S
SacredHeartFan
Guest
Why did they have to change the mass? Couldn’t they have just translated the TLM into vernacular languages? This way it would be reverent and totally understandable to the congragation.
- Status
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
Alas, hindsight is 20/20.
This topic has been debated many times. Usually what come sup is the fact that in 1965 we had the TLM in English- but the wording became NO-esque very quickly and the 1965 Missal was obsolete almost immediately after it was written.
Once the new translation of the Mass is released things will get better, I guarantee it. And one day, God willing, the NO may just revert back to the TLM. You never know
This topic has been debated many times. Usually what come sup is the fact that in 1965 we had the TLM in English- but the wording became NO-esque very quickly and the 1965 Missal was obsolete almost immediately after it was written.
Once the new translation of the Mass is released things will get better, I guarantee it. And one day, God willing, the NO may just revert back to the TLM. You never know
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
We’re not allowed to talk about one form “versus” another, but as for why things “had to” change - they didn’t.
More accurately, some things “had to” change because the council fathers agree to a tiny set of specific liturgical reforms. Most of the alterations, though, have no roots in the council (and some also not even in the pope’s own wishes) but in the tiny band of liturgists who made it their mission to remake the Church’s worship in a new image. I just realized that sentence sounded more than a tad bitter, but I wasn’t feeling it as I wrote it - it’s just the way things were, and the reformers themselves (Bugnini and Marini have both published books on the subject) have been very open about it.
More accurately, some things “had to” change because the council fathers agree to a tiny set of specific liturgical reforms. Most of the alterations, though, have no roots in the council (and some also not even in the pope’s own wishes) but in the tiny band of liturgists who made it their mission to remake the Church’s worship in a new image. I just realized that sentence sounded more than a tad bitter, but I wasn’t feeling it as I wrote it - it’s just the way things were, and the reformers themselves (Bugnini and Marini have both published books on the subject) have been very open about it.
H
historyb
Guest
S
Spiller
Guest
The Pauline Mass is “reverent and totally understandable to the congregation.” Many historians and theologians suggest the Pauline Mass is far closer to the Mass of the early church than the Tridentine Mass that dates from the Middle Ages.
Perhaps a better questions is: why did it take so long for God to bring us the Pauline Mass through His Catholic Church?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Are you related to my step mother?
The Church already had a reverent and totally understandable Mass. I doubt if the Pauline Pontificate attempted to make things more reverent, relaxing rules for fasting, vernacular, meat abstinence, Saturday fulfillment, mortal sins, etc.
As far as bringing the Mass back to original levels, what does that gain the Church? So many saints, so many great musicians, so many architects, had used their God-given talents to give greater glory to God, only to have their work destroyed by the power of the evil workmanship of the Novus Ordo. And it almost worked.
P
palmas85
Guest
Great question.
Why did it take so long? Could it be that it never should have been changed in the first place? 
The change has certainly been instrumental in creating divisions and conflicts that didn’t exist before. Change is not always a good thing.
As far as being closer to the way the early early church did things, that may be the case to some degree… I think it good to remember however, that not everything the early church did was good or even proper for that matter, The idea that many people have that anything that happened in the early church was pure and unblemished is sheer insanity and shows a definite lack of knowledge of history and the facts…
P
puzzleannie
Guest
don’t confuse the American English translation with the NO everywhere. In many languages it retains much of the TLM usages (Peace be with you, and also with you remains in Spanish for instance).
F
Freshman88
Guest
Right, disregard centuries of organic growth.It makes sense to just ignore what each generation has had to add to the mass. After all, we know better.
The Classical mass is the organic offspring of the ancient liturgy, it is a completely unfounded notion to suggest that the earlier mass is somehow more pure. In fact such a notion goes right against our understanding of liturgy and organic growth. Though I don’t expect a Pauline supporter to understand such a concept.
M
MrS
Guest
You confused me. Are you saying that the “Peace be…” quote is the correct translation?
It is not. And the correct translation is part of the change coming… or rather the change BACK to the correct “…and with your spirit.”
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
T
TheDoctor
Guest
Hi SHF. Couple of thoughts come to mind:
- “They” did not change the Mass. The Vicar of Christ changed the Mass, as he has the authority to do.
- The Mass did not “have” to be changed. It was valid and licit as it was. So then, why did the Pope change the Mass? Because he believed that it was the best thing to do for the Church (not the American church or the TLM lovers church or any other group, but for the Church throughout the world).
P
ProVobis
Guest
Like the rest of us don’t have to obey?
Actually he did it to quell the turmoil caused by gross misinterpretations of Vatican II and subsequent bandwagons. If he hadn’t consolidated all the canons that were being created all over the place, the Church would have self-destructed, in my opinion. And please, no prevailing against the gates of Hell speeches. Thanks.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
Nah, more like “the rest of us can publicly complain and post stuff all over the net and join other sects and look for loopholes and make excuses and justify our objections”.Like the rest of us don’t have to obey?
C
consumedconvert
Guest
I have one problem with the title of this thread:
"vs."
What is it about “both/and” that we Catholics cannot seem to grasp?
Two uses, One Rite.
"vs."
What is it about “both/and” that we Catholics cannot seem to grasp?
Two uses, One Rite.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Amen, Alleluia!
S
SacredHeartFan
Guest
No offense to anyone but I think that one day the Church will go back to the TLM. Our Church is a pendelum. It just takes time to get back to where it was before.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
I doubt that will happen. But if it ever does, I will obey the Church.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
From another thread, but I think it’s worth repeating:
We shouldn’t assume that everyone has or needs to have the same spirituality, spiritual practices, or even the same needs. Pitting the OF against the EF makes just about as much sense as pitting the Rosary against the Divine Mercy Chaplet, or the Brown Scapular against the Miraculous Medal.
We shouldn’t assume that everyone has or needs to have the same spirituality, spiritual practices, or even the same needs. Pitting the OF against the EF makes just about as much sense as pitting the Rosary against the Divine Mercy Chaplet, or the Brown Scapular against the Miraculous Medal.
- Status