Was The OF Created By Protestants?

[Nesrad]

I was very careful to use the terms “In my opinion” or “In my understanding” - to make it very clear that what I was stating was indeed my own opinion or my own understanding.

If your opinion is that the New Mass is somehow illegitimate, then your opinion is an impious one. You should have more regard for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Lormar]

My bold, above.

Mass isn’t primarily a lecture to students. It’s a mystical rite of thanksgiving, petitioning, adoration and propitiation of a god. Therefore the words should precisely express the intention directed towards the god worshipped.

If Roman Catholic priests have got the idea that mass is primarily a meal then it explains perfectly the occurence of what so annoys traditionalists: the banal communal modifications: Versus populum, lay lectors, CITH etc.

If it’s merely a meal and a happy one at that, then solemnity and exclusivity is not only inappropriate, it’s weird.

Someone should tell the folks in Ballymagash. They think they’re doing it right!

Every Sunday we are told it is a meal and the altar is a table. I know better. But how about those in the pews that don’t?

I realize that my parish is not the norm anymore. Nevertheless, places like my parish still do exist in the universal Church.

 

[Nesrad]

For example, per the Vatican’s own English website, Mary is to be “worshipped.”

Even the King James Bible contains instances of people “worshiping” creatures, but Protestants conveniently attribute that to outdated language. The fact is that the particular meaning of “worship” (latria) as used by Protestants isn’t the only meaning of the word, and the difference between dulia, hyperdulia, and latria is not usually rendered in common language (I wonder if it’s even possible).

 

[Timothysis]

If Roman Catholic priests have got the idea that mass is primarily a meal then it explains perfectly the occurence of what so annoys traditionalists: the banal communal modifications: Versus populum, lay lectors, CITH etc.

If it’s merely a meal and a happy one at that, then solemnity and exclusivity is not only inappropriate, it’s weird.

What exactly are you addressing? There isn’t one orthodox pope, bishop, priest or layman who doesn’t know what the celebration of Mass is. No one said that it is “primarily a meal.” I’ve already quoted what the Church teaches about the Mass in Eucharisticum Mysterium. I have no idea nor care about “what annoys traditionalists.”

 

[OraLabora]

Br JR, the real danger I see is in interpreting/translating into one’s vernacular. The thinking after that is not all at the same level. For example, per the Vatican’s own English website, Mary is to be “worshipped.” A Pole or an Italian doesn’t “worship” Mary and he wouldn’t know what we’re talking about.

That’s just sloppy translation. It’s not a reason for disallowing a vernacular.

True story, at the last World Oblate’s Congress in Rome in 2009, in the Q&A period after a speaker, a delegate from France rose to make a comment. He mentioned something about venerating Mary (“nous vénérons la Vierge Marie”). The simultaneous translator got it wrong and in English it came out “we worship the Virgin Mary”. He couldn’t understand why the English-speaking delegates were booing him and yelling at him. At the lunch break a delegate came to chastise him for saying that he said we “worship” Mary. Fortunately like many Europeans he spoke good English and he was able to tell the delegate that he said no such thing, that he said in French, “we venerate the Virgin Mary”. Since French is my native language I was listening to him in French, so I too couldn’t understand the fuss. I thought it was because he had said that that Muslims also have great respect for the Virgin Mary (the theme of the conference was inter-religious dialogue).

Finally they were able to pin it on the translator, and he had to make an apology during lunch over the PA system, saying that he had correctly said we “venerate” but the translator mis-translated to “worship”.

I suspect though that translation kerfuffles have been going even in Latin since St. Jerome compiled the Vulgate. For a “dead” language, the Vatican gave us the Neo Vulgate, and there are many translation changes, among others to the Magnificat (that was recently translated back in the new Roman Antiphonary).

I agree it’s useful to maintain Latin as a base language. However unlike the 22 other sui juris Churches which are intrinsically tied to their local cultures, and thus use the language of that culture, the Roman Church is no longer exclusively and intrinsically tied to Western European culture. In fact its rapid growth in Africa, Latin America, etc., suggests that the cultural influences of the Church are undergoing a seismic shift. I think it’s simply asking too much of Latin to be the exclusive language of the Church’s cultural expression, even in the liturgy, if she is going to maintain meaningful influence elsewhere. And I say this as a great lover and practitioner of Gregorian chant… Latin will always remain as one of the cultural expressions of the Roman Church, but I think we have to adjust to the fact that it will no longer be the exclusive language nor even the main one, other than as a reference point and in the few remaining places that are making a concerted effort to preserve Gregorian chant (monasteries chief among them).

 

[TimothyH]

My bold, above.

Mass isn’t primarily a lecture to students. It’s a mystical rite of thanksgiving, petitioning, adoration and propitiation of a god. Therefore the words should precisely express the intention directed towards the god worshipped.

If Roman Catholic priests have got the idea that mass is primarily a meal then it explains perfectly the occurence of what so annoys traditionalists: the banal communal modifications: Versus populum, lay lectors, CITH etc.

If it’s merely a meal and a happy one at that, then solemnity and exclusivity is not only inappropriate, it’s weird.

Someone should tell the folks in Ballymagash. They think they’re doing it right!

Versus populum has been part of the Mass for at least 1000 years.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

But the New Mass is a greater threat to Protestantism, in that it is likely to lead to the conversion of many of them, than to Traditional Catholicism of which it retains all the essential elements.

How so, when you had Catholics leaving in droves to megaChurches, etc.?

 

[Nesrad]

How so, when you had Catholics leaving in droves to megaChurches, etc.?

Do you think anything can hold back these “catholics” who so readily abandon the apostolic faith for some televangelist?

The Novus Ordo mass has nothing to do with it. Most Catholics would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a Novus Ordo mass celebrated in Latin versus orientem and a Traditional Latin Mass. And I don’t think that all Novus Ordo masses should be offered that way. Some should be offered in a way that fosters the conversion of Protestants.

So my point is that while the Traditional Latin Mass is universally shunned by Protestants, the Novus Ordo mass, which is just as legitimate, can be offered in a way that allows Protestants to be converted to the true faith. That’s why the Novus Ordo mass is damaging to Protestantism.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Okay but for 40 years the Catholic heard “Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.”

Which is perfectly correct, orthodox and true regardless.

We all participate in the sacrifice because we are all the body of Christ; the faithful spiritually unite their own (daily) sacrifices (e.g. their prayers, sufferings and works (of charity)) to and with Christ’s own sacrifice on the cross. Cf. any traditional Morning Offering prayer.

This is the Church as the Body of Christ united with her Head on the cross praying to God the Father: Christ offered himself up to his Father on the cross on behalf of sinful humanity (cf. Pope Pius XII, CCC 1939, #2). This is perfectly accurate, correct and orthodox:

[CCC 1368, #2] In the catacombs the Church is often represented as a woman in prayer, arms outstretched in the praying position. Like Christ who stretched out his arms on the cross, through him, with him, and in him, she offers herself and intercedes for all men [cf. *Lk 23.34].

(The reference to the catacombs, of course, is to demonstrate the antiquity of this Christian belief about the nature of the Church and the Mass.)

Moreover, the words (the faithfuls’ reponse) that follow afterwards qualify the priest’s invitational prayer; for we pray that his (i.e., the priest’s) sacrifice at his hands be accepted by the Lord (i.e., specifically or perhaps especially God the Father through, with and in Christ). That is, the specific necessity of the priest in this sacramental offering and sacrifice is explicitly acknowledged and stated by and in the faithfuls’ response.

Furthermore, “at your hands” is a specific reference to the sacerdotal priesthood:

[CCC **1369, #3] . . . Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.192

• Presbyterorum ordinis.

Mark carefully the reference to “the priests’ hands”. As a traditionalist, Pro Vobis, I know full well you know the importance of this reference vis-a-vis the uniquely Catholic idea of the sacerdotal priesthood.

And this was right after the Presentation of the Gifts and the “this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made.” and “we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands” Offertory. See the disassociation between “our” sacrifice and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Or didn’t any one else notice it?

See above.

This is the i) praise and ii) thanksgiving that every Mass since the first* has given to God the Father (as Creator) for the i) gift of his creation, with its twofold element(s): creation as such (i.e., all things not human but placed in subjection to us) and ii) for mankind as such, who is able to make good use of the aforementioned gift of God’s creation. It would be seriously ungrateful to neglect to give God thanks for his work of creation and His even placing it under our feet: i.e., in subjection to us.

*Mt 26.26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks *, he broke it . . .

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them . . .

Now the Catechism :

1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all “thanksgiving.”

Of course, they have now corrected it to “that my sacrifice and yours,” a step in the right direction at least.

It was never - not even slightly ! - “incorrect”.*

 

[1AugustSon7]

I’m not insuating anything. It was documented:

“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord . . . ” (General Instruction to the Novus Ordo, April 6, 1969).

What does “the memorial of the Lord” mean? what did the Church mean by this term?

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186

• Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[ProVobis]

It was never - not even slightly ! - “incorrect”.

Let’s put it this way: the Latin wasn’t, and I’ll leave it at that. I find the discussion in English to be fatiguing at best.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s why the Novus Ordo mass is damaging to Protestantism.

If it is, and I’m not saying it is, I don’t think it was intended that way.

 

[ProVobis]

So, I take it that you DO suggest that Mass became something other than a sacrifice?

No but what was the average churchgoer supposed to think when the Mass was being simplified/reformed in the 60’s?

 

[Cristiano]

No but what was the average churchgoer supposed to think when the Mass was being simplified/reformed in the 60’s?

If I were to follow the logic that has been presented by some traditionalists so far I would say that the average churchgoer was already properly catechized to understand that the change in the Mass could not exclude the sacrificial aspect.

We have to be careful when we thread with tradition because tradition has it pros and it cons too.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s just sloppy translation.

When it took them a while (over an hour?) to figure out that when the Pope said “…declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae…renuntiare” he meant he was renouncing the papacy, I’d say we have a problem more serious than just a sloppy translation. Just saying.

I suspect though that translation kerfuffles have been going even in Latin since St. Jerome compiled the Vulgate.

At this point I’m willing to forgive anything that was done prior to the Gutenberg Press. Depending on 100% good legible handwriting over many centuries using papyrus or what not gathering moisture is just not realistic.

 

[CB_Catholic]

No but what was the average churchgoer supposed to think when the Mass was being simplified/reformed in the 60’s?

I was an average churchgoer in the 60’s as were my friends and family. There was never a moment that I thought the Sacrifice of the Mass was anything other than it had always been, the difference being the Mass was in English. Most people understood this, there was no great shift in their understanding of the Eucharist. I don’t know what you people are fussing about. Most of us were happy with the switch to the vernacular, but of course there were those who weren’t, and they are still upset about it 45 or so years later. Most of us took it in stride once it was done, and never looked back.And in the majority of the parishes there was not the massive amounts of liturgical abuse people are claiming. Yes, the music changed, but you know what? Most of us liked it at that time.

Were you there? I am curious. Most people on these forums who argue about the OF and the vernacular weren’t even around when the changes were made, or were very young.

 

[Lormar]

I was there, and I don’t share your positive experience. Nor did the majority in my parish. Nor, for that matter, Catholics in a neighboring archdiocese where I was told by a Jesuit how tired he and his brother priests were listening to people complain about the changes in the Mass.

Perhaps it depended in what part of the country (or world) you lived in at the time as we all experienced the changes in the sixties differently.

 

[triumphguy]

What does the present Pope say about the reform of the liturgy?

Referring to the reform of the liturgy, the Pope recalled that “after the First World War, a liturgical movement had grown in Western Central Europe,” as “the rediscovery of the richness and depth of the liturgy,” which hitherto was almost locked within the priest’s Roman Missal, while the people prayed with their prayer books “that were made according to the heart of the people”, so that "the task was to translate the high content, the language of the classical liturgy, into more moving words, that were closer to the heart of the people. But they were almost two parallel liturgies: the priest with the altar servers, who celebrated the Mass according to the Missal and the lay people who prayed the Mass with their prayer books”. " Now - he continued - "The beauty, the depth, the Missal’s wealth of human and spiritual history " was rediscovered as well as the need more than one representative of the people, a small altar boy, to respond “Et cum spiritu your” etc. , to allow for “a real dialogue between priest and people,” so that the liturgy of the altar and the liturgy of the people really were “one single liturgy, one active participation”: “and so it was that the liturgy was rediscovered, renewed.” news.va/en/news/pope-to-romes-priests-the-second-vatican-council-a

 

[1AugustSon7]

Let’s put it this way: the Latin wasn’t, and I’ll leave it at that. I find the discussion in English to be fatiguing at best.

No. As per my post the English (i.e. the “our”) was still and is theologically correct. That and so many other objections to the OF (e.g., the “for all” in the pre-reform Consecration prayer) are also theologically correct.

 

[RevDon]

That’s because they Lutherans used Pope Paul’s missal when they redrafted their liturgy books in the late 1970s which is an odd thing to do since it contains beliefs and practices that contradict their own. I doubt that we would hear the same criticisms had they used the missal of Pope John XXIII.

And you can most certainly say that it WASN’T created by protestants because it factually wasn’t and the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship said so.

The energy begin the revisions to the Mass following Vatican II resulted from studies that began in the 19th century, employing new tools for understanding including Biblical Archaeology. Catholic scholars were in the lead of that study, but not alone. That led to revisions in the form and even the environment of the Mass. Catholics were the first to adopt changes based on that knowledge. Most other Christian denominations followed, with, in many cases, leaders who had studied at Catholic institutions.