Why Novus ordo and not just vernacular

[ConcernedConvert]

I will look into those. I have watched Bishop Barons video and several other videos he has done. They are very well done! However I don’t necessarily trust him as a singular source. I will look into the other source you mentioned.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Thanks for the info. The TLM has a claim to the original liturgy of the faith as well. The problem with trying to recreate the original by skipping years in between is that no one can be really sure. This is what hangs up many Protestants. They just claim the church got it wrong for 1500 years and utilize a Couple of sources to support their claims.

 

[JerryZ]

Well the Western Rite (Roman Church) had 3 main liturgies, Roman, Ambrosian and Mozarabic, all three were used througout what we would identify geographically as the “Western Roman Empire” although it (the empire) was long gone when these liturgies became the norm. Of course Latin was the language spoken in Rome by the uneducated people.
In Roman times the lingua franca of the known world was Greek, Sort of what is now English for the modern world.
The Eastern/Orthodox rite belong to the “Eastern Roman Empire” whose Capital was Constantinople. The Language of those rites is Greek.
Hope this helps a little.
Peace!

 

[commenter]

Much, much better than scholars did in the sixteenth century, for sure.

It should be pointed out that one of the goals of the Council of Trent was to bring the Liturgy back in line with ancient practice. They had a rather faulty understanding of what ancient practice was, though. A lot of the historical sources that scholars now used were unknown or lost at that time.

I would be cautious about the modern scholars guesses ,
first about what ancient liturgy was, and
second, how much or how little Trent scholars knew about ancient liturgy.
We may have access to some records
Trent lacked. Trent likely had access to records or other kinds of traditions that we lack. And we, now don’t know what important things we don’t have.

Every generation of modern scholars throws out part of the previous generation’s "proven, final "conclusions. Some current conclusions about ancient liturgy and about Trent will get thrown out by 2025.

 

[dochawk]

The TLM has a claim to the original liturgy of the faith as well.

But not when it’s in Latin rather than Greek . . .

 

[C.Ray]

he missal itself codified in 1570 had already acquired over a fourteen hundred years’ innovations from the time of the Apostles

Pruning back the Mass to a “more ancient rite” sounds terrifyingly like what the protestant reformers attempted to do with Christianity… pull back the accretions and innovations from the time of the apostles.

Just sayin’.

 

[ProVobis]

But not when it’s in Latin rather than Greek .

Before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the pagan worship was also in Greek. At least that was the conclusion of archaeologists I read or heard.

 

[steph03]

steph03:

It’s more a return to the way it was

I thought the early Christians celebrated in catacombs, not that it matters, but just sayin.

Only around Rome… Christians were a diversified group depending on the geographical area they were in…

 

[steph03]

} Trent likely had access to records or other kinds of traditions that we lack .

Actually it’s almost established that this was not the case. Plenty of early documents have been uncovered in the last few centuries.

 

[commenter]

} Trent likely had access to records or other kinds of traditions that we lack .

Actually it’s almost established that this was not the case. Plenty of early documents have been uncovered in the last few centuries.

Your second sentence is
true but does not refute the sentence you quoted.

There is still uncertainty or disagreement about what kinds of documents may have influenced scholars at Vatican 1, and even 2. Do you think scholars know where all the Trent scholars had studied, what kinds of traditions were passed on during their formative years. Do you think current scholars have all the documents Trent scholars had read?
Who knows?

The world changed somewhat between Pentecost and Trent. and changed enormously between Trent and today. This is a huge disadvantage for modern scholars. Reading a few extra manuscripts does not catch them up.

 

[CTBcin]

Because it’s a renewal of a more ancient liturgy.

I’m always a little wary of this answer because:

1. How do we know exactly how the ancient liturgies were celebrated? While there’s some great scholarship, our assumptions change as we discover new things.
2. There’s the issue of antiquarianism- the (false) assumption that older automatically means better. (This is often an attitude that I notice in Protestantism.)

However, there was a need for reforms to the liturgy for the reason @OraLabora gives:

Any study of a pre-Conciliar ceremonial will reveal why. The amount of liturgical minutiae that had accreted in the older rite over time is mind boggling. It really was in need of simplification.

The need to simplification was there, but I do think that some of the things taken out when they wrote it is a shame, because there were a lot of beautiful prayers and rituals eliminated.

 

[C.Ray]

I thought the early Christians celebrated in catacombs, not that it matters, but just sayin.

Nope. They worshiped in big concrete churches that looked like Space Mountain. Also, they had pianos, guitars, Marty Haugen, and liturgical dancers in polyester outfits. It’s true, just ask the experts.

 

[CradleRC58]

But some find fault in everything.

That’s funny

Saying that, to end your micro litany of faults of the Gregorian Rite !

Why, I oughta…

 

[Maximian]

Because it’s a renewal of a more ancient liturgy.

It would be more accurate to say that it attempted to revive what was believed (sometimes not accurately) to be some earlier practices which the Church had abandoned many centuries before.

Dom Alcuin Reid’s book The Organic Development of the Liturgy explains very well the distinction between Tradition whose organic growth has a discernible continuity from the beginning (as a tree grows from an acorn) and archeology or”antiquarianism” which involves the inorganic readoption of dead customs.

 

[Maximian]

Any study of a pre-Conciliar ceremonial which accreted over time is mind boggling

The best way to study it is to attend it. The Extraordinary Form is attracting huge numbers of adherents wherever it is being allowed (why should it be so difficult to get permission?) whose minds are not particularly boggled.

 

[IanM]

Even though Latin is the language of the Church (a dead language preserves the living faith), precious few understood it and simply zoned out.

Yet this language “few understood” was taken to the far ends of the earth and millions of souls were saved and many many gave their lives for it. These few who supposedly did not understand it risked life and limb to assist priests who served whilst they awaited inevitable capture and martyrdom. I know at least one person whose antecedents sheltered priests and escorted them around England in Penal times under the guise of being horse dealers, because they knew and loved the faith and what it meant to be denied the Sacraments. They risked death to do this.They did not “zone out” unlike the 70% who now do not believe in the Real Presence.

 

[paperwight]

the 70% who now do not believe in the Real Presence.

Oh, dear, this again.

Please name the survey, and cite how they selected their respondents , and what was the exact question asked.

To put it another way, were those answering self-identifying as Catholics or were they genuine weekly Mass attenders.

And was the question something along the lines of ‘Do you believe Jesus is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament’, to which the informed Catholic answer would be ‘Not physically as usually understood, but really truly and substantially present in a new and unique way’.

 

[po18guy]

Why, I oughta…

Ever hear the bad guy character actor Leo Gordon use that line? That’s what I hear! Unforgettable.

Anyway, Gregorian mass or no, it is not I who is picky! The council did not condemn anything, but updated it so that it was relevant to a new century. I am merely the bullet-riddled messenger.

And besides, are you critiquing the pre-Gregorian masses?

“Why, I oughta…”

 

[OraLabora]

The best way to study it is to attend it. The Extraordinary Form is attracting huge numbers of adherents wherever it is being allowed (why should it be so difficult to get permission?) whose minds are not particularly boggled.

To understand why reforms were necessary, you need to understand the celebrant’s perspective. That’s where a ceremonial can be helpful.

Or talk to an 80 y.o. Benedictine abbot who has celebrated both.

 

[Maximian]

Or talk to an 80 y.o. Benedictine abbot who has celebrated both.

Are you one such?

Oddly enough I did have this opportunity in the late 1970s with Aelred Sillem, Abbot of Quarr Abbey (Isle of Wight). He did everything he could within the bounds of what was then permitted to maintain the traditional liturgy.