VII changes to the Mass. Can anyone recommend references?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brendan_64
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brendan_64

Guest
As part of a course I’m doing I have to write an essay on how Vatican II reforms affected the Mass, what changes were introduced and how the changes point to different emphasis and interpretation in the way we understand the sacrament now and then?

Apart from the actual VII documents, can anyone recommend any particular references or sources for this?

Many thanks
 
None of the changes people associate with the Council were even suggested by Vatican II. Not one. I was there before and after Vatican II. Yes, other missals were published.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

And this:

In his outstanding book, “Spirit of the Liturgy,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the ancient and venerable practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice ad orientem, in which both priest and people face east:

“It has been the practice in the entire Church, East and West from time immemorial. Contrary to a prevailing misconception, there is no evidence for celebration of Mass versus populum in the first nineteen centuries of the Church’s history, with rare exceptions.”

“Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again.”

Finally:

Regarding the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form, and the missals since 1962:

"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.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration.” Pope Benedict

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

Ed
 
Many thanks for those references Ed, much appreciated.

The essay will be a balanced essay without advocating any particular view on changes to the Mass.

Any good references on ‘either side’ are welcomed.
 
Many thanks for those references Ed, much appreciated.

The essay will be a balanced essay without advocating any particular view on changes to the Mass.

Any good references on ‘either side’ are welcomed.
You’re welcome. I am glad to hear the essay will be balanced and without personal bias.

Best,
Ed
 
It should be noted that the New Mass is not a revision of of the TLM, but an entirely new creation.
 
It should be noted that the New Mass is not a revision of of the TLM, but an entirely new creation.
This assertion cannot be supported academically.

A great deal of the Pauline Mass had for its inspiration commentaries or descriptions of earlier liturgies; what is often argued by ultra-traditionalists is that (some, most or all) of these documents are a) of questionable authority, while others will ignore that or couple the doubt (of the accuracy or reliability of the manuscripts) with the objection that -regardless of historical authenticity or reliability- b) the liturgy and sacraments described are invalid according to the principles of modern sacramental theology; but of course, if the texts really are authentic and do represent early Church liturgy, then we would have to say that later sacramental theology is somehow off the mark since it is impossible that the Church could have celebrated a liturgy that had invalid sacraments.

Moreover, you said that
“the New Mass is not a revision of of the TLM”

But this, in its context, seems misleading: the Pauline Mass’ Eucharistic Prayer I is also called the Roman Canon for this reason: it is taken from the canon of the Tridentine Mass. To be sure, it’s not much of a “revision” and more of a ‘copy-and-paste’.

Thanks,
August.
 
I can support it, but our previous holy father as Cardinal Ratzinger summed it up himself. He called the New Mass a banal fabrication. Two rites exist within the Roman rite. When Pope Benedict stated that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated, this was showing and confirming that the New Mass (Novus Ordo=“New Order”) was a new creation. Because it has the Roman Canon does not show that they are the same anymore than both of them begin by invoking the Holy Trinity.
 
I can support it, but our previous holy father as Cardinal Ratzinger summed it up himself. He called the New Mass a banal fabrication. Two rites exist within the Roman rite. When Pope Benedict stated that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated, this was showing and confirming that the New Mass (Novus Ordo=“New Order”) was a new creation. Because it has the Roman Canon does not show that they are the same anymore than both of them begin by invoking the Holy Trinity.
This is simplistic and evades the point.

Firstly, Pope Benedict was speaking in contrast to the centuries of organic development as exemplified in, e.g., the TLM up to Trent that, afterwards and against the Prot revolution, admitted little growth or development. To be sure, however, complete rewrites of the liturgy are not unprecedented: Saint Thomas spoke of one being conducted by a certain Eastern bishop for the liturgy of the Churches under his pastoral administration.

Secondly, but of course the revised or reformed Pauline Mass is not “the same” as the Tridentine Mass: it would not have been ‘revised’ or ‘reformed’ had it remained “the same”.

Peace be with you,
August.
 
Many thanks for those references Ed, much appreciated.

The essay will be a balanced essay without advocating any particular view on changes to the Mass.

Any good references on ‘either side’ are welcomed.
Then how can it be an essay? What will the argument be? I’m just wondering, because without one, it seems to veer close to being a book report.
 
Then how can it be an essay? What will the argument be? I’m just wondering, because without one, it seems to veer close to being a book report.
How will it be a book report when it won’t be about a single book? How is an evaluation of how the changes to the liturgy as a result of Vatican II point to how the sacrament may be understood as a result? A balanced comparison of viewpoints. How is that not an essay? The purpose of the essay is not for me to present my own particular viewpoint and back it up with evidence.
 
How will it be a book report when it won’t be about a single book? How is an evaluation of how the changes to the liturgy as a result of Vatican II point to how the sacrament may be understood as a result? A balanced comparison of viewpoints. How is that not an essay? The purpose of the essay is not for me to present my own particular viewpoint and back it up with evidence.
Fair enough.
 
How will it be a book report when it won’t be about a single book? How is an evaluation of how the changes to the liturgy as a result of Vatican II point to how the sacrament may be understood as a result? A balanced comparison of viewpoints. How is that not an essay? The purpose of the essay is not for me to present my own particular viewpoint and back it up with evidence.
Good luck with your book report, Brendan!

Wait- err, I mean essay! 😉 Just playing. I am sure it will be good. Don’t be afraid to share with us the results!

Peace be with you,
August.
 
This letter to Pope Paul VI by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani is an interesting read.
Except the contents of the study were not actually written by Cardinal Ottaviani and the critical study is not of the final, so to speak, rite. Moreover, the paper is often guilty of semantics in the strict sense of arguing over mere words (terms).

The new Rite tried to use as much biblical terminology as possible to describe the Mass: this was wise because by doing so it makes plain the historical roots of the Mass well within the bliblical age of the Church led by the Apostles, thus making it a lot easier for, e.g., formal Prots but even just the chap who has stumbled on a Bible and is now interested in Christianity to see the Mass and the liturgy for what it is: i.e., the living, breathing realization (or fulfillment) of the Scriptures -the Holy Spirit living and speaking in Christ’ Church- in the here and now.

This move has facilitated the conversion of many respectable Protestants as a consequence: it is easier to see the Mass for its essential nature and not miss that nature in a mysterious cloak of “lace and Latin”, as they used to say. Now that mysterious cloak is very good for those who are or have been steeped in the mystery of the Mass; however, for babes certainly, the simplicity and accessibility of the new Rite or Form makes mystagogy easier and, notwithstanding, is sufficiently rich to satisfy any Christian’s spiritual needs since it too still contains or presents the Eucharistic Lord. I can remember at least one famous American Protestant convert describing his experience of the first time he went to a Catholic (Pauline) Mass: he was literally amazed at the story, so to speak, of the Bible coming to life before his very eyes, being woven altogether harmoniously and being presented as a complete whole: this was the Bible in living colour. This swept him up into Seventh Heaven, so to speak, which is something that never happened to him before. This almost certainly could not have happened for him at a Tridentine or Latin Mass: the cloak of mystery draped over the Tridentine Mass is for many a cloak that conceals the Biblical or Scriptural roots of the Mass; for others, however, it allows them to be truly, deeply and richly steeped in the Mystery.

Peace be with you,
August.
 
Informative, and balanced, treatise on Scrosanctum Concillium by Mons. Andrew Wadsworth. 2013

chantcafe.com/2013/05/sacrosanctum-concilium-what-we-have.html

From an interview from Cardinal Walter Brandmüller to Vatican Insider.2012

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/08/brandmuller-mass-of-paul-vi-is-not-mass.html

side by side comparison of the two forms of Mass:

lms.org.uk/resources/comparison-between-the-traditional-and-novus-ordo-missals

And for some heavy reading, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger in 1985)on the Liturgy and Music:
sanctamissa.org/en/music/books-and-articles-on-sacred-music/liturgy-and-church-music-benedict-xvi.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top