the Tridentine Mass because it has existed since at least the 4th Century. It had developed over time, but it was well established long before the Council of Trent. The council of Trent actually banned the Novus Ordo as it did all others that were less than 200 years old at the time of the Council of Trent.

Dec 6, 2023.

You've come to the right place. Welcome aboard.

Yes, we religiously and slavishly submit to the command of the Master, "Do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19), as did the Apostles and their successors, and the successors of their successors, and so on. We are definitely into proclaiming Christ, as we are commanded to do as well. Thus, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). As such, happy be chained to the "religious slavery" of Sacred Scripture too.

catholicproductions.com/products/mass-readings-explained-include-trial

Correct. The "translation" fly out at ~4:45 isn't to give a literal translation of the Latin, but to give the Latin origin of the words now used at the end of Mass in the Missal according to Paul VI and JP II. Dr. Pitre, however, verbally gives the literal translation in the video at the same time the fly out is presented at the above-mentioned time stamp.

We chant it at my NO

And at my no.😊

And mine. We also sing the Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei. Latin! Beautiful!!! St. John Paul II University Parish in Denton TX

The Monk's at the Abbey have a no with the chant! Soo good!

I have chanted it at three different parishes.

Jungmann, Fortescue, Parsch, King, Dix, Vogel, Lang, Bishop, Klauser, Martimort, Duchesne, Schuster, Durandus, Monti, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Innocent I, Gregory I, Sergius I, Benedict VIII, Gregory VII, Innocent III, Pius V, Clement VIII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis I ...and that's just the beginning.

@@CatholicProductions GREAT !

One may want to consider leaning towards the 60-year papal resumé to the contrary: Paul VI: “The adoption of the new Ordo Missae ['Order of Mass'] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. …The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent. …With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees” (Allocution to the Consistory [May 24, 1976] II, 2). John Paul II: “There must be unequivocal, even public evidence that the priest and people…have no ties with those who impugn the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated…by Pope Paul VI” (Quattuor Abhinc Annos [October 3, 1984]).
 Benedict XVI: “The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite” (Apostolic Letter, Summorum Pontificum [July 7, 2007]). Francis I: “The holy pontiffs St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II, approving the reformed liturgical books ex decreto Sacrosancti Ecumenici Concilii Vaticani II, have guaranteed the fidelity of the reform of the Council” (Apostolic Letter, Desiderio Desideravi [June 29, 2022]).

@MacheteMambi

Depending on what you mean, neither liturgy goes back to the "actual ancient liturgy" and yet both do as well. If you're pursuing an identical liturgy to the most ancient description we have, neither are ancient. But, any order of Mass found at any point in the past in the Latin West generally and Rome specifically (of which there are myriads of variances) is but one sampling of the Latin tradition. One cannot but pursue one particular form of the Mass without decidedly and arbitrarily planting his feet in one particular era of one particular geographical location, and simply declaring that "Catholic" or "Traditional." There are elements more ancient in the NO than in the TLM and vice versa; there are elements more medieval in the NO than the TLM and vice versa. There are elements more modern in the NO than the TLM and vice versa. The only constant is, "Are you celebrating the Mass as the bishop, who is in union with the Roman Pontiff, desires." That is "Catholic," for it is the initial bishops and, thus, their successors to whom Christ deputed to "Do this in memory of me." I think you'll find it's a bit messier than that, as mentioned above, when you press beneath the veneer. This is just the popular narrative peddled today (mostly by Ph.D.'s in philosophy); tomorrow, it will likely be a different one. With all that said, there is REMARKABLE similarity between the Roman Missal of John XXIII and the Roman Missal of Paul VI. Lay them side by side and walk through each part. It's strangely perplexing to say they are disparate from one another to a degree of rupture (some say this), which smacks of an agenda. The amount of continuity is striking; there is just as much continuity there as with other missals that differ from the Missal of Pius V leading up to Trent. Thus, what we would say of Vatican II, it seems to me, will have necessary implications on the Missal of Pius V. I presume people see a change in language (not novel, as it is present in our tradition already) and a change in orientation (also present in our tradition already [e.g., Paul III, Pius V, St. Charles Borromeo [the architect of the Catechism of the Council of Trent]), which shows these are not essential nor unchangeable in the rite even if they are ostensibly the most noticeable. God bless!

Do you think all the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church that are united with Rome and do not have a Latin Mass are a shame also.

@@twoody9760 considering this series is called the Roman rite, that's irrelevant. I will say that the actual teaching of the church is that the Roman rite is superior to the eastern rites. Most people like to pretend that's not true

@@MMichiganSalveRegina

@@CatholicProductions Benedict XIV in Allatae Sunt, 1755... "Since the Latin rite is the rite of the holy Roman church and this church is mother and teacher of the other churches, the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites. It follows that it is not lawful to transfer from the Latin to the Greek rite. Nor may those who have come over to the Latin rite from the Greek or Oriental rite return again to the Greek Rite, unless particular circumstances occasion the giving of a dispensation." The theology here is that Rome is the See of Peter, and hence is the superior Rite. The CCC contains other errors -- like JPII's confusion on the ends of marriage -- and therefore cannot be infallible. By the way, canon law also reflects the reality of a hierarchy of rites

​@MMichiganSalveRegina "Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way" is a quote directly from Sacrosanctum Concilium which is a lawfully promulgated constitution of an ecumenical council, far surpassing the authourity of a papal encyclical directed toward oriental missionaries. Furthermore, given its context, Allatae Sunt is clearly giving a disciplinary teaching regarding the act of changing what would today be called sui iuris churches (actually even less than this, see below). This is not a statement on the intrinsic dignity of the diverse apostolic rites. In point of fact, at the time ot Allatae Sunt the exact nature of the status of sui iuris churches had not even been articulated, hence the terminology of 'rites' and the context clearly not referring really to sui iuris churches but what we would call today biritualism. Basically the point being that at that time the pope gave preferential treatment in law to the rituals of the Roman church on the basis of those being the rites used by the Apostolic See. That's it. The theology of the status of sui iuris churches and their liturgical rites was clarified by the Second Vatican Council and this absurdity of discipline was also corrected.