Why didn't the Church just change the Mass to English?

[CanadianMickey]

I was just wondering why the Second Vatican Council didn’t just change the Latin mass directly into the vernacular instead of changing the liturgy as well. What was wrong with the liturgy before?

 

[Elizium23]

Have you read Sacrosanctum Concilium? It addresses these concerns and lays out the reasons for reforming the liturgy.

21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

 

[CanadianMickey]

No I haven’t yet, Thanks a lot!

 

[SMHW]

I was just wondering why the Second Vatican Council didn’t just change the Latin mass directly into the vernacular instead of changing the liturgy as well. What was wrong with the liturgy before?

The changes that you see in the Ordinary Form of the Mass *were *the primary changes of Vatican II. (Actually some probably would have happened even if there had been no Vatican II.)

 

[padrepio_2012]

actually that was not Vatican II’s intent. yes they did intend to change the mass to mostly the venacular language. but a famous monk i heard speaking on the matter said that Vatican II, if you read the documents, did not intend for this big of a change in the liturgy. rather, it stated that the priest was still supposed to face away from the people towards the tabernacle, towards the “Spiritual east” (and as he SHOULD) , the tabernacle was still supposed to be connected to the altar, the altar rail was to be used, and parts of the mass were still supposed to have latin prayers in it, like the sanctus, the gloria, ect. however, when vatican II reached 1960 revolutionary america where everybody “was for change” and “to go against the norm”, you can imagine what took place. such blasphemies like the “clown mass” and protestantized Catholic mass began to occur and as a result, many have stopped attending mass ect

 

[Filii_Dei]

Sacrosanctum Concilium gives broad principles for the reform of the liturgy, but it can only tell us the impetus for the reform of the liturgy in general, not specific changes. Furthermore, it precedes the revision of the Roman Missal, so we can’t expect it to directly explain why and what was eventually changed, as opposed to keeping it the way it was or other alternatives. The only exception is perhaps the translation into the vernacular which was explicitly specified.

I liked some reforms, but some others I’m not too sure about. I would certainly like to read an official resource about the rationale for each and every change in the liturgy. I do have a wishlist for certain reforms (or reforms of the reform, as some might call it), but this is probably not the place for it.

 

[ProVobis]

Have you read Sacrosanctum Concilium? It addresses these concerns and lays out the reasons for reforming the liturgy.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

Thanks for this reference. This seems to explain IMO the reason for the removal of the submissa voce (“in a low tone”) prayers, such as the Aufer, Munda, Offertory, Lavabo, etc. as they were prayers strictly between the priest and God. (Actually, only people with handmissals were able to follow them quietly either in the Latin or in an unofficial translation.) The Confiteor, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Preface, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei remained intact, with of course, with the ability to be dialogued with the congregation either in Latin (as recommended elsewhere by the SC) or in an approved vernacular.

 

[Martin15]

however, when vatican II reached 1960 revolutionary america where everybody “was for change” and “to go against the norm”, you can imagine what took place.

I’d be interested to know more fully how much the American Bishops were involved in the reform of the liturgy. The idea that it was Vatican II reaching a ‘revolutionary America’ that led to the major reforms seems a bit spurious. I can’t see bishops being majorly influenced by the ‘all change’ public mentality of the 60s.

Without wanting to start any America-bashing, this opinion seems to reflect a major opinion in non-Americans that Americans think everything revolves around them in some way.

All the best

Martin

 

[MarkThompson]

rather, it stated that the priest was still supposed to face away from the people towards the tabernacle, towards the “Spiritual east” (and as he SHOULD) , the tabernacle was still supposed to be connected to the altar, the altar rail was to be used, and parts of the mass were still supposed to have latin prayers in it, like the sanctus, the gloria, ect.

I don’t think there’s a single true claim among these. One cannot simply listen to polemics without reading the actual documents themselves.

however, when vatican II reached 1960 revolutionary america where everybody “was for change” and “to go against the norm”, you can imagine what took place.

Oh, is that so? I suppose the identical changes that took place all over the rest of the world at exactly the same time can equally be blamed on “Revolutionary Italy,” “Revolutionary Argentina,” and the like?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. **This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
   **
2. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

1. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

From Sacrosanctum Concilium, linked above. Notice that they do not mention the ordinaries of the Mass such as the Kryrie, Gloria, Credo, Sancto, Agnus Dei, Consecration, etc. From my interpretation (and reading of The Spirit of the Liturgy), the use of the vernacular should have been extended only to the readings and maybe the propers and optional hymns. But for the ordinaries of the Mass, there is no reason to use the vernacular. These don’t change from week to week, so once people get it they get it.

I’ll never understand why the beauty and sanctity of the church’s language is something to be ashamed of. That’s the way it’s treated in most parishes: as something to apologize for.

 

[padrepio_2012]

I don’t think there’s a single true claim among these. One cannot simply listen to polemics without reading the actual documents themselves.]

[Oh, is that so? I suppose the identical changes that took place all over the rest of the world at exactly the same time can equally be blamed on “Revolutionary Italy,” “Revolutionary Argentina,” and the like?

Actually these claims are very true if you were to examine what the bishops actually say on the matter of the liturgy. and so i assume you are telling me that EWTN, an intelligent orthodox monk who has spent much time reading on these matters and meditates daily, and two well known and also orthodox priests (Fr John Hollowell being one of them) whom all happened to have told me this information, are wrong then?

im not even going to argue with you here. i have decided that it is foolish to argue against my own Catholic brother. i dont know why you are hostile towards the Latin Mass, however i will pray for you sir
[/quote]

 

[Filii_Dei]

Actually these claims are very true if you were to examine what the bishops actually say on the matter of the liturgy. and so i assume you are telling me that EWTN, an intelligent orthodox monk who has spent much time reading on these matters and meditates daily, and two well known and also orthodox priests (Fr John Hollowell being one of them) whom all happened to have told me this information, are wrong then?

im not even going to argue with you here. i have decided that it is foolish to argue against my own Catholic brother. i dont know why you are hostile towards the Latin Mass, however i will pray for you sir

I hope you’re not jumping the gun here. MarkThompson was merely casting doubt on the notion that anti-establishment attitudes in America somehow caused the rest of the world to also treat the Mass differently post-1970. Of course there must be a reason why the whole world had a different attitude toward the Mass, and it may not have been entirely positive. However, I agree that American society alone cannot account for this. It takes more than Americans for this to happen. This was a global phenomenon.

He also rebutted your suggestion that Vatican II documents explicitly asserted the continuation of certain traditions. Not being personally well-read in Vatican II documents apart from those that occasionally surface in the course of discussion on CAF, I do not know which is the truer claim, so I am unable to take sides. However, I do not see this as hostility towards the Latin Mass. We know that even if it were true that Vatican II did not specifically order that these traditions be continued, it does not mean that such traditions must be discontinued. In fact, I look forward to the day when we might be able to see the priest celebrate the mass ad orientem, the tabernacle returned to the altar, the altar rail restored, and perhaps greater use of Latin.

Lastly, let’s avoid ending our arguments with fellow Catholics with “I will pray for you”. Evaluated on the merits of it being an action, it is always good to pray for others, but the statement - when delivered in such a context - appears condescending and is unhelpful towards resolving any disagreement.

 

[Martin15]

PadrePio_2012:

I’d be genuinely interested to read any material showing how the American bishops contributed to the reform of the the mass. Do you have any links to things written by the people you mentioned.

All the best

Martin

 

[MarkThompson]

Actually these claims are very true if you were to examine what the bishops actually say on the matter of the liturgy. and so i assume you are telling me that EWTN, an intelligent orthodox monk who has spent much time reading on these matters and meditates daily, and two well known and also orthodox priests (Fr John Hollowell being one of them) whom all happened to have told me this information, are wrong then?

Yes, if that’s what they said, then they’re wrong. The Council said absolutely nothing about altar rails, the direction the priest is to face, etc. I expect, though, that you have merely misheard them.

im not even going to argue with you here. i have decided that it is foolish to argue against my own Catholic brother. i dont know why you are hostile towards the Latin Mass, however i will pray for you sir

Argument, no; discussion, perfectly fine. What is foolish, though, is to try to engage in discussion without having a solid grasp of the subject matter. Almost as bad is to needlessly disparage any sort of disagreement or correction as “argument.” As to your last point, I truly can’t imagine what in this thread could have led you to conclude such a thing about me. (Were I passive-aggressive, I would add something like “I will pray for you to be more charitable in the future, sir. ”)

I hope you’re not jumping the gun here. MarkThompson was merely casting doubt on the notion…
. . .
Lastly, let’s avoid ending our arguments with fellow Catholics with “I will pray for you”…

Thanks; you are entirely right on all counts.

 

[Dirt]

If one studies Sacrosanctum Concilium, then looks at the early Mass revisions(1965, 1967) and compares them to the last revision of the tridentine Mass(1962) the changes are organic and tend to be actual implementation of S.C. Few Prayers were removed, some were shortened and the most Sacred of the Mass Prayers are left intact.
When one takes the current Ordo(1971) and compares it to either the Tridentine 1962 or to the Revisions of 1965,67 there are hardly any points of comparison. One can clearly see major changes in the Mass order that are not organic. It is a compilation of cut and paste ideas that leave much of the Sacredness out of the Mass. Every aspect of the Mass was changed. Period.
I will not argue causation, nor will i argue as to intent. That is a long, winding path full of inuendo and opinion. I merely point out that the entirety of the Mass was changed, without organic development, and much was lost.
I would urge those truly interested to do as i have and find copies of the Missals published by Catholic Book Publishing or other companies as they attempted to keep up with the changes. The Missals tell the tale.
As to the destruction of our Churches, and the position of the Priest, these are well known and much discussed changes that were part of the entire “spirit of V-II” groundswell that we are still dealing with. Much of this was by indult to particular Dioceses and spread like wildfire in the rush towards …something.

One can hope, and Pray that some of what we have lost in our Sacred Liturgy will be returned, along with our identity as Catholics.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

From my reading of the VII documents, what it really seems the council actually called for was essentially a dialogue Mass with a second scripture reading and limited allowance of the vernacular. VII did not call for the all-out abandonment of Latin or chant (in fact, it explicitly stated the exact opposite of that).

And yes, I own and have read the council documents.