Vatican II and changes that followed were necesary changes in the Church

[brotherhrolf]

Liturgical abuse existed in the TLM too, people must konw that before they so harshly judge the OF

Liturgical abuse in the EF was largely about priests saying Mass as fast as they could and “mushing” the Latin. I never saw any of that in my entire pre-1970 life of nineteen years. (And I cannot tell you how many EF’s I served as an altar boy with just me and Father in attendance at that 6 am Mass). If we judge the OF harshly, perhaps it is because we have seen women dressed in gauzy flowing dresses wafting bowls of incense and dancing hither and yon up the main aisle of a cathedral. Or we have seen 12’ high maypole banners with streaming ribbons being carried up the main aisle of a cathedral like flambeaux carriers in a Mardi Gras parade.

Thank you, mi Senor, but I will take the priest slurring Latin any day rather than have the Cecil B. DeMille productions/abuses I’ve seen in my 25 years of singing in a cathedral choir. And that doesn’t even begin to address any of the other things I have seen at my local geographic parish.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Liturgical abuse in the EF was largely about priests saying Mass as fast as they could and “mushing” the Latin. I never saw any of that in my entire pre-1970 life of nineteen years. (And I cannot tell you how many EF’s I served as an altar boy with just me and Father in attendance at that 6 am Mass). If we judge the OF harshly, perhaps it is because we have seen women dressed in gauzy flowing dresses wafting bowls of incense and dancing hither and yon up the main aisle of a cathedral. Or we have seen 12’ high maypole banners with streaming ribbons being carried up the main aisle of a cathedral like flambeaux carriers in a Mardi Gras parade.

Thank you, mi Senor, but I will take the priest slurring Latin any day rather than have the Cecil B. DeMille productions/abuses I’ve seen in my 25 years of singing in a cathedral choir. And that doesn’t even begin to address any of the other things I have seen at my local geographic parish.

Last i checked, V2 didnt authorize liturgical abuse, its ridiculus to think that if we kept the TLM, that none of the current abuses would be a problem. The only ones that wouldnt be would be the changing of wording, and that is because most priests wouldnt know enough latin to do it. They just repeat the exact words they learned. They learned latin in order to say Mass, they didnt learn latin and learn the Mass

 

[brotherhrolf]

Last i checked, V2 didnt authorize liturgical abuse, its ridiculus to think that if we kept the TLM, that none of the current abuses would be a problem. The only ones that wouldnt be would be the changing of wording, and that is because most priests wouldnt know enough latin to do it. They just repeat the exact words they learned. They learned latin in order to say Mass, they didnt learn latin and learn the Mass

I respectfully disagree with you. I never heard anyone changing Latin into something it is not. I have heard with my own Mark 1 ears far too many times when the wording of the OF has been changed to fit the group for which the Mass is celebrated. No sir, I am not going to allow you to compare the “abuses” I saw as a kid as comparable as the abuses I have seen as an adult.

Senor- permit me to address you. When I was a kid ( I was born in 1951) the priests did know Latin as did the brothers and the sisters as well. I am the product of thirteen years of Catholic education - the vast majority of it before Vatican II. (I’m not dead yet, I’m feeling better!). I have no fear of Latin and all throughout my high school (eighth through twelve grade) by golly those brothers made it an absolute certainty that we knew not only the Latin roots of the words (you do know that modern English has a tremendous amout of words adopted from the Latin courtesy of Shakespeare et al? ) but that we had a really spiffy vocabulary so that at age 56 we could laugh when Bill O’ Reilly introduces the word " jejune" on his show. - Eighth grade vocabulary in Brother Rene’s class.

It really annoys me to no end that there are scores of us alive who grew up with the EF and who went to Catholic schools all of our lives! Perdoname Senor. I’m not dead. At 56 I am perfectly willing to drop back to the Mass of my childhood. Do not think that I could not go back to it without looking back. I could.

Would I really want to? No. But the Mass that was envisioned when I was a teenager and the Mass we get today are as far apart as East is from the West. And I get really, really, really tired being lectured by you folks from uptime (a science fiction term which applies very well to this situation) who look down upon us.

In my heart and in my memory, I am that altar boy…I would be that altar boy still. Sigh.

There are times when I cry. It’s not some kind of extraordinary plea on my part. You have a body of people before you who arent’t lying…who aren’t making things up…I was in high school when V II came across. We did not all accept it as being " the most wonderful thing to come across since sliced bread"

I have the 'been thered; done that medal and by golly I am entitled to speak.

I grew up in New Orleans. I went to Catholic school from Primer to 12th grade. I grew up in probably one of the most Catholic cities in the USA.

I married DW in BR (70 miles north of NO) If you don’t think we are Catholic., quess again.

Senor gets one version of history and then we have the version of hisotry here in which we accept the Cubans ( oh, yes, they were so different from us) New Orleans and Habana were never connected.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I believe the best thing that came was the long overdue return to the verncular. The last time the Church did that was when Latin replaced Aramaic. While I appreciate the value a dead language brings to theological consitency, it hinders understanding among the majority. Thus I believe that both Latin and vernacular languages serve vital functions. Latin is the standard and the constant, but other languages are needed to communicate well. By the way, tongues in Acts was not a unified language but each person heard their own language on the day of Pentacost, yet they were amazed because of the disciples were Galilean.

I would think also a side benefit of other languages is a correction of some of the mystical aura some grant the Latin language as if it has an inherent holiness.

Oh, you mean like Pope John XXIIIrd in Veterum Sapientia:

The nature of Latin

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

 

[thedavidwilson]

I believe the best thing that came was the long overdue return to the verncular.

Before Vatican 2 the last vernacular celebration of the Mass was Latin in the 5th century. The language in the Latin Mass then became a sacred language much like Jews and Muslims have Hebrew and classical Arabic in their ceremonies. Never has a church gone from a sacred language to the vernacular. The change after VII was not organic and was unprecedented.

 

[thedavidwilson]

Oh, you mean like Pope John XXIIIrd in Veterum Sapientia:

The nature of Latin

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

Stop throwing the facts in our face!

 

[thedavidwilson]

From what authority or Church teaching do you extract this logic?

The authority of human reason and logic.

 

[I_Believe]

Stop throwing the facts in our face!

lol, I have NEVER seen anyone on this forum who touts Mass in the venacular comment on the Veterum Sapientia after it is mentioned.

I suspect the fact that the man who called VII wrote it scares them to death

 

[pnewton]

Oh, you mean like Pope John XXIIIrd in Veterum Sapientia:

Absolutely not. That was not the type of mystical aura I was talking about. I have heard people remark that Latin was the language used in heaven and that the angels speak Latin. I find such talk resembles the way some Fundamentalists view the King James Version. I found nothing int the encyclical that causes me any change in my opinion on the use of the vernacular, nor do I contradict this. Quite the opposite, I even commented on the issue of immutablity and primacy of Latin.

Fully half of the document is dedicated to education in Latin and Greek. Of course this should be obviously continued. What the document did not address, and I do not know why I was quoted, was the use of the vernacular. It also did not address the fact that speaking in tongues was not a single language.

Again, speaking of tongues (or in tongues), I have read others speculate that speaking in tongues,as a gift, was Latin. This is the type of aura I speak of, not the logical assessment of John XXIII.

TO: I Believe

I don’t mean to scare you.

 

[stmaria]

=pnewton;3367783]Absolutely not. That was not the type of mystical aura I was talking about.** I have heard people remark that ****Latin was the language used in heaven and that the angels speak Latin. **I find such talk resembles the way some Fundamentalists view the King James Version.

Pope Paul VI Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
" We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that **language of the angels? **We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values? "

Fully half of the document is dedicated to education in Latin and Greek. Of course this should be obviously continued. What the document did not address, and I do not know why I was quoted, was the** use of the vernacular**. It also did not address the fact that speaking in tongues was not a single language.

Again, speaking of tongues (or in tongues), I have read others speculate that speaking in tongues,as a gift, was Latin. This is the type of aura I speak of, not the logical assessment of John XXIII.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

Paul VI, General Audience, November 19, 1969: "1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the** liturgical innovation **of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

1. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past [indeed], which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.
2. …This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed…
3. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by** every novelty **that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.
4. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. **This novelty is no small thing. … This moment is shaking the Church… **
5. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant…"
6. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? **What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values? **
   I
   And what did Pope Paul think was more precious than "these loftiest of our Church’s values?
7. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
8. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed.** Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language **which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech. "

Not the “language of the angels” but “plain language…everyday speech”. It is highly debatable if participation by modern people and plain everyday speech is more proper in the sacrifice of the Mass then the" expressive sacrality of Latin"

 

[SenorSalsa]

brotherhrolf said

Senor- permit me to address you. When I was a kid ( I was born in 1951) the priests did know Latin as did the brothers and the sisters as well. I am the product of thirteen years of Catholic education - the vast majority of it before Vatican II. (I’m not dead yet, I’m feeling better!). I have no fear of Latin and all throughout my high school (eighth through twelve grade) by golly those brothers made it an absolute certainty that we knew not only the Latin roots of the words (you do know that modern English has a tremendous amout of words adopted from the Latin courtesy of Shakespeare et al? ) but that we had a really spiffy vocabulary so that at age 56 we could laugh when Bill O’ Reilly introduces the word " jejune" on his show. - Eighth grade vocabulary in Brother Rene’s class.

I cant tell from what you posted there, but were you able to talk fluently in Latin? as in, could you have conversed in Latin the same way, or close to the same way you conversed in Latin?

thedavidwilson said

Before Vatican 2 the last vernacular celebration of the Mass was Latin in the 5th century. The language in the Latin Mass then became a sacred language much like Jews and Muslims have Hebrew and classical Arabic in their ceremonies. Never has a church gone from a sacred language to the vernacular. The change after VII was not organic and was unprecedented.

According to my Jewish friend, he didnt even know what he was saying when he read in Hebrew out of the Torah for his Bar Mitzvah, becuase they arent taught that, just how to say it in Hebrew. A sacred language doesnt mean anything if nobody knows it

And since most people do not attend Catholic school anymore, for a variety of reasons, and im willing to bet that 99% or more of public schools do not offer Latin as a class. And seeing Latin on one page and English on the other is not going to teach you anything. Youll hear babel, see babel, and pay attention to English

 

[mgrfin]

"

STMARIA:

You have taken the words of the Pope out of context. All the beauty of the latin Mass aside, what is to be gained in understanding of our prayer to God is worth it. THAT IS WHAT HIS MESSAGE WAS:

Quote
“Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.”

And then he quotes St. Paul:
“Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: “In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:19).”

Accept all of what the Pope said, not pick out parts which favors your agenda. That’s being a cafeteria Christian.

peace

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3369444]STMARIA:

You have taken the words of the Pope out of context. All the beauty of the latin Mass aside, what is to be gained in understanding of our prayer to God is worth it. THAT IS WHAT HIS MESSAGE WAS:

Out of context? I posted the entire paragraph.

Quote
“Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.”

And then he quotes St. Paul:
“Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: “In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:19).”

Accept all of what the Pope said, not pick out parts which favors your agenda. That’s being a cafeteria Christian

.

Pope Paul believed that participation of the people was worth more than having the liturgy of the mass in Latin. He believed that Catholics didn’t understand the prayers in the mass because they were in Latin. He was wrong.
How is it that I understand the liturgy? Participation of the people has not produced the fruits imagined by Pope Paul and the reformers of the Mass.

 

[mgrfin]

Out of context? I posted the entire paragraph.

.

Pope Paul believed that participation of the people was worth more than having the liturgy of the mass in Latin. He believed that Catholics didn’t understand the prayers in the mass because they were in Latin. He was wrong.
How is it that I understand the liturgy? Participation of the people has not produced the fruits imagined by Pope Paul and the reformers of the Mass.

So, a few people, like you and I, understand what is being said. It came at a great cost to me, 8 years of studying the Latin language. Others do not have the luxury of my educated understanding.

There was a tremendous gain, and the Holy Father knew it was coming. It was a risk he was willing to take. The 'fruits imagined by Pope Paul and the reformers of the Mass" came to fruition - people understood what was going on. Their prayers were understood, and were sent off to God with a new power, the power of the intellect.

So, we don’t have the “Last Gospel”, which had no real connection to the Sacrifice of the Mass - it was an 'add-on", as was the “Hail Holy Queen” and the “Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel”. When were these added to the Liturgy, and what did they have to do with the Sacrifice of the Mass?

We could have added-on Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, which was added in some places - what is the connection with the Sacrifice?

The add-on’s happened because people did not understand what was happening in the first place in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These add-on prayers were ‘for the people’’; the mass was for the priest.

This is all crying over split milk. You now have your latin mass back - enjoy it, and please stop complaining about it. It is 40 years - isn’t it about time to move on?

Charitable prayers to all my friends in this thread.

peace

 

[Brother_John]

Out of context? Pope Paul believed that participation of the people was worth more than having the liturgy of the mass in Latin. He believed that Catholics didn’t understand the prayers in the mass because they were in Latin. He was wrong.
How is it that I understand the liturgy? Participation of the people has not produced the fruits imagined by Pope Paul and the reformers of the Mass.

Who are YOU to judge the Pope?

 

[James0235]

If you read the 1962 Mass you will notice that OT readings were integrated thoughout the Mass in addition to the Epistle and Gospel reading. I have never made a one-to-one comparison but I would imagine there is just as much scripture in the Tridentine Mass as there is in the NO.

And there you might be wrong. I have my handy-dandy 1962 St. Joseph Missal which was presented to me in when I was confirmed in March of 1963 right here. I can assure you that we hear far more scripture today than back then. There was no three year cycle in which all of Scripture is read. One heard the same scripture readings on the same day every year.

brotherhrolf,

I think there can be no doubt that the Ordinary Form offers a much greater variety of Scripture than the Extraordinary Form.

You mentioned the 3 year cycle in the OF. In addition to that is the addition of another reading (from the Old Testament) on Sundays. As thedavidwilson mentioned the Extraordinary Form does contain OT readings. The weekdays of Lent are an example of this. But, typically the readings in a Sunday Mass in the Extraordinary Form will contain a NT reading and a Gospel reading.

But, even in the Ordinary Form not all of Scripture is read.
According to Fr. Felix Just, S.J. in the Ordinary Form 3.7% of the OT and 40.8% of the NT is read over 3 years on Sundays and Holy Days. (This becomes 13.5% and 71.5% if you include weekday readings as well.)

In the Extraordinary Form of Mass 1% of the OT and 16.5% of the NT is read on Sundays and Holy Days each year.

None of these figures include the Psalms.

But, I do think that the typical Mass in the EF will actually contain more Scripture than the typical Mass in the OF.

In the OF on a typical Sunday we have an Old Testament Reading, a Responsorial Psalm, A New Testament Reading, and the Gospel.

In addition to that some parishes use the Entrance Antiphon and Communion Antiphon. But, in my experience, it is the rare parish that does not replace these 2 with hymns (which is permitted according to the GIRM).

In the EF we generally have the Introit (Entrance Antiphon), the Epistle, the Gradual, the Alleluia Verse (replaced by the Tract in the seasons of Septuagesima and Lent), the Gospel and the Communion Verse.

In addition to that Mass in the Extraordinary Form is preceded by the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar in which Psalm 42 is recited.

While incensing the altar a portion of Psalm 140 is recited. And while washing his hands the priest recites a portion of Psalm 25.

So, I think Mass in the EF will typically contain more scripture (largely coming from the Psalms) but a Mass in the OF will contain a much greater variety of scripture.

James

 

[ProVobis]

" And seeing Latin on one page and English on the other is not going to teach you anything."

I fully disagree. Why buy a missal that has both if you don’t at least want to learn the Latin? And also, why do you ignore the fact that one can comprehend better having both the Latin and the English available?

 

[GerardP]

Who are YOU to judge the Pope?

He’s not judging the Pope as Pope, he’s judging the actions and policies of the Pope.

 

[brotherhrolf]

And since most people do not attend Catholic school anymore, for a variety of reasons, and im willing to bet that 99% or more of public schools do not offer Latin as a class. And seeing Latin on one page and English on the other is not going to teach you anything. Youll hear babel, see babel, and pay attention to English

The human brain has an amazing capacity for languages particularly when children are exposed to them before the age of puberty. We did indeed know that dominus meant lord; corpus meant body; etc. etc. It was certainly not babel. And when you look at the etymology of English, many of our tri-syllabic words are Latin in origin. Then there is the whole issue of cognates.

I did then and I do now know precisely what I was saying in Latin as an altar boy. It was not meaningless repetition of words memorized. Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam meant to God who is the joy of my youth. You may not be able to see how having Latin on one page and English on the other might work but I can assure you it did work.

 

[Brother_John]

He’s not judging the Pope as Pope, he’s judging the actions and policies of the Pope.

momma-dog-face-bananna-patch ???