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

[ProVobis]

??? Can you show that to me?

I hope this is a reputable website. If not, I’ll look for a better one.

Please note that the validity of the Latin OF is not at issue here.

adoremus.org/0796TranslationICEL.html

And FWIW, one further note on the validity of the “for all” consecration. The Pope recently said the Latin EP in his Mass in Mexico but did use the Spanish EP in his Mass in Cuba. The Spanish EP has retained its “for all” consecration, so it doesn’t appear the Pope feels this invalidates the Mass.

 

[Brooklyn]

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-

Fair enough!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

My main point is that you can not link identification of “traditional” with the preference of one form of the Eucharistic sacrifice. To do so excludes all other forms.

But I do agree with the label thing. It is not needed and divisive.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I hope this is a reputable website. If not, I’ll look for a better one.

Please note that the validity of the Latin OF is not at issue here.

adoremus.org/0796TranslationICEL.html

And FWIW, one further note on the validity of the “for all” consecration. The Pope recently said the Latin EP in his Mass in Mexico but did use the Spanish EP in his Mass in Cuba. The Spanish EP has retained its “for all” consecration, so it doesn’t appear the Pope feels this invalidates the Mass.

And he also very recently sent a nice little letter to the German Bishops’ Conference commanding them to use “fur viele” instead of “fur alle!” Our Bavarian Papa knows his German!

 

[ProVobis]

And he also very recently sent a nice little letter to the German Bishops’ Conference commanding them to use “fur viele” instead of “fur alle!” Our Bavarian Papa knows his German!

If only it were that easy to synchronize 500 vernaculars. And that’s just one word of the consecration and the liturgy. Should have stuck to the Latin. One might have not understood it but at least it’s exactly the same for everyone.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

While I know that VII did not “create” the OF, the council did realize that reforms were needed, hence I offer this as a reference to people who are interested in this topic.
I know it was very enlightening for me.

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.

 

[ProVobis]

While I know that VII did not “create” the OF, the council did realize that reforms were needed, hence I offer this as a reference to people who are interested in this topic.
I know it was very enlightening for me.

Reforms had already been implemented in 1955 with the revision to Holy Week and the Canon itself was changed in 1962. No doubt with the rehiring of MB by Paul VI further reforms were planned, with or without a council.

 

[Brooklyn]

If only it were that easy to synchronize 500 vernaculars. And that’s just one word of the consecration and the liturgy. Should have stuck to the Latin. One might have not understood it but at least it’s exactly the same for everyone.

I can only say Amen to that!

 

[couponfit]

As a whole, I agree with your friend. To me the point is that if you are searching for a pristine traditional catholic mass you are probably going to be disappointed. Long before we debated kneeling in OF, Bendictines and most of the Eastern church preferrred to stand during mass. Long before there was Latin, churches spoke in the native language-- Pentecost itself is a celebration of spreading the word of God through vernacular languge (and if you look it up, you’ll find that the Pentecost was a Jewish celebration of Gods word which was done at that time in Hebrew). Christ changed the language. If he did not we would either be speaking Hebew or Aramaic. And yes, there is a Hebew and an aramaic mass, there’s even an indian jewish hybrid catholic church, which most “tradiationalists” would argue against.

Further, these are expressions. The exact placement of the tabernacle, the exact prayers recited in much of the mass, even the words of consecration have from time to time changed, and not all catholic churches use the exact words of consecration since the beginning until now. Typically reasons for change in mass were secular based and techonology based but the underlining faith and love of christ is not changing. Some were based on practicality too. Some were designed to emphasize a point, or create a visual. How we express our faith does change.

Even, some changes are based on complaints from the laity. For example, at one time, the priest held the body and blood up only to his face, but the packed large ceremonial churches of Europe cried out for the priest to hold it higher. There was no theology behind that change, yet some “traditional” catholics criticize catholic priests who, especially in small churches, hold it to their head height.

A great example is FSSP, which is not as traditional as SSPX, which is not as traditional SSPV, which is not as traditional as IMBC, which in turn is not as traditional as say the the mendicant orders, which are not as traditional as say the Basilians, which in turn is not as traditional as say the Assyrian’s, which in turn is not a traditional as Judaism. Each group on that list would argue that the other more traditional approaches are wrong. For example FSSP priests argue incessantly how SSPX is wrong, and SSPX argues against SSPV, and so forth the list digresses.

The best thing is to get away from is the “My church is more traditional”, or “my mass is more sacred”, or “my congregation is more reverent” trap. To this point, your friend is trying to make a valid point–that the cartholic church is the universal church of Christ.

 

[TrueLight]

As a whole, I agree with your friend. To me the point is that if you are searching for a pristine traditional catholic mass you are probably going to be disappointed. Long before we debated kneeling in OF, Bendictines and most of the Eastern church preferrred to stand during mass. Long before there was Latin, churches spoke in the native language-- Pentecost itself is a celebration of spreading the word of God through vernacular languge (and if you look it up, you’ll find that the Pentecost was a Jewish celebration of Gods word which was done at that time in Hebrew). Christ changed the language. If he did not we would either be speaking Hebew or Aramaic. And yes, there is a Hebew and an aramaic mass, there’s even an indian jewish hybrid catholic church, which most “tradiationalists” would argue against.

Further, these are expressions. The exact placement of the tabernacle, the exact prayers recited in much of the mass, even the words of consecration have from time to time changed, and not all catholic churches use the exact words of consecration since the beginning until now. Typically reasons for change in mass were secular based and techonology based but the underlining faith and love of christ is not changing. Some were based on practicality too. Some were designed to emphasize a point, or create a visual. How we express our faith does change.

Even, some changes are based on complaints from the laity. For example, at one time, the priest held the body and blood up only to his face, but the packed large ceremonial churches of Europe cried out for the priest to hold it higher. There was no theology behind that change, yet some “traditional” catholics criticize catholic priests who, especially in small churches, hold it to their head height.

A great example is FSSP, which is not as traditional as SSPX, which is not as traditional SSPV, which is not as traditional as IMBC, which in turn is not as traditional as say the the mendicant orders, which are not as traditional as say the Basilians, which in turn is not as traditional as say the Assyrian’s, which in turn is not a traditional as Judaism. Each group on that list would argue that the other more traditional approaches are wrong. For example FSSP priests argue incessantly how SSPX is wrong, and SSPX argues against SSPV, and so forth the list digresses.

The best thing is to get away from is the “My church is more traditional”, or “my mass is more sacred”, or “my congregation is more reverent” trap. To this point, your friend is trying to make a valid point–that the cartholic church is the universal church of Christ.

Good post.

 

[Melchior_1]

good post.

great post!!

 

[YoungTradCath]

I have searched far and wide for a way to express how I view this whole debacle. Finally, yesterday I found a succinct little nugget from an interview with a certain Fr. Thomas Kocik that generally expresses the way I feel:

As the pope explains in his letter to the bishops, it is not a matter of old rite versus new rite, but of “a twofold use of one and the same rite.” Traditionalists may object–correctly, I daresay–that the Missal of 1970 cannot be put on a par with the relatively modest revisions of the Roman Missal made by Bl. John XXIII and earlier popes. On this basis, I think we can safely assert, without fear of contradicting the pope, that the 1962 Missal is the last Roman Missal representing a particular stream of tradition within the family of the Roman liturgy.

This is exactly how I view it. The Pauline Missal represents–the Missal itself and the manner in which it is usually celebrated–a break with that “stream of tradition within the family of the Roman liturgy,” implicitly or explicitly, symbolically or actually, take your pick. Whether or not ancient practices were restored, these things do in fact represent a break with tradition, because tradition is a thing that must develop naturally. And I believe I am fully within my intellectual rights to say this without contradicting or “going against” the Pope, or being a “rad trad,” or being a “sedevacantist schismatic” or whatever.

It’s like a line of letters, representing practices, following a certain pattern:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP <<This represents unbroken tradition, at least as a whole. Changes happen, but they are modest. P is VERY much different than A, but they can be said to be in full harmony with each other because the “stream of tradition” is unbroken and is natural.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPEFGH <<This represents broken tradition, at least as a whole, even if “EFGH” has already been done before. It breaks the flow because it puts us “back” to where we once were, ignoring later developments. H is only in harmony with A inasmuch as the first occurrence of it is. The second is not and cannot be.

Tradition isn’t like saying, “Oh, we’ve done that before so we can do it again.” Tradition is an uninterrupted stream of practice. That is not to say that ancient things cannot be restored sometimes, or that new things cannot be introduced. In fact, I think tradition begs for continual development, for that is what tradition is. It is natural development in harmony with the stream of the practices of the past. The key phrase there being “natural development.”

It is not traditional to restore 15 things to the Mass, things that we did in the year 600. Not because they aren’t ancient (they are), not because the practices themselves aren’t traditional (they can certainly be said to be), but because their restoration is unnatural and jarring to the stream of development of tradition. And again, I believe I can comfortably say all this without offending the supreme Papal dignity of the decisions of Paul VI and subsequent Popes and without condemning my immortal soul.

• Interview link here: ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/tkocik_intervw_july07.asp

 

[TimothyH]

I have searched far and wide for a way to express how I view this whole debacle. Finally, yesterday I found a succinct little nugget from an interview with a certain Fr. Thomas Kocik that generally expresses the way I feel:
This is exactly how I view it. The Pauline Missal represents–the Missal itself and the manner in which it is usually celebrated–a break with that “stream of tradition within the family of the Roman liturgy,” implicitly or explicitly, symbolically or actually, take your pick. Whether or not ancient practices were restored, these things do in fact represent a break with tradition, because tradition is a thing that must develop naturally. And I believe I am fully within my intellectual rights to say this without contradicting or “going against” the Pope, or being a “rad trad,” or being a “sedevacantist schismatic” or whatever.

It’s like a line of letters, representing practices, following a certain pattern:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP <<This represents unbroken tradition, at least as a whole. Changes happen, but they are modest. P is VERY much different than A, but they can be said to be in full harmony with each other because the “stream of tradition” is unbroken and is natural.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPEFGH <<This represents broken tradition, at least as a whole, even if “EFGH” has already been done before. It breaks the flow because it puts us “back” to where we once were, ignoring later developments. H is only in harmony with A inasmuch as the first occurrence of it is. The second is not and cannot be.

Tradition isn’t like saying, “Oh, we’ve done that before so we can do it again.” Tradition is an uninterrupted stream of practice. That is not to say that ancient things cannot be restored sometimes, or that new things cannot be introduced. In fact, I think tradition begs for continual development, for that is what tradition is. It is natural development in harmony with the stream of the practices of the past. The key phrase there being “natural development.”

It is not traditional to restore 15 things to the Mass, things that we did in the year 600. Not because they aren’t ancient (they are), not because the practices themselves aren’t traditional (they can certainly be said to be), but because their restoration is unnatural and jarring to the stream of development of tradition. And again, I believe I can comfortably say all this without offending the supreme Papal dignity of the decisions of Paul VI and subsequent Popes and without condemning my immortal soul.

• Interview link here: ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/tkocik_intervw_july07.asp

Every time we see slow changes to the Mass, it is denounced as unnatural modernistic incrimentalism which goes against the stream of development of tradition.

Every time we see rapid and even disruptive change, it is denounced as jarring and unnatural, that it goes agaist the stream of development of tradition.

I wish you guys would make up your mind.

-Tim-

 

[YoungTradCath]

Every time we see slow changes to the Mass, it is denounced as unnatural modernistic incrimentalism which goes against the stream of development of tradition.

Every time we see rapid and even disruptive change, it is denounced as jarring and unnatural, that it goes agaist the stream of development of tradition.

I wish you guys would make up your mind.

-Tim-

I’ve never heard of slow changes to the Mass denounced as unnatural modernistic incrementalism by anyone. That’s a bit contradictory, no? I’ve never heard a trad or non-trad suggest such a thing. Nor have I endorsed that idea.

 

[Lujack]

If only it were that easy to synchronize 500 vernaculars. And that’s just one word of the consecration and the liturgy. Should have stuck to the Latin. One might have not understood it but at least it’s exactly the same for everyone.

A few points in opposition to that-

1. there were indults over the years for vernacular Masses,
2. the various rites performed in other tongues than Latin
3. Didn’t the Latin-English/Spanish/Greek translation missalettes need a nihil obstat anyway? So somebody was trying to synchronize them anyway.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As a whole, I agree with your friend. To me the point is that if you are searching for a pristine traditional catholic mass you are probably going to be disappointed. Long before we debated kneeling in OF, Bendictines and most of the Eastern church preferrred to stand during mass. Long before there was Latin, churches spoke in the native language-- Pentecost itself is a celebration of spreading the word of God through vernacular languge (and if you look it up, you’ll find that the Pentecost was a Jewish celebration of Gods word which was done at that time in Hebrew). Christ changed the language. If he did not we would either be speaking Hebew or Aramaic. And yes, there is a Hebew and an aramaic mass, there’s even an indian jewish hybrid catholic church, which most “tradiationalists” would argue against.

Further, these are expressions. The exact placement of the tabernacle, the exact prayers recited in much of the mass, even the words of consecration have from time to time changed, and not all catholic churches use the exact words of consecration since the beginning until now. Typically reasons for change in mass were secular based and techonology based but the underlining faith and love of christ is not changing. Some were based on practicality too. Some were designed to emphasize a point, or create a visual. How we express our faith does change.

Even, some changes are based on complaints from the laity. For example, at one time, the priest held the body and blood up only to his face, but the packed large ceremonial churches of Europe cried out for the priest to hold it higher. There was no theology behind that change, yet some “traditional” catholics criticize catholic priests who, especially in small churches, hold it to their head height.

A great example is FSSP, which is not as traditional as SSPX, which is not as traditional SSPV, which is not as traditional as IMBC, which in turn is not as traditional as say the the mendicant orders, which are not as traditional as say the Basilians, which in turn is not as traditional as say the Assyrian’s, which in turn is not a traditional as Judaism. Each group on that list would argue that the other more traditional approaches are wrong. For example FSSP priests argue incessantly how SSPX is wrong, and SSPX argues against SSPV, and so forth the list digresses.

The best thing is to get away from is the “My church is more traditional”, or “my mass is more sacred”, or “my congregation is more reverent” trap. To this point, your friend is trying to make a valid point–that the cartholic church is the universal church of Christ.

:clapping::tiphat:

 

[ProVobis]

1. there were indults over the years for vernacular Masses,
2. the various rites performed in other tongues than Latin

True, even after Trent. But didn’t some of the Eastern Rites use some ancient language too?

1. Didn’t the Latin-English/Spanish/Greek translation missalettes need a nihil obstat anyway? So somebody was trying to synchronize them anyway.

Just like all the English bibles?

 

[edwest2]

The Mass is not and was never about politics. And please get rid of the labels, they mean nothing. I was there before and after Vatican II and did not become a different Catholic after.

And the next time “someone” tells someone anything about the Mass or Vatican II, politely ask where he or she got their information.

There was the St. Joseph Daily Missal which had the Latin and English together on the same page.

"In his outstanding book, “Spirit of the Liturgy,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the ancient and venerable practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice ad orientem, in which both priest and people face east:

“It has been the practice in the entire Church, East and West from time immemorial. Contrary to a prevailing misconception, there is no evidence for celebration of Mass versus populum in the first nineteen centuries of the Church’s history, with rare exceptions.”

“Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[TimothyH]

I’ve never heard of slow changes to the Mass denounced as unnatural modernistic incrementalism by anyone. That’s a bit contradictory, no? I’ve never heard a trad or non-trad suggest such a thing. Nor have I endorsed that idea.

If the priest does one thing which isn’t explicitly stated in the rubrics it is immediately denounced as an incremental adoption of protestantism or everyone flies to CAF to denounce it as a liturgical abuse and write letters to the bishop.

Or if a mother somewhere in Missiouri decides to hold hands with her son, it is an unnatural perversion of the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

Or if someone in April of 1467 prayed with their palms facing up, or some convert from Fundamentalism in 1953 looked to the sky when they prayed instead of closing their eyes, it is modernistic incremantalism.

Four bell chimes instead of a single bell. Liquid parafin candles instead of wax candles. Praying with palms facing each other instead of hand’s clasped. The shape of the processional cross. Whether a church has statues or not. Tabernacles in the center vs off to the side…

I really think that some people won’t be happy until their preferred form of the Mass and every piece of church architecture, art and music becomes dogma and we all become the spiritual robots non-Catholics accuse us of being.

-Tim-

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I really think that some people won’t be happy until their preferred form of the Mass and every piece of church architecture, art and music becomes dogma and we all become the spiritual robots non-Catholics accuse us of being.

-Tim-

I’m sorry, but…

Tim, you’ve just made my night. You rock.