Is your Mass in line with Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter katolik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**
  1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed. **

Here’s article 40:

**
**40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore: **
Click to expand...
1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

See, technically it can be all in the vernacular. the thing is, the actual “spirit” of Vatican II would be that this kind of radical change should only be done in missionary lands. That being said, I think a totally vernacular Mass is just within the boundaries set by Vatican II. I go to the TLM usually, but I went to an NOM this Sunday and I was pleasantly surprised by the Agnus Dei, Sanctus, and Kyrie being in Latin (well, Greek for the Kyrie).**
 
40.png
Asimis:
Of coruse, but that is why The Church relies on traditions and previous councils. What you present here is "unrestrained obedience’, which means simply that if the pope says so it is right. But this is alien to both to history and the tradition of the church.
Click to expand...
which is against the very Canon Laws we have to inform, to protect, and to keep us strong
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Here’s article 40:
**See, technically it can be all in the vernacular. **
Click to expand...
Gosh, I wonder why Katolik didn’t include Article 40 in his original post?
 
40.png
Asimis:
. What you present here is "unrestrained obedience’, which means simply that if the pope says so it is right. .
Click to expand...
Thank you. That’s me. (Actually only on areas involving discipline). I will be happy to meet God being obedient to the man He put in charge.
 
I picked “I have heard no Latin in my parish” since the poll said hymns don’t count. When the blessed sacrament is placed in the monsterance and taken to the side chapel, we do sing a song in Latin. It starts “O salutaris hostia…”. We sing it twice as the priest and an altar server (always an older gentleman during weekday masses) do this. The first time we sing the Latin version, then we sing the English version.
 
40.png
Asimis:
But article 40 does not says that the vernacular can replace Latin.

Also read: Veterum Sapientia by Pope John XXIII
Click to expand...
Article 40 says if radical changes are deemed useful or necessary they can be used with approval by the Holy See. The Holy See has approved Mass in all of the vernacular. (Veterum Sapienta is not an infallible document that cannot be overruled). The thing is, I don’t think America is the kind of radical circumstances that the Council had in mind, but the local ecclesiastical authority deemed it necessary and the Holy See approved it, so it fits within the boundaries set forth by Vatican II.
 
40.png
pnewton:
I hope that most of us here have become wise enough to notice the difference. I think the greatest harm is for the propagation of the TLM. Those that insist it is the “only true Mass.” make it difficult for the indult Mass to be said.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me pnewton?
It’s not only Traditionalists who are persecuted. I have heard of priests suspended for using the EP I in the New Mass, refusing Hand communion, using Latin in the NO Mass, and et cetera. Oh please if these bishops were even open to Traditionalists they wouldn’t wreckovate cathedrals so that a TLM may never be celebrated there, have Mahonyite Masses, and teach us that all religions are equal. The bishops are strident liberals, even the best of them. Did you see what Bp;Lynch did? He ended Perpetual Adoration because it discouraged us to see the Eucharist in the other people! Now, is that Catholic???
 
40.png
katolik:
Are you kidding me pnewton?
It’s not only Traditionalists who are persecuted. I have heard of priests suspended for using the EP I in the New Mass, refusing Hand communion, using Latin in the NO Mass, and et cetera. Oh please if these bishops were even open to Traditionalists they wouldn’t wreckovate cathedrals so that a TLM may never be celebrated there, have Mahonyite Masses, and teach us that all religions are equal. The bishops are strident liberals, even the best of them. Did you see what Bp;Lynch did? He ended Perpetual Adoration because it discouraged us to see the Eucharist in the other people! Now, is that Catholic???
Click to expand...
I agree with katolik on this point. I think wherever there is a demand for it, the TLM should be allowed. If there is a priest who can do it, then what is the harm in letting him? Even if only a few people show up. If a priest wants to spend an exta hour of his day saying another Mass, I don’t see who loses. It seems win-win to me.

Is there a rule about how many Masses a priest can say per day?
 
40.png
katolik:
Are you kidding me pnewton?
Click to expand...
No I am not, not that I don’t kid a lot. But if you read my postition above, obedience is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. I agree that those how flaunt instructions from the Holy Father (as well as Cardinal Arinze, in RS) will have much to answer for before God. I have no personal knowledge of the things you mentioned, but some of them are serious acts of arrogance and disobedience.

The point of my post was that giving the bishop an easy excuse not to expand the Indult Mass is not helpful and gains little sympathy. Acting the Mass that others attend and love (to the point of calling it invalid)is not conducive to gaining credibility.

By the way, to call all bishops strident liberals is a false, slanderous and non-Catholic generaliztion, especially in light of the fact the it is the bishops, teaching in union with the pope, that is the Magesterium. It defines what “Catholic” is.
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
Translation isn’t a word-for-word proposition of course. The idea in translation is to translate the ideas, remembering that languages are all structured differently.
Click to expand...
That’s true. But if a court-appointed interpreter translated “I placed the pencil in her hand” as “I beat her hand with a stick,” the court-appointed interpreter would be fired.

The present English translation of the Mass is enough of a departure from the Latin that it falls into the latter category.

Stop settling for mediocrity and demand the best!
 
Katolik,
Exactly. That’s why I purchased Priest Where Is Thy Mass, Mass Where Is Thy Priest the other day. One of the interviews is with Father Zigrang - he had an “indult” to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in Texas. Because he didn’t celebrate a Novus Ordo at a time, instead useing the Tridentine liturgy for that specified time, he was “suspended” and ordered to go to counciling. What great charity the bishops have!
 
40.png
Genesis315:
See, technically it can be all in the vernacular.
Click to expand...
“Can” and “should” are not the same thing. If you read the Latin text, I think you will find that when the Council refers to retention of Latin in the liturgy the language is more akin to a command or directive, but when the Council refers to the introduction of more vernacular into the liturgy the language is permissive.

In other words, you “can” use more vernacular in the liturgy if you want but you “must” retain Latin in the liturgy.
 
SFH said:
“Can” and “should” are not the same thing. If you read the Latin text, I think you will find that when the Council refers to retention of Latin in the liturgy the language is more akin to a command or directive, but when the Council refers to the introduction of more vernacular into the liturgy the language is permissive.

In other words, you “can” use more vernacular in the liturgy if you want but you “must” retain Latin in the liturgy.
Click to expand...

No, this is true. But, article 40 seems to be an exception. It says that if the local authority deems radical adaptations as necessary, then if the Holy See approves, they can make such changes. I think that an all vernacular Mass would fall under the heading “radical adaptation,” (if I were the local authority I wouldn’t say it was necessary, but I’m not the authority).

From your point of view, would having one word of Latin make it ok then, say, throw in an “et”?
 
40.png
EddieArent:
Katolik,
Exactly. That’s why I purchased Priest Where Is Thy Mass, Mass Where Is Thy Priest the other day. One of the interviews is with Father Zigrang - he had an “indult” to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in Texas. Because he didn’t celebrate a Novus Ordo at a time, instead useing the Tridentine liturgy for that specified time, he was “suspended” and ordered to go to counciling.
Click to expand...
I did a search and found several articles pertaining to this matter, none of which were impartial sources (like a newspaper). It is logical to question the validity of such a story in light of the fact that most discipline between bishop and priest is not passed on to the laity.

I saw where he stated he would never again celebrate the Novus Ordo. Without knowing details we here will never know, it is possible that he denied that validity of the Mass. If a priest did in fact hold to heresy, it is an act of charity (as you said, “great charity”) to admonish such a one.
 
There you go, same mentality over and over again. Every priest who wants to celebrate the Tridentine Mass are under question of denying the validity of the Novus Ordo. Ask Cardinal Stickler - he’d say that Father’s right to celebrate the Tridentine Mass was never taken away. Unfortunitely, that retired (I believe) bishop in Texas would disagree.
 
40.png
EddieArent:
There you go, same mentality over and over again. Every priest who wants to celebrate the Tridentine Mass are under question of denying the validity of the Novus Ordo.
Click to expand...
Good thing you didn’t quote me or you would see that I said “if” and specifically pointed out that that we do not know what went on. You are the one who assumed that the Bishop was acting without charity.

Also, my first post on the subject and the whole course of my posts on this thread were in conjunction with one that specifically denied the validity of the Mass. I do not object at all to the Tridentine Mass and have never disparaged it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top