What were the reasons for changing the Mass?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Even if that were being said - it is not - why is it unthinkable that the Liturgy should be better understood than it has been ? The rite followed can change, but the Lord Who is “made known in the breaking of the bread”, does not - if the Mass were different in substance (and it is not), then there would be good reason to complain.​

I can see reason to complain in the heavy-handed way in which the reform was imposed. It is not a good idea to change people’s devotional habits all of a sudden, for people are not machines. But as to the principle of the thing, there was nothing wrong in changing from a Mass which in certain respects needed revising, to something which is better. At least it is noew possible the observe the principles seasons of the year without being continually interrupted by feast days of saints during seasons - such as Lent or Advent - when festivity is not really appropriate. And at least the Liturgy of the Hours no longer need be galloped through as it had come to be: priests in 1960 did not have quite the time to spare their forerunners in 1560 may have had.

FWIW, the Council did not simply invent changes out of the air - it was in part summarising trends which had already begun: two of these being the revival of interest in the Bible, and, the work before the Council in encouraging lay participation in praying the Prayer of the Church as contained in the Breviary.

“Everything that has reference to it” ? What have you in mind ? ##

They completely deemphasized some important things in favor of some other things. They have brought in music that is horrible and impious to be sung in Mass.

That is no fault of the Council ##

It seems like they have effectively droped the Latin part of the Church in the middle of the desert and now they will be wandering trying to find what is good liturgy. They destroyed the essence of the Liturgy.

So what do you see as its essence ?​

I am not SSPX or a sedevacantist. I accept VII and I accept the new order of the Mass but I find it severely deficient compared to the old order. But I am a person who can’t stand the fact that it changed. As I said above it is a denial of tradition. The new order of the mass would be acceptable if it developed out of a different tradition. In other words there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the it as assumption grotto says it but it was a poor movie considering that the mass had developed in a different direction for the past 1900.

What do you guys think? Please don’t give me any false history by saying that the old Mass was created by the council of Trent or Pope Pius V. Even if that were true it would still be impious on the part of the modern Church to just drop it and pick something else up instead. It is false though; the old mass developed out of the Galican rite from the fifth century which was probably a development from the eastern liturgies. Gregory the Great then helped to develop it. The council of Trent was not a big thing in the development of the Liturgy.

Don’t forget that the cross-pollination which occurred when the Roman liturgical books met those in use at the Frankish court of Charlemagne themselves led to changes in the Roman Mass: when they re-crossed the Alps back to Rome, the text that developed was not that of the Mass as celebrated in 600 or so at Rome. The Roman Missal as used in the Papal Liturgy after 1216 owed a good deal - IIRC - to the Franciscans; it was not the Gregorian missal either.​

One of the arguments for the “TLM” is precisely that it has picked up so many influences in its history: but to say that, completely destroys the fiction of a changeless Latin Mass. If it was not destroyed by past changes, why should they destroy it now, after the revisions under Paul VI ?

ISTM that the problem is not so much that there is change, as that living through change can be painful - it seems reasonable to doubt whether the Council of Trent was any easier to live through than Vatican II has been: but we don’t live in the time during which Trent was held, or in the century after, so the upheavals that followed it don’t affect us. We have plenty of problems - but one problem we do not have, is that of nominally Christian countries ripping themselves to bits in civil wars and massacres; as France did from 1562 to 1598.

Can anyone give me a good reason for the liturgy being changed? Why was it a good idea? Why not just translate what they had to English?

What would count as a good reason with you ? ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A.Pelliccio:

It began with contemplation and expression of sorrow for sins.

It still does - I prefer the revised Confiteor, because it mentions sins of omission, which the other does not.​

The Gloria was said accept for Lent Advent and Masses for the dead. - Changed
The Gospel was said. - Changed
The Nicene Creed was said - Changed
the Sanctus - Almost Same
There was the washing of the hands - Changed

There were even more washings in 1910 than in 1962 - I know this because I have a 1910 prayer book somewhere. The Divine Praises were shorter too. And of course, the name of St.Joseph was added to the Roman Canon - in 1961, IIRC.​

The Consecration - Def Changed
The Our Father - Protestant

How so ?​

The Agnus Dei - Changed
The reception of Holy Communion - Disrespectful

Receiving Holy Communion is disrespectful ? If so, why did Jesus institute it ?​

Or are you referring to communion in the hand ? I don’t see how that is disrespectful: it was good enough for plenty of the Greek Fathers - unless their liturgies are defective and ours is alone perfect.

It’s not at all clear how receiving on the tongue keeps Christ from being the food of sinners more securely than reception in the hand does - and that is what we all are: sinners.

It is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of him: as Jesus pointed out. ##

 

[Petergee]

A.Pelliccio:

And on communion I am judging others. When i watch my priest not genuflect,

Unfortunately many of our priests have knee problems. Or maybe they are being disrespectful, but “the changes in the Mass” certainly did not tell them not to genuflcect.

people moving the blessed sacrament around like cookies,

Can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone take the Hosts out of a biscuit (“cookie”) tin, put them on a big plate and put them on a coffee table for people to pick some and nibble on them. Don’t be silly.

then people doing their own little private devotions with making the sign of the cross in their hand before they recive, .

Sorry but you seem to be searching so desperately for something to complain about, that you contradict yourself. What do you want exactly? You want Mass to be “taken with the seriousness and devotion it deserves”, and you prefer the “old” Mass when people made lots of private devotions, but you call it “individualist nonsense” when people make private devotions before Communion.

or trying to walk over to the precious blood of christ,

Meaning what exactly? You object to the fact that Communion is allowed under both kinds? Or are you claiming that people are “trying” to receive from the Chalice at Masses where only the Host is offered?

or to recieve in the wrong hand.

There is no “right” or “wrong” hand. Perhaps you’re confusing us with the Hindus.

Yes I am judging its disgraceful to watch mass anymore.

Yes it is disgraceful. Maybe instead of “watching” the Mass you could try “praying” it or “participating in” it.

This all can be corrected with proper catechism

Hope you enjoy the classes.

and enforcement. Enough of this inidivudialist nonsesne. Maybey I dont tolerate these things or that individual stuff becase im in the Army, but we need to start holding feet to the fire.

Thank God the Army doesn’t run the Church.

 

[oldfogey]

palmas85,

Thank you, nice post.

I lived through these changes, and it was heavy handed, and relied heavily on the rank and file Catholic’s inclination and duty to obey the Church leaders. So few voices were raised at the time, but I believe most of us saw what was happening. Maybe many applauded it, but the ones who did not were without a voice.

I do love the Tridentine, and I thought the interim liturgy before the new liturgy had gotten the congregation more involved, although I never had (and still don’t have) any problem with a person being lost in prayer, any prayer, including the rosary, while at Mass.

But my main point has something to do with palmas85’s post. You don’t overnight make a major change in people’s actions and attitudes without a method. And I would like people to consider how the reforms after Vatican II were, in fact, a re education program.

Think of someone with deeply held convictions and beliefs since childhood. How to change them?

Tell them what they were doing their whole lives were in many ways wrong.

You will teach them the right way. And if you don’t accept it, you are now doubly wrong.

Tell them the places where they worshiped were wrong, and you will change them, and do. When they complain, tell them that the physical aspects of the Church need a new psychology too.

When they ask what was so wrong with the way people worshipped before, tell them they just did not see, how could they be so blind? Thus making them doubt their judgement.

And, finally, when they want to preserve cherished devotions, tell them they are childish devotions, and the Church has moved past them, and they better catch up. In the process making the devotee feel like a child.

The key is to destabilize what will get in the path of your goal, demean it, and marginalize it and those adherent to it.

You may think of some parallels in other social systems, but I think I have said enough.

Food for thought, that’s all.

 

[adrift]

oldfogey

The changes were handled horribly. In my school however they began to tell us of the changes and why they were coming. My parents would not believe it. They thought I had misunderstood. It is to bad that there wasn’t a great deal of preperation before the changes were instituted.

The Liturgy is the center of Catholic life, and over the period of 1 year(1969 to 1970) they completely changed it. This is imprudent

We were being prepared in 1965 that these changes were coming. I don’t really remember when they were begun. I wonder if it was different in different parts of the country? Of course, the changes didn’t all come at once. I am speaking of more than just the Mass. The changes were before 1967in our area. In that year, I rremember the experimentaion of having first communion before first penance was that ever a disaster. I wonder where did you get your dates as I am relying on a very faulty memory as most memories are.

 

[jimmy]

## Nor has that happened now. The Council had excellent reasons for overhauling the Missal as it did - not least that the history of the liturgy generally (including the history of the Eucharistic celebration in the Roman Rite, AKA the Mass) is much more adequately known than it was in 1564, when the Council of Trent ended.

One of the weaknesses of the “TLM” in practice, was that the Mass is very much a one man affair - it became a matter of the what the priest did; not of what the Christian people as a whole (of whom the priest is a member) did. As the Eucharist, in whatever Rite celebrated, is the offering of the entire Church, this emphasis has very rightly been restored - and not before time, either. ##

If the modern Church has implied that then they have ceased to be the Church and have become just some false apostate. To imply that the Church has erred like this on the Liturgy, which is the center of Christian living, is to declare the Church to be heresy. It is a change of tradition.

On the contrary, the Liturgy of the modern Church shows more of a meal than an offering. It deemphasizes the sacrificial nature of the mass.

The old liturgy was much more in agreement with the early eastern liturgies than the one that is currently being offered. In fact much of the wording is the same. Now, the liturgy has no relationship to any of those in the east.

The idea that the bishops felt that they knew what the mass was meant to be more than past saints that they could change what was developed by those saints is impious and disobedient to tradition. The old liturgy is pretty much the same liturgy celebrated by Gregory the great. This developed out of earlier rites. The Church had a liturgy for 1500 years and it was developed from older rites, and modern bishops decide it was eroneous.

On the contrary - it is precisely because it became possible, as a by-product of the Renaissance & the Council of Trent, to have a progressively fuller appreciation of the past of the Liturgy, that it became possible to get behind the liturgy as it was at the close of the Middle Ages and retrace the history of oits forms and development; and this appreciation took all of 350 years or so. It depended on the development of doctrine and of a properly historical understanding of the cultus of the Saints too - if there had been no Bollandists from the 1640s onward, there might very well have been no reform of the Universal Calendar, and we might still be honouring non-existent Saints such as Barbara or the eleven thousand companions of St.Ursula.​

So tell that to Pius V and Pius X - who have nothing in common, apart from being Italian and Papal, except being canonised. They apparently did not see anything impious, lacking in humility, or errant, in changing the Liturgy.​

You compare what Pius V did to what Paul VI did? YOu must be completely joking. Pius changed very little in the liturgy, where as Paul completely rejected the liturgy and put a knew one in its place.

Besides, the Liturgy has a long history of change - unless the present Pope does precisely, and without change, what Jesus did at the Last Supper. Those who condemn the Pauline reforms in the name of the Pian Missal of 1570, never seem to ask themselves whether there are not some differences in the liturgy in 1570, as compared with the Last Supper. ##

The problem with your arguement is that you deny tradition. As said above, the Church developed its liturgy in a certain way. To all of a sudden say that liturgy was eroneous is to say the Church is false.

 

[jimmy]

## Even if that were being said - it is not - why is it…it is not), then there would be good reason to complain.

There is a difference between developing a doctrine and changing it as I have been trying to emphasize. The Liturgy that we have now has developed from nothing. It is a complete change from the past. It is possible to have a greater understanding of the liturgy, but to say that your understanding is so good that it declares the past liturgy to have error or lead to error is completely false. You have led yourself into error.

I can see reason to complain in the heavy-handed way in which the reform was imposed. It is not a good idea to change people’s devotional habits all of a sudden, for people are not machines. …And at least the Liturgy of the Hours no longer need be galloped through as it had come to be: priests in 1960 did not have quite the time to spare their forerunners in 1560 may have had.

To say the modern mass is better is completely false. Have you seen a “life teen mass”? It is an abomination and it is blasphemy.

FWIW, the Council did not simply invent changes out of the air - …and, the work before the Council in encouraging lay participation in praying the Prayer of the Church as contained in the Breviary.

It is fine to encourage people to read the bible and to pray the liturgy, but to completely change it is poor thinking. If they would have just translated it to English we would have had perfectly fine participation. The Liturgy of John Chrysostom did not need changed when it was translated into various languages. Neither did the Maronite Liturgy. These liturgies remained the same when they were put into various languages.

“Everything that has reference to it” ? What have you in mind ? ##
That is no fault of the Council ##

So what do you see as its essence ?​

It is the fault of the bishops who made the changes. The essense is the nature of the liturgy, compare the two liturgies and you can see a de-emphasis of the sacrificial nature of the liturgy. Having guitars at mass is a destruction of the mass.

Don’t forget that the cross-pollination which occurred when the Roman liturgical books met those in use at the Frankish court of Charlemagne themselves led to changes in the Roman Mass: when they re-crossed the Alps back to Rome, the text that developed was not that of the Mass as celebrated in 600 or so at Rome. …If it was not destroyed by past changes, why should they destroy it now, after the revisions under Paul VI ?​

And with Charlemagne there was not a complete adoption of a knew liturgy and a repression of what there was. It is possible that there can be some small changes throughout time if they do not completely change the liturgy to be something completely knew. In the matter of one year the liturgy of was completely changed based on a few bishops thoughts on history and their thoughts on the liturgy. The developments of the past were developments over large periods of time.

I don’t reject the knew liturgy as being invalid, I simply think it was impious and lacking in humility to change it. I also feel that it went against two millenia of tradition.

ISTM that the problem is not so much that there is change, as that living through change can be painful - …

What would count as a good reason with you ? ​

I don’t know what would count as a good reason, no one has given one. All I have heard is that the people could not understand it, and now by you that the old liturgy needed overhauled because it taught erroneously that the sacrifice was only of the priest. If that were the case then the Church would have been in error for the last several hundred errors. But it is not the case, the old liturgy makes it clear that it is the sacrifice of the community when it says, Pray, brethren, that my Sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty.

I have still not heard a reason other than the two mentioned. The one makes a false statement about the old liturgy and the other could have been solved by a simple translation. The eastern liturgies never required change when people spoke different languages, they simply translated what they had been given by their predicessors.

 

[jimmy]

adrift:

oldfogey

The changes were handled horribly. In my school however they began to tell us of the changes and why they were coming. My parents would not believe it. They thought I had misunderstood. It is to bad that there wasn’t a great deal of preperation before the changes were instituted.

We were being prepared in 1965 that these changes were coming. I don’t really remember when they were begun. I wonder if it was different in different parts of the country? Of course, the changes didn’t all come at once. I am speaking of more than just the Mass. The changes were before 1967in our area. In that year, I rremember the experimentaion of having first communion before first penance was that ever a disaster. I wonder where did you get your dates as I am relying on a very faulty memory as most memories are.

I believe it was the 1970 missal that brought about the majority of the changes. My year might be a little off, but I think it is correct.

I believe that if it might have happened over centuries it may be fine that what we have developed, but that it happened over a year or two is a poor decision. It is puting too much faith in yourself and your own understanding of history.

 

[adrift]

jimmy:

I believe it was the 1970 missal that brought about the majority of the changes. My year might be a little off, but I think it is correct.

I believe that if it might have happened over centuries it may be fine that what we have developed, but that it happened over a year or two is a poor decision. It is puting too much faith in yourself and your own understanding of history.

Two things poped into my mind as I read your post.

1. You are treating small t tradition as if it is large T tradition.
2. I believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church.

 

[jimmy]

adrift:

Two things poped into my mind as I read your post.

1. You are treating small t tradition as if it is large T tradition.
2. I believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church.

I believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church as well. I agree somewhat with making the big T/little t distinction. But it is true that the Church has developed a view of the Liturgy over the last two milenia. It is important that you don’t undermine that view when reforming the liturgy. But it is a matter of custom or discipline to celebrate the liturgy according to a specific order. Therefore it can be changed by the Church. But on the other hand, it has grown for two millenia and it is central to our life. It should be respected.

 

[oat_soda]

find it severely deficient compared to the old order. But I am a person who can’t stand the fact that it changed

. i feel the same way. but, i tend to be traditional in lots of other things as well. i don’t think change for the sake of change is good and think many other things in this country change for the worse. but the world is not the way i want it to be, and the same is true with the mass.

when i went to my first tridentine mass, i couldn’t believe how much different it was. i felt like i was robbed of my catholic patrimony -i want to worship as my ancestors have. i think one of the reasons so many of my generation lost touch of their faith is because the mass is so banal and de-sacrilized. it really doesn’t do a good job of presenting Christ. it is more of a horizontal, ecumenical minded celebration. it really breaks with tradition and is a completely new creation with few obvious connections with the tridentine mass as celebrated at your typical suburban parish.

in the old mass, the focus on God was apparent right from the beginning when the priest and servers would face the altar and pray psalm 42, the confiteor and kyrie. now the mass starts with the focus on the congregation: the priest, facing the congregation, greets the parish and we confess our sins to one another as opposed to God, at least in the physical sense. even modern church architecture reflects this paradigm shift; old churches were renovated to reflect this change: high altars were destroyed, altar rails removed and the sactuary was brought out to the nave.

i would say that the reason for this is because the new mass contradicts traditional church architecture and to see how intimately the two work together you really should go to a traditional high mass celebrated in an old church. the circle in the rounds type church really fits the new mass better. im not going to even get into the loss of sacred music, which may be the greatest loss in terms of importance.

from what i’ve read, it seems the new mass was created primarily with the intent to bring protestants back to the catholic faith. while their intentions were noble, it ironically has had the opposite effect for the most part. the old mass probably brought more to faith based on its beauty and ability to bring people in touch with the transcendent.

i think the pope knows there are problems with the new mass and in time, there will be some rectification of the problem. this is not to say that the new mass is all bad. i think most support some vernacular and the extra reading as a true organic reform of the liturgy.

 

[jimmy]

oat soda:

i feel the same way. but, i tend to be traditional in lots of other things as well. i don’t think change for the sake of change is good and think many other things in this country change for the worse. but the world is not the way i want it to be, and the same is true with the mass.

when i went to my first tridentine mass, i couldn’t believe how much different it was. i felt like i was robbed of my catholic patrimony -i want to worship as my ancestors have. i think one of the reasons so many of my generation lost touch of their faith is because the mass is so banal and de-sacrilized. it really doesn’t do a good job of presenting Christ. it is more of a horizontal, ecumenical minded celebration. it really breaks with tradition and is a completely new creation with few obvious connections with the tridentine mass as celebrated at your typical suburban parish.

in the old mass, the focus on God was apparent right from the beginning when the priest and servers would face the altar and pray psalm 42, the confiteor and kyrie. now the mass starts with the focus on the congregation: the priest, facing the congregation, greets the parish and we confess our sins to one another as opposed to God, at least in the physical sense. even modern church architecture reflects this paradigm shift; old churches were renovated to reflect this change: high altars were destroyed, altar rails removed and the sactuary was brought out to the nave.

i would say that the reason for this is because the new mass contradicts traditional church architecture and to see how intimately the two work together you really should go to a traditional high mass celebrated in an old church. the circle in the rounds type church really fits the new mass better. im not going to even get into the loss of sacred music, which may be the greatest loss in terms of importance.

from what i’ve read, it seems the new mass was created primarily with the intent to bring protestants back to the catholic faith. while their intentions were noble, it ironically has had the opposite effect for the most part. the old mass probably brought more to faith based on its beauty and ability to bring people in touch with the transcendent.

i think the pope knows there are problems with the new mass and in time, there will be some rectification of the problem. this is not to say that the new mass is all bad. i think most support some vernacular and the extra reading as a true organic reform of the liturgy.

I agree with everything you say. I hope the pope sees the problems and does something about it. I don’t think it is possible now to go back to what we had because that would kind of undermine the Church. I hope they do something though to restore the mass.

The old churches are so much more beautiful and inspire you to pray and be respectful.

 

[tradconvert]

The untouched churches with a proper high altar, communion rails, statues and even better exposition of the Blessed Sacrament are without doubt an atmosphere which focuses one on the mysteries of the faith and induces prayer - just like a proper sung traditional latin mass sets one apart from the world for that period of time. Bring it on!

 

[rwoehmke]

The Tridentine Mass was never an error nor were those forms that went before it. The Mass has always been under change and development since the early years of Christianity. Even the Tridentine Mass underwent small and ongoing changes from its inception at the Council of Trent until the Mass of Paul VI which was developed to meet the needs of the renewing Church and not because the Tridentine Mass was in error. The principal parts of the Mass have been in place for almost 1800 years. The wording has changed, the language has changed, but those principal parts are still there. Emphasis has changed from the idea of Mass only as Sacrifice to the broadened concept of Sacrifice and Meal(Eating parts of what was sacrificed goes way back in time before Jesus was even born.) The Liturgy of the Word received new emphasis to recall that Christ is not only present to us under the appearances of bread and wine in the Eucharist, but also the words of Scripture, the WORD of the first verses of John’s Gospel. The Mass has always been heavily larded with verses from Scripture, only I think when it was all in Latin many of us who did not know Latin were able to make that connection. The Catholic Mass has always contained more Scripture than one would ordinarily hear in any protestant service. We were required to ATTEND Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, now the emphasis is on the obligation to participate in the Mass on those days and I am not saying that there weren’t those who did participate back then, but many of us were just in the same huge space with our Rosaries in hand with bells to call us to look sharp at the Conscration. How anyone with barely a quarter of a century of life to his name can complain bitterly about how things have changed in the last 45 years is a bit beyond my comprehension. I spent the first half of my life with the Tridentine Mass and the later part with the Mass of Paul VI and I have to say that for me a Tridentine Mass with a good choir and organ is a beautiful and moving concert, but it just can’t touch the vernaculer for prayer and worship.

 

[dljl]

rwoehmke:

… but it just can’t touch the vernaculer for prayer and worship.

Which is more conducive to prayer and worship?:

this in latin?:

P. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.
S. Amen P. I will go to the altar of God.
S. To God, the joy of my youth.
Psalm 42 (Omit during Passiontide and Requiem Mass)
P. Do me justice, O God, and fight my fight against an unholy people, rescue me from the wicked and deceitful man.
S. For Thou, O God, art my strength, why hast Thou forsaken me? And why do I go about in sadness, while the enemy harasses me?
P. Send forth Thy light and thy truth: for they have led me and brought me to thy holy hill and Thy dwelling place.
S. And I will go to the altar of god, to God, the joy of my youth.
P. I shall yet praise Thee upon the harp, O God, my God. Why art thou sad, my soul, and why art thou downcast?
S. Trust in God, for I shall yet praise Him, my Savior, and my God.
P. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
S. As it was in the beginning is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
P. I will go to the altar of God.
S. To God, the joy of my youth.
P. Our help + is in the Name of the Lord. S. Who made heaven and earth.

or this in english?:

P: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
S: And also with you.

I vote latin. Although Tridentine in vernacular would be nice.

 

[Petergee]

(Jimmy)Having guitars at mass is a destruction of the mass.

It will certainly come as a shock to Francis Xavier Gruber to learn that when he composed *Silent Night *in 1818, specifically to be sung with guitar accompaniment at Christmas Mass, he was NOT creating the most reverent and best-loved Christmas hymn of all time, but “destroying the Mass”!
And for someone so concerned about supposed disrespect to the Mass by others, I’m surprised that you don’t think the Mass deserves a capital M.

 

[gelsbern]

Odd that you left out the part about how Franz Gruber had to actually CHANGE the song to make it for guitar accompanyment because the church’s organ was out of commission and wouldn’t be repaired in time for the Christmas Mass.

 

[gelsbern]

Petergee:

It will certainly come as a shock to Francis Xavier Gruber to learn that when he composed *Silent Night *in 1818, specifically to be sung with guitar accompaniment at Christmas Mass, he was NOT creating the most reverent and best-loved Christmas hymn of all time, but “destroying the Mass”!
And for someone so concerned about supposed disrespect to the Mass by others, I’m surprised that you don’t think the Mass deserves a capital M.

Odd that you left out the part that the reason it was written for guitar was that the church’s organ was out of commission.

home.snu.edu/~hculbert/silent.htm

I should also state that I don’t think guitar is bad, if that is all that’s availble, but it should be used in a devout and holy manner, from the choir loft, not at the front of the church, and definitely not in the style of a Partridge Family concert.

 

[jimmy]

How anyone with barely a quarter of a century of life to his name can complain bitterly about how things have changed in the last 45 years is a bit beyond my comprehension.

Because I have experienced masses like the “teen life mass” and other horrible masses. After seeing the old liturgy I feel like I have been deprived of proper worship. You still have not given me a good reason to change the liturgy. This is still only a reason to change the language. You did not understand the latin, therefore a translation to English would have been fine.

 

[jimmy]

Petergee:

It will certainly come as a shock to Francis Xavier Gruber to learn that when he composed *Silent Night *in 1818, specifically to be sung with guitar accompaniment at Christmas Mass, he was NOT creating the most reverent and best-loved Christmas hymn of all time, but “destroying the Mass”!
And for someone so concerned about supposed disrespect to the Mass by others, I’m surprised that you don’t think the Mass deserves a capital M.

How is Silent Night more reverent than come all ye faithful or some others?