Was The OF Created By Protestants?

[porthos11]

Using whose translations? Anglicans?

I might be wrong, but I believe the Anglicans were invited by the ICEL to assist with the English translations.

As an occasional attendee of Calgary’s Anglican Use Mass at St. John, I can attest that it is indeed very much like an EF in Elizabethan English, especially at Low Mass. The English is hieratic, with all the thees, thous and vouchsafes. There are uniquely Anglican elements from the Book of Common Prayer and those, of course would be Cranmer.

The book St. John uses is The English Missal, essentially an Anglican translation of the Roman Missal made in the 1920’s and last published in the 1950’s. Pending the finalization of the Anglican Ordinariate Missal, Rome has permitted St. John to continue the use of the English Missal with necessary corrections or modifications.

 

[ProVobis]

… High Church Anglican Mass …

I’m not sure but didn’t this Mass strip away the private prayers of the priest or at least make them more audibile in the liturgy?

 

[CB_Catholic]

But it had never been used in the Catholic Mass. In fact, any use of the all-vernacular in the Mass is something which the Reformers could claim as their idea.

Not so.

praythemass.org/2012/01/catholic-mass-in-the-vernacular-before-vatican-ii/

Also, Latin WAS the vernacular at one time, and Greek before that.

We have to be careful not to confuse “vernacular” with “English”.

 

[ProVobis]

Also, Latin WAS the vernacular at one time, and Greek before that.

You may be right if it was done in the first century or so. The Latin Mass as we know it really wasn’t in the vernacular at that time, which would have been Vulgar Latin, not quite the same thing.

 

[EphelDuath]

While we’re on the topic, because I don’t think this is worth its own thread:

Can anybody recommend me a good book on the history of Vatican II, that dealt with the debates and how the documents were formulated?

Thank you and God bless

 

[ProVobis]

While we’re on the topic, because I don’t think this is worth its own thread:

Can anybody recommend me a good book on the history of Vatican II, that dealt with the debates and how the documents were formulated?

Thank you and God bless

I recommend “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber.” Good for laypeople.

 

[petronus]

I recommend “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber.” Good for laypeople.

No . The author is too fond of the labels “conservative” and “liberal” . Those terms are vacuous , and a product of lazy thinking .

 

[TimothyH]

While we’re on the topic, because I don’t think this is worth its own thread:

Can anybody recommend me a good book on the history of Vatican II, that dealt with the debates and how the documents were formulated?

Thank you and God bless

Exactly what you need. It covers the basics of each document, how the debates around each took place and the development of each document as a result.

**A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II **by Edward P Hahnenberg.

bks3.books.google.com/books?id=pGanAAAACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE71AbWoue7sIgzdyMXdcG9oSbYkKVP2NAFvT8TLEqbp8JunE6fRjm5lHQXs8fOtnv4EYdOWMqPW6OnbdbidEUj-uSvVYoQSaWoXU7l3IEWbcx3EODQ3xD6kRucwA11Lf1Om3YRlo

-Tim-

 

[GWright]

Non sequitur. It does not logically follow that the decline in Mass attendance, vocations, etc. was a direct result of the Council.

Hi again OraLabora,

Something else occurred to me since my earlier reply to you. (note that I do fully accept the logic in your point above).

How about comparing the vitality of traditional organisations (say SSPX and FSSP) with the ‘mainstream’ (if you will) church.

France is expected to ordain 76 priests in total in 2013
dici.org/en/news/france-96-diocesan-priests-ordained-this-year/

“England and Wales” is expected to ordain 30 priests in 2013.
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=31857

These are pretty low figures. About 35 million French people in the modern day are Catholic. France has fallen from ordaining ~1000 priests per year in the 1950s, to less than 100 per year now.

And while Catholics are a minority of ~5 million in England and Wales, see how the link provided excitedly raves about a mere 30 ordinations. (though of course, as it a rising figure, I do not dispute this is good news).

In contrast, look at the comparatively miniscule, (compared to the Catholic populations of the nations above), traditionalist organisations performance:

The FSSP (a small, fully canonical priestly organisation of just 236 ordained priests; HQ in Rome (I think)):

Since 2001, they have ordained an average of 12 men per year.
fssp.org/en/chiffres.htm

The SSPX (trad group with just less than 1,000,000 worshippers; HQ in Switzerland)

Since 1999, they have ordained approximately 20 men per year (I worked it out as 19.7 )
sspx.org/miscellaneous/sspx_statistics_12-21-2012/sspx_statistics_12-20-2012.htm

These figures compare very favourably indeed with the mainstream Church in western European nations, especially when you consider the traditional groups are like specks of dust, size wise, compared to the large Catholic populations mentioned.

If they were multiplied, pro-rata, for some equivalence in size of the potential pool of vocations,they would most comprehensively eclipse the numbers of novus ordo ordinations.

So while I take your point that, at the time of Vatican II, there was a very high degree of social flux which also must have had some influence on religion in society - meaning it is hard to isolate the effect of liturgical change for analysis - how do you explain the very noticeable different in modern vitality, in terms of priestly vocations, of the traditional groups compared top the novus ordo Church?

What is it that these groups are doing differently, apart from the obvious?
How do you explain their comparative success?

Given the ageing priesthood in many western nations is facing a desperate crisis of new recruits, if I were a Bishop, looking at these figures, I would be screaming for the traditional way of doing things.

 

[GWright]

I’m going to nitpick your logic for a minute.

Yes, you may argue such a statement. But in your reply, you have done no such thing. All you have done is made an assertion that “the way the Church has changed has led to people having a view of … [blah blah blah]”. Again, that’s not an argument, that’s an assertion. Logically speaking, it is a dogmatic assertion because you have offered zero evidence to back up such a statement.

If you are going to make an argument, then make an argument. An assertion is not an argument, an assertion is where you just make a statement. If you just want to offer that as your opinion, then say it’s your opinion.

Hi curlycool89,

I see what you mean, but I was just stating my opinion without wishing to divert the thread into various sub-discussions.

Regarding the point about “false equivalence of Churches” I mentioned:

To give an example, our local Catholic Cathedral recently held an “ecumenical vespers” event. Now, up front I will say I did not attend in person, but the event was covered in a local catholic newsletter. It said that throughout there was no reverence or acknowledgement given to the presence of the Eucharist In the tabernacle and that protestant version of prayers (The Lords prayer etc) were used.

How is this wise? For example, what would a child or young Catholic think, to be asked to show reverence toward the Tabernacle normally, but then just ignore it at an ecumenical event, as though it were not even there? Might not they conclude that the of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was mere symbolic, if we can seemingly flip-flop on the matter so easily? Should we not expect welcome guests in our Cathedral to respect our faith, just as we would do in their religious buildings?

I do, of course, fully support working for good relations between all denominations and religions, and much co-operation for the common good, but I do think we should be careful about how we roll out such events in practice, lest we unwittingly give contradictory messages or signals.

 

[GWright]

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread, I have learned a lot by your comments. I would be interested in any comments / perspectives regarding the various quotes and events I referenced, as well as on the vitality of our traditional groups versus the ageing priesthood of our mainstream Church.

I guess I understand why some people might view concern over liturgical changes as a bit of a “conspiracy theory”. Normally however I can smell such a mile off lol

Anyway, I intended to get this pack of Vatican II documents, to study and to try and learn more. (link for any UK / Ireland Catholics who may also be interested)

ctsbooks.org/year-of-faith-vatican-ii-documents-pack

best regards

 

[OraLabora]

Hi again OraLabora,

Something else occurred to me since my earlier reply to you. (note that I do fully accept the logic in your point above).

How about comparing the vitality of traditional organisations (say SSPX and FSSP) with the ‘mainstream’ (if you will) church.

France is expected to ordain 76 priests in total in 2013
dici.org/en/news/france-96-diocesan-priests-ordained-this-year/

“England and Wales” is expected to ordain 30 priests in 2013.
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=31857

These are pretty low figures. About 35 million French people in the modern day are Catholic. France has fallen from ordaining ~1000 priests per year in the 1950s, to less than 100 per year now.

And while Catholics are a minority of ~5 million in England and Wales, see how the link provided excitedly raves about a mere 30 ordinations. (though of course, as it a rising figure, I do not dispute this is good news).

In contrast, look at the comparatively miniscule, (compared to the Catholic populations of the nations above), traditionalist organisations performance:

The FSSP (a small, fully canonical priestly organisation of just 236 ordained priests; HQ in Rome (I think)):

Since 2001, they have ordained an average of 12 men per year.
fssp.org/en/chiffres.htm

The SSPX (trad group with just less than 1,000,000 worshippers; HQ in Switzerland)

Since 1999, they have ordained approximately 20 men per year (I worked it out as 19.7 )
sspx.org/miscellaneous/sspx_statistics_12-21-2012/sspx_statistics_12-20-2012.htm

These figures compare very favourably indeed with the mainstream Church in western European nations, especially when you consider the traditional groups are like specks of dust, size wise, compared to the large Catholic populations mentioned.

If they were multiplied, pro-rata, for some equivalence in size of the potential pool of vocations,they would most comprehensively eclipse the numbers of novus ordo ordinations.

So while I take your point that, at the time of Vatican II, there was a very high degree of social flux which also must have had some influence on religion in society - meaning it is hard to isolate the effect of liturgical change for analysis - how do you explain the very noticeable different in modern vitality, in terms of priestly vocations, of the traditional groups compared top the novus ordo Church?

What is it that these groups are doing differently, apart from the obvious?
How do you explain their comparative success?

Given the ageing priesthood in many western nations is facing a desperate crisis of new recruits, if I were a Bishop, looking at these figures, I would be screaming for the traditional way of doing things.

And then the Asian and African Church growth numbers just blow anything happening in Europe and the West right out of the water. And these are communities who have little or no notion of the EF and Latin. In fact the EF and Latin is very much a European thing. No language could be more foreign to say, a Korean Catholic than Latin.

One could argue that the removal of the cultural imperialism of the EF and Latin are responsible for the growth in Africa and Asia.

The real reason though is more likely because there is real piety and spiritual hunger in those parts of the world, and the modern Church better equipped for it.

If we’re looking somewhere else to satisfy the shortage of vocations, I daresay the part of the world that will be really fertile will be Africa. FSSP and SSPX? Peanuts in comparison! Your next parish priest may be African. I’ve already seen it here in Quebec (and also some Polish priests). Also, for historical reasons here, Latin and the EF does not gain much traction. In the US there’s nostalgia for the Catholic Church of the 50s. In Quebec it’s the opposite, nobody wants to go back there, the memories of a very Jansenist local Church are too painful.

It really is much more complex than the change of the liturgy in the 60s and 70s.

 

[ProVobis]

In fact the EF and Latin is very much a European thing. No language could be more foreign to say, a Korean Catholic than Latin.

It would appear to be so from a Western perspective since they’re dealing with different alphabet and etymology sets, for one thing. (Polish and Latin aren’t too much related either, btw.) However, seeing that the average Far Easterner is much more multi-language skilled than the Westerner, I wouldn’t put it past them to be able to pick Latin up a lot easier than we might think. As with everything else learnable, all they need is a reason. If people keep putting down Latin and/or the EF, they won’t have a reason. Just saying.

 

[GWright]

And then the Asian and African Church growth numbers just blow anything happening in Europe and the West right out of the water.

Yes indeed, but I was limiting the comparison to performance specifically within the western / developed world.

Why the marked difference?

It really is much more complex than the change of the liturgy in the 60s and 70s.

No doubt, but the liturgical change has also caused big changes in attitudes and how people live the faith.

For example, when I visited an SSPX church recently, they were going to do Benediction after the mass.

I dont even know what that is. Why? Because its never something I have personally encountered in the novus ordo church, in practice or discussion, or been taught about by anyone.

I find it hard to believe that a traditional worshipper could possibly be as ignorant as I am, (and as so many novus ordo Catholic are), about the full spectrum of the Catholic faith.

 

[OraLabora]

It would appear to be so from a Western perspective since they’re dealing with different alphabet and etymology sets, for one thing. (Polish and Latin aren’t too much related either, btw.) However, seeing that the average Far Easterner is much more multi-language skilled than the Westerner, I wouldn’t put it past them to be able to pick Latin up a lot easier than we might think. As with everything else learnable, all they need is a reason. If people keep putting down Latin and/or the EF, they won’t have a reason. Just saying.

I don’t want to give the impression that I’m putting down Latin. After all I sing in a schola and would dearly love more use of Latin in the OF. In fact I attend Mass where the propers and ordinary are in Latin (+ the Kyrie in Greek).

I regularly traveled to Korea on business for 13 years. While they may be able to understand other languages, speaking it (and singing it probably even more) is another matter. They have an awful lot of difficulty with diction in English. I imagine it’s the same elsewhere in Asia. As for Africa, one has to consider education levels… I think that SC was wise in allowing greater use of the vernacular.

 

[Cat]

It would appear to be so from a Western perspective since they’re dealing with different alphabet and etymology sets, for one thing. (Polish and Latin aren’t too much related either, btw.) However, seeing that the average Far Easterner is much more multi-language skilled than the Westerner, I wouldn’t put it past them to be able to pick Latin up a lot easier than we might think. As with everything else learnable, all they need is a reason. If people keep putting down Latin and/or the EF, they won’t have a reason. Just saying.

And what is the reason?

I’ve never heard a reason for Mass in Latin that makes any sense. What I hear people saying on CAF is, “I like it.” That’s not a reason.

Another reason I hear is “tradition.” Not a reason.

A third reason I hear is “Official Language of the Catholic Church.” Yes, when it comes to communications and documents. But not when it comes to Mass.

IMO, none of these reasons justify forcing non-European countries to ditch their heart language and hold Mass in a foreign language. When Catholicism comes to a new country or tribe or people, the most important thing is catechesis: comprehension and proper understanding of Catholicism. In the U.S. and Europe, we’ve all witnessed the awful consequences of poor catechesis, which has happened even though we are able to hold Mass in our own language. What would have happened to the Catholic Church in the U.S. had all the Masses continued in Latin? I know some of the CAF members believe that Catholicism would have more adherents, but I disagree. I think Holy Mother Church made a wise decision to allow Mass in the vernacular.

(BTW, if catechesis was really so excellent during the pre-Vatican II days, I think we would have seen less attrition overall after Vatican II–apparently during the pre-Vatican II days, many Catholics didn’t learn and assimilate the very basic teaching that the Catholic Church is the True Church of Jesus Christ and we need to submit to the teachings of the Church, even if we don’t like them.)

Like it or not, the way most people “learn” Catholicism throughout their lives is attending Holy Mass. Most adults don’t attend Bible studies, religion classes, etc. Perhaps this is different in African or Asian countries, but I doubt it. The Mass ends up as the primary catechesis for most Catholics. For that reason alone, in countries new to Catholicism, the Mass should be in the heart language, or at least the popularly-spoken language (which may not be the heart language), of that country.

 

[EphelDuath]

And what is the reason?

There are many.

Firstly, a universal language means Holy Mass is essentially the same no matter where one goes. The only part that is incomprehensible to a foreigner is the homily. I can only participate in mind and actions if I am celebrating a Holy Mass with a people whose language I myself do not speak. With all this talk of universal participation of the Church in Vatican II documents, the suppression of the EF until Summorum Pontificum seems the strangest move possible.

Another reason I hear is “tradition.” Not a reason.

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.” – Pope St. Pius X

A third reason I hear is “Official Language of the Catholic Church.” Yes, when it comes to communications and documents. But not when it comes to Mass.

Actually, yes, yes it is. Anywhere you’re celebrating Holy Mass in the Roman rite, you’re partaking in a translation of the Holy See-promulgated Latin Missale Romanum.

Like it or not, the way most people “learn” Catholicism throughout their lives is attending Holy Mass. Most adults don’t attend Bible studies, religion classes, etc. Perhaps this is different in African or Asian countries, but I doubt it. The Mass ends up as the primary catechesis for most Catholics. For that reason alone, in countries new to Catholicism, the Mass should be in the heart language, or at least the popularly-spoken language (which may not be the heart language), of that country.

“Like it or not” does not mean “accept it as is with no possible conviction towards a better world”. The Holy Mass is incomprehensible without exterior catechesis, this is inarguable; vernacular, Latin, or ancient Aramaic. If one does not understand what is going on at the EF, then he does not understand what is going on at the OF, because they are the same thing: Holy Mass.

Yes, the liturgy is a vehicle for God to sanctify the congregation with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, but this is not and cannot be the only place for Catholics to learn.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes indeed, but I was limiting the comparison to performance specifically within the western / developed world.

Why the marked difference?

No doubt, but the liturgical change has also caused big changes in attitudes and how people live the faith.

For example, when I visited an SSPX church recently, they were going to do Benediction after the mass.

I dont even know what that is. Why? Because its never something I have personally encountered in the novus ordo church, in practice or discussion, or been taught about by anyone.

I find it hard to believe that a traditional worshipper could possibly be as ignorant as I am, (and as so many novus ordo Catholic are), about the full spectrum of the Catholic faith.

Well Benediction is every first Friday of the month at the abbey I’m associated with. In Gregorian chant. And it is a “Novus Ordo” abbey. They also have adoration after Vespers on Sundays and solemnities.

Clearly the modern liturgy is thus not at fault for your lack of exposure. We certainly don’t need a schismatic group to teach the Church the liturgy. What we need is more discipline. The modern liturgy is capable of being every bit as beautiful and faithful to tradition as the EF.

Question to you, how do you suppose the EF would be executed if it was the only mandated form and the same disobedient priests who mangled the OF we’re forced to use it? They disobey the rubrics of the OF, do you think they’d be any more obedient with the EF?

If your answer is that the bishops would need to exert more discipline, then they could simply apply it to the OF liturgy. If the EF became normative, the current “liberal” priests, though I hate labels, wouldn’t magically become conservative overnight.

To suggest that the liturgy is to blame for disorder in the Church is a gross oversimplification.

 

[ProVobis]

They have an awful lot of difficulty with diction in English. I imagine it’s the same elsewhere in Asia. As for Africa, one has to consider education levels… I think that SC was wise in allowing greater use of the vernacular.

English is tough with much irregularity. Even Americans have problems with it. It wasn’t my first language but I ended up learning British and American English. My Polish parents had me proofread almost everything they wrote. They knew enough to get along with the neighbors but that’s about it. A lot of people just can’t handle the language, leading in many cases to a lot of our immigration problems.

As far as the SC goes, there are more vernaculars today to please most. In Chicago alone 24 some vernaculars are allowed by the diocese. It wasn’t that way in the 60’s and that infuriated many who had to sit through English Masses.

All that said, it still is important to have a central, unifying, and neutral language if we are to have a central, unifying, and neutral faith. Otherwise the growing Catholic faith in Asia or Africa won’t mean much to us.

 

[ProVobis]

Like it or not, the way most people “learn” Catholicism throughout their lives is attending Holy Mass. Most adults don’t attend Bible studies, religion classes, etc.

I disagree. Because less than 25% attend Mass, I would say most Catholics learn Catholicism through the news media, hardly a place where one would expect proper catechism.