Myth regarding Traditionalists and the “Fear” of Change

[At_Trent]

I say we latinize the contemporary Church !

 

[ConstantineTG]

I say we latinize the contemporary Church !

Depends what you mean by Latinize

Of course I’d still want a vernacular Mass. There is no Ukrainian Catholic Church where I work where I can attend the Divine Liturgy should a Great Feast on a weekday. So I go to the RC Cathedral (you’d love it there, communion rail, pipe organ, but its OF).

 

[TrueLight]

The “problem” isn’t with the OF but with the “spirit” in which some have promulgated the OF: a spirit which called for the eradication rather than the preservation of the Latin Rites identity. Take for example the use of Latin: No one has a problem with using the vernacular however, when the use of the vernacular results in the non-preservation of Latin then Traditionalists like myself see a big problem!

As someone coming from Protestantism, I have to say, Catholics, your liturgy is so beautiful. Don’t ever abandon your traditions to adapt to the modern world.

Beautiful post, Credo.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Its not all about the language though. I would prefer to attend the EF in vietnamese than the Novus Ordo in Latin because of the difference in the actual mass. I think too many people presume that traditionalists cling to the traditional mass because of some childish affinity for the latin language. Thats not to say the universal language isn’t a important part of peoples’ reasons for their preference for the EF, but for many of us, its a small part by comparison. Anyone who is curious about this point of mine might consider placing the two ordinaries of the mass side by side on a desk and go through, prayer by prayer, and make a list of the differences.

I didn’t bring up Latin, the OP did.

One can find numerous sites online comparing the two. This isn’t a new suggestion. Many feel as you do, others don’t. There are two legitimate rites in the Church. Both do what the Church purports that they do: confect the Holy Sacrifice. It is my opinion that both equally convey that they DO just that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No, it is the opening prayer of the mass.

Also, my point was not that all catholics are intellectually unaware of the sacrificial nature but that they don’t think of it that way as much as they think of it as a meal or supper. Come spend some time at some parishes here in the midwest or in my hometown in tennessee, or in the bay area of California, talk to the people, go to the liturgy committee meetings and listen to the homilies, you’ll see what I mean. This is not necessarily the case with all Novus Ordo parishes, for example, there is an awesome Novus Ordo parish in my city, St Peter’s, that has certainly not lost sight of this primary meaning of the mass and where the Priests preach catholic truth like they used to a couple generations ago. But the fact that its the only one I’ve ever seen like it, out of dozens of parishes all over the country and overseas (military) makes it clear it is the exception to the rule.

With regard to the comment about Cramner being spurious, just put his prayer book and the novus ordo missal side by side and see for yourself. My point is that a lot of the prayers removed match up and that it is not surprising that it has had similar effects on people’s beliefs over the past 50 years.

No, but it WASN’T the opening prayer of the Mass “originally.” It was something that accrued to the Mass through time.

Regarding Cranmer, no, of course there are similarities between the two. There are similarities between Cranmer’s order of service and the TLM. That’s because all of them draw on common liturgical antecedents in the West. The Anglican reformers didn’t throw out remotely as much as the Calvinist ones did. That SAME service book, with a few slight changes, has been approved by the Holy See for use by the Anglican Use parishes in the United States and presumeably for the new Anglican Ordinariate.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I would love it if we just translated the Tridentine Mass into the vernacular.

I agree, I think it would be beautiful. Both DO confect the Holy Sacrifice, but there is a poetry to the English translation of the EF that I think far more stirring that in the OF, for example:

“Recieve, Holy Lord God Almighty and Everlasting, this unblemished host which I, your unworthy servant, offer to you my living and true God, for my own countless sins and offenses,” etc.

Compared to:

“Blessed are you, Lord God, King of the Universe, through your goodness we have this bread to offer,” etc.

The former, in terms of language/prose/poetry, beats the latter all hollow. I don’t think this will ever play, however, becauase we have both the intransigent traditionalists on the one hand and the liturgical progressivists on the other.

 

[ProVobis]

Its not all about the language though. I would prefer to attend the EF in vietnamese

Not likely to happen. The Missal of 1962 is only to be said in Latin and said with a quiet canon and other quiet parts where mandated. Pope John XXIII wrote Veterum Sapientia just before he convened Vatican II, where he effectively banned the vernacular. If you wish the Mass in Vietnamese, then it’s the OF or DL if they say it that way and you can hear it. There are plenty of things I would like to change about the EF but the vernacular isn’t one of them. That would nationalize and babelize what I consider sacred to me and I would not support it. I’m too old for that kind of change, I guess. :crutches:

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not likely to happen. The Missal of 1962 is only to be said in Latin and said with a quiet canon and other quiet parts where mandated. Pope John XXIII wrote Veterum Sapientia just before he convened Vatican II, where he effectively banned the vernacular. If you wish the Mass in Vietnamese, then it’s the OF or DL if they say it that way and you can hear it. There are plenty of things I would like to change about the EF but the vernacular isn’t one of them. That would nationalize and babelize what I consider sacred to me and I would not support it. I’m too old for that kind of change, I guess. :crutches:

Funny that you would refer to it as babelization, but what happened at Pentecost was supposed to be the undoing of what happened at Babel. The Word of God needs to be proclaimed in all languages so that it may be proclaimed to all.

Also another bad implication of Babel is that having a unified world language caused pride in men.

 

[James924]

Not likely to happen. The Missal of 1962 is only to be said in Latin and said with a quiet canon and other quiet parts where mandated. Pope John XXIII wrote Veterum Sapientia just before he convened Vatican II, where he effectively banned the vernacular. If you wish the Mass in Vietnamese, then it’s the OF or DL if they say it that way and you can hear it. There are plenty of things I would like to change about the EF but the vernacular isn’t one of them. That would nationalize and babelize what I consider sacred to me and I would not support it. I’m too old for that kind of change, I guess. :crutches:

I was not advocating the EF in Vietnamese. I was making the point that it’s the actual prayers that make the big difference to me, not the Latin as much. I could have used Swahili as an example.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Not likely to happen. The Missal of 1962 is only to be said in Latin and said with a quiet canon and other quiet parts where mandated. Pope John XXIII wrote Veterum Sapientia just before he convened Vatican II, where he effectively banned the vernacular. If you wish the Mass in Vietnamese, then it’s the OF or DL if they say it that way and you can hear it. There are plenty of things I would like to change about the EF but the vernacular isn’t one of them. That would nationalize and babelize what I consider sacred to me and I would not support it. I’m too old for that kind of change, I guess. :crutches:

When you say “effectively banned,” you cannot of course mean “definitively.” Any pope could permit the EF in the vernacular.

It was really under Ven. Pius XII that cautious moves toward the use of the vernacular began: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII

 

[ProVobis]

I was making the point that it’s the actual prayers that make the big difference to me,

Aren’t the audible parts of the EF Mass about the same as their counterparts in the OF, albeit in a different language?

 

[James924]

Aren’t the audible parts of the EF Mass about the same as their counterparts in the OF, albeit in a different language?

No, the audible parts are very different.

But also, the “inaudible parts” still matter (and it should be known, in a low mass almost everything is audible because there’s no music drowning out the priests words). Remember, the mass isn’t for us. The person doing the sacrifice is the Priest and to many of us it is important that he use the most reverent prayers possible. Its wrong to imply that the faithful should only care about the parts that they can hear, because it again implies that the faithful hearing everything is a primary concern in the mass and it isn’t…the priest executing a solemn sacrifice, mediating on our behalf is the primary concern. That isn’t to say that the reading and hearing of the word and the catechesis from the pulpit aren’t important concerns. They are VERY important, but are only secondary or tertiary in comparison to the sacrifice. Likewise, the “meal” or “supper” meaning of the mass isn’t unimportant but it is secondary or tertiary, and the problem is that in many cases these secondary and tertiary aspects are being made the primary ones.

A common misconception is that the two forms are more or less the same but different in language. A good way to remember that this is not the case is to remember that the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in Latin, which wouldn’t make any sense if the EF was basically the same but in latin.

 

[James924]

One can find numerous sites online comparing the two. This isn’t a new suggestion.

Who said it was new? Are people only permitted to submit new ideas here?

Many feel as you do, others don’t

That is a true statement…what was the point of it?

There are two legitimate rites in the Church. Both do what the Church purports that they do: confect the Holy Sacrifice.

That is also a true statement. I’m confused…did I state somewhere that I was a sedevcantist?

No, but it WASN’T the opening prayer of the Mass “originally.” It was something that accrued to the Mass through time.

Who said it was originally? I believe the first masses were celebrated with the liturgy of the word in a Jewish synagogue and the Eucharist in people’s homes. Whats your point?

The Anglican reformers didn’t throw out remotely as much as the Calvinist ones did.

Calvin wasn’t trying to be sneaky about it. The point is that Cranmer chose his slight changes in order to slowly change the people’s beliefs (in order to avoid incidents like the western uprising) and to change the focus of the worship service from theocentric to anthropocentric. And statistically we are seeing some similarities in Catholic belief. Some studies show as low as 30% belief in the real presence. lex credendi lex orandi

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Calvin wasn’t trying to be sneaky about it. The point is that Cranmer chose his slight changes in order to slowly change the people’s beliefs (in order to avoid incidents like the western uprising) and to change the focus of the worship service from theocentric to anthropocentric. And statistically we are seeing some similarities in Catholic belief. Some studies show as low as 30% belief in the real presence.

Correlation doesn’t prove causation, as I’m sure you know. I doubt a dimishment in the belief in the Real Presence is traceable to the OF and there is no way to prove it anyway. There may be lots of reasons for a dimishment in belief (I believe that very poor catechesis is to blame). There also is no record that Cranmer wanted to move from a theocentric to anthropocentric focus. I’m sure if you asked him, that would have been the furthest thing from his mind, wrong though that mind was. Now, you could argue that he might have wanted to diminish or downplay any notion of a propitiatory sacrifice made present, but the similarities between the OF and the Cranmerian service STILL has common antecedents in the liturgical forms of the West, particularly the Sarum Rite. Their similarity is not in the downplaying of the Sacrifice, but in the form. As I said, there are similarities in almost all of the ancient liturgical forms of the West.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Who said it was originally? I believe the first masses were celebrated with the liturgy of the word in a Jewish synagogue and the Eucharist in people’s homes. Whats your point?

Sorry, missed this.

The Council DID want a “noble simplicity” or austerity in the Mass, which involved pruning away those things that had become accretions to the Mass over time. That was my point (and would be my point regarding such things as two confietors, for example).

 

[ProVobis]

No, the audible parts are very different.

Did I miss something? I counted the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Preface and Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, Domine Non Sum, blessing, and Ita Missa Est. Where are the audible parts different? The only Low Masses I’ve attended that I could hear even the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were in SSPX chapels, when they didn’t have the fans blowing.

 

[TrueLight]

The only Low Masses I’ve attended that I could hear even the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were in SSPX chapels, when they didn’t have the fans blowing.

It’s funny you should say that. Same for me, but that’s because the SSPX mass was in essentially a room and the low mass was in a big church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No, the audible parts are very different.

But also, the “inaudible parts” still matter (and it should be known, in a low mass almost everything is audible because there’s no music drowning out the priests words). Remember, the mass isn’t for us. The person doing the sacrifice is the Priest and to many of us it is important that he use the most reverent prayers possible. Its wrong to imply that the faithful should only care about the parts that they can hear, because it again implies that the faithful hearing everything is a primary concern in the mass and it isn’t…the priest executing a solemn sacrifice, mediating on our behalf is the primary concern. That isn’t to say that the reading and hearing of the word and the catechesis from the pulpit aren’t important concerns. They are VERY important, but are only secondary or tertiary in comparison to the sacrifice. Likewise, the “meal” or “supper” meaning of the mass isn’t unimportant but it is secondary or tertiary, and the problem is that in many cases these secondary and tertiary aspects are being made the primary ones.

I disagree with this contention and I would contend that the Mass IS indeed for us! God needs NOTHING from us. The whole point of the Mass is that it is a propitiatory sacrifice for US. If it wasn’t for us, then Christ need not have died and the Mass need not exist. It is the one bridge between God and us, the only sufficient conduit as it were. Certainly, there has been, in the silly experimentation that followed the council, a far greater emphasis on the horizontal and hopefully the pendulum is swinging back toward a more real balance, but that balance still needs to be maintained between the horizontal and the vertical (like a violin: if the strings are too taut, they snap; if too loose, then they don’t sound as they should).

It is a matter of opinion as to what is more “reverent” in terms of prayers, the EF or the OF. Certainly, in his cover letter to the bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum, HH Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the “spiritual richness and theological depth” of the Missal ov Paul VI. In terms of prose, I happen to think that the EF is far richer…but that, in my opinion, can really only practically be appreciated in the verncular and won’t be as long as it is only offered in Latin. In terms of “reverence,” I do not find the OF wanting, properly celebrated.

Finally, you are quite right, “hearing,” possibly even “understanding” (we can never fully plumb the depths of the Holy Sacrifice) are secondary to It being effectually offered. If, however, the Holy Sacrifice is effectually offered, what is the harm in the faithful “hearing” It being done? What is the harm in them “understanding” (my word, I understand it isn’t yours)? What is the harm in them making the responses? Do those secondary or tertiary things, of themselves, detract from the effectualness of the Holy Sacrifice? You are perhaps not arguing that they do, but a great many “traditionalists” seem to imply so. And might not those secondary and tertiary things be of assistance to the faithful in their Christian lives?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I am wondering the opinions of modern-minded Catholics on this proposition:

Translate the Latin of the 1962 Missale Romanum into English, Spanish, etc., and offer it alongside the Latin version. The vernacular would retain the rubrics of the Latin. Therefore, the only thing changed, essentially, would be the language.

Every church (within reason, ie, tiny churches/missions exempted, but the vast majority of parishes inclusive, obviously not including groups like FSSP) would offer an equal number of these two on Sundays, and for other days, perhaps a rotating schedule could occur or something to the effect that on the other days of the week, the Latin and the vernacular share daily masses equally, perhaps one day Latin, next vernacular, etc, or something.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Good discussion.

I would argue that a traditional Catholic isn’t against certain changes, he’s simply aware that they are impossible. A woman can not become a priest. A man can not marry a man. Contraception can not become permissible. And so on. No matter how much some, or even all of us might want something to happen, if it’s impossible it won’t happen.

“progressivism” is more accurately called Modernism. And it’s been condemned as heresy by the Church. Here’s a good sermon on the topic.

audiosancto.org/sermon/20110731-Modernism-is-Still-Scourging-the-Church.html

That doesn’t mean all change is bad. In fact we are all called to continual change- to grow in a life of virtue and become Saints. But change that rejects the Truth is wrong.

Pax.