G
GordonP
Guest
That would be incorrect, as you yourself should know. Earlier in this thread, you describe a dialogue mass, which was an innovation from the 1920s. There were other reforms underway as well.
- Status
L
Lormar
Guest
I know exactly what’s going on. After awhile, you don’t even think about it.
D
dochawk
Guest
Yes.
In the third and fourth centuries, the diocese of Rome gradually changed from the universal language of the church, Greek, to the local vernacular, Latin. Other nearby lands spoke derivates of this language.
Latin did not become universal until Trent.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Did they change it or rewrite it? The Roman Canon was supposedly written in Latin, perhaps by the Greeks themselves.
G
GordonP
Guest
There was a combination of translation from the Greek, and original native Latin material. The former more so at the beginning of the period, and the latter more so as time went on. As for the Roman Canon, it contains elements of both.
Last edited:
P
poche
Guest
I believe all of the Western rites have Latin as their traditional language.
D
dochawk
Guest
Today, yes.
Originally, no.
As I mentioned, the liturgy of the diocese of Rome was in greek until the changes over the third and fourth centuries. Additionally, latin was not universal in the West before Trent, more was the liturgy even close to uniform. Some areas had their own, some used the eastern liturgies, some were in the vernacular . . .
Also, I’ve always assumed (but have no real basis) that with the Sarum rite evolving while there was minimal contact between the islands and the mainland, that it was likely on the local tongue. But I really don’t know . . .
hawk
Originally, no.
As I mentioned, the liturgy of the diocese of Rome was in greek until the changes over the third and fourth centuries. Additionally, latin was not universal in the West before Trent, more was the liturgy even close to uniform. Some areas had their own, some used the eastern liturgies, some were in the vernacular . . .
Also, I’ve always assumed (but have no real basis) that with the Sarum rite evolving while there was minimal contact between the islands and the mainland, that it was likely on the local tongue. But I really don’t know . . .
hawk
E
edwest211
Guest
I had the 1962 missal. Which prayers were removed?
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
You are welcome to your opinion, as am I.
B
babochka
Guest
Which is it? Organic development that has changed since the early Church or the consistent practice of the Church?
Discipline is infallible (indirectly)? Could you elaborate on this?
As an Eastern Catholic whose tradition includes disciplines entirely foreign to the Latin Church and a number of disciplines once also held by the Latins, but since abandoned, this statement strikes me as strange. Is there a context here that can put this into perspective?
Discipline is infallible (indirectly)? Could you elaborate on this?
As an Eastern Catholic whose tradition includes disciplines entirely foreign to the Latin Church and a number of disciplines once also held by the Latins, but since abandoned, this statement strikes me as strange. Is there a context here that can put this into perspective?
E
edwest211
Guest
Thank you very much for that detailed reply. Here is what Pope Benedict had to say:
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
E
edwest211
Guest
Part 2
“Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.”
“Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.”
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
Fortunately, you are not in charge. 
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
I will stick to Mass as we have it today.
W
whatistrue
Guest
That seems a bit presumptuous…
T
thistle
Guest
Disciplinary law is not infallible. All disciplines can be changed by any Pope and also in matters of disciplinary law no Pope can bind a future Pope.
As I mentioned in an earlier post the only things that cannot be changed in a Mass is the consecration and the priest receiving. ALL other things in the Mass can be changed.
As I mentioned in an earlier post the only things that cannot be changed in a Mass is the consecration and the priest receiving. ALL other things in the Mass can be changed.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually there is no formal consecration in one of the Eastern Rites.
D
dochawk
Guest
I wouldn’t go that far . . . it’s that the Words of Institution are not explicit in their Anaphora, not that they do’t have one.
hawk
hawk
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
The entire Mass was (and is) in Latin. 10+ years ago when I occasionally went to the TLM the priest would first read the Epistle & Gospel in Latin, and just before the homily he would read them again in English.
B
babochka
Guest
I don’t want to monopolize this thread, but if anyone is interested in this topic, here is an article with explanation:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm (Scroll down to “Disciplinary Infallibility”)
[/quote]
Having read the article, I do find it relevant to the topic at hand, so I’d rather address it on the thread.
The concept of “disciplinary infallibility” was a very concept in 1913, when the Catholic Encyclopedia was written. It does not seem to have been treated with any depth (at least in English) in the last 100 years.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm (Scroll down to “Disciplinary Infallibility”)
While disciplinary infallibility demonstrates that discipline has an aspect of objectivity proper to it, the differences between East and West are also willed by God. Yet there is no contradiction here if understood in the proper sense. However, this topic is perhaps best saved for another thread, where we can all appreciate the differences between the two lungs of the Church.
[/quote]
Having read the article, I do find it relevant to the topic at hand, so I’d rather address it on the thread.
The concept of “disciplinary infallibility” was a very concept in 1913, when the Catholic Encyclopedia was written. It does not seem to have been treated with any depth (at least in English) in the last 100 years.
Lets assume for a moment that the concept of disciplinary infallibility is an actual teaching of the Church rather than the musing of theologians. In this case, such disciplinary infallibility would also apply to the present disciplines of the Church regarding liturgy, the language of the Mass and even the Mass itself. The Church has prescribed these present rites and there is nothing in them that is contrary to natural or Divine Law.
- Status