JKirkLVNV:
As for the liturgy beging more engaging, satisfy my curiosity: would that mean that the majority of the liturgy (most) would NOT be in the vernacular? Because “spirit of VII” or VII itself, I call the vernacular mass a benefit, a good thing, a fantastic change. The most I would wish to see a return to is the “sung” parts, for want of a better phrase, in Latin. Better translations, by all means, but the Mass in the language of the people (remember, Trent didn’t condemn the vernacular, it simply stated that it didn’t seem opportune at that time).
Yes, and likewise, Latin was retained when it was no longer the language of the people, which means liturgists for well over a thousand years saw Latin as liturgically superior to the “language of the people.” If you want to argue that it might have been suitable in 1962 but the world wa so different by 1965 for it to have any relevance, try this on for size.
“36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”
Looks like the Fathers would disagree with yout that our vernacular mass as we know it is a fantastic change. Have you ever read* Sacrosanctum Concillium* or better yet,
Mediator Dei, written by Pope Pius XII in 1948? It’s pretty obvious that the Pauline Mass you hold so dear is a departure from both of these documents.
The Spirit of the Liturgy has a fantastic chapter on why the rite which is based on the laguage of the people as opposed to simply incorporating it as the council approved was certainly not a “fantastic change.” If you want further arguments for why Latin as the language of the liturgy is more appropriate than the vernacular, you’ll be able to find thousands of sources, written before, after and during the Council.
JKirkLVNV:
those “liberals,” as you called them. What criteria do you use to label them as such (I’m curious, not combative), is it merely that they prefer the Pauline Rite to the TLM? The ones I’ve heard “rosaries and mumbled masses” complaints were fairly conservative people.
I guess I lead an insular life. I’m met some wild eyed “liberal” Catholics, but the majority I know demonstrate “obedience, respect for the Church, hierarchy (well, I must admit, at least until the scandal), appreciation for the sacred.”
Most modern liturgists, if we can call them that, have views on the liturgy that you wouldn’t hear in Rome. The changes they encourage were not mandated by the council or any official document for that matter. Talk to your average teenager after Mass one day. For that matter, talk to his parents. I bet they consider themselves loyal people, but how do they feel about birth control? Abortion? I’d call these people disobedient, and their disobedience demonstrates a lack of respect for the Church hierarchy.
When I go to Mass at Villanova, and I only go when it’s impossible to find another mass, people are talking so loudly before mass that I can’t even pray. So many churches are like this, and this we can read as a lack of repect for the sacredness of the space they are in.
Look at how modern churches are designed and churches from before WWII are renovated. Do these changes work towards transcendence or just the opposite? Then I go to the Ukrainian Catholic Church near by. You wouldn’t believe the difference. You can’t tell me Roman Catholics today have the same respect for the sacred as they did before VII or that reforms done in the name of VII have done anything to foster this respect.
My point is that the Church, or certain leaders in the Church, was calling it’s very being into question when it took the liturgical principles that it had held sacred for 1500 years and said they were no longer appropriate overnight. Latin, Gregorian Chant, polyphony, incense, gold vestments, and relics are now frowned upon by most of the faithful, priests, and bishops. The list goes on.
By the way, I might call myself conservative, but please don’t think I’m a traditionalist.
