Authority to change the Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter SalesianSDB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SalesianSDB

Guest
I’ve been thinking about this lately, but now that I’m sitting down to write it it seems rather silly. I’m sure this is a stupid question, but I’m hoping you will be kind and help me with it. I’m sure this is just because I haven’t been well informed on the Mass throughout history and hope you can clarify this for me.

From what I’ve first read, the Tridentine Mass (EF, I believe) was first published in 1570. From1570 to 1962 the Mass was the same and unchanging. In 1962 the Second Vatican Council revised the Missal and from 1962 to now we have used the Novus Ordo Mass (OF).

Here is my first question, is the OF translation similar to the EF?
My second question is, how was Mass celebrated by the apostles and early Christians prior to the EF in 1570?

I know that Christ gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom and said, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” And from that we get Papal authority and the authority of the Magestarium.

So I’ve been wondering recently. The Eucharist is a gift Christ gave His Church. Does the Church here on Earth (Pope and Cardinals) have the authority to change the rite of communion?
For example, do they have the authority to say, “Before in the Mass, the Priest says XYZ and the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, but now the Priest says YZX and the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ”?

I don’t know, but it seems to me that if this is an act of God and a gift from God, us humans shouldn’t have the authority to say, “Transubstantiation occurred after this, but now it occurs after this.”

I am just wondering about this lately. My apologies if this is confusing or sounds stupid.

Just thought I should add, I don’t mean this to go against the Church teachings, I attend the OF and love it. This is just a question that popped into my head recently.

Thank you.
 
SalesianSDB said:
In 1962 the Second Vatican Council revised the Missal and from 1962 to now we have used the Novus Ordo Mass (OF).
Click to expand...
Actually the Missal of Paul VI wasn’t promulgated till 1970.
Here is my first question, is the OF translation similar to the EF?
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, there is no official translation of the EF with which you can make such comparisons. But if you were to compare the Latin OF said ad orientem with the EF, many if not most wouldn’t notice much difference. The structure is basically the same. (Confiteor, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Readings, Offertory, Lavabo, etc.) However, the biggest obvious differences were saying Mass facing the people and Mass entirely in a translated form. I will let others talk about other changes.
 
ProVobis said:
Actually the Missal of Paul VI wasn’t promulgated till 1970.
Click to expand...
My apologies, like I said, I am not well versed on the history of the liturgy. That’s what happens when you go to Wikipedia for your information.
Strictly speaking, there is no official translation of the EF with which you can make such comparisons. But if you were to compare the Latin OF said ad orientem with the EF, many if not most wouldn’t notice much difference. The structure is basically the same. (Confiteor, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Readings, Offertory, Lavabo, etc.)
Click to expand...
Thanks.

And does anyone know of the liturgy as performed by the apostles and early Christians prior to the EF?
 
Just a few quick responses…
SalesianSDB said:
From what I’ve first read, the Tridentine Mass (EF, I believe) was first published in 1570. From1570 to 1962 the Mass was the same and unchanging.
Click to expand...
When the Tridentine Mass was promulgated, it was not a major change from what came before. The big difference was that the latin rite of Mass was unified. Local variations were stamped out for the most part.

From 1570 to 1962 the Mass did change, but only slowly. Right at the end of that time period, there was a flurry of changes culminating in the 1962 Missal.
SalesianSDB said:
In 1962 the Second Vatican Council revised the Missal and from 1962 to now we have used the Novus Ordo Mass (OF).
Click to expand...
The Second Vatican Council did not revise the Missal itself. It requested that the Mass be simplified and permitted use of the vernacular language for some parts of the Mass. These changes were implemented in the mid-60s, and in fact, the changes went beyond that for which the council asked in some areas. For example, the whole Mass was celebrated in the vernacular, Holy Communion was given in the hand in some areas, and the priest started facing the people in many churches. None of these things was authorized, ordered, or requested by the council.

Then in 1970, the old Mass, and the old Calendar were trashed as the new Mass was promulgated. The new Mass was a radical change from what went before. While maintaining a similar basic structure as the old Mass, everything was pretty much reimagined and reinvented from scratch.
SalesianSDB said:
Here is my first question, is the OF translation similar to the EF?
Click to expand...
The EF isn’t translated, so there’s not really any comparison there. The 2010 translation of the new Mass is somewhat similar to what you’ll find in Latin/English hand missals made for use at the old Mass.
SalesianSDB said:
My second question is, how was Mass celebrated by the apostles and early Christians prior to the EF in 1570?
Click to expand...
Immediately before 1570, the Mass was celebrated almost identically to the Roman Missal of 1570. The further you go back before that the more differences there were and, more importantly perhaps, the more variation there was. In the middle ages, there would often be differences, though not large differences, between Masses celebrated in two dioceses next to each other.

I think the earliest description of the Mass is that of Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century A.D., here’s a link, look towards the end, to chapters LXVI & LXVII:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
SalesianSDB said:
So I’ve been wondering recently. The Eucharist is a gift Christ gave His Church. Does the Church here on Earth (Pope and Cardinals) have the authority to change the rite of communion?

For example, do they have the authority to say, “Before in the Mass, the Priest says XYZ and the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, but now the Priest says YZX and the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ”?
Click to expand...
That’s a good question. I think a good argument could be made to say no, the Pope does not have this authority, but on the other hand, maybe the answer is yes. Let’s hope we don’t ever face this situation.
 
Will_S said:
That’s a good question. I think a good argument could be made to say no, the Pope does not have this authority, but on the other hand, maybe the answer is yes. Let’s hope we don’t ever face this situation.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, the only folks who argue that the pope didn’t have the authority to change the liturgy are a handful of sede vacantists and ultra-traditionalists. The liturgy is a matter of discipline. On matters of discipline, the pope has the authority to change and amend as he sees fit.
 
PacoG said:
On matters of discipline, the pope has the authority to change and amend as he sees fit.
Click to expand...
And his successor has the authority to undo all those changes as he sees fit. Just saying.
 
Exactly.

What ultra-traditionalists and sede vacantists always avoid is that St. Pius V used the same language in the bull that promulgated the Breviary. It didn’t deter St. Pius X from issuing a new (not a revised) Breviary.
 
PacoG said:
With all due respect, the only folks who argue that the pope didn’t have the authority to change the liturgy are a handful of sede vacantists and ultra-traditionalists. The liturgy is a matter of discipline. On matters of discipline, the pope has the authority to change and amend as he sees fit.
Click to expand...
The question is not whether the Pope had the authority to change the liturgy, but whether the Pope has the authority to change to very words of consecration.

i.e. - does the Pope have the authority to change the words of consecration from “this is my body” to “large pepperoni pizza please”.

I say no.
 
Where were the words of consecration changed? The only change was the moving of “the mystery of our faith” which weren’t the Lord’s words.

Our Precious Lord did not say “This is the cup of My blood, the mystery of our faith…” None of the accounts of the Last Supper has our Precious Lord saying “the mystery of our faith.”

If the revision did one good thing, it was to remove our words (The mystery of our faith) from the Lord’s words during the consecration which are “This is my body” and “This is … my blood.”

Not only was it not true to the text and inserted our words into his mouth, but it was grammatically incorrect because it shifted speakers in mid-sentence.
 
PacoG said:
Where were the words of consecration changed? The only change was the moving of “the mystery of our faith” which weren’t the Lord’s words.
Click to expand...
They weren’t apart from the mysterium fidei and (in vernacular translations) the* pro multis* issue. But the question in the original post on the thread was whether the Pope has the authority to change the words of consecration themselves. Go back and read it.
 
Will_S said:
They weren’t apart from the mysterium fidei and (in vernacular translations) the* pro multis* issue. But the question in the original post on the thread was whether the Pope has the authority to change the words of consecration themselves. Go back and read it.
Click to expand...
The words of consecration cannot be changed but basically everything else could be.
 
PacoG said:
Where were the words of consecration changed? The only change was the moving of “the mystery of our faith” which weren’t the Lord’s words.

Our Precious Lord did not say “This is the cup of My blood, the mystery of our faith…” None of the accounts of the Last Supper has our Precious Lord saying “the mystery of our faith.”

If the revision did one good thing, it was to remove our words (The mystery of our faith) from the Lord’s words during the consecration which are “This is my body” and “This is … my blood.”

Not only was it not true to the text and inserted our words into his mouth, but it was grammatically incorrect because it shifted speakers in mid-sentence.
Click to expand...
It was the authority of a council, not only the Pope, even though that authority would have been sufficient. (One poster’s comment about the Pope changing to pizza was ludicrous.) The Tridentine missal had:

Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et æterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.* Hæc quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis.***

The post-V2 missal has:

Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et æterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.
 
In the Pauline Missal, was “mysteri fidei” really meant to refer back to the Precious Blood? Were the words moved back in the narrative to reflect them as our words not the Lord’s words? Or is it referring to the Memorial Acclamation? It’s strange because we now have this fragment floating out there between the Consecration and the Memorial Acclamation.

Having seen the bad and inaccurate translation that ICEL made, is it likely that ICEL changed it to being an introduction to the Memorial Acclamation instead?
 
Chatter163 said:
It was the authority of a council, not only the Pope.
Click to expand...
Please provide the citation from the documents of the Second Vatican Council that requests, commands, or authorizes the change/removal of the mysterium fidei.
 
First of all, the Tridentine Mass was NOT unchanged between the 1500’s and 1962. And, the Vatican Council did NOT change anything in 1962, except to order that the Priest face the people, instead of facing the Alter with his back to the people.

No, the church can NOT change the words of the Consecration. Those come directly from the Bible, and it is exactly those words, spoken by a Consecrated Priest, that cause the change.

But the ritual itself that surrounds the Consecration can be changed, and has been many, many time throughout history.

The Mass of the first century was NOTHING like what we have today. It was celebrated around a dining table, and the Consecration took place as a part of a meal (just as Jesus himself had done it).

This was celebrated in someones home, and a few families would gather together. There were a LOT more Priests in proportion to the number of believers in those days. Deacons were very common too. Priests had no special training, they were selected because they were pious men, and respected in their community.

There were no churches at all.

I sometimes wish we could get rid of those monstrosities that we call churches, and get back to basics. Just think of how much we could do, if we were not putting millions of dollars into elaborate churches. And, if we would allow married Priests, there would be no shortage of clergy anywhere. In fact, I suspect that we would have more than they currently would know what to do with them.

Keep in mind that Jesus, over and over again, railed against those the insisted on ritual. He said that it was way to easy to just follow the ritual, without really experiencing the love and worship of God.

That’s exactly what those who advocate for a return to the Tridentine Mass are doing. they are all hung up on the ritual, and totally forgetting about God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top