VII changes to the Mass. Can anyone recommend references?

[Brendan_64]

Thanks for that everybody, they are useful articles.

 

[godisgood77]

Interesting stuff… Saving for later

 

[mphazell]

There are some very interesting articles by Prof. Lauren Pristas that may be helpful for your essay:

The Collects at Sunday Mass: An Examination of the Revisions of Vatican II (Nova et Vetera 3.1 (2005), 5-38)
Theological Principles that Guided the Redaction of the Roman Missal (1970) (The Thomist 67 (2003), 157-95)
The Orations of the Vatican II Missal: Policies for Revision (Communio 30 (Winter 2003), 621-53)

You might wish to draw a distinction in your essay between the work of the Concilium (Vatican II) and that of the Consilium (the group who revised the Roman Missal and other liturgical books after the Council). For instance, I don’t think many people would argue with the call of Sacrosanctum Concilium 51 for more scripture to be included in the lectionary, but there’s a legitimate debate to be had over whether the new lectionary the Consilium produced after the Council best fulfils that call.

In Christ,
Matthew

 

[Megan7]

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

Dear Ed,

As usual, great links, thank you

God bless you,

Pax

 

[Greg_N]

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.

Call it a “mysterious cloak” all you like; the centrality of the mass is a sacrifice, not a communitarian or “ecumenical” event.

It’s also common knowledge that Ottaviani (and many others) were antagonistic to peritus’ Congar, Chenu, Schillebeeckx, Küng et al, so I don’t understand your objections given his position.

Peace

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTE

When responding to a question about a subject on which the popes have spoken, please make sure that you provide both the statements by the popes and those of any scholar that you wish to quote the other person to read.