My statement said nothing about the different forms of the Mass, so I I do not understand what you are speaking about. I was responding to the claim posted immediately above mine that stated that the Mass does not keep Protestants out of the Church, but doctrinal issues do. I was pointing out that the Mass IS a doctrinal issue.
That’s not the reason for the OF. That might have been one by-product but it certainly was not the reason.
That makes more sense than I’ve heard before - especially since some of the wording in the VII docs can be interpreted to give more license than was seemingly meant.
I’m trying to play devils advocate here by stating excuses I’ve heard. In your opinion is the language the real problem or is it what using Latin implies? Could some of the reasons behind priests saying they don’t like Latin in Mass be due to theological (collegiality vs. papal primacy) reasons with Latin being the “whipping boy”?Well, the immigrants who can’t read English can get Latin/Spanish missals. And there is translator software as well.
As far as the priests learning Latin, they could if they wanted to. I can even read and pronounce 60% or more of the Latin prayers of the Mass with no training at all. And know what I’m saying. And remember, the priests have the missal to read from.
Many Latin words are fairly easy to guess what they mean. For example Virgo translates to Virgin. Spiritu = Spirit. Maria = Mary. in = in
Now, holding a conversation in Latin is tough of course, but learning enough to pray Mass isn’t rocket science.
That is not the only factor, but it certainly is one factor.
I think they are too lazy to learn it, to be blunt.
Altering mass to that it will apeal to people is a completely protestant concept. We conform to God and worship Him on His terms not our own. This is subjectavism and it has no place in the Church. It goes on enough outside of Her.
I agree. Protestants who are looking for something deeper will be drawn to the reverence. That is something that needs to be emphasized in Catholic Churches today. It bothers me when I walk into a parish in the month of May and see people sitting and chatting while the rosary is being said before Mass.
I have to agree, It is true for me. I go into some parishes (most actually) and besides the Eucharistic prayers it seems like I’ve just walked into a protestant parish.
From the reading I’ve done of those who were there, that seems to have been one reason, however not the only reason for the promulgation of the NO.
Well said.
I think that we are having enough fun squabbling over the “Ordinary Form of the Mass.” and the “Extraordinary Form of the Mass” as it is.
Agreed.
It’s been a number of years since I looked into it and I am not able to remember where I read/heard it. It was a combination of reading some books (orthodox) on VII and listening to some of the priests and Bishops who were there (on tapes and on CA Radio). For what it’s worth and from what I remember, it was primarily making the liturgy something that could be followed easily and clearly for the laity (and was part of the liturgical movement that had been building for decades - or more) as the emphasis of the council (at least, as far as some in the hierarchy were concerned) was on the empowerment of the laity. Another thing I noticed, that was not specifically spoken about, that I heard anyway, was making the liturgy one that was not as foreign to the Eastern Catholics (esp. standing as opposed to kneeling was often mentioned), the trouble being, from what I’ve since learned, that there is a big divide between the N.O. and the Divine Liturgy as far as reverence anyway.
One church I attended often for a while had the N.O. in Latin every so often, I loved that, and even preferred it (somewhat) to the EF Low Mass, however, other than that, the EF is more beautiful and awesome, IMHO.Even though I’ve seen the pastor of our parish celebrating Mass in English while facing the altar (with his back toward us-which I like) I still like the Traditional (or EF which it’s being called now) the best.
-sparkie
