Someone I know told me the VII didn't create the OF

[CarloMagnus]

So I was talking to this guy and I was asking him questions about his beliefs and he tells me,“One can be traditional and prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass.” which is fine. Everyone in the Church has the right to have preference.

However, then he adds,“The Second Vatican Council did not make the Ordinary Form.”

Can someone explain to me how a Mass that has little connection to tradition wasn’t created out of nothing?

He furthers adds,“The Mass is the Mass, the form is a matter of discipline which can and does change. If changing the Mass was untraditional then the EF would also be such as it was mandated for the whole of the Latin Church at the Council of Trent because each diocese had its own missal. Some of them were similar some where not. Also since Trent the EF has undergone many modifications. The EF of the 1962 missal which is what is used today is not the same as what was done at the time of Trent.”

So what does everyone else think of this?

-Karl

 

[YoungTradCath]

So I was talking to this guy and I was asking him questions about his beliefs and he tells me,“One can be traditional and prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass.” which is fine. Everyone in the Church has the right to have preference.

However, then he adds,“The Second Vatican Council did not make the Ordinary Form.”

Can someone explain to me how a Mass that has little connection to tradition wasn’t created out of nothing?

He furthers adds,“The Mass is the Mass, the form is a matter of discipline which can and does change. If changing the Mass was untraditional then the EF would also be such as it was mandated for the whole of the Latin Church at the Council of Trent because each diocese had its own missal. Some of them were similar some where not. Also since Trent the EF has undergone many modifications. The EF of the 1962 missal which is what is used today is not the same as what was done at the time of Trent.”

So what does everyone else think of this?

-Karl

His first point is debatable. I would say there is no real answer to that one.

He is correct in that Vatican II didn’t “make” the Ordinary Form. It gave some very basic and vague guidelines, and then a committee called the Consilium “made” the Mass after the Council. And we all know that not all of these guidelines were even implemented, and this is verifiable fact.

No, I honestly can’t.

Yes, the liturgy does change. I would counter his second argument with the fact that, at least as far as I can tell from examination of liturgical histories, the “Tridentine” Missal wasn’t very different at all from most dioceses’ Missals. It was a standardization of what were mostly rather minor differences from diocese to diocese. The Tridentine Missal has undergone several minor revisions since 1570, yes, but they have all been very minor. I challenge him to find one even moderately noticeable difference between an EF Mass nowadays compared to what it looked like in, say, 1580. The fact is, it is impossible. The Tridentine Mass is practically exactly the same now as it was 400 years ago, with the exception of the addition of St. Joseph to the Roman Canon and the removal of the Confiteor and Miserereatur before Holy Communion. And even then, I’d say many, if not most, traddie parishes (FSSP, ICRSS) do the Confiteor and Miserereatur before Holy Communion.

That is what I think of this.

 

[TimothyH]

Can someone explain to me how a Mass that has little connection to tradition wasn’t created out of nothing?

No one can explain this because the question is not a valid question.

The Holy Father does not celebrate Mass which has “Little connection to tradition” and which was “created out of nothing”. The question posed cannot be explained because it is based on the false premises that the Ordinary Form was pulled out of thin air and has zero connection to any Mass previous to it.

The Mass which came after Trent was modifed several times, including a large overhaul 35 years after it was introduced in 1570 in which the Holy Father…

…abolished some prayers that the 1570 Missal obliged the priest to say on entering the church; shortened the two prayers to be said after the Confiteor; directed that the words “Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in meam memoriam facietis” should not be said while displaying the chalice to the people after the consecration, but before doing so; inserted directions at several points of the Canon that the priest was to pronounce the words inaudibly; suppressed the rule that, at High Mass, the priest, even if not a bishop, was to give the final blessing with three signs of the cross; and rewrote the rubrics, introducing, for instance, the ringing of a small bell

Your friend is correct, just as we are now on the “Third typical edition” of the Roman Missal for the ordinary form, there were several “Typical editions” of the Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine Mass was very stable, but over the course of 400 years it did go through some large changes. Your friend is correct - it wa not static for 400 years.

-Tim-

 

[Brooklyn]

The Tridentine Mass was very stable, but over the course of 400 years it did go through some large changes. Your friend is correct - it wa not static for 400 years.

-Tim-

“Large changes”? Just what do you mean by that? Can you give specific examples? Certainly none can compare to the corrections that were made to the OF last year.

One other thing. What you call the “Tridentine” Mass is not 400 years old, but more like 1500 years old. The Council of Trent codified what we now call the Extraordinary Form, but it has been in use for 1500 years, back to the time of St. Gregory in the 6th Century.

 

[TrueLight]

The Mass which came after Trent was modifed several times, including a large overhaul 35 years after it was introduced in 1570 in which the Holy Father…

-Tim-

None of these changes can be seen as overhauls. I don’t think anyone could walk into a tridentine mass and say, “What is this?”.

From some of the accounts I’ve seen on here, there were people who left the Church right around the end of VAT II, came back and didn’t know what they were seeing.

More on the changes.

The Missal of Pope Paul VI was an “overhaul” in my opinion.

It also seems that when the then Cardinal Ratzinger first saw the changes, he commented in “From My Life: Remembrances 1927-1977”, a book written in German:

“I was dismayed by the banning of the old Missal,” he wrote, "seeing that a similar thing had never happened in the entire history of the liturgy…

"The promulgation of the banning of the Missal that had been developed in the course of centuries. starting from the time of the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, has brought with it a break in the history of the liturgy whose consequences could be tragic… The old structure was broken to pieces and another was constructed admittedly with material of which the old structure had been made and using also the preceding models…

"But the fact that [the liturgy] was presented as a new structure, set up against what had been formed in the course of history and was now prohibited, and that the liturgy was made to appear in some ways no longer as a living process but as a product of specialized knowledge and juridical competence, has brought with it some extremely serious damages for us.

"In this way, in fact, the impression has arisen that the liturgy is ‘made,’ that it is not something that exists before us, something ‘given,’ but that it depends on our decisions. It follows as a consequence that this decision-making capacity is not recognized only in specialists or in a central authority, but that, in the final analysis, each ‘community’ wants to give itself its own liturgy. But when the liturgy is something each one makes by himself, then it no longer gives us what is its true quality: encounter with the mystery which is not our product but our origin and the wellspring of our life…

"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us.

“But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance?,” he asked.

Too often, Ratzinger lamented, “the community is only celebrating itself without its being worthwhile to do so.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=196

Now mind you, I don’t tend to quote Catholic Culture cause I don’t like their site reviews.

But they are right about this.

And no, I don’t have the German book itself to check primary references.

Now, our Holy Father has since changed his mind, but that was his initial impression.

I’m only quoting this to show that there were knowledgeable people who agreed that the changes to the Tridentine were minimal compared to the newer liturgy.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I highly encourage anyone who is interested in this discussion to read this document.

 

[TrueLight]

I highly encourage anyone who is interested in this discussion to read this document.

Thanks! Has a lot of great information:

V. PART ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR IN MASS (SC art. 54)
57. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:

a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;

b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;

c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord's Prayer with its introduction and embolism.

Missals to be used in the liturgy, however, shall contain besides the vernacular version the Latin text as well.

1. The Holy See alone can grant permission for use of the vernacular in those parts of the Mass that the celebrant sings or recites alone.

1. Pastors shall carefully see to it that the Christian faithful, especially members of lay religious institutes, also know how to recite or sing together in Latin, mainly with simple melodies, the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass proper to them.

What happened to the missals with Latin at the side?

 

[Brooklyn]

I highly encourage anyone who is interested in this discussion to read this document.

I’ve only skimmed through the link you provided, but I’m confused. This document seems to be from 1964, which is from VII. This is not about what we now call the Ordinary Form of the Mass, which was created in 1969. So are you posting this to show that VII did not create the OF? VII suggested certain reformations of the Mass, such as including certain parts in the vernacular (but never the Canon). The OF is only indirectly the result of VII, it was not created by the Council.

 

[thistle]

So I was talking to this guy and I was asking him questions about his beliefs and he tells me,“One can be traditional and prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass.” which is fine. Everyone in the Church has the right to have preference.

However, then he adds,“The Second Vatican Council did not make the Ordinary Form.”

Can someone explain to me how a Mass that has little connection to tradition wasn’t created out of nothing?

He furthers adds,“The Mass is the Mass, the form is a matter of discipline which can and does change. If changing the Mass was untraditional then the EF would also be such as it was mandated for the whole of the Latin Church at the Council of Trent because each diocese had its own missal. Some of them were similar some where not. Also since Trent the EF has undergone many modifications. The EF of the 1962 missal which is what is used today is not the same as what was done at the time of Trent.”

So what does everyone else think of this?

-Karl

The form of the Mass is a discipline and can be changed. The only thing that cannot be changed are the words of consecration.

 

[ProVobis]

The only thing that cannot be changed are the words of consecration.

Not true. Inter alia, the “for all men” has been changed to “for all” to “for many.” And it’s still “for all” in the Spanish Mass. There are differences in the various translations. Not to mention ambiguities in the English.

 

[ProVobis]

The Tridentine Mass was very stable, but over the course of 400 years it did go through some large changes. Your friend is correct - it wa not static for 400 years.

Someone could still use the 1570 missal today to follow the 1962 Mass, so they couldn’t have been that large.

The Council of Trent basically standardized the Mass. The same Mass in the same Creed and in the same Canon and in the same language without the many available options was used throughout the Latin Rite until the 60’s. The actual Mass “created” by Vatican II ended up being just the transitional Mass (with many canons) before the OF was promulgated.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

His first point is debatable. I would say there is no real answer to that one.

This is a point of disagreement here. The sole test for many of “traditionalism” is a preference for a certain form of the Mass.

I believe that is a false traditionalism and really goes against what it truly means to be a traditionalist.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Someone could still use the 1570 missal today to follow the 1962 Mass, so they couldn’t have been that large.

The Council of Trent basically standardized the Mass. The same Mass in the same Creed and in the same Canon and in the same language without the many available options was used throughout the Latin Rite until the 60’s. The actual Mass “created” by Vatican II ended up being just the transitional Mass (with many canons) before the OF was promulgated.

Yet there were still many indults at that time that allowed this Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular.

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks! Has a lot of great information:

What happened to the missals with Latin at the side?

Good question. Vatican II said nothing about English being retained in the liturgy.

 

[Brooklyn]

Not true. Inter alia, the “for all men” has been changed to “for all” to “for many.” And it’s still “for all” in the Spanish Mass. There are differences in the various translations. Not to mention ambiguities in the English.

This may be splitting hairs, but the words of the Consecration were not changed to say “for many”, but corrected from “for all” to “for many.” The words have always been “for many.” A lot of people used this mistranslation to say that the OF was not valid. That excuse has now been taken away from them.

 

[Brooklyn]

This is a point of disagreement here. The sole test for many of “traditionalism” is a preference for a certain form of the Mass.

I believe that is a false traditionalism and really goes against what it truly means to be a traditionalist.

This might need a new thread, and it’s probably been covered ad nauseum, but what’s the difference between a “Catholic” and a “traditional Catholic.” What is “false traditionalism” and “true traditionalism?” Why do we use these labels to separate ourselves? The beauty of the Catholic Church is that it doesn’t change. We grow in our spiritual understanding, but the basics never change. If they did, it wouldn’t be the Catholic Church.

 

[Brooklyn]

Someone could still use the 1570 missal today to follow the 1962 Mass, so they couldn’t have been that large.

The Council of Trent basically standardized the Mass. The same Mass in the same Creed and in the same Canon and in the same language without the many available options was used throughout the Latin Rite until the 60’s. The actual Mass “created” by Vatican II ended up being just the transitional Mass (with many canons) before the OF was promulgated.

Vatican II did not create a Mass. They suggested certain reforms, and there was an interim Mass between V2 and 1969, when the Novus Ordo Mass was created . That interim Mass is now invalid and illicit.

 

[ProVobis]

This may be splitting hairs, but the words of the Consecration were not changed to say “for many”, but corrected from “for all” to “for many.” The words have always been “for many.” A lot of people used this mistranslation to say that the OF was not valid. That excuse has now been taken away from them.

Actually the “for all” wording was introduced in the English Masses before the OF was promulgated. But that wasn’t the only concern of the all-English canon. (See Omlor’s papers.)

 

[Brooklyn]

Actually the “for all” wording was introduced in the English Masses before the OF was promulgated. But that wasn’t the only concern of the all-English canon. (See Omlor’s papers.)

??? Can you show that to me?

 

[TimothyH]

“Large changes”? Just what do you mean by that? Can you give specific examples? Certainly none can compare to the corrections that were made to the OF last year.

One other thing. What you call the “Tridentine” Mass is not 400 years old, but more like 1500 years old. The Council of Trent codified what we now call the Extraordinary Form, but it has been in use for 1500 years, back to the time of St. Gregory in the 6th Century.

I’m not playing with you.

Seriously, I’m just not going to debate you on what constitues a small change and what constitues a large change, or argue the meaning of the word “stable.” I"m just not doing it.

I’ve actually been looking for a good history of the development of the liturgy and narrowed my choice to two books

The Eucharistic Liturgies: Their Evolution and Interpretation
Paul F. Bradshaw and Maxwell E. Johnson

I really want The Mass Of The Roman Rite : Its Origins and Development by Joseph A. Jungmann, but the cost is out of my reach right now.

I had forgotten my decision to do this and that I had resolved not to discuss historical changes in the liturgy until I do. So I’ll leave you, all of you, to think whatever you want to think, read whatever documents you want to read, make your own assumptions and arguments, and will sideline myself until such time as I can actually made an objective study of the topic.

-Tim-