What were the reasons for changing the Mass?

[Petergee]

gelsbern:

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.

Nothing odd about it. I left it out because it wasn’t relevant to refuting jimmy’s charge that

Having guitars at mass is a destruction of the mass.

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.

Sorry Deacon, but I’m afraid very few of our churches in Oz have choir lofts. Many can’t afford hymn books either. And very often one volunteer has to act as accompanist as well as operating the projector, which has to be at the front of the church so that the people can see the words of the hymns. And I would object to anyone playing an organ or any other instrument at the front of the church in the style of a Partridge Family concert.

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

I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels that * Silent Night* inspires a feeling of reverence and awe at the mystery of the Incarnation which is unmatched by any other hymn.

 

[Psalm45_9]

This is one of the greatest tragedies of Vatican II. One reason for the changes were so the faithful could understand it a little better by having the option of Mass being celebrated in the vernacular. However, the translation is not that literal: for example. When the priest quotes Malachi 1:11 in one of the eucharistic prayers he says, “from east to west a perfect offering may be made.” When a more literal translation would be, “from the rising of the sun, even to its going down.” Another example is when the priest says, “The Lord be with you.” That is OK, in Latin it is “Dominus vobiscum.” Then we respond “and also with you.” That is not a literal translation of the latin, it is: “et cum spiritu tuo.” Translated literally, “and with your spirit.”

Father Benedict Groeschel’s guest on this week’s live show brought this up. He also said that the frequent genuflections and crossing of oneself were removed in order to shorten the gap between the Catholics and Protestants. I am also hoping, as is the guest, that our Holy Father will reform the liturgy. I would like to see a more literal translation, more encouragement for mass to be celebrated ad orientem, and the genuflections and crossing of oneself return.

As for me stating that the current liturgy is a tragedy of Vatican II, that is because if it was reformed to have people understand it more, that has not happened. In my RCIA class, the cradle catholic adults I teach with had no idea what is the reason we say and do what we do at Mass. Even with it being celebrate in English.

 

[Digitonomy]

Petergee:

And very often one volunteer has to act as accompanist as well as operating the projector, which has to be at the front of the church so that the people can see the words of the hymns.

A projector? I have never seen such a thing at Catholic mass. Where is the screen?

Your point about the choir lofts is a good one - smaller churches especially do not usually have them.

 

[rwoehmke]

Psalm45:9:

As for me stating that the current liturgy is a tragedy of Vatican II, that is because if it was reformed to have people understand it more, that has not happened. In my RCIA class, the cradle catholic adults I teach with had no idea what is the reason we say and do what we do at Mass. Even with it being celebrate in English.

I think that not a few cradle Catholics are at Mass to meet their obligation. They didn’t listen to or understand the Latin and they really don’t listen to the English either. Their minds are on automatic pilot and the responses, if they give them, are automatic as well. Just want to get through this hour that interferes with my week and the important things I have to do. The Popes since John XXIII have been correct. The greatest need for evangelization are the people setting in our pews each Sunday.
Only today a large portion of those aren’t even in the pews anymore.

I will not argue that the Prayers at the foot of the Altar were not beautiful, never having Latin and being an Altar Boy from 3rd Grade through 12th and then some, I didn’t have a Missal in my hand when I said my parts. Strictly memory, so I suppose replies from a tape recorder would have been just as good. I don’t know why, but it never occurred to me to at least study the translation in my Missal. When I wasn’t serving, that part of the Mass wasn’t my responsibility I guess.

I used to know enough German and Russian to translate into English. It always struck me that poems and the like never had the power and the beauty in English as they had in the original. The creativity and talent of the composer comes through in the original and a translation is always second best. Perhaps instead of trying to hew very closely to the direct translation of what is composed in Latin the Church might consider having some who are talented in English compose new texts from the start.

 

[tom.wineman]

Could it be that the problem with the “New Mass” is that it was designed by a committee. Someone once used the camel as an example of something designed be a committee.

** Liturgy means work of the people not the work of the committee.
**

 

[A.Pelliccio]

My argument wasnt that the changes were evil or illicit. What I am arguing and what I hold to be true that the changes have lead to wide spread abuse of the Mass. Now also I am not arguing on the basis of comparing the liturgies I am comparing what reality is not paper. What the every day catholic sees in mass on sunday, and what I described is present in every Mass done on a military instillation. I have served at almost a dozen.

I am not equating communion in the hand as an abuse. On personal prefrence I do not by the “christ did it this way”. Why? Christ was much holier than I or you and so was his apostles, on personal prefrence I belive that communion on ur knees and with ur tounge is more reverent, solemn, and sublime.

As for knee problems, like I said my last 3 or 4 priest in the military community have not genuflected. The leave the altar for the sign of peace and allow converstation during it. And when the Archbishop showed up for Christmas they genuflected for it.

The modernist movement in the church is energized and dangerous. I hope I addressed some of everyone concerns who jumped on my post, being deployed my internet time is limited.

Thank you

 

[A.Pelliccio]

I found it necessary to respond again when I read this sarcastic response.

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.

• Oh yea because I was talking about having Santa munching for Christmas? Im talking about that the laity pick them up dozens at a time shuffling them from place to place. It also goes to the motions where the ‘Eucharistic ministers’ do not properly administer the BBSD of Jesus Christ. Don’t hold the Eucharist properly or administer it before and Amen, ect.
  Quote:
  then people doing their own little private devotions with making the sign of the cross in their hand before they receive.

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.

Yes Mass is like a choir or an orchestra we have roles to play. If you don’t do your part its out of tune. People who make the sign of the cross after the Kyrie wrong, people who clap during the Gloria wrong, people who hold hands during the our father wrong, people who gesture towards the priest in response are wrong, ect ect. These are the private devotions I mention. I believe I should genuflect during the Creedo, but do I? No I do not because the rubrics for that mass don’t call for them. People should know their role.
Quote:
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?

No it is meant in the sense were I see people carry the host to the precious blood to dunk it. (don’t remember the real term Im sorry).

Now on another level isn’t it unnecessary for the average Catholic to receive both. Christ is present BBSD under both species so unless you cant swallow or your allergic you really only need to receive under one species.

Quote:
or to receive in the wrong hand.

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

Now forgive me but from what I was taught you are to receive in your left and consume with your right. If this is wrong I apologize.
Quote:
Yes I am judging it’s disgraceful to watch mass anymore.

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

Yea I guess I just sit in the back and monitor everyone and see what they do wrong?

What’s your definition of ‘participating’ “testify, clap, have random outbursts, ect?”
Quote:

This all can be corrected with proper catechism

Hope you enjoy the classes.

Ive never claimed to be an expert on the Church and I continually look for ways to improve on my education. My comment for this was that for eight years I attended CCD and learned virtually nothing on the faith or what separates Catholics from other religions.

Quote:
and enforcement. Enough of this individualist nonsense. Maybe I don’t tolerate these things or that individual stuff because im in the Army, but we need to start holding feet to the fire.

Thank God the Army doesn’t run the Church.

Well I do Pray to God that his Spirit becomes a little more forceful because some individuals in the church obviously pay him little attention.

 

[palmas85]

I’ll bring up something concerning changes in the Mass. Can anyone explain why receiving in the hand was introduced?. I’ve heard the old arguments about it being that way in the early church, but in the early church you would also take the Eucharist home with you as well for consumption during the week… And there is even disagreement about whether it was a general practice in the primitive church to always receive in the hand or only that which you were bringing home. You were supposed to receive that in a piece of cloth anyway.

Are there any references to it except the one always given about cupping your hand like a throne or is that the only reference we have to validate the argument?.

Also, why did we go to receiving while standing in the US? I know all about it being the “norm” and that you are not to be refused if you kneel, but rather be catechized as to the "reasons for the norm"

Well. what are the reasons for the norm?

 

[jimmy]

I would also like to bring up something. Gottle of Geer made the statement that the old liturgy needed overhauling because it was supposedly not a dialogue and because it supposedly was not an offering of the community.(Was shown to be wrong with a quote from the old liturgy that has been retained by the knew liturgy.) This seems to say that the Church was not guided by the Holy Spirit in its development of the liturgy. It was only guided in the construction of the knew liturgy. So up till 1960 the Catholic Church did not have the fullness of the protection of the Spirit, but now it does. This seems to be blatantly in error.

 

[SnorterLuster]

palmas85:

I’ll bring up something concerning changes in the Mass. Can anyone explain why receiving in the hand was introduced?. I’ve heard the old arguments about it being that way in the early church, but in the early church you would also take the Eucharist home with you as well for consumption during the week.

I can’t explain it, but I can pass along a story told to me by a Carmelite Priest around 1977 or 1978. My wife was taking instructions from the priests at a Carmelite monastary/parish and we asked why some parishes were giving communion in the hand. He told us that a Pope (Pius XII I think) allowed some missionaries to a particular tribe in Africa to put the Host in the hand of the laity. The tribe had a taboo about not allowing anyone to feed them from their hand. The permission was only for a limited number of people in a particular area. The liberal priests in Europe and America seized on that permission to introduce receiving in the hand in their areas. Father was sure that the Vatican would not let it stand since it was introduced under false pretenses. Needless to say, Father didn’t have the gift of prophecy.

 

[Mr.Bean]

It is interesting to note that Vatican II was supposed to be eucemenical toward all churches, including the Eastern Rite. From V II we learned more about some of the practices of our Eastern Rite Catholics. What is more interesting is that we have learned nothing from their reverese toward Tradition and Liturgy. Most Eastern Orthodox and (to my knowledge) Eastern Rite Catholics practice the same liturgy that St. John Chrysenton formulated in the 400s AD. Now different Orthodox Churches may change some of the words or add some but the Divine Liturgy is ecentually the same. Many Orthodox Churches would never joing Rome now because we have drastically changed the meaning and practice of the liturgy. It is more than the fact that it is in English (Orthodox were the first to have D. L. in venecular) but that we changed the reverence. V II says that the focus is back on the Eucharist and Scripture and the people. In practice the mass is focused on the people only. I go to church to be with God. I go to activities sponcered by the church to be with people and God. The mass needs to be reverent to God and the Eucharist. We need to learn from our brothers and sisters who are Orthodox. Go to one of their Divine Liturgies and notice the difference. We Catholics need to bring reverence back. If we don’t then the American Catholic Church is going look just like the United Methodist Church I left, and we would have lost something special.

[side note] The Othodox Church is growing because people are drawn towards its focus on reverence and mystery. My brother attends an Orthodox Church of American (affiliated with Moscow) and 2/3 of the congregation are convered Protestants. They have not changed anything because they have joined.

Peace

 

[jimmy]

Mr. Bean:

It is interesting to note that Vatican II was supposed to be eucemenical toward all churches, including the Eastern Rite. From V II we learned more about some of the practices of our Eastern Rite Catholics. What is more interesting is that we have learned nothing from their reverese toward Tradition and Liturgy. Most Eastern Orthodox and (to my knowledge) Eastern Rite Catholics practice the same liturgy that St. John Chrysenton formulated in the 400s AD. Now different Orthodox Churches may change some of the words or add some but the Divine Liturgy is ecentually the same. Many Orthodox Churches would never joing Rome now because we have drastically changed the meaning and practice of the liturgy. It is more than the fact that it is in English (Orthodox were the first to have D. L. in venecular) but that we changed the reverence. V II says that the focus is back on the Eucharist and Scripture and the people. In practice the mass is focused on the people only. I go to church to be with God. I go to activities sponcered by the church to be with people and God. The mass needs to be reverent to God and the Eucharist. We need to learn from our brothers and sisters who are Orthodox. Go to one of their Divine Liturgies and notice the difference. We Catholics need to bring reverence back. If we don’t then the American Catholic Church is going look just like the United Methodist Church I left, and we would have lost something special.

[side note] The Othodox Church is growing because people are drawn towards its focus on reverence and mystery. My brother attends an Orthodox Church of American (affiliated with Moscow) and 2/3 of the congregation are convered Protestants. They have not changed anything because they have joined.

Peace

Yes, the Eastern Christians have a beautiful Liturgy. They have not changed it even though they decided to translate it. It is absolutely beautiful. The old latin Liturgy was similar to it in many ways.

 

[palmas85]

SnorterLuster:

I can’t explain it, but I can pass along a story told to me by a Carmelite Priest around 1977 or 1978. My wife was taking instructions from the priests at a Carmelite monastary/parish and we asked why some parishes were giving communion in the hand. He told us that a Pope (Pius XII I think) allowed some missionaries to a particular tribe in Africa to put the Host in the hand of the laity. The tribe had a taboo about not allowing anyone to feed them from their hand. The permission was only for a limited number of people in a particular area. The liberal priests in Europe and America seized on that permission to introduce receiving in the hand in their areas. Father was sure that the Vatican would not let it stand since it was introduced under false pretenses. Needless to say, Father didn’t have the gift of prophecy.

Its as good an explanation as any I’ve heard.

 

[Petergee]

A.Pelliccio:

I found it necessary to respond again when I read this sarcastic response.

Yes, sorry, it came out a bit more sarcastic than I intended.

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.

• Oh yea because I was talking about having Santa munching for Christmas? Im talking about that the laity pick them up dozens at a time shuffling them from place to place. It also goes to the motions where the ‘Eucharistic ministers’ do not properly administer the BBSD of Jesus Christ. Don’t hold the Eucharist properly or administer it before and Amen, ect.

I’ve definitely never seen this either, and I’ve lived in many different parishes, dioceses and States. As I and others said above, if abuses are occurring, ask your priest/bishop to correct them. Don’t blame the “changes in the Mass”.

Quote:
then people doing their own little private devotions with making the sign of the cross in their hand before they receive.

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.

Yes Mass is like a choir or an orchestra we have roles to play. If you don’t do your part its out of tune. People who make the sign of the cross after the Kyrie wrong, people who clap during the Gloria wrong, people who hold hands during the our father wrong, people who gesture towards the priest in response are wrong, ect ect. These are the private devotions I mention. I believe I should genuflect during the Creedo, but do I? No I do not because the rubrics for that mass don’t call for them. People should know their role.

So I assume you would also strongly object to anyone saying the rosary at Mass because “the rubrics don’t call for it”?

Quote:
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?

No it is meant in the sense were I see people carry the host to the precious blood to dunk it. (don’t remember the real term Im sorry).

Ah, I see. Yes we had a problem too in our parish with people trying to self-intinct, but I brought it up with our priest and Liturgy Committee and they have managed to stamp it out through educating them via the parish bulletin and oral reminders from the priests.

Now on another level isn’t it unnecessary for the average Catholic to receive both. Christ is present BBSD under both species so unless you cant swallow or your allergic you really only need to receive under one species.

Quite right, it isn’t NECESSARY to receive under both species. Or to have any singing at the Mass. Or to have incense. Or many other things. But having them where possible, enriches our experience of the liturgy, and in this case, our appreciation of the truth that we receive Christ’s “BBSD”.

What’s your definition of ‘participating’ “testify, clap, have random outbursts, ect?”

No, I meant concentrate on doing what you’re supposed tyo do at Mass and you will find you don’t notice other people doing wrong things (or at least it won’t bother you so much). 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).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

]
Originally Posted by Gottle of Geer
*## 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. ##

jimmy:

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.

It’s a fact. I don’t see how this leads to the consequences you mention.​

jimmy:

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 Mass is both - it is as important that it is a sacrament and a meal, as that it is a sacrifice. Thanks to the work of the Council Fathers, the Roman Church (= us) now has a far more Biblically adequate Eucharist, instead of having a Eucharist which is lopsidedly understood as a sacrifice and as little else.​

Of course it’s a meal - it is a foretaste of the Messianic Banquet. It is all three of these things, not one or two alone. ##

jimmy:

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.

How so ?​

Saints are not the pastors of the Church, saintly as they may be; the bishops are. St. Philip Neri might have made a far better Pope than Pius V - but Pius V, not St. Philip, was bishop of Rome. So today - the bishops, unsaintly as they may be, are the ones who sanctify by ensuring the health of Christian worship; and if this involves putting aside a familiar liturgical rite, then so be it.

And the Author of all sanctification, is God - the Mass is a mockery, if it does not sanctify, and have the other saving effects it is meant to have. Without Christ working through it, it is a waste of time, no matter how beautiful externally it may be. Compared to the purpose of the Mass, the externals are of very slight importance.

If tradition had been enough, we would all be Pharisees or Sadduccees, and the Word would not have been Incarnate. ##

[continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

jimmy:

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

which involved change to the text, as I mentioned​

from older rites, and modern bishops decide it was eroneous.

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.​

## 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.​

jimmy:

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.

Paul VI was doing the same kind of thing as Pius V. Another Pope you should blame is Pius XII, for Paul VI was doing no more in principle than he had.​

Besides, the reform can be seen as the natural & organic result of the definitions of Vatican I - they implicitly allow the Pope the “fullness of power” to do as he did in 1969. ##
Gottle of Geer:

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. ##

jimmy:

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.

I don’t. I do deny the myth of a fixed & unchangeable Latin Mass which can never be touched. I am not ascribing error to the Church teaching - I’ve criticised her liturgical practice, and see nothing wrong in so doing.​

There was nothing sudden about these reforms - Pius XII had changed the Holy Week Rites in 1955, and promulgated a new Latin Psalter in 1945 (which is far better than the more familiar one). Was Pius XII - who is something of a traditionalists’ hero - “say[ing] the Church is false” ?

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.

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. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dljl:

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.

I far prefer English - I want to know what I’m saying, and what part that part of the Mass plays in the Prayer as a whole.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

jimmy:

I would also like to bring up something. Gottle of Geer made the statement that the old liturgy needed overhauling because it was supposedly not a dialogue

Where did I give that reason ?​

and because it supposedly was not an offering of the community.(Was shown to be wrong with a quote from the old liturgy that has been retained by the knew liturgy.)

Quotation, please ? Thanks​

This seems to say that the Church was not guided by the Holy Spirit in its development of the liturgy. It was only guided in the construction of the knew liturgy. So up till 1960 the Catholic Church did not have the fullness of the protection of the Spirit, but now it does. This seems to be blatantly in error.

Nothing I said need lead to this conclusion.​

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 ?

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. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

rwoehmke:

I think that not a few cradle Catholics are at Mass to meet their obligation. They didn’t listen to or understand the Latin and they really don’t listen to the English either. Their minds are on automatic pilot and the responses, if they give them, are automatic as well. Just want to get through this hour that interferes with my week and the important things I have to do. The Popes since John XXIII have been correct. The greatest need for evangelization are the people setting in our pews each Sunday.
Only today a large portion of those aren’t even in the pews anymore.

I will not argue that the Prayers at the foot of the Altar were not beautiful, never having Latin and being an Altar Boy from 3rd Grade through 12th and then some, I didn’t have a Missal in my hand when I said my parts. Strictly memory, so I suppose replies from a tape recorder would have been just as good. I don’t know why, but it never occurred to me to at least study the translation in my Missal. When I wasn’t serving, that part of the Mass wasn’t my responsibility I guess.

I used to know enough German and Russian to translate into English. It always struck me that poems and the like never had the power and the beauty in English as they had in the original. The creativity and talent of the composer comes through in the original and a translation is always second best. Perhaps instead of trying to hew very closely to the direct translation of what is composed in Latin the Church might consider having some who are talented in English compose new texts from the start.

What you’re asking for, in effect, is a Catholic equivalent of Archbishop Cranmer ​

Might I suggest using the Book of Common Prayer as a model ? Much of it is straight from Roman sources ##

 

[whiteyacht]

A.Pelliccio:

The Consecration - Def Changed

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.