Tonight, I went to the EF for the first time

[ProVobis]

Good thoughts, Mark.

One of the things which stands out in my mind is the famous Palm Sunday “Give us Barabbas” response in the OF. Now we all will probably take a different view of this but it seems I cannot bring myself to responding in this and similar situations.

I can’t help but wonder what if only several people back in Christ time had yelled this phrase, would it have had as much impact as the magnitude of the crowd if they had just been there with picket signs, for example, or said nothing? It seems their presence was more intimidating to Pontius Pilate than the fact they were screaming for Barabbas. But then I wasn’t there so I could be wrong.

 

[Timothy17]

Yes, I wonder how much better off we would all have been if they had …] fixes like moving “Ite missa est” to the end so the priest isn’t stuck telling a falsehood at Mass.

The Ite, Missa Est does precede the Last Gospel.

“It is finished.” (this is the Ite, Missa Est)

“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” (this is the Last Gospel)

Understand that the Mass was (is?) modeled explicitly after the Lord’s Mass (that is, His Passion). Remember that once he was crowned and placed upon the Cross, everything he said there and then had the authority of a Royal Edict or Decree. They were the Lord’s own “ex cathedra” statements: “Here is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” That was His Coronation. Obviously, Jesus was infallible and impeccable throughtout his entire life; nonetheless, God the Father in His Wisdom did ensure He would be given a crown, coronation and a throne. The fact they were so perverted by humans/sinners only adds to the meaning: no King ever underwent such a coronation.

I think it’s important to remember all the symbolism the Lord himself used (such as a crown of thorns and a cross for a throne), as it was hardly unimportant and always sacramental. It all says something.

 

[MarkThompson]

The Ite, Missa Est does precede the Last Gospel.

“It is finished.” (this is the Ite, Missa Est)

“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” (this is the Last Gospel)

Actually, although the interpretation of “missa est” is debated, “Ite” is the plural command, “Go!” “Missa est” has been translated variously as “it [the congregation] is sent,” “it is the dismissal,” and similar. Our word “Mass” comes from it, since “missa” was difficult to interpret and people though it was just an unfamiliar noun: “Go, it is missa.”

In any event, it has nothing to do with the last words of Christ, which are totally different in Latin (“Consummatum est!” “It is consummated!”), and it used to be the actual end of Mass, as you would indeed expect from the command “Go!” Everything that follows, including the Last Gospel, are encrustations that were not codified into the Mass until Trent.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Actually, although the interpretation of “missa est” is debated, “Ite” is the plural command, “Go!” “Missa est” has been translated variously as “it [the congregation] is sent,” “it is the dismissal,” and similar. Our word “Mass” comes from it, since “missa” was difficult to interpret and people though it was just an unfamiliar noun: “Go, it is missa.”

In any event, it has nothing to do with the last words of Christ, which are totally different in Latin (“Consummatum est!” “It is consummated!”), and it used to be the actual end of Mass, as you would indeed expect from the command “Go!” Everything that follows, including the Last Gospel, are encrustations that were not codified into the Mass until Trent.

“Missa est” is a Roman phrase literally meaning “the thing is sent,” that is, the juridical judgment. It signaled the end of a court case, when the judge out his final judgment. This became colloquial to mean “it’s over,” basically. It is true that the word missa is where the word for Mass comes, but your last sentence betrays an ignorance of liturgical principles and history.

Of note (regarding colloquial usages in the Mass) is the phrase uttered by the deacon before the blessing of incense “Benedicite, Pater reverende.” Why is the imperative plural? I don’t think this has ever been definitively settled, but one explanation is that “benedicite” had become a salutation in later Latin, and it was chosen for this reason, coupled with the fact that he was actually blessing the incense, but we’d need a liturgical historian for more information.

 

[MarkThompson]

“Missa est” is a Roman phrase literally meaning “the thing is sent,” that is, the juridical judgment. It signaled the end of a court case, when the judge sent a scribe with his final judgment. This became colloquial to mean “it’s over,” basically. It is true that the word missa is where the word for Mass comes, but your last sentence betrays an ignorance of liturgical principles and history.

Of note (regarding colloquial usages in the Mass) is the phrase uttered by the deacon before the blessing of incense “Benedicite, Pater reverende.” Why is the imperative plural? I don’t think this has ever been definitively settled, but one explanation is that “benedicite” had become a salutation in later Latin, and it was chosen for this reason, coupled with the fact that he was actually blessing the incense, but we’d need a liturgical historian for more information.

I wonder if you have a source for the claim that “missa est” colloquially meant “it’s over” before it was introduced into the Latin Mass. It’s not a claim I’ve ever seen supported in the literature, and indeed it’s in great tension with the fact that this phrase led to the word “Missa” to refer to the Mass. If people understood “missa est” to mean “it’s over,” then this would be equivalent to adopting the term “an Over” to describe the Mass. Again, source, please.

Also, despite your attacks on my ignorance, you haven’t actually tried to correct me on anything, so I’ll just assume that’s because you cant.

Edited to add: Sorry, the wink was sarcastic. So let me point you instead to the last section of this article, and ask if you disagree with anything in it.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Source for missa est, Fr. Calvin Goodwin, FSSP.

The term “encrustation” is ridiculous and implies that it’s just some unimportant addition to the Mass.

While in most cases the priest would say the last gospel on the way back to the sacristy as a thanksgiving (as the Benedicite and appointed psalms are now said), I believe the Dominicans were influential in popularizing it and in saying it at the altar. Eventually, for many reasons (especially among religious, whose masses would all be said very close to the sacristy or in the sacristy, not leaving enough time to recite the gospel entirely before returning), the practiced developed of saying it in its entirety at the altar pretty much everywhere. It was codified thus by St. Pius V. Just because something wasn’t used in the 4th century doesn’t make it an “encrustation.” What’s more, your statement implied that the last gospel was invented by St. Pius V or wasn’t universally (or nearly universally) practiced before the Council of Trent.

It seems that this agrees with the article from CE.

 

[MarkThompson]

Source for missa est, Fr. Calvin Goodwin, FSSP.

So, I guess that means no published or academic source.

The term “encrustation” is ridiculous and implies that it’s just some unimportant addition to the Mass.

While in most cases the priest would say the last gospel on the way back to the sacristy as a thanksgiving (as the Benedicite and appointed psalms are now said), I believe the Dominicans were influential in popularizing it and in saying it at the altar. Eventually, for many reasons (especially among religious, whose masses would all be said very close to the sacristy or in the sacristy, not leaving enough time to recite the gospel entirely before returning), the practiced developed of saying it in its entirety at the altar pretty much everywhere. It was codified thus by St. Pius V. Just because something wasn’t used in the 4th century doesn’t make it an “encrustation.” What’s more, your statement implied that the last gospel was invented by St. Pius V or wasn’t universally (or nearly universally) practiced before the Council of Trent.

It seems that this agrees with the article from CE.

No one’s talking about the fourth century, I’m talking about like the twelfth or thirteenth century. My point is, “Ite missa est” belongs at the end of Mass. It was at the end of Mass, and even after other things were tacked on it was still understood as being the end of Mass, and that those later things were just private devotions. I don’t see what you’re getting so exercised about here. I’m fine with keeping the Last Gospel, etc. (though I would have it out loud), I just think if those things are going to be in the Mass they should be before, not after, the directive “Go, missa est.” That’s how liturgical development naturally operates: organic development is often illogical, so after a period of organic development you occasionally need to go through and reform some things. I just think the Pian reforms dropped the ball on the location of “Ite missa est,” that’s all. (I also would have kept more than four sequences, but that’s a different story.) The command winds up being an untruth, and I think it ought to be reformed.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

So, I guess that means no published or academic source.

No, he’s only published several sermons (and probably multiple other works) and has two masters, not an academic source. You can call him at OLGS seminary in Denton, NE, if you want more information.

No one’s talking about the fourth century, I’m talking about like the twelfth or thirteenth century.

The point is the same. Antiquarianism isn’t a liturgical principle. If it were, we should go back to the fourth century or, actually, we should sit at a table like at the Last Supper. Only priests allowed, too!

My point is, “Ite missa est” belongs at the end of Mass. It was at the end of Mass, and even after other things were tacked on it was still understood as being the end of Mass, and that those later things were just private devotions.

No, it wasn’t considered the end of Mass at least from the time of Quo Primum on.

I don’t see what you’re getting so exercised about here. I’m fine with keeping the Last Gospel, etc. (though I would have it out loud), I just think if those things are going to be in the Mass they should be before, not after, the directive “Go, missa est.”

Let’s call a committee and have a vote.

That’s how liturgical development naturally operates: organic development is often illogical, so after a period of organic development you occasionally need to go through and reform some things. I just think the Pian reforms dropped the ball on the location of “Ite missa est,” that’s all. (I also would have kept more than four sequences, but that’s a different story.) The command winds up being an untruth, and I think it ought to be reformed.

Right, you, a layman in the 21st century, know better than Pope St. Pius V and scores of liturgical historians and theologians from the time of Trent, all members of the clergy with the grace of state to make such decisions. This is the mindset of the men who hijacked the liturgical movement and destroyed the Roman Rite. It reminds me of people I hear speaking after Mass: “Yes, I know Father [traditional priest with years of good formation] said such-and-such, but I think x, y, or z is better.” The era of a Church run by the faithful with no respect for the clergy. I’m not saying you fall into this category, but it just sounds that way, especially considering your comment about Fr. Goodwin.

There really isn’t such a thing as organic development after Trent. Only the Pope has authority to change the liturgy, so there isn’t the development as it occurred up till that time. I don’t see how you get to decide what is and is not authentic development. Either go with the committee method and accept its fruits or don’t. If you are saying we can each come up with what we think is “best,” then I don’t really see a solution to your proposal. Everyone has his own ideas. Just because yours are yours doesn’t make them best.

 

[MarkThompson]

No, he’s only published several sermons (and probably multiple other works) and has two masters, not an academic source. You can call him at OLGS seminary in Denton, NE, if you want more information.

So, no PhD then. Also, no such claims in print, apparently … are we just going by your recollection of what he once said orally? Sorry, I’ll take multiple academic encyclopedias over a game of telephone.

The point is the same. Antiquarianism isn’t a liturgical principle. If it were, we should go back to the fourth century or, actually, we should sit at a table like at the Last Supper. Only priests allowed, too!

Ah yes; 1570 must be preserved in amber, but 1470 is so ancient it might as well be a Jewish temple rite.

No, it wasn’t considered the end of Mass at least from the time of Quo Primum on.

LOL, thanks! That’s exactly what I said, which you then criticized me for being blazingly ignorant for.

Right, you, a layman in the 21st century, know better than Pope St. Pius V and scores of liturgical historians and theologians from the time of Trent, all members of the clergy with the grace of state to make such decisions. This is the mindset of the men who hijacked the liturgical movement and destroyed the Roman Rite. It reminds me of people I hear speaking after Mass: “Yes, I know Father [traditional priest with years of good formation] said such-and-such, but I think x, y, or z is better.” The era of a Church run by the faithful with no respect for the clergy. I’m not saying you fall into this category, but it just sounds that way, especially considering your comment about Fr. Goodwin.

There really isn’t such a thing as organic development after Trent.

And how I wish that people could recognize this for what it is – a bug, not a feature. People act so surprised and puzzled about why so many changes (including, BTW, putting Ite Missa Est back at the end of the Mass) happened after the liturgy was opened up to reform in the wake of VII. So they have all kinds of theories, about Protestants on the liturgy committees, the “Smoke of Satan in the Vatican,” Bugnini was a closet Freemason, you name it. The reality is much simpler, yet perhaps harder to hear: It’s like the difference between continental drift, which is what happens when natural processes are allowed to plod along slowly, and what you get when they’re bottled up for too long: an earthquake or a volcanic eruption, and a big mess for everyone to clean up afterward.

If you looked at any four-century period in the history of the Church up to 1570, you would see fairly massive changes in the liturgy of the Church. If you look at the four centuries after Trent, you see practically zero changes. When the biggies are stuff like adding the sequence Stabat mater back in (I guess they thought Trent got that one wrong, whoops), that means that for all intents and purposes you’re in stasis. And stasis just isn’t sustainable, over the long timeline. Stretch a good thing too far, and it will snap.

Only the Pope has authority to change the liturgy, so there isn’t the development as it occurred up till that time. I don’t see how you get to decide what is and is not authentic development. Either go with the committee method and accept its fruits or don’t. If you are saying we can each come up with what we think is “best,” then I don’t really see a solution to your proposal. Everyone has his own ideas. Just because yours are yours doesn’t make them best.

Uh, okay. I’m not “going with any method” for changing the liturgy, because I’m just a guy posting on the internet about what he thinks the Pope should do. I do think it’s best to have Ite missa est at the actual end of the Mass, not only for historical reasons but also for logical ones, as I’ve explained. And I haven’t heard anything to the contrary, except “that’s not how it’s been since -]the fourth century/-] 1570,” “the liturgy doesn’t change anymore,” and “that’s the mindset of people who destroyed the Roman Rite.” But those are just a bunch of non-sequiturs and ad hominems.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

So, no PhD then.

LOL, do you have a doctorate relating at all to the issue, either?

No, like it or not, the principle that the liturgy no longer develops organically has been set in stone by the Council of Trent. There’s no looking back without completely removing the liturgical infrastructure that was put in place during the Counter-Reformation. That’s a principle now. We can accept that and work under its structure, or we can choose another method (e.g., liturgy by committee). We really can’t go back to the development of the Middle Ages. It’s just not possible in the modern world, especially with communication being what it is. There can’t be much of local organic development (as it was until Trent) because of that. Those are really the only two options.

Bugnini was a freemason. His family members have corroborated this (in the words, “everyone in the family knew he was a freemason”) to a priest I know very well and who would not lie about something of such importance. In fact, he is probably the most intellectually honest (and gifted) person I know.

P.S. You are better off discussing these issues with the good priests at the Shrine of Christ the King rather than with those at St. John Cantius, even though the church of the latter is certainly much nicer at the moment. The shrine will be beautiful when it is finished.

 

[MarkThompson]

LOL, do you have a doctorate relating at all to the issue, either?

No, but I’m looking at published academic sources, whereas what you have is your best recollection of what some guy once told you. And the funny thing is, if “Ite missa est” in fact did mean “Go, it’s over,” that’s all the more reason why it should be at the end of the Mass and not followed by five minutes of additional proceedings.

No, like it or not, the principle that the liturgy no longer develops organically has been set in stone by the Council of Trent. There’s no looking back without completely removing the liturgical infrastructure that was put in place during the Counter-Reformation. That’s a principle now. We can accept that and work under its structure, or we can choose another method (e.g., liturgy by committee). We really can’t go back to the development of the Middle Ages. It’s just not possible in the modern world, especially with communication being what it is. There can’t be much of local organic development (as it was until Trent) because of that. Those are really the only two options.

You have three options: (1) freezing the liturgy in a time capsule, (2) organic development as occurred to develop the liturgy that was codified at Trent, or (3) centralized, yet regular – and when necessary bold – reforms and corrections coming from the Vatican.

Option 1 works for a few centuries at most, but eventually changes need to made, and there’s a giant backlog, so you open things up, and you get what happened in the wake of Vatican II. Option 2 is probably impractical in today’s world, for the reasons you point out above. Option 3 is the safe and reasonable path.

But that means that the Vatican both can and should correct the course of the liturgy before things that need improvement stack up. Ite missa est is pretty much objectively worse where it currently is – it’s illogical, it’s confusing, it makes the priest a liar, and its historical basis just amounts to a explanation for the irregularity, not a justification. The same is true of 1962 calendar, which bizarrely has not yet been updated to include post-1962 saints. That should have been done yesterday.

Bottle those, and a hundred similar things, up for a few hundred years, and you won’t like the result. Solution? A one-page motu proprio now and then. What’s to be so scared of? You should be scared of the opposite.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Bottle those, and a hundred similar things, up for a few hundred years, and you won’t like the result. Solution? A one-page motu proprio now and then. What’s to be so scared of? You should be scared of the opposite.

What’s to scared of? People doing what happened at Vatican II, if not immediately, then slowly but surely. As you said, even bold changes are okay. If I trusted those making the liturgical decisions, this wouldn’t be as bad. Popes did make small changes throughout history beginning very soon after Pius V, as you probably know. The problem is when boldness seems okay (e.g., in St. Pius X’s revision of the psalter, which people were up in arms about). Very relevant is this article of the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article2.

I also find it perplexing that you agree that organic liturgical development is the best method yet argue that we ought to get rid of something that developed organically.

 

[Bbigam]

One of the first criticisms of the New Mass I heard was that the priest recites “…our sacrifice…” while the old Mass distinguishes between the sacrifice of the priest and the sacrifice of those present. In other words, the priest in persona Christi offers the actual sacrifice. Perhaps a subtle difference but one which seems to set the tone for the roles played by the priest and the community.

This is actually a problem with the current (and outgoing!) English translation of the Missal. The new translation, hopefully coming out next year sometime, says:

Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters),
that my sacrifice and yours
may be acceptable to God,
the almighty Father.

Which is in line with the Latin text, and I believe is unchanged from the Extraordinary Form, aside from the (brothers and sisters) of course.

I’m pretty excited about the new and more faithful translation.
usccb.org/romanmissal/index.shtml

 

[MarkThompson]

What’s to scared of? People doing what happened at Vatican II, if not immediately, then slowly but surely. As you said, even bold changes are okay. If I trusted those making the liturgical decisions, this wouldn’t be as bad. Popes did make small changes throughout history beginning very soon after Pius V, as you probably know. The problem is when boldness seems okay (e.g., in St. Pius X’s revision of the psalter, which people were up in arms about). Very relevant is this article of the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article2.

What you want to avoid is having a one-hoss shay liturgy:
At half past nine by the meet’n’-house clock, –
Just the hour of the earthquake shock!

What do you think the parson found,
When he got up and stared around?
The poor old [liturgy] in a heap or mound,
As if it had been to the mill and ground!
You see, of course, if you’re not a dunce,
How it went to pieces all at once, –
All at once, and nothing first, –
Just as bubbles do when they burst.

End of the wonderful -]one-hoss shay/-] inorganic liturg-ay.
Logic is logic. That’s all I say.

I also find it perplexing that you agree that organic liturgical development is the best method yet argue that we ought to get rid of something that developed organically.

What I am trying to get rid of? I think the Pope ought to move three words (and its response) back a few minutes.

 

[ProVobis]

This is actually a problem with the current (and outgoing!) English translation of the Missal. The new translation, hopefully coming out next year sometime, says:

Which is in line with the Latin text, and I believe is unchanged from the Extraordinary Form, aside from the (brothers and sisters) of course.

I didn’t see that. Thanks.