Question(s) About the Latin Mass from a Protestant

[ProVobis]

…The changes for the second and third version were advised by then XXI Ecumenical council (Vatican II) and intended organic development related to the previous version, providing better active participation by the faithful. The concept behing the changes is the theology of the mass. The Mass is gathering, learning, offering in our part, and sacrificing himself, feed us and sending us to the world in the part of Jesus Christ. This goals are better represented by the New Mass, that in the Old Mass, which required mere presence of the interaction between God and the priest.

Please indicate your sources.

This seems not to be consistent with what’s written in Gamber’s book:

“Apparently the designation of the Mass in the first edition of the Novus Ordo as ‘the Lord’s Supper or the the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord,’ has its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite, the commemorative meal. The fact that this particular definition of the Mass appears in a document bearing the signature of Pope Paul VI, and that it became necessary later to correct it, is a painfully obvious indication of how confused things are in our Church today.” Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Una Voce Press, 1993

 

[Vico]

You must distinguish between

• the Traditional Latin Mass, which (with small changes) was the only Roman Catholic Mass between 1570 and 1970
• the New Mass in Latin as it is defined, what is very-similar to the Traditional Mass (90% the same) and differs only in eliminating some duplications , expanding the Scriptural readings and eliminating the controversial Offertory prayers in the TLM
• the New Mass in vernacular but still as it is defined which in the new translation will be the faithful representative of the above; the recent usage has several mistranslations by the ICEL
• the New Mass as it is executed in a liberal Parish, which is self made liturgy either by the priest or by the lay liturgical committees.

The changes for the second and third version were advised by then XXI Ecumenical council (Vatican II) and intended organic development related to the previous version, providing better active participation by the faithful. The concept behing the changes is the theology of the mass. The Mass is gathering, learning, offering in our part, and sacrificing himself, feed us and sending us to the world in the part of Jesus Christ. This goals are better represented by the New Mass, that in the Old Mass, which required mere presence of the interaction between God and the priest.

The liberal mass is the result of the human pride and disobedience. The Church provided the previously unprecedented freedom to the lower clergy and laity and give power to the people they will abuse it. Hopefully soon it will be corrected.

Excellent summary of the permutations. I see that the 2010 approved English Mass text is closer to what I remember pre-1970, both Latin and English.

I found that some of TLM faithful do not care for the 1955 or 1962 Tridentine Missal because they have Holy Week and calendar changes, but prefer the pre-1955 Tridentine Mass of 1920 (Pope Benedict XV). There was a problem with standardization seen even in 1954 as Pope Pius XII, at that time, warned priests in an allocution not to change anything in the liturgy on their own authority.

In 1958 the English dialogue Mass began rather than using Gregorian chant.
In 1960-1962 the Mass of Pope John XXIII was used.

In the 1920 Mass the feasts were: Simple, Semi-double, Double minor, Double major, Double of the second class, Double of the first class, rather than First class feasts, second class feasts, third class feasts.

 

[malphono]

the New Mass in Latin as it is defined, what is very-similar to the Traditional Mass (90% the same) and differs only in eliminating some duplications , expanding the Scriptural readings and eliminating the controversial Offertory prayers in the TLM

A couple observations and a couple questions:

1. 
   *]One important difference that is clearly missing in the above quote is the inclusion of “options” in the Novus Ordo.
   *]Another is the change of calendar (and I do not mean the sanctoral cycle).
   *]What is so “controversial” about the Offertory prayers in the EF?
   *]Elimination of “duplications” is kind of broad. Which “duplications” are meant?

 

[malphono]

I found that some of TLM faithful do not care for the 1955 or 1962 Tridentine Missal because they have Holy Week and calendar changes, but prefer the pre-1955 Tridentine Mass of 1920 (Pope Benedict XV).

FYI, prior to 1962, the last editio typica was 1920. There was no editio typica of 1955. It was solely the inclusion of “revised” Holy Week rites. Certain things in that “revision” were positive (e.g. the timings) but many more were negative.

In 1958 the English dialogue Mass began rather thean using Gregorian chant.

Shouldn’t that be Latin Dialogue Mass? The Missa Recitata was actually first promoted by PP Benedict XV, and was reinforced by Pius XII. But, as I’ve noted in a variety of other threads, for some strange reason, it never really “took-off” in the US.

 

[ProVobis]

A couple observations and a couple questions:

1. 
   *]One important difference that is clearly missing in the above quote is the inclusion of “options” in the Novus Ordo.
   *]Another is the change of calendar (and I do not mean the sanctoral cycle).
   *]What is so “controversial” about the Offertory prayers in the EF?
   *]Elimination of “duplications” is kind of broad. Which “duplications” are meant?

1. 
   I was wondering this myself. Can’t believe this was bottled up for so many centuries.

 

[laszlo]

Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s in order to let some “fresh air” into the Church.

Following his lead, Pope Paul VI continued with Pope John XXIII’s ideals and, with the help of six Protestant ministers, created the Novus Ordo Mass.

So you know, the Mass is being changed in 2011, as we have a new Missal. If you Google “Catholic New Missal”, you can take a look at this. The music, among other things, is becoming much more reverent.

I hope that your interest in the Church leads you to a conversion someday.

Would you to be so kind and list in details the protestant influence on the New Mass as it is defined.

I made a comparison of the different (historical and recent ) Western rites of the Mass, I do not see the protestantization

divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/missa/Cmissa.pl

also here is a Comparison table for the parts of the Mass

divinumofficium.com/www/missa/CompPrayers.html

Im am old, but ready to learn. There is a Hungarian proverb: even a good priest learns till he dies. Please enlighten me with details, showing that the New Mass (as it is defined) has protestant elements.

 

[malphono]

So you know, the Mass is being changed in 2011, as we have a new Missal. If you Google “Catholic New Missal”, you can take a look at this. The music, among other things, is becoming much more reverent.

If there were changes to the Latin text, it could be considered a “new missal” but that’s not what’s happening. The much touted (and overly delayed) English revision is simply a new translation of the OF and nothing more.

 

[laszlo]

A couple observations and a couple questions:

1. 
   *]One important difference that is clearly missing in the above quote is the inclusion of “options” in the Novus Ordo.
   *]Another is the change of calendar (and I do not mean the sanctoral cycle).
   *]What is so “controversial” about the Offertory prayers in the EF?
   *]Elimination of “duplications” is kind of broad. Which “duplications” are meant?

1. 
   1./ Part of the process that the Church started to view the lower clergy (everyone below the bishops) and the laity as matured free individuals. In short term it brought in too many problems, that could be corrected
   
   2./ The Calendar since the beginning constantly changed Here is a dinamic table to show it:
   
   divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/kalendarcomp.pl
   
   3./ The sacrifice before the Sacrifice of our Lord. The priest in his own name offers a food sacrifice (… hanc immaculátam hóstiam, quam ego indígnus fámulus tuus óffero tibi Deo meo vivo et vero, …) and this makes him innocent (Ego autem in innocéntia mea ingréssus sum: )
   
   4./ Double confiteor, repeated invocation of the triumphant Church (Confiteor, Suscipe Sancte Trinitas), the priest communion and separatelly the communion of the laity.
   
   This points were part of the theological curriculum in the fifties.

 

[ProVobis]

3./ The sacrifice before the Sacrifice of our Lord. The priest in his own name offers a food sacrifice (… hanc immaculátam hóstiam, quam ego indígnus fámulus tuus óffero tibi Deo meo vivo et vero, …) and this makes him innocent (Ego autem in innocéntia mea ingréssus sum: )

This is poor English theology. I have several books that show the word hostiam is incorrectly translated as “host.” See after the consecration where it is translated as “Victim.”

That’s one of the reasons why the Latin Mass should never be left for translators to pick apart.

 

[malphono]

1./ Part of the process that the Church started to view the lower clergy (everyone below the bishops) and the laity as matured free individuals. In short term it brought in too many problems, that could be corrected

Maybe I missed something, but what does that have to do with the inclusion of “options” in the OF?

2./ The Calendar since the beginning constantly changed Here is a dinamic table to show it:

Yes, I know that, but it doesn’t answer the question. Am I the only one who noticed, e.g., that Septuagesima was given the boot in the Novus Ordo? Or that “Ordinary Time” replaced the season “after Pentecost” etc?

3./ The sacrifice before the Sacrifice of our Lord. The priest in his own name offers a food sacrifice (… hanc immaculátam hóstiam, quam ego indígnus fámulus tuus óffero tibi Deo meo vivo et vero, …) and this makes him innocent (Ego autem in innocéntia mea ingréssus sum: )

I’m quite familiar with the Offertory prayers in the EF. I still don’t see what’s so “controversial” about them.

4./ Double confiteor, repeated invocation of the triumphant Church (Confiteor, Suscipe Sancte Trinitas), the priest communion and separatelly the communion of the laity.

This points were part of the theological curriculum in the fifties.

Yes, the 2nd confiteor was a duplication, and was eliminated with the 1962 Missal. How are the other items considered “duplication”?

 

[Victorious]

I am an outsider (i.e. not a Catholic) but it seems to me that the Latin Mass more fully expresses the Catholic churches theology. Certainly there is no doubt that something special is about to happen at the consecration and that the worship is directed to God (i.e. vertically).

I think you are correct. One traditional Latin Mass does more to open my eyes to truths of the faith than twelve years of Catholic school did. Rather like the difference between reading about the Rules of Evidence in law school and seeing how they work in the courtroom.

As to why the changes were made…you probably have noticed what a can of worms that question opens up. The upheaval that has wracked and convulsed the world for the last century or so has not left the Church untouched. They will just give us one more reason to marvel at the Church’s survival in the face of furious assaults, and to draw the obvious conclusion that it proves she is not a mere human institution.

 

[Vico]

FYI, prior to 1962, the last editio typica was 1920. There was no editio typica of 1955. It was solely the inclusion of “revised” Holy Week rites. Certain things in that “revision” were positive (e.g. the timings) but many more were negative.

Shouldn’t that be Latin Dialogue Mass? The Missa Recitata was actually first promoted by PP Benedict XV, and was reinforced by Pius XII. But, as I’ve noted in a variety of other threads, for some strange reason, it never really “took-off” in the US.

Yes, the 1955 changes were actually started in 1951 with the modified Holy Week and Pentecost applied to the 1920 Mass. I think I still have that old Latin Missal in a box somewhere.

The Latin Dialogue Mass was not adopted in most English speaking countries, but did start in 1922 and was accepted in Europe more commonly. In 1965 the Order of the Mass (modified Tridentine in English with Latin Canon till 1967) which allowed English was being used, and prevailed until the Novus Ordo was promulgated (and 1965 had the new communion words). I remember so many changes then because I was an Altar Boy (until Altar Boy service was eliminated).

coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

 

[laszlo]

This is poor English theology. I have several books that show the word hostiam is incorrectly translated as “host.” See after the consecration where it is translated as “Victim.”

That’s one of the reasons why the Latin Mass should never be left for translators to pick apart.

I quoted the Latin. If you are familiar with the TLM, the priest holds in his hand the paten with the host, the piece of bread, which is a piece of bread nothing else in that moment. The immediate meaning of the words are that he offers that piece of bread, any other interpretation is is secondary.

Otherwise the original meaning of the Latin word ‘hostia’ is the matter of sacrifice, usually an animal

Here are the Vulgata occurrences of the word:

drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=hostia&b=lvb

 

[ProVobis]

I quoted the Latin. If you are familiar with the TLM, the priest holds in his hand the paten with the host, the piece of bread, which is a piece of bread nothing else in that moment. The immediate meaning of the words are that he offers that piece of bread, any other interpretation is is secondary.

In that case, the word “sacrifice” shouldn’t be used prematurely in either form either. Otherwise all we’re talking about at that moment is sacrificing a host (explicitly made with our human hands in the OF) and wine (also made with our human hands in the OF).

Otherwise the original meaning of the Latin word ‘hostia’ is the matter of sacrifice, usually an animal

Thank you.

Can’t be anything but.

In his book Fr. Trinchard writes:

At each Mass, the priest in persona Christi, as Christ, offers Christ. The Offerer and the Offered renews His Effective Saving Will. Through His annointed Priest, Christ renews or re-does His Will with such awesome God-power that the Sacrifice of Calvary and Christ Himself truly and sacramentally come into being. Christ was from the beginning, is now and will always be both The Priest and The Immaculate Victim.
…
The Priest, in persona Christi, offers Christ, not bread or wine. Christ, sacrificed for our sins, is our only hope of salvation from Hell into Heaven. Therefore THE IMMACULATE VICTIM — HANC IMMACULATAM HOSTIAM— is offered.

• *My Basic Missal *by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L. 1996 by MAETA.

 

[laszlo]

In that case, the word “sacrifice” shouldn’t be used
At each Mass, the priest in persona Christi, as Christ, offers Christ. The Offerer and the Offered renews His Effective Saving Will. Through His annointed Priest, Christ renews or re-does His Will with such awesome God-power that the Sacrifice of Calvary and Christ Himself truly and sacramentally come into being. Christ was from the beginning, is now and will always be both The Priest and The Immaculate Victim.
…
The Priest, in persona Christi, offers Christ, not bread or wine. Christ, sacrificed for our sins, is our only hope of salvation from Hell into Heaven. Therefore THE IMMACULATE VICTIM — HANC IMMACULATAM HOSTIAM— is offered.

• My Basic Missal by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L. 1996 by MAETA.

The problem is that Christ is offered before He is present.
Nturaly it can be explained, but the situation is ambiguous, and for that reason the Church felt it better to leave it out from the vernacular loudly read version of the Mass. The essence of the Mass is the bloodless sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which is realized by the Consecration. The above described offering as in persona Christi is represented by the Unde et memores prayer after the consecration ( offérimus præcláræ majestáti tuæ de tuis donis ac datis, ), it does not need an ambiguous previous replica.

Please do not misunderstood me. The TLM is the holy liturgy of the Church. I simply want to describe the reason, why the New Mass is as it is defined.

Unfortunately if people get freedom, they can and uti figura docet will destroy things. Many actual mass today is far away from the principles as the Catholic liturgy has to be celebrated. This practical problem with some Masses, does not mean that the New Mass as is is faulty.

 

[ProVobis]

The problem is that Christ is offered before He is present.
Nturaly it can be explained, but the situation is ambiguous, and for that reason the Church felt it better to leave it out from the vernacular loudly read version of the Mass.

With translations, you will offend a lot of people and need be prepared for criticism. But you will draw the love of those who will settle for ANY translation. As I was doing business graduate studies with priests, I realized that translations are extremely costly and imprecise. The Vatican currently has to maintain and authenticize hundreds of vernaculars. Some vernaculars have been made obsolete and others need reexamination of their currency. The Church at some point has to decide if the benefits outweigh these costs. Personally I am strongly opposed to using translations in the Mass said out loud. (I’ll make an exception with the sermon.) So I’ll side with you on that score.

The essence of the Mass is the bloodless sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which is realized by the Consecration.

The Vatican approved a version of the canon (Chaldean-Assyrian) which doesn’t have the words of consecration. That was significant from the standpoint that perhaps the actual transubstantiation doesn’t occur until the entire canon is read. I don’t think there ever was anything definite about when exactly transubstantiation actually occurred. Most (including me) just assumed it was at the words of consecration. I don’t anymore.

 

[Melchior_1]

Pope John XXIII was further reported to warn “Stop the council. Stop the council.”

I want you to please give a solid reference to this reported quote that directly comes from the Vatican.

Please and thank you.

 

[ProVobis]

I want you to please give a solid reference to this reported quote that directly comes from the Vatican.

I asked for this myself but I don’t expect to get it. However, I did find this:

Stop the Council; stop the Council. --Pope John XXIII, on his
deathbed, quoted in Kevin Haney, “The Stormy History of General
Councils,” The Latin Mass, Spring 1995, attributed to Jean Guitton (ob. March
21, 1999), the only Catholic layman to serve as a peritus at Vatican II.
Also reported by Michael Davies in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Vatican-II-2.htm

also

timelines.com/1963/6/3/pope-john-xxiii-dies

iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/pope-john-xxiii-calls-vatican-ii/

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100316193503AAzcSdE

It probably shouldn’t have been too surprising, since it was also reported that John XXIII had not planned on having a long, drawn out council, such as Trent. He did not provide any long-term accommodations for any of the bishops or observers. His agenda got preempted and he also did not sign any of the Vatican II documents.

But my point was that John XXIII and Paul VI probably did not have similar philosophies, though it is true that the former did elevate Montini (Paul VI) to a cardinal, despite Pius XII refusal to do so because of Montini’s ties to communism at that time. There are some books on this matter.