Why did they change the Mass?

[IsaacSheen]

Why did they change the Mass from the Tridentine to the Norvus Ordo? I realize there must be a document explaining their decision, please let me know where I can find it and read it. Thank you very much!

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

It was the 60’s. (everyone was on drugs!!!)

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

 

[roanoker]

Sort of off the subject, but I don’t know where else to ask this. What’s up with EWTN? Their schedule says at 10:30 tonight(Christmas Eve), Solemn Chistmas Mass from St. Peter’s, like every year. Instead its from some other church, and I was looking forward to watching the St. Peter’s one. I’m disappointed. Anyone know if EWTN is going to broadcast from St. Peter’s this Christmas?

 

[Francine_Peters]

Why did they change the Mass from the Tridentine to the Norvus Ordo? I realize there must be a document explaining their decision, please let me know where I can find it and read it. Thank you very much!

Sacrosanctum Concilium, section 50:

The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

 

[Rolltide]

Sort of off the subject, but I don’t know where else to ask this. What’s up with EWTN? Their schedule says at 10:30 tonight(Christmas Eve), Solemn Chistmas Mass from St. Peter’s, like every year. Instead its from some other church, and I was looking forward to watching the St. Peter’s one. I’m disappointed. Anyone know if EWTN is going to broadcast from St. Peter’s this Christmas?

The St. Peter’s Mass is on NBC.

 

[puzzleannie]

midnight Mass from St. Peters was broadcast earlier on EWTN, ending about 7 (CST) when we were leaving for Mass here. The Mass which began when we got home about 10 was from Washington DC, so MIL attended Mass and watched 3 more today (including am Mass on EWTN). The Rome Mass is scheduled to repeat I think I have it set for TIVO but based on the channel guide, don’t know what I will be getting.

 

[markadm]

Sacrosanctum Concilium, section 50:

The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

But what we should make clear (and Francine, I’m not saying this to you, but rather to the OP) is that if you read Sacrosanctum Concilium you will end up with the clear sense that what we ended up with was not what the Council Fathers envisaged.

God bless, and Merry Christmas!

 

[IsaacSheen]

Sacrosanctum Concilium, section 50:

The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

Thanks!

 

[Dempsey1919]

I must be said that the Mass of Paul VI was not the Mass that Vatican II called for. Read Sacrosanctum Concillium and you will see that what I say is true.

However, the Mass was changed in an effort to appeal to Protestants. It was hoped that the new Mass would foster conversions. In reality, we now have fewer conversions than we did when the Tridentine Mass was the only Mass of the Roman rite.

In all honesty, I can’t understand why they changed the Mass. The Tridentine Mass if far superior to the new Mass in my opinion. There will be many theories but we will never know the real reason why. Only Archbishop Bugnini knows the real reasons.

I am still waiting for the proper implementation of Sacrosanctum Concillium. I think that Vatican II called for some good changes within the Liturgy, such as the increased use of scripture within the Mass and some vernacular where appropriate. However, it was a mistake, in my opinion, to allow the total celebration of the Mass in the vernacular. Latin should have been retained with small parts in the vernacular.

 

[IsaacSheen]

However, the Mass was changed in an effort to appeal to Protestants. It was hoped that the new Mass would foster conversions. In reality, we now have fewer conversions than we did when the Tridentine Mass was the only Mass of the Roman rite.

It’s funny, I was just telling my wife that it seems like they changed the Mass to be more protestant. I’m going to have to read Sacrosanctum Concillium to see exactly how they put it. Thanks for the great insight.

 

[EddieArent]

If you take a look at many quotes by Archbishop Bugnini it is clear that they wanted to strip away many Catholic elements and make it more pleasing to the Protestants. A friend of Pope Paul VI point blank stated that the goal was to make the Novus Ordo resemble a Calvinsist liturgy.

 

[IsaacSheen]

If you take a look at many quotes by Archbishop Bugnini it is clear that they wanted to strip away many Catholic elements and make it more pleasing to the Protestants. A friend of Pope Paul VI point blank stated that the goal was to make the Novus Ordo resemble a Calvinsist liturgy.

That’s very interesting, could you point me to resources so I could read his statements and writings on it?

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

That’s very interesting, could you point me to resources so I could read his statements and writings on it?

I would be more interested in the pope’s comments on these theories.

 

[Al_Masetti]

It was the 60’s. (everyone was on drugs!!!)

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

You may be onto something.

Seems to me that the changes in the Mass coincided with fluoridation of the water supply.

[Does Tim Akin, in his CA book on the Mass, discuss fluoride?]

I also found this:

catholic.com/library/liturgical_abuses.asp

and these:

shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/c-Mass_and_Liturgy.html?L+scstore+kvdq6557ff026802+1212790313

 

[Dempsey1919]

IsaacSheen,

When discussing the change in the liturgy, you will read many things that lack evidence; many of the statements are ancedotal and can not be verified by facts. Be wary of anything you read by extreme traditionalists because they have an agenda and have been known to bend the truth.

Here is a good video on youtube about the history of liturgical reform. It provides many interesting insights:

Reform or Revolt: The Mass of Paul VI
youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8

Note: This is part one of two. When you have watched this part, you will have to search for the second part on youtube or look for it in the menu on the right-hand side.

---

Vatican II is blamed by a lot of people for the changes that have occurred after the council. Vatican II was essentially a conservative council that was subsequently misinterpreted. I have said for a long time that the Second Vatican Council will eventually be vindicated; I also hope to see it properly implemented in light of tradition.

I suggest that you read the Council documents for yourself. Too many people simply repeat what they have heard others say about the Council without taking the time to actually read the documents themselves.

Vatican II was the largest council in Church history. 2,908 men took part in the Council; these men included all Bishops and many superiors of religious orders. We as Catholics believe in papal infallability. I find it hard to believe that many doubt the involvement of the Holy Spirit within the council.

It should also be noted that the Council did not deal with doctrines of the faith. The Second Vatican Council was pastoral, not dogmatic. Vatican II was convened in order to discuss the ways in which the Church would present the faith in the future, not to define or clarify doctrine.

The change in the liturgy is blamed on the Council. This is false. The council never abolished the Tridentine Mass and never called for the change in Church design etc.

It is interesting to note that many of the changes within the liturgy, such as communion in the hand were originally abuses that became tolerated. Mass entirely in the vernacular started as an indult that gradually mushroomed. Sacrosanctum Concillium actually stated that the use of latin should be retained in the Mass of the Roman rite.

Also, the Mass of Paul VI can be celebrated entirely in latin, ad orientem, with altar rails and communion on the knees. I have a feeling that many Catholics would be unable to tell the difference between a Pauline Mass celebrated in this manner and the Tridentine Mass.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Why would communion in the hand be an abuse?

 

[Dempsey1919]

Why would communion in the hand be an abuse?

It is no longer considered to be an abuse.

The Eucharist is the body of Christ. In the Tridentine Mass, people receive the host directly on the tongue while a deacon holds a paten under their chin to prevent any small fragments from falling on the floor. In the past, communion in the hand was prohbited because small particles of the precious body may fall to the floor and trampled upon.

The respect paid to the Eucharist in the Tridentine Mass is profound. After holding the Eucharist, the Priest keeps his thumb and forefinger tightly closed until after Mass in order to prevent any particles from falling to the floor. The priest will even keep these fingers together when opening the tabernacle. After the Mass, the priest will then wash his hands.

In the New Mass, the norm is still to receive directly on the tongue. However, some began to distribute by hand and eventually this became an indult that rapidly became the common practice.

Personally, I would never receive by the hand, although I have no problem with those who wish to do so.

Mother Theresa had this to say:

"Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

For more information and a reference for the above quote:
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

It is no longer considered to be an abuse.

The Eucharist is the body of Christ. In the Tridentine Mass, people receive the host directly on the tongue while a deacon holds a paten under their chin to prevent any small fragments from falling on the floor. In the past, communion in the hand was prohbited because small particles of the precious body may fall to the floor and trampled upon.

The respect paid to the Eucharist in the Tridentine Mass is profound. After holding the Eucharist, the Priest keeps his thumb and forefinger tightly closed until after Mass in order to prevent any particles from falling to the floor. The priest will even keep these fingers together when opening the tabernacle. After the Mass, the priest will then wash his hands.

In the New Mass, the norm is still to receive directly on the tongue. However, some began to distribute by hand and eventually this became an indult that rapidly became the common practice.

Personally, I would never receive by the hand, although I have no problem with those who wish to do so.

Mother Theresa had this to say:

"Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

For more information and a reference for the above quote:
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

I wonder if she is giving St Cyril a hard time for teaching us about receiving in the hand.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I wonder if she is giving St Cyril a hard time for teaching us about receiving in the hand.

Promoters of communion in the hand always make use of the Mystagocical Catecheses of St Cyril of Jerusalem in order to prove that the ancient Church approved this practice.

Here is what St Cyril said:

21.** In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen.** So then after having carefully hollowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Wilt thou not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

While this is proof that certain members of the early Church did advocate communion in the hand, it does not mean that this was a universal practice.

I would like to remind you that I am not against communion in the hand; I have no problem with it but I would never receive this way. I believe that communion on the tongue shows greater faith in the real presence.

As I have said, the Mystagocical Catecheses of St Cyril do not prove that communion in the hand was a universal practice. Here are some quotes to show that communion on the tongue was endorsed and practiced, especially in the Roman rite:

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

**POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN **(275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274).** “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.”** (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

**POPE PAUL VI **(1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

"It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

REFERENCE: latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

This thread is concerned with the the liturgy of the Roman rite. St Cyril is an Eastern Saint. While he may have advocated communion in the hand, it is worth remembering that the Eastern rites have always had different liturgical practices than the west. The quotes provided above show that the western Saints have long advocated communion on the tongue.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Continued…

Here is another quote concerning St Cyril:

What about St. Cyril?

Of course, the promoters of “Communion in the hand” generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil.

Dr. Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows:

“Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen…” There is MORE to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following:

“…Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body. When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it.

It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and also from St. Augustine.

So, in favor of Communion in the hand, we have a text of DUBIOUS origin and QUESTIONABLE content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at least the fifth century, that we can prove for sure.

REFERENCE: latincatholic.tripod.com/id7.html

As I said, this post deals with the liturgical practices of the Roman rite. It has been shown that the constant preference within the Roman rite has been communion in hand.