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

[BobCatholic]

• Association of Hebrew Catholics. (thank you Nostra Aetate). What about Muslim Catholics?.

BZZZZZZZZT!

One cannot be a muslim and Catholic at the same time. Sorry, no can do.

You mean Catholics living in Israel?. Can’t be both Jewish and Christian.

Oh vey! :doh2:

When I said “Hebrew Catholics” these are people who are ethinically Jewish but have converted to Catholicism.

hebrewcatholic.org/

And yes, one can be Jewish and Christian. According to many of them “You cannot be a completed Jew until you’re a Catholic”

 

[BobCatholic]

You choose to blame Vatican II for all of the above, yet totally ignore the peer pressures of our secular society during the same time period?

Amen to that.

There was this HYPER INFLUENTIAL heresy from the 1960’s on, it had a Monty-Python-Foot effect, basically stomping on almost anything. .

http://www.hancock.net/~diana/048a.jpg

This heresy declared mirror worship to be acceptable. All kinds of selfishness, no matter how harmful to others, was declared OK. Everyone must bow down at the altar of the self, this heresy declared. Especially in the area of pelvic issues.

I read the documents of Vatican II. No mention at all of clown masses, “women priests”, “gay marriage”, liturgical abuses, liturgical dance, and other crappola I’ve witnessed, was ever permitted by Vatican II. Those things done “in the spirit of Vatican II” was done by the (evil) spirit, not Vatican II.

Vatican II was falsely accused and calumnized. Meanwhile, the guilty party, the heresy, got away scot free.

The perfect crime.

 

[DustinsDad]

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.

Seems you hold an opinion that the mass is offered “to” the people…the mass is the priest acting in persona christi, offering the Sacrifice of Christ to the Father and, in the EF of the Latin Rite, as for centuries and centuries and centuries, he is addressing Him in the language of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The people unite their prayers - themselves even - to this sacrifice and to the prayers and intentions of the priest, thus it becomes our sacrifice as well.

My brother went to a Latin Mass with me once (first time), and said he just “didn’t feel like the priest was talking to him.”

I said, “He wasn’t, he was talking to God.”

'Tis a bit of a culture shock for first-timers.

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.

That was certainly the hoped for intent of this prudential decision in the minds of alot of folks. I think you’ll see more Latin in the OF in the coming years though. Slowly but surely.

See there is a price to pay for the vernacularization. The common and the everday - “the banal” I think is the word for it - is more easily understood, but also the most easily ignored. Easier to go in one ear and out the other in alot of ways. Alot of folks going to mass these days can understand every word being said, and not have a clue as to what is actually taking place on the altar. While a person at an EF mass, while not understanding Latin, probably has a much greater understanding of what is happening on the altar just by the postures and actions of those on the altar - and those around him. Give him a missal and he’ll *definately *know.

Then again, I’m sure the abridgement of the text and prayers of the mass (and the bad vernacular translations of that abridgement) plays a major role here as well.

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?

There were good reasons for each of these things if you read the history behind them - and just allow yourself to consider the beauty of them. I love the Last Gospel by the way - what a perfect way to contemplate the awesome gift of receiving the Holy Eucharist:
"…He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them He gave great power to become the sons of God"Benediction after mass? Can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would consider this or describe it in the way you describe - as simply an “add-on”. What a blessing! What a gift! What a grace!

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 just sad. What a bizzare way of looking at things you demonstrate. These are good and holy things. Certain prayers offered after low mass (for a specific reason and intent by the way if one looks at the history of it), the reading of one of the most powerful Scripture passages in the Bible, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament…why would one feel inclined to talk of them in the way you describe above? Why the animosity?

And also, the mass is offered to the Father by the Son (acting in His priest - in persona christi) for the people. When you are draw false divisions where there are none in the EF, you run the risk of ignoring true division where there is some in the OF…namely, blurring the lines between priest and people.

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?

Obviously, there are still alot of misconceptions and misrepresentations regarding the EF that still need to be overcome. One post at a time if necessary .

DD

 

[mgrfin]

Why the animosity?

DD

There is no animosity. I dare say I’ve been to more Latin masses to date than you.

But, I don’t consider myself an ordinary catholic, who is in the need of the vernacular.

The Latin rite Mass you refer to underwent all kinds of add-ons, and corruptions through the centuries.

Language was the first thing that put us out of touch of what was happening at the Sacrifice. Prayers were added, not to make the Mass more comprehensible, but comprehensible things were added because the Mass had become so strange.

We have the Leonine prayers for the Conversion of Russia. We could add the Rosary afterwards, and the Novena to Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal. Yes, I love the “Last Gospel”, but I also love 1 Cor 13 - why can’t that be added?

And, we can have adoration of the Blessed Sacrament after the last Mass daily in a neighboring parish. This is a good thing, but there is no relationship to the actual sacrifice.

The altar rail, the distribution under one species, altar bells, etc., the extra reading of the Epistle and Gospel in English, which were read in Latin are all introductions to the Mass which had become necessary.

I’m not saying that the current Mass rite is better than before, but ‘before’ had become something the Mass was not.

I don’t expect you to agree with me. But there certainly is no animosity.

We pray for those with all charity who post here.

peace

 

[mathematician]

Now, hang with me before you yell at me.

Naturally, i realize that most on this forum dont like all the changes. But if you can find at least one change that was good, i say it was all good. It has shown us what we think should be changed, and shown us why other things should be left alone.

In my opinion, it was necesary to go too far, in order to realize that we needed to come back, as opposed to not going far enough, and people always saying we need more

Fine as long as there is some back peddling, but will there be? The Catholic Church is not in the habit of saying, “Oops, got that bit wrong” - too much loss of ecclesiastical face. And it’s infallible, don’t you know.

 

[CathFaith1]

I read the documents of Vatican II. No mention at all of clown masses, “women priests”, “gay marriage”, liturgical abuses, liturgical dance, and other crappola I’ve witnessed, was ever permitted by Vatican II. Those things done “in the spirit of Vatican II” was done by the (evil) spirit, not Vatican II.

Vatican II was falsely accused and calumnized. Meanwhile, the guilty party, the heresy, got away scot free.

The perfect crime.

I agree.

Having read **the documents ** (and continue to review them) the Council nowhere sites what you posted.

The majority of the Second Vatican Council fathers and the Popes never saw the council as discontinuous and as a rupture with the past. The emphasis was always in accord with the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council — the unbroken continuity of Catholic Tradition, both in doctrine and in many other areas. There are those who understood, and still understand, the Second Vatican Council as some sort of revolutionary destruction of the past — a sort of French Revolution — that we are destroying everything in the past and starting new all over again, with a whole new [liturgical] calendar and everything.

It is not at all what the Second Vatican Council [fathers] understood themselves as doing.

What happened, however, is there was a para-council of periti, of experts, who all dominated through the whole matrix of media representation of what was going on at the council. Because of that, there were horrible distortions in the popular imagination, including the clerical imagination, including the priests. Even they saw this as a complete rupture. Emotionally and psychologically, people who intellectually might understand that the Mass is the same if you offer it in English or in Latin, [nonetheless] thought, “We have a whole new world here, and this doesn’t really mean what it said.”

We had this whole rising expectation, this para-council that gave this impression to the world that there was this big revolution. So, when this revolution hit some blank walls like “no women priests” and “no married priests,” I think what happened was that then these expectations were frustrated. Then, people got all upset and more in a dissenting and rebellious mood.

When the history of the council is explained, it will be clear that Pope John XXIII never thought he was going make a tabula rasa by throwing away everything in the past and starting all anew, that this wasn’t his idea at all. In fact, Pope John XXIII was super-traditional in many of the things he said and did.

Bishop Bruskewitz

The main problems still seen may be attributed to Catholics being more influenced by the world; than faithful Catholics influencing the world.
Adam

 

[DustinsDad]

There is no animosity. I dare say I’ve been to more Latin masses to date than you.

I think animosity is self-evident - intentioned or not. The last point is irrelevant. Folks who have never been to a TLM are free to comment if they’ve ever looked at the texts of the two side by side.

But, I don’t consider myself an ordinary catholic, who is in the need of the vernacular.

This assumes the ordinary catholic “needs” the vernacular. This is a prudential determination that can be debated. In absolute terms it is obvious this is not necessary. Prudentially, we can discuss the benifits and defeciencies of such an approach.

The Latin rite Mass you refer to underwent all kinds of add-ons, and corruptions through the centuries.

Corruptions?

Language was the first thing that put us out of touch of what was happening at the Sacrifice. Prayers were added, not to make the Mass more comprehensible, but comprehensible things were added because the Mass had become so strange.

These accusations are so contrary to the mind of the Church I think I’ll just let them stand. My critique would only dillute their self condemnation.

We have the Leonine prayers for the Conversion of Russia. We could add the Rosary afterwards, and the Novena to Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal.

Are these bad things? Corruptions?

Yes, I love the “Last Gospel”, but I also love 1 Cor 13 - why can’t that be added?

Theoretically it could - but it hasn’t. It seems that passage is not as central to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or our faith as is John 1.

Also, how does the Last Gospel in Latin make things “more comprehensible”?

And, we can have adoration of the Blessed Sacrament after the last Mass daily in a neighboring parish. This is a good thing, but there is no relationship to the actual sacrifice.

Awesome. The Blessed Sacrament is of course related to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that is where transubstanciation occurs…but of course it is not the mass itself.

The altar rail, the distribution under one species, altar bells, etc., the extra reading of the Epistle and Gospel in English, which were read in Latin are all introductions to the Mass which had become necessary.

Indeed.Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter V
On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass. And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

I’m not saying that the current Mass rite is better than before, but ‘before’ had become something the Mass was not.I don’t expect you to agree with me…

Your opinion of what the mass was “before” seems to disagree with the Holy Father as well as this lowly man in the pew.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[ProVobis]

“You choose to blame Vatican II for all of the above, yet totally ignore the peer pressures of our secular society during the same time period?”

It then becomes important to know which came first.

---

“The Latin rite Mass you refer to underwent all kinds of add-ons, and corruptions through the centuries.”

But at least they didn’t come from mistranslations.

 

[mgrfin]

DustinsDad:
No one here disagrees with the Holy Father, but I’m not one to want the Church to go back to the times of the Council of Trent.
John XXIII felt it was time for a change, as did Paul VI and JPII.

The acceptance of Vat 2 has been far better than the reception of Vatican I. I am sure there were plenty of people that disliked Papal Infallibility, but eventually accepted it. True of most General Councils of the Church.

Same is true of Vat 2. It will take some time, and when eventually it will be seen as an Ecumenical Council, one that united the Christian Church.

I like the Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated the way it is celebrated in my neck of the woods. It is licit and in according with the norms of Vat 2 and of any Motu Proprio.

You ask: "Also, how does the Last Gospel in Latin make things “more comprehensible”?

That is my question about all of those 'add-ons"

I think Benedict XVI bent over backwards to erase any opposition. Tell me, did all the SSPX’s come running back to the Church?

Charity towards all our posters, and I remember them in my prayers.

peace

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

Hi pnewton,

I have not heard anyone on this forum talk about Latin as if it was literally the language spoken by angels or the language used in heaven (but one can only hope!) so I probably missed your point. Although Pope John XXIIIrd seemed to recognize that languages have their own characteristics which make them particularly suited for certain functions, such as the nobility and majesty of Latin and the characteristics of Greek.

I think in Veterum Sapientia John XXIIIrd almost seems to take it for granted that the liturgy of course will continue to be celebrated in Latin, and many of his comments apply both to Latin in the liturgy and for study. He seems to want to emphasize that not only should Latin be the liturgical language, but we should also ensure that in schools priests and others should know it well enough to continue further studies in theology and other areas.

 

[mgrfin]

Hi pnewton,

I have not heard anyone on this forum talk about Latin as if it was literally the language spoken by angels or the language used in heaven (but one can only hope!) so I probably missed your point. Although Pope John XXIIIrd seemed to recognize that languages have their own characteristics which make them particularly suited for certain functions, such as the nobility and majesty of Latin and the characteristics of Greek.

I think in Veterum Sapientia John XXIIIrd almost seems to take it for granted that the liturgy of course will continue to be celebrated in Latin, and many of his comments apply both to Latin in the liturgy and for study. He seems to want to emphasize that not only should Latin be the liturgical language, but we should also ensure that in schools priests and others should know it well enough to continue further studies in theology and other areas.

Are you saying that John XXIII was not interested in changing the language of the liturgy to the vernacular?

Was it all due to Bugnini, that he had this enorous power, even greater power than Cardinal Ottaviani?

peace

BTW Angeles don’t speak Latin. They communicate by power of their angelic intellect. They don’t have tongues to speak. They are not human.

 

[JReducation]

Serious Catholics that fully understand that the Mass is a sacrifice and not a social gathering will love it. Catholics that reguarly, if not daily, say the rosary, go to confession reguarly, try to go to daily Mass and understand the Tradition of the Mass will be the Catholics most attracted to it.

QUOTE]

Stmaria:

While I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and respect our opinion, I will respectfully disagree with this last statement. I believe it is too broad. I am a convert from Judaism. I have been involved in ministry, especially missionary and evangelization ministries within the US and the foreign missions since I graduated from grad school.

Like me, there are many people whom I have met who pray the rosary and celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation regularly, but do not feel attraction to the Tridentine mass. For many of us, it was never part of our Catholic experience. It is very foreign, though we realize that it is part of the Catholic heritage.

Personally, part of my PhD program included ancient languages, including Latin, which I can read and translate with fluency. But it adds nothing to my experience of Liturgy. Like me, those in the missionary churches often find the Tridentine mass far from their spiritual experience and prefer to celebrate mass in their native languages. My guess is that the Tridentine mass is probably more meaningful to Catholics of European extraction than it is to those of Indigenous extraction such as Native Americans in North and South America, the Indigenous people of Africa and Australia, or Christians from Asia, especially Russia and Asia Minor where Latin was never part of their culture or liturgy.

When I was a child, growing up Jewish, we had to learn Hebrew. My parents considered it a beautiful experience to attend Shabbat in an orthodox temple where all of the readings and prayers are in Hebrew. Only the sermon is in the local language. For those of us who were in the younger generation, it was torture. If you ask many younger Jews, they will tell you that they do not like the use of Hebrew in temple and they either not attend or prefer to attend at a Reform or Sephardic temple, because they use modern languages.

I do not believe that the language inspires the same kind of devotion in everyone. Nonetheless, I do believe and have seen great devotion among those who prefer the ancient languages and those who prefer modern languages, in Catholicism, Judaism and the Orthodox Churches.

Just my two cents.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Are you saying that John XXIII was not interested in changing the language of the liturgy to the vernacular?

Was it all due to Bugnini, that he had this enorous power, even greater power than Cardinal Ottaviani?

peace

BTW Angeles don’t speak Latin. They communicate by power of their angelic intellect. They don’t have tongues to speak. They are not human.

Yes, I am saying, from what I have read in Veterum Sapientia, that Pope John XXIIIrd was not interested in changing the liturgy into the vernacular (and certainly not entirely into the vernacular).

One point is that Pope John XXIIIrd died on June 3, 1963, months before the first document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963.

Yes, ultimately Archbishop Bugnini had greater power over the liturgy as he headed the committee which reformed it. Cardinal Ottaviani attempted to thwart it with his Ottaviani Intervention but that failed. Further, Sacrosanctum Concilium was written with enough loopholes that you could have a liturgy entirely in the vernacular without technically violating the document. And my main concern with Archbishop Bugnini’s reform isn’t so much with the Latin or lack thereof (after all, one can switch back to celebrating Mass in Latin), but rather the complete reworking of the prayers and rubrics of the Mass which is not easily undone (to say the least).

And I don’t know that Archbishop Bugnini was entirely responsible for the all vernacular liturgy (even though he seems to have wanted it), but it seems when you give people an inch, they take a mile.

And I never said Angels speak Latin, but thanks for the update .

 

[mgrfin]

Just my two cents.

JR

Well said.

Your opinion is worth far more than two cents to me.

I grew up during WWII or earlier, and the devotion of the people which filled my heart and soul in my youth, in part was in fear of war; it was for the protection and safe return of our fathers, brothers, sisters and sons from the battle for freedom in Europe and Asia.

The Mass was part of our worship, but people had just as intense devotion to Mary, in our Novena to our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, devotion to the Rosary, espoused by Fr. Patrick Peyton of the Holy Cross Fathers (The Family that prays together, stays together"), Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and devotion to our Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. All good.

Changes were long overdue when the 50’s rolled through. Latin was the classical language taught in Catholic High Schools. I myself studied it from Caesar, Cicero, Livy, etc. But, my poor Irish immigrant parents knew none of this. The Mass had to be changed. Vernacular was the first change that had to be passed.

There are reports of the “Ottavani Intervention”. The good Cardinal was sure that the NO was ‘heretical’, and he had lots of weight, as Prefect of the Holy Office. But on the vote, 'the Cardinal’s intervention" failed with the 'NO" passing the Council Fathers with a vote of 2,162 to 45. Vatican 2 voted for serious liturgical changes.

From listening, even today, the followers of some, who believe that our recent popes are heretical, or that there is something liturgically and dogmatically deficient in our Mass, we keep hearing of the greatness of the Traditional Mass. It is the Mass aspect that makes the Mass great, not the Traditional part.

The Latin Mass has never been abolished, apparently, and it has been revived for those who want it. A special appeal has been made by the Vatican to dissents by emphasizing that it there for their use, and to return from their schism to Mother Church. They have not done so.

All this is not lost on the faithful. The clinging to the old Latin rite is not the need for retaining ‘tradition’, but by opposition to stay in the forefront to obtain and fulfill other agendas.

I love the Latin Mass, but I love the ‘new Mass’ we have. I am not fooled by the SSPX and SV’s, and others by their false agendas. I think we should continue to pray for those who wish to be outside the Church by their disobedience to the Holy Father, but we are all moving on before we die.

Truth is, I am sentimental about the Mass of my youth, and I love reading the Canon in the original latin (although with the injection of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon: “Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes, in primis…: sed et beati Joseph, ejusdem Virginis Sponsi,…” put there by His Holiness to show that he was approving the changes in the new liturgy, and he was in charge.

Charity to all our fallen brothers in Christ, and our prayers that they return to the fold:

peace

 

[JReducation]

Well said.

Your opinion is worth far more than two cents to me.

Thanks for your vote of confidence.

I had to throw this into the mix, because I find that blanket statements can often be dangerous and make some people wonder if there is something wrong with their devotion, since they don’t seem to experience or desire the same thing as what others claim to be the most uplifting spiritual experience. We need to be careful not to make people feel that they are not growing spiritually, because they feel no attraction to the Tridentine mass or because they attend a Tridentine mass and feel the same as they do when they attend a liturgy celebrated in the N.O.

The essence of the liturgy is the celebration of the Paschal Mystery. If the participant doesn’t perceive the connection between what he or she is doing and the Paschal Mystery, the form is irrelevant. The faithful must be connected with Christ’s saving act in the liturgy, not with the movements of the liturgy. The movements are in place to draw us into the mystery of redemption. If the individual is not drawn into the mystery, it may not be a problem with the liturgical form.

Another point that I would like to bring to the attention ONLY of those who bash the N.O. is that Catholicism is not the only faith that has an official liturgical language and traditional form or that is struggling with this problem. This small group makes it sound as if this is a major Catholic problem. This is NOT a major Catholic problem. It is a North American and European sociological phenomenon. For the purposes of my point, I’ll limit the term North American to the USA and Canada. As Mexico, Greenland and the Caribbean do not seem to have such a problem with the N.O. It seems to be a greater challenge to those who are of Northern European extraction. I have no idea why, because the Spaniards certainly were very Latin rite oriented. The older generation of Catholics in Latin America sometimes mention the beautiful old masses with a sense of nostalgia, but it has not developed into a major conflict.

Back to my point . . . Jews have prayed and celebrated liturgy in Hebrew for thousands of years. Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians have celebrated liturgy in their respective languages for thousands of years. While the younger generation seems to be split between those who like the ancient languages and those who do not, the split seems to be more common in the USA, Canada and Western Europe.

In my Jewish family we still say the Friday evening prayers in Hebrew. My nephews and nieces have learned the language. They enjoy the ritual. However, they do not want to attend temple in Hebrew. One of my nephews explained it most clearly. “If I wanted to speak Hebrew, I’d live in Israel.” The same young man attends a Reformed Temple and feels very connected to his Jewish faith. Even though I’m a convert to Catholicism, we still light the candles and recite the Friday evening prayers in my home and we do so in Hebrew. That’s as much Hebrew as we use. In our parish, sometimes we sing certain parts of the mass in Latin, such as the Kyrie and the Lamb of God or we sing some Christmas Carols in Latin. My kids and I will join in and we find it beautiful, but not the entire mass in Latin. That would be very foreign to us.

In charity, we have to understand that ancient languages in American worship, Catholic or other, is not uplifting to everyone, even when they speak it. The same applies to modern languages. I live in Florida. We have many masses in Spanish and Creole due to the large Hispanic and Haitian populations. The younger generation usually attends mass in English, even though they speak Spanish or Creole at home. I believe that they want to belong to the local culture. For them, to walk into a mass in Spanish or Creole is to be taken back to the culture of their parents, not theirs. The same can probably be said of those of us who feel like strangers in a foreign land at a Tridentine mass. For me it’s like going back to my Jewish childhood when I had to attend services in Hebrew. It feels foreign.

The same charity applies to those who feel spiritually uplifted and rejuvenated at a Tridentine mass. If the experience is uplifting and moves people closer to Christ, as long as the Church approves it, those people should be respected.

The unity of the Church is not only in the use of Latin, but more importantly in its faith. Whether one celebrates the liturgy in the Tridentine form or the N.O., it is the faith in the sacrifice and the Word that unites us. We’re our celebrating the OUR mystery of faith handed down through the Apostles.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

…There are reports of the “Ottavani Intervention”. The good Cardinal was sure that the NO was ‘heretical’, and he had lots of weight, as Prefect of the Holy Office. But on the vote, 'the Cardinal’s intervention" failed with the 'NO" passing the Council Fathers with a vote of 2,162 to 45. Vatican 2 voted for serious liturgical changes…

Just a note.

The Ottaviani Intervention was sent September 25th, 1969, years after Sacrosanctum Concilium was approved in 1963. It wasn’t Sacrosanctum Concilium Cardinal Ottaviani was addressing, it was the New Mass which was come up with in Archbiship Bugnini’s committee.

Further, in the Intervention, while Cardinal Ottaviani addresses serious concerns, he does not say the New Mass is “heretical.”

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

Thus the vote you mention was on Sacrosanctum Concilium, not the New Mass. Here is a quote from The Ottaviani Intervention in EWTN’s library on the vote on the New Mass:

“In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was requested to pass judgment on the experimental celebration of a so-called “normative Mass” (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a “refusal” of the proposed “normative Mass” (New Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively inclined papers made no mention of it.”

And further:

** Rejected By Synod

** “Since the “normative” Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people—least of all in mission lands—ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic people.”

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/REFORMOF.HTM

 

[AJV]

Just a note.

The Ottaviani Intervention was sent September 25th, 1969, years after Sacrosanctum Concilium was approved in 1963. It wasn’t Sacrosanctum Concilium Cardinal Ottaviani was addressing, it was the New Mass which was come up with in Archbiship Bugnini’s committee.

Further, in the Intervention, while Cardinal Ottaviani addresses serious concerns, he does not say the New Mass is “heretical.”

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

Thus the vote you mention was on Sacrosanctum Concilium, not the New Mass. Here is a quote from The Ottaviani Intervention in EWTN’s library on the vote on the New Mass:

“In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was requested to pass judgment on the experimental celebration of a so-called “normative Mass” (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a “refusal” of the proposed “normative Mass” (New Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively inclined papers made no mention of it.”

I just have a small nitpick which is that there were, after this draft, 4 additional drafts made. Some things are recorded in Bugnini’ book. For example, at the Offertory/Prep. of the Gifts, the Lavabo was relocated back, the “Blessed are you” prayers were drafted, and the prayer at the mingling at the chalice was restored, as was the Orate Fratres.

 

[stmaria]

=stmaria;3362412]Serious Catholics that fully understand that the Mass is a sacrifice and not a social gathering will love it. Catholics that reguarly, if not daily, say the rosary, go to confession reguarly, try to go to daily Mass and understand the Tradition of the Mass will be the Catholics most attracted to it.

Stmaria:

While I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and respect our opinion, I will respectfully disagree with this last statement. I believe it is too broad.
Like me, there are many people whom I have met who pray the rosary and celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation regularly, but do not feel attraction to the Tridentine mass.

The point I am trying to make is that Catholics that are "casual " about their faith will **not be attracted **to the latin Mass. Those who only occasionly go to mass on Sundays and Holy days will not be attracted to the Latin Mass.

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3378713]Well said.

There are reports of the “Ottavani Intervention”. The good Cardinal was sure that the NO was ‘heretical’, and he had lots of weight, as Prefect of the Holy Office. But on the vote, 'the Cardinal’s intervention" failed with the 'NO" passing the Council Fathers with a vote of 2,162 to 45. Vatican 2 voted for serious liturgical changes.

The *Constitution on the Liturgy *did not call for serious liturgical changes.

The Ottavani intervention is based on the experimental Novus Ordo that was celebrated in the Sistine Chapel In 1967. It as clelbrated by Father Bugnini for an audience of Bishops.

*Reform of the Liturgy *by Annibale Bugnini
Pg 348-349 “on Monday October 24 [1967] the normative Mass was experimentally celebrated in the Sistine Chapel…the secretary of the Consilium Annibale Bugnini] celebrated in Italian…it must be said flatly that the experiment **was not a success **and even that it had an effect contrary to the one intended and played a part in **the negative vote **that followed"

 

[stmaria]

=Brennan Doherty;3378461]

I have not heard anyone on this forum talk about Latin as if it was literally the language spoken by angels or the language used in heaven (but one can only hope!) so I probably missed your point

.
Pope Paul VI called Latin the “language of the angels”