Catholic laity doesn't get to decide what form of Mass will be celebrated

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no lack of honesty anywhere. I have noticed you contradict yourself some, but I don’t believe you’re doing that intentionally. You asked some questions and we have answered you. If you don’t want to hear answers to your questions or are going to feel insulted by them, don’t ask. But, no. I don’t really mean that because asking a question is sometimes the only way that you learn about something. I’m not going to apologize for answering what you asked.

Even though we both appear to speak the same language, there is definitely a barrier here. Imagine if we spoke different languages.

I am not hearing what I don’t want to hear and I’m not insulted, other than it appears that some are inferring the Church is wrong for allowing the vernacular in the first place.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, that’s why Christian Latin evolved after the Last Apostle died. One language, one worship, no fast track to heaven.

Who said the Church was ever in one language? The closest thing was Greek when in the early Church almost everyone understood Greek. When Latin developed, it was only for a small portion of the Church back then, and most others used Greek or Aramaic.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hardly. While Greek was spoken in Rome, it was among the educated and upper classes. It was never the “common tongue” in Rome or the Western Roman Empire. By the time the liturgy in the West moved into Latin, the Romance Languages (Italian, French, Provençale, Poruguese, Spanish, etc) were already well into their development.

If Greek was only spoken in Rome, why was most of the New Testament written in Greek?

 

[malphono]

If Greek was only spoken in Rome, why was most of the New Testament written in Greek?

 

[jwinch2]

You’re offering a lot of excuses, but now that you do understand the Mass, why couldn’t you follow a Spanish or a Vietnamese Mass?

That’s what gets me, everyone loves the vernacular except it has to be THEIR vernacular. That wasn’t the intent of Vatican II which in fact stated:

Note the period at the end of the sentence!

So how is one supposed to follow these instructions if all they hear is something in their own vernacular? Have you even heard or read any of the Vatican II documents?

The Catholic Church is not a democracy.

And the next statement in those documents says:

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.

Bottom line? Its up to the local Bishop to determine at what level the vernacular language is going to be used.

Also, lest we forget there were good reasons the Bishops voted for changes from the TLM in VII in the first place:

*47. At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity [36], a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us [37].
48. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration.
They should be instructed by God’s word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator [38], they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.
49. For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation, has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree.
50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.
*

The authors of Vatican II appear to be trying to take the Mass back to its roots, increase the participation of the faithful (which can be seen in the discussion in those documents on music in the liturgy), and remove some of the clutter that had crept in through the previous generations. They strongly indicate that the Bishops felt there were problems with the Mass as it was being celebrated prior to Vatican II and that changes were both important and necessary.

As another poster already mentioned, things often seem great in retrospect and in the light of nostalgia. It is easy to forget that there were good reasons for making changes in the first place. I do find the TLM to be beautiful and from a standpoint of tradition and nostalgia I really enjoy seeing it. However, under no circumstances do I long for it to replace the OF we have today as the commonly used form. I forget the exact numbers off the top of my head but I remember the vote being something like 2000+ to 4 when the Bishops voted on the changes made in Vatican II. That is hardly and indication that the TLM was all that it should have been.

 

[Phemie]

BTW: Why does a parish need a liturgy committee…? Isn`t the priest a trained liturgist?
Committees run the risk of existing for their own sake.

Depends on which seminary they attended. I’ve done courses on liturgy with priests and seminarians who are quick to tell us that they get little training in liturgy in the seminary, so the answer to your question would be “No, they often aren’t trained liturgists.”

As for liturgy committees, in my experience they exist so the priest doesn’t have to do the preparation and scheduling. The priest says how he wants things to go and the committee makes it happen.

 

[Denise1957]

Until Diocletian divided his empire to East and West territories, the language, either the official and the commonly spoken language was Greek, so the Masses were celebrated in Greek.

Immediately as people in the West ceased to speak and even understand Greek , the Church changed to Latin. From that time on that was acceptable, because at least the priest understood and spoke Latin sufficiently, and the laity was excluded from the liturgy anuway.

During the 20th Century the priestly formation changed, the majority does not understands Latin; also since St Pius X there is a pressure toward the active participation of the laity. Both factor required to change to vernacular.

After the Summorum Pontificium there was a quick surge for the Latin Mass locations, this process slowed down, not because of the unwillingness of the priest, but because people do not want to attend a Mass in which they cannot participate, where they are mere bystanders. Even the singing is just parallel, not part of the Mass, which have to be and is recited fully by the priest.

quote:

“…because people do not want to attend a Mass in which they cannot participate, where they are mere bystanders.”

Mere bystanders? This is a strong misrepresentation of the Latin Mass, as I’m sure you know already.

 

[jwinch2]

Depends on which seminary they attended. I’ve done courses on liturgy with priests and seminarians who are quick to tell us that they get little training in liturgy in the seminary, so the answer to your question would be “No, they often aren’t trained liturgists.”

As for liturgy committees, in my experience they exist so the priest doesn’t have to do the preparation and scheduling. The priest says how he wants things to go and the committee makes it happen.

Good points. Someone has to make sure the trains run on time!

Also, in many cases the laity which make up those committees DO go out and get liturgical training which is often offered at the Diocesan level.

 

[Phemie]

Good points. Someone has to make sure the trains run on time!

Also, in many cases the laity which make up those committees DO go out and get liturgical training which is often offered at the Diocesan level.

Many of us in our diocese were sent to take courses in liturgy given at a school of theology. It wasn’t mandatory but the bishop encouraged as many of us as could find the time to do so. Because of that, the priest who came to our parish as pastor in 2001 was impressed at the the level of knowledge the liturgy committee had. He was a liturgist, a man who insisted on singing the Mass, as much as his non-musical voice would allow.

 

[jwinch2]

Many of us in our diocese were sent to take courses in liturgy given at a school of theology. It wasn’t mandatory but the bishop encouraged as many of us as could find the time to do so. Because of that, the priest who came to our parish as pastor in 2001 was impressed at the the level of knowledge the liturgy committee had. He was a liturgist, a man who insisted on singing the Mass, as much as his non-musical voice would allow.

Interesting. I think its great when the laity seek out knowledge and are willing to put in that kind of effort to improve their parish. I would imagine the pastors have to feel the same way as it certainly frees them up a bit to focus on other things.

Thanks for that info!

 

[malphono]

I do find the TLM to be beautiful and from a standpoint of tradition and nostalgia I really enjoy seeing it. However, under no circumstances do I long for it to replace the OF we have today as the commonly used form. I forget the exact numbers off the top of my head but I remember the vote being something like 2000+ to 4 when the Bishops voted on the changes made in Vatican II. That is hardly and indication that the TLM was all that it should have been.

One has to keep in mind that the liturgical changes that were voted on during that Council were embodied in the “Interim Missal of 1965.” It certainly was not the Novus Ordo (nor it’s precursor “son-of-Interim-Missal” of 1967).

 

[Will_S]

We have a brand new priest who is VERY conservative but does some sort of hybrid liturgy that I have no idea where he learned it (he didn’t learn it in the seminary). He doesn’t want to hear anything from me, but they know about him in the diocese so they have their eye on him.

I’m quite curious to know what he does that makes the Masses he celebrates “some sort of hybrid liturgy”

 

[jwinch2]

One has to keep in mind that the liturgical changes that were voted on during that Council were embodied in the “Interim Missal of 1965.” It certainly was not the Novus Ordo (nor it’s precursor “son-of-Interim-Missal” of 1967).

Agreed. It is my understanding that the new Missal coming out this Fall reverts back to a good deal of that.

 

[Cat]

I have a question about those of you who were around pre-Vatican II.

The Old Medic posted this in a recent thread of the same nature

Does anyone think there is any truth to that? Are people so interested in the Latin mass now because, first it used to be that you needed permission to offer it. Is all the excitement because it was practically an underground mass until recently (yes, I’m exaggerating a little).

Does anyone see the movement to go back to the Latin mass as something that might lose its fervor?

Yes.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes.

Care to go a little more into it?

I’d prefer that it not be a fad.

 

[malphono]

Agreed. It is my understanding that the new Missal coming out this Fall reverts back to a good deal of that.

Well, yes, but that only concerns the English translations of some prayers and formulae that happen to be common to both the Usus Antiquior and the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo itself is not changing.

 

[Will_S]

Agreed. It is my understanding that the new Missal coming out this Fall reverts back to a good deal of that.

Not really. The “New Missal” is mainly just a new translation of the current Missal.
In order to “revert” to the Mass of the late 60s, you would have to restore the traditional lectionary, the traditional propers, and the traditional offertory, and only use EP #1 – but do it all in English.

The late 60s Mass was a slightly abbreviated traditional Mass, said in the vernacular, with some rubrical changes that presaged the rubrics of the new Mass.

 

[jwinch2]

The Novus Ordo itself is not changing.

Agreed. And, i’m glad. I happen to like it.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I have a question about those of you who were around pre-Vatican II.

The Old Medic posted this in a recent thread of the same nature

Does anyone think there is any truth to that? Are people so interested in the Latin mass now because, first it used to be that you needed permission to offer it. Is all the excitement because it was practically an underground mass until recently (yes, I’m exaggerating a little).

Does anyone see the movement to go back to the Latin mass as something that might lose its fervor?

Being of the age where I grew up with the Mass said in Latin until my early adulthood, I think there is some truth to that. To us, it was just Mass, and mostly routine. If we had a Missal (not everyone did–many in my parish could not afford them, or there might be one Missal per family, if you were lucky you got one as a gift), we spent a lot of time paging through it and trying to follow the Latin along in English. Mass was also said much faster–the big complaint I heard from many people was that the New Mass was too long at around an hour. Low Mass on Sunday usually took about a half-hour to 40 min, in one parish I attended there was a priest who said it in 20 min. His Mass was very popular. Many people did not participate much, there was a lot of Rosary-saying and private devotion going on. More people may have attended Mass, but I don’t think there was much in the way of engagement.

I am not exaggerating or being facetious here. There was a reason for the change. Many Catholics went to Church out of duty, as is claimed they do today, although I think mostly people today who go want to be there (except perhaps for some teenagers and very young children). People really did not understnd the Liturgy. Scripture teaching was minimal, most Catholics did not read the Bible, although we weren’t forbidden to. After Vatican II, people somehow got the impression (and it did not come from the Council) that it was no longer a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday. One’s conscience was what largely determined the gravity of a sin, and people quit going, just like they quit observing the Friday abstinence. Most of the people of my generation, and even my Mother’s, who continued to attend Mass liked the Mass in the vernacular, even though the change was abrupt and confusing. They really don’t want to go back to Latin–and this is pretty much universal in most parishes. I don’t find that people are so much hostile to the EF, (although some are, but then there are some that only attend the EF that are hostile to the OF --it pretty much balances)–they just prefer the Mass be said in their own language, and they enjoy the active participation and dialogue and singing and audible prayers.

I think that there is a lot of romanticization of the period before Vat II and the Latin Mass, esp. by those who did not live then, and to them it is something new. Outside of this forum and other forums where people are really into their faith, the average Catholic in the average parish likes the vernacular and would be upset to return to the Latin. I think that if there was an attempt to seriously return to it, the average Catholic would have a very difficult time accepting it and it would be much worse than the original change. The danger is, that people took it for granted before, and eventually they would again. People are people. They might appreciate it’s beauty now, but for the most part they had lost that appreciation by the time of the Council.

I am sure that there are some here who would disagree with what I have written, but this is my observation, having actually lived before the Council. Most people do not want to return to the Latin Mass, and not out of hostility. They are ok with others preferring it and having it available for them, but they do not want it to be the norm. And they have the right to feel that way without being accused of being hostile. Not agreeing does not equal outright hostility.

 

[jwinch2]

Being of the age where I grew up with the Mass said in Latin until my early adulthood, I think there is some truth to that. To us, it was just Mass, and mostly routine. If we had a Missal (not everyone did–many in my parish could not afford them, or there might be one Missal per family, if you were lucky you got one as a gift), we spent a lot of time paging through it and trying to follow the Latin along in English. Mass was also said much faster–the big complaint I heard from many people was that the New Mass was too long at around an hour. Low Mass on Sunday usually took about a half-hour to 40 min, in one parish I attended there was a priest who said it in 20 min. His Mass was very popular. Many people did not participate much, there was a lot of Rosary-saying and private devotion going on. More people may have attended Mass, but I don’t think there was much in the way of engagement.

I am not exaggerating or being facetious here. There was a reason for the change. Many Catholics went to Church out of duty, as is claimed they do today, although I think mostly people today who go want to be there (except perhaps for some teenagers and very young children). People really did not understnd the Liturgy. Scripture teaching was minimal, most Catholics did not read the Bible, although we weren’t forbidden to. After Vatican II, people somehow got the impression (and it did not come from the Council) that it was no longer a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday. One’s conscience was what largely determined the gravity of a sin, and people quit going, just like they quit observing the Friday abstinence. Most of the people of my generation, and even my Mother’s, who continued to attend Mass liked the Mass in the vernacular, even though the change was abrupt and confusing. They really don’t want to go back to Latin–and this is pretty much universal in most parishes. I don’t find that people are so much hostile to the EF, (although some are, but then there are some that only attend the EF that are hostile to the OF --it pretty much balances)–they just prefer the Mass be said in their own language, and they enjoy the active participation and dialogue and singing and audible prayers.

I think that there is a lot of romanticization of the period before Vat II and the Latin Mass, esp. by those who did not live then, and to them it is something new. Outside of this forum and other forums where people are really into their faith, the average Catholic in the average parish likes the vernacular and would be upset to return to the Latin. I think that if there was an attempt to seriously return to it, the average Catholic would have a very difficult time accepting it and it would be much worse than the original change. The danger is, that people took it for granted before, and eventually they would again. People are people. They might appreciate it’s beauty now, but for the most part they had lost that appreciation by the time of the Council.

I am sure that there are some here who would disagree with what I have written, but this is my observation, having actually lived before the Council. Most people do not want to return to the Latin Mass, and not out of hostility. They are ok with others preferring it and having it available for them, but they do not want it to be the norm. And they have the right to feel that way without being accused of being hostile. Not agreeing does not equal outright hostility.

I could not agree more.

Peace,