Did we confuse Pope Paul's liturgical reform?

[OraLabora]

Can it be agreed that the liturgical music of the OF has not quite advanced in beauty as the EF has?

No it can’t because Gregorian chant remains the music for the OF as well as the EF and while some adaptations and changes occurred (mainly to accumulate the three-year Gospel cycle), by and large the source of chants is the same. The Graduale Triplex, which is the 1974 Graduale Romanum (the official repertory of Gregorian chant for the OF Mass), the chant notation has, superimposed above and below the staff, the neumes from the original manuscripts.

That Gregorian chant is not often used does not take away from the fact that it remains the primary repertory of liturgical music for both the Mass and Divine Office, that post-Vatican II official chant books exist now for both, and that it is in use in the OF in many places including daily where I’ll be going to Mass in a couple of hours.

There’s nothing inherent about the OF that says it must have mediocre music. Or that it can’t be in Latin for that matter.

 

[YoungTradCath]

There’s nothing inherent about the OF that says it must have mediocre music. Or that it can’t be in Latin for that matter.

Yes, but that’s what people believe, so that’s by and large the reality.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Oh my God, I looked it up it’s true.

//]It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

1. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
2. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
3. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

//

How can he say these losses are a good thing!!! Did he forsee how getting rid of Latin actually segregated the Church and alienated other rites of the Church who believe in firm liturgy?

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

A big part of Vatican II was about changing how the Church was to interact and engage the modern world. (Yes, I know this was separate, but the Pope’s pontificate is largely connected with VII.) We have to understand that, as beautiful as Latin is with a High Mass, the ordinary person would rather understand in the plan vernacular. Of course the Latin is still retained in part because it is a treasure of the Church, the Mass is meant for the people to participate in to become closer to Christ. The culture today isn’t Christian like it was when Latin was used all the time. Even those who are devoutly Christian and Catholic don’t have the knowledge of Latin and really just in general of speculative doctrine like those in the Church used to. Not saying that the Church is getting dumber because clearly that isn’t true, but how can we get a modern man to attend Mass if he doesn’t know what he is doing by going? It’s no longer expected that one attend Mass every Sunday like the Middle Ages, so he has less of an incentive. I think it’s similar to why the Council recommended a renewal in reading the Scriptures and the Church Fathers specifically for lay people. While Aquinas and the Scholastics will always have their purpose and role in the Church, they don’t speak a language the average person today understands. While they are much more clear than many of the Church Fathers, you still get the same truth presented beautifully by St. Augustine as you do St. Thomas Aquinas, but in a way a person who isn’t trained for the religious or priestly life can understand.

 

[jwinch2]

I was speaking with a friend online and talking about how Pope Paul VI wanted to maintain reverence, Latin and chant at Mass, citing a book called “Fidelity and Relevance” complied from his speeches. My friend said that this notion was absurd and sent me a document in which Pope Paul VI, loosely paraphrased, basically says: “So what if we’ve lost Latin and chant at Mass, at least we are accessing the people. You need to learn to give some things up for the greater good.” - this being said in one of his general audiences.

This statement has a tone that completely contradicts what I have read so far from Pope Paul VI. And it contradicts the Second Vatican Council documents. By the way, this friend of mine was trying to indicate that my traditional viewpoints were wrong, saying that Pope Paul VI actually intended to drop Latin and chant. Why would he want to drop these things after explicitly stating they were to be kept. What gives?

There is some discussion here which you may find interesting.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=790854

Peace,

 

[CrossofChrist]

A big part of Vatican II was about changing how the Church was to interact and engage the modern world. (Yes, I know this was separate, but the Pope’s pontificate is largely connected with VII.) We have to understand that, as beautiful as Latin is with a High Mass, the ordinary person would rather understand in the plan vernacular. Of course the Latin is still retained in part because it is a treasure of the Church, the Mass is meant for the people to participate in to become closer to Christ. The culture today isn’t Christian like it was when Latin was used all the time. Even those who are devoutly Christian and Catholic don’t have the knowledge of Latin and really just in general of speculative doctrine like those in the Church used to. Not saying that the Church is getting dumber because clearly that isn’t true, but how can we get a modern man to attend Mass if he doesn’t know what he is doing by going? It’s no longer expected that one attend Mass every Sunday like the Middle Ages, so he has less of an incentive. I think it’s similar to why the Council recommended a renewal in reading the Scriptures and the Church Fathers specifically for lay people. While Aquinas and the Scholastics will always have their purpose and role in the Church, they don’t speak a language the average person today understands.** While they are much more clear than many of the Church Fathers**, you still get the same truth presented beautifully by St. Augustine as you do St. Thomas Aquinas, but in a way a person who isn’t trained for the religious or priestly life can understand.

I’d like to clarify a couple of things:

1. I meant to say that use of the vernacular better involves the laity in the Mass, and this not to the repressing of Latin completely or Gregorian chanting. And I didn’t mean to imply that the OF isn’t as good or beautiful as the EF, or that the use of Latin in the Mass in its entirety makes a Mass “worse”. The fact that Latin forever remains with the Latin Church is a good thing, but its application for the Mass will vary with the culture. Just because we have a culture that doesn’t use Latin, even in many aspects very Christian, doesn’t mean that Christians aren’t as capable as they used to be. In many respects the use of different languages represents progress and is a good thing for the Church.
2. I meant to say that Aquinas and Albert, etc etc, write more succinctly and express the truth in a more compact and ready to use way, but at the same time write in Aristotelian terms that make it hard for those not trained in Aristotle to understand. So while it may be more “ready to use” in theory for it’s decisive and logical results, in reality it is harder for the average person to use. And I shouldn’t include all Scholastics under this since those such as St. Bonaventure are probably an exception (side note/rambling: it’s always somewhat amusing to read about Pope Benedict’s distaste for “neo scholasticism” and “Roman scholasticism” for its seemingly impersonal tone, when he then goes on to use Bonaventure, one of the greatest Scholastics, as one of his main theological supports, and later calls St. Thomas as “his friend” (of course all saints are his friends, but he means this in a special way based on the context). It’s good to see Bonaventure finally getting his well deserved time in the views of a Pope and theologian, something he has undeservedly and unfairly been deprived of. Also, clearly he (Benedict) wasn’t presented with Aquinas as he should’ve been, and later learned more about the “real” Thomas, but it still somewhat amuses me.)

 

[ProVobis]

The fact that Latin forever remains with the Latin Church is a good thing, but its application for the Mass will vary with the culture.

I agree but my questions to this would be,

(1) were these cultures perhaps created after Latin was discontinued and, if so, was this necessary?

(2) was it wise/prudent to allow these cultures/languages to take on a life of their own to the point where Catholic worship is/will no longer recognizeable?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Or not much of anything else, judging by their low reading and math scores.

In most classrooms, especially public, they are not learning to read and think critically.

Do they even teach English grammar anymore?

Some of us do, but we’re rare.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree but my questions to this would be,

(2) was it wise/prudent to allow these cultures/languages to take on a life of their own to the point where Catholic worship is/will no longer recognizeable?

Not addressed to me, but I’d like to answer NO. We now have a replacement of multi-culturalism for universality.

 

[jwinch2]

Pope Paul VI is a bit of an enigma to me. I have a difficult time seeing how he could have been so prescient, bordering on prophetic, on issues of sexuality, and at the same time not been able to see the ramifications of the changes to the Mass.

I’m not blaming him for the liturgical abuses, that fault belongs to those who committed them, but the environment which allowed them to happen is a result of the rubrics, the lack of a Gradual being ready in the vernacular, etc., and lack of proper catechesis on how to implement the new Missal.

When you compare the Missals side by side, it becomes clear how much related to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass really changed. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some guy who thinks the OF of the Mass is invalid, but only a blind person could look at the two Missals and not see that there are drastic differences in the text. Here is an interesting article looking at the Requiem Mass. catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2548

 

[Elizabeth502]

Pope Paul VI is a bit of an enigma to me. I have a difficult time seeing how he could have been so prescient, bordering on prophetic, on issues of sexuality, and at the same time not been able to see the ramifications of the changes to the Mass.

I think you answered your own question. He was perhaps a “visionary,” in some respects, but some people are long on vision and short on details. It’s important for anyone to be able to envision, also, how an ideal will be translated, literally and figuratively.

 

[jwinch2]

I think you answered your own question. He was perhaps a “visionary,” in some respects, but some people are long on vision and short on details. It’s important for anyone to be able to envision, also, how an ideal will be translated, literally and figuratively.

Perhaps you are correct. He seemed to have the details almost dead on in relation to morality though.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Perhaps you are correct. He seemed to have the details almost dead on in relation to morality though.

I would not call his prophecies on that “detail.” I would call them accurate visions of the big picture.

 

[Lucky7]

When you compare the Missals side by side, it becomes clear how much related to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass really changed. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some guy who thinks the OF of the Mass is invalid, but only a blind person could look at the two Missals and not see that there are drastic differences in the text. Here is an interesting article looking at the Requiem Mass. catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2548

Yes, drastic differences (although I do notice that a few of the recent translation changes are more in line with the Latin Mass). My practical mind asks, “Why such drastic differences?” If this was just about making it easier for the modern people to understand why the need for so many and such drastic changes?

 

[CrossofChrist]

I agree but my questions to this would be,

(1) were these cultures perhaps created after Latin was discontinued and, if so, was this necessary?

(2) was it wise/prudent to allow these cultures/languages to take on a life of their own to the point where Catholic worship is/will no longer recognizeable?

1. Yeah, and IMHO yes.
2. Of course not. And when did the Vatican support liturgical abuses in the Mass?

 

[jwinch2]

I would not call his prophecies on that “detail.” I would call them accurate visions of the big picture.

They seem pretty detailed to me. I guess we’re coming at it from a different perspective. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[jwinch2]

ignatius.com/Products/BR-P/benedict-xvis-reform.aspx

This looks very interesting.

 

[jwinch2]

adoremus.org/0210Benofy.html
adoremus.org/0310Benofy.html

Some historical perspectives on the changes to the Mass.