TLM on the way ??????

[AlexV]

I did not take the name of the Lord in vain, so let’s not even go there, Bear6.

The “Ordinary” for Maundy Thursday isn’t considered part of the “Ordinary”, it’s considered part of the Proper for Maundy Thursday, and it’s texts are printed in the Proprium, not the Ordinarium.

The Feast of the Patronage of Joseph was retained as a Votive text. The texts were not cut from the Missal. The feast was replaced with Joseph the Worker, which, as an addition, became mandatory (though, note, the official liturgical texts were not entirely published until 1960…the feast had a very slow introduction that lasted some 4 years total).

We’re way off thread here. The point is a comparison of pre-1970 changes with 1970 changes. And, indeed, there is no comparison. Quibbling over invocations in the Agnus Dei on 1 day of the year is not comparable to the wholesale novelizations of 1970 that affected 365 days.

No OT saints were dropped from the universal calendar by Pius X.

As for facsimiles, “domnum” is just a case of different scriptural versions of the same verse, not “liturgical change”.

 

[Ham1]

I did not take the name of the Lord in vain, so let’s not even go there, Bear6.

The “Ordinary” for Maundy Thursday isn’t considered part of the “Ordinary”, it’s considered part of the Proper for Maundy Thursday, and it’s texts are printed in the Proprium, not the Ordinarium.

The Feast of the Patronage of Joseph was retained as a Votive text. The texts were not cut from the Missal. The feast was replaced with Joseph the Worker, which, as an addition, became mandatory (though, note, the official liturgical texts were not entirely published until 1960…the feast had a very slow introduction that lasted some 4 years total).

We’re way off thread here. The point is a comparison of pre-1970 changes with 1970 changes. And, indeed, there is no comparison. Quibbling over invocations in the Agnus Dei on 1 day of the year is not comparable to the wholesale novelizations of 1970 that affected 365 days.

No OT saints were dropped from the universal calendar by Pius X.

As for facsimiles, “domnum” is just a case of alternative spellings for the same word, not of liturgical “change”.

You seem to say here there were slight changes in the tridentine Mass and yet earlier you said there were no changes. Which is it?

 

[AlexV]

Quit the pedantry.

Stay on topic.

Were there “changes” in the Ordinary? Sure, if by “change” you mean that one Missal was published with white paper and another with yellow.

Sure, if you mean that some Missals print ae separately and others smush it together.

Sure, if you mean that some Missals have typographical errors that later ones corrected.

Quibbling over these sorts of changes is called obfuscation. It’s called moving toward the argument of Bugnini and those of his ilk that changes were business as usual between 1570-1970, and therefore objection to the 1970 changes is somehow unacceptable.

A person attending Mass in c. 1600 and c. 1900 would experience virtually no change in the liturgical text. Period.

And, in the Ordinary, there would have no change at all until Joseph’s name (which they wouldn’t have heard anyway in a silent Canon).

The POINT is that the 1970 changes were a radical change from the liturgical practice of the West. On that point, none other than Joseph Ratzinger has expressed his agreement, as would anyone who studies the historical reality.

 

[bear06]

I did not take the name of the Lord in vain, so let’s not even go there, Bear6.

Give me a break. What exactly would you call it? I’m assuming that since you used a capital “g” that you meant Our Lord. I’d ask you to stop of the moderators to edit your posts.

2143 Among all the words of Revelation, there is one which is unique: the revealed name of God. God confides his name to those who believe in him; he reveals himself to them in his personal mystery. The gift of a name belongs to the order of trust and intimacy. “The Lord’s name is holy.” For this reason man must not abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration. He will not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and glorify it.74

 

[Ham1]

**Quit the pedantry.**Stay on topic.

Were there “changes” in the Ordinary? Sure, if by “change” you mean that one Missal was published with white paper and another with yellow.

Sure, if you mean that some Missals print ae separately and others smush it together.

Sure, if you mean that some Missals have typographical errors that later ones corrected.

Quibbling over these sorts of changes is called obfuscation. It’s called moving toward the argument of Bugnini and those of his ilk that changes were business as usual between 1570-1970, and therefore objection to the 1970 changes is somehow unacceptable.

A person attending Mass in c. 1600 and c. 1900 would experience virtually no change in the liturgical text. Period.

And, in the Ordinary, there would have no change at all until Joseph’s name (which they wouldn’t have heard anyway in a silent Canon).

The POINT is that the 1970 changes were a radical change from the liturgical practice of the West. On that point, none other than Joseph Ratzinger has expressed his agreement, as would anyone who studies the historical reality.

I assume you are referring to me here because I asked a question. This is offensive and rude. Try to debate with a touch of charity and you might find that your points will be considered by others.

You say, “virtually no change in the liturgical text.” That says to me there are some changes. The reason I asked the question is because some of your posts indicate there were slight changes and others indicate there were no changes. I wanted to know which way was true.

I get that the changes after 1970 were bigger than any changes before. I’m not arguing that they weren’t. In fact, no one is arguing such a thing.

The point is that IF you believe that Quo Primum holds (which it can’t) then any changes big or small are inadmissible.

 

[AlexV]

I don’t base my objections to the changes of 1970 on Quo Primum.

I base them on custom and venerable antiquity of custom.

There was NO history in the Roman Rite of any wholesale jettisoning of entire liturgies until 1970.

Pius V protected liturgies that had 200 years of verifiable history. His main target were self-crafted liturgies that had begun to appear (especially in Spain and France).

Paul VI and his archliturgist Bugnini sought to abolish something that had been intact for over a millenium. That had never before happened in liturgical history.

THAT’S the problem. And one document from Pius V does not make or break a case. Custom and venerable antiquity do.

 

[bear06]

Quit the pedantry.

Stay on topic.

Were there “changes” in the Ordinary? Sure, if by “change” you mean that one Missal was published with white paper and another with yellow.

Sure, if you mean that some Missals print ae separately and others smush it together.

Sure, if you mean that some Missals have typographical errors that later ones corrected.

Quibbling over these sorts of changes is called obfuscation. It’s called moving toward the argument of Bugnini and those of his ilk that changes were business as usual between 1570-1970, and therefore objection to the 1970 changes is somehow unacceptable.

A person attending Mass in c. 1600 and c. 1900 would experience virtually no change in the liturgical text. Period.

And, in the Ordinary, there would have no change at all until Joseph’s name (which they wouldn’t have heard anyway in a silent Canon).

The POINT is that the 1970 changes were a radical change from the liturgical practice of the West. On that point, none other than Joseph Ratzinger has expressed his agreement, as would anyone who studies the historical reality.

Poor Alex. It would seem that if we don’t agree to his definition of the word “change” that he will just continue to rant. The point is Alex, that Quo Primum is not binding on any pope after its promulgation. ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.htm

Here’s a few quotes from QP:

We order and enjoin that **nothing must be added **to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure

If you want to argue that there were no “changes” only additions go ahead. What would be your point? Changes and additions are fine if they are ratified by the competent authority since no pope can bind another in matters of discipline. Changes were made and they had nothing to do with the color of the paper.

 

[AJV]

The “Ordinary” for Maundy Thursday isn’t considered part of the “Ordinary”, it’s considered part of the Proper for Maundy Thursday, and it’s texts are printed in the Proprium, not the Ordinarium.

The changes of 1955/56 neccesitated the printing of a revised Ordinary for that day in the Proprium. The edito typica in 1953 did not have any part of the ordinary in it.

The Feast of the Patronage of Joseph was retained as a Votive text. The texts were not cut from the Missal. The feast was replaced with Joseph the Worker, which, as an addition, became mandatory (though, note, the official liturgical texts were not entirely published until 1960…the feast had a very slow introduction that lasted some 4 years total).

Thorough egg on my face…what a miserable attempt on my part ot be pedantic. My missal did not have it in the pro alquibus locus section or among the votive Masses so I assumed it was not retained. Thanks for the correction
But which propers are you referring to? My missal in 1958 gives the same texts as 1962. (Could you PM me with this if you feel it’s off topic)

We’re way off thread here. The point is a comparison of pre-1970 changes with 1970 changes. And, indeed, there is no comparison. Quibbling over invocations in the Agnus Dei on 1 day of the year is not comparable to the wholesale novelizations of 1970 that affected 365 days.

To be sure.

No OT saints were dropped from the universal calendar by Pius X.

How sure are you?

As for facsimiles, “domnum” is just a case of different scriptural versions of the same verse, not “liturgical change”.

No, no, it is not the antiphon said before psalm 42 but psalm 65 said prior to psalm 42.

 

[AJV]

I don’t base my objections to the changes of 1970 on Quo Primum.

I base them on custom and venerable antiquity of custom.

There was NO history in the Roman Rite of any wholesale jettisoning of entire liturgies until 1970.

Pius V protected liturgies that had 200 years of verifiable history. His main target were self-crafted liturgies that had begun to appear (especially in Spain and France).

Paul VI and his archliturgist Bugnini sought to abolish something that had been intact for over a millenium. That had never before happened in liturgical history.

THAT’S the problem. And one document from Pius V does not make or break a case. Custom and venerable antiquity do.

Ah. We are finally in agreement! Though I disagree with Paul VI as the only Pope bogeyman. And the over a millenium buisiness because that only applies to certain parts of the Mass.

There is history of the Roman liturgy supplanting those of Spain and Gaul. And that big revision lkost in the mists of time.

Though trying to justify the NO on that basis is silly.

 

[bear06]

I don’t base my objections to the changes of 1970 on Quo Primum.

I base them on custom and venerable antiquity of custom.

There was NO history in the Roman Rite of any wholesale jettisoning of entire liturgies until 1970.

Pius V protected liturgies that had 200 years of verifiable history. His main target were self-crafted liturgies that had begun to appear (especially in Spain and France).

Paul VI and his archliturgist Bugnini sought to abolish something that had been intact for over a millenium. That had never before happened in liturgical history.

THAT’S the problem. And one document from Pius V does not make or break a case. Custom and venerable antiquity do.

Yes, Cardinal Ratzinger has made comments and I can agree. Nor do I have a problem with the Tridentine Mass. It’s a fine Mass.

That said, Cardinal Ratzinger wanted the Mass of Vatican II as the council called for and I’m just guessing that you don’t. He has never said that the Mass called for was not an organic development, did he? He, as Cardinal, never wrote that he Tridentine Mass should be again the normative Mass of the entire Roman Rite. So Alex, if the Holy Father had the Mass of Vatican II restored to what he believed was called for, what would your take be?

 

[AlexV]

The Roman Canon, for starters, isn’t mere “discipline”.

The problem of some nowadays is they think anything is up for grabs. Rewrite the whole Missal? Fine, if the pope orders it.

Unfortunately, there’s little historical (let alone theological) basis for saying the pope can just take anything he pleases and rewrite it, and suddenly ban what was ratified as acceptable for centuries.

The Missal isn’t just a plaything whose status depends on the whim of a pope.

Or, in the case of 1970, Monsignor Bugnini.

And let’s not even tread the waters of “the Mass Vatican II really intended.” That’s a utopian fantasy. The Missal produced by Bugnini was imposed under the best of the “obedience or bust” attitudes of the Curia, and the Council documents are so ambiguously worded that they can be twisted to justify almost anything.

A study of Roman liturgical documents from c. 1970 to the present will reveal the same problem. The Novus Ordo’s inherent problem is it allows ad-libbing by the priest at various points. It’s BUILT INTO THE RUBRICS. As Bugnini notes, this was deliberate, to allow for what he called “endless variety.”

 

[bear06]

And let’s not even tread the waters of “the Mass Vatican II really intended.” That’s a utopian fantasy.

So, basically, you’re not going to answer the question. I want to know what you’d think if the Holy Father had the Mass reformed to what the Holy Father believed was called for in Vatican II? I’m sure you’ve read some of his works to know what that is.

 

[Ham1]

Alex V,

So, do you think the NO is invalid? or do you just not like it because of the way it was developed, etc.?

Just curious…

 

[AlexV]

Liturgy isn’t about what Benedict thinks or doesn’t think a Council really intended.

Liturgy is about doing what has been handed down to us by tradition.

We’ve wasted enough time since 1970 reinventing the wheel.

And no, I don’t think the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid. But, mercifully, I don’t have to participate in it.

 

[AJV]

The Roman Canon, for starters, isn’t mere “discipline”.

The problem of some nowadays is they think anything is up for grabs. Rewrite the whole Missal? Fine, if the pope orders it.

Unfortunately, there’s little historical (let alone theological) basis for saying the pope can just take anything he pleases and rewrite it, and suddenly ban what was ratified as acceptable for centuries.

The Missal isn’t just a plaything whose status depends on the whim of a pope.

You are certainly right. Unfortunately, in the Latin rite, the liturgy has never been held in such veneration as in the Eastern Church. Definitely from the 19th century the liturgy has more often been treated as something to be legislated on, even by those great and saintly popes. Mediator Dei for one, showed this in lamentably reserving any changes to the Papacy- which is where the changes came from ultimately, to the detriment of the liturgy.

And yes, the liturgy should not depend on the Pope or Council. But I still question whether one can truly regard some elements of 1962 and the '56 revisions as being handed down by tradition.

 

[bear06]

Liturgy isn’t about what Benedict thinks or doesn’t think a Council really intended

Liturgy is about doing what has been handed down to us by tradition.

We’ve wasted enough time since 1970 reinventing the wheel.

And no, I don’t think the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid. But, mercifully, I don’t have to participate in it.

So are you saying that the Mass in the 2nd century went against tradition?

 

[AlexV]

We know next to nothing about the 2nd century liturgy (i.e., the 100s). Next to nothing.

 

[bear06]

So many questions so little answers.

Liturgy is about doing what has been handed down to us by tradition.

Actually, it’s about doing what has been handed down to us by Tridition.

 

[redactorab]

I’m curious about the charge leveled, a few post back, that the expression “My God, what pedantry” was taking the Lord’s name in vain. I thought the charge itself a little pedantic, and probably disingenuous, but that’s another issue.

My question: What actually constitutes “taking the Lord’s name in vain”? Is it *any *use of a name for God in a nonreligious context? The use cited above seemed pretty innocuous to me, but I’m not a very good Catholic, and my opinion here might be just another sign of how far down the slippery slope I’ve slud, eh?

 

[AJV]

I’m curious about the charge leveled, a few post back, that the expression “My God, what pedantry” was taking the Lord’s name in vain. I thought the charge itself a little pedantic, and probably disingenuous, but that’s another issue.

My question: What actually constitutes “taking the Lord’s name in vain”? Is it *any *use of a name for God in a nonreligious context? The use cited above seemed pretty innocuous to me, but I’m not a very good Catholic, and my opinion here might be just another sign of how far down the slippery slope I’ve slud, eh?

I think I might have slid down the same slope, redactorab