Why the New Mass? Why not Tridentine Mass in vernacular?

[PopePiusXIISupp]

This used to be a thing before the 1969/1970 missal. In 1965, there was the 1965 rubrics which allowed a good chunk of the TLM to be said in the vernacular, but any thing said by the priest was still in Latin. In 1967, more rubrics came which allowed the entirety of the TLM to be said in the vernacular and the priest had the option to say the canon in the loud voice (not like loud, but so everyone can hear). In 1968, the 4 Eucharistic Prayers (EPs) came out which were allowed to replace the Roman Canon though I would say EP II is the new Roman Canon based on how often it is used, but that is a different story. All of the rubrics I mentioned were transitional to make way for the Mass of Bl. Paul VI. Could they come back? Yes. If I were pope, I would bring the 1967 rubrics back to replace the Mass of Bl. Paul VI. Once more, that is a different topic, but I hoped this helped you.

 

[Samuel_Mary]

It’s normalised tradition to the young, too. For ten years now they’ve grown up with the TLM normalised and mainstreamed to a far greater extent than it was during the twenty years prior. Even if they don’t directly experience it, awareness of it in this age of the internet that this has coincided with, has meant such greater awareness. This is why you get progressive Catholic commentators like Massimo Faggioli lamenting the fact that Summorum Pontificum has been ‘divisive’ and exposed young people to all the ‘lavish’ vestments and ceremony of the traditional ordinations, and so forth. They know that this has an effect. It colours young people’s expectations. It moves their goalposts, shifts their liturgical ‘Overton Window’. It’s by no means the case that the only youth who’ve been affected by Summorum Pontificum are those who are actually found a Latin Mass and started being devoted to it.

 

[ProVobis]

I believe the Anglican Use has been abrogated. It is now the Anglican Ordinariate.

 

[ProVobis]

The communion formula was changed in 1964 for the recipients. The Missal of 1965 (which was not the typical edition, btw) removed the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel and allowed to be said in vernacular using the St. Joseph Missal translations. The Missal of 1967 removed most of the signs of cross, genuflections, bowing, etc. The 1970 Missal removed all the silent prayers and added three Eucharistic Prayers, two readings, etc and introduced a whole new calendar. Among other things.

In 1984 Pope John Paul restored the 1962 typical edition and made the stipulation that it be said in Latin only as it was before the council. But the bishops had to approve its use. The rest is history.

 

[Saxum]

In 1984 Pope John Paul restored the 1962 typical edition and made the stipulation that it be said in Latin only as it was before the council. But the bishops had to approve its use. The rest is history

True. But Benedict XVI admitted it had never been abrogated and hence it’s no longer accurate to say it was restored. That’s very important to me because it supports the traditional view that Quo Primum grants permission to use the Missal of Pius V to all priests in perpetuity.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t know if one can call the Missal of 1965 or 1967 which some were still using after 1970 the same Missal of Pius V, which is why JPII had to specify the Missal of 1962 AND in Latin was to be used going forward. I don’t disagree with BXVI though. The Missal of 1962 was never abrogated though not used perhaps outside of the SSPX. I don’t know if Padre Pio or the Agatha Christie Indult, for example, used the Missal of 1962.

 

[OldCAFMember]

Yes, the Agatha Christie indult was for the previous typical edition of the Roman Missal, that of 1962. There were no actual missals or typical editions in 1965, 1967, or 1968; it was only the Order of Mass itself that was revised at each of these junctures, and no other parts of the missal. In fact, this is the period where the term that some love and others hate, Novus Ordo, originates. The Church referred to these various changes as the Novus Ordo Missae in its various documents and promulgations, the new Order of the Mass, precisely because there was as yet no new typical edition of the Roman Missal.

 

[DignumEtJustum]

I think “Anglican Ordinariate” refers to the group of Catholics that worship in the “Anglican Use” Liturgy. I recently used the latter term while speaking to a priest who offers that Liturgy and was not corrected.

 

[Vico]

Yes, the Agatha Christie indult was for the previous typical edition of the Roman Missal, that of 1962. There were no actual missals or typical editions in 1965, 1967, or 1968; it was only the Order of Mass itself that was revised at each of these junctures, and no other parts of the missal. In fact, this is the period where the term that some love and others hate, Novus Ordo, originates. The Church referred to these various changes as the Novus Ordo Missae in its various documents and promulgations, the new Order of the Mass, precisely because there was as yet no new typical edition of the Roman Missal.

The Latin language Missale Romanum editio typica, since the Council of Trent:

1570 Pope Pius V
1604 Pope Clement VII
1634 Pope Urban VII
1884 Pope Leo XIII
1920 Pope Benedict XV
1962 Pope John XXIII
Missale Romanum, Ordinary Form, Latin language:
1969 Pope Paul VI (typical edition)
1975 Pope Paul VI (second typical edition)
2002 Pope John Paul II (third typical edition)
2008 Pope Benedict XVI (third typical edition emended)

 

[Duesenberg]

Why was the OF Mass created in the 1960s after Vatican II? Why was not the EF Mass simply translated into English, French, Spanish etc and all of the ceremonies kept the same? Why was a completely new Order of Mass drawn up by the Consilium?

I suspect it had a lot to do with how the EF Mass had long been abused and they wanted to do something to change that. The EF Mass had long been burned-through as quickly as possible. 15 minute (or less) low Masses on Sundays were the most popular because people cherished being “in-and-out” as quickly as possible. Many older folks still cherish short Masses and that has rubbed off on younger generations as well.

In an attempt to help people re-engage with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (and stop for example, praying the Rosary during Mass) the Church not only reverted to the Mass in the vernacular, but changed its order in the hopes of helping people to fully reengage, thus the OF Mass.

 

[Saxum]

I suspect it had a lot to do with how the EF Mass had long been abused and they wanted to do something to change that.

You should read what Bugnini said. The stated objective was to remove ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that represented a stumbling block to protestants. If your opinion is correct, then I’d expect the Vatican to change the OF Mass now since it has been more abused in its short history than the EF Mass since the beginning.

 

[Duesenberg]

You should read what Bugnini said. The stated objective was to remove ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that represented a stumbling block to protestants. If your opinion is correct, then I’d expect the Vatican to change the OF Mass now since it has been more abused in its short history than the EF Mass since the beginning.

I’m not interested in Bugnini hyperbole. I’m also not interested in those who try to sell the notion that everything was peaches-n-cream when today’s EF Mass was indeed the OF Mass. It wasn’t, not by a long shot. Most importantly I’m not interested in those who suggest that a typical EF Mass celebration today (by a tiny number of the Catholic faithful, most who are obsessive about the rubrics of the Mass) is representative of the typical celebration of the EF Mass in years past. It’s not.

If I put on my hat of arrogance and grade the Church on the OF Mass, I would probably give it a C on its formulation. More importantly I would give it an F for implementation. It completely failed in this context and it cause a great deal of harm.

 

[otjm]

Vico pointed out part of the reason that the bishops of the world wanted the Mass revised. The second part of the reason was that over the history of the Mass, there were numerous additions and repetitions added, and the bishops wanted the Mass simplified.
+

 

[Saxum]

Vico pointed out part of the reason that the bishops of the world wanted the Mass revised. The second part of the reason was that over the history of the Mass, there were numerous additions and repetitions added, and the bishops wanted the Mass simplified.

In my opinion the simplification went too far. We lost beautiful prayers rich with Catholic doctrine; for example, compare the offertory prayers of the EF with those of the OF. Also, the multiple signs of the cross and the genuflections were deep with symbolism. All of this was needlessly eliminated. This is not to say that the liturgy wasn’t in need of reform because it was. In my honest opinion, the Ordinariate Liturgy more closely represents what Vatican II called for. I only wish I could attend an Ordinariate Liturgy regularly.

 

[otjm]

When the bishops of the world voted for the final draft of the Constitution on the Liturgy, the vote was 2,147 for, and 4 against. And part of that was a clear vote in favor of simplifying the liturgy.

I understand your feelings. I am not trying to minimize them in any way; and you are not the first person to say this; however, there was a clear emphasis of direction. Ever since the OF was released, there have been criticisms against it, criticisms which at their base say "The bishops of the world (and the Curia, and the Popes since then) are all wrong.

And in the scheme of reality, 48 years out of a totality of nearly 2,000 years would leave one to understand that the future may see further revisions to the OF. Some day some of those prayers which have been eliminated or revised may be revisited. Or not, but likely not in my lifetime.

 

[irishcolleen45]

When I was in the Holy Land last November, I had the opportunity to sit on the altar behind the priest. It was on Mount Tabor where the Transfiguration took place. I was just blown away at the Consecration when the priest held up the Host. Thought I had a glimpse of heaven.

 

[R_H_Benson]

When the bishops of the world voted for the final draft of the Constitution on the Liturgy, the vote was 2,147 for, and 4 against. And part of that was a clear vote in favor of simplifying the liturgy.

Of course, after Sacrosanctum Concilium was ratified by the Council Fathers, Bugnini’s Consilium was given full authority over the construction of the New Order of Mass. I wonder, would the 2,147 bishops who voted for Sacrosanctum Concilium still have given their consent if they understood the manner in which the document would be interpreted and implemented?

 

[otjm]

Given that part of Vatican 2 had to do with confirming that bishops were not mid-level managers, but were following the Apostles and acting in conjunction with the Pope, I strongly suspect that if a majority of them (or even a significant minority) were dissatisfied with the OF, they would have resoundingly spoken out.

We in america have a tendency, at times, to think that what goes on here is indicative of the entire world. Not ony was the OF easily adopted in Poland without the attendant abuses, but the whole of Vatican 2 documents were adopted without the chaos that we have seen here. and if you want a reference to that, read George Weigel’s biography of JP 2.

Were the OF to have gone through a complete filtering of the world’s bishops, there may have been some changes, but I seriously doubt there would have been major changes; it is now 48 years later and we still see no evidence of a large or even significant minority of the bishops of the world protesting it. And in 48 years, if the bishops were upset about it, you can bet your last dollar they would have been heard.

I will repeat: 2,147 to 4 is about as close to unanimous as any group that large, and encompassing significant numbers of both liberal and conservative are ever going to get. All of the Vatican 2 popes have had battles with the Curia, starting with John 23 and including Francis. That is not to besmirch the Curia; but to indicate that there has, in the past, been a concentration of decision making and that has changed, starting with the Council.

The bishops are not ignoramuses, nor are they mere managers. And the bishops, I am sure, are as aware as anyone that the exposure of the EF is limited in significant part by the pure number as well as the percentage of Catholics who avail it. Where it is available, the response of people in the pews is not overwhelming; it meets the needs and desires of a small minority and is benefit to them. Again, there simply is no significant minority of bishops agitating against the OF in part or in total in the last 48 years; so your question is answered by history.

And it might be noted that the Constitution was not sloely about the Mass; it also covered the other liturgy of the Church, the LOTH. again, no significant backlash.

 

[Duesenberg]

Of course, after Sacrosanctum Concilium was ratified by the Council Fathers, Bugnini’s Consilium was given full authority over the construction of the New Order of Mass. I wonder, would the 2,147 bishops who voted for Sacrosanctum Concilium still have given their consent if they understood the manner in which the document would be interpreted and implemented?

I’m sure they would have. I also expect that given their pretend supernatural powers they would also have taken great pains to change how the OF Mass was implemented. When the rubrics of the Mass were updated a few years ago, my parish took great pains to ensure everyone knew what was going on. Had that happened decades before with the implementation of the OF Mass, I know that things would have went far better than they did.

 

[Saxum]

I know that things would have went far better than they did.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The liturgical changes were far too sudden and pained many Catholics who were unprepared. I agree that the liturgy was in need of slight reform but I believe Ordinary Form went too far too fast. One gets the impression that the consilium on the liturgy embraced novelty for novelty’s sake. Their changes represented a rupture in the organic development of the Roman Rite; and now we have many parishes with impoverished celebrations and terrible music and little reverence for Our Lord in his most vulnerable state - the Eucharist.