Could Vatican II have been wrong in implementing the Novus Ordo Mass?

[mullenpm]

I absolutely do not understand the pre-occupation some Catholics have with the Pauline Mass.

I grew up before Vatican II. I used my Missal at Mass and followed using the English translation. And I will bet that everyone else did the same. That is why I don’t get this obsession with the Latin Mass. The Missals had Latin on one side and English on the other.

The Mass is the Mass whether in Latin or English or any other language.

 

[Tartini]

I personally do not believe they were “wrong” in the sense that they were mistaken in their motives. It seems often we don’t know how good something is until it is gone. They were simply doing something that they believed that was right for the time. In some ways, the New Mass works, and in others, it seems lacking. The Latin Mass never actually left the scene, it appears it just took a breather for awhile. I am very thankful and glad it is back, and pray it will continue to absolute acceptance and permanent usage in all parishes, God willing.

Firstly, I can see the use of the common language as useful in the understanding that it places the congregation in a familiar setting. The object was to attempt to satisfy a waning congregation. Secondly, it is human nature to take an easy road. But I have always understood it to be better, in the long run, to take the hard road. The prize is better at the end of the race, so to speak. Without sounding too critical, it seems that it may have also diminished the solemn aspects of Holy Mass and what it truly is and entails. The other modern changes (priest faces people, communion in the hand, modern music, outrageous liturgy settings and “themes”, etc.) at times does little to enhance the respect due to God, on many points. If, on the other hand, one is spritually fulfilled by this modernization, than more power to them. At least they are going to Mass. I view it as simply “modernization” which the Chuch believed necessary in order to survive, and may have been simply a social experiment. The experiment may not have worked as well as we might have expected it to. But no great discovery has ever been made without some experimentation.

It is my personal observation that the Traditional Latin Mass is quickly being embraced by more Catholics than not, both by the young (who suprisingly seem to find it very acceptable and hopefully keep the tradition going in their future generations) and the old parishioners are relieved that it is coming back again (many left for awhile, due to the Vatican ll changes).

The use of latin is not that difficult to understand when one follows with the Missal. It fosters a more concentrated effort on the part of the parishioner, and lends deeper understanding to what is really going on during Holy Mass. It is the universal language of the Catholic Church that makes Mass available to everyone and anyone in the World. It is a tradition and and helps us to address God in both a solemn and respectful manner. One does not need to be an expert in latin, and will soon find, if they apply themselves properly, that it actually becomes a familiar language after about a year or so. It is much like living in a foreign country: if one is there long enough, they soon can begin to speak the language fluently. The New Mass tends to modernize and foster certain liturgical practices to the point where one can easily become distracted and uninterested at Mass, which fosters boredom and indifference, which is a tragedy in itself.

 

[I_Believe]

I absolutely do not understand the pre-occupation some Catholics have with the Pauline Mass.

I grew up before Vatican II. I used my Missal at Mass and followed using the English translation. And I will bet that everyone else did the same. That is why I don’t get this obsession with the Latin Mass. The Missals had Latin on one side and English on the other.

The Mass is the Mass whether in Latin or English or any other language.

Yes, but the switch to venacular enables problems.

Pro multis is correctly translated as “for many”. Not “for all”.
The Church has acknowledged this, but still we hear “for all” during the Eucharistic Prayer. I believe they are going to change this soon.

The venacular is the issue for many of us. And don’t forget, many prominent Clergy have expressed the same concern.
An example…

“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

Well, we see what happened with Pro multis The Cardinal, GRHS, mentioned that “the immutability of Doctrine would be endangered”. Well, if we as catholics believe Christ commissioned the Apostles at the Last Supper and in effect ordained them in saying “Do this in memory of Me”, then the words Pro multis are what they are, and mean what they mean. They are Gospel. No pun intended. That is just one example.

Reread Cardinal McIntyre’s address, and then consider later comments after the establishment of the Novus Ordo…

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” (Milestones, page 148). ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

Perhaps traditionalist laity should be obedient and keep their mouths shut. Perhaps as laity, we should not even be discussing this on the internet. But the above quotes are not from suspended, excommunicated, schismatic, or independent clergy in irregular communion with Rome. Those clergy quoted ARE Rome. And one of them as we know, is now the Bishop of Rome. Those are not one liners offered to reporters in answer to shouted questions as these Churchmen are arriving at, or leaving, a Chuch funtion. They aren’t mere snippets of brief interviews. They are from the writings of these prominent clergy.

It’s not a tradi obsession mullenpm, it’s an awareness of something that can’t be denied. An awareness that trads share with some who walk the halls of the Vatican.

There is division among some of today’s Churchmen just as there is division among catholic laity on this forum.

 

[pnewton]

Do you mean did they lack the authority? Or do you mean was it foolish? Or do you mean did they make changes that were intended to accomplish certain goals, but haven’t succeeded very well?

This was my thought, too. Certainly the Holy Father has authority over all disciplinary matters, including liturgical changes. He could not have been wrong, any more than someone can say he was right to make the changes. Despite the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there most of what has been mentioned is not an “error”, the one exception being the translation of pro multis, which is in fact, mistranslated.

I believe the changes mostly good. Others here, particularly in this subforum, do not.

 

[PJM]

Some things that we see today were not a result of Vatican II but an incorrect interpretation of VII. The Council was lead by the Holy Spirit, it is not wrong. The changes were just taken too far, beyond what the Council said.

It would be helpful to remember that this pretty much happened after EVERY council ever. there’s always a period of confusion afterwards, and it takes time to find a balance. We’re blessed to have a Pope who loves tradition as well and I believe with time things would improve.

btw… someone said that much of the Church in America is in schism? I don’t think this is true… even if there are mistakes, it doesn’t mean it’s in schism, that’s a serious thing to say… when someone is in schism they are no longer in the Church and it’s wrong to take Communion with them! and btw, there are traditionalists that are in schism, such as SSPX…

God bless

My dear friend in Christ,

While I am respectful of your well articulated position, the Post Vatican II period (speaking of those who knew better in the Ordained and Vowed ranks) were not “confused” (we were and are) they were and are clearly disobedient! Intentionially, and willfully disobedient.:sad_yes: :crying:

May God have Mercy on us.

 

[Lisa44]

Hi everyone. Could Vatican II have been wrong in instituting the Novus Ordo Mass? I am not sure about this. Please provide me with a fairly simple answer that a laywoman could understand. Thanks.

My opinion, it was a mistake yes.

This is anecdotal, but I asked a senior citizen why they don’t go to Mass anymore? They said because I don’t believe in it anymore. I said - you don’t believe in God? And they said, yes, yes, they believe in God, they said they didn’t believe the Mass was right anymore. I asked this person what they meant. They said, Mass used to be in Latin, women used to cover their heads. Women are not supposed to speak in Church, and now you have them up there doing the readings! This person went on about other changes, female eucharistic ministers…etc…

I bet there were a lot of Catholics who just stopped going to Mass. And its possible that those people who changed the Mass will be held accountable in Heaven for all those people for whom the Mass no longer was true for them, and who stopped going. How can a person be wrong when the bible itself teaches us that women should not talk in church? And how can a thousand year old tradition be wrong? How can it be right for a non male Priest to hand out the Eucharist? How can it be right for women to not cover their heads during Mass when the very bible we profess to believe in tells us to?

Can you blame those senior citizens for losing their faith?

 

[ASD]

It seems often we don’t know how good something is until it is gone. They were simply doing something that they believed that was right for the time.

Right.

The object was to attempt to satisfy a waning congregation…I view it as simply “modernization” which the Chuch believed necessary in order to survive,

Were numbers really going down? I haven’t read that. In fact, in many ways the years just before VII were a golden age for the Church, better than ever.

On the other hand, consider this: I’m a computer programmer by trade. In our line of work we have a concept called, the second-system effect. It goes like this: (1) We build something successful. (2) Then we stand back and say, “Hey, that’s pretty good. But, let’s make version 2.0 really good.” (3) Curiously, Version 2.0 often stinks. Like, it’s over-engineered, or too clever, or something. The point: It’s the opposite of “organic development.”

…may have been simply a social experiment. The experiment may not have worked as well as we might have expected it to. But no great discovery has ever been made without some experimentation.

Yea. Social engineering with unintended consequences.

It is my personal observation that the Traditional Latin Mass is quickly being embraced by more Catholics than not, both by the young (who suprisingly seem to find it very acceptable and hopefully keep the tradition going in their future generations)

A very important point. A whole new thing, “identity politics” and all that, has emerged since 1960s. I hope that a strong Catholic identity, as expressed so well in EF, will be appealing to many people now.

The use of latin is not that difficult to understand when one follows with the Missal. It fosters a **more **concentrated effort on the part of the parishioner, …

Another good point. Anybody who has ever studied a second language knows this is true. The irony makes me want to scream. (Have I said that recently?) We’ll switch to the vernacular so people can understand more clearly. Not.

One does not need to be an expert in latin, and will soon find, if they apply themselves properly, that it actually becomes a familiar language after about a year or so. It is much like living in a foreign country:

Right. It seems to me that there’s so much condescension in the NO/OF approach. We’re too dumb to learn a few pages of Latin vocabulary. We’re too dumb to get what’s going on during consecration unless we can see Priest’s hands, etc.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[pnewton]

My opinion, it was a mistake yes.

This is anecdotal, but I asked a senior citizen why they don’t go to Mass anymore? They said because I don’t believe in it anymore. I said - you don’t believe in God? And they said, yes, yes, they believe in God, they said they didn’t believe the Mass was right anymore. I asked this person what they meant. They said, Mass used to be in Latin, women used to cover their heads. Women are not supposed to speak in Church, and now you have them up there doing the readings! This person went on about other changes, female eucharistic ministers…etc…

To me this speaks of the need for changes. One must ask in what was his faith originally. The language? The silence of women? The core of our Faith did not change. The Church has often introduced changes for the education of the laity. If many people thought that God was only in the externals described here, it is needed to show that God exists and the Mass exists without them.

 

[MrS]

Our parish made and is making changes…

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/another-novus-ordo-mass-ad-orientem/

are you as happy/content with your liturgy as I am with mine??

 

[WhollyRoamin]

Tartini:

The object was to attempt to satisfy a waning congregation…I view it as simply “modernization” which the Chuch believed necessary in order to survive,

Right.

Were numbers really going down? I haven’t read that. In fact, in many ways the years just before VII were a golden age for the Church, better than ever.

Well, yes and no. In Europe, yes. Catholic attendance and practice was dropping before the Second Vatican Council. It’s hard to extrapolate if V2 exaggerated those numbers, stemmed them or had no effect. Comparisons to Protestant denomiations are not not easy to make.

In the USA, it was quite the opposite. The Catholic Church was stronger in the USA in the days before V2 than it had ever ever ever been. It was demographically idyllic and can be considered a real golden age. Try to find a copy of The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators by Kenneth Jones; it’s out of print, but still around some Catholic bookstores. It’ll be shocking how much the Council just decimated the Church in America. The book should be required reading for anyone who wants to study the effect of the Council on the Church.

Decimated.

The forward to the book (reprinted online here) was written by Patrick Buchanan-- and it’s rhetorically over-the-top (typical Buchanan), but the numbers are obvious. In the USA, moderization didn’t mean survival, it meant massacre.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Speaking academically: yes, that is a possibility.

The 1970 Novus Ordo Missae is not exactly the Mass of Vatican 2-- there is an older, more obscure Mass-- from 1965 (coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/) that looks like a blend of the 1962 TLM and the 1970 NOM. People look back on it now as a “transitional Mass” (though it’s not historically correct to call it that) that is actually closer to Sacrosanctum Concilum than the Bughini Mass that developed into what we’re used to seeing in the round spaceship parishes of 21st Century Catholicism.

Good Grief! That’s better than the 1970 liturgy!

I think I’m becoming more and more of a “traditionalist!” :whacky: :hypno:

 

[DavidPalm]

To me this speaks of the need for changes. One must ask in what was his faith originally. The language? The silence of women? The core of our Faith did not change. The Church has often introduced changes for the education of the laity. If many people thought that God was only in the externals described here, it is needed to show that God exists and the Mass exists without them.

I would say, though, that there is really no wonder–given their scope and number–that the changes were highly traumatic for a lot of Catholics. As St. John Chrysostom said:

For nothing so much disturbs the mind, though it be done for some beneficial purpose, as to innovate and introduce strange things, and most of all when this is done in matters relating to divine worship and the glory of God. (Homilies on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, hom.7, v.14; my emphasis.)

 

[John1]

Deus vult dixi

 

[Rabbititus]

To me this speaks of the need for changes. One must ask in what was his faith originally. The language? The silence of women? The core of our Faith did not change. The Church has often introduced changes for the education of the laity. If many people thought that God was only in the externals described here, it is needed to show that God exists and the Mass exists without them.

But it’s possible that they had a very strong faith that wasn’t bound up in the externals. Lots of sudden change to the externals can throw doubt into one’s mind about the essentials.

If eating meat on Friday, touching the host, and bareheaded women in church are either wrong or downright sinful one day, and are perfectly alright or even laudable the very next day, one could easily come to think that the Church doesn’t know what the heck she is talking about and really isn’t the authority she poses herself as being. Once the Church loses credibility on small matters, then it’s really not that big a step until you stop believing the important stuff too. That stuff could all change tomorrow, after all.

 

[malphono]

But it’s possible that they had a very strong faith that wasn’t bound up in the externals. Lots of sudden change to the externals can throw doubt into one’s mind about the essentials.

If eating meat on Friday, touching the host, and bareheaded women in church are either wrong or downright sinful one day, and are perfectly alright or even laudable the very next day, one could easily come to think that the Church doesn’t know what the heck she is talking about and really isn’t the authority she poses herself as being. Once the Church loses credibility on small matters, then it’s really not that big a step until you stop believing the important stuff too. That stuff could all change tomorrow, after all.

Quite so. I would even take it one step further: everything that was changed was not really “external” when one considers the words lex orandi, lex credendi.

 

[DavidPalm]

But it’s possible that they had a very strong faith that wasn’t bound up in the externals. Lots of sudden change to the externals can throw doubt into one’s mind about the essentials.

If eating meat on Friday, touching the host, and bareheaded women in church are either wrong or downright sinful one day, and are perfectly alright or even laudable the very next day, one could easily come to think that the Church doesn’t know what the heck she is talking about and really isn’t the authority she poses herself as being. Once the Church loses credibility on small matters, then it’s really not that big a step until you stop believing the important stuff too. That stuff could all change tomorrow too, after all.

Yup. As traditionalists are wont to say, the traditions with a little “t” help pass on the Traditions with a big “T” in their integrity. Change enough of the traditions and you end up messing up the Traditions in peoples’ minds.

I’ll give you one that really does bother me. There are lots of rubrics in the TLM to make sure that no particle or drop of the Sacred Species stands any chance of being desecrated through carelessness. I’m talking about things like the priest keeping his fingers together from the Consecration through the cleansing of the vessels, the mandatory use of patens when distributing Holy Communion, no Communion in the hand to avoid people taking it away for desecration, etc. Now either these safeguards were needed or they weren’t (and I personally have seen people drop the Host three times since I’ve been a Catholic and have heard from two credible people of instances where people took the Sacred Host away with them.)

Now all of these safeguards were taken away in the NOM.

The Lord is just as present at the NOM as He is at the TLM…but we quite literally don’t act like it. That makes me very sad.

 

[ASD]

I would say, though, that there is really no wonder–given their scope and number–that the changes were highly traumatic for a lot of Catholics.

Quite true. Any changes, good or bad, are disruptive.

ASD;4666692:

Tartini;4665697:

The object was to attempt to satisfy a waning congregation.

Were numbers really going down? I haven’t read that. In fact, in many ways the years just before VII were a golden age for the Church, better than ever.Well, yes and no. In Europe, yes…In the USA, it was quite the opposite. The Catholic Church was stronger in the USA in the days before V2 than it had ever ever ever been. It was demographically idyllic and can be considered a real golden age…shocking how much the Council just decimated the Church in America. The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators] should be required reading for anyone who wants to study the effect of the Council on the Church.

OK, The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators is on my list.

A couple points:

1. Part of the reason it’s so hard for many Americans to make sense of the Council or understand why the Council happened when it did is that, although Europe, Asia or Africa might have needed “renewal” in 1959, USA just didn’t.

For USA, it’s like a nonsense narrative: Well, Mass attendance was high, seminaries were full, there were lots of teaching orders, etc. But then, thank goodness, we finally got a “renewal.”

1. To be fair, I guess that part of the explanation for the “decimation” has to be that the Church suffered a sociological one-two punch:

(a) Old Catholic, ethnic neighborhoods dissolved into suburbs after WWII in a very short time;
(b) The center of Catholic religious identity, the old Mass with sacrificial altar shrouded in mystery, disappeared with unbelievable abruptness.

Honestly, it’s a miracle the Church still exists.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[ASD]

To me this speaks of the need for changes. One must ask in what was his faith originally. The language? The silence of women? The core of our Faith did not change. The Church has often introduced changes for the education of the laity. If many people thought that God was only in the externals described here, it is needed to show that God exists and the Mass exists without them.

I know what you mean, and I don’t disagree with the basic idea. But, it’s a two-edged sword, right?

E.g., if concern about what language is used is somehow mistakenly thinking that “God in the externals,” then traditionalists can say to people who are so happy to have vernacular, “Is God in the language? What difference does the language make to you?”

Put the other way around, if what language is used is so unimportant or inessential, why was the change imposed? Why not leave that merely external factor alone and focus on what you say really matters?

Same for all the other items you called “externals.”

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quite true. Any changes, good or bad, are disruptive.

OK, The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators is on my list.

A couple points:

1. Part of the reason it’s so hard for many Americans to make sense of the Council or understand why the Council happened when it did is that, although Europe, Asia or Africa might have needed “renewal” in 1959, USA just didn’t.

For USA, it’s like a nonsense narrative: Well, Mass attendance was high, seminaries were full, there were lots of teaching orders, etc. But then, thank goodness, we finally got a “renewal.”

1. To be fair, I guess that part of the explanation for the “decimation” has to be that the Church suffered a sociological one-two punch:

(a) Old Catholic, ethnic neighborhoods dissolved into suburbs after WWII in a very short time;
(b) The center of Catholic religious identity, the old Mass with sacrificial altar shrouded in mystery, disappeared with unbelievable abruptness.

Honestly, it’s a miracle the Church still exists.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

beautiful words of praise. where did they go?

where did new mass got the new words from?

sometimes i wonder about this council. could be that we as Catholics must be sacrificed that others may come to the Truth of our Lord?
and sometimes i wonder about the new mass trying to make sense of all this. the Catholic Church is a suffering Church and still is. and seeing the clapping and trying to show happiness in a false way looks really kind of sad. i keep think while our priests and bishops and our Catholics brothers and sisters are being persecuted with prison, torture, and closing of the Church in other places, we here are clapping and being happy instead of the priests and the faithfull staying after Mass and pray to our God to deliver them. i dont even hear any priest remember those who are suffering right now. that is wrong. we must not forget those who are being persecuted and we must cry with them. money should got to them instead of buying guitars and drums.

Peace.

 

[ProVobis]

Right.

On the other hand, consider this: I’m a computer programmer by trade. In our line of work we have a concept called, the second-system effect. It goes like this: (1) We build something successful. (2) Then we stand back and say, “Hey, that’s pretty good. But, let’s make version 2.0 really good.” (3) Curiously, Version 2.0 often stinks. Like, it’s over-engineered, or too clever, or something. The point: It’s the opposite of “organic development.”

Yea. Social engineering with unintended consequences.

Another good point. Anybody who has ever studied a second language knows this is true. The irony makes me want to scream. (Have I said that recently?) We’ll switch to the vernacular so people can understand more clearly. Not.

Right. It seems to me that there’s so much condescension in the NO/OF approach. We’re too dumb to learn a few pages of Latin vocabulary. We’re too dumb to get what’s going on during consecration unless we can see Priest’s hands, etc.

You hit the nail on the head a few times in your post. Good points.

And since when does anything good and LONG-LASTING come from a committee?