Vatican II

[diggerdomer]

There could be a reason for that you know.

If you’re suggesting that inherently the Mass of Paul VI is more prone to “abuse” than the Mass of Pius V…well…actually in one way I could see that. I was thinking about it, and we (the Church) have only had 40 years (less, actually) to celebrate the Missal of Paul VI. Those who have celebrated the Missal of Pius V, however, were experiencing something that had closer to 400 years to “get the kinks out.”

So…perhaps a more valid comparison, which of course is impossible, would be to compare our experience of the Mass with that of the “common folk” in the early 17th century?

Just a thought.

 

[diggerdomer]

If I’m at a NO Mass in a foreign country I wouldn’t be able to participate due to the language barrier. If I attend a TLM I wouldn’t have this problem as the Mass would be said in the universal language of the Church.

If you know Latin, I could understand your point.

But for those of us (I assume, the majority) Catholic who don’t know Latin, what difference does it make if the language is A or B when I only understand C?

 

[diggerdomer]

That my friend is completely and totally on you.

I completely disagree.

It’s also on those planning and coordinating and conducting the liturgy; they are responsible for ensuring the proper catechesis of the congregation so that those assembled can “fully, actively, and consciously” participate.

It’s not an individual, sole responsibility. It’s a communal one.

 

[pnewton]

No, but what I think is that if someone is truly interested in something they will take the time to learn it.

Or with equal logic, we could say if the Church was truly concerned that the people understand what is being said, she would use a language already understood, which is what happened.

 

[shuzo1189]

If you’re suggesting that inherently the Mass of Paul VI is more prone to “abuse” than the Mass of Pius V…well…actually in one way I could see that. I was thinking about it, and we (the Church) have only had 40 years (less, actually) to celebrate the Missal of Paul VI. Those who have celebrated the Missal of Pius V, however, were experiencing something that had closer to 400 years to “get the kinks out.”

So…perhaps a more valid comparison, which of course is impossible, would be to compare our experience of the Mass with that of the “common folk” in the early 17th century?

Just a thought.

Except the Mass codified at Trent was not radically different then the Mass Before it. One just has to look at a Dominican Rite Mass to see how strikingly similar it is to the Tridentine Rite even thought the Dominican Rite for all intents and purposes had finished its development by Pope Clement IV which was around 300 years before Pope Pius V’s Reforms.

I figure if the Mass was good enough for The Saints, its good enough for me.

 

[diggerdomer]

Except the Mass codified at Trent was not radically different then the Mass Before it.

Depends of course on what you mean by “before.” 1 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

I figure if the Mass was good enough for The Saints, its good enough for me.

Absolutely. And the Mass has always been good enough for the Saints, no matter what century, or Missal, or language, or Rite we’re talking about. Right?

 

[palmas85]

Or with equal logic, we could say if the Church was truly concerned that the people understand what is being said, she would use a language already understood, which is what happened.

Perhaps. In my home country there are somewhere around 170 different languages and dialects. In my own family we spoke five different ones. When we came to the US the only one who spoke English was my dad. I knew a few words but that was it. My mom never spoke any English at all, even though she tried very hard to pick it up. I did however know the Latin that was used in the Mass. So I could easily pick up exactly where I had been in the Philippines as far as serving Mass. No problem at all. . That facilitated my transition into life here in the US. Had it not been for Latin, I’m not at all sure that would have been the case.

So you can say endlessly that the change to the vernacular was beneficial. In some cases maybe it was, In my case, however,and probably of thousands of other immigrants the use of Latin made it easier for me and my family to participate. Because you can best believe that there were no Visayan, Waray, Ilocano, Cebuano or Tagalog Masses in New Orleans, then or now for that matter.

The vernacular may work fine where the congregation speaks only one language. But sadly, that is not the case in most places in the western world. So those who may not speak the vernacular can be effectively frozen out by your standards. Of course you can always offer multiple masses in different languages but doesn’t that kind of destroy the whole sense of community that we are allegedly striving for?

The use of Latin did provide that bridge, that link, that sense of community, a worldwide community that otherwise would not have been there for me and countless others…

 

[shuzo1189]

Perhaps. In my home country there are somewhere around 170 different languages and dialects. In my own family we spoke five different ones. When we came to the US the only one who spoke English was my dad. I knew a few words but that was it. My mom never spoke any English at all, even though she tried very hard to pick it up. I did however know the Latin that was used in the Mass. So I could easily pick up exactly where I had been in the Philippines as far as serving Mass. No problem at all. . That facilitated my transition into life here in the US. Had it not been for Latin, I’m not at all sure that would have been the case.

So you can say endlessly that the change to the vernacular was beneficial. In some cases maybe it was, In my case, however,and probably of thousands of other immigrants the use of Latin made it easier for me and my family to participate. Because you can best believe that there were no Visayan, Waray, Ilocano, Cebuano or Tagalog Masses in New Orleans, then or now for that matter.

The vernacular may work fine where the congregation speaks only one language. But sadly, that is not the case in most places in the western world. So those who may not speak the vernacular can be effectively frozen out by your standards. Of course you can always offer multiple masses in different languages but doesn’t that kind of destroy the whole sense of community that we are allegedly striving for?

The use of Latin did provide that bridge, that link, that sense of community, a worldwide community that otherwise would not have been there for me and countless others…

Or as you have in some parishes this odd practice of having two to three languages being used during the same Mass (Most Notably on Holy Days) and it just becomes this odd muddled mess.

 

[Tsuwano]

You should check the numbers. The majority of Catholics don’t go to Mass on Sunday and the majority of the ones who do don’t believe in the Eucharist. Those are not exactly two numbers of unity now are they?

What numbers are you refering to and what do you mean by Catholic? Do you mean to tell me you have an accurate poll concerning the Sunday mass attendance of all the Catholics in the world, as well as a second one explaining that those who do attend mass don’t believe in the Eucharist? Are you suggesting that those who do not attend regular Sunday liturgies are practicing Catholics or that those who do attend (one would wonder why) and yet don’t believe in the Eucharist are actually Catholic? And again, do you furthermore believe that if the mass was solely in Latin, these “Catholics” who don’t attend mass or actually believe in the real presence in the Eucharist would somehow change their practice and beliefs? I maintain that those who do attend Mass regularly and do believe in the real presence in the Eucharist are united by that particular belief more than by language, or the position of the altar, or the music, or whether they receive on the tongue or not, or whether there are kneelers in the church. The Lord said we would recognize him in the breaking of the bread, not in these other things. What is most essential to the liturgy and what, if we did not have it, would make our gathering not much more than choir practice? The Eucharist, of course.

 

[Ockham]

olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml

This survey is getting old but I don’t see any reason to believe there’s been a change. The seminaries overall are still in decline except for those teaching the Latin Mass and more traditional in their ways.

My research into the decline in Church attendance and belief began when one of my sisters told my Mom the Eucharist was merely a symbol. After my Mom recovered from that shock she asked me how my sister could think that way. After I discovered the Tridentine Mass and compared it to Bugnini’s Novus Ordo I wondered how my faith in the Real Presence remained intact.

 

[Tsuwano]

olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml

This survey is getting old but I don’t see any reason to believe there’s been a change. The seminaries overall are still in decline except for those teaching the Latin Mass and more traditional in their ways.

My research into the decline in Church attendance and belief began when one of my sisters told my Mom the Eucharist was merely a symbol. After my Mom recovered from that shock she asked me how my sister could think that way. After I discovered the Tridentine Mass and compared it to Bugnini’s Novus Ordo I wondered how my faith in the Real Presence remained intact.

I am certainly in no position to refute these statistics and agree that numerous changes have occured in the Church since the end of the Second Vatican Council. I believe that many of those changes have been positive, while others have been negative. I also believe that statistics are open to numerous interpretations depending on how they are viewed. I have known some people who felt the decline in priestly vocations was a movement of the Holy Spirit because it has forced the Church to examine more closely the role of the laity in the Church. I do not agree with this assessment, but it points out that statistics are notorious animals that often prove little except what we want them to prove. The statistics cited above are no exception and indeed, contrary to what Mr. Buchanan insinuates, not all of the statistics (the decline in mass attendance, for example) can be proven to be the result of Vatican Council II. It could also be the result of the change in American society and culture brought about by the fear of nuclear armageddon, the cynical international politics which led the U.S. into Vietnam, and the sense of communal loss and instability brought about by rapid urbanization and the growth of mass communicaton. One could even argue that if there was indeed decay in the Church as a result of the Second Vatican Council, then the “traditional” faith of those Catholics of the pre Vatican II Church must truly have been a mile wide and an inch deep, and not very holy at all, thus supporting the idea that a Council was needed, if not the results that were forthcoming. Since you have given me a personal story concerning your family and part of what led you to doubt the usefulness of the Second Vatican Council, I think it is only fair that I give you a personal story as well. As a teen I was one of those disaffected youth who knew little of my faith and cared even less until I heard something that would never have happened without Vatican Council II. It was the “Rock opera” Jesus Christ Superstar. Looking back, I can easily see that the music was not the best in the world and much of the play is over the top. Nevertheless, that was the first time I actually realized the suffering of the Lord and took it to heart. His sense of abandonment and the great sacrifice of his death became real to me, as did my sins, and I longed to know him more and more. I was led to guitar masses (also known as folk masses) and felt the great sense of responsibility we have for the Church when the consecrated Eucharist was placed in my open palm. Of course I felt unworthy to receive the Lord in such a way, but that simply pointed out to me the great humility and trust the Lord has in my faith, that he, in all his infinite wisdom, allows himself to become flesh and places himself and his Church in our very hands. I don’t think I would have had those experiences without the emphasis that the Second Vatican Council placed on a new way of seeing the Lord and seeing the Church. I’m sorry for spending so much time on this post.

 

[pnewton]

The vernacular may work fine where the congregation speaks only one language. But sadly, that is not the case in most places in the western world. So those who may not speak the vernacular can be effectively frozen out by your standards.
.

Perhaps then in places which lack a unifying language, this might make sense. I do not agree this is most of the Western world. Tha seems far-fetched. Even places like Nigeria with its humdreds of languages have on central unifying language.

 

[ncjohn]

Perhaps then in places which lack a unifying language, this might make sense. I do not agree this is most of the Western world. Tha seems far-fetched. Even places like Nigeria with its humdreds of languages have on central unifying language.

And you still get back to the problem that many of these places without a unifying language are also the poorest of countries and also have the highest rates of illiteracy. Thus the translation of what it going on if it is in Latin as the “unifying language” is defeated since the resources are not there for that learning to occur. Thus you come full circle to the parroted responses without an understanding of what is going on in the rest of the Mass.

To me, the “best” language will be the one understood by the majority of those in attendance. Latin as “the” unifying language mostly just doesn’t work because of the large percentage of the world that is illiterate and doesn’t have a way to understand or translate it, though it can certainly bring a sense of continuity and the comfort that comes with that. In that I can totally agree with Palmas and others who note that especially for new immigrants it can make at least that part of the transition easier.

The biggest challenge, at least for me, is the multi-ethnic parish that struggles to find ways to make liturgy available to the greatest number of people possible. In some cases, at least in developed cultures where the bulk of the people are literate and translation resources exist, the Latin liturgy with translations for the different languages might make the most sense to reach the greatest number of those for whom separate Masses in the various languages cannot be offered.

In the end though, as Tsuwano noted, it is in the breaking of the bread that we find our unity rather than in those “externals” of liturgy. And it is in how we treat the “least of his brothers” and break our own bodies for the sake of the world after being strengthened by him that we are saved.

Peace,

 

[Ockham]

And you still get back to the problem that many of these places without a unifying language are also the poorest of countries and also have the highest rates of illiteracy. Thus the translation of what it going on if it is in Latin as the “unifying language” is defeated since the resources are not there for that learning to occur. Thus you come full circle to the parroted responses without an understanding of what is going on in the rest of the Mass.

Now there is the best argument for the liturgy in the venacular I’ve seen yet. It works perfectly within the framework of worshipping God to the highest degree possible. This is where I can see the Novus Ordo being an effective form of worship - in places where literacy rates are low and poverty high. So why is it the Ordinary Form everywhere else?

 

[palmas85]

Perhaps then in places which lack a unifying language, this might make sense. I do not agree this is most of the Western world. Tha seems far-fetched. Even places like Nigeria with its humdreds of languages have on central unifying language.

They may have a national language, but even in those cases there are many people who do not speak it. I can give you two good examples here in the Western Hemisphere. Guatemala and Bolivia. In those two countries various Indian dialects predominate in many areas and Spanish if spoken at all is hardly a unifying thing.

And what of the large parishes in the big cities of the United States? In my old parish in San Diego the congregation was split fairly evenly between white Americans, Mexicans, Filipinos and Vietnamese. Yet the Masses were celebrated only in English and Spanish. Many of the congregation, especially the Filipinos and Vietnamese were elderly and did not have much if any English language skills. What about them?

You see this whole business on the wonders of the use vernacular seem to me to be based pretty much on deep ethnocentric principles. I want it in my language and the heck with everybody else. Let them learn my language or go home.

With Latin everyone and I mean everyone was on the same page. More than that, you did not have the hopeless mismash of translations floating around that seem to satisfy no one and don’t even translate out to the same thing in many acses. Spanish Masses for instance do not translate Pro Multis as for all. They correctly translate it as for many. I’m sure that you can see the confusion that can arise from these situations.

So I truly believe the best way for the Church to establish true continuity and unity across the globe is is to speak in one voice and one language, Not hundreds or thousands…

Just like She used to.

 

[Malkin71]

Depends of course on what you mean by “before.” 1 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

Absolutely. And the Mass has always been good enough for the Saints, no matter what century, or Missal, or language, or Rite we’re talking about. Right?

Conceder that how many hundreds and hundreds of Saints had the Traditional Mass to fuel them. Also, the Devine Liturgy.

 

[Malkin71]

Even that which is said lacks depth if it is not understand. I have sung the Tantum Ergo for years and have no idea the translation or what half the words mean.

Didn’t you ever read the translation on the opposite side?

 

[Malkin71]

Or with equal logic, we could say if the Church was truly concerned that the people understand what is being said, she would use a language already understood, which is what happened.

The beauty of Latin is not only for use in the church is that it is still in Law, Medicine, and botany. To teach and understand Latin we understand the meaning of a good majority of the English language. I would rather have the children learn Latin in 1-12 than be forced to learn Spanish.

 

[Ockham]

“The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood. In this way, it is considered as a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution and creates a new one. However, the Constituent Assembly needs a mandator and then confirmation by the mandator, in other words, the people the constitution must serve. The Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one because the essential constitution of the Church comes from the Lord and was given to us so that we might attain eternal life and, starting from this perspective, be able to illuminate life in time and time itself.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

 

[pnewton]

Didn’t you ever read the translation on the opposite side?

Yes, but not while singing it, and I am still left iffy on how some words correspond to the translation.

FYI - I am not opposed to Latin and think it should be used more in the liturgy. It is the exclusive use, and the use in the longer sections I think detracts from the understanding of the Mass.