New Order or Latin Mass

[wmscott]

I have a question regarding the New Order of the Mass and the Latin Mass.

From what I can gather from various sources there is a rift between the two, or is it a rift caused by Vatican II? While reading information on an SSPX site I see lots of what I feel are valid Catholic practices and even do them myself just because they feel right, and that is the way my wife taught me. However, as a convert I have only known the New Order of the Mass and am in no desire to change. I read that Vatican II was not good, yet how can this be. I do not think that the CC would have instituted it if it were going to destroy the CC. I know most of the history behind the SSPX and Bishop Lefebvre, and the info that I have been reading was from Fisheaters.com
Please some opinions regarding Vatican II, is there a rift, and is there any middle ground.

Thanks

 

[Church_Militant]

I have a question regarding the New Order of the Mass and the Latin Mass.

From what I can gather from various sources there is a rift between the two, or is it a rift caused by Vatican II?

That rift is actually a matter of disobedience.

While reading information on an SSPX site I see lots of what I feel are valid Catholic practices and even do them myself just because they feel right, and that is the way my wife taught me.

Nothing wrong with that and as with most opposing viewpoints there is a measure of truth in it. In this respect, the devotions that you like are good things that help keep you close to the Lord.

Personally, I like to pray in Latin, (just because I can…) but I’m like you about the Latin Masses.

However, as a convert I have only known the New Order of the Mass and am in no desire to change.

I’m with ya here too.

I read that Vatican II was not good, yet how can this be. I do not think that the CC would have instituted it if it were going to destroy the CC. I know most of the history behind the SSPX and Bishop Lefebvre, and the info that I have been reading was from Fisheaters.com

Without getting into my opinions of the aforementioned traditionalist forum and some of the opinions expressed there, let me simply say that I want nothing to do with SSPX.

Their opinions of Vatican II are skewed and I wouldn’t spend time on them. There are far more important things for us to be doing as Catholics, such as sharing our most holy faith and tending to those who need it. I suggest that you check out this article on them from This Rock Magazine. Holier Than Thou

Please some opinions regarding Vatican II, is there a rift, and is there any middle ground.

Thanks

Vatican II was actually just fine. You can read the actual documents from it here. Certainly there is a middle ground and you and I are on it my friend.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have a question regarding the New Order of the Mass and the Latin Mass.

From what I can gather from various sources there is a rift between the two, or is it a rift caused by Vatican II? While reading information on an SSPX site I see lots of what I feel are valid Catholic practices and even do them myself just because they feel right, and that is the way my wife taught me. However, as a convert I have only known the New Order of the Mass and am in no desire to change. I read that Vatican II was not good, yet how can this be. I do not think that the CC would have instituted it if it were going to destroy the CC. I know most of the history behind the SSPX and Bishop Lefebvre, and the info that I have been reading was from Fisheaters.com
Please some opinions regarding Vatican II, is there a rift, and is there any middle ground.

Thanks

Vatican Ii was a valid Universal Council of the Church, with the Holy Spirit guiding it. It’s documents have been mis-implemented in some cases.

The New Order of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in Latin are two forms of the same thing. One is no better or worse than the other.

 

[rpp]

Vatican Ii was a valid Universal Council of the Church, with the Holy Spirit guiding it. It’s documents have been mis-implemented in some cases.

The New Order of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in Latin are two forms of the same thing. One is no better or worse than the other.

That is the most succinct, accurate and charitable summaries of both Vatican II and the two forms of the Latin Rite Mass I have ever seen. Br. Rich, my respect for you grows with every post of yours I read.

I will add that like like many other things in the Catholic Church, there is much variability. Some people love the rosary, others love the Divine Mercy Chaplet. Some like a formal, ornate Mass, others want less show and more substance. All these things can be tolerated and it does not make one person better or holier than another.

The same is true when it comes to the Ordinary ("New Order) and Extraordinary (Latin) Mass. As long as each is done with reverence, they are both wonderful. If either is done poorly or sloppily, well, they are poor, sloppy and may be a stumbling block for some.

 

[PatrickJT914]

Dear Br. RichSFO,rpp, and ChurchMilitant,
I basically agree with you. And to say AMEN!
I’m a very proud Catholic (Whoops, better not be too proud or I
might to go to confession, and confess the sin of pride). I’ve been
around enough to vaguely remember the Latin Mass. I recall the
beating of the breast during the Confiteor, the Communion rail w/
poor Father going back and forth like a pacing expectant Dad
giving Communion to the faithful, an altar server with the patent
under people’s chin to catch a fallen Host, bells being rung at
the elevation of the bread and wine, the altar against the wall, the
priest’s back to the congregation. But I was alittle too young to
fully understand what was going on.
So, basically I’m a child of the “New Mass” since
returning to the church to complete my sacramental initiation re:
Confirmation back in 1984. I’ve tried to learn more about my faith
and the bible. As I continue to gain knowledge I’ve come to
appreciate the rich tradition of the church. All 2000 years of it.
What I’ve come to realize today. (If you’ll excuse my two analogies
Its like classic coke or new coke. Or the Billy Joel song, “It’s
Still Rock And Roll To Me”. Our church didn’t stop at the Apostles
and restart at 1570. The church’s liturgy evolved. The parts of the
TLM and NO are still basically the same, just changed a little bit.
I prefer the “New Mass” myself. It goes back further
than the TLM does. So, when Vatican II restored the older rites
and rituals. It felt more traditional. But I didn’t fully understand
that either until I returned.
Recently at my parish, my Pastor wants to have our
church learn and say the Our Father in Latin. He also wants in due time for us to recite other Mass parts in Latin.I’m a little sur-
prised,since Father is in his tenth year of his twelve year pastor-
ate.The reasons he stated were:1.It’s the official language of the
church, 2.It’s more unifying (We have mostly Spanish speakers
than English lately), other reasons escape me. I’m not sure what
Father is “A Traditionalist” “Moderate”, “Conservative”,or"Liberal".
He’s very seroius about right moral choices, his priesthood to
encourage young men, his role as Pastor,making sure liturgy is
run to Vatican II. However he has allowed Life Teen program into
the parish (FYI: I’m a YM/Conf. Catechist),with it’s alledged illict
Mass practices(Although when LT had to stop some of them)
he basically also stopped doing them),he has continued previous
Pastors practices. (I think I’m starting to drift a little off-topic)
Anyway, the Parish Council, Youth Minister,some of
the LT/Confirmation teens and yes, even me think it would be okay. I believe we for the most part are NO supporters. But that
is part of our collective church history and tradition.

        Now on a sad note: this will come too late for my Mom

to hear and enjoy. She liked the Mass in Latin. Sometimes she
and I would disagree on that subject. That may have been one of the reasons she didn’t go to Mass very much with me. In my
Archdiocese there are at least 5 places that have TLM. However,
for various reasons I denied her the opportunity to go. Such as
1.Me forgetting the place & time, 2. Too involved in LT activities,
3. Sometimes no car or a car with problems, 4. I didn’t like TLM
and others. So now I’m feeling very guilty,selfish, that I could’ve
provided a little more joy into her life. She passed away on
7 June 2007.

I’m sorry this ran for too long.

P.S. Please pray for the repose of her soul. My Mom’s first name
is Eleanora.

 

[wmscott]

Thanks to everyone for your insight. It makes me feel better about the things I have read and do, and i have learned something new. this is always a good thing. Again thanks to all for the explinations.

 

[mulligan59]

The New Order of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in Latin are two forms of the same thing. One is no better or worse than the other.

Actually they have almost nothing in common with one another and a canonized Saint who held the authority of Peter has said this about the Tridentine Mass (extraordinary form in “newspeak”):

Pope Saint Pius V, Quo Primum, 1570:
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity…

Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at St. Peter’s in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have a question regarding the New Order of the Mass and the Latin Mass.

From what I can gather from various sources there is a rift between the two, or is it a rift caused by Vatican II? s

there is no rift
Latin is and always has been the preferred language for the Mass, although the vernacular is permitted and has become the norm. Any priest can say the ordinary form of the Mass in Latin any day of the week. There is a rift among those who claim for themselves the charism of infallibility granted by the Holy Spirit ONLY to the Pope. Those persons are called schismatics and if there is a rift they have caused it the very same way the Call to Action and other dissenters have, through disobedience. The solution is to humbly obey.

 

[mulligan59]

there is no rift
Latin is and always has been the preferred language for the Mass, although the vernacular is permitted and has become the norm. Any priest can say the ordinary form of the Mass in Latin any day of the week. There is a rift among those who claim for themselves the charism of infallibility granted by the Holy Spirit ONLY to the Pope. Those persons are called schismatics and if there is a rift they have caused it the very same way the Call to Action and other dissenters have, through disobedience. The solution is to humbly obey.

Language is the least of the differences between the Mass and the new Mass. Something like 70% of the orations of the Old Mass were deleted in the new Mass. New things were added like the pleading prayers (prayer of the faithful?), the hand shaking and change in readings, the calendar for the readings, the direction the priest faces, the handling of the sacred vessels by everyone, communion in the hand…most importantly the words of consecration are changed. Yes a Yugo and a Bentley are both “cars”. The differences in the two Masses are even more striking.

 

[PatrickJT914]

there is no rift
Latin is and always has been the preferred language for the Mass, although the vernacular is permitted and has become the norm. Any priest can say the ordinary form of the Mass in Latin any day of the week. There is a rift among those who claim for themselves the charism of infallibility granted by the Holy Spirit ONLY to the Pope. Those persons are called schismatics and if there is a rift they have caused it the very same way the Call to Action and other dissenters have, through disobedience. The solution is to humbly obey.

Actually,the very first vernacular language was used by Jesus and the 1st Century Christians was Aramaic. As new Christian communities grew in the Greek speaking areas,Greek became the liturgical vernacular language. When Rome dominated the known world Latin started replacing Greek.Partially because those lands that had been conquered did not have much of a developed language of their own.

 

[wmscott]

After the last few post…hence my confusion.

 

[mulligan59]

After the last few post…hence my confusion.

The constant emphasis on “language” is the source of confusion perhaps. I tell you, honestly, that Latin isn’t the issue. Latin was abandoned in I think 1965, but the New Mass wasn’t fully introduced until 1969. The Old Mass in English would be strikingly different from the New Mass. Only a small number of prayers remain at all and/or in unaltered form. The rubrics are radically different. The Offertory is radically changed, the entire characterization of what is being offered (in the new Mass bread and wine, the work of “human hands”, in the old Mass it was the “perfect host, the spotless victim”) is changed so as to change the whole meaning and focus from sacrifice to meal. The consecration itself is different. Critics call the new Mass “protestantized”.

 

[wmscott]

Critics call the new Mass “protestantized”.

By critics do you mean those who are in schism, such as the SSPX folks, or do you mean the ones that are resistant to change because they are set in there ways?

 

[mulligan59]

Critics call the new Mass “protestantized”.

By critics do you mean those who are in schism, such as the SSPX folks, or do you mean the ones that are resistant to change because they are set in there ways?

Pius V canonized the Mass “forever and all times” in 1570. That decree is still in force (as I think Benedict XVI concedes that the right to say Mass was never abrogated). To say that people are resisitant to change because they are set in their ways trivializes very serious problems. Was Cardinal Ottavanni a schismatic?
I guess I mean “Catholics”, real ones.

 

[scylla]

Critics call the new Mass “protestantized”.

By critics do you mean those who are in schism, such as the SSPX folks, or do you mean the ones that are resistant to change because they are set in there ways?

There are many who attend the new Mass, like me, who see ways that the common way it is conducted has led to a denial of the faith.

I spent several years wandering and I visited many protestant churches. When the Mass is focused on the people and attention given to our own selfish desires for attention we have compromised the Mass and made it protestantized. (protestantized) is meant to convey the notion of the service being centered on the people and to self pleasure, rather than God. (not all protestants have worship services like that there are some that are much more respectful and God centered than some of the new Masses I have seen)

I have never attended an older form of the Mass and I grew up in the 80’s, but even I can see the problem.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[PatrickJT914]

mulligan59,

        In regards to your post, about what St.Pope Pius V said. That could be considered a power trip. The reason why I said that is because Popes throughout our 2000 year existence have altered something a previous Pope did. 
        Also do you not remember from scripture that Jesus gave the power and authority to Peter and the Apostles, " Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19
        With prayer, the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit can and do make changes to our Catholic faith. That is a constant

                                                                                                                                                                                                        With regard to the language changing from Greek to Latin. In 313 A.D. The Edict of Milan set the stage for that change.

During the rein of Pope Leo the Great (366-384) the changeover was complete. So, technically the use of the vernacular was around for almost 400 years before Latin became the official language of the Church. When Vatican II allowed the wider use of the vernacular it was not doing something new. The precedent had already been established. I guess this adage, still holds true, “there is nothing new under the sun.”

 

[mulligan59]

There are many who attend the new
I have never attended an older form of the Mass and I grew up in the 80’s, but even I can see the problem.

In Christ
Scylla

Thank you! I’m a little older than you I imagine but too young to remember the old Mass. Started attending one (for which I travel over 40 miles each way) a couple of years ago. It is stunningly different, stunningly beautiful. The dignity affored the Eucharist is especially notable. (So much for the argument of being afraid of change I guess, because for most today, it is a change).

 

[wmscott]

There are many who attend the new Mass, like me, who see ways that the common way it is conducted has led to a denial of the faith.

I spent several years wandering and I visited many protestant churches. When the Mass is focused on the people and attention given to our own selfish desires for attention we have compromised the Mass and made it protestantized. (protestantized) is meant to convey the notion of the service being centered on the people and to self pleasure, rather than God. (not all protestants have worship services like that there are some that are much more respectful and God centered than some of the new Masses I have seen)

I have never attended an older form of the Mass and I grew up in the 80’s, but even I can see the problem.

In Christ
Scylla

Denial of Faith?

Since becoming a Catholic my Faith has only increased. As a convert, I have done a lot of reading on matters of Faith. I feel that I have come a long way to be where I am today. Therefore, am I misinterpreting your words in that when I worship on Sundays, observe all of the proper postures, when I am awed at the very real and physical presence of Jesus in the tabernacle, focus on the Liturgy of the word and Eucharist, praise Him for the blessing of being able to receive Him Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity at Mass, participate in reconciliation, and many other ways of worship.

Or when I pray daily from the St Joseph Peoples Prayer Book or pray the Liturgy of the Hours, or just out of the blue praise Him and pray to Him, that I am denying my Faith? I am not there as the center of attention, how can I be when I am always drawn to Jesus and his presence just several feet away. How am I there for self-pleasure when I need to be reconciled to Jesus because of my sins and need his forgiveness? The new Mass is all I know, so does that negate everything I have become?

Please tell me I misunderstood your words.

 

[mulligan59]

mulligan59,

        In regards to your post, about what St.Pope Pius V said. That could be considered a power trip. The reason why I said that is because Popes throughout our 2000 year existence have altered something a previous Pope did. 
        Also do you not remember from scripture that Jesus gave the power and authority to Peter and the Apostles, " Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19
        With prayer, the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit can and do make changes to our Catholic faith. That is a constant

No. The faith cannot change, and not even a Pope can change or alter anything once defined by a predecessor, and in fact the pledge not to do this was contained in the papal corontation oath, which every Pope used to take, but the Vatican II Popes no longer do. If you need the countless citations from doctors and councils let me know. “A power trip”? You’re talking about a canonized Saint. He was trying to preserve tradition in the face of the Reformation, mindful that we ultimately believe what we pray.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        With regard to the language changing from Greek to Latin. In 313 A.D. The Edict of Milan set the stage for that change.

During the rein of Pope Leo the Great (366-384) the changeover was complete. So, technically the use of the vernacular was around for almost 400 years before Latin became the official language of the Church. When Vatican II allowed the wider use of the vernacular it was not doing something new. The precedent had already been established. I guess this adage, still holds true, “there is nothing new under the sun.”