Can someone explain these changes

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnneTeresa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkThompson said:
And yet you keep bragging about how you found a Mass that jibes with your preferences and dumped the Mass that didn’t. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
In the TLM, my preference as you call it, there is obvious reverence for the sacrifice of Jesus; there is obvious silent participation of the congregation at Low Mass and respectful Gregorian Chant at the Missa Cantata and Solemn High Mass, no one reading the bulletin or checking e-mail; there is a rosary before Mass; there are personal prayers by the majority of the congregation after Mass; communion is at the altar rail on our knees; there is no glad-handing and “how’s it going” at the Kiss of Peace, no hand-grabbing during the Our Father; the Tabernacle is centered on the altar which is itself centered on the crucifix; there are no pianos, guitars, drums, saxophones or other jazz instruments; there are no announcements of the local pro-sport score during the homily; especially there are no lay people handling the consecrated host and there are no altar girls. Other than that I really have no preference to discuss. How many of those are present at your parish?

As for “dumping” the OF, you are absolutely wrong. I attend the OF when traveling and I occasionally attend at the parish where we are registered as a family. Our OF parish is reasonably reverent except when the choir director overrides the Mass. I also have an issue with the “need” for 12 EMHC. I have no control over some the nonsense I come across when traveling but I would never return to those parishes and have been known to leave after communion at a few very strange Masses.
 
MarkThompson said:
Just to be clear, there is no requirement that any part of the Mass be said in Latin. It can be done 100% in English – or 100% in Spanish, Polish, Italian, Japanese, etc. Priests can also do multilingual Masses if they think it would be beneficial for the congregation. For example, at a parish in Texas or New Mexico they might do a Mass that partly in English and partly in Spanish.

That’s what’s happening in your church, except that the priest has decided to combine English with Latin. The English makes things understandable (you wouldn’t want the readings in Latin, for instance), while for parts of the Mass you already understand, using the Latin helps tie what your congregation is doing in that time and place to the universal Church throughout the world and the ages. The Pope has also recommended (but not required) using Latin for common parts of the Mass in cases of multilingual or multiethnic congregations, allowing the Mass to be done in a single common language rather than a mishmash of different languages.

So, again, if your parish is using Latin, it is because it was the priest’s choice (and one that I personally agree with, mind you), not because there are “changes” or a “new way of doing things in the Church.” One thing that means is, if you’re against the differences in your parish, you should mention it to the priest, since he has the power to go back; and, more importantly, if you support them and you like the differences, you should tell him, because I’m sure he’s gotten resistance from other people and would be glad to know that you support what he’s doing.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Mass was never planned to be “100%’” in the vernacular. If you have read the actual documents of Vatican II, you will see, quite clearly, that elements such as the Greek Kyrie Eleison, and the Latin Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei (among others) were meant to be ‘kept’ in the Latin and the people were supposed to be able to say these ‘parts’ which are proper to them IN the Latin.

So while some parishes may ‘think’ that an 100% ‘Latin free’ English --or Spanish, or Croatian, or Bantu-- Mass is ‘fine and dandy’. . .it isn’t. Of course, after 40 years of mistaken thinking --especially when it has been espoused and or taught by priests and bishops, many of whom did so from the highest motives and totally convinced of their understanding being ‘true’–it comes as a shock to many Catholics to think that a 40-year-old ‘beloved tradition’ could be ‘wrong.’
 
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy in Article 113 gives fundamental information on the use of the vernacular: “As regards the language to be used, the provisions of Article 36 are to be observed: for the Mass, Article 54; for the sacraments, Article 63; and for the divine office, Article 101.”
Article 36. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
Article 54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be alloted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to readings and the “common prayer,” but also, as local condition may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this constitution. Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. And whenever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this constitution is to be observed.
Article 63. Because the use of the mother tongue in the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals can often be of considerable help to the people, this use is to be extended according to the following norms: a) The vernacular language may be used in administering the sacraments and sacramentals, according to the norm of Art. 36. b) In harmony with the new edition of the Roman Ritual, particular rituals shall be prepared without delay by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22 of this constitution. These rituals, which are to be adapted, also as regards the language employed, to the needs of the different regions, are to be reviewed by the Apostolic See and then introduced into the regions for which they have been prepared. But in drawing up these rituals or particular collections of rites, the instructions prefixed to the individual rites on the Roman Ritual, whether they be pastoral and rubrical or whether they have special social import, shall not be omitted.
Article 101. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of the vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Actually, the Mass was never planned to be “100%’” in the vernacular. If you have read the actual documents of Vatican II, you will see, quite clearly, that elements such as the Greek Kyrie Eleison, and the Latin Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei (among others) were meant to be ‘kept’ in the Latin and the people were supposed to be able to say these ‘parts’ which are proper to them IN the Latin.

So while some parishes may ‘think’ that an 100% ‘Latin free’ English --or Spanish, or Croatian, or Bantu-- Mass is ‘fine and dandy’. . .it isn’t. Of course, after 40 years of mistaken thinking --especially when it has been espoused and or taught by priests and bishops, many of whom did so from the highest motives and totally convinced of their understanding being ‘true’–it comes as a shock to many Catholics to think that a 40-year-old ‘beloved tradition’ could be ‘wrong.’
Click to expand...
The OP was asking about what is actually happening at her real parish, not about the theoretical, unrealized implications of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The 100%-vernacular Mass is, and will continue to be, fully permitted under Church law. Whether, hypothetically, it ought to be is a different question. The OP should know that there is not now “Latin in the Mass” in the sense that every Mass must have certain parts in Latin.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Actually, the Mass was never planned to be “100%’” in the vernacular. If you have read the actual documents of Vatican II, you will see, quite clearly, that elements such as the Greek Kyrie Eleison, and the Latin Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei (among others) were meant to be ‘kept’ in the Latin and the people were supposed to be able to say these ‘parts’ which are proper to them IN the Latin.

So while some parishes may ‘think’ that an 100% ‘Latin free’ English --or Spanish, or Croatian, or Bantu-- Mass is ‘fine and dandy’. . .it isn’t. Of course, after 40 years of mistaken thinking --especially when it has been espoused and or taught by priests and bishops, many of whom did so from the highest motives and totally convinced of their understanding being ‘true’–it comes as a shock to many Catholics to think that a 40-year-old ‘beloved tradition’ could be ‘wrong.’
Click to expand...
Full vernacular translations of the Mass receive a recognitio of the Holy See. Its not like the Vatican never approved any of the 100% vernacular Masses we have today.
 
MarkThompson said:
The OP was asking about what is actually happening at her real parish, not about the theoretical, unrealized implications of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The 100%-vernacular Mass is, and will continue to be, fully permitted under Church law. Whether, hypothetically, it ought to be is a different question. The OP should know that there is not now “Latin in the Mass” in the sense that every Mass must have certain parts in Latin.
Click to expand...
Wait, are you trying to say that even though the ‘rules’ laid down by the Church say that the Mass needs to contain certain elements in Latin, just because some parishes have spent the last 40 years ‘not following the rules’ means that the Church ‘fully permits it?’ :confused: How are the rules ‘theoretical’ anyway? Who says so? What’s your proof? Many parishes are ‘following the rules.’ Doesn’t that make the rules practical? Why do some think they are ‘exempt’ from the rules?

Are you saying because some mistakes (some probably well-intentioned) have been made for X number of years. . .therefore they should just pass into acceptance?

People misunderstood, therefore they get a pass and they don’t even have to TRY to get it right now?

Now, I’ve brought up actual documents which show what the Church teaches. Can you show me some documentation to support your claim that "100% vernacular Masses’ are ‘fully permitted’ by the Church?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Wait, are you trying to say that even though the ‘rules’ laid down by the Church say that the Mass needs to contain certain elements in Latin, just because some parishes have spent the last 40 years ‘not following the rules’ means that the Church ‘fully permits it?’ :confused: How are the rules ‘theoretical’ anyway? Who says so? What’s your proof? Many parishes are ‘following the rules.’ Doesn’t that make the rules practical? Why do some think they are ‘exempt’ from the rules?

Are you saying because some mistakes (some probably well-intentioned) have been made for X number of years. . .therefore they should just pass into acceptance?

People misunderstood, therefore they get a pass and they don’t even have to TRY to get it right now?

Now, I’ve brought up actual documents which show what the Church teaches. Can you show me some documentation to support your claim that "100% vernacular Masses’ are ‘fully permitted’ by the Church?
Click to expand...
Huh? Are you for real?

Are you disputing whether Mass in English is approved, or whether it ought to have been approved? If you’d like to know the former, look up the recognitio for the English-language Missal. Trust me, it is permitted by the Holy See. If you’d like to know the latter, well, that’s an interesting theoretical question, but it hardly justifies your tone.
 
CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
  3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
  4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
Tres Abhinc Annos
Second Instruction on the orderly carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy
May 4, 1967
Sacred Congregation of Rites

VIII. Use of the Vernacular
  1. The competent territorial authority observing those matters contained in the Constitution on the Liturgy art. 36, § 3 and § 4 may authorize use of the vernacular in liturgies celebrated with a congregation for:
a. The Canon of the Mass;

b. all the rites of holy orders;

c. the reading of the Divine Office, even in choral recitation.

In the audience granted April 13, 1967 to the undersigned Cardinal Arcadio Maria Larrona, Prefect of the Congregation of Rites, Pope Paul VI approved and confirmed by his authority the present instruction as a whole and in all its parts, ordering its publication and its faithful observance by all concerned, beginning June 29, 1967.
 
AnneTeresa said:
Thanks for the replies. Where can one find info on what the Pope has requested be changed? Where do you go to learn the Latin now that is said in some parts of the Mass? I’ve checked the church website and found nothing. I’m not even sure which parts they are saying in Latin because I don’t recognize enough of the words to tell. I’d like to participate but can’t because I don’t know the Latin.

Cat, I wasn’t criticizing the changes at all and am not sure why you took it that way. Perhaps it is how I stated things–I meant to say that I won’t be part of any arguing, not part of anything different. I am completely open to the new changes and have found some of the new things very helpful in drawing closer to God.
Click to expand...
For the particulars of the Mass you celebrate, the best (and maybe only) way to find the answers to your questions is of course to ask those involved (priest, pastoral associate, etc.).

If your parish/church/community uses Latin or Greek as parts of the Mass routinely (which is laudable) then ask your pastoral staff for clarification on their meaning etc.
 
joandarc2008 said:
OK, just to let everyone know - the changes were not initiated initially by Pope Benedict XVI although he was on board as a Cardinal - they were initiated by Pope John Paul II. Basically many of the changes to the Mass started being researched when Pope JP II started traveling (he is one of the best linguists by far that we have had since VII) and realized that the different prayers that were being prayed were not actually saying the same things.

Catholic - actually means Universal - in a universal Church this is a problem. The problem occurred when Latin translations were made and then the translations were further translated into local Vernaculars.

So yes while changes are happening under Pope Benedict XVI - they were initiated under Pope John Paul II.

It may take some getting used to but remember part of the Grace of the Eucharist is being in Communion with the Angels, Saints, Mary and each other - won’t it be exciting to be praying the same prayers once again.
Click to expand...
Why do you say Pope John Paul II was a superior linguist? I’ve never heard that claim before. Thanks for any enlightenment.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
In the TLM, my preference as you call it, there is obvious reverence for the sacrifice of Jesus; there is obvious silent participation of the congregation at Low Mass and respectful Gregorian Chant at the Missa Cantata and Solemn High Mass, no one reading the bulletin or checking e-mail; there is a rosary before Mass; there are personal prayers by the majority of the congregation after Mass; communion is at the altar rail on our knees; there is no glad-handing and “how’s it going” at the Kiss of Peace, no hand-grabbing during the Our Father; the Tabernacle is centered on the altar which is itself centered on the crucifix; there are no pianos, guitars, drums, saxophones or other jazz instruments; there are no announcements of the local pro-sport score during the homily; especially there are no lay people handling the consecrated host and there are no altar girls. Other than that I really have no preference to discuss. How many of those are present at your parish?

As for “dumping” the OF, you are absolutely wrong. I attend the OF when traveling and I occasionally attend at the parish where we are registered as a family. Our OF parish is reasonably reverent except when the choir director overrides the Mass. I also have an issue with the “need” for 12 EMHC. I have no control over some the nonsense I come across when traveling but I would never return to those parishes and have been known to leave after communion at a few very strange Masses.
Click to expand...
I’ve always experienced reverence for the sacrifice of Jesus and appropriate periods of silence in the Mass. I grew up only knowing the Mass of Paul VI (i.e. until very recently, the only Catholic Mass following 1969).
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Wait, are you trying to say that even though the ‘rules’ laid down by the Church say that the Mass needs to contain certain elements in Latin, just because some parishes have spent the last 40 years ‘not following the rules’ means that the Church ‘fully permits it?’ :confused: How are the rules ‘theoretical’ anyway? Who says so? What’s your proof? Many parishes are ‘following the rules.’ Doesn’t that make the rules practical? Why do some think they are ‘exempt’ from the rules?

Are you saying because some mistakes (some probably well-intentioned) have been made for X number of years. . .therefore they should just pass into acceptance?

People misunderstood, therefore they get a pass and they don’t even have to TRY to get it right now?

Now, I’ve brought up actual documents which show what the Church teaches. Can you show me some documentation to support your claim that "100% vernacular Masses’ are ‘fully permitted’ by the Church?
Click to expand...
The Church does not teach that certain elements of every Mass need to contain Latin.
 
diggerdomer said:
Why do you say Pope John Paul II was a superior linguist? I’ve never heard that claim before. Thanks for any enlightenment.
Click to expand...
I am not making that claim in comparison to Pope Benedict XVI but he was far more well versed outside of the Romance language than the other Papal Authorities after VII - which is why he was the one of the first to pick on the issue in the vernacular translations. By the time Pope Benedict XVI had stepped into the Seat of Peter the changes had already been instituted.
 
joandarc2008 said:
I am not making that claim in comparison to Pope Benedict XVI but he was far more well versed outside of the Romance language than the other Papal Authorities after VII - which is why he was the one of the first to pick on the issue in the vernacular translations. By the time Pope Benedict XVI had stepped into the Seat of Peter the changes had already been instituted.
Click to expand...
so…you don’t have an answer to my question of your claim?
 
diggerdomer said:
Where do the rubrics of the current Mass say the Kiss of Peace is optional, as this link claims?
Click to expand...
From the Roman Missal:
**128. **Then, if appropriate, the Deacon, or the Priest, adds:
Let us offer each other the sign of peace.
And all offer one another a sign, in keeping with local customs, that expresses peace, communion, and charity. The Priest gives the sign of peace to a Deacon or minister.
 
MarkThompson said:
Just to be clear, there is no requirement that any part of the Mass be said in Latin.
Click to expand...
There is, however, a requirement that the Mass can always be said in latin (it’s in Liturgiam Authenticam, I don’t have the pincite handy), and here’s my question: is there any specific requirement that any part of the Mass be said in the vernacular?
That’s what’s happening in your church, except that the priest has decided to combine English with Latin. The English makes things understandable (you wouldn’t want the readings in Latin, for instance), while for parts of the Mass you already understand, using the Latin helps tie what your congregation is doing in that time and place to the universal Church throughout the world and the ages. The Pope has also recommended (but not required) using Latin for common parts of the Mass in cases of multilingual or multiethnic congregations, allowing the Mass to be done in a single common language rather than a mishmash of different languages.
Click to expand...
👍 As Fr. Z noted recently, this Pope likes to lead by example rather than directive. I wish he’d direct a little more, because people are apt to ignore things they don’t like that aren’t mandatory, but I understand his theory. The OP may benefit from watching the Papal Mass at Westminster Cathedral, available here, for an idea of what the liturgical ideal looks like.
more importantly, if you support them and you like the differences, you should tell him, because I’m sure he’s gotten resistance from other people and would be glad to know that you support what he’s doing.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top