The Latin Mass and Vatican 2?

[peregrinator_it]

On the subject of ecumenism:
(My emphasis added.)

TradCat82:

The Decree on Ecumenism itself contains hints of this: “The manner and order in which Catholic belief is expressed should in no way become an obstacle to dialogue with our seperated bretheren…” What this statement, and the paragraph that follow, fails recognise is that no matter how much Catholic doctrine might be changed (!) or differently presented there will ALWAYS be those who are not appeased.

How so?

Whether or not specific non-believers will ever be converted is neither here nor there to the statement (I’m paraphrasing) “We should not explain our Catholic beliefs in a way which antagonizes non-believers to the point that they no longer even want to speak with us.”

Also, this document emphasizes (immediately following the statement in the original quote) that Catholic doctrine must not be changed. (This is impossible, anyway, according to the previous Councils of Trent and Vatican I.)

The very next sentence of the document reads:

“It is, of course, *essential that the doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety *.” (My emphasis added.)
TradCath82:

So where do we draw the line?

The next sentence after the one above reads:

“Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism [attempt to create harmony between the doctrines of various religions] which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine and certain meaning.”

We draw the line at anything that adds or takes away anything from Catholic doctrine or that makes the meaning of Catholic doctrine unclear.

 

[TradCat82]

peregrinator_it:

When one loves God and acknowledges Him as Creator of all things, one desires to do something to show one’s love and awe of God. This is not done out of self-centeredness but out of a desire to show one’s love in some way, to give to God some sign that one loves and reverences Him. One of the ways one can do this is to speak, publicly and aloud, prayers of worship and praise to Him at Mass.

But one does have to do something in order to worship God- that is a Catholic notion of worship.

And I agree wholeheartedly. Authentic Catholic worship demands that the worshipper ivolve his whole self; worship being both spiritual and physical. I mentioned the “experiential” notion of religion because I take issue with those who would say that only if you get to read a lesson, hold hands at the Pater Noster, make audible responses or join in songs do you really, fully participate in worship. (And, yes, I know that’s not what you meant. I’m just clarifying my own point.)

There seems to be in most Novus Ordo liturgies (at least the ones I’ve attended) not so much a “watering down” but rather a “dumbing down” of Catholic belief and practise. Instead of elevating the mind and indeed all the senses to Heaven we seek to bring Heaven down to our level. The sense of mystery, of the profound is gone, profane (by this I mean the opposite of sacred) music has replaced chant and traditional hymnody, poetic Latin has been replaced with pedestrian English, jeans and short skirts rather than suits and dresses are the norm, and the homily (in my experience) is rarely ever touches uncomfortable Church teaching. It’s awfully hard not to see these things as unfortunate yet inevitable fruits of V2.

Even though the rubrics governing the Tridentine mass may be firmly “locked down” I find myself much more able to unite my thoughts, actions and offerings with those of those of the celbrant and my fellow worshippers. To me all the things done in an attempt to make the mass “more accessible” actually make it much more distracting. Some Catholics actually want to be challenged. We want to be challenged in our daily prayer, by our confessors and when we come together to offer the Holy Sacrifice before God. Again, in my experience, the Novus Ordo simply does not make any demands of me as Christian. This is what I meant by the earlier post. Forgive me if it was poorly formed and inarticulate.

 

[TradCat82]

NetNuncio:

Although I am not sure, I believe the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is still required to obtain an indult from any diocese in which they celebrate the Tridentine Mass. I’m also not sure that it is their blanket belief that no indult should be necessary.

The FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter) do not need an indult to say the traditional mass. The do, however, need the consent of the local ordinary before establishin an apostolate in any given place. The FSSP was canonically erected and its constitutions ratified by the late John Paul II. In those constitutions they are guaranteed the right to say exclusively the Tridentine mass.

I did not mean to imply that most Trads do not think an indult is necessary for the Tridentine mass. I was simply referring to the fact that a number of theologians (distinct from the FSSP) hold that the Tridentine rite was never suppressed and, as such, disagree that an indult is necessary.

 

[TOME]

I was asked what I meant by “Evangelization”, for me Evangelization is at its most basic bringing the Gospel Message to the world. We do this through many ways amoung which are the actual proclamation of the Gospel. We also do this by what I believe is the most effective way namely we live the Gospel message by our Faith Response in our everyday living. We also proclaim the Gospel by the way we worship which brings me back to this thread. In other responses I’ve seen refrences to the Vatican Council II’s documents on Ecumenism however I still have not seen any real discussion on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church nor the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World nor the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity and how these documents were the foundations for the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy and the liturgical reforms we lead to the Novus Ordo. Someone said the Novus Ordo gave us a “Dumbing Down” of Catholic beliefs and practices. I must disagree. An underlying principle from Vatican II was that we the Baptized faithful are call to take on greater personal responsibility for the life and mission of the Church. A constant thread through out the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy is we should take on a conscious active participation. Conscious means being self aware. Therefore, it implies that each person should actively study and understand what the liturgy is and why the changes. Also, with the stress on each individual’s personal responsibility, I see little or no room for criticism of the abuses of the Novus Ordo, by a person who has not used the means the Church gives us to identify and attempt to have corrected any abuse one experiences. In another response, a quote was given from Pius XII which I think is applicable in this thread, namely we should not hold on to a practice simply because of its antiquity. It is my opinion that this could apply to the Tridetine Rite after one gives a serious study of Vatican II documents named above and the reasons for liturgical reform, but again that study is ones personal responsibility.

 

[Iohannes]

JKirkLVNV:

I’ve seen this before. Two things:

1. The Offertory of the TLM is much, much, much more beautiful. If it were in English and English speakers were able to understand it, I bet there would be near unanimous assent on that point. Problem is, they don’t hear it in English. As for the Canon of the Mass, they don’t hear that at all from after the Sanctus, as was discussed above.
2. I was told, by priests, that the Offeratory in the Mass of Paul VI is, in fact, comprised of the traditional Jewish prayers over bread and wine. The rationale continues that this is what Jesus would have said over the bread and wine at the Last Supper (obviously before he went on to the Words of Consecration). I don’t know how they would prove this, but it seems more reasonable than thinking that He said the Offeratory from the TLM. However, I’ll go on record right NOW as saying that in a comparison of the TLM and the Mass of Paul VI, the TLM is more beautiful in it’s language and expression, IN MY OPINION, and I will wholeheartedly support It becoming the normative Mass of the Church again, provided: A) It’s translated and celebrated in English (we can use the translation you linked us to!), B) the rubrics forbid a silent offering (the priest has to be clear and audible), and C) the congregation make the responses as opposed to just the servers, always.

Why must the parts of the Mass be audiable if it is not for us. Ultimately, the Mass is for God. The Offertory is really not for us but for God, so it does not need to be loud.

If all they wanted was the Mass to be more audiable and understandable in the vernacular, why did not they not just do that? Why was there a need for a new Mass?

Also note the Eastern Orthodox reaction to the Novus Ordo, they were shocked that we did this to our liturgies.

MD: Oh yes definitely. The Polish hierarchy put the pressure on. But anyway Kasper went on this ecumenical mission to Athens, attended the Greek Orthodox liturgy in the morning and in the afternoon he was having lunch. Then the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Athens, who is a good friend of Count Capponi and Una Voce, asked his Eminence how he had enjoyed the liturgy in the morning. “Oh wonderful, wonderful,” said the Cardinal, “I thought I was in heaven.” Then the Archbishop said that he thought perhaps that they should make some changes to the Greek liturgy because, perhaps for modern people today, some of it is too mystifying. Kasper said, “No that would be a mortal sin. You mustn’t change a thing. Keep it exactly as it is.” And the Archbishop said, **“Then why did you destroy your liturgy which was the equivalent of ours?” **

christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_dec04.html

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

Why must the parts of the Mass be audiable if it is not for us. Ultimately, the Mass is for God. The Offertory is really not for us but for God, so it does not need to be loud. I find this argument obscure. It’s isn’t for God ALONE, it’s for us as well, inasmuch as it is an extension and RE-presesntation of the One Sacrifice continuing into time and history. It’s propitiatory for OUR sins, isn’t it? I think we get a good sense of it if we hear it. Why shouldn’t we hear it? Why be present at all, following your argument, why not just know that the priest is doing it for God

If all they wanted was the Mass to be more audiable and understandable in the vernacular, why did not they not just do that? Why was there a need for a new Mass? Haven’t a clue, I wasn’t and am not a Council Father. I don’t buy this stuff about the protestantization of the Mass, however, or the Bugnini conspiratists or the Ottavanni interventionists, either. I think they wanted greater simplicity. I think perhaps they said,“Simplicity,” and lots of Western bishops and priests heard, “Anything goes,” or “hey, it’s all about love” (which it is, but not the “love” they meant).

Also note the Eastern Orthodox reaction to the Novus Ordo, they were shocked that we did this to our liturgies.

christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_dec04.html

The word “destroy” is hardly applicable and is one Archbishop’s opinion, who is, at least technically, a schimatic, a material one anyway. Of course, I’ve heard of another Archbishop (also a schismatic, but a formal one in this instance, indeed, an excommunicate) who also felt that the Church had “destroyed” the liturgy. I’m accustomed to hearing some TLM devotees quoting HIM, but when did you all start quoting the Orthodox?

 

[TradCat82]

TOME:

Someone said the Novus Ordo gave us a “Dumbing Down” of Catholic beliefs and practices. I must disagree. An underlying principle from Vatican II was that we the Baptized faithful are call to take on greater personal responsibility for the life and mission of the Church. A constant thread through out the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy is we should take on a conscious active participation. Conscious means being self aware. Therefore, it implies that each person should actively study and understand what the liturgy is and why the changes.

Exactly! But how does that make needful changes in the liturgy? What I get from the CSL is not so much the desire to re-work the entire mass but a desire to inspire and encourage the laity to more fully, more actively unite themselves to the offering of the mass. The Tridentine mass allows, rather, demands such thoughtful and engaged participation.

And as for the desire for greater simplicity: the 1962 missal initiated a number of reforms and simplifications demonstrating that it was possible to “streamline” the mass without totally dismantling it.

 

[pnewton]

Iohannes:

Why must the parts of the Mass be audiable if it is not for us. Ultimately, the Mass is for God.

Where do you get this idea? Calvary, which is being represented was for us.

If you mean that the Mass is for God because everything should be for God, in that sense you have said nothing, because the parts could be audible so that we all can understand and give God glory, which would be ultimately for him.

The prayer we offer, we offer for ourselves, and others that may not be present. We exchange a peace with each other. Perhaps one of the positive aspects of the last 50 years is an understanding of the horizontal nature of the Mass. This has always been a part of the Mass and does not in amy way diminish the worship given to God.

 

[bear06]

If all they wanted was the Mass to be more audiable and understandable in the vernacular, why did not they not just do that? Why was there a need for a new Mass?

Why was the mass ever changed to anymore than it was at the Last Supper? An the answer goes something like this “because the Church in her infinite wisdom says so!”

I think most of us will agree that the Mass, in most place, is yet to be said as VII prescribed. Hopefully the Holy Father, who’s very dedicated to this cause, will rectify this situation as soon as he is able.

Why some cannot see that these same arguments have been used against the Church forever is beyond me. Find me a council where somebody didn’t say the Church was blowing it. It would seem that some just like what they like and have a little trouble with submission. It’s soooooooooooooo easy. Read Pastor Aeternus and be at peace.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

bear06:

Why was the mass ever changed to anymore than it was at the Last Supper? An the answer goes something like this “because the Church in her infinite wisdom says so!”

I think most of us will agree that the Mass, in most place, is yet to be said as VII prescribed. Hopefully the Holy Father, who’s very dedicated to this cause, will rectify this situation as soon as he is able.

Why some cannot see that these same arguments have been used against the Church forever is beyond me. Find me a council where somebody didn’t say the Church was blowing it. It would seem that some just like what they like and have a little trouble with submission. It’s soooooooooooooo easy. Read Pastor Aeternus and be at peace.

Very wise.

 

[Iohannes]

pnewton:

Where do you get this idea? Calvary, which is being represented was for us.

If you mean that the Mass is for God because everything should be for God, in that sense you have said nothing, because the parts could be audible so that we all can understand and give God glory, which would be ultimately for him.

The prayer we offer, we offer for ourselves, and others that may not be present. We exchange a peace with each other. Perhaps one of the positive aspects of the last 50 years is an understanding of the horizontal nature of the Mass. This has always been a part of the Mass and does not in amy way diminish the worship given to God.

Actually, you are wrong, the Mass is for God.

Calvary is **Re-presented ** to us not represented to us. Very big difference here. When the Bread and Wine is consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ is later offered to God the Father. In effect, God the Son is offered to God the Father. Isn’t that what crucifixion at calvary was suppose to be, the Lamb that is sacrificed for our sins for All ages of ages?

The parts that do not partain to us we do not need to hear or say, only the priest as an alter-Christus when spoken softely is enough.

If Mass is a **re-presentation ** not representation of Calvary then, the Mass is a **Sacrifice ** offered to God. The most important and main offerering is God the Son to God the Father.

Read the Offertory and the Literal Translation of the Roman Canon of the Tridentine Latin Mass again:
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

 

[Iohannes]

Here is a Text of a literal Translation of the beginning of the Roman Canon, very rarely heard these days:

Therefore, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive and to bless these (+) gifts, these (+) presents, these (+) holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world: as also for Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith.

Why do priests use Eucharistic Prayer II instead of the Roman Canon(EPI)? Are they afraid that the Mass would be 4 minutes longer?

 

[Iohannes]

If the 1965 Missal did what Vatican II said, why did they have to bring us the Novus Ordo Missae.

coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Dear J.W.B.

Truth to tell, I just don’t have tme to read all these posts, but I have read enough of them to know that some good suggestions have been made.

Posting is fun, and engaging in these conversations may be stimulating, etc., but if you really want to know about all this, you must read.

Several fine suggestions for materials have been made, and I think that you should read them ALL. First and foremost, get all of Cardinal Ratzinger’s work. He has written so much on the liturgy and in ordinary language, easily understood. After all, from whom would you get better guidance?

Then get everything you can about the VII. Read ABOUT the documents as you read the documents themselves (and vice versa). Specifically read the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), but read the others, too, to get a general drift of what was afoot in the Council and in the years following.

The history of the Council and the execution of its decrees during the past forty years would make an epic “who done it,” if ever it were dramatized – which will never occur, of course!

If you follow these suggestions, you will not only get a broad understanding of the creation of the Novus Ordo, but an appreciation of much that came out of VII, as well as info re the abuses. Moreover, you will be able to discuss things with your mother-in-law. My, as a mother-in-law several times over, how I would love that!

God bless,

Anna

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

Actually, you are wrong, the Mass is for God.

Calvary is **Re-presented ** to us not represented to us. Very big difference here. When the Bread and Wine is consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ is later offered to God the Father. In effect, God the Son is offered to God the Father. Isn’t that what crucifixion at calvary was suppose to be, the Lamb that is sacrificed for our sins for All ages of ages?

The parts that do not partain to us we do not need to hear or say, only the priest as an alter-Christus when spoken softely is enough.

If Mass is a **re-presentation ** not representation of Calvary then, the Mass is a **Sacrifice ** offered to God. The most important and main offerering is God the Son to God the Father.

Read the Offertory and the Literal Translation of the Roman Canon of the Tridentine Latin Mass again:
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

Wow! I missed the part in the Last Supper where he said “Do this in memory of me in an inaudible voice”. While I don’t have a problem with the Tridentine nor think it’s wrong for them to say the Consecration inaudibly I find your arguments to not hold water. Where, oh where, does it say in Church teachings that the laity must not hear the words of the Consecration because it’s an offering to God. If you want to use the Christ’s offering on Calvary as your example then you must realize that there were many there to hear His words and to see His sacrifice.

I’m assuming that most think the Mass was perfect as Christ instituted it. Once again, why any change ever? And once again the answer is because the Church in her infinite wisdom says so!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

Actually, you are wrong, the Mass is for God.

*Calvary is **Re-presented ***to us not represented to us. Very big difference here. When the Bread and Wine is consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ is later offered to God the Father. In effect, God the Son is offered to God the Father. Isn’t that what crucifixion at calvary was suppose to be, the Lamb that is sacrificed for our sins for All ages of ages?

The parts that do not partain to us we do not need to hear or say, only the priest as an alter-Christus when spoken softely is enough.

If Mass is a **re-presentation **not representation of Calvary then, the Mass is a **Sacrifice **offered to God. The most important and main offerering is God the Son to God the Father.

Read the Offertory and the Literal Translation of the Roman Canon of the Tridentine Latin Mass again:
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

You’re splitting hairs. No one’s disagreed with your first paragraph, as it’s classic Eucharistic theology. I had already stated that it was a RE-representation. A sacrifice is offered for praise, or for thanksgiving, or for propitiation, for forgiveness of sins, for a SINNER. It’s for US as well as for HIM. It’s what maintains the
communion between us, the main thing that establishes a covenant between God and us. If we weren’t here, then HE wouldn’t need it, because Christ need not have died. HE doesn’t, by definition of Who He Is, NEED anything. And the whole of it pertains to us, because we’re the sinners for whom the propitiation, the Sacrifice, is being made. No one’s saying we should join *in *what the priest is saying, but why shouldn’t we be able to hear it?

If you’re disturbed by the over-emphasis on the horizontal aspect, the hand-holding, the pro-longed glad-handing that passes for a sign of peace, the music which basically asserts “you don’t have to change, you’ve already been recieved,” the “I’m okay, you’re okay” homilies, then I doubt many on this thread or any other in this forum would disagree with you. The Mass does, however, have both a vertical and a horizontal aspect. You’ve asked several times why the council allowed the changes: perhaps they felt like the latter was insufficiently emphasized. Can it be over-emphasized? Certainly.

I don’t need to read it again, I’ve a copy of it by my bed. As I said, I would LOVE for it to be the normative Mass again, provided it were in the vernacular, it was audible, and we can make our own responses, as opposed to having some little fourth grader do it on our behalf. Why not have it audibly spoken?

 

[pnewton]

Iohannes:

Actually, you are wrong, the Mass is for God.

Calvary is **Re-presented **to us not represented to us.
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

I know the Mass is for God. I was questioning where you get the idea that the Mass is primarily for God? Pointing our a respelling of a word is not an answer. If I had spoken the word, then the the spelling would have been irrelavant. Is it the hyphen or bold text you think makes a big difference?

In any case, how does making the part that is addressed specifically to God inaudible make it more “for God?”

 

[bear06]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t need to read it again, I’ve a copy of it by my bed. As I said, I would LOVE for it to be the normative Mass again, provided it were in the vernacular, it was audible, and we can make our own responses, as opposed to having some little fourth grader do it on our behalf. Why not have it audibly spoken?

And somehow I’m thinking that you’d accept it lovingly even if it weren’t in the vernacular, audible, etc. Well, at least I would!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

bear06:

And somehow I’m thinking that you’d accept it lovingly even if it weren’t in the vernacular, audible, etc. Well, at least I would!

I hope I would. I try very hard to remember that my emphasis is not always the Church’s emphasis and She has to speak for all the ages, not just my messed-up little time. Yes, I’d obey the Church.

 

[HagiaSophia]

JKirkLVNV:

As I said, I would LOVE for it to be the normative Mass again, provided it were in the vernacular, it was audible, and we can make our own responses, as opposed to having some little fourth grader do it on our behalf. Why not have it audibly spoken?

From the GIRM

"12. The nature of the presidential prayers demands that they be
spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone present listen with attention.[21] While the priest is reciting them there should be no other prayer and the organ or other instruments should not be played.

1. But the priest does not only pray in the name of the whole
   community as its president; he also prays at times in his own name that he may exercise his ministry with attention and devotion. Such prayers are said inaudibly.

VOCAL EXPRESSION OF THE DIFFERENT TEXTS

1. In texts that are to be delivered in a clear, loud voice, whether by the priest or by the ministers or by all, the tone of voice should correspond to the genre of the text, that is, accordingly as it is a reading, a prayer, an instruction, an acclamation, or a song; the tone should also be suited to the form of celebration and to the solemnity of the gathering. Other criteria are the idiom of different languages and the genius of peoples.

In the rubrics and in the norms that follow, the words
() or () are to be understood of both singing and speaking, and in accordance with the principles just stated.

SILENCE

1. Silence should be observed at the designated times as part of the celebration.[30] Its function depends on the time it occurs in each part of the celebration. Thus at the penitential rite and again after the invitation to pray, all recollect themselves; at the conclusion of a reading or the homily, all meditate briefly on what has been heard; after communion, all praise God in silent prayer.

christusrex.org/www1/mcitl/girmch2.html