Vatican II and the Extraordinary Form

[sw85]

Where in the documents of Vatican II does it say that the Extraordinary Form is to be preserved? Answers to this would be a tremendous help for me.

Just to be clear, the Ordinary/Extraordinary Form distinction is a recent innovation. It was not in use at the time. Sacrosanctum Concilium suggested some revisions to the liturgy but, as some have pointed out, I don’t think it envisioned the radical break that actually happened. Since no break was envisioned, no reference to suppression/preservation of the old form was necessary.

I wonder sometimes if Paul VI actually intended to suppress the Tridentine liturgy, perhaps thinking its suppression was implicit in the promulgation of the new order of Mass, in which the same way that newly-promulgated translations always trump older ones. In any event, the situation was confused enough that the Holy Father’s logic, as expressed in SP, is perfectly defensible.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Just to be clear, the Ordinary/Extraordinary Form distinction is a recent innovation. It was not in use at the time. Sacrosanctum Concilium suggested some revisions to the liturgy but, as some have pointed out, I don’t think it envisioned the radical break that actually happened. Since no break was envisioned, no reference to suppression/preservation of the old form was necessary.

I wonder sometimes if Paul VI actually intended to suppress the Tridentine liturgy, perhaps thinking its suppression was implicit in the promulgation of the new order of Mass, in which the same way that newly-promulgated translations always trump older ones. In any event, the situation was confused enough that the Holy Father’s logic, as expressed in SP, is perfectly defensible.

Actually, I believe the older translations are specifically suppressed by decree. Other than that, good post.

 

[runningdude]

I wonder sometimes if Paul VI actually intended to suppress the Tridentine liturgy, perhaps thinking its suppression was implicit in the promulgation of the new order of Mass, in which the same way that newly-promulgated translations always trump older ones. In any event, the situation was confused enough that the Holy Father’s logic, as expressed in SP, is perfectly defensible.

The current pope has clarified that Pope Paul VI did not suppress the Tridentine liturgy. There is no “implicit” in canon law. The promulgation of the missal of 1962 explicitly suppressed all previous editions. The promulgation in 1969 did not; therefore the 1962 missal was not suppressed.

Pope Benedict’s logic is not “defensible” because the situation was unclear, but because it reflects the truth of the situation. If the missal of 1962 were suppressed, the pope would have said so, and probably have done so while head of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith. However, the pope has only issued a statement clarifying for anyone confused that the it was not suppressed.

Unclear guidelines, however, were issued regarding the celebration of the mass of 1962 over the years. “SP” suppressed these previous guidelines, and provided new guidelines.

 

[spartan_cop]

Hahaha!!! Because Latin is the official language of heaven! Right?

Hum no, that’s what the documents state. Why is that funny? And did I say it’s the official language of heaven? Don’t put words in my mouth! Latin is the “official” language of the Latin Rite.

 

[runningdude]

The Trent quote dealt with the Canon of the Mass. The 1969 Mass kept this canon intact, while adding the option to say others.

No, the quote addresses the false claim that their are errors in the Roman Canon that necessitate correction. There is no prohibition against revising or suppressing the Roman Canon for other reasons. Canon law is to be interpretative narrowly;

It is good and proper that Eucharistic Prayer 1 keeps the Roman Canon intact, but Pope Paul was not obligated to do so because of the quote from the Council of Trent. He did so presumably because of the timeless strengths of the Roman Canon.

 

[Filioque]

If it means anything the EF (1962 Missal) was said before every Vatican II session.

Not true. The Ambrosian and Eastern Rites were also celebrated on various days. Cardinal Montini, (later Pope Paul VI) famously celebrated the Ambrosian Rite prior to at least one of the sessions.

As Catholics prior to Vatican II we were taught what the Council confirmed about any approved rite of the Mass/Divine Liturgy. That while the solemnity or rites may differ, every Mass was of equal and infinite value, as it was the same sacrifice as Calvary, offered in an unbloody manner. As our Lord Himself is the principle priest who offers each Mass, EF, OF, Eastern Rite Liturgy, or other Latin Rite Masses, (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Carmelite etc.) are the same sacrifice.

 

[ProVobis]

I wonder sometimes if Paul VI actually intended to suppress the Tridentine liturgy, perhaps thinking its suppression was implicit in the promulgation of the new order of Mass, in which the same way that newly-promulgated translations always trump older ones. In any event, the situation was confused enough that the Holy Father’s logic, as expressed in SP, is perfectly defensible.

The translations have nothing to do with it. Bugnini wanted to call it a revision; Paul VI called it the New Order of Mass. He may have given the impression of suppressing the older rite but he he did allow it as an Indult (Agatha Christie) on a limited basis.

 

[ProVobis]

There is no prohibition against revising or suppressing the Roman Canon for other reasons.

I do realize that Pope John XXIII made an addition to the canon, but could you give some of those reasons for suppressing, other than disuse?

 

[runningdude]

I do realize that Pope John XXIII made an addition to the canon, but could you give some of those reasons for suppressing, other than disuse?

I am making a very narrow argument, as I am sympathetic to use of the 1962 missal. My goal is to point out flawed arguments used to support the 1962 missal, so that better arguments can be developed.

I actually do appreciate that you pointed out that the quote is relevant to the Roman Canon. However, I needed to point out that it is incorrect to say that Trent required that the First Eucharistic Prayer be included in the 1969 liturgy. I know of no compelling reason why the Roman Canon should not have been included. Indeed, its inclusion actually furthers Vatican II’s goal of preserving core liturgical elements.

It is because of the innate strengths of the Roman Canon that it was included in the 1969 liturgy, not because it was bound to do so by Trent. Its value is so apparent, that it was included in nearly its original form without a 400 year old mandate!

 

[AveMaria12]

Along with Greek, Hebrew, and Polish.

LOL. My parish priest once joked that the two main languages spoken in heaven will be Latin and Chinese.

 

[AveMaria12]

Vatican II never meant to create a new distinct form of the Roman Liturgy, but simply called for a reform of the liturgy. Instead what can only realistically be called a new liturgy to replace the historical Roman one was instead written and promulgated. This put those who wished to continue using the old liturgy in a confusing position, which fortunately has since been clarified.

It really shows how unwise massive liturgical changes are, no matter what form they take or however well intentioned they may be. A Catholic layman ought to be able to go to mass and not worry about the liturgy, because he knows it will be celebrated properly in accordance with tradition handed on from the Fathers. While there is plenty of good to be said about the current Ordinary Form (I’m in no way implying that either form is better than the other) any drastic liturgical change draws an undue attention to the nuts and bolts of the liturgy, whether one likes or dislikes the changes. This is the real tragedy of modern liturgy: the loss of innocence and trust on the part of the laypeople, and the shift in focus from Christ to disputes about words and gestures and other such minutia.

Well put.

 

[AveMaria12]

Wow. This is one of the most active threads I have ever created. Thanks to all and Happy Mary, Mother of God.

 

[edwest2]

Everyone didn’t. Only those following their own agendas who were positioned in such a way that they could exert influence did so. Since most others either didn’t know any better or hated Latin to begin with or just plain didn’t care, those pushing for changes generally got their way.

That happened a lot after Vatican II in a lot of areas.

I was there. Nobody hated Latin. You could get a missal that had every Latin word translated into English on the same page.

Vatican II had absolutely nothing to do with other changes.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

“In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Faithdancer]

Hum no, that’s what the documents state. Why is that funny? And did I say it’s the official language of heaven? Don’t put words in my mouth! Latin is the “official” language of the Latin Rite.

According to Pope Benedict XVI, Latin is still the official language of the universal Church. So if, as some say , the Church and in particular the Mass are Heaven on earth…

 

[AdDeum]

Everyone didn’t. Only those following their own agendas who were positioned in such a way that they could exert influence did so. Since most others either didn’t know any better or hated Latin to begin with or just plain didn’t care, those pushing for changes generally got their way.

That happened a lot after Vatican II in a lot of areas.

I think maybe some have misinterpreted my point. And, I can take some blame on this. I probably had a poor choice of words…

but, anyway, It just seems to me that almost every parish out there has ONLY vernacular and NO Gregorian Chant. I have visited a few. I have only seen ONE parish that has the OF in Latin… and that was on a wednesday. Still no gregorian chant.

I have talked to a few priests as well… most brush off Latin all together… thinking it unimportant. I have even spoken to one priest who seemed openly hostile to the idea of Latin.

Music ministers… I’ve only spoken to one. And, he doesn’t think Gregorian Chant would work in the OF. I’ve taken him to the EF Mass. He liked it and liked the music, but doesn’t think he could “incorporate” it into the OF Mass.

 

[Mike30]

I was there. Nobody hated Latin. You could get a missal that had every Latin word translated into English on the same page.

Vatican II had absolutely nothing to do with other changes.

Peace,
Ed

I was there too. A lot of people hated Latin, including quite a few Priests. As the old rhyme went among Latin students

Latin, Latin woe is me
it killed the Romans
and now its killing me.

Yes I know about the Missals, we all had them or at least most of us did. Vatican II had everything to do with the changes because it opened the door to these changes even though it did not mandate them. It was those with an agenda and had the ower to do so that pushed the changes and got most of them. The rest of us either didn’t care enough, didn’t know any better, accepted what the Priests, Brothers, Sisters and Bishops told us or welcomed the innovations. There were quite a few in each group.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Question: is Latin really that hard to learn? I am quite good with languages, and if I had money to blow I’d major in one. For some reason I do not understand the complaints which often seem far overblown to me. Of course, just as not everyone is good in math, not everyone is good in languages, but it strikes me that this “Latin is too hard” thing is slightly ridiculous.

 

[sw85]

I don’t get the complaints either. Structurally it’s virtually identical to Spanish. Etymologically there’s about a 60% overlap with English. Pronunciation-wise it’s extremely simple, having a pretty defined set of rules that never change which I learned in about a day. There’s probably no easier language for a native English speaker to learn. And of course it is far more beautiful than the hideous barbarian tongue that is English.

 

[Melchior_1]

Question: is Latin really that hard to learn? I** am quite good with languages**, and if I had money to blow I’d major in one. For some reason I do not understand the complaints which often seem far overblown to me. Of course, just as not everyone is good in math, not everyone is good in languages, but it strikes me that this “Latin is too hard” thing is slightly ridiculous.

Re; the bolded - you ever wonder why several pro athletes who become coaches after their retirement are not good coaches?

It’s because they have a hard time passing down what comes naturally to themselves to others, and get frustrated when their players cannot do what comes so naturally to the coach who used to play.

You’re great with languages, I’m terrible at them. Most people are somewhere in the middle, with varying degrees of skill. However from my perspective, I could just as easily say “it strikes me that this ‘Latin is too easy’ thing is slightly ridiculous”