Is this true?

[Monica4316]

unitypublishing.com/liturgy/MassTranslation.htm

Sadly, I think it might be

it doesn’t however support the sedevacantist position… rather, obedience to the Holy Father Pope Benedict.

 

[Lycorth]

This much is true:

"They made the Mass sound bland and casual instead of what it’s supposed to be: sacred. But these liturgists have been in charge of the translation of the Mass for decades, without Rome approval. They have caused bitter—and highly unnecessary—divisions in our Church."

I’ve long wondered why on earth a new order of the Mass was even thought of, much less designed and implemented. What on earth did anyone think they were going to achieve by fixing what wasn’t broken?

No matter if there was some kind of secret conspiracy or not behind the implementation of the New Mass or anything else post-VII, the facts are that it has only caused unnecessary and oftentimes sharp division and discord where there should never be any. There is no reason for Catholics to be divided and fighting over which form of the Mass should be used when the Mass didn’t need to be changed to begin with.

By the fruits of these changes we will know how to judge these changes.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’ve long wondered why on earth a new order of the Mass was even thought of, much less designed and implemented. What on earth did anyone think they were going to achieve by fixing what wasn’t broken?

I often wonder if people said the same thing when the Tridentine Rite came about in the first place.

 

[Lormar]

I often wonder if people said the same thing when the Tridentine Rite came about in the first place.

A new mass wasn’t created from scratch at the Council of Trent. So, in answer to your question, I don’t think so.

 

[Lycorth]

I often wonder if people said the same thing when the Tridentine Rite came about in the first place.

I don’t imagine, since the rite codified at Trent was already in use for quite some time (unless I’m mistaken) and the Church wasn’t filled with discord over it (again, unless I’m mistaken).

To the best of my knowledge, the liturgical developments after Trent helped to unify the Church, whilst the liturgical developments after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae helped to divide the Church. The former seemed perfectly praiseworthy, the latter practically damnable (and I’m not opposed to the NO being said in a conservative a manner as possible, mind you).

 

[Monica4316]

I think that there was much disobedience to Rome after Vatican II…

for example, here’s what Fr John Hardon said:
**
Fr John Hardon and the origin of Communion in the hand:**

"We were at concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand began…with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody’s permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the bishops’ conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.

"In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.

And the American hierarchy took most—three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Fr. John Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference
in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.

 

[JohnDamian]

We are here to celebrate the Sacrament of Eucharist; not to have fun or be able to pat ourselves on the back with all forms of ludicrous aires and comforts; the Eucharist is a celebration and a Sacrament not some absurd dance.

Some of the complaints in the article are understandable; but some are just plain ridiculous; for example:

Turned altars around so that the priest faces the people;

The Priest acts in the person of Christ; did not Christ face the disciples at the last supper?

Turned the altar into a table instead of a sacred altar ,

Likewise; this is more of a practical concern; did Christ have an ornate alter; or do we merely want to serve our own ego’s instead of the love and celebration of the Sacrament?

Ripped down Communion rails;

Did Christ serve over a Communion rail?

Removed statues and other signs of architectural reverence ,

These things; like ornate alters and other such frivolous waste distract from the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Eliminated much of the physical reverence of kneeling and bowing ,

This; again is an aesthetic problem for people; not a spiritual one.

Communion in the hand,

Likewise; did the Disciples get hand-fed by Christ?!

Latin outlawed in the Mass

If only we were able to go back in time and chastise Jesus for not using Latin.

I cannot see any reason why these would pose any problem to anyone. It seems people are more concerned with fanciful airs than the Sacraments. Which is alarming, and bordering on idolatry.

 

[Revs96]

I often wonder if people said the same thing when the Tridentine Rite came about in the first place.

Trent never established new liturgies. It banned new liturgical developments and mandated that the Traditional Mass, dating back to the early Church, be the only form of the Mass. So Trent did not establish anything new, it banned the new things that crept in over time and mandated the old. So the Tridentine Mass isn’t really Tridentine, it’s at least 1,000 years older than Trent-at least 1,000. It could be 1,300 years or more older than Trent.

 

[Monica4316]

John, I dont know if I agree… I mean, all these things exist to help us deepen our understanding of what is happening on the Altar. If it looks like a Sacrifice and a Sacrament, that helps us to be more reverent. The problem with turning the altar around and making it look more like a table, is that it de-emphasizes the sacrificial element of the Mass… and so people forget about it, and think of Communion in different terms. The same with altar rails, and receiving Communion on the tongue… it all helps us to understand what is happening and to respond properly to it. If you walk into a church where no one genuflects, where there are no kneelers, no altar, just a table in the center of the church… and if people receive Communion from a plate and a juice pitcher… that changes what they believe and the reverence with which they come to Mass… it also greatly disrespects Our Lord.

The point I’m trying to make is that the external things are related to the invisible, spiritual reality… they express that reality. If a person prays kneeling, they tend to pray with more reverence and humility, then if they’re sitting… etc. Just as what we do with our bodies affects our souls, so does the ritual of the Mass affect the spiritual reality of it.

 

[Monica4316]

I have a question… if everything in that link is true, including the prophesies (at the bottom) - is the Eucharist still valid in the Novus Ordo Mass?? (is it still Christ’s Body and Blood) ? or the problem just certain innovations, a bad translation, etc… does the translation affect the Consecration? .

what is necessary for the Consecration to be valid? Is it proper form (bread and wine), the words (“This is My Body, This is My Blood”), and the intent of the priest? I’m confused about the last point… does it mean that if a priest doesn’t believe in the Eucharist, it won’t be consecrated? I think most priests today believe in the Eucharist… I’ve never met one that doesn’t…

I’m glad the Vatican has approved the new, better translation though I think it might help fix a lot of problems…

 

[FAB]

unitypublishing.com/liturgy/MassTranslation.htm

Sadly, I think it might be

it doesn’t however support the sedevacantist position… rather, obedience to the Holy Father Pope Benedict.

The translations are more clarifiaction from the Latin than anything else. Yes there will be those that might object, but they would be on theological shaky ground to do so.

This article is flame throwing and unfortunately written by a Catholic Forums. It’s these kind of articles that feed unrest in the Church.
The final version, is now being given the final approval. As good Catholics we should realize it is being approved by the Vatican and as such by Pope Benidict and should adhere to our call to obedeiance to the Church when finally implamented.

Peace,
FAB

 

[PA650]

These things; like ornate alters and other such frivolous waste distract from the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Nevertheless, those “frivolous” elements were organic developments throughout the history of the Church that fostered a sense of reverence and sacred. Moreover, the idea of renovating churches and thus to partake in the act of iconoclasm in some sort of an effort to return to the “Church in the Catacombs” seems utterly preposterous.

 

[Student09]

Monica, the OF Mass is valid. You don’t need to worry about that. And if a heretical priest has holy orders and says the words of consecration correctly, the Eucharist will still be validly consecrated. According to what I’ve heard/read, it’s illicit for a priest in a state of mortal sin to consecrate the Eucharist, but it is not invalid.

Likewise; this is more of a practical concern; did Christ have an ornate alter; or do we merely want to serve our own ego’s instead of the love and celebration of the Sacrament?

The purpose of an ornate altar is to give glory to God and help us to raise our hearts and minds to contemplate His glory.

These things; like ornate alters and other such frivolous waste distract from the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

“Frivolous waste?” I cannot believe that a Catholic would feel that way about beautiful altars and devotional statues … or rather I can believe it but it breaks my heart.

Likewise; did the Disciples get hand-fed by Christ?!

We don’t know, but we are not the apostles and besides, who wouldn’t want to be hand-fed by Christ … if He was standing in front of me right now I would love to be hand-fed by Him. You wouldn’t?

If only we were able to go back in time and chastise Jesus for not using Latin.

Latin has been the sacred language of the Church for centuries. It still is.

I cannot see any reason why these would pose any problem to anyone. It seems people are more concerned with fanciful airs than the Sacraments. Which is alarming, and bordering on idolatry.

Accusing Catholics of idolatry … where have I heard that before? Maybe it was the same people who tore down Catholic churches and altars and smashed Catholic statues during the “Reformation.”

 

[Lycorth]

We are here to celebrate the Sacrament of Eucharist; not to have fun or be able to pat ourselves on the back with all forms of ludicrous aires and comforts; the Eucharist is a celebration and a Sacrament not some absurd dance.

Some of the complaints in the article are understandable; but some are just plain ridiculous; for example:

The Priest acts in the person of Christ; did not Christ face the disciples at the last supper?

Likewise; this is more of a practical concern; did Christ have an ornate alter; or do we merely want to serve our own ego’s instead of the love and celebration of the Sacrament?

Did Christ serve over a Communion rail?

These things; like ornate alters and other such frivolous waste distract from the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

This; again is an aesthetic problem for people; not a spiritual one.

Likewise; did the Disciples get hand-fed by Christ?!

If only we were able to go back in time and chastise Jesus for not using Latin.

I cannot see any reason why these would pose any problem to anyone. It seems people are more concerned with fanciful airs than the Sacraments. Which is alarming, and bordering on idolatry.

Not in the slightest. Every point you’ve cited marks a new practice that has helped in some small way to desacralize and make banal the liturgy and the sense of the solemn and sacred that served billions of Catholics well for centuries.

No, Jesus didn’t use Latin or communion rails, but Jesus also didn’t speak English or wear pants or drive a car. Where does it end? What Christ did during the first century in Jerusalem was done because it was the first century in Jerusalem - not the High Middle Ages, not Trent, not the here and now. He did what He needed to do with what was available to Him - He has called on us to do what we can with what is available to us as well as obey His Church.

After all, the Holy Spirit guided the Church to codify all those practices, and for good reason - they are naturally efficacious and reverent and tend to encourage deep and passionate faith. Sure, other practices can achieve similar (such as an OF Mass said with undeniable form and matter and intention and with the most traditional sense of propriety), but there is no such thing as equality and the two forms are not equal. There is a reason the Lord led His Church to codify the liturgy that was codified at Trent - it is no mere man-made invention.

I have a question… if everything in that link is true, including the prophesies (at the bottom) - is the Eucharist still valid in the Novus Ordo Mass?? (is it still Christ’s Body and Blood) ? or the problem just certain innovations, a bad translation, etc… does the translation affect the Consecration? .

what is necessary for the Consecration to be valid? Is it proper form (bread and wine), the words (“This is My Body, This is My Blood”), and the intent of the priest? I’m confused about the last point… does it mean that if a priest doesn’t believe in the Eucharist, it won’t be consecrated? I think most priests today believe in the Eucharist… I’ve never met one that doesn’t…

I’m glad the Vatican has approved the new, better translation though I think it might help fix a lot of problems…

The Eucharist at a Novus Ordo Mass is validly consecrated so long as the matter, the form, and the intent are there. Proper bread and wine (made according to the Church’s specifications only) are the matter, the proper words of consecration (“This is My Body”, etc) are the form, and the intention to do what the Church does and wants of him (that is, to render the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine) are the intention. So long as all those are present, the priest can be celebrating a NO Mass in the ugliest church in the world and it would still be a valid Eucharist.

Of course, Catholics ought to go beyond the bare minimum, which is why we traditionally go all-out and care about everything from the entire form of the Mass to the architecture of the church to how we are dressed during Mass - everything works together to help cultivate a true Catholic atmosphere and encourage ourselves and each other in a spirit of true and proper reverence for our Lord and an understanding of the faith He has given us. Matter and form and intent are essential, but only the beginning.

 

[Timothysis]

It seems people are more concerned with fanciful airs than the Sacraments. Which is alarming, and bordering on idolatry.

Bingo. For many here, as long as the latin, chant and smells & bells is there, then everything is fine. The *performance *seems to be of primary importance.

There was a poster here who once railed against the OF because of the vernacular and the usual litany of objections, but then declared that if it was said in latin, then he wouldn’t have much of a problem with it(!).

 

[Onegin]

The Priest acts in the person of Christ; did not Christ face the disciples at the last supper?

Actually, there is good evidence to support the fact that the disciples and Christ sat in a half-circle facing east (ad orientem).

I don’t think the concern over the departure from ad orientem is frivolous at all.

Likewise; this is more of a practical concern; did Christ have an ornate alter; or do we merely want to serve our own ego’s instead of the love and celebration of the Sacrament?

This was the same thing the Protestants said and why the protestant churches are ultimately quite plain and unadorned. Catholics are not Protestants, we believe that the beauty of the Church glorifies God and orients the people towards higher truth. In other words, it is otherworldly - not mundane.

After all, if what you call the “aesthetics” are irrelevant, which you seem to be arguing is the case, then there is no reason that a Mass cannot be held in a concert hall, a garbage dump or a mosque.

If only we were able to go back in time and chastise Jesus for not using Latin.

Again, total misunderstanding of the reason why the Church uses the Latin language. First because we belong to the Roman Catholic Church (latin rite) and secondly because Latin is a dead language and therefore it’s meaning is not subject to interpretations or change (thus preserving doctrine and teaching intact). These are important points and your arguments erroneously dismiss them as frivolous.

I cannot see any reason why these would pose any problem to anyone. It seems people are more concerned with fanciful airs than the Sacraments. Which is alarming, and bordering on idolatry.

Again, more protestant arguments.

 

[archangel04]

We are here to celebrate the Sacrament of Eucharist; not to have fun or be able to pat ourselves on the back with all forms of ludicrous aires and comforts; the Eucharist is a celebration and a Sacrament not some absurd dance.

Some of the complaints in the article are understandable; but some are just plain ridiculous; for example:

The Priest acts in the person of Christ; did not Christ face the disciples at the last supper?
**We should face the “east” for the fact that our Lord will come from the East. The priest now is turning his back towards the tabernacle, Christ if fully present there. The Priest job is to take our prayers to the high altar. **

Likewise; this is more of a practical concern; did Christ have an ornate alter; or do we merely want to serve our own ego’s instead of the love and celebration of the Sacrament?No because back then Christ came and was born amongst and lived with the poor. But as the Church has grown, she should provide only the best for our King and Savior

Did Christ serve over a Communion rail?
**We took them off, as it helped to have more reverence to the Eucharist? I don’t think so. **

These things; like ornate alters and other such frivolous waste distract from the sacrifice of the Eucharist.Again we took them off, has it helped with more reverence and prayers at a Church (I am not talking about mass here) no it has not. Church and the Mass are now seen as a social gathering

Likewise; did the Disciples get hand-fed by Christ?!Only a priest should be allowed to touch the Body of Christ as it was done before

If only we were able to go back in time and chastise Jesus for not using Latin.**Latin is a much more beutiful language than many other languages, it’s also the Offical language of the Latin Rite so why not use it? I do favor the use of vernacular, but not through the entire mass, especially during the Eucharistic prayers. **

I cannot see any reason why these would pose any problem to anyone. It seems people are more concerned with fanciful airs than the Sacraments. Which is alarming, and bordering on idolatry.

Again look at us now! Church is divided not only with the liturgy, but with morality and even some Dogmas.

 

[archangel04]

Bingo. For many here, as long as the latin, chant and smells & bells is there, then everything is fine. The *performance *seems to be of primary importance.

There was a poster here who once railed against the OF because of the vernacular and the usual litany of objections, but then declared that if it was said in latin, then he wouldn’t have much of a problem with it(!).

Not true, most of us don’t have a problem with the vernacular, it’s the fact that Vat II never claimed to make the entire mass in the vernacular, that’s the problem we have. It’s been the disobedience of Bishops, priest, and lay persons that we’ve had problems with. If the Church were to declare tha the Mass is now codefied to be said only in English than most of us would swallow our pride and accept what the Holy See has said. It seems that “traditioalist” have been more obedient to the Holy See than the “modernist” and I attned the both OF & EF and I am not old guy, I am only 25.

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks for the replies everyone

I find it very sad, how the Mass has changed…

 

[Revs96]

JohnDamian, in the first 2-3 centuries, the Church didn’t understand many things, such as the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit, which she now does thanks to people like St. Athanasius and St. Basil the Great. So just because there was no Latin or altar rail at the Last Supper or any of the other things you said, doesn’t make these things an improvement over anything to the contrary. Early Christians learned over the course of a few centuries how to better glorify God through ornate Altars and reverent Liturgies. After the Church had it figured out, things stayed largely unmodified from the Early Church until the 1960’s, where the liberal V2 crowd felt that the Liturgy should be more in touch with the world, in keeping with their distorted theology, even though the world is the opposite of God and Heaven.