Vatican II liturgical reform ‘irreversible,’ pope says

[Don_Ruggero]

“36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

“Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

“116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

And you have precisely underscored what is the result when people cherry-pick a text…and thereby warp an distort it Using your first example, let’s continue the text:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

The Council Fathers, who were the ones to implement the document when they returned to their own dioceses, found the reception of the vernacular by both clergy and laity to be even greater than they expected. And hence, the extent of the use of the vernacular was made total. This was done by EVERY conference of bishops throughout the world and the Apostolic See, rejoicing in this success, approved and confirmed the broad extension of the vernacular. It was success beyond expectation.

 

[edwest2]

There was no success in the United States.

Ed

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Supposedly many if not most early Church liturgies were celebrated in the catacombs.

That idea was long ago disproved.

Modern scholarship would reject such a supposition. You should consult the work and the research of the Pontifical Institute for Christian Archaeology.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The people who followed the missal, said the responses silently to themselves.

Many didn’t follow the missal as the priests and altar boys said the prayers so fast many couldn’t keep up anyway.

Keep in mind there weren’t always a PA systems with a microphone on the altar.

Usually the only mic was at the podium for the Gospel and homely.

Jim

You are exactly correct.

Too many people did not have the benefit of experiencing a vibrant and robust expression of the Liturgical Movement which was, of course, the matrix out of which the reform and renewal of the liturgy emerged.

The Bishops, who would be the Council Fathers, saw and understood the importance and the urgency of a top to bottom re-do. Having experienced the good that was the Liturgical Movement, the Bishops provided broad guidelines based on the trajectory they had seen and experienced and, for the details, stated:

1. The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world.

This was the crowning of the Liturgical Movement. The decades of work had put in place what was needed to extend it and its fruits everywhere.

That was the great gift of Pope Saint John XXIII. He perceived where the Spirit was taking the Church and he had confidence in the Bishops, Successors to the Apostles, who took in hand the project of Good Pope John’s Council to renew the Church. It was a time of the most extraordinary blessing for the Church.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There was no success in the United States

Quite to the contrary…there was great success.

I think the Americans suffered in not having people of the stature of our academies on the Continent. On the other hand, the sacred sciences were quite new in a country so young…much of it still mission territory. It had not had time to built up its infrastructure. It was certainly coming, with Americans doing their studies at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute.

Places like Saint John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, were a tremendous resource by any measure.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Not my view alone, but of the father’s of the Church and the reason for Vatican II reforms.

The Council Fathers were very deliberate in the language and the imagery that was chosen and approved for this document.

The jutaposition on the one hand of

1. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration.
   with

1. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes.

1. The revision of the liturgical books must carefully attend to the provision of rubrics also for the people’s parts.

Of course the latter was essential to move away from any sense that the laity were there as a collection of individuals silently following the Presider’s actions but rather that they were themselves acting as befits a body acting corporately – as the liturgical assembly – collaborating with and alongside the Presider.

 

[ProVobis]

You’re joking, right ?

Jim

For the sake of argument, let’s say I was.

 

[twf]

Quite to the contrary…there was great success.

I think the Americans suffered in not having people of the stature of our academies on the Continent. On the other hand, the sacred sciences were quite new in a country so young…much of it still mission territory. It had not had time to built up its infrastructure. It was certainly coming, with Americans doing their studies at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute.

Places like Saint John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, were a tremendous resource by any measure.

Some of the experimentation that became popular in parts of North America went a bit off the deep end and later had to be corrected by bishops and/or Rome… laity preaching the homily, laity gathering around the altar during the consecration, priests personally modifying texts of the Mass, etc.
Here in Vancouver I find that diocesan priests are very liturgically “in tune”- probably because our seminary is hosted by the local Benedictine Abbey.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Some of the experimentation that became popular in parts of North America went a bit off the deep end and later had to be corrected by bishops and/or Rome… laity preaching the homily, laity gathering around the altar during the consecration, priests personally modifying texts of the Mass, etc.
Here in Vancouver I find that diocesan priests are very liturgically “in tune”- probably because our seminary is hosted by the local Benedictine Abbey.

Liturgical abuses were generally committed by individual priests, not the Bishop’s they served under and certainly not by the majority of priest in those dioceses.

Jim

 

[pnewton]

Well, the Holy See says that the Latin is to be preserved. I think that opinion is greater.

I think that opinion is a different one, and on a different topic, which is why you use a different word. “Useful” and “common” are not the same as preserved.

This argument of Latin vs. vernacular is a false one.

I do not know if I would even call it an argument. I simply is. And the fact remains, most priests and bishops see the vernacular as the most prudent for common use in Mass.

 

[pnewton]

The most common I believe is Spanish.

At least knowing a little Latin may help you there.

Good point. Of course, I was referring to the United States, though in my own parish, Spanish and English is almost 50/50.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Your rant puts you in opposition to your hierarchy. There is a duty to conform one’s statements to mirror what the hierarchy articulates. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops quite well – and theologically correctly, it should go without saying – states:

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers-and-devotions/mary/frequently-asked-questions-about-blessed-virgin-mary.cfm

It is not a matter of being nice. It is a matter of being precise so that the language we use actually reflects the very specific theological concepts that are to be articulated correctly.

That is a command of the Council Fathers too often forgotten in chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium:

That is why our language, theologically, has become ever more precise…to comply with the command of the entirety of the world’s bishops…to whom all Catholics owe submission and compliance.

Dear Father:

I thank you for your words. In the USCCB document (from 2003) on Popular Devotional Practices, basic questions and answers, I do not see that the bishops forbid me from using the word “worship” with regard to Mary, especially as I am a De Montfort consecree from 2005, in the context of said devotions or in explanation of them, or insist that I ‘must’ use the word veneration instead. Not that I would have a problem with veneration, or hyperdulia, or whatever, but I do believe that insisting that the word ‘worship’ is 'only to be used with regard to God alone" is not what the document said, or that the bishops require.

And what I have said was said on a Catholic forum among Catholics, and with regard to Catholic teachings. I believe I have not, and I trust I never will, dissented from the bishops, but I do not believe that the bishops have forbidden me to state to other Catholics, or indeed to non-Catholics, as I emphasized with respect, that in the context of the original use of the word “worship” (and with examples clearly given from the secular arena as well), the term 'worship" (or properly hyperdulia, but I’m using the ‘vernacular’ here) of the Virgin is distinct from the worship (Latria) offered to God, and if they are horrified by passages from De Montfort et. al, they should not be.

I discussed prayer too but we can save that for another day.

I do thank you for your concern, but again, with the deepest respect, I do not believe that my rant puts me in opposition to the hierarchy. The last time I talked with the bishop he was more concerned with people having proper respect for the Eucharist and that the horizontal dimension of human relationships has been so emphasized that it has overshadowed the vertical dimension in our relationship to God, and that it was important to approach the Eucharist properly disposed. . .um, you know, if you knew my bishop you probably would not be surprised that I have the points of view that I do.

 

[pnewton]

In home parishes there is no need to see where we can include Latin. What for ?

A valid question. Even if the Church establishes some discipline, questioning the reasons should always be encouraged. I can tell you of two reasons for my own parish, though it would not apply everywhere. One, Latin gives us a common way to worship on a few occasions when Spanish-speaking, English-speaking, and bi-lingual parishioners come together. This doesn’t happen too often, but it does happen on occasion.

Second, know some Latin phrases has been useful in catechisis during homilies, especially when the translations lack a little something. This really was highlighted during the last translation change. In this case, the role of Latin as the “norm” gave Catholics a way to better understand Church teaching.

 

[JakeWI]

As a young’n (not quite 30 yet), and someone who has experienced both forms of the Mass, I feel most “right” at an ordinary form Mass, celebrated Ad Orientum. It makes the most sense in my mind… as the Priest is offering up the gifts to the Lord to be transformed into the body and blood.

I do like the EF Mass, but do find it hard to follow and understand where it is at. I get a sense of where things are… but am spending more time trying to figure that out than being immersed in the Mass. My wife has an even harder time with this, and for this reason won’t attend unless it is a high Mass.

I am fortunate that I get to be part of a regular daily OF Mass celebrated ad orientum (which, IMO, is not the Priest’s back facing me, or him facing the wall… but him offering up the gifts on our behalf to the Lord). I even appreciate the incorporation of Latin in the ordinary of the Mass… as it connects us hundreds of years with those who have celebrated Mass through the centuries. I am not an expert at Latin, but I have learned enough through experiencing it in Mass to know how to pronounce it, and the general idea of what the word means.

If there is anything that I hate more, it is the fact that anyone bashes any of the options we have available, as we are so fortunate we have the options. If I were to p(name removed by moderator)oint, however, I find somewhere in the middle is what the fathers of VII were looking for… and I believe that to be the truth in my heart.

 

[KSU]

…I do like the EF Mass, but do find it hard to follow and understand where it is at. I get a sense of where things are… but am spending more time trying to figure that out than being immersed in the Mass…

When you attend an EF Mass you should be provided with a Missal or Missalette which provides both the Latin and the English words-- English, by the way, which is not common, banal street English, but beautiful English appropriate for speaking to God.

Are you perhaps saying that it is difficult to follow even with such a Missal?

 

[OraLabora]

When you attend an EF Mass you should be provided with a Missal or Missalette which provides both the Latin and the English words-- English, by the way, which is not common, banal street English, but beautiful English appropriate for speaking to God.

Are you perhaps saying that it is difficult to follow even with such a Missal?

I would say yes and no. I read Latin fluently (but don’t understand it fluently, I get maybe half of it) because I sing in a Schola and I chant the Liturgy of the Hours every day in Latin. Plus my mother tongue is French, a language derived from Latin.

So I have a good ear for it and am able to follow along the Latin words and correlate it to the vernacular side of any liturgical book.

But I would say if one doesn’t have a good ear for Latin then it could be very difficult indeed. Think of how hard it must be for a native Japanese or Korean speaker who occasionally attends an EF Mass and has no other exposure to Latin to correlate what must sound to them like gibberish to their vernacular, even if side-by-side in a missal. You and I may know what “Tu solus Altissimus” sounds like, but the Japanese or Korean native-speaker, not so much.

The Church is much wider than Europe or countries colonized by Europe. In my country, Canada, Latin hasn’t been taught in schools since 1975. That was the last year Latin was compulsory in my high school, and I started HS in 1976.

When Sacrosanctum Concilium was written, Latin was still taught in schools. As we move farther and farther away from that, fewer people will be able to follow along other than those who really want to make the effort. Not everyone is a linguist or is interested in linguistics. They just want to go to Mass, worship our Lord, and receive His graces through the Eucharist. It shouldn’t be an effort for them to do so while understanding what is going on.

Those of us who have an affinity for Latin and desire to immerse themselves in that particular tradition, have instruments to do so. In your case the EF Mass, in my case an OF Mass with Latin propers and Latin/Greek ordinary. I feel very comfortable in Latin; a few weeks ago I attended a private OF Mass all in Latin by a priest of the monastery, celebrated in the abbot’s private chapel. I was able to fluently read the epistle out loud in Latin and follow along the entire Mass while making the appropriate responses. But even for me, it required some concentration as I don’t do it every day!

But that is me, that isn’t 90% of Catholics. I am blessed that I have the opportunity to do so. Those who aren’t at ease in Latin, are blessed to have the opportunity to have Mass in their language.

 

[ProdigalSun]

I’m tempted to ask which reforms are irreversible–the first reforms, which have been changed, or the later ones, which have also been changed, or the currently existing liturgy. I seem to recall going through a whole series of liturgical reforms, which kept changing. But things seem to have settled down in a fairly good place at last, so I’ll be happy to have continued stability.

These are my thoughts exactly, The latest liturgical reform done under Pope Benedict XVI was better than all the others before it. If this is irreversible I will be happy with that. I don’t see anything that suggests that the extraordinary form will be disallowed which should relieve our many traditionalist brothers and sisters. I hope I’m correct in my thinking anyway!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

These are my thoughts exactly, The latest liturgical reform done under Pope Benedict XVI was better than all the others before it. If this is irreversible I will be happy with that. I don’t see anything that suggests that the extraordinary form will be disallowed which should relieve our many traditionalist brothers and sisters. I hope I’m correct in my thinking anyway!

The new English Translation of the Mass is not a reform, just a new translation of the original Latin text.

The new text was a step backwards IMHO.

Jim

 

[ProdigalSun]

The new English Translation of the Mass is not a reform, just a new translation of the original Latin text.

The new text was a step backwards IMHO.

Jim

OK, that makes sense I guess. I’m still unclear what this all means in the big picture. Was the OF or EF under threat of being “reformed” again, or is our Holy Father just letting everyone to know that there will no longer be any reforms of mass?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The new English Translation of the Mass is not a reform, just a new translation of the original Latin text.

The new text was a step backwards IMHO.

Jim

Maybe not backwards, but at least a side-step!

There are many things I do not like about the new translation. Some of the language is clunky, and I am not a big fan on “consubstantial”, but I do like the new Collects. Some of the ones from the previous translation were almost “child-like” in their wording, where the new ones really are beautiful.

I personally believe that the best translations are a combination of both literal and dynamic. We need to keep the original meanings and use words, grammar & syntax that people of today understand.

But then, no one in Rome asked me for my opinion.