The Novus Ordo "without abuses".

[elzoro]

So, what you’re telling me is that what the Church has done to the Mass (creation of the N.O.) was not what VII ordered. And, these things were later approved by the Church and the Popes. So the Popes approved “abuses” and violated VII??

 

[stmaria]

So, what you’re telling me is that what the Church has done to the Mass (creation of the N.O.) was not what VII ordered. And, these things were later approved by the Church and the Popes. So the Popes approved “abuses” and violated VII??

Does what I posted say that the NO is invalid? No it does not. It shows how Pope Paul, who had the authority to do so, did not go with the Mass envisioned by the Fathers at the Council but instead with with a Mass envisioned by the commission to implement the Constitution. This commission was headed by
Cardinal Lecaro, Archibishop Felici, Annibale Bugnini, Bishop Dushak and a host of Progressive Theologians.
Father Bugnini is considered to be the one to be most responsible for the writing of the schema on the Liturgy which was completed before the Council even began.

 

[Sure]

According to the* Constitution on the Liturgy *of Vatican II the Novus Ordo was to remain in Latin with only the Epistle, Gospel and a few prayers said in the vernacular.

*Constitution on the Liturgy *# 36
(1) ** The use of the Latin language, with due respect to
particular law, is to be preserved **in the Latin rites. (2) But
since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the
liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a
wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives
and in some prayers and chants.

 (3)   These  norms  being  observed,  it  is  for  the  competent territorial  ecclesiastical  authority mentioned in Article 22:2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used.

1. A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and “the common prayer,” and also, as local conditions maywarrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution.
   Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

What you have posted here doesn’t say Latin should be used except for the readings and gospel. It says, especially for the readings and gospel. That means those parts are strongly encouraged in the vernacular. That is not to say that the rest of the Mass cannot be in the vernacular. As for the comment on Latin being retained…of course it is and should be. It remains the official language of the Church and all vernacular uses are translated from it.

What SC required that was not well followed was the ability for the people to sing in Latin the parts that pertain to them. This needs to be re-taught and used.

 

[stmaria]

What you have posted here doesn’t say Latin should be used except for the readings and gospel. It says, especially for the readings and gospel. That means those parts are strongly encouraged in the vernacular. That is not to say that the rest of the Mass cannot be in the vernacular. As for the comment on Latin being retained…of course it is and should be. It remains the official language of the Church and all vernacular uses are translated from it.

What SC required that was not well followed was the ability for the people to sing in Latin the parts that pertain to them. This needs to be re-taught and used.

Sorry but I have to disagree.The Council Fathers believed that only minor changes would be made to the Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sorry but I have to disagree.The Council Fathers believed that only minor changes would be made to the Mass.

But the vernacular Mass was initiated and expanded by permission of the Holy See. So if the Council said,“We want to retain Latin,” and the pope says,“But I’ll allow the expansion of the vernacular,” we haven’t “failed” to meet some conciliar standard, as popes don’t answer to councils.

 

[Sure]

Sorry but I have to disagree.The Council Fathers believed that only minor changes would be made to the Mass.

What do you disagree with? The council recommended Mass in the vernacular in the passage you cited. Along with preserving Latin as the language of the Church. The reforms (not the abuses) fit quite well with the documents of Vatican II.

 

[ncjohn]

Sorry but I have to disagree.The Council Fathers believed that only minor changes would be made to the Mass.

That’s not true at all. SC clearly said that it intended to “redraw” the texts, not make minor modifications. There is little question that a new liturgy was intended since the TLM could not be adapted to the kind of participation desired, nor do I think that the majority of people who post here would have wanted them to do so.

Can you perhaps produce some document ratified by the Council that would indicate that only minor changes would be made? SC certainly doesn’t say any such thing.

 

[Sure]

That’s not true at all. SC clearly said that it intended to “redraw” the texts, not make minor modifications. There is little question that a new liturgy was intended since the TLM could not be adapted to the kind of participation desired, nor do I think that the majority of people who post here would have wanted them to do so.

Can you perhaps produce some document ratified by the Council that would indicate that only minor changes would be made? SC certainly doesn’t say any such thing.

It is also interesting to note that many churches constructed during the late 50’s and early 60’s seemed to be designed with the knowledge that Masses would be celebrated versus populem…Please note I am not advocating this change, just noting that it occurred. So, it seems there was a sense among many that changes were to come.

 

[stmaria]

What do you disagree with? The council recommended Mass in the vernacular in the passage you cited. Along with preserving Latin as the language of the Church. The reforms (not the abuses) fit quite well with the documents of Vatican II.

In Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s book, “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” he states on page 61, “One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers.”
The Constitution contains ambiguous language that enabled the commission to interpret it a way that was suitable for their needs.

Article 4 and 23.2 reassured the bishops that there would be no radical changes in the Liturgy.

Read article 4 of the Constitution # 4.
Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred
Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she
wishes to **preserve them in the future and to foster them in every
way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites
be revised carefully ** in the light of sound tradition, and that
they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs.

Nothing here indicates radical change in the liturgy.
No explanation is given as to how you can preserve and at the same time revise the rites.

23.2 Finally, there must be **no innovations **unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

Again, nothing to indicate radical change.

The Novus Ordo did not grow organically. It was sudden and drastic.

 

[stmaria]

But the vernacular Mass was initiated and **expanded by permission of the Holy See. **So if the Council said,“We want to retain Latin,” and the pope says,“But I’ll allow the expansion of the vernacular,” we haven’t “failed” to meet some conciliar standard, as popes don’t answer to councils.

Exactly. The Pope had the authority to do what he did. Ignore the Council and accept the Mass of the Liturgical Commission

 

[Sure]

In Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s book, “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” he states on page 61, “One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers.”
The Constitution contains ambiguous language that enabled the commission to interpret it a way that was suitable for their needs.

Article 4 and 23.2 reassured the bishops that there would be no radical changes in the Liturgy.

Read article 4 of the Constitution # 4.
Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred
Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she
wishes to **preserve them in the future and to foster them in every
way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites
be revised carefully ** in the light of sound tradition, and that
they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs.

Nothing here indicates radical change in the liturgy.
No explanation is given as to how you can preserve and at the same time revise the rites.

23.2 Finally, there must be **no innovations **unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

Again, nothing to indicate radical change.

The Novus Ordo did not grow organically. It was sudden and drastic.

That’s all nice and everything but we were talking about the retention of Latin according to SC, not about innovations and liturgical changes. I agree with the Vatican II documents that you have quoted above. And Msgr. Gamber is entitled to his opinion, I’m sure he knows many more of the Council fathers than me.

So, I am still curious, what do you disagree with in your previous quotations from SC?

 

[stmaria]

ncjohn;2497719]All that is fine, but the fact is that other sections **set up the commission that would handle the implementation, **while other sections acknowledged that experiments would need to be conducted to determine final forms, etc. Finally, it was clear that those with territorial jurisdiction would have flexibility in determining the form the changes would take in their jurisdicitons.

Much, if not most of the determination to greatly increase the vernacular components was in place well before the end of the Council and were ratified by the very same Council from which the original document came.

Implementation or interpretation?
Vernacular was ratified by the Council?

 

[Sure]

stmaria:
Implementation or interpretation?
Vernacular was ratified by the Council?

20 minutes ago or so, you just quoted the section of SC from Vatican II where they recommend the use of the vernacular.

This is silly, why are you asking for a reference for something you just quoted???

 

[stmaria]

That’s all nice and everything but we were talking about the retention of Latin according to SC, not about innovations and liturgical changes. I agree with the Vatican II documents that you have quoted above. And Msgr. Gamber is entitled to his opinion, I’m sure he knows many more of the Council fathers than me.

So, I am still curious, what do you disagree with in your previous quotations from SC?

The Constitution does not say that the entire Mass could be said in Latin. If it did then there would have been no need for the documents Eucharisticum Mysterium, Tres Abhinc Annos or Inter Oecumenici

 

[stmaria]

20 minutes ago or so, you just quoted the section of SC from Vatican II where they recommend the use of the vernacular.

This is silly, why are you asking for a reference for something you just quoted???

The use of the** vernacular only in certain places**. Not the entire Canon. And where in the Constitution does it say that the Canon would be replaced with Eucharist prayers?

 

[stmaria]

That’s not true at all. SC clearly said that it intended to “redraw” the texts, not make minor modifications. There is little question that a new liturgy was intended since the TLM could not be adapted to the kind of participation desired, nor do I think that the majority of people who post here would have wanted them to do so.

Can you perhaps produce some document ratified by the Council that would indicate that only minor changes would be made? SC certainly doesn’t say any such thing.

BINGO!! **
This is the most important sentence in the Constitution: 14.2 “ In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy the full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else “
The reformers used that sentence to justify all the changes that they made to the Mass. In my own words here is how the discussion went:
“Can we have full and active participation if the Mass is in Latin? Of course not. Therefore the entire Mass must be in the vernacular! We must have popular music to ensure the full and active participation! How can we have full and active participation if the priest is facing the Tabernacle? We can’t! Therefore the priest must face the people! To have full and active participation we must have Lay Eucharist ministers! The Constitution demands it!!! We must have full and active participation before all else!**

 

[ncjohn]

BINGO!! **
This is the most important sentence in the Constitution: 14.2 “ In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy the full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else “
The reformers used that sentence to justify all the changes that they made to the Mass. In my own words here is how the discussion went:
“Can we have full and active participation if the Mass is in Latin? Of course not. Therefore the entire Mass must be in the vernacular! We must have popular music to ensure the full and active participation! How can we have full and active participation if the priest is facing the Tabernacle? We can’t! Therefore the priest must face the people! To have full and active participation we must have Lay Eucharist ministers! The Constitution demands it!!! We must have full and active participation before all else!**

I’m not at all sure what point you’re trying to make here. From what I read here, you are agreeing with what I said earlier–and contradicting what you said earlier–that a new liturgy was always the intent rather than modifying the TLM. Not for some “happy clappy” reason, as you seem to be trying to imply here, but to involve the people in the liturgy as was always intended and which the TLM had gotten away from. As you have also quoted, the utmost care was to be taken to maintain the sacrality of the liturgy and tradition.

As to when the broader use of the vernacular came into the documents, I have to pull my documents back out to see what the dates were. I do remember though that even in *Inter Oecuminici *there was a paragraph about migrants being able to use the vernacular of their own country, as long as it was an approved version. That immediately brought to mind that if the Mass was still intended to be in Latin, there would be no vernacular version for them to resort to, nor would there be a need for one. So there is a clear implication that even at that point there was an intention toward vernacular liturgies.

Regardless though, I am still puzzled about why it is that people find the switch to the vernacular to be such a problem, again considering that the use of Latin itself came into being for the same reason. Preferring the Latin is fine, and I have no beef with that for those who have that preference. But why the disdain for those who don’t share it and prefer the vernacular as did those who first asked for, and received, the Latin?

 

[Sure]

The Constitution does not say that the entire Mass could be said in Latin. If it did then there would have been no need for the documents Eucharisticum Mysterium, Tres Abhinc Annos or Inter Oecumenici

Yes, the subsequent documents expand the use of the vernacular. Perhaps, because it was found to be effective. frequently the Church builds upon previous statements and expands or adapts certain teachings. In this case, they said, “okay, the vernacular seems to be working well and desired so not we give permission to do the rest of the Mass in the vernacular.” There is no secret conspiracy, just an adaptation of the original ideas put forth in SC.

It’s kind of like when Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum. He wasn’t departing from Ecclesia Dei, he was building upon it and expanding the permission and ideas of Ecclesia Dei.

 

[elzoro]

What seems to have happened, gentlemen (and women) is that the documents of Vatican II–especially that on the “renewal of the liturgy”-- have been coming to fruition over the past 40 years that have resulted in the typical N.O. in your average parish around the world (altar girls, mass versus populum, Communion in the hand and standing, the Tabernacle out of the Church or to the side of it, the near elimination of kneeling, silence, genuflections, sign of the cross, bowings, etc. (for the priest as well) Mass in the vernacular, guitar popular/secular music type of music, near/complete elimination of Church art (statues, paintings, votive candles, icons, etc.) total priestly vestment and church design restructuring, etc., etcv., etc.
OR ,the N.O, as we have it was not “what the Council intended” but was the product of “abuses”.
Well, which is it??

Be careful. Before you say that these “abuses” were not what the Council “intended” " like many conservatives do, consider this: the Popes up to and including the current Pope have all APPROVED and used these “abuses. in their Masses. So they are not “abuses”, but “legal” , legitimate” and part of the “fruit” of the “renewal”, that are constantly praised by Rome.
So, you would be in the uncomfortable position of saying that Rome has been violating VII for 40 years.
Well, that’s all well and good, but many conservatives claim, in addition, that VII was an “infallible” Council–which makes the Popes approving and legislating against the mandates of an infallible Ecumenical Council

 

[BobP123]

Yes, the subsequent documents expand the use of the vernacular. Perhaps, because it was found to be effective. frequently the Church builds upon previous statements and expands or adapts certain teachings. In this case, they said, “okay, the vernacular seems to be working well and desired so not we give permission to do the rest of the Mass in the vernacular.” There is no secret conspiracy, just an adaptation of the original ideas put forth in SC.

So then would you say the ICEL has done a great job through its misinterpretations and mistranslations? As long as people like hearing anything in their normal conversational language, they’ll like whatever the ICEL approves? Never mind that most have voted with their feet and no longer attend Mass.