Why did we need a New Mass?

[Marines]

The fact is that the so-called New Mass is really just the Mass in the Vernacular (Language of the People) Prior to Vat 2 the Latin Mass was the norm and had a sort of limited participation by the people.
I have never been to a liturgical abuse that I know of, so a lot of the

Excuse my southern, but no-way,Hosa!! The modern NO is not the same “script” as a translated Latin Mass. It consists of a greatly secularized, feminized, and stripped down nature. It also contains only 25% of the prayers of the original Tridentine Mass.

• Joe

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

The Incredible Catholic Mass An Explanation of the Mass by Father Martin von Chochem, TAN 1997, p. xix

It is unusual for a book to have a table of contents that is such an excellent summary. But this book has exactly that. Check out the summary for chapter 31.

“31. The Ceremonies of Holy Mass, and what they Signify…431
The Introduction to the Mass, or the Mass of the Catechumens…432
The First Essential Part of Holy Mass: The Offertory…440
The Second Essential Part of Holy Mass: The Consecration…443
The Third Essential Part of Holy Mass: The Communion…447
The Ceremonial Masses for the Dead…450”

The Mass of the Catechumens, now called the Liturgy of the Word is an introduction to the Mass. The Mass of the Faithful, now called the Liturgy of the Eucharist, consists of the three essential parts of the Mass.

If a Mass contains the three essential parts it is a valid Mass. If for some reason, there was no Liturgy of the Word, the Mass would be illicit (illegal) but still valid.

 

[Teresita]

What a shame that those who rewrote and altered the Mass had forgotten the aphorism “Abusus non tollit usum” - abuses do not invalidate the (correct) use of something. The older liturgical movement had begun by wanting to mediate the Mass to the people by catechesis, getting them to speak or sing part of it (in Latin) and so on; the newer movement couldn’t be bothered with all that, and adopted the basic Protestant position that the whole point of worship was for people to speak in their own way to God. The older Catholic position had always been that the Mass was primarily an action (our Lord acting as both priest and victim in this ‘re-run’ of the Sacrifice of the Cross), and that words, while they were instrumental in the sacrifice, were not the point of the Mass: to use scholastic language, they were the form, but not the matter. That’s why priests mumbling, private devotions such as the rosary, and so on, while less satisfactory from the reformers’ point of view, never detracted from the reality of the Mass.

As for horror stories like the priest who omitted the consecration, that, of course, can happen with the New Mass as well: it’s the problem of aged priests! One of our priests, bless him, consecrated twice one Saturday, and gradually became more and more confused - he was about 87 -eventually stopping every five minutes and saying: “Where have I got to?” After six months of deterioration, he stopped saying Mass.

What we have now is a situation where the Mass appeals more to middle-class, educated people (this is certainly true in England, anyway), because of its focus on verbal interaction (sociolinguistic theory explains this very well). I think this is an unfortunate by-product of the changes.

Sue

 

[kwitz]

Teresita:

As for horror stories like the priest who omitted the consecration, that, of course, can happen with the New Mass as well: it’s the problem of aged priests!

But the difference, as your story illustrated, is that in the NO Mass you knew when the priest was messing up. In a TLM, you couldn’t know what the priest had mumbled for sure.

Kris

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

kwitz:

But the difference, as your story illustrated, is that in the NO Mass you knew when the priest was messing up. In a TLM, you couldn’t know what the priest had mumbled for sure.

Kris

What nonsense! Honestly, what is so difficult about following the Tridentine Mass? So you don’t know latin. Big deal. It’s right there in English if you took the time.

I’m getting pretty tired about the whining about the Priest “mumbling”. He is not saying the prayers for you. On you behalf, certainly, but the prayers are to God and for God. Try to keep that in mind.

As far as “messing up”, it appears that this does not happen in the New Mass. It’s just called “liturgical abuse”. You know, don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[katherine2]

Munda cor meum:

What nonsense! Honestly, what is so difficult about following the Tridentine Mass? So you don’t know latin. Big deal. It’s right there in English if you took the time

Its only right there in English because a lot of “dissenters” began “an abuse” that eventually the authorities allowed. The Latin/English Missal is a modrern innovation.

 

[terrcatholic]

Why dont we just institute the TLM in the vernacular, where allowed that is, as I understand the some parts of the mass actually must be in Latin, and that there are parts of the NO mass that are supposed to also be in Latin, which it is not (Did I confuse you all?). What I am saying, as many conservatives as I do believe that “I would take the TLM mass in the vernacular over the NO mass in Latin anyday!”. That may please everybody.

But the question is a good one above who started the string, as I have never heard or read an official Vatican response at to why Pope Paul VI instituted this mass. I hear the big issue in the 60’s was birth control that most Catholics wanted reformed, and that he stood firm on when he issued the encyclical in 1968, but he threw out the Mass. Confusing.

 

[Vincent]

How could such a change be made? Answer: It is due to the will expressed by the Ecumenical Council held not long ago. The Council decreed: "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, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished.

“For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, while due care is taken to preserve their substance. Elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded. Where opportunity allows or necessity demands, other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers” (Sacrosanctum Concilium #50).

The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent.

It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante’s improvisation. It is a law. It has been thought out by authoritative experts of sacred Liturgy; it has been discussed and meditated upon for a long time. We shall do well to accept it with joyful interest and put it into practice punctually, unanimously and carefully.

This reform puts an end to uncertainties, to discussions, to arbitrary abuses. It calls us back to that uniformity of rites and feeling proper to the Catholic Church, the heir and continuation of that first Christian community, which was all “one single heart and a single soul” (Acts 4:32). The choral character of the Church’s prayer is one of the strengths of her unity and her catholicity. The change about to be made must not break up that choral character or disturb it. It ought to confirm it and make it resound with a new spirit, the spirit of her youth.

—Pope Paul VI, General Audience, November 19, 1969​

 

[terrcatholic]

Try reading “The Mass” A Study of the Liturgy, by Adrian Fortescue. Reading it now, and the mass evolved over the first 5 or 6 centuries, and then was basically said as the TLM mass is said. What The council of Trent and then St Pius V wanted to do, is that there were still a few small remote areas (the 1500’s were a bit different that today where communication was not like picking up the phone or the internet or even hop a plane) and he wanted to make sure that the TLM, which was an evolution of the first 5 or 6 centuries and said from the 6th to the 16 th centuries and then till 1970, was codified to make sure that all the churches were uniform and to make sure that there were not any abuses. And Quo Primium is clear, he never meant or intended or allowed any wiggle room for change, as he says at the end of the Bull and calls the wrath of St Peter and Paul on anyone who changes it. So maybe these problems we have in the church are due to Pope Paul VI and we have the wrath of two of the greatest men who ever lived testing us, as we have now this NO Mass which St Pio REFUSED to say.
Chris Jacobsen:

The Incredible Catholic Mass An Explanation of the Mass by Father Martin von Chochem, TAN 1997, p. xix

It is unusual for a book to have a table of contents that is such an excellent summary. But this book has exactly that. Check out the summary for chapter 31.

“31. The Ceremonies of Holy Mass, and what they Signify…431
The Introduction to the Mass, or the Mass of the Catechumens…432
The First Essential Part of Holy Mass: The Offertory…440
The Second Essential Part of Holy Mass: The Consecration…443
The Third Essential Part of Holy Mass: The Communion…447
The Ceremonial Masses for the Dead…450”

The Mass of the Catechumens, now called the Liturgy of the Word is an introduction to the Mass. The Mass of the Faithful, now called the Liturgy of the Eucharist, consists of the three essential parts of the Mass.

If a Mass contains the three essential parts it is a valid Mass. If for some reason, there was no Liturgy of the Word, the Mass would be illicit (illegal) but still valid.

 

[Patrick2340]

katherine2:

Its only right there in English because a lot of “dissenters” began “an abuse” that eventually the authorities allowed. The Latin/English Missal is a modrern innovation.

What is your source for this statement?

 

[katherine2]

Patrick2340:

What is your source for this statement?

Jungmann.

(and confirmed by my mother)

 

[caroljm36]

After having a neophyte’s curiosity and yearning to experience old ways, I finally reconciled myself to the NO Mass and I think we’re better off. Pardon me if I’m wrong, but it those days the priests had their backs to the congregation, and he and the altar boy went through all the parts like they were in a different universe. From what I have been reading lately about JPII’s early years, there was discontent brewing for many years before Vat II, though it may have come from those liberal W European quarters, and look how they have made out afterward.

When will people get it through their heads that liberalizing does NOT mean growth or even stasis! My own fascination with JPII, long before I converted, grew with his every doctrinaire turn, since it seemed to infuriate the media. I was drawn like a moth to the flame.

What I would like to see is more parts sung in Latin as they do on EWTN. I think even just the Dominus Vobiscum sung would lend a much-needed spiritual link to the past. I wonder how older parishoners would react? I think the young people and especially converts would love it.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Just to add to what Katherine has said. Prior to the 1940’s it was a violation of canon law to print any parts of the Mass in any language other than Latin without dispensation (there were dispensations for Chinese and a couple of Slavic languages). In the late 1940’s a “concession” was granted (a broad indult) that allowed the printing of the Missal in the vernacular on one side and Latin on the other. The Germans were the first to do this, followed closely by Fr. Steadman with his My Sunday Missal.

Katherine is precisely correct.

Deacon Ed

 

[katherine2]

Thnak you, reverend Deacon! At my age, you begin to wonder if the memory is going, so it is alway nice to have some confirmation. :tiphat:

To caroljim, I agree with her. My parish has on ocassion the Greek Kyrie and Latin Sanctus and Angus Dei. The congregation, almost all who would call themselves progressives but a mix of minority, blue collar whites and some young professionals, find it enhances the Mass. I could go for the canon in Latin once in a blue moon as well, but the rest of the parish is not there.

What some might find odd at first (but I think perfectly expectable on reflection) is that it is often the more progressive parishes that have some Latin (& Greek). I think their is little interest in the old, dry recitation of prayers in Latin. But people are open to parts in Latin as a feature within a quality music ministry. And developing such often requires an active and engaged lay community.

 

[Tallow]

The old Latin mass was thought to be a problem because, although there were Latin-English missals in the pews for Sundays, the weekday masses were kind of hard to follow, and many were said way too fast and carelessly. A lot of the altar boys messed up the Latin pretty severely (including yours truly). I know there were many priests, even good ones, who took it as a point of pride to finish mass in 15 minutes or less. Also, the old mass didn’t include much from Scripture. Readings were pretty limited. so, there WERE problems.

On the other hand, masses were well attended, and there was a reverent attitude on the part of the vast majority of Catholics, almost all of whom seemed to believe that the Eurcharist really and truly WAS the Body and Blood of Christ. The “reform” of the mass seems, unfortunately, to have thrown that particular belief out the window. Unintentionally, to be sure, but the recently developed casual attitude towards the mass often seems to have turned the Bloodless Sacrifice into a mere cocktail party.

 

[terrcatholic]

See, you miss the entire point, it has nothing to do with better off, it is the symbolism and the sacredness. When the priest was facing the tabernacle and the altar with his back to the laity, it was because he was talking to God and preparing himeself to perform the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence all of the gunuflecting at each pass of the tabernacle and the like, to worship Our Lord and God.

Now, with the priest facing the people, it symbolizes that the laity are being worshipped, and it is now “The Lords Supper”. At my NO mass, the priest or anyone NEVER genuflects, they do a little “bow” to the laity as he passes by the front of the sacresty. God is no longer worshipped.

I suggest that anyone who is educated and knows what was changed and understood the reasoning behind the Old Mass, where it came from and what it symbolized will be truly depressed and upset to learn what we have now, the travesty of Banning it, and the lack of reverence of this banal, bare ceremony that is meant more for entertainment than what a Mass was supposed to be. Very Very Sad, the church with these changes has taken everything beautiful about it away, and the feeling you get when you leave a Novus Ordo mass is nothing, like you experienced nothing. Sad

caroljm36:

After having a neophyte’s curiosity and yearning to experience old ways, I finally reconciled myself to the NO Mass and I think we’re better off. Pardon me if I’m wrong, but it those days the priests had their backs to the congregation, and he and the altar boy went through all the parts like they were in a different universe. From what I have been reading lately about JPII’s early years, there was discontent brewing for many years before Vat II, though it may have come from those liberal W European quarters, and look how they have made out afterward.

When will people get it through their heads that liberalizing does NOT mean growth or even stasis! My own fascination with JPII, long before I converted, grew with his every doctrinaire turn, since it seemed to infuriate the media. I was drawn like a moth to the flame.

What I would like to see is more parts sung in Latin as they do on EWTN. I think even just the Dominus Vobiscum sung would lend a much-needed spiritual link to the past. I wonder how older parishoners would react? I think the young people and especially converts would love it.

 

[terrcatholic]

That is very well articulated, by the time we get a new Pope, he may get into the Guiness books for flip flops and cannonizations. He is not a leader but a follower and an appeaser of everyone but the conservative catholic. There is a web page which lists over 100 heresys he has committed that someone sent me. I think it is time to post it.

caroljm36:

After having a neophyte’s curiosity and yearning to experience old ways, I finally reconciled myself to the NO Mass and I think we’re better off. Pardon me if I’m wrong, but it those days the priests had their backs to the congregation, and he and the altar boy went through all the parts like they were in a different universe. From what I have been reading lately about JPII’s early years, there was discontent brewing for many years before Vat II, though it may have come from those liberal W European quarters, and look how they have made out afterward.

When will people get it through their heads that liberalizing does NOT mean growth or even stasis! My own fascination with JPII, long before I converted, grew with his every doctrinaire turn, since it seemed to infuriate the media. I was drawn like a moth to the flame.

What I would like to see is more parts sung in Latin as they do on EWTN. I think even just the Dominus Vobiscum sung would lend a much-needed spiritual link to the past. I wonder how older parishoners would react? I think the young people and especially converts would love it.

 

[katherine2]

terrcatholic:

See, you miss the entire point, it has nothing to do with better off, it is the symbolism and the sacredness. When the priest was facing the tabernacle and the altar with his back to the laity, it was because he was talking to God and preparing himeself to perform the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence all of the gunuflecting at each pass of the tabernacle and the like, to worship Our Lord and God.

Now, with the priest facing the people, it symbolizes that the laity are being worshipped

It does not. No one has ever promoted teh preist facing altar and congregation for this purpose.

and it is now “The Lords Supper”.

its always been the Lord’s Supper.

At my NO mass, the priest or anyone NEVER genuflects, they do a little “bow” to the laity as he passes by the front of the sacresty. God is no longer worshipped.

Pre-conciliar Catholics and their modern counterparts have a bad habit of genuflecting when their is no taberancle. I have rolled my eyes often at this while worshipping in such chapels.

I suggest that anyone who is educated and knows what was changed and understood the reasoning behind the Old Mass,…

Before the Council, to be educated and to understand the reasoning behind the Mass was a sure mark of being a liberal. Those who were not part of the liturgical movement wre woefully ignorant of the Mass and its meaning. We devoted much energy to try to educate folks.

I will give this to the neo-traditionalists. They have done a good job in educating themselves about the former Mass ritual. A million times better than was common outside of progressive circles before the Council.

 

[philipmarus]

I want preface my remarks by saying that while I prefer the Tridentine Rite, I believe the new mass to be valid but not without problems.
I just want to say that you owe to yourself to at least attend a Tridentine Latin Mass before smuggly writing the old mass off. I attend both sorts of masses since my Bishop allows the induit in my archdiocese. I’m not one those that think the new mass is invalid or anything but I am sympathetic to the old mass. I would choose the tridentine. In particular, the sense of the sacred is preserved in Tridentine, and in particular the the communion in hand which has become normative in the New Mass I believe is contributing to the destruction of belief in the Real Presence as recent statistics bear out. My proof of this is the simple fact that practice of communion in the hand has led my younger brother (as he related to me recently) to question belief in the Real Presence of Christ and has been a fallen away Catholic for about 5 years. What disturbs me most, is the attitude of some more liberal “Progressive” bishops that seem to be openly hostile to allowing the Latin Mass in their Diocese even on limited basis. One that sticks in my mind is the Archbishop Weakland who was outspoken for years in blocking any attempt to allow an Tridentine induit in his diocese which JPII in Ecclessia De encouraged that Latin Mass be given “wide and generous application”. I’ve noted how some of the clergy most hostile to the old mass also tend to be the clergy “most progressive” and dissenting on some issues.

In My Diocese, we have a single church (St. Michaels) serviced by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. Its about 50 miles for me so I am only able to attend about once a month. St. Michael’s is always crowded and there difficulty in finding a parking space…Some positives I’ve seen and observed on attending the Tridentine Mass are:

1. Reverence in the Liturgy
2. Beautiful Chant at High Mass. I don’t understand why this was
   removed in the New Mass?
3. LONG, LONG lines to Confession-I went to service where one
   Priest said Mass while another continued to hear confessions
   through the entire Mass.
4. Last Week they had Six Altar Boys or Servers.
5. Rich Homilies that are firmly grounded in Catholic Tradition.
   The bulletin last week was on history of Holy Water from
   Earliest times.

Currently the Tridentine Mass is available in 120 Dioceses in U.S.

 

[Vincent]

philipmarus:

Some positives I’ve seen and observed on attending the Tridentine Mass are:

1. Reverence in the Liturgy
2. Beautiful Chant at High Mass. I don’t understand why this was
   removed in the New Mass?
3. LONG, LONG lines to Confession-I went to service where one
   Priest said Mass while another continued to hear confessions
   through the entire Mass.
4. Last Week they had Six Altar Boys or Servers.
5. Rich Homilies that are firmly grounded in Catholic Tradition.
   The bulletin last week was on history of Holy Water from
   Earliest times.

“Novus Ordo” Mass at Brompton Oratory appears to have all of that. It demonstrates that it can be done.