The one tradition that can never be regained!

[I_Believe]

Then I realized that in the “olden” days, because of the silent Canon of the latin Mass, many people simply sat there and said the rosary or other private devotions because they had no idea what was going on.

One can no more go back to the “traditionalism” of the 1950s than culture and fashion can go back to the 1920s.

I’m sure there were some who did not know what was going on, but whatever you read, if it didn’t mention the Eucharistic Rosary, then the author is ill informed. It was, and is, an excellent way to make a Spiritual Communion at Mass or Adoration.

And there are indeed many Catholics who practice the Faith as it has been practiced in the past.

 

[I_Believe]

Careful folks. The man who called VII made it quite clear where he stood.

1. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The mass is to be participated in by all. It is not the time for private devotions, no matter how efficacious. Simply because the mass surpasses all devotions. It is the reenactment of Calvary wherein Jesus comes to us in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. This has always been the case.
Prayers & blessings.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

There was a reason for Vatican II, for changing Mass to the vernacular, etc. Obviously, the Mass at the time was needing reform.

The mass is to be participated in by all. It is not the time for private devotions, no matter how efficacious. Simply because the mass surpasses all devotions. It is the reenactment of Calvary wherein Jesus comes to us in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. This has always been the case.
Prayers & blessings.
Deacon Ed B

The poster who claimed that Pius XII was in favor of the vernacular forgot to mention that that very same pope recommended praying the rosary during Mass as a form of participation! It was the very bottom on his list, and far from ideal, but from his recommendation it becomes clear that participation in the sacrifice of the Mass is not limited to verbal/mental unity with the exact words of the priest. That may be the ideal toward which we strive, but participation can be gradated according to our capability and it consists not in the words flowing through our heads but in the interior unification of our prayer with the sacrifice offered upon the altar. The rosary during Mass was not meant to be a private devotion during Mass (though I readily concede it probably very often was) but as a prayer united in true participation in the Mass.

As for the overall rite, though, which is the real meaning of this thread, I think traditionalists have pushed bad history in an effort to support their critique of the NO to the point that some, like the OP, are able to turn it back upon them. If we really look at the argument, though, it simply doesn’t hold up. Universality in general is a great way of expressing the unity of the Body of Christ, but it has never been an absolute value. Apart from the fact of the Eastern and Oriental Churches, which have seven additional rites to the Roman, and various recensions of those rites, the West has historically been characterized by a diversity of liturgical uses (most of them being of a generically Roman rite), and even after Pius V’s suppression of many local uses we retained, alongside the Roman rite, the Dominican, Carthusian, Cistercian, Praemonstratensian, Carmelite, Ambrosian, Bragan, Mozarabic, and Lyonaise rites right up until the Novus Ordo when these for the most part were either reformed or fell into disuetude (though many are now being revived).

There has never been a universal liturgy in the Catholic Church. There never will be. Rather, the diverse customs have always been cherished as part of our Catholicity. Novel diversity has no intrinsic value, but our traditional diversity is a treasure of the Church, representing families of worship that extend back for centuries, some to the earliest centuries of the Church. The Church is not united by a monolithic liturgy but by the faith and means of grace shared by all.

 

[Freshman88]

Language is only unifying if the people understand it.

Just reciting a series of meaningless syllables is not unifying at all.

I am not being mean-spirited here, but I confess to frustration with this notion. One Language/One People might be true if all understood the language. But One Ceremony of Syllables Using a Missal to Translate/One People–sorry, but I can’t even comprehend the point of this! It’s just a notion, a sentiment. It makes no sense to me at all. And I think that many other people in the U.S. would agree with me.

In the United States, we are “One Nation” in spite of the fact that our people are from every race, color, nation, religion, creed, and sexual orientation. We speak many different languages and dialects. We listen to different music and entertainment. We worship many Gods. We cheer for different sports and teams. We are split smack down the middle at the moment when when it comes to politics. YET–we are One Nation. **It is not our practices that make us One, it is our citizenship **(or pending citizenship)–we are citizens of the U.S.

It still doesn’t change the fact that Latin is the language of our rite, that the Church has suppourted latin within the Western rites and that it has a unitive effect.

In the same way, Catholics are not “One People, One Body” because of what we practice. **We are One because of Who we belong to, Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit. **

Indeed we are one because we belong to Jesus Christ. But how is that we belong to Christ? It is through the Eucharist and the liturgy. The Liturgy is the act by which we become one in Jesus Christ, it is the vehicle that gets us to Him. It is not simply public works, which the Catechism makes clear (see below)

It seems to me that practicing “one” Mass might make some Catholics “FEEL” more unified. But Christianity has never been, is not, and never will be a “religion of feelings.” The reality is, we are one because of our King, not because of what we do in His Kingdom

I am beginning to get the feeling that some Catholics “worship” the liturgy in the same way that some Protestants “worship” the Bible. I have actually heard Protestants teach that the Bible IS Jesus Christ. Do some Catholics feel the same way about the liturgy; it IS Jesus? Is there written documentation of this teaching? Someone said above that I misunderstand the Liturgy–I was taught that it is the work of the people. Am I missing the Catholic teaching that the liturgy is another manifestation of God Himself?

Well, perhaps I should requote the Catechism.

1069: “The word “liturgy” originally meant a “public work” or a “service in the name/of on behalf of the people.” In Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in “The work of God”. Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redeption in, with, and through his Church.”

The liturgy is the vehicle by which the Church is sustained and comes into being. Heaven is made manifest through the liturgy, and Christ himself is made manifest in the Ecuharist through the liturgical prayers. Liturgy is indeed a pillar of the Church, without which She could not stand. Without the liturgy, there is no Church. Hence that saying you hear time and time again, the law of prayer is the law of belief.

The Catechism has a lengthy section on the liturgy, I highly recommend it as a starting place.

 

[ProVobis]

The idea that Mass was only in Latin before Vatican II is a myth. Our ignorance of the other rites doesn’t make the myth fact.

I suppose the Latin Rite is also a myth?

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve also read that Pope Pius XII was in favor of Mass in the vernacular.

Where did you read this?

Have you read about the Synod of Pistoia as well?

 

[ProVobis]

In several dioceses of Croatia, the Tridentine Mass was celebrated in Slavonic from Missals printed with Glagolithic characters, even BEFORE Vatican 2.

Unity does not mean uniformity.

And exceptions don’t mean the rule either. However, that’s what it seemingly led to.

Personally, I’ve often wondered about these exceptions. Weren’t some these rites accepted from outside the Church rather than being developed from within the framework of the Church? Sorta like they had a proverbial Agatha Christie which gave them “Catholic” status?

 

[ProVobis]

The universality is not in the form, but in the sacrifice.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

True, but only if the sacrifice is universally accepted, be it OF or EF.

 

[ProVobis]

Exactly.

In Acts, when the Holy Spirit came in a mighty wind, He did not teach everyone the same languge. He caused the apostles to be understood by the people in their own languages.

It is not liturgy that makes us one, but the Holy Spirit who makes us one. I Corinthians 12: 13 says that “By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”

I think the theory of a universal liturgy making us all one is interesting, but I don’t think that it can be supported theologically. ** I don’t think the liturgy can be equated with the Holy Spirit (God). Liturgy is the work of the people, not God. **We can’t make ourselves one.

Cat, this appears to be a contradiction. Either Christ instituted the Mass or He didn’t. If the people made it up, then of what value is it?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I realise there were always non-Latin Divine Liturgies in other rites, but for the most part for the last 1000 years or more, in parts of the world where the Roman Rite was dominant (Europe, America, the parts of Africa and Asia evangelised after 1054AD) the Latin Mass was the only mass, and the Tridentine Rite was the dominant and ordinary form of the Latin Mass from Trent onwards.

There was unity. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

In the Ordinary Form of the Mass today, there is unity. The Extraordinary Form doesn’t have that, because it is a ‘minority’ concern within the Church.

If there is one thing that can safely be said about NO, and Fr. Brian Harrison has said it, is that of all the liturgical reforms, this one has brought more disunity to the Church than any other in its history.

The same could be said for the use of the vernacular. Now the liturgy and the vernacular become a “battleground” with the progressives wanting ever more changes and a “street level” translation and the conservatives wanting a more faithful translation.

 

[DL82]

Really interesting discussion. I guess what I want to get to the heart of is this though:

The Latin EF post-Vatican II has introduced something NEW into the Church, in that it is a liturgy specifically FOR “Traditional” Catholics. Not a liturgy in a language or a rite for a particular ethnic people, not a liturgy for a defined Religious order, but something that caters to a particular ‘taste’ within the Church.

Surely in terms of new innovations, this one is more ‘radical’ on a personal and communal level than the most liberal, liturgical-dancing-hand-holding-pop-music-singing vernacular mass.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Really interesting discussion. I guess what I want to get to the heart of is this though:

The Latin EF post-Vatican II has introduced something NEW into the Church, in that it is a liturgy specifically FOR “Traditional” Catholics. Not a liturgy in a language or a rite for a particular ethnic people, not a liturgy for a defined Religious order, but something that caters to a particular ‘taste’ within the Church.

Surely in terms of new innovations, this one is more ‘radical’ on a personal and communal level than the most liberal, liturgical-dancing-hand-holding-pop-music-singing vernacular mass.

You’re joking, right?

The Gregorian rite is not new and it was not “introduced” a couple of years ago. What was new, as Cardinal Ratzinger has noted, was the near complete suppression of this rite in favor of the new one, as one author notes:

“In 1969–70 a new liturgy was introduced in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Far from the minor changes that most bishops had thought they were approving at the Second Vatican Council, the Missal of Pope Paul VI was a sweeping and radical overhaul of the traditional Mass, which was in turn suppressed de facto (though not abolished de jure, as Benedict explains in the motu proprio). Nothing like it had ever been seen in the history of Catholic liturgy, as the man who later became Benedict XVI repeatedly protested.”

lewrockwell.com/woods/woods84.html

 

[Cat]

Cat, this appears to be a contradiction. Either Christ instituted the Mass or He didn’t. If the people made it up, then of what value is it?

Jesus instituted the Mass.

He did NOT institute the Liturgy of the Mass, with Latin as the langugage, certain prayers, various songs, readings (the Bible hadn’t even been written yet when Jesus was on this earth, or at least the New Testament portion of it), the passing of the people to the front to receive Holy Communion, etc.

The CHURCH instituted the Liturgy. And the CHURCH has the authority from Jesus to change the liturgy.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

True, but only if the sacrifice is universally accepted, be it OF or EF.

Whether one accepts either form or not, it is still the sacrifice of Calvary reenacted and each is equally efficacious.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[DL82]

Really interesting discussion. I guess what I want to get to the heart of is this though:

The Latin EF post-Vatican II has introduced something NEW into the Church, in that it is a liturgy specifically FOR “Traditional” Catholics. Not a liturgy in a language or a rite for a particular ethnic people, not a liturgy for a defined Religious order, but something that caters to a particular ‘taste’ within the Church.

Surely in terms of new innovations, this one is more ‘radical’ on a personal and communal level than the most liberal, liturgical-dancing-hand-holding-pop-music-singing vernacular mass.

Just wanted to apologise for this post, it was uncharitable, and opposes the understanding of the unity of OF and EF liturgy advanced by the Holy Father. My apologies, please disregard.

 

[Freshman88]

Jesus instituted the Mass.

He did NOT institute the Liturgy of the Mass

This is a false dichotomy, the mass is liturgy.

He did indeed institute the liturgy although the prayers and traditions have developed.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

I became Catholic in 1994 throught RCIA. For better or worse I have been trying to understand why latin only or vernacular is better. I feel I have spend many hours on a topic that really doesn’t matter other than the latin mass is coming back due to old timers. I continue to pray about this but feel that a mass that I do not understand is close to meaningless to me after years of mass in my language.

latinmassmagazine.com/stickler.asp

Or this:
newsweek.com/id/142217 Priests have been excommunicated for practicing the latin mass earlier?

It would seem our “high school” mass at 5:30 Sunday would be dead with the latin rules. I feel the reform was right and do not understand this latin revival is going to take the church in the right direction. THere are so many things about the church that are right to go to Latin Only mass which is where this is headed would be dreadful again.

Help? Thanks!

 

[Walking_Home]

I became Catholic in 1994** throught RCIA.** For better or worse I have been trying to understand why latin only or vernacular is better. I feel I have spend many hours on a topic that really doesn’t matter other than the latin mass is coming back due to old timers. I continue to pray about this but feel that a mass that I do not understand is close to meaningless to me after years of mass in my language.

latinmassmagazine.com/stickler.asp

Or this:
newsweek.com/id/142217 Priests have been excommunicated for practicing the latin mass earlier?

It would seem our “high school” mass at 5:30 Sunday would be dead with the latin rules. I feel the reform was right and do not understand this latin revival is going to take the church in the right direction. THere are so many things about the church that are right to go to Latin Only mass which is where this is headed would be dreadful again.

Help? Thanks!

---

Seems your RCIA skipped the part about Latin being the language of the Church. By the way —from what I hear —the majority of those who attend the Latin Mass are not “old timers”.

 

[elts1956]

Cat, this appears to be a contradiction. Either Christ instituted the Mass or He didn’t. If the people made it up, then of what value is it?

Cm’on, we have been around this track before. Cat is not saying Christ did not institute the Mass. She is saying the language used for the liturgy is placed in practice by people, not God. God speaks in ALL languages. Reread what she posted and don’t let your opinions get in front of your eyes. (I do that sometimes too, causes big problems.)