Why is change so difficult to swallow?

[lorathon]

When I read the Traditional Catholicism forum I always come away with more questions than answered. The biggest question is the title of this post. I am no Catholic history buff, nor have I even attended a TLM. But I am pretty certain the the TLM is not the same Mass that was said in 100 AD. If a Traditionalist can accept all of the changes up until Vatican II, why can’t the Vatican II changes be accepted? I have read a book on Catholic Church History tilted “Pilgrim Church” I have not researched beyond this book but a lot of what it states happened in the early Church goes along with a lot of the changes from Vatican II.

Example - Latin, Do you believe that the Mass was said in Latin in the very early Church? 45AD - 200AD?

 

[nmoerbeek]

When I read the Traditional Catholicism forum I always come away with more questions than answered. The biggest question is the title of this post. I am no Catholic history buff, nor have I even attended a TLM. But I am pretty certain the the TLM is not the same Mass that was said in 100 AD. If a Traditionalist can accept all of the changes up until Vatican II, why can’t the Vatican II changes be accepted? I have read a book on Catholic Church History tilted “Pilgrim Church” I have not researched beyond this book but a lot of what it states happened in the early Church goes along with a lot of the changes from Vatican II.

Example - Latin, Do you believe that the Mass was said in Latin in the very early Church? 45AD - 200AD?

We do accept the new mass.

However have a preference to the old mass for various reasons.

 

[lorathon]

Maybe I am missing something then. Why all the venom for Vatican II? Not just the Mass. Everything that Vatican II brought about.

Am I mistaken in believing that the majority of Traditional Catholics disagree with the majority of Vatican II?

 

[AlanF]

When I read the Traditional Catholicism forum I always come away with more questions than answered. The biggest question is the title of this post. I am no Catholic history buff, nor have I even attended a TLM. But I am pretty certain the the TLM is not the same Mass that was said in 100 AD. If a Traditionalist can accept all of the changes up until Vatican II, why can’t the Vatican II changes be accepted? I have read a book on Catholic Church History tilted “Pilgrim Church” I have not researched beyond this book but a lot of what it states happened in the early Church goes along with a lot of the changes from Vatican II.

Example - Latin, Do you believe that the Mass was said in Latin in the very early Church? 45AD - 200AD?

The Mass developed organically from Christ till Vatican II. Only minor changes really were made to the form and over 1900 years, with advance in knoweldge of the Mass etc., it developed into what we had in 1962. Then suddenly they put a stop to the traditional liturgy of the Roman Rite and a comittee in the 60s wrote up an entirely new one from scratch, and it shows.

It’s not change that’s difficult to swallow, most of the changes over the 2 millenia were good; it’s hard to swallow when the liturgical heritage of our rite is all but banned and a novel synthetic liturgy - which doesn’t enphasise reverence, devotion, piety and key doctrines like the old one did and which clearly has not had good fruits - invented and forced down everyone’s throats. That’s why it’s hard to swallow.

About latin: no, originally it was in greek in Rome (when everyone spoke latin), for a while Mass was in latin as the vernacular but it was then held as a sacred language when it was no longer spoken normally. But being used in the early Church doesn’t necessarily make it good, knoweldge and good practice developes organically over time, and the Council of Trent and Vatican II declared the Mass should be in latin.

GB,
Alan

PS I hope that didn’t sound too much like a rant, it wasn’t meant to be.

 

[AlanF]

Maybe I am missing something then. Why all the venom for Vatican II? Not just the Mass. Everything that Vatican II brought about.

Am I mistaken in believing that the majority of Traditional Catholics disagree with the majority of Vatican II?

Traditionalist catholics do not often disagree with actual Vatican II, only the reforms, which themselves often disgree with Vatican II.

Addition: I think what you could be missing is that much of the reforms didn’t really actually stem from Vatican II, but what some want everyone else to believe Vatican II said.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Maybe I am missing something then. Why all the venom for Vatican II? Not just the Mass. Everything that Vatican II brought about.

Am I mistaken in believing that the majority of Traditional Catholics disagree with the majority of Vatican II?

Yes, you are mistaken (an understandable mistake, perhaps).

The problem was not really the Council, which was a valid and orthodox Council (had to be), but the way it was intentionally co-opted and corrupted by those who would see their changes imposed on the Church through any means.

Did you know that the Council said absolutely nothing about Mass with the priest putting his back to Christ, or taking Communion in the hand, or abandoning Latin, for starters?

It sure said nothing about ordering beautiful altars and Communion rails to be smashed!

It didn’t tell seminaries to abandon the Catholic faith, teach heresy and promote gay sex but it’s an fact that many did.

See?

 

[DavidPalm]

I don’t know if this will be helpful for you, but I wrote an essay on this very question:

What Is Traditional Catholicism?

Granted that change occurs in the Catholic Church–doctrinal development, liturgical change, etc. But I think what differentiates the “traditionalist” from a certain prevailing mindset in the Church today is that, historically, change has been been viewed with great suspicion. There has never been a “hey, let’s see if this works” kind of attitude, let alone a “change for change’s sake” attitude in the Catholic Church. Rather, there has been an attitude of, “This is good and holy. This is what was passed on to us by our fathers. As we have received it, so to will we will pass it on to our children.”

And so change occurs, yes, but it typically occurs so gradually and, to use the word deployed by our Holy Father “organically”, that it does not cause great upheavals amongst the faithful. The traditionalist argument is that the incessant nature of change, change, change since the Council has itself done damage to the Church’s equilibrium. Here are a few citations that illustrate what I’m talking about:

For nothing so much disturbs the mind, though it be done for some beneficial purpose, as to innovate and introduce strange things, and most of all when this is done in matters relating to divine worship and the glory of God. (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Hom. 7, v.14)

[H]uman law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and very evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says . . . that “in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Ia Iiae q.97 a.2).

t is not the part of prudence to neglect that which antiquity in its long experience has approved and which is also taught by apostolic authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae)

There are other such witnesses in the essay I cited above.

 

[AlanF]

The true friends of the people (Catholics) are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists.

Pope St Pius X: Letter on the Sillon; 25 VIII 1910​

 

[DavidPalm]

Here’s another good one, from the Pope Benedict just before this one:

Those who are infected by that [modernist] spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: “Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down” (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, §25).

 

[AlanF]

The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism in respect of the Sacred Liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with laws and rubrics, deserve reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, (…) that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. They are, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august Eucharistic Sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those finally who delete from the prayer books approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.

Pope Ven. Pius XII: Encyclical Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947​

From Vatican II:

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.

1. 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.

Sacrosanctum Concilium​

 

[iona_scribe]

Maybe I am missing something then. Why all the venom for Vatican II? Not just the Mass. Everything that Vatican II brought about.

Am I mistaken in believing that the majority of Traditional Catholics disagree with the majority of Vatican II?

Well, there’s the actual Vatican II documents, and then there’s all the liberties taken in the “spirit of Vatican II.” Like you, I was trying to figure out what the big deal was, so I decided to sit down and read the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium). I was really shocked at the disparity between what the intentions of the document seemed to be and what I was used to experiencing in the regular OF Mass every Sunday.

That’s probably the biggest example I can think of right now. I don’t currently consider myself a Traditionalist but I really empathize now, and I’m looking forward to a “reform of the reform” by our Pope

 

[muffinmojo]

For me, at least, its not about change, but about the type of change.

Development, such as that which occurred from the very first Mass up to 1962(well, even a little further. I like what I’ve heard of the Masses said around 1965, English/latin hybrids with ad orientem, prayers at the foot of the altar, etc) is good. People think about the point of the Mass, and try to think of new or better ways to emphasize this or reflect this. This is why things kept being added, such as new prayers, vestments, gestures, architectural styles, etc. THe problem with the changes after VII is not that they are different, it’s that they are changes meant to change the meaning of the Mass. Previous innovations, such as kneeling to recieve, receiving on the tongue, etc, enhanced piety and pre-existing beliefs. Modern changes hurt them. The idea that spawned innovation changed with the ‘spirit of Vatican II’(not Vatican II itself), from re-enforcing traditional Catholic beliefs to creating a new theology.

Not all modern changes are bad. For example, I prefer the idea of having the laity sing/say the responses. Some vernacular is good, but not necessary. Some of the practices pre-VII were a little over the top. Some had lost their basis in sound Catholic belief. But overall, pre-Vatican II, the Church was healthier. The Church has been beset by far worse in Her history; at least now we have an amazing Pope. The struggles of the early hundreds AD had the Church with a heretical Pope leading Her astray. 40 years is nothing compared to 2,000. Tradition and the Church will survive.

 

[lorathon]

THe problem with the changes after VII is not that they are different, it’s that they are changes meant to change the meaning of the Mass.

What do you mean here? The meaning of the mass. What meaning has changed?

 

[iona_scribe]

For me, at least, its not about change, but about the type of change.

…People think about the point of the Mass, and try to think of new or better ways to emphasize this or reflect this.

Yes, I agree. The way I read it, the intent of SC was to clarify and emphasize the truths contained in the Mass. What we have now does that in some instances, but some of the changes have served to obscure or alter the meaning, and that’s what I hope B16 will correct

 

[CradleCath]

When I read the Traditional Catholicism forum I always come away with more questions than answered. The biggest question is the title of this post. I am no Catholic history buff, nor have I even attended a TLM. But I am pretty certain the the TLM is not the same Mass that was said in 100 AD.

Change is not always difficult, it can be a positive thing, as long as it’s a change for the better. Perhaps I can paint you a word picture re the change you’re speaking of. . I was about 25 yrs. old when the Novus Ordo Mass made it’s debut. I was all set to love it. The Liturgy of the Catholic Church had never failed me, so I had no worries about this “New Mass”. In fact I was excited.
It seemed a bit dull & flat in the very beginning, but It was new & I just figured that they had to iron out some wrinkles. Then they started tearing out the interior of the Cathedral parish that I had attended for those 25 yrs…the Communion Rail first, then the Statues, the . confessionals next. Within a two year span, it was gutted. The Pipe organ gone…to make room for the guitars & drums & liturgical dancers.
The grand old Cathedral looked barren & sterile. Still…I told myself that it was just a building.

I fear that you are equating Traditional to old. This is not about “old”. I, for one, have no desire to go back to a Mass that the Apostles prayed. The changes during the time period prior to Vatican II were well thought out & they were allowed to happen on their own. The Mass grew organically. The councils had specific purposes & helped the Church to progress, while remaining true to the faith of the Apostles. For instance, the third council of Ephesus led by Saint Cyril of Alexandria, defined that Christ has two natures - Divine and human, but only one Person which is Divine. This affirmation condemned Nestorianism and deposed Nestorius.

Example - Latin, Do you believe that the Mass was said in Latin in the very early Church? 45AD - 200AD?

While I hold the Latin language in high esteem, once again this isn’t about Latin. It’s about the Tridentine Mass &, it wouldn’t make a great deal of difference to me if it were said in English. It’s the content that I care about. It’s the prayers, the penitent feel to this Mass. The attention that’s given to Christ’s suffering & death. The reverence showed for the “Communion of Saints”.The Mass is not a “communal meal”, it’s a Sacrifice.

As Pope Benedict said when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger

“in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

I held on for all of these years, praying that I could find peace with this Novus Ordo Mass, the clown Masses, the Halloween Masses & the Masses where 50 yr. old women paraded around the sanctuary doing the “Dance of the Great Flood”. (I won’t even go into that, it was very embarrassing to even watch it.)
And my prayers have been answered. However, I do believe that those of us who kept attending Mass, throughout the whole of this desecration…deserve the respect of other Catholics.

[/QUOTE]

 

[DavidPalm]

What do you mean here? The meaning of the mass. What meaning has changed?

Personally I would cast it in terms of emphasis. Here are a couple of interesting quotes. This first is from Msgr. Klaus Gamber, a liturgical scholar whose work has been highly praised by the Holy Father, from his must-read book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of peity. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology—for example, references to a God who judges and punishes. (Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 100)

Now here’s an opinion that’s a bit more radical even, but published in an article in Homiletic and Pastoral Review published by Ignatius Press, which is not a “traditionalist rag” by any means:

The question here is: Is the text of the new Mass now so ecumenical that it sometimes no longer expresses our traditional Catholic faith? When I suggest that this is so, people rally to its defense. “But that’s just the ICEL translation. The Mass itself is still completely Catholic. It’s just the way they’ve translated it.” However, a closer look shows that the compilers of the new missal left nothing to chance. They gave a decidedly Protestant slant to the original texts.(Fr. Hughe Thwaites, S.J. “Was Dom Gueranger right after all?”; unavoce.org/wasdomgueranger.htm)

This is not to say that the NOM text contains theological errors. It does not, at least in its official Latin edition. Even the staunch traditionalist Michael Davies issued the challenge to the sedevacantists to demonstrate even one theological error in the Latin typical edition of the New Mass and so far nobody has been able to do so. But there has been a marked shift in theological emphasis between the TLM and the NOM.

 

[lorathon]

So…when you speak of change within the Church you might want to talk to someone who actually lived it, or perhaps study those times…

This is why I asked the question here. I did not live through the changes and as I had previously mentioned I have not attended a TLM.

The Mass is not a “communal meal”, it’s a Sacrifice.

I have never heard the NO Mass being called a “communal meal”.

I held on for all of these years, praying that I could find peace with this Novus Ordo Mass, the clown Masses, the Halloween Masses & the Masses where 50 yr. old women paraded around the sanctuary doing the “Dance of the Great Flood”. (I won’t even go into that, it was very embarrassing to even watch it.)

I personally have never seen the likes of what you are describing.

However, I do believe that those of us who kept attending Mass, throughout the whole of this desecration…deserve the respect of other Catholics.

My goal was not to disrespect anyone. I have not tried to offend anyone. I asked a question for a true answer. Since I did NOT live through the changes and since I have no clue what the Pre VII Church was like, I wanted to know why the changes could not be accepted. No offense was intended and I wish to appologize if anyone has taken offense to my question.

 

[lorathon]

But there has been a marked shift in theological emphasis between the TLM and the NOM.

Then what theological emphasis has changed? Keep in mind that as I have said I have never been to a TLM. And are there theological errors in the english translation of the NOM?

 

[PJM]

When I read the Traditional Catholicism forum I always come away with more questions than answered. The biggest question is the title of this post. I am no Catholic history buff, nor have I even attended a TLM. But I am pretty certain the the TLM is not the same Mass that was said in 100 AD. ** If a Traditionalist can accept all of the changes up until Vatican II, why can’t the Vatican II changes be accepted?** I have read a book on Catholic Church History tilted “Pilgrim Church” I have not researched beyond this book but a lot of what it states happened in the early Church goes along with a lot of the changes from Vatican II.

Example - Latin, Do you believe that the Mass was said in Latin in the very early Church? 45AD - 200AD?

Reply:

Outstanding post:thumbsup: Thanks.

Saint Jerome transscribed the Greek and Ameriac books of the bible into Latin in about 350 AD.By that time it had become the “common lauguage of the Church.” The Sacred Liturgy of the “Early Church” was said in the various “Mother Tongues” much as Vatican II has permitted us to do today.

That is one of the true Fruits of Vatican II.

Keep in mind that we are speaking of “church practices” which can, do and are from time to time changed. These are not issues of unchangeable doctrine and dogma’s.

As to your question about why (we traditionalist) can’t ( read as are extremely reluctant too) accept “Vatican II changes?”

The answer is quite simply because MOST of the changes in the American catholic Church, are NOT, Vatican II changes.

The following is a list that “we were told were vatican II mandates”, but are really only what a great many American bishops, priest, religious and laity WANTED Vatican II to change.** Not one**, not one of the following items were suggested, required, or for that matter, permitted, until after they had already been forced into “common practice” in the American catholic Church.

Removal of Communion rails

Removal of the Reservation tabernacle outside of the Sacutary, nolobger visible to all and availble to all, all of the time.

Holy Communion under both species

Communion in the hand.

Altar girls

Lay lectors

Ordinary ministers of Holy Communion…

Thus we have seen Rome, JP II and Pope Benedict XVI try to return the “piety-genie” back into the RCC (once Sacred) Liturgy.

I do NOT mean to say that today’s Liturgy is not Sacred. God is made present, so of course it is! But is it God Centered Worship, or “we are the church centered worship?” Vertical or horizonal worship?

The most recent sign of this continued American Prelate REVOLT with Rome, is the GREAT difficulty Rome is having, getting the American Bishops to accept Official Catholic Church Teaching on free use of the Latin Mass.

Dear God help us!

Hope that this clarifies your question. We “Traditionlist” are trying to be Roman Catholics, not just catholics in America.

God bless you,

PJM m.c.

BVM please lead ALL of us to your Son!

 

[DavidPalm]

Then what theological emphasis has changed? Keep in mind that as I have said I have never been to a TLM. And are there theological errors in the english translation of the NOM?

Well, fairly consistently missing from the new prayers is mention of the merits of the saints, miracles wrought by the saints, military language, the pernicious nature of error and heresy, our need to renounce the things of this word in preference for those of heaven, the judgment of God, the nature of the Mass as a sacrifice (with more of an emphasis on its being a meal), eternal damnation, etc. A very striking example is the elimination of the word anima (English: “soul”) from the NOM Mass text for All Souls’ Day; more than one traditionalist wag has dubbed this new liturgical celebration No Souls’ Day.

As for errors in English, many traditionalists have been critical of the English translation of the consecration of the Precious Blood in which pro multis is translated as “for all” (perhaps implying that all are saved, which is an error) rather than the liguistically and theologically correct “for many”. There have been many debates over this, but in the end the Vatican has ruled that the “for all” translation is incorrect and the present liturgical texts need to be updated.

Please, please, please, do not let any of this disturb your peace or shake your faith in our Lord Jesus and His Church. It has been a tumultuous forty years and there is a lot of sorting out left to do. The Catholic Church has the promises of our Lord to protect her, never to leave her or forsake her. And indeed, the counter-revolution is in full swing under our Holy Father Benedict. I would rather cut off my fingers than lead someone to doubt and despair. If we can discuss it peaceably then good, but if anyone deems this to be over the top then I’ll shut up.