Latin in pre Vat 2 Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you mean pre Vatican 2 mass?
I go to it every Sunday! 😁
 
Those other churches are basically Orthodox. Most of them came back from being in schism at various points. Bless them too they are looked on negatively in majority Orthodox countries many times.
 
My folks grew up with the Tridentine Mass. They said the Scriptures were read and the Homily was delivered in English. Also, for a significant portion of the Mass they would usually just keep quiet or say the rosary.

Today, they prefer the Novus Ordo, but they don’t like celebrants who fancy up the Mass by talking in a funny way, adding things that aren’t in the Missal, or rambling away in homilies, choirs who appear to be more interested in performing rather than guiding the congregation, weird songs and instruments, etc. All they want is a Mass conducted in a straightforward, clear, and concise manner, with songs that are traditional, recognizable, and not difficult to sing, an organized and solid homily in five minutes, etc.

Finally, I told them recently that I found out that the Novus Ordo is also based on liturgies that were used during the early centuries of the Church.
 
ProVobis said:
40.png
edwest211:
silent prayer”? Not the case.
Click to expand...
According to Trent, it was anathema to claim the entire Mass was to be said out loud. See Session 22.
Click to expand...
It was anathema to say that the Mass could only be said aloud.
 
What should should be borne in mind is that the Form of the Mass falls under Church disciplinary law and is not doctrinal. The only things in a Mass that cannot be changed are the consecration and the priest receiving. Everything else, including the language of the Mass, can be changed.
 
Everything was in Latin.
There was no responsorial psalm. It was called the graduale.
After the readings there was a repetition of them in the vernacular.
If the congregation responded the response was in Latin.
The server responded for the congregation.
 
Vatican II created a liturgical reform. The Latin Mass was the norm.
 
I can understand that. In my memory silence was the order of the day and not loud conversations in the church before Mass begins. I have no objection to the new way of doing things, I just think we lost some of the reverence in the process.
 
The novus ordo came out five years after Vatican 2 concluded.
 
I know but you stated an erroneous statement so I corrected it
 
Here’s what it actually reads:

DOCTRINA DE SACRIFICIO MISSÆ

Cumque natura hominum ea sit, ut non facile queat sine adminiculis exterioribus ad rerum divinarum meditationem sustolli, propterea pia mater Ecclesia ritus quosdam, ut scilicet quĂŚdam summissa voce, alia vero elatiore, in missa pronunciarentur, instituit. (And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he can not easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit, that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone.)

Canon IX.— Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiæ Romanæ ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit. (Canon IX.—If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.ix.html

Good stuff IMO
 
babochka said:
It was anathema to say that the Mass could only be said aloud.
Click to expand...
ProVobis said:
According to Trent, it was anathema to claim the entire Mass was to be said out loud. See Session 22.
Click to expand...
I think we were both a little off here. I was remembering the part about praying the Mass only in a vulgar tongue and mixing it up with part about praying in a low tone.
ProVobis said:
(Canon IX.—If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.)
Click to expand...
Saying, “I don’t like a silent Mass and I think it is much better that the priest prays audibly” is a very different thing from saying, “It is wrong to pray in a low tone and it makes the consecration invalid.” The latter is what is condemned by the council.
 
babochka said:
I think we were both a little off here.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. I should have presented the actual document rather than trying to twist it into something else when I was challenged. Lesson learned.
 
The priest rereads the epistle and the gospel in the language and the homily is in it as well.
As far as I’m concerned that’s well enough in the vernacular for me.
 
Your parish may also supply the day’s readings in Latin and English so that you might be able to follow the chants.
 
Nah just bought the missal from angelus. It is nice to have.
I have one for the novus ordo too.
 
Honestly just promoting the Liturgy of the Hours (www.universalis.com) would cure a lot of these doctrinal issues and concerns; but it really is up to Catholics to avail themselves of these spiritual resources and teach their kids them and share them with others. Maybe a little more formal catechesis in the Mass, like the Office of Readings in the LOTH, might be helpful - a Roman approved suitable brief excerpt from the Church Fathers or papal encyclicals, perhaps. Latin isn’t necessary though and neither is reverting to the EF, whether in Latin or English, though Latin has a lot of benefits in its own right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top