Vatican II and the Extraordinary Form

  • Thread starter Thread starter AveMaria12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even so, you don’t need to know Latin to enjoy the EF Mass. It’s not a microeconomics lecture. You don’t need to take notes. And how many people understand every single word that’s being said in English? “Consubstantial”? Hmm?

People should focus less on apprehending the Mass (and many of them don’t/can’t/won’t regardless of what language it’s in) and more on experiencing it. It’s meant to be an alien, transcendent thing, not a close, comfortable, familiar thing.
 
The Missale Romanum of Pope John XXIII is the Missal of Vatican II as was stated earlier and is the product of liturgical reform–the same liturgical movement which led up to the Missal of Pope Paul VI, which was a result of the Consilium Study Group whose secretary was Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. What many traditionalists do not know is that liturgical reform did not begin after the Council but actually before Vatican II–the most notable example being the New Revised Holy Week Liturgy. The Pope did not restore the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, but the immediate predecessor to the Missal of Pope Paul VI since it is not only the Mass of Vatican II, but also the fruit of liturgical reform and yet establishes a clear link with what came before in the Roman liturgical tradition while the revised rites contained in the Missal of Pope Paul VI were a clear break with the Roman liturgical tradition as expressed by the Missal of Pope Pius V. What His Holiness seeks to do is unite both Missals in order to meld the best of both to express the hermeneutic of continuity.

Regarding the suppression of the Missale Romanum of John XXIII: it was clearly understood by both clergy and laity after the promulagation of the new Missal that the earlier one was suppressed, except for elderly priests and for priests in England who requested its use for faithful who were not able to transition to the new liturgy and its use in England was to be rare not a regular occurance. Since the Missal of John XXIII was the fruit of liturgical renewal and the Pauline Missal manifested the fruits of over a hundred years of liturgical renewal, when the previous Missal was abrogated, it only made sense that the Pauline Missal would not only be the only Missal to be used, but that it was the crown jewel of the liturgical movement which the Missal of Pope John XXIII only demonstrated partly. The Missal of John XXIII is not the “Mass of all Ages”, but is the fruit of the liturgical movement, nor is it the same Missal as that of Pius V or the “Tridentine Mass.” Both the Missals of Popes John and Paul are sisters–the only difference is the Missal of Good Pope John is an older sister, but one which looks to the younger sister for guidance and progress–since again the same Consilium which revised the Pauline Missal revised the Missal of Pope John. If the Holy Father really wanted to return to Trent His Holiness would approve the Missal of Pius V to be said or chanted according to the exact rubrics and words as the historical Missal itself and not according to it most radical revision in the Missal of Pope John XXIII. Liturgical reform has being going on since Trent and the Pauline Missal is the fruit of over 400 years of reform and renewal in the Latin Church.
 
I don’t think anyone sane/present opposes “liturgical reform” whole-hog. Even Abp. Lefebvre spoke favorably of the insertion of St. Joseph into the canon, the relaxation of the Eucharistic fast, the reduction in the number of holy days of obligation, etc., on the grounds that these were legitimate ways of accommodating the situation of modern man.
 
Mike30 said:
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.
Click to expand...
We were obedient. Vatican II did not enable the dissidents, it only provided them a scapegoat. A false scapegoat.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
We were obedient. Vatican II did not enable the dissidents, it only provided them a scapegoat. A false scapegoat.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I daresay that had Vatican II not been interpreted in the way it was by those with an agenda the changes that caused such turmoil would not have happened. Without the documents none of the changes could have happened.

I don’t blame Vatican II at all. I blame those in the clergy and the theologians who were in a position to push for their own projects and agendas.
 
sw85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
“Structurally it’s virtually identical to Spanish”

Hardly. There is a big overlap etymogically with Spanish (not nearly as much as with English) since Spanish originated from Latin, but structurally they are quite different. Spanish lost its Latin declensions, whereas for Latin nouns there are 6 declensions X 6 cases per declension X 2 numbers X 3 genders. That is over 180 noun endings to be memorized (to be completely accurate, there are only 3 commonly used declensions so one could get by memorizing 3 X 6 X 2 X 3, still over 90 endings). A signnificant number of the endings are repeated for different noun forms, which make it difficult when translating whether, for example a particular noun form is the 2nd declension genitive singular or the 3rd declension ablative plural (It’s been awhile since I’ve studied Latin, so that particular example is fictional, but it’s a real problem). For Spanish nouns you have two forms to remember, singular and plural.

So Latin, while not the most difficult language to learn, is far more complex than Spanish.

Ask most language experts, they will tell you the easiest language for English natives to learn are German, French and Spanish. Latin, hardly.
 
sw85 said:
IAnd of course it is far more beautiful than the hideous barbarian tongue that is English.
Click to expand...
Yet God chose to have his Son speak in Aramaic, and his words be recorded in Koine Greek, two languages that are not as “beautiful”. Maybe God isn’t that concerned with linguistic aesthetics.
 
ProVobis said:
Maybe that’s why Old Church Slavonic was introduced? 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m not as familiar with the history as you are, maybe Church Slavonic was introduced as a special sacral language, but I do know it’s pretty close to Russian, so it is close to a living vernacular language. 🙂
 
sw85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You do have a point, though. Spanish speakers can understand a lot of Latin.
 
Schism_hater said:
Yet God chose to have his Son speak in Aramaic, and his words be recorded in Koine Greek, two languages that are not as “beautiful”. Maybe God isn’t that concerned with linguistic aesthetics.
Click to expand...
Greek is quite beautiful and flowing just like Latin. Aramaic and Hebrew…yeah. Pretty rough-sounding languages (at least according to St. Jerome)
 
AveMaria12 said:
Greek is quite beautiful and flowing just like Latin. Aramaic and Hebrew…yeah. Pretty rough-sounding languages (at least according to St. Jerome)
Click to expand...
Actually Latin was made more beautiful, if you will, when they Italianized the pronunciations, IMO.
 
AveMaria12 said:
Italianized it? Could you please explain?
Click to expand...
The Church’s preferred pronunciation of Latin is to speak it as if one was speaking Italian.

C as “ch” instead of “k,” etc. So instead of pronouncing sanctifiCEtur in the Pater Noster as “sanctifiKEtur,” you would say “sanctifiCHEtur.” Just an example.
 
YoungTradCath said:
The Church’s preferred pronunciation of Latin is to speak it as if one was speaking Italian.

C as “ch” instead of “k,” etc. So instead of pronouncing sanctifiCEtur in the Pater Noster as “sanctifiKEtur,” you would say “sanctifiCHEtur.” Just an example.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Ecclesiasticalized. 🙂
 
AdDeum said:
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…
Click to expand...
At my church it’s the same. I’ve asked a priest about doing an EF mass. He talked about how no one really wants a Latin Mass and how great it is that the current mass is in English and that everyone likes it more. Just kind of brushing it off. It was kind of funny because there was an older lady next to me when I was talking to him about it and she remarked how she’d love to see it as well. I remember on Corpus Christi when they were reading Lauda Sion, he started talking about how in the past no one knew what they were talking about except the people who studied Latin. Just very negative about it.

I’ve also heard another priest in the parish echo the same sentiments in one of his homilies about how much better it is these days that things are in English rather than Latin.

It’s really a shame. Unfortunately, there are many of these priests who are part of that generation who completely brush off Latin.
 
Pope St. Pius V codified the Traditional Mass in Quo Primum. It stated very clearly that the Mass was NOT to be changed in any way, shape, or form. At the risk of offending some people here–which it isn’t my intention to do–Pope Paul VI did exactly what *Quo Primum *forbade. Thus we have the Mass of Paul VI, or the Novus Ordo Mass.

If I could drive, I would attend the Tridentine Mass every Sunday, but as it is, I can’t. So, I’ll be happy with what I have for now.
 
Seeking_Him said:
Pope St. Pius V codified the Traditional Mass in Quo Primum. It stated very clearly that the Mass was NOT to be changed in any way, shape, or form. At the risk of offending some people here–which it isn’t my intention to do–Pope Paul VI did exactly what *Quo Primum *forbade. Thus we have the Mass of Paul VI, or the Novus Ordo Mass.

If I could drive, I would attend the Tridentine Mass every Sunday, but as it is, I can’t. So, I’ll be happy with what I have for now.
Click to expand...
As Pope, Paul VI had the authority to do so. Only on matters of faith and morals is a Pope bound by previous statements due to the notion of papal infallibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top