What were the reasons for changing the Mass?

[jimmy]

Gottle of Geer:

…

I had to cut your words to fit this into one post.

It is not a fact, it is your own impression on history and what the liturgy should be. If these bishops say the Church erred then they are impious and self-assured, both vices that are in conflict with humility and consequently with God. The people who judge the Tradition of the Church are the ones who err.

You are the one that are saying that espoused heresy in the Liturgy, I have only disputed this false idea. Moreover, this does not help your case, if they were in error then, they are probably much further in error now considering the bishops who decided to change it in the sixtees trusted themselves and the developments were a gradual process that developed through time.

…

Yes it is all three but they de-emphasized the sacrificial nature. The council did nothing like make it more biblical. They removed Catholic teachings for the sake of ecumenism. They removed all mention of the saints, they removed pretty much all reference to it being a sacrifice, and they still didn’t turn it into a dialogue as you imply it is. A true dialogue would be more in line with the Byzantine Liturgy, which is far more like the old Latin Mass than the modern liturgy of the Latin church.

…

The problem with modern western thinking is that they have removed sainlyness from authority. It doesn’t matter whether they are saintly men, they are still made bishops. To say that it does not matter whether they are saintly is to go against God. To be saintly is to be like God. No one who does not have a saintly way should never be making changes to the Liturgy on the sole fact that they change based on their own feelings. A saint acts on what God desires.

I can see the Church having the ability to put aside a particular rite if it is necesary. But it was not necessary. They caused more schism than unity with the VII council. How can you expect things to be good when you completely change the way someone worships?

The problem with the mass is not in what it is, it is that it completely changes from the past. The Mass as it is would be fine from some other developing line of Tradition, but to drop what we had in favor of something completely different, that espouses a whole different way, that removes certain doctrines from the Liturgy is a grave mistake. And the Church is paying for it.

Of course God is the Author of all sanctification, and I agree that words and outward appearance means nothing. You can pray without words. But your inward often reflects your outward appearance. A liturgy that does not contain the whole of the faith often will spawn followers that don’t know the faith.

 

[jimmy]

…continued & ended]

which involved change to the text, as I mentioned​

Of course, but the change was not the change of one council or the change of a few men that decided the past liturgy was error. It was the result of centuries of change.

Not erroneous - but there were repetitions, and prayers, that disguised its character. Those who reject the very notion of reforming the Missal are like people who defend every last encrusted piece of dirt that disguises an Old Master - some of what has been most admired as coloring, turns out to be dirt, and nothing more. Some of us here want to see the Old Master as it was first painted - before the dust settled on it and was mistaken for an intended artistic effect.​

And everything else will be simplified as a result, which includes the doctrine. We have priests and bishops that do not teach the faith now, and they are elevated in authority and they are never admonished. To simplify the liturgy is to de-emphasize the words. The Rosary consists of 153 Hail Marys. If I reduce it to one Hail Mary, is that as good or is it the same thing? The Optina 500, an Eastern Orthodox combination of the Jesus prayer along with a couple other prayers. It consists of 300 Jesus prayers, if I reduce that to one is it the same thing? No, it is not. If someone said go pray the Rosary and said it only consists of one Hail Mary, any person who knows what the Hail Mary was would just laugh and not pay attention to a word they said. Lack of repetition does not mean better.

Paul VI was doing the same kind of thing as Pius V. …​

the “fullness of power” to do as he did in 1969. ##

I have problems with what Pius XII did too. I am not sure what he did with the Liturgy, but to decrease the Sunday fast down to three hours was a mistake.

I don’t. I do deny the myth of a fixed & unchangeable Latin Mass which can never be touched. …​

traditionalists’ hero - “say[ing] the Church is false” ?

I don’t know what exactly he did so I can’t say anything about it. I have a problem with him changing the fast from midnight though, which is an element that is a part of all of Catholicism now except the Latin Church.

The reforms seem more sudden than they were, because most Catholics aren’t liturgists, so don’t read liturgiological and patristic publications; they’ve more pressing things to attend to. Not knowing the pre-history of the 1969 reforms, does not mean there was no pre-history. As most Catholics in 1969 were probably not well-informed on these matters, the changes in the Mass were probably the more shocking.

I have a 1957 missal that I can read through and compare to my current missal so I can see the differences in the two liturgies. I also attend both the indult and the new liturgy. So I am familiar with both.

There are those who deny tradition - and they include those who deny the reality of the changes and variations in the Roman Liturgy. That is a form of “deny[ing] tradition” - it fossilises tradition, so that it ceases to be a living thing, & becomes the dead hand of a dead past which must on no account be disturbed. This is a confusion between fidelity to the deposit of faith, & tradition as an end in itself. ##

A valid change in tradition is something that develops it. It denies tradition when you pick up the liturgical books that have developed over centuries and throw them in the trash. The knew liturgy has no connection to tradition other than the few prayers that are still in it from the old liturgy.

 

[jimmy]

## Where did I give that reason ? #### Quotation, please ? Thanks #### Nothing I said need lead to this conclusion.

I might be thinking of someone elses post.

S. May the Lord accept the Sacrifice from thy hands, to the praise and glory of His Name, for our benefit and for that of all His holy Church.

This line is in the pre 1962 missals and is carried over to the knew missal. This is the only place in the knew liturgy as well that mentions it being the offering of the whole community.

Unless one is going to say the Mass is inspired, what reason is there why it cannot be changed ? Why is change wrong ? Why is taking prayers out of it wrong ?

The Mass is (name removed by moderator)sired. Maybe not in the way that it is completely exclusionary to all other possibilities but it is inspired. I will find a Pope Benedict XVI(when he was Ratzinger) quote for you on this.

It is not necessarily wrong to remove one prayer or add one prayer but when it is the whole liturgy you are asking for problems.

If people actually read the different Latin texts which were used prior to 1450 or so (say), they would see for themselves how much the Mass has changed through the centuries. ##

I don’t have access to anything other than the Liturgies of Lohn Chrysostom, James, the Holy Apostles, and a couple others because that is what is on line. I don’t have access to pre 1450 texts on the western Liturgy. I can read what someone says about it in a book or the Catholic encyclopedia or some other trustworthy source.

 

[palmas85]

Petergee:

".
). And no I have never seen anyone at a Catholic Mass clapping unless invited to, and certainly not “testifying” or “having random outbursts” (well, except for babies and toddlers).

Go to a so called charismatic mass, you’ll see plenty of it.

 

[Petergee]

palmas85:

Go to a so called charismatic mass, you’ll see plenty of it.

I’ll take your word for that, but whether the existence of the Catholic charismatic movement is a good thing, is a different question to the topic of this thread.

 

[palmas85]

Petergee:

I’ll take your word for that, but whether the existence of the Catholic charismatic movement is a good thing, is a different question to the topic of this thread.

I never said it was good or bad. You said you had never seen a masss where things like that happened. I just told you where you could.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Here is a good answer to the Thread, “What were the reasons for changing the Mass?”
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ISSUED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
Discuss amongst yourselves.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

jimmy:
I had to cut your words to fit this into one post.

It is not a fact, it is your own impression on history and what the liturgy should be.

Don’t take my word for it - read the texts. A place to begin would be Father Jungmann’s history of the Mass. If that is a bit daunting, read Father Robert Cabie’s account of it. If one can read the scholarly editions of the texts, that is best.​

If these bishops say the Church erred then they are impious and self-assured, both vices that are in conflict with humility and consequently with God. The people who judge the Tradition of the Church are the ones who err. That is no answer, because it dodges the issues.

Bishops are* meant* to judge the tradition of the Church - that is why definitions of dogma are not the sole responsibility of any one bishop. They have to discern what is authentic in the tradition, so as to be able to discern whether it is part of Sacred Tradition - or not. And they have also to discern. what is needed for the Church’s mission at the time of that particular Council.

Or are you setting yourself above a Council and above the whole Church ? That is the danger. ##

You are the one that are saying that espoused heresy in the Liturgy, I have only disputed this false idea. ## Where did I say they espoused heresy ? They may have espoused what according to your understanding of the faith and the liturgy amounts to heresy - that is a far cry from espousing heresy.

ISTM we have different conceptions of what the bishops - the Roman bishop included - are competent to do in regard to the Liturgy. FWIW, IalsoSTM that both conceptions, yours and mine, are equally well (or ill) founded in the Catholic past. I think they come from different elements of the Catholic past, so, do not agree. And they are both based on the same sorts of element - both of us can quote Popes, for example. IOW, we are talking about a problem that is bigger than either of us - the problem lies, not in us, but in the Catholic past. I think this is why the rows about the Liturgy are so bitter - the contending parties can draw upon equally weighty arguments, and upon equally weak arguments. Where one case is weak, the other is strong. ##

Moreover, this does not help your case, if they were in error then, they are probably much further in error now considering the bishops who decided to change it in the sixtees trusted themselves and the developments were a gradual process that developed through time.

Yes it is all three but they de-emphasized the sacrificial nature. The council did nothing like make it more biblical. They removed Catholic teachings for the sake of ecumenism. They removed all mention of the saints,

Both untrue​

they removed pretty much all reference to it being a sacrifice, and they still didn’t turn it into a dialogue as you imply it is. A true dialogue would be more in line with the Byzantine Liturgy, which is far more like the old Latin Mass than the modern liturgy of the Latin church.

The sacrificial character of the Mass is still there in the texts - all one has to do is to look for it.​

I said nothing about the Mass being a dialogue - even though it is already this, even in the oldest texts.

The problem with modern western thinking is that they have removed sainlyness from authority.

[continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree that there is a problem. It is an old problem. Bishops ought to be saints - but then, so should we all, whatever our state of life. And in a sense, we are. Not that we would pass muster for canonisation, but in the sense that:​

We belong to the Holy One, not to ourselves; and…

…He has set us apart for Himself (which is simply to say the same thing from two different POVs)

and so, we are called to be holy in our lives, just as He is: holiness is the vocation of all Christians, precisely because they are Christ’s

and some people do show forth Christ’s holiness in a conspicuous degree - these are the ones whom the Church recognises as saints, even if they known to God alone; this is the “Churchy” use of the word.

It is very desirable we should all be saints in the last sense as well as the others. But, is the Church to be the abode of the holy - or a hospital for the unholy ? Both. For both emphases are in the NT. Christian holiness, like so much else Christian, is a reality which holds in tension two equally vital truths; that is why one cannot choose between these emphases.

This is difficult to translate into practice - one way of doing so, is to insist that sinners have no place in the Church; so clergy who had sinned by apostatising could not be received again as ministers of the sacraments: which is what the Donatist protest emphasises; & it was being traditional in doing so, up to a point. The other way of doing so, is to say that the sinfulness of the minister does not impede the efficacy of the sacraments, as the sacraments are primarily the actions of Christ, not of His ministers. The second solution is the one that has prevailed in the Church for the last 1600 years. And it has made possible the election of men as bishops who make their modern successors look like Saints by comparison. At least no bishop today spends most of his time away from his diocese, or goes hunting, or flaunts his bastards; those that have had bastards, at least had the decency to hide them. Nor do we have nepotist bishops, or thugs in mitres, or five-year olds, or simoniacs. There is no reason why bishops should not be the scum of the earth, so some have been. What matters is not that they should be Christian, but that there should be no canonical impediment to their election.

The Donatist solution is unsustainable, because it goes either too far, or not far enough. IOW - neither is wholly unexceptionable.

It would be wonderful if all bishops were eminently holy - that they are not, does not make them any less bishops. Complain against their acts because they are not fit to be canonisation-fodder, and you are on the way to undermining the visible social character of the Church. I’m not saying that bishops are morally free to act as godless wretches (as in 2002) - but there is little we can do. As matters stand now, we have to be in communion with our bishops to be Catholic, even if they are about as fit to pasture a diocese as Osama bin Laden. As Rome now gives us the bishops it wants, even if they are incapable of being bishops, we are stuck with them. Even if we do not like their liturgical decisions taken in a Council. This puts a premium on authority of a military type: “You’ll do this and like it, or face the consequences: so shut the hell up !” - but that sort of authoritarianism has been an element in Catholicism for at least 200 years. ##

…continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It doesn’t matter whether they are saintly men, they are still made bishops. To say that it does not matter whether they are saintly is to go against God. To be saintly is to be like God. No one who does not have a saintly way should never be making changes to the Liturgy on the sole fact that they change based on their own feelings. A saint acts on what God desires.

I can see the Church having the ability to put aside a particular rite if it is necesary. But it was not necessary.

The bishops thought otherwise. As for the point about schism - this would invalidate Vatican I, Trent, & all of the first six Councils.​

How are there to be Councils, or Popes, if bishops must be saintly to be bishops ? Besides, a holy bishop-elect might be broken by his position, and cease to be holy. That would be a recipe not for the Western schism of 1378, but for dozens of such schisms. And who is to discern how saintly a saintly bishop-elect is ? If there be a better way of reducing the Church to a swarm of contending factions, I can’t think of one. ##

They caused more schism than unity with the VII council. How can you expect things to be good when you completely change the way someone worships?

The problem with the mass is not in what it is, it is that it completely changes from the past. The Mass as it is would be fine from some other developing line of Tradition, but to drop what we had in favor of something completely different, that espouses a whole different way, that removes certain doctrines from the Liturgy is a grave mistake. And the Church is paying for it.

Of course God is the Author of all sanctification, and I agree that words and outward appearance means nothing. You can pray without words. But your inward often reflects your outward appearance. A liturgy that does not contain the whole of the faith often will spawn followers that don’t know the faith.

Can a liturgy contain the whole Faith ? I doubt it very much.​

I agree that the reforms were handled in a very heavy-handed and cloth-eared fashion. That does not make the reformed rites unChristian or unCatholic - it makes one long for an end of the thinking which lands us with bureaucrats in mitres.
The Missal is not completely changed - that is an exaggeration. I can’t see why the Church cannot go back to her past tradition before 1216 or so, back to the sources (which are now far more accessible to her than they were in 1570, 1450 or 1216) and revise the 1570 Missal in the light of those sources. Why must fidelity to the recent past prevent the Church going back to the early past ? ##

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

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.

There was evolution in the Mass, as it was tempered and forged to perfection in eventuality. Never was there a complete and total recodification of the Mass, at least not under the pretense of preserving it in the same rite.

The Mass as it was “created” under His Holiness Paul VI, of blessed memory, would more constitute a new rite than the changes which the various rites endure over the centuries. Indeed, if I am for any solution to this problem it is creating another rite of the Church.

 

[dljl]

Gottle of Geer:

The sacrificial character of the Mass is still there in the texts - all one has to do is to look for it.

True, the word “sacrifice” does appear in the NO, however if you compare the liturgies side by side, the sacrificial nature is greatly diminished in the NO (to put it mildly). And I believe that when you actually attend a Tridentine mass, the the lack of emphasis on sacrifice is even more striking.

 

[jbuck919]

This is a very difficult and complex issue. The movement that calls itself Traditional Catholic thinks it has the pat solution: Just return to the Tridentine Mass (which I realize goes back far beyond the Council of Trent).

Has anybody looked at that “rite” recently? It began before it began, and ended after it ended (what purpose was served by the “Last Gospel”?") It was incredibly loquacious, and involved three confiteors. In the US, it was typically recited formulaically without appreciation of the Latin at Low Mass to get through it as fast as possible. That is only the beginning of its flaws. Clearly, it needed reforming.

On the other hand, there is not much doubt in my mind that they threw the baby out with the bathwater. The new Mass is of unspeakable vulgarity and informality. I’ll leave it there for now.

No two people will ever agree on just where they should have found the middle road. I can sympathize with the Traditional Catholic movement, in spite of all its shortcomings, more easily that I can sympathize with the modernists, if only because at least there was a benchmark from which one had a great tradition from which to imagine to deviate. Every time a priest makes up a verse in a versicle off the cuff, I ask myself, how would he feel if the congregation also just made up the respond.

 

[oldfogey]

Why should I have to look for the sacrificial nature of the Mass, when it, in fact, is the ESSENCE of the Mass? It shouldn’t need “looking” for.

 

[oldfogey]

And yes, I have looked at the TLM lately. The opening stanzas literally made me ache as I remembered them, reciting them as an altarboy. They were not loquacious, and the Mass started with them (not before.)

 

[Podo2005]

jimmy:

I was talking about this the other day with my brother. I really don’t see any good reason why the Church changed the Mass. They say that it was changed so that the people would know better what was being said and listen, but it has led to mass ignorance about what the Mass is. The Church spent 1900 years developing the liturgy to where it was. There was never a time when they just took the mass tossed what they had and wrote something knew. This is what has happened in the last 40 years. This flies right in the face of tradition. It seems that they put themselves above tradition and what thousands of saints have thought to be perfect. They all of a sudden said one day the Church has made mistakes with the Mass so we must change it. Pope Benedict in his book Spirit of the Liturgy put it in the way that they were trying to white wash it and wash away the excess. How can anyone presume to think they are able to change the Liturgy? That is impious(or a lack of humility) at best and error at the worst. How can anyone have the audacity to say that all of Catholic history was in error but I am correct(That is what they say when they completely change the Liturgy and everything that has any reference to it)?

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. 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.

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.

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?

I say learn to accept it ( VII mass), it obviously was a good idea , the Lord wouldn’t mislead us…
The more things you learn and as time goes on things will change ( example like technology)…obviously the Church felt that it was best for the change 40 years ago. I mean it helped bring the vernacular in the mass, and helped bring a community participation into the mass ( instead of the individual worship)

Podo

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

jimmy:

Toni, I see what you are saying. But I don’t think that is reason to change the Liturgy. It is reason to say it in English, which would be good. Why not just translate what they had into English?

It isn’t always celebrated in English. It is celbrated in the venacular; in other words, the language of the people in that country or region. I think it is an excellent reason to change the language from Latin to the language of the people, esp. in countries where people are illiterate. It beats having the people try to keep up in a language they don’t understand, pray the Rosary or other devotions during Mass, etc.

I am the first to admit, however, that the current English translation could be better, and am looking forward to the implementaiton of the new English translation.

jimmy:

I can’t stand songs like On Eagles Wings which do not have any nature of prayer. It is just a bunch of verses thrown together. The old hymns had a majestic feel to them and made you feel like praying.

I agree with you. In fact, we use “Gather Us In” to spark our creativity in making up new lyrics on long car rides. If you have not yet joined the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen and David Haas, you should:
mgilleland.com/music/moratorium.htm

 

[Digitonomy]

Podo2005:

I say learn to accept it ( VII mass), it obviously was a good idea , the Lord wouldn’t mislead us…

I have no problem with the Mass of Paul VI, but I disagree with your much broader statement. Not every decision made in Rome is a good one; the Church is not infallible in everything it says - only in select areas. Just ask Galileo, or Aquinas for that matter.

Whether that amounts to the Lord misleading us I suppose depends on your definitions, but I wouldn’t put it that way.

 

[Petergee]

OutinChgoburbs:

I agree with you. In fact, we use “Gather Us In” to spark our creativity in making up new lyrics on long car rides. If you have not yet joined the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen and David Haas, you should:
mgilleland.com/music/moratorium.htm

I like traditional hymns and chant as well, but I really don’t understand the unmitigated vitriol heaped on these and other modern composers on that site. So you can make parodies of their hymns? So what, you can parody anything. Admittedly there is the occasional line which is a bit theologically fuzzy, but it’s a bit rich to damn them as heretics.

My only serious concern with their hymns is that many of them, especially of Haugen’s, are difficult for a congregation to sing in unison and are more suited to a solo or small group. But that’s no big deal occasionally. After all, the whole congregation doesn’t join in Gregorian Chant or Palestrina, do they?

And yes, I do indeed find that many of the hymns by Haugen, Haas, the St Louis Jesuits etc, do “have a majestic feel to them and make me feel like praying”.

 

[palmas85]

whiteyacht:

I skimmed the thread and didn’t notice anyone else fully addressing this, so I apologize if it has been discussed.

Let me preface by saying that I am a lover of the Tridentine Mass. I also love the Pauline Mass, and I ache when I see the beautiful rite abused. I also ache when I see it ridiculed.

The words of consecration were NOT changed between the two rites (except for minor additions or subtractions). What most people who jab at the Pauline Mass are referring to when they claim that the consecration was changed is the consecration of the Precious Blood. Specifically, they point out that their missal has translated “pro multis” as “for many,” but in the vernacular, it is recited as “for all.” (“It will be shed for you and for many/all”)

Folks, the phrase “pro multis” is in the official Latin text of the Pauline Mass. Our abominable English translation is responsible for “all” instead of “many.” That being said, I have heard it debated that, depending on context, “pro multis” can be argued to mean either “many” or “all.”

I hope this puts this tired argument to rest, at least until the next thread on this topic.

I think that the words Pro Multis were translated to be for all for a simple reason. For most of its’ history the Church taught that salvation was only available through the Catholic Church, with few exceptions because she was the one true church, thus the phrase Pro Multis, for many, but not for all.

After Vatican II, the idea was broadened, I think so as not to exclude Protestants and others. Now, salvation can be found in other religions and practices, thus the phrase now is for all instead of for many.

Ecumenical and interfaith thought pure and simple, nothing at all hard about it.