Has anyone changed there mind here?

[ac_claire]

The more I read of this thread, the more it seems that many people are just downright miserable when they attend Mass, because they are so intent on finding wrongdoing at every turn.

yeah, pretty much.

 

[I_Believe]

To those who think traditionalists are too scrupulous, what do you think of the words of Bugnini’s main man, who co-authored the NO ?

**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). **

ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html
He has no reason to be biased.

 

[dyspepsic]

I believe Traditional Catholic worship and doctrine are how God wants us to worship. I see great debate here on many topics, now it seems that some topics are to tough to arbitrate and we need to keep our debates to mantillas and why the Church does not eat meat of Fridays year round. If we can’t debate the challenging topics, is this of any use? It seems that there are staunch positions here held by the same people that never change. Has anyone come to love the TLM and or turned from happy clappy parishes because of this Traditional Forum?

I don’t attend TL M masses. And there are Masses in the vernacular in my church on Sunday that are not 'happy clappy" parishes, as you refer to them.

 

[lovesMary]

This thread has 42 pages, I wonder if any one person posting has “changed their mind”?

 

[stmaria]

Originally Posted by stmaria
I beleive that when Pope Pius said the use of the mother tongue in " several of the rites", he was speaking of vernacular in the rites of Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, not the Mass

]=Aragorn1;3444766]Granting that he may have been referring here to multiple sacraments, there is still no reason to exclude the Mass from the group of “several of the rites”.

Nowhere does the Pope even hint that he is referring only

to the other sacraments in that paragraph. The distinction you’ve drawn is purely arbitrary. Why would the vernacular “be of much advantage to the people” in Baptism, Confirmation, and Matrimony, but not the Mass??? Besides, the change from Latin to vernacular in the other sacraments has angered some traditionalists just as much as in the Mass. At the very least, after reading Mediator Dei, you must admit that in principle there is nothing wrong with the vernacular in the liturgy.

Pope Pius was speaking of the vernacular in the rites of baptism, confirmation. marriage, etc but not the Mass. THhs is clear from his statement in Mediator Die # 59
“This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make** use of the vernacular **in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice”

 

[pnewton]

This thread has 42 pages, I wonder if any one person posting has “changed their mind”?

This is my third time to say this, but I have modified my opinion on some issues. Anything on topic here is easily overwhelmed by off-shoot discussions.

 

[Aragorn1]

Pope Pius was speaking of the vernacular in the rites of baptism, confirmation. marriage, etc but not the Mass. THhs is clear from his statement in Mediator Die # 59
“This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make** use of the vernacular **in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice”

No, this refers to those who introduce the vernacular without approval (those who dare to “introduce novel liturgical practices” obviously does not mean the Apostolic See). Also note the reference to things “out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics”. Clearly Pius XII was not issuing a condemnation of the vernacular in itself, but of those who overstepped their bounds by introducing the vernacular when it went against the rubrics at that time.

A little context helps:

1. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about – during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors – that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.[49]

1. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

Also, I notice how you’ve left out the beginning of the pragraph (your quote starts with “this notwithstanding, etc.”):

1. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded.

 

[I_Believe]

Pope Pius was speaking of the vernacular in the rites of baptism, confirmation. marriage, etc but not the Mass. THhs is clear from his statement in Mediator Die # 59
“This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make** use of the vernacular **in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice”

Careful stmaria, facts tend to kill popular threads.

 

[AJV]

Careful stmaria, facts tend to kill popular threads.

But surely that is an interpretation of stmarias? It seems to me that while one can say that Pius XII did not forsee the extent of vernacular-isation that we have today, he was not speaking of the other sacraments, but including the Mass

1. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.** In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent,** since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

It seems to me that the context (60 following logically from 59) says that:

• People are disobeying liturgical law on the subject
• they are introducing vernacular in the Eucharistic Sacrifice
• this is not foreseen in the law
• it is forbidden to take such action whatever of this nature without consulting the Apostolic See

and this is evidenced by the indults granted from 1949 onward to use the vernacular in various parts of the Mass.

 

[AJV]

Careful stmaria, facts tend to kill popular threads.

But surely that is an interpretation of stmarias? It seems to me that while one can say that Pius XII did not forsee the extent of vernacular-isation that we have today, he was not speaking of the other sacraments, but including the Mass

1. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.** In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent,** since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

It seems to me that the context (60 following logically from 59) says that:

• People are disobeying liturgical law on the subject
• they are introducing vernacular in the Eucharistic Sacrifice
• this is not foreseen in the law
• it is forbidden to take such action whatever of this nature without consulting the Apostolic See

and this is evidenced by the indults granted from 1949 onward to use the vernacular in various parts of the Mass. Several of the indults actually make specific reference to this part of Mediator Dei. If you look, for example, in the Canon Law Digest you will find Mediator Dei quoted

“Although Latin is not the chief barrier between the people and the liturgy, still ‘the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people’. The mind of the Holy See is manifested by the many indults grated in recent years. The following indults were requested…”

 

[Aragorn1]

To those who think traditionalists are too scrupulous, what do you think of the words of Bugnini’s main man, who co-authored the NO ?

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.

All that Fr. Gelineau’s comparisons prove is that the OF of the Mass is a different liturgical rite (or, more precisely, a different form of the same rite, per Summorum Pontificum). But that’s what we knew all along.

By the way, I just thought I’d point out that your source has gravely misunderstood then-Cardinal Ratzinger in another quote on that page. Gallagher writes:

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).

The clear implication of Gallagher quoting this is that Ratzinger (now the Holy Father of course) disapproved of the liturgical changes. How can anyone expect to understand the context when only one sentence is provided??? It seems far more likely that Ratzinger (who approves of the OF) blamed the crisis not on the Mass as it was promulgated but rather on the tamperings with and abuses of the liturgy that have come about by “liturgical revolutionaries” acting in “the Spirit of Vatican II”. This is what Ratzinger meant by “disintegration of the Liturgy”, and this is precisely what was warned about by Pius XII: people messing around with the liturgy without reference to the Apostolic See.

We know this is what Ratzinger meant because in another work he voiced his approval of the new Mass but denounced what he called “the idea of a new book” (i.e., the idea that the OF is an inorganic brand new invention instead of a legitimate development in continuity with tradition. This idea has given rise to a so-called liturgical revolution in which the liturgy is tampered with by individuals, contra Mediator Dei)

Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasure of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history. In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V, and their predecessors have contributed right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer. This awareness of continuity is destroyed just as much by those who “opt” for a book supposed to have been produced four hundred years ago as by those who would like to be forever drawing up new liturgies. At bottom, these two attitudes are identical.

Feast of Faith, page 87.

 

[dyspepsic]

Stultus est sicut stultus facit

Okay, Forrest Gump:

Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes

You avoided translating the Secret because you couldn’t, and you’re one of the most vociferous Latin enthusiasts on this site.
Hint: Secret, Monday of Holy Week. Look it up in your Vernacular missal.

 

[Aragorn1]

LOL, guys stop speaking in Latin!!! The rest of us laymen only speak the vernacular!

 

[MrS]

Me thinks it is just an exercise in cut and paste…

of course, you could try to change my mind here

 

[stmaria]

=AJV;3446672]But surely that is an interpretation of stmarias? It seems to me that while one can say that Pius XII did not forsee the extent of vernacular-isation that we have today, he was not speaking of the other sacraments, but including the Mass

Pope Pius XII was clearly against the introduction of the vernacular in the mass but not in the other rites. If Pope Pius introduced the vernacular into the mass, as you claim, then why was this such a bid deal at the Vatcian II Council? Why were so many against the vernacular if it had already been introduced by Pope PiusXII ?

Mediator Dei
."** It has pained Us grievously to note**, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact,those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice;
60.** The use of the Latin language**, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with **several of the rites **may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See"

It seems to me that the context (60 following logically from 59) says that:

• People are disobeying liturgical law on the subject
• they are introducing vernacular in the Eucharistic Sacrifice
• this is not foreseen in the law
• it is forbidden to take such action whatever of this nature without consulting the Apostolic See

Agree. There were reformers wanting to do such things. Some of these reformers were in fact working for Pope Pius XII. Annibale Bugnini and Monsignor Montini {Pope Paul VI } were responsible for the reforms of the Easter vigil in 1951 and Holy Week in 1955

 

[AJV]

Pope Pius XII was clearly against the introduction of the vernacular in the mass but not in the other rites. If Pope Pius introduced the vernacular into the mass, as you claim, then why was this such a bid deal at the Vatcian II Council? Why were so many against the vernacular if it had already been introduced by Pope PiusXII ?

It pained Pius XII previously to note that people were discarding Latin on their own authority in the Eucharistic Sacrifice without having the permission of the Apostolic See. Not that the vernacular was being used. But as I said earlier, one could say that the vernacular he envisioned was not an all-sweeping one that some others did. For a lot of countries that is.

Pius XII introduced the vernacular into the Mass gradually and not the same everywhere. Mission countries like China and India received wider permissions extending to a majority of the Mass, even the whole Mass outside the Canon. European ones received less - though as early as 1943, the Vatican declared tolerated customs like the Deutches Hochamt which included vernacular in the chants and hymns.

The debate on the vernacular at Vatican II was because of its wider scope.

 

[dyspepsic]

Pope Pius XII was clearly against the introduction of the vernacular in the mass but not in the other rites. If Pope Pius introduced the vernacular into the mass, as you claim, then why was this such a bid deal at the Vatcian II Council? Why were so many against the vernacular if it had already been introduced by Pope PiusXII ?

Mediator Dei
."** It has pained Us grievously to note**, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact,those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice;
60.** The use of the Latin language**, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with **several of the rites **may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See"

Agree. There were reformers wanting to do such things. Some of these reformers were in fact working for Pope Pius XII. Annibale Bugnini and Monsignor Montini {Pope Paul VI } were responsible for the reforms of the Easter vigil in 1951 and Holy Week in 1955

I think that Pius XII is dead. His successor(s) is not obligated to follow in his footsteps. Any one of them, has the authority and power to change the Mass at will. Pius XII feeling on the Mass and the vernacular are not carved in stone, or ‘de fide’. What is the point of quoting Pius on this matter?

Even Bugnini, and Montini are gone to their heavenly reward, where the angels are probably singing “Holy, Holy, Holy…”

 

[dyspepsic]

I think that Pius XII is dead. His successor(s) is not obligated to follow in his footsteps. Any one of them, has the authority and power to change the Mass at will. Pius XII feeling on the Mass and the vernacular are not carved in stone, or ‘de fide’. What is the point of quoting Pius on this matter? His deposition on the matter has only passing moment.

Even Bugnini, and Montini are gone to their heavenly reward, where the angels are probably singing “Holy, Holy, Holy…”

 

[I_Believe]

All that Fr. Gelineau’s comparisons prove is that the OF of the Mass is a different liturgical rite (or, more precisely, a different form of the same rite, per Summorum Pontificum). But that’s what we knew all along.

By the way, I just thought I’d point out that your source has gravely misunderstood then-Cardinal Ratzinger in another quote on that page. Gallagher writes:

The clear implication of Gallagher quoting this is that Ratzinger (now the Holy Father of course) disapproved of the liturgical changes. How can anyone expect to understand the context when only one sentence is provided??? It seems far more likely that Ratzinger (who approves of the OF) blamed the crisis not on the Mass as it was promulgated but rather on the tamperings with and abuses of the liturgy that have come about by “liturgical revolutionaries” acting in “the Spirit of Vatican II”. This is what Ratzinger meant by “disintegration of the Liturgy”, and this is precisely what was warned about by Pius XII: people messing around with the liturgy without reference to the Apostolic See.

We know this is what Ratzinger meant because in another work he voiced his approval of the new Mass but denounced what he called “the idea of a new book” (i.e., the idea that the OF is an inorganic brand new invention instead of a legitimate development in continuity with tradition. This idea has given rise to a so-called liturgical revolution in which the liturgy is tampered with by individuals, contra Mediator Dei)

Feast of Faith, page 87.

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).

Ok, but even if he followed with " But, if we correct other problems it will diminish the significance of this disintegration and it’s effect", that still does not mean that sentence means anything other that what it obviously says. I can say it means “HMC has a thorn in Her side” and not be too far off.

It’s all water under the bridge anyway. It all comes down to the priests. Will more priests come out of the traditional seminaries or the others ? It’s in their hands now.

I’m out of here for the next three days, so
Happy Easter to all