Latin vs vernacular mass

[otjm]

I don’t know tha tI fully agree with you here for reasons that I listed in the post above. Mainly being that there will be amny more priests able and willing to celebrate the EF in the future.

Of course you may well be right that some “hybrid” mass may replace both the EF and OF in the distant future. For now I think that the EF, even the small but persistant interest, will have the effect of bringing greater reverence back into the liturgy.

Peace
James

A careful reading of several things would lead to this conclusion; the first would be the letter Pope Benedict sent out with SP; in there he mentions things that the OF could bring to the EF. It seems as if there is a tendency in some circles to ignore that part of the letter, and presume that the Ef will stay as the 1962 Missal is currently constituted. Other groups seem to want to go back to a prior version of the Missal.

In addition, there are the documents of Vatican 2 which indicated the bishops wanted to make some changes; and while it is sometimes presumed that the changes called for were restrictive (that is, only the changes called for could be made), the documents are not restrictive but rather indicative of the direction they wanted changes to be made. We can all agree the OF went far, far beyond anything the bishops as a whole were anticipating; but the fact seems to be ignored that organic changes to the EF were expected, and as both JP 2 and B 16 have repeatedly said, the documents of V2 still have to be fully implemented.

Had we followed the path the documents set out, instead of having an OF, we would have an EF that would at least in part have the vernacular available. It would not preclude having the Mass in the EF rubrics all in Latin, but the vernacular has been a far greater driving force than some would give credit.

 

[OraLabora]

I believe that by the 100th anniversary of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo will essentially be a thing of the past, with the Church coming back full circle to the Tridentine mass. Some bishops may permit N.O. indult masses, but they will be few and far between.

I am not so certain. Even the Tridentine Mass to a certain extent evolved, and I expect the OF Mass will continue to evolve. An example of that process is the new English translation. In the Tridentine Mass evolution included dialog Masses, changes to Holy Week, changes in the Mass itself, etc.

If anything, I think the error of Vatican II was attempting to do too much too soon. Hopefully the lesson learned will be that evolution should be much more gradual.

The Mass though has always been dynamic and evolving to a certain extent. To think that we may go back to exactly the Tridentine Mass begs, first of all, the question: which Tridentine Mass? Pre-1962? Pre-1950? And secondly, is this really just wishful thinking?

There’s a lot more than just the Mass at stake as well; the Mass is the summit of the liturgy, that also includes the Divine Office, also profoundly reformed post Vatican II; and the structure of the liturgical year. Going backwards would have serious impact on both of those, for instance do we go back to the same order of readings as before VII? Then if so the entire Liturgy of the Hours has to be revised as much of it (for instance Benedictus and Magnificat antiphons, readings, etc) are meant to tie together. Moreover I very much doubt you’d win too many friends getting today’s less numerous and busier clergy to go back to reciting 7 offices a day with Vigils in the middle of the night…

So it really isn’t as simple as just going back to the Tridentine Mass of some fixed point in the past.

So I really think your idea is no more than wishful thinking.

Short-term the evolution I would like to see is more direct instruction on what is or is not appropriate for the Mass, and enforcement of those instructions. Longer term some of the beautiful practices of the EF Mass could be blended into the OF.

 

[malphono]

In the Tridentine Mass evolution included dialog Masses, changes to Holy Week, changes in the Mass itself, etc.

It’s a bit off-topic, but it strikes me that the matter of Holy Week doesn’t quite fit the “organic development” model. It really was less “organic” and more re-write. The same person responsible for the OF was the force behind the Holy Week changes of 1954, but there is one point that I find very interesting: from what I understand, the Holy Week services in the OF diverge quite a bit from his 1954 re-write, and seem to reflect more of the pre-1954 rituals.

 

[Sciaky]

I take it you have never been to an EF parish.

Nope, I have never set foot in an “EF parish” and I never want to. I wouldn’t want to enter an “OF parish” either, not that either of the two exist around here.

I only want to enter a parish where both the OF and the EF are free to be celebrated based on the demands of the faithful. When the MP was release our local bishop placed an EF in one of the nicest, most welcoming and central parishes in the deanery. Almost immediately we heard cries of the creation of a “EF only” parish. That struck we as terribly sad and confusing.

Here they had an existing parish that was very welcoming and supportive of the EF yet their focus was on somehow procuring their own bricks and mortar. A desire to separate themselves from other Catholics. Bad,

 

[pro_multis]

Here they had an existing parish that was very welcoming and supportive of the EF yet their focus was on somehow procuring their own bricks and mortar. A desire to separate themselves from other Catholics. Bad,

I can see why they would want their own parish. Let’s be serious here, the traditional mass is radically different from the so-called ordinary mass. Radically different.

What is wrong with people who want to be around like-minded individuals? There are many different forms of the mass, and I do not see people making a stink about the others having their own churches.

 

[JRKH]

I can see why they would want their own parish. Let’s be serious here, the traditional mass is radically different from the so-called ordinary mass. Radically different.

What is wrong with people who want to be around like-minded individuals? There are many different forms of the mass, and I do not see people making a stink about the others having their own churches.

What is wrong with this is the same thing for both sides - whether EF supporter or OF supporter. The desire to “seperate” the EF, or to “keepout” the EF, or “keepout” the OF is in direct contradition to what the Holy Father has asked for - and by extention what Our Dear Lord has asked for.
The Holy Father has expressed himself clearly that both forms are legitimate, both forms have their beauty and he desires to see both forms offered at every parish. This calls for “integration”, not “segregation”. It calls for adherants on both sides to come together in Christian unity and submit, one to the other for the Glory of God in His Church.

Of course there are many obstacles to overcome and it will take some considerable time. My personal view is that true implementation of this will require a generation. It will depend in large part on the training of priests in both forms, and on the replacement of certain bishops and priests who are untrained and personally opposed to the EF.
I don’t see the lay faithful as being a problem because as more people are exposed to the EF, they will become comfortable with it and a certain percentage will prefer it, a certain percentage will love both equally and a certain percentage will prefer the OF.
In addition to these three basic catagories there will naturally be many permutations. For instance, I love the EF in the Sunday “High Mass” or “Solemn” mass, however I prefer the OF daily mass when there is no music. See what I mean? Permutations.

The point of all of this is we need cooperation and not seperation. Jesus prayed that we be One in Love as He and the Father are One. The Church has enough “splits” in her now. Let’s not add to it.

Peace
James

 

[Digitonomy]

The Holy Father has expressed himself clearly that both forms are legitimate, both forms have their beauty and he desires to see both forms offered at every parish.

I may have missed where Benedict stated that desire. My impression was that he expected the EF would continue to be an exception:

The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.
Source

In the same document he said it wouldn’t be legitimate for a parish or other community to exclude the possibility of celebrating either form - but that’s quite another thing than expecting, or even desiring, that every parish celebrate both. The remark seemed aimed at the more traditionalist groups, but I don’t think the Holy Father or anyone else expects that e.g. FSSP communities will be celebrating the “ordinary form” on any but the most extraordinary occasions.

 

[JRKH]

I may have missed where Benedict stated that desire. My impression was that he expected the EF would continue to be an exception:In the same document he said it wouldn’t be legitimate for a parish or other community to exclude the possibility of celebrating either form - but that’s quite another thing than expecting, or even desiring, that every parish celebrate both. The remark seemed aimed at the more traditionalist groups, but I don’t think the Holy Father or anyone else expects that e.g. FSSP communities will be celebrating the “ordinary form” on any but the most extraordinary occasions.

You are quite correct in that the MP does not contain a statement of desire that the EF be celebrate in every parish.
However -
Here is a Link where the Holy Father’s wishes are stated as follows
*
The Vatican is now writing to seminaries to ask that student priests be required to learn the rite, which, in widescale liturgical changes following the modernising church council Vatican II (1962-5), was largely replaced by Mass in the vernacular.

The Pope wishes every parish to offer both rites for Sunday Mass, an eminent Vatican Cardinal announced in London on Saturday. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, said: “The Holy Father is willing to offer to all the people this possibility, not only for the few groups who demand it but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.” *

I hope that helps

Peace
James

 

[ProVobis]

The remark seemed aimed at the more traditionalist groups, but I don’t think the Holy Father or anyone else expects that e.g. FSSP communities will be celebrating the “ordinary form” on any but the most extraordinary occasions.

I can see where perhaps a Holy Thursday Latin Mass in the OF might be used but I can’t see a “descended into hell” theology being propagated at an FSSP community on a weekly basis.

 

[JRKH]

I can see where perhaps a Holy Thursday Latin Mass in the OF might be used but I can’t see a **“descended into hell” theology **being propagated at an FSSP community on a weekly basis.

What???

What do you mean by this. I don’t understand.

Peace
James

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t understand.

Sorry, I was sloppy with the tone. The English words of the Apostles Creed border on heresy, don’t they? Christ did not descend into hell. Just an example of mistranslations.

 

[OraLabora]

Sorry, I was sloppy with the tone. The English words of the Apostles Creed border on heresy, don’t they? Christ did not descend into hell. Just an example of mistranslations.

I think it’s a translation thing and not a theological thing. One definition of “hell” in the Oxford dictionary is “abode of the dead”. He certainly did go to the grave for a time.

Same in French, we use “descendu aux enfers”.

The definition “enfers” (plural of “enfer”) is: “lieu souterrain et séjour des morts” which means “place under the ground, abode of the dead”.

Enfer (singular) is what we normally think of as “hell”, that is the fire-and-brimstone place run by Satan.

I believe that this definition use in the liturgy (“abode of the dead”) comes from Latin-Greek mythology.

 

[OraLabora]

I was just looking at a text of the new translation and it appears “descended into hell” has been replaced with “was buried”.

 

[malphono]

I was just looking at a text of the new translation and it appears “descended into hell” has been replaced with “was buried”.

Probably in imitation of the Nicene Creed. But I believe you were pretty much spot-on in the previous post.

 

[Digitonomy]

Here is a Link where the Holy Father’s wishes are stated as follows
*
The Vatican is now writing to seminaries to ask that student priests be required to learn the rite, which, in widescale liturgical changes following the modernising church council Vatican II (1962-5), was largely replaced by Mass in the vernacular.

The Pope wishes every parish to offer both rites for Sunday Mass, an eminent Vatican Cardinal announced in London on Saturday. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, said: “The Holy Father is willing to offer to all the people this possibility, not only for the few groups who demand it but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.” *

Hmmm… interesting. I see where the Times says the Holy Father wants both forms in every parish, but the cardinal is quoted saying less than that.

I also think the cardinal himself may be overstating things - just because Benedict is willing to offer the possibility of an EF mass, doesn’t mean that everybody will know it. For everybody to know it, Benedict would have to do more than be willing to offer the possibility, he would have to be determined to require it. So I suspect what Castrillon Hoyos meant was something slightly more general like “the Holy Father is willing to offer everybody the possibility of knowing the EF.” That at least seems more consistent with Summorum Pontificum and its cover letter, rather than that both forms will be imposed on every parish.

 

[japhy]

I was just looking at a text of the new translation and it appears “descended into hell” has been replaced with “was buried”.

You’re confusing the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. The new translation of the Apostles’ Creed still says “he descended into hell”.

 

[OraLabora]

You’re confusing the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. The new translation of the Apostles’ Creed still says “he descended into hell”.

Yes, I missed the “apostles’” in the previous post.

 

[ProVobis]

You’re confusing the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. The new translation of the Apostles’ Creed still says “he descended into hell”.

I saw that too. Here is a side by side.

The current version is supposed to be “he descended to the dead” but I have yet to hear it in the actual Mass. Has anyone?

 

[Cristiano]

It should say “he descended into hell” because that is the true translation of “descendit ad inferos”.

 

[OraLabora]

It should say “he descended into hell” because that is the true translation of “descendit ad inferos”.

Excellent point, I had never looked up the Apostle’s Creed in Latin. Normally in my part of the world it is recited in French, but at the abbey where I normally go to Mass, they use the Nicene Creed (chanted!) in Latin.

So no theological games being played here. No mistranslation. Nothing to do with EF vs OF then.