Was the Novus Ordo Mass an infallible declaration?

[ProVobis]

This is why I avoid questions in this forum.
I find it shocking and blasphemous the lengths
Catholics will go attacking the Novus Ordo while
considering themselves “traditional Catholics.”

Would you like a list of what attacks the other side uses or used, to the point of complete suppression of the old rite for almost 20 years?

 

[thewanderer]

Would you like a list of what attacks the other side uses or used, to the point of complete supprssion of the old rite for almost 20 years?

I think the real point is that anybody who insists on dividing the Church into two “sides” is coming at this from the wrong angle.

 

[Sirach2]

I think the real point is that anybody who insists on dividing the Church into two “sides” is coming at this from the wrong angle.

Completely agree!

 

[ProVobis]

I think the real point is that anybody who insists on dividing the Church into two “sides” is coming at this from the wrong angle.

I had to use the word “sides” as otherwise I’d be accusing someone with some type of “-ist” label or believing in conspiracy theories or the like. I can only deal with one controversy at a time. At least today.

 

[thewanderer]

I had to use the word “sides” as otherwise I’d be accusing someone with some type of “-ist” label or believing in conspiracy theories or the like. I can only deal with one controversy at a time. At least today.

I can definitely understand that. I just find it frustrating that all too often in these discussions people tend to try and divide everyone into two sides instead of working to see how, even with our different perspectives and opinions we are all one Church.Christ desires unity not division.

 

[ProVobis]

I can definitely understand that. I just find it frustrating that all too often in these discussions people tend to try and divide everyone into two sides instead of working to see how, even with our different perspectives and opinions we are all one Church.Christ desires unity not division.

Right. Personally I see a whole lot more division between cultures and translations, especially within parishes; the forms themselves have been sorted out by two Popes and should be a non-issue.

 

[simple_soul]

Right. Personally I see a whole lot more division between cultures and translations, especially within parishes; the forms themselves have been sorted out by two Popes and should be a non-issue.

And for some of us it is a non-issue.

 

[Brendan_64]

And seeing you don’t have the courtesy to respond to
what I actually said and asked on the NO speaks
volumes.

So what exactly did you specifically ask me about the OF Mass?

I’m male, so if you want a questioned answered by me you need to ask me very directly and specifically, and make sure I know that it is me that you want the answer from. And it has to be a clear question, and not a general statement made, which you want me to respond to.

So what is the question?

 

[ealfred]

Whenever the question about the form of Mass apprears, people start fighting. It does not matter which form of Mass you prefer as long as they are approved by the Holy See.

I live in a country where we have 1 Church and OF Mass. When I travel I attend EF Mass because I feel it is better for me spititually (again it is an opinion). My brother prefers OF and when we travel together he does not come with me to EF.

I attended Masses with of various Rites (Antiochian rites (Syriac & Maronite) and Byzantine), but most of my life I attended OF and did not even know that EF exsisted. Now I perfer to go to EF. Others have a different experience.

It is the right of each person to choose the form of Mass prefered by him/her as long as they are valid and approved by the Holy See (Westeren or Eastern).

 

[Brendan_64]

It is the right of each person to choose the form of Mass prefered by him/her as long as they are valid and approved by the Holy See (Westeren or Eastern).

I completely agree. I would prefer an OF Mass, but only when it is celebrated with reverence. Sadly I feel that too often it is celebrated in too casual a fashion, with priests trying to make it ‘more relevant’ to the world we live in. This of course is not the fault of the OF form of the Mass, but the fault of the priest celebrating it (in my opinon). The EF Mass is always celebrated reverently and it serves well to put the OF Mass in relief so to point to where we ought to be aiming for when the OF Mass is celebrated.

I prefer a reverently celebrated OF Mass (Latin included, pipe organ, Gregorian chant etc.) to an EF Mass, but I definitely prefer an EF Mass over a typically casual OF Mass (of which I think there are too many).

 

[R_C]

Today is Mother’s Day, and besides my own mother who is deceased, my spiritual Mother is the Church. In the same way that I would not stand still and allow a ruffian throw eggs at my living or deceased mother, I cannot let this abusive depiction of our Holy Mother Church, the Bride of Christ, go unchallenged.

R_C, clearly you are in the infinitessismal minority of traditionists who enjoy slinging mud at this Bride. Would that you might consider the harm you do towards unity, and the image you present of the negativity prevailing in your own soul.

May God rebuke you, I humbly pray, and teach you to respect His Bride in your conversation.

Sirach, this is ridiculous.

 

[ealfred]

I completely agree. I would prefer an OF Mass, but only when it is celebrated with reverence. Sadly I feel that too often it is celebrated in too casual a fashion, with priests trying to make it ‘more relevant’ to the world we live in. This of course is not the fault of the OF form of the Mass, but the fault of the priest celebrating it (in my opinon). The EF Mass is always celebrated reverently and it serves well to put the OF Mass in relief so to point to where we ought to be aiming for when the OF Mass is celebrated.

I prefer a reverently celebrated OF Mass (Latin included, pipe organ, Gregorian chant etc.) to an EF Mass, but I definitely prefer an EF Mass over a typically casual OF Mass (of which I think there are too many).

We have this problem here as well. Alot of the music used during Mass is composed and written by protestants and has no spiritual depth.

 

[OraLabora]

I completely agree. I would prefer an OF Mass, but only when it is celebrated with reverence. Sadly I feel that too often it is celebrated in too casual a fashion, with priests trying to make it ‘more relevant’ to the world we live in. This of course is not the fault of the OF form of the Mass, but the fault of the priest celebrating it (in my opinon). The EF Mass is always celebrated reverently and it serves well to put the OF Mass in relief so to point to where we ought to be aiming for when the OF Mass is celebrated.

I prefer a reverently celebrated OF Mass (Latin included, pipe organ, Gregorian chant etc.) to an EF Mass, but I definitely prefer an EF Mass over a typically casual OF Mass (of which I think there are too many).

I think it’s more than just the priest; I think it’s a part of our culture and identity that was lost. Try finding choristers capable of Gregorian chant in most small-town and even city parishes! Like you I prefer a reverent OF Mass and would rather a reverently celebrated one without music than one with poor hymns.

Fortunately I live near a “cultural oacis” for the OF Mass, a Benedictine Abbey that has retained Gregorian chant for the propers and ordinary of the Mass, and for Lauds and Vespers… every single day, and the pipe organ on days permitted or appropriate (Sundays and feasts except Advent and Lent-Gaudete and Laetare Sundays permitted). The Mass in general is done with reverence; what’s not Gregorian is French plainchant (including the readings). I belong to a small schola of a dozen or so men in a nearby city; we were trained by the former choirmaster of the abbey. Such resources are hard to come by in may parts of the country and the world.

That said, there was a period following Trent of a progressive worsening of sacred music, to the point where “Gregorian chant” was anything but, was overly embellished, and was completely denatured.

It wasn’t until the late 19th Century that the monks of Solesmes attempted to restore chant to its roots, at least as they understood it. Pius X then approved the Roman Gradual of 1908, which was made by Solesmes and based on their interpretation. I won’t get into the “chant wars” between Dom Pothier and Mocquereau, it takes a book (which I have) to deal with that!

My point is what we know as “Gregorian chant” for the Mass today really only dates back to 1908, and is in fact the Solesmes interpretation (which is still ongoing). It attempted to restore chant to what it thinks it was like in the Carolingian era. But it we really have no idea how the neumes (without staff) were interpreted back then.

It suffices to say that sacred Church music has been subject of ongoing evolution for many hundreds of years. Trent did away with much ancient musical tradition; I’m sure it must have been traumatic back then for Church musicians. We lost many sequences for the Mass and we lost troped Kyries to name a few. Pope Urban VIII fairly wrecked traditional hymns (which the post-Vatican II hymnal tried to restore although it also came up with its own new and controversial compositions).

The big break so far since Vatican II has been the vernacular, when it comes to sacred music. There isn’t much in the way of “traditional” hymns in, say English (some cultures do have older vernacular hymns that were used at Mass). In that sense the Anglicans have us beat, having some 500 years to have assembled a quite beautiful hymnal. We may yet achieve something similar decades from now.

 

[fnr]

Well, if Latin was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!

That’s a joke, right?

We know for sure that Jesus spoke Aramaic – that’s preserved even in the Greek New Testament. There’s some reason to believe he spoke Koine Greek, given his likely employment as a tekton (craftsman/builder) in the reconstruction of Sepphoris after its destruction. Koine Greek may have been the language needed for trade with the broader world, including the rebuilding of Sepphoris.

Latin wasn’t the primary liturgical language for a majority of Christians until probably the fourth century. Western Christians spoke some Latin, which we see in the writings of Tertullian (late 2nd C). The Christian catacombs in Rome from the 3rd C include combinations of both Greek and Latin.

 

[fnr]

The big break so far since Vatican II has been the vernacular, when it comes to sacred music. There isn’t much in the way of “traditional” hymns in, say English (some cultures do have older vernacular hymns that were used at Mass). In that sense the Anglicans have us beat, having some 500 years to have assembled a quite beautiful hymnal. We may yet achieve something similar decades from now.

It seems to me that there was a fair degree of liturgical flux prior to Vatican 2. Much of it prefigured the post-conciliar liturgical development.

As you mentioned, Pius X did away with the use of Baroque and classical music compositions in favor of a reconstructed Gregorian Chant (the sheet music for which still exists to some extent). That can be seen as coherent with his anti-modernist stances more generally. But Pius X also promote frequent communion by the laity and more active participation in the liturgy. Pius X himself convened the conference that really kicked off the Liturgical Movement in the Catholic church, the Congrès National des Oeuvres Catholiques in Belgium in 1909. This movement itself promoted the use of vernacular language.

Interest in ancient liturgies also stemmed from the wider availability in the mid-late 19th centuries of ancient and Medieval patristic texts from Greek (the Patrologia Graeca) and Latin (the Patrologia Latina) writers, thanks to the work of mid-19th Century authors such as Jacques-Paul Migne. Also, the Didache (1st Century) and Apostolic Constitutions (3rd-4th Century) also became available.

The introduction of the dialogue mass as a “low mass” in the Tridentine form can be seen as prefiguring the post-conciliar OF, even the mass of Paul VI. News reports from the Council itself report that the dialogue mass was the usual form of liturgy that the bishops at the Council employed.

As I see it, all of these developments in liturgy and scholarship prefigure the mass of Paul VI to a significant degree. So while Paul VI’s suppression of Latin in favor of the vernacular does seem to have been discontinuity (in part) with the past (in making vernacular mandatory in most cases), the widespread use of vernacular, the presiding priest facing the congregation, and other parts of the liturgy seem to have a pretty clear lineage reaching back at least a century.

 

[Sirach2]

Nice discussion, folks, but it is not the topic presented by the OP. Maybe a new thread for those who are determined to debate, yet again, the form of liturgy that is most preferable to them? The OP was left in the dust many posts ago.

 

[ProVobis]

We know for sure that Jesus spoke Aramaic –

True. Aramaic had been the vernacular of that area at the time. Nevertheless Pilate had the inscription above the cross written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Maybe we should argue which one was at the top?

Latin was the military language and it had been also used in administrative acts of the BC Empire and eventually the Church. Many Greeks had written in Latin, for many reasons, probably more for preservation than for actual street language. The liturgies of the very early Church we don’t know much about, but it is guessed their roots were in pagan worship which became Christianized. The Greco-Roman world was after all, heavily into religion. We know a lot about Greek mythology which had its Latin counterpart.

 

[R_C]

Nice discussion, folks, but it is not the topic presented by the OP. Maybe a new thread for those who are determined to debate, yet again, the form of liturgy that is most preferable to them? The OP was left in the dust many posts ago.

Someone named you moderator?

 

[R_C]

Actually, Trent condemns those who say that the Church’s liturgy is an inherent cause of impiety.

Source please? Which session, at least, pronounced itself on this matter?

 

[R_C]

Paul VI’s suppression of Latin in favor of the vernacular

Paul VI did no such thing. In his own words, “the Church…has introduced the vernacular into the sacred liturgy for pastoral reasons, that is, for the sake of people who do not know Latin” (Apostolic Letter Sacrificium Laudis).

The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Vatican II declared:

the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

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.

It may be worth quoting a bit of the above-mentioned apostolic letter to see how Paul VI thought about this matter (keeping in mind the context is the recitation of the Breviary in religious community, not the Mass, though the principles enunciated apply to liturgy itself).

We learn that discordant practices have been introduced into the sacred liturgy by your communities…while some are very faithful to the Latin language, others wish to use the vernacular within the choral office. Others, in various places, wish to exchange that chant which is called Gregorian for newly-minted melodies. Indeed, some even insist that Latin should be wholly suppressed.

We must acknowledge that We have been somewhat disturbed and saddened by these requests.

One may well wonder what the origin is of this new way of thinking and this sudden dislike for the past; one may well wonder why these things have been fostered.

What is in question here is not only the retention within the choral office of the Latin language, though it is of course right that this should be eagerly guarded and should certainly not be lightly esteemed. For this language is, within the Latin Church, an abundant well-spring of Christian civilization and a very rich treasure-trove of devotion.

But it is also the seemliness, the beauty and the native strength of these prayers and canticles which is at stake: the choral office itself, “the lovely voice of the Church in song” (Cf. St Augustine’s Confessions, Bk 9, 6).

Your founders and teachers, the holy ones who are as it were so many lights within your religious families, have transmitted this to you. The traditions of the elders, your glory throughout long ages, must not be belittled. Indeed, your manner of celebrating the choral office has been one of the chief reasons why these families of yours have lasted so long, and happily increased.

It is thus most surprising that under the influence of a sudden agitation, some now think that it should be given up.

In present conditions, what words or melodies could replace the forms of Catholic devotion which you have used until now?

You should reflect and carefully consider whether things would not be worse, should this fine inheritance be discarded. It is to be feared that the choral office would turn into a mere bland recitation, suffering from poverty and begetting weariness, as you yourselves would perhaps be the first to experience.

One can also wonder whether men would come in such numbers to your churches in quest of the sacred prayer, if its ancient and native tongue, joined to a chant full of grave beauty, resounded no more within your walls.

We therefore ask all those to whom it pertains, to ponder what they wish to give up, and not to let that spring run dry from which, until the present, they have themselves drunk deep.

From the good will which we have toward you, and from the good opinion which we have of you, We are unwilling to allow that which could make your situation worse, and which could well bring you no slight loss, and which would certainly bring a sickness and sadness upon the whole Church of God.

Allow Us to protect your interests, even against your own will. It is the same Church which has introduced the vernacular into the sacred liturgy for pastoral reasons, that is, for the sake of people who do not know Latin, which gives you the mandate of preserving the age-old solemnity, beauty and dignity of the choral office, in regard both to language, and to the chant.

Obey, then, these prescriptions sincerely and calmly. It is not an excessive love of old ways that prompts them. They derive, rather, from Our fatherly love for you, and from Our concern for divine worship.

If we keep the peace of the Lord in our hearts, we will realize that while we must keep always humbly submissive to the mind of the Church and to the will of the Holy Spirit on all matters, we must also discern what is the Spirit’s will and what is our own will. St. John XXIII and (Blessed) Paul VI spoke very clearly concerning sacred liturgy. So did St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Even Pope Francis recently taught in Evangelii Gaudium:

Evangelization with joy becomes beauty in the liturgy, as part of our daily concern to spread goodness. The Church evangelizes and is herself evangelized through the beauty of the liturgy, which is both a celebration of the task of evangelization and the source of her renewed self-giving.