Reform of the Reform and forgetting the TLM?

[thunderballs75]

I never said Vatican II was wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. I simply said it was misinterpreted. And now that we are trying to interpret it in its true light, my question was whether the Extraordinary Form would be forgotten completely, and be overshadowed by the OF.

 

[jmtowle]

thunderballs75
Re: Reform of the Reform and forgetting the TLM?
I never said Vatican II was wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. I simply said it was misinterpreted. And now that we are trying to interpret it in its true light, my question was whether the Extraordinary Form would be forgotten completely, and be overshadowed by the OF.

Dear thunderballs,

I appreciate your specific concern but I would ask that you might read Fr. O’Malley’s book and see if you still are as convinced that there is such a thing as " it’s true light ".

As beautiful as the TLM is, it can not accomplish more than the NO since both liturgies cooperate in the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord being made manifest for our personal consumption. All strength and Grace goes through Jesus Christ, the True Head of the Church and until the teaching authority of the Church makes either form illicit, one can do no better than the other in making Christ substantially present in and to His Mystical Body.

Vatican II is a work in progress and it’s " true light " may be a long ways away from being discovered or it may always be debatable.

I think we must trust that Rome and the world’s Bishop’s will, in the end, lead it’s faithful in Truth for the Glory of God and that we should do our best to answer our call to holiness as the collective people of God. Liturgy and the Eucharist is the nourishment needed to go out into the world to share and live the Gospel. Liturgy and Eucharist are important, even critical but unless that vertical experience translates into a horizontal experience of Christ in all his Creation, the vertical experience has been wasted and unable to accomplish all of it’s intended goals.

May the peace of Christ be with us all, always

JT

 

[ConservativeOne]

…
…There is NO problem with people using a hand missal to learn the Mass in latin and read it in their own language. After a while you will pick up a lot of Latin and should be able to understand many if not most of the words you will hear in Latin.

Couple this with proper Latin instruction in Grammer school and I think you could have a worldwide body of fluent Latin speakers in the Church within ten years. Will this happen? Don’t hold your breath.

Advocating for vernacular in the Mass is like giving away our birthright as Catholics. How about you advocate to an orthodox Jew that he should pray in the vernacular instead of Hebrew? See how far you get with that.

Well said. How many of us grew up with the Tridentine Mass - knowing only the language of our country of origin? Our missals had the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Latin on the left, vernacular on the right. Some learned by reading the vernacular as the priest offered the Mass, while some of us were taught in Catholic schools just the basics - not a Latin language class by any means. Just as children mimic or learn by repeatedly hearing as they grow, so, too, do I think I learned. I find that I often silently pray many of the prayers of the Mass IN LATIN as the priest / altar boys are praying (whatever I can recall). Even after years of Novus Ordo, the Tridentine Mass remained solidly in my head - some from having sung the Mass. It’s only during the prayers following the Offertory (particularly after the Consecration when the priest prays for the living and the dead - (i.e. the ‘Nobis Quoque Peccatoribus’ - sp??) - that I read the English.

Also, interesting point re the Jewish Faith. Though there may be “Reformed” Jewish congregations - I think they still have to learn Hebrew for Bar Mitzvah.

 

[thunderballs75]

Well said. How many of us grew up with the Tridentine Mass - knowing only the language of our country of origin? Our missals had the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Latin on the left, vernacular on the right. Some learned by reading the vernacular as the priest offered the Mass, while some of us were taught in Catholic schools just the basics - not a Latin language class by any means. Just as children mimic or learn by repeatedly hearing as they grow, so, too, do I think I learned. I find that I often silently pray many of the prayers of the Mass IN LATIN as the priest / altar boys are praying (whatever I can recall). Even after years of Novus Ordo, the Tridentine Mass remained solidly in my head - some from having sung the Mass. It’s only during the prayers following the Offertory (particularly after the Consecration when the priest prays for the living and the dead - (i.e. the ‘Nobis Quoque Peccatoribus’ - sp??) - that I read the English.

Also, interesting point re the Jewish Faith. Though there may be “Reformed” Jewish congregations - I think they still have to learn Hebrew for Bar Mitzvah.

I agree. The truth is, so far, I’ve kind of learned the Latin prayers in themselves. In fact, when I pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy I do it in Latin. So on one of the prayers, I was trying to remember the English version. I couldn’t even remember what the translation was in English, yet I still knew what the words meant. So I kind of “learned the Latin” in a most basic sense (though by no means could I speak it or write it).

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If the EF–except for the Kyrie–was accurately translated into English by the Holy See itself and everything else about the EF remained exactly the same–would that be a terrible thing?

I don’t think that is such a bad answer.

 

[thunderballs75]

If the EF–except for the Kyrie–was accurately translated into English by the Holy See itself and everything else about the EF remained exactly the same–would that be a terrible thing?

I don’t think that is such a bad answer.

That’d be great. They did it from 1965-1969. However, for one reason or another(hmm…), they decided to drastically change the Order of the Mass itself. But Latin is still useful, and the EF as it is now is still a treasure in itself.

coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

 

[Layman]

I think it’s simple:

**If changes were made, why were they made?

If the reasons for the changes were good and sound, then have the changes accomplished the good which was desired by those who made the changes?**

It’s easy to bowdlerise the N.O.; you just need an indulgent bishop and a progressive priest. Another thing I like about the TLM is that a priest trying to impose his tastes upon it is going to look peculiar. Unless he does it under his breath, in which case his congregation has a more serious problem than his liturgical style.

 

[otjm]

However, for one reason or another(hmm…), they decided to drastically change the Order of the Mass itself. But Latin is still useful, and the EF as it is now is still a treasure in itself.

coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

I am not sure what you mean by drastically changing the Order of the Mass itself.

Both have introductory prayers; some of the Ef prayers (such as at the foot of the altar) were eliminated.

Both then have the Liturgy of the Word. Both then have commentary; in the EF it was whatever the bishop determined would be preached on; in the OF it is to be a homily based (primarily) on the readings.

Then there is the Oferatory.

Then the Consecration.

Then additional prayers for the Church, etc.

the Our Father, Agnus Dei, prayers leading to Communion, Communion, final prayer. the Last Gospel reading was eliminated.

Basically, one can set one form side by side on paper with the other form and have no question as to where in the proceedings one is.

Other than a few deletions, the Order of the Mass itself is pretty much the same. Or were you referring to something else?

 

[otjm]

I never said Vatican II was wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. I simply said it was misinterpreted. And now that we are trying to interpret it in its true light, my question was whether the Extraordinary Form would be forgotten completely, and be overshadowed by the OF.

I am simply a bystander, watching from the sidelines. Having observed for all too many years, my conjecture is that we eventually see the following:

The OF will have a return to some Latin; how much may be debatable but the Sanctus and Agnus Dei are certainly no stretch of imagination. The Kyrie may be recited in Greek instead of English (or whatever other language is the vernacular of the area). Prayers will receive a more accurate translation.

The EF will see an expansion of readings to match the OF. Some of the EF will be in the vernacular (with perhaps the Eucharistic prayer remaining in Latin, as well as the prayers noted in the OF).

Eventually, we will see a combination of the two into one. It will be available in all Latin, but the majority of Masses said will include the vernacular.

Why do I say this? Re-read SP and the attendant letter from Benedict 16; it is there “in between the lines”.

I would predict that we will not lose the vernacular as those who predict such totally missgage the reaction of the vast majority of people, and further ignore that the documents of Vatican 2 specifically provided for the vernacular.

There are those who are attached to the EF; some seem to be so attached that they simply cannot imagine that it will not, in the form of the 1962 missal, always be present. That, however, simply ignores the Council, and the Council is neither going to go away, nor be ignored. Is it possible that the 1962 missal may remain? Perhaps, but had we not had the OF which appeared to replace the EF, I would submit that the EF would have gone through further changes; that is, had it been organically revised, things such as the extended readings would have come.

Will the changes occur in the form I predict? Who knows? I simply see a return to what the Council wanted to see - changes made; a review of the changes that have been made, and a blending of the two. I don’t see the OF staying as it is currently, but neither do I see anything happening except very gradually. I would not exect massive changes in my lifetime. Thus the likelyhood of the EF being forgotten is not likely within most of our lifetimes; but it is also entirely possible that the missal of 1962 may have further changes and no longer be present in its current form. That is what the Council intended, it would appear; and so if the OF is to be modified, it is for sure that it will not be modified out of existence either (entirely). Or to say it another way, some of the changes which resulted in the OF were contemplated by the Council, but certainly not all.

 

[thunderballs75]

I am not sure what you mean by drastically changing the Order of the Mass itself.

Other than a few deletions, the Order of the Mass itself is pretty much the same. Or were you referring to something else?

-Ad orientem to versus populum
-Confiteor
-Absolution by priest
-Aufer a nobis
-Oramus te, Domine
-the Secret
-Libera nos after the Our Father with no saints mentioned
-Communion under both kinds
-simply “body of Christ” with the person saying “amen” rather than “may the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve you into everlasting life” with the priest saying “amen”.
-prayers for Holy Communion
-ablutions prayers which evoke the sacrifice
-Last Gospel
-Mass of the Faithful said aloud

Basically, they made it more “ecumenical” and much less emphasized the sacrifice. Not to mention the terrible translation which was just fine in the earlier version. Also, it is extremely rarely that they sing the propers like the introit, graduale, offertory. They tend to choose contemporary hymns instead. The differences you see between the 1965 and 1970 Mass are almost exactly the same as those between the 1962 and 1970 Mass.

 

[otjm]

-Ad orientem to versus populum
-Confiteor
-Absolution by priest
-Aufer a nobis
-Oramus te, Domine
-the Secret
-Libera nos after the Our Father with no saints mentioned
-Communion under both kinds
-simply “body of Christ” with the person saying “amen” rather than “may the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve you into everlasting life” with the priest saying “amen”.
-prayers for Holy Communion
-ablutions prayers which evoke the sacrifice
-Last Gospel
-Mass of the Faithful said aloud

Basically, they made it more “ecumenical” and much less emphasized the sacrifice. Not to mention the terrible translation which was just fine in the earlier version. Also, it is extremely rarely that they sing the propers like the introit, graduale, offertory. They tend to choose contemporary hymns instead. The differences you see between the 1965 and 1970 Mass are almost exactly the same as those between the 1962 and 1970 Mass.

The list you make has some items that probably will not come back (e.g. absolution by the priest, as absolution for serious sins is restricted to a different sacrament, and can be too easily confused).

And the issue was not to make the Mass “ecumenical” but rather to return to a Mass that reflected more closely the early Church and fewer of the accretions over time.

I am not sure who “they” represents; our pastor sings various parts of the Mass (as well as do the Trappists where I attend occasionally).

We could go around all day about contemporary hymns; suffice it to say that as much as one end of the spectrum wants to throw out older music, so does the other end to newer music, and both have a place in the Church. We pretty much threw out Michale Row the Boat Ashore decades ago.

 

[moon1234]

The list you make has some items that probably will not come back (e.g. absolution by the priest, as absolution for serious sins is restricted to a different sacrament, and can be too easily confused).

And the issue was not to make the Mass “ecumenical” but rather to return to a Mass that reflected more closely the early Church and fewer of the accretions over time.

I am not sure who “they” represents; our pastor sings various parts of the Mass (as well as do the Trappists where I attend occasionally).

We could go around all day about contemporary hymns; suffice it to say that as much as one end of the spectrum wants to throw out older music, so does the other end to newer music, and both have a place in the Church. We pretty much threw out Michale Row the Boat Ashore decades ago.

I think your thinking is a little naieve. You are only seeing the outward sign and not the significance. I doubt you will see ANY changes in the EF like you are suggesting. All of the goodwill the Holy Father has garnered by allowing it’s use would be destroyed. You may not see a problem with this, but 99% of the people attending EF and practicing traditional values would. Change for the sake of change is bad. And that is what monkeying around with the liturgy is.

Please show me anywhere in the VII documents where a call is made to change liturgy from the EF? You will not find it anywhere. The mess that happened after VII was done by people who think as you stated above, that we need to “Change” the Mass.

The EF, as celebrated today, IS what the council hoped for with renewed interest in the Mass.

 

[moon1234]

The list you make has some items that probably will not come back (e.g. absolution by the priest, as absolution for serious sins is restricted to a different sacrament, and can be too easily confused).

And the issue was not to make the Mass “ecumenical” but rather to return to a Mass that reflected more closely the early Church and fewer of the accretions over time.

I am not sure who “they” represents; our pastor sings various parts of the Mass (as well as do the Trappists where I attend occasionally).

We could go around all day about contemporary hymns; suffice it to say that as much as one end of the spectrum wants to throw out older music, so does the other end to newer music, and both have a place in the Church. We pretty much threw out Michale Row the Boat Ashore decades ago.

And the issue was not to make the Mass “ecumenical” but rather to return to a Mass that reflected more closely the early Church and fewer of the accretions over time.

This is a canard. It is basically saying “We reject all of the development of the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, over the last 1500 years.” This line is used by people who wish to push their own agenda. It is used by those that think the leaders of the church over the last 1500 years were somehow lacking in the graces they received from the Holy Spirit. It is modernist arrogant thinking/theology.

 

[thunderballs75]

The list you make has some items that probably will not come back (e.g. absolution by the priest, as absolution for serious sins is restricted to a different sacrament, and can be too easily confused).

And the issue was not to make the Mass “ecumenical” but rather to return to a Mass that reflected more closely the early Church and fewer of the accretions over time.

Trust me man, nobody goes to confession more now because we removed the absolution. I would bet money on it. As for the making of the Mass “ecumenical”, you are wrong. This was the reason for it. Read Sacrosanctum Concilium:

“This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster **whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”

And I am sick of this idea that we are going back to the “Early Church”, with the naive misconception that the early liturgy was “simple” and less ritualistic. Look at the Divine Liturgy of St.James, which some say goes back to the very earliest centuries of the Church, around AD 60. That thing takes 3 hours to do. The Tridentine Mass looks like child’s-play in comparison.

 

[jmtowle]

Originally posted by thunderballs75

“This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”

I may be wrong on this and that would not run contra to my track record on such things but I think the Council was interested in both the ecumenical and the resourcement ideal; that by going back to the traditions of the early Church Fathers they would be promoting something even more traditional than that promulgated by Trent and V I.

I am led to believe that one of the driving forces behind this desire for change was the modern Theological position that the Liturgy to that point in time focused almost solely on the Crucified Christ at the exclusion of the Risen Christ and I believe it was their intent that the Church would glorify and praise both, to the Glory of God the Father.

Of course we now know that the Crucified Christ has been kicked to the curb in some parishes and that, to my thinking, is a very dangerous and deficient manner of worshipping the Triune God.

This is just one man’s opinion but it seems to me that it was the Bishops who allowed for most of these abuses and if they can’t or aren’t inclined to correct these serious abuses, then maybe it’s time for Rome to step in and clean things up.

May the Peace of Christ be with us all, always

JT

 

[otjm]

And the issue was not to make the Mass “ecumenical” but rather to return to a Mass that reflected more closely the early Church and fewer of the accretions over time.

This is a canard. It is basically saying “We reject all of the development of the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, over the last 1500 years.” This line is used by people who wish to push their own agenda. It is used by those that think the leaders of the church over the last 1500 years were somehow lacking in the graces they received from the Holy Spirit. It is modernist arrogant thinking/theology.

You are doing just the opposite; you are saying that every last thing that has come into the Mass had to be the inspirattion of the Holy Spirit and is untouchable, because the Holy Spirit lead us there.

Canard? There are people far wiser than you and I combined, who have forgotten more than we know about liturgy, who hold exactly as I say and are far, far from anyone “wishing to push their own agenda”. They in fact do not like some of how they OF ended up, but they hold, contrary to the urban legend that the Mass was changed to “protestantize” it or “make it ecumenical”, that what we have in the OF is sourced from the Early Church. The same went for the other sacraments.

One does not have to deny the action of the Holy Spirit over time to say that there comes a time where additions, deletions and changes need to be re-thought out; that some of the changes and additions/deletions were time and culture specific and may not be the bbest way to do things now.

“We reject all the development” - oh, please. People who see only black and white have no concept of reality. It is not an 'either/or". The Mass over the history of the Church has had changes to it; we can both agree the last round resulting in the OF was not done in an organic fashion; I suspect anyone who is not knee jerk can agree to that. But let’s not play the game that the Mass brooks no liturgical changes at all.

And by the way, Modernism may well be the source of some of the silliness we have seen post Vatican 2; but trotting that canard out to paste on anything you don’t like is an abuse of the term. The OF in its general form and in its essence is still the Mass and similar in general form to the EF.

 

[otjm]

I think your thinking is a little naieve. You are only seeing the outward sign and not the significance. I doubt you will see ANY changes in the EF like you are suggesting. All of the goodwill the Holy Father has garnered by allowing it’s use would be destroyed. You may not see a problem with this, but 99% of the people attending EF and practicing traditional values would. Change for the sake of change is bad. And that is what monkeying around with the liturgy is.

Please show me anywhere in the VII documents where a call is made to change liturgy from the EF? You will not find it anywhere. The mess that happened after VII was done by people who think as you stated above, that we need to “Change” the Mass.

The EF, as celebrated today, IS what the council hoped for with renewed interest in the Mass.

I did not suggest that B 16 would make the changes; I don’t even thing you and I will be around when they are made. and your presumption that change to the Mass is for the sake of change shows a vast ignorance of legitimate liturgical renewal.

 

[otjm]

Please show me anywhere in the VII documents where a call is made to change liturgy from the EF? You will not find it anywhere. The mess that happened after VII was done by people who think as you stated above, that we need to “Change” the Mass.

The EF, as celebrated today, IS what the council hoped for with renewed interest in the Mass.

If you are going to make a crack like that, at least read the documents before you make it.

What do you think Sacrosanctum Concilium is about - how to fish for steelhead, or how to line dance?

Chapter 1 - General Priniciples for the Restoration and Promotion of the Sacred Lturgy. It would appear 2000+ bishops thopught the liturgy needed restoring.

Quoting from SC:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
4. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."

Fairly clear to me that they suggested the use of the vernacular. We can agree before you fire your next slavo that it did not contemplate no Latin; I even quoted that part, ok?

And reading the full document, one can easily see that the Mass of 1962 does not comply fully with the intent of the bishops.

 

[thunderballs75]

As I said, “ecumenical” is an excuse for protestantization of the Mass, which has occurred. And again, if you want to use the whole “resourcement” argument, how about we go back to the 1700-yr old, several-hour long, and extremely ornate Liturgy of St.James?

 

[otjm]

Trust me man, nobody goes to confession more now because we removed the absolution.

Which has nothing to do with the change in the form of the Mass, but altogether a lot to do with the dumbing down of catechesis, secualrism, materialism, and dissent in the Church from wayward theologians.

to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times

those institutions which are subject to change; to foster **whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy."

And I am sick of this idea that we are going back to the “Early Church”, with the naive misconception that the early liturgy was “simple” and less ritualistic. Look at the Divine Liturgy of St.James, which some say goes back to the very earliest centuries of the Church, around AD 60. That thing takes 3 hours to do. The Tridentine Mass looks like child’s-play in comparison.I don’t recall saying anywhere that the Mass was to become “simple and less ritualistic”. I said there were acretions. I am also familiar with several Eastern Rite formats.

I have read Sacrosanctum Concilium, and more than once or twice. While I don’t have it memorized, fostering “whatever can promote union” is certainly accomplished by a wider and longer use of Scripture. And I can recall attending a wedding in a Lutheran church prior to 1980 in which the Lutheran service was a whole lot closer to the EF than the OF; so we were not “copying” what the Protestants did or do; rather, they were doing what we did (and that only goes for "high church groups, which are not particularly numerous). That mantra grows exceedingly old, especially when used by those who have neither institutional memory nor experience of various forms of Protestant worship.