Why Novus ordo and not just vernacular

[Grizzly1]

Yet this language “few understood”

At least in large parts of Western and Southern Europe in the several centuries after the fall of the Western Empire I would imagine that a lot of people would have had a basic understanding of Latin even if that wasn’t their native language. The various languages that would have been predominant back then in what is now France, Italy, and the Iberian Peninsula wouldn’t have been that far removed from Church Latin and so its easy to imagine that many people wouldn’t have had much trouble learning enough to get by for religious purposes, and in larger market areas enough to use as a common language to deal with foreigners.

On the other hand, the use of liturgical languages is ancient and definitely predates Christianity so the concept wouldn’t necessarily have been alien to most populations.

On top of that you have to consider that for much of human history most people have been illiterate so it would follow that people would have had a better capacity for memorization out of sheer necessity, and in this respect learning another language would not have been the challenge that it is nowadays for many people.

 

[StudentMI]

I think an eye opening read as far as that goes would be The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story by Roberto de Mattei. It doesn’t strictly apply to the NO but it does touch on that. It certainly shows a go with the flow attitude on the part of many. It was praised by Cardinal Brandmuller.

 

[twf]

Not quite. At my local parish, Sunday Masses are in English, but Father chants much of the Mass (including the Eucharistic prayer) in English plainchant. On major feasts, such as Christmas or Easter, the Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei will be sung by the congregation in Latin. The Saturday morning Mass is always completely sung in Latin (OF).

 

[Trinacria2020]

Actually it’s not new… It’s more a return to the way it was

Extremely debatable (at best). There are absolutely parts which were “new”, such as the “pro multis” turning into “for everyone”, since that wasn’t even scriptural (and thank God at least that little “gem” was corrected in my short lifetime). And there is just as much evidence for Ad Orientem liturgy as against. So, it’s all speculation and opinion. I prefer knowing the liturgy I attend stretches back at least 1000 years as opposed to an innovation formed by consensus.

 

[dochawk]

And mosh pits. Everybody knows this.

I am not used to getting outweirded . . .I better go pour more breakfast cereal and see what I find . . .

:crazy_face:

At least in large parts of Western and Southern Europe in the several centuries after the fall of the Western Empire I would imagine that a lot of people would have had a basic understanding of Latin even if that wasn’t their native language.

I’ve long assumed that, and had always given some credence to the bit in Have Spacesuit, Will Travel some credence: when speaking to someone in Iberia, the kid would repeat himself in both Latin and modern Spanish, and the character from that intermediate period would understand, and he would understand back.

Then I started poking at latin in Duolingo . . . I’m no longer sure that modern Spanish is any closer to Latin than it is to French . . .

Latin “kind of” took in in most of the areas Rome ruled (other than Britain and the Germanies), but what came about were hybrids, not evolutions of Latin.

Yikes.

At my local parish, Sunday Masses are in English, but Father chants much of the Mass (including the Eucharistic prayer) in English plainchant.

My byzantine priest covers many (too many, in fact) RC Masses for the RC diodes, the majority at the shrine at the southern end of the strip for tourists).

On more than one occasion, he’s dropped into slavonic plainchant without realizing it . . . they love it . . .

 

[PeterT]

As Pope Benedict wrote in the Spirit of the Liturgy, what’s more old fashioned? To go back 2000 years or to go back 500? Not sure why the EF is such a controversial topic on these forums nowadays. Didn’t used to be that way.

Huh?

The EF isn’t controversial in this forum at all. I don’t recall seeing anyone on this forum creating threads in recent (or even distant) memory criticizing the EF Mass. None.

What I do see frequently on this forum — on a very regular basis — are users creating threads criticizing the OF Mass, usually referring to it as the “Novus ordo”.

(Pro tip: if the title of the thread contains the term “Novus ordo” it’s with 100% certainty that the author the thread is going to be critical of the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Guaranteed.)

 

[OddBird]

The various languages that would have been predominant back then in what is now France, Italy, and the Iberian Peninsula wouldn’t have been that far removed from Church Latin

Not quite true, unless by “back then” you mean the 10th century at the latest, which is the time when Vulgar Latin ceased to exist as a day-to-day language in Europe. After that, languages had evolved enough and independently enough that reciprocal understanding was getting difficult.

For comparison, I’m French, and I couldn’t understand when my granddad spoke patois occitan (which is a French dialect).

 

[TMC]

Where was it stated in the comment I quoted that the Church is making that statement

It wasn’t, but this it has always been the Church’s explanation, as I’m sure you are aware, and you have called that explanation a lie.

 

[TMC]

That’s not how it worked.

It isn’t? So the thousands of bishops of the world are not implementing the liturgical changes? How are they being done? Are the bishops unaware of what is happening with the liturgy? Maybe someone should tell them.

 

[commenter]

Why do people thing we have a better idea of ancient litergy now (400 years more removed) than they did in the 17th century and before? The TLM for all intents and purposes can be traced back to maybe the 4th century

It is true that modern scholars do have some rediscovered ancient documents. But it’s likely that just as today, ancient documents tend to record the exceptions Rather than the rule. They tend not to record the usual, the taken for granted.

Thus is true not only when they look at ancient liturgy, but when they assess Trent.

 

[TMC]

I was referencing your comment that thousands of bishops voted on the new mass. That isn’t how it worked.

Thousands of bishops voted on Vatican II. The same thousands (and their successors) are implementing the new Mass. I know the bishops did not personally write the new Mass. That was done by a multitude of other professionals, many of whom were also ordained. That is what I meant, and I think it is what I said. Understandable confusion.

My main point is that it is often suggested that the Mass took some unexpected leap that was not intended by the bishops sitting in Vatican II, and even that the process was hijacked so that it was not really under the Church’s control. But that makes no sense. The bishops still run their dioceses. They see what is happening with the Mass - it was not slipped past them. A small vocal minority is unhappy, but the changes to the Mass were not snuck past unsuspecting Church leaders.

 

[vz71]

LOL. I just said I have never heard that as a reason for the reform of the mass. I literally have never heard that as a reason.

This is a common tactic in debate these days. Twist people’e words to attack them instead of actually reading what was said.

Odd that you should make the claim that others are attacking.

If, as you claim, you have never heard of the explanation given, then the proper response would have been “I never heard that before, can you source it?”

Instead, you led in with “that is a lie”

Seems to me that you are doing the attacking… having led with strong language and an accusation.

Perhaps we can step back for a breather and approach the topic again?

 

[OraLabora]

The problem is that many of the liturgical reforms that ultimately took place, weren’t even discussed at the council. Which is why men like Marcel Lefebvre signed those documents. The changes were subsequently implemented in the years after the council closed. The outcry came after the changes were shown to be far more than what was originally thought.

Sorry, but having studied Sacrosanctum Concilium, and having read Abp. Bugnini’s book on the reform of the liturgy (I own a copy), your argument simply doesn’t hold water.

Bishops were consulted all through the reform process; they tested various concepts in their dioceses (as did many religious communities), and they got to vote on many of the changes. The majority clearly were on board with the changes with a few exceptions. That there are exceptions shouldn’t surprise anyone with changes as extensive as these.

However the argument that the bishops were “surprised” by the extent of the changes simply don’t hold up to scrutiny. The reforms were not done in a vacuum. Bishops were consulted and voted on many of the changes, and those changes themselves were the fruits the efforts of many senior clergy in the Church as well as liturgical scholars.

 

[vz71]

What was implemented was not what those at Vatican II envisioned.

Three questions spring to mind immediately.
What exactly do you think was envisioned?
How do you know this with certainty?
What documentation do you have to support this?

 

[C.Ray]

Fancy dress worn by the Priest during the Mass

I don’t think I’ve ever seen as much lace in a Victoria’s Secrets catalogue!!!

I think the poster is referring to funny costumes like a clown outfit. “Fancy dress” is a British term.

 

[CradleRC58]

This may help you understand…

Veterum Sapientia

 

[OraLabora]

What was implemented was not what those at Vatican II envisioned. To say otherwise is just blind loyalty to the new mass.

Baloney. You think the bishops had no idea what the reforms were? I have a lot more respect for the bishops than that.

SC gave general guidelines. The new Roman Missal respected them.

 

[Maximian]

Fancy dress” is a British term.

Oh sorry, I didn’t realise it meant something else in the US.

Yes, I meant priests in Barney outfits, clown outfits, soccer team outfits or anything else uncanonical.

 

[OraLabora]

And most parishes do not follow the rubrics of the new mass

More baloney. I sing in a Gregorian schola. We
Rotate through different parishes in our city every month. Most do follow the rubrics faithfully.

I will agree the implementation has been uneven, but that’s not the fault of the Missal. I know that in the archdiocese I sing in, most of the shenanigans were cracked down on at least two bishops ago.

Maybe it’s different elsewhere. But here in Quebec in my experience egregious disrespect for the rubrics is very rare. The odd mistake or forgetfulness do happen-the average age of our clergy is pushing 70-but wanton disregard is very rare.

 

[PeterT]

Sinner85:

And most parishes do not follow the rubrics of the new mass

More baloney. I sing in a Gregorian schola. We
Rotate through different parishes in our city every month. Most do follow the rubrics faithfully.

I will agree the implementation has been uneven, but that’s not the fault of the Missal. I know that in the archdiocese I sing in, most of the shenanigans were cracked down on at least two bishops ago.

Maybe it’s different elsewhere. But here in Quebec in my experience egregious disrespect for the rubrics is very rare. The odd mistake or forgetfulness do happen-the average age of our clergy is pushing 70-but wanton disregard is very rare.

My experience throughout many parts of California (both Northern & Southern California) is that usually about 95% of the rubrics specified in the GIRM and the instructions from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) are followed. But many Masses that I attend do not followed all the rubrics of the Mass faithfully and it’s not oldest priests that tend to diverge but honestly most who are in their 40s and 50s.

They don’t diverge that much from the official rubrics but many do diverge like stating the names of the deceased in the wrong spot in the Eucharist Prayer, failing to recite the Gloria during weekday Masses that are Feats or Solemnities, failing to recite the Creed during weekday Solemnities. Minor rubrics violations include saying the weekly announcements from the ambo, leaving the sanctuary for the sign of peace. The brief moments of silence as specified by the GIRM are often omitted, leaving very little time for meditation or reflection of what was just heard.

Thankfully most of the egregious violations have been rooted out and no longer occur during the Mass, but most Masses that I’ve attend still have little flaws here and there in regards to faithfully following the rubrics as laid out by the current Roman Missal.