The sacrafice of the Mass and Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter BVMFatima
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BVMFatima

Guest
Hello! I think the Traditional Latin Mass is an amazing gift from God to the Church, and I was wondering why after the second Vatican council the Mass was replaced with the OF? I hered one reason was because of the Latin Language not being understandable, but couldent the Extraordinary form just be translated to what ever language the parish spoke? For example in the USA how come it could not have been translated to English?
 
To be honest, I’ve always had that question as well.
 
I cannot answer all your questions, and I’m not entirely certain about all of this, but here is what I think. The Ordinary Form is the Mass. According to what came out of Vatican 2, it was to be celebrated in Latin (vernacular permitted), with the priest ad orientum (facing the altar), the Kyrie in Greek, and the Eucharist received on the tongue, from the celebrating priest. Amusingly, the US bishops had to get special permission for many of the things that are most strongly associated with the OF.
One of the ways the Mass was changed was to revise the lectionary to cover more scripture throughout the year (the entirety of the Gospels is proclaimed every 3 years, and if you go to daily Mass, the majority of the Bible) and to update the calendar of the saints to include more recent ones. Another thing that changed was the addition of the Amen after receiving the Eucharist, an increase in the number of prayers said by the people (the Our Father, for example), and for the priest to say almost all the Eucharistic prayers out loud (I believe only one or two lines are said silently). I’m speculating, but I think part of the reason for that was to prevent the priest from whipping through them faster than any normal human can read, and part to bring the faithful to pray the Mass more fully.
 
BVMFatima said:
Hello! I think the Traditional Latin Mass is an amazing gift from God to the Church, and I was wondering why after the second Vatican council the Mass was replaced with the OF? I hered one reason was because of the Latin Language not being understandable, but couldent the Extraordinary form just be translated to what ever language the parish spoke? For example in the USA how come it could not have been translated to English?
Click to expand...
The Tridentine Form is very beautiful. There are a number of reasons why it was not translated. One was the desire of the Council to simplify it. The original idea was a simpler version, which could be said in the language of the people. Saying it in the language of the people was not mandatory. The changes made to the original Tridentine form never abrogated the old form. The revised from and the original form could co-exist. This got lost in the practice somewhere.

Another reason that there was such a big move to the Ordinary form came from the religious orders of men. Most religious orders have never celebrated the Tridentine Form as you saw it. Religious orders either had their own rites, which were not Tridentine or those that used the Tridentine Form had variations to it. They were minor things that most Catholics didn’t even notice, unless you made it your hobby to attend three Sunday masses just to compare.

The one thing that the monastic communities brought to the table along with the Franciscans was austerity. In our conventual masses austerity was the order of the day. The beauty of the mass was to be found in its austerity. The chapels were very simple, almost bare. The rituals were very simple. The monks generally used Gregorian chant, but did not have as many prayers such as the prayers at the foot of the altar or the last gospel. The Franciscans used very plain chant or no chant at all. We did not have the prayers at the foot of the altar, nor the last Gospel, nor the three Hail Mary’s and the prayer to St. Michael. There were less parts of the mass that were silent. Most of it was very audible. The idea was to simplify so as not to use as many books. When the order was founded, several books were needed to celebrate the mass. Francis received a one book missal and lectionary from Pope Innocent III. That became the Franciscans’ mass. It would later be expanded and adapted by the Council of Trent. But the Franciscans kept their austere older form.

At Vatican II, there was a strong move to bring out of the monasteries and friaries this simpler form of the mass. When it’s celebrated as the monks and friars do, it is quite beautiful in a different way.

The problem became that too many people thought that they could get creative with it and took a good thing and ruined it, much to the chagrin of friars and monks. Now, we have to fix it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
BVMFatima said:
but couldent the Extraordinary form just be translated to what ever language the parish spoke? For example in the USA how come it could not have been translated to English?
Click to expand...
There were translations used during the Mass starting at around 1964 and by 1967 the entire Canon was allowed in the national languages before the reforms became complete in 1970. The handmissals of 1962 were becoming virtually useless as different translations were used than in the handmissals. Interestingly enough, the priests started facing the people during the same period.

Attendance began to fall starting in the U.S. around 1964.
 
BVMFatima said:
Hello! I think the Traditional Latin Mass is an amazing gift from God to the Church, and I was wondering why after the second Vatican council the Mass was replaced with the OF? I hered one reason was because of the Latin Language not being understandable, but couldent the Extraordinary form just be translated to what ever language the parish spoke? For example in the USA how come it could not have been translated to English?
Click to expand...
That is what the Bishops wanted. It took me a long time to adjust to the current form. But now I prefer it except for the awful, awful, awful music. They made a huge when they abandoned the Gregorian Chant and Polyphonic music. But to be honest, as long as Mass is offered, I don’t really care what form they use. 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
That is what the Bishops wanted. It took me a long time to adjust to the current form. But now I prefer it except for the awful, awful, awful music. They made a huge when they abandoned the Gregorian Chant and Polyphonic music. But to be honest, as long as Mass is offered, I don’t really care what form they use. 👍
Click to expand...
I think we need to produce good liturgical music. We all like to think that Gregorian chant was the only liturgical music worth saving; but that’s not true. If we look at the old hymnals, many of the oldies but goodies are German, Italian or Spanish, definitely many German hymns and they are not Gregorian Chant. Who would deny the beautify of Silent Night, Immaculate Mary, Praise to the Lord, All Creatures of Our God and King, Ave Maria, Holy God, etc etc. They were not Gregorian chant.

The problem with the liturgical music that we produced during the last 50 years is that it reflects that bad music that we have everywhere. Have you listened to your kids’ music?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I think we need to produce good liturgical music. We all like to think that Gregorian chant was the only liturgical music worth saving; but that’s not true. If we look at the old hymnals, many of the oldies but goodies are German, Italian or Spanish, definitely many German hymns and they are not Gregorian Chant. Who would deny the beautify of Silent Night, Immaculate Mary, Praise to the Lord, All Creatures of Our God and King, Ave Maria, Holy God, etc etc. They were not Gregorian chant.

The problem with the liturgical music that we produced during the last 50 years is that it reflects that bad music that we have everywhere.
Click to expand...
This post from Br. reminds me so much of Why Catholics Can’t Sing by Thomas Day. It’s a great book.
 
JReducation said:
I think we need to produce good liturgical music. We all like to think that Gregorian chant was the only liturgical music worth saving; but that’s not true. If we look at the old hymnals, many of the oldies but goodies are German, Italian or Spanish, definitely many German hymns and they are not Gregorian Chant. Who would deny the beautify of Silent Night, Immaculate Mary, Praise to the Lord, All Creatures of Our God and King, Ave Maria, Holy God, etc etc. They were not Gregorian chant.
Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
So true!!! I don’t think there is a better song, in any genre, style, or in all of music than Immaculate Mary. I don’t even think I have encountered a song that affects me the way that song does. 🙂
 
JReducation said:
IThe problem with the liturgical music that we produced during the last 50 years is that it reflects that bad music that we have everywhere. Have you listened to your kids’ music?

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s definitely different. I personally have a different opinion as I think there has been a great deal of good music produced in the last 50 years all the way up to today. I would probably say that there is still great music produced today, but you certainly have to look harder to find it.
 
BVMFatima said:
Hello! I think the Traditional Latin Mass is an amazing gift from God to the Church, and I was wondering why after the second Vatican council the Mass was replaced with the OF? I hered one reason was because of the Latin Language not being understandable, but couldent the Extraordinary form just be translated to what ever language the parish spoke? For example in the USA how come it could not have been translated to English?
Click to expand...
During the Council the Church issued a new Mass (in 1964/1965) that was largely just the traditional Latin Mass in the vernacular, using the same old calendar and a lot of the old rubrics.

But after Vatican Council II ended, a small study group was set up to keep changing the Mass. It presented a new one in 1967 which didn’t make it to print, and then in 1969 it released what we now call the Ordinary Form (then called the Novus Ordo).

To learn why the Mass kept changing after Vatican II, you could read the books put out by the architect of the new Mass, Cardinal Bugnini. He explain his reasoning there, from what I understand.
 
Rich_C said:
But after Vatican Council II ended, a small study group was set up to keep changing the Mass. It presented a new one in 1967 which didn’t make it to print, and then in 1969 it released what we now call the Ordinary Form (then called the Novus Ordo).
Click to expand...
Which of course means “the new Ordo.” To be a really unnecessary nitpicker, the full term is novus Ordo Missae “the new Ordo Missae (Order of Mass),” sometimes misrendered as ‘Novus Ordo Mass’. 😛
 
patrick457 said:
Which of course means “the new Ordo.” To be a really unnecessary nitpicker, the full term is novus Ordo Missae “the new Ordo Missae (Order of Mass),” sometimes misrendered as ‘Novus Ordo Mass’. 😛
Click to expand...
Thanks for correcting me. I am so used to people saying “Novus Ordo Mass” that I forgot to type it correctly here.
 
First of all, in the 1950s, one could get the St. Joseph Missal, which had the Latin and the English together. The Church did want us to understand the meaning of the Latin words.

Pope Benedict explains the situation:

"In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear."

Full document here:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Peace,
Ed
 
AlexPetrosPio said:
This post from Br. reminds me so much of Why Catholics Can’t Sing by Thomas Day. It’s a great book.
Click to expand...
I’ve never read it. I’ll have to check it out.
Boulder257 said:
So true!!! I don’t think there is a better song, in any genre, style, or in all of music than Immaculate Mary. I don’t even think I have encountered a song that affects me the way that song does. 🙂
Click to expand...
Same here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top