Why was The Latin Mass Changed after Vatican II?

[japhy]

So all the changes after Vatican II were just a big conspiracy by the Bishops and Priests to ignore Rome, and do as they please? And, after 40 years, Rome has done nothing about it?

Just look at how Pope Paul VI handled the “communion in the hand” problem (Memoriale Domini). Bishops did ignore and disobey Rome. It now seems that Rome is doing something about it, slow as it may be.

 

[elt1956]

It’s really too bad that many Catholics put the opinion of the Popes (and *only *recent popes) above Catholic teaching. It’s like every Pope before John XXIII knew nothing and the Church has only recently come to see the “truth of the Gospel.” So sad.

My God, spare Your people.
Holy Mother, pray for us.

It is very confusing for those of us, especially yours truly, who haven’t. until now, delved into the whys and wherefores of topics like this to understand the difference among the teachings of the Popes pre Vatican II and Post Vatican II. I hope you understand, that some of us, are still learning. And until we learn the difference for ourselves we prefer to remain with what we know, in this instance the pronouncements of the Popes after Vatican II. I was always taught the Pope receives his spiritual power directly from St. Peter. If we do not adhere to what all Popes say, as best we can, are we not trying to break the chain from St. Peter to now? Peace

 

[ProVobis]

If that were the case, then we would expect to see pro vobis in the latin version of the Novus Ordo, yet it isn’t.

I think you mean “pro multis” (for many), don’t you?

“Pro vobis” (for you, plural)

“Pro vobis et pro multis” according to the gospels and in both Latin NO and TLM and in a few vernaculars. Nice thing about Latin, it distinguishes between a singular you (tu) and a plural you (vos).

 

[elt1956]

Just look at how Pope Paul VI handled the “communion in the hand” problem (Memoriale Domini). Bishops did ignore and disobey Rome. It now seems that Rome is doing something about it, slow as it may be.

Hello Japhy. Would you mind clarifying how Pope Paul VI handled the “communion in the hand” problem and some instance the Bishops disobeyed Rome??? This is asked in the spirit of curiosity and knowledge only. Thanks. Peace

 

[japhy]

Hello Japhy. Would you mind clarifying how Pope Paul VI handled the “communion in the hand” problem and some instance the Bishops disobeyed Rome??? This is asked in the spirit of curiosity and knowledge only. Thanks. Peace

Simply put:

So the Pope did not wish to change the universal practice (which is still in force today: you cannot be denied Communion on the tongue!), and urged bishops to “obey carefully the law”. Then he went ahead and let the places where the “contrary usage” had (illegally) been practiced figure out for themselves if they wished to continue (so long as they could get a majority vote in their conference and approval from Rome).

So in order to have Communion in the hand, it seems your diocese had to be illegally practicing it in the first place, after which you needed to get approval. Stellar.

See the following posts of mine:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2873702#post2873702
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3286380#post3286380
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3286724#post3286724
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3290739#post3290739
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3291082#post3291082
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3308745#post3308745

You can also read Memoriale Domini for yourself. And no, Communion in the Hand was NEVER suggested by the Second Vatican Council.

 

[stmaria]

---

=Joe17;3535948]**As to Mysterium Fidei, it refers to the precious blood on the altar. **How could it be if Christ died on the Cross ? We believe because Christ has said it. It still has the appearance of wine, but we know by our Catholic faith that it is no longer after consecration. It is by the gift of faith that we believe it, and if I apostasized tomorrow(Lord forbid), it would still be our Lord’s blood even though I did not believe it anymore.

*Mysterium Fidei *refers to transubstantiation. Pope Paul wrote an encyclical called *Mysterium Fidei *because of all the criticism of the New Mass and some were questioning its validity.
Pope Innoncent said the the words Mystery of Faith were given to the apostles by Christ.

Catechism of Trent
“Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.”

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma5.php

Pope INNOCENT III 1198-1216

The Form of the Eucharistic Sacrament and its Elements *

[From the letter “Cum Marthae circa” to a certain

John, Archbishop of Lyons, Nov. 29, 1202]

414 You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of the words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the body and blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed. . . . In the Canon of the Mass that expression, "mysterium fidei,"is found interposed among His words. . . . Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed. . .
415 ….Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as is found in, the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them. .

Father Bugnini, who helped write the New Mass wanted “Mystery of Faith” removed completely from the Mass. Pope Paul insisted that it be retained and he decided that it would be placed after the consecration, which is where it is in the Novus Ordo.

Mysterium Fidei
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6myster.htm

“…. venerable brothers, in this very matter which we are discussing, there are not lacking reasons for serious pastoral concern and anxiety. The awareness of our apostolic duty does not allow us to be silent in the face of these problems. Indeed, we are aware of the fact that, among those who deal with this Most Holy Mystery in written or spoken word, there are some who with reference either to Masses which are celebrated in private, or to the dogma of transubstantiation, or to devotion to the Eucharist, spread abroad opinions which disturb the faithful and fill their minds with no little confusion about matters of faith.”
To confirm what we have said by examples, it is not allowable to emphasize what is called the “communal” Mass to the disparagement of Masses celebrated in private, or to exaggerate the element of sacramental sign as if the symbolism, which all certainly admit in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhausts completely the mode of Christ’s presence in this sacrament. Nor is it allowable to discuss the **mystery of transubstantiation **without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called “transignification” and “transfiguration,” or finally to propose and act upon the opinion according to which, in the Consecrated Hosts which remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ Our Lord is no longer present.
Everyone can see that the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to the faith and devotion to the Divine Eucharist."

 

[AJV]

---

*Mysterium Fidei *refers to transubstantiation. Pope Paul wrote an encyclical called *Mysterium Fidei *because of all the criticism of the New Mass and some were questioning its validity.
Pope Innoncent said the the words Mystery of Faith were given to the apostles by Christ.

Paul VI wrote the encyclical before the majority of the drafts of the NO were even written. In fact, the first schema of the so-called “Missa normativa” was 19 September. The encyclical was dated September 3

There are other ways of interpreting Mysterium Fidei- see for example the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas.

Pope Innocent believed it so. It was common at that age to regard a lot of things as being apostolic. That’s why some of the early scholastics even taught that Christ had specified the form of all sacraments* in specie*. You’ll notice that the Catechism of Trent refrained from commenting on WHO instituted “mysterium fidei”. It contented itself with merely saying that it was passed down by holy tradition.

 

[AJV]

---

*Mysterium Fidei *refers to transubstantiation. Pope Paul wrote an encyclical called *Mysterium Fidei *because of all the criticism of the New Mass and some were questioning its validity.
Pope Innoncent said the the words Mystery of Faith were given to the apostles by Christ.

Paul VI wrote the encyclical before the majority of the drafts of the NO were even written. In fact, the first schema of the so-called “Missa normativa” was 19 September. The encyclical was dated September 3. Only the specimen provisorium of 1964 existed at that date and knowlege of its contents was not public.

There are other ways of interpreting Mysterium Fidei- see for example the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas.

Pope Innocent believed it so. It was common at that age to regard a lot of things as being apostolic. That’s why some of the early scholastics even taught that Christ had specified the form of all sacraments* in specie*. You’ll notice that the Catechism of Trent refrained from commenting on WHO instituted “mysterium fidei”. It contented itself with merely saying that it was passed down by holy tradition.

 

[latinmasslover]

It is very confusing for those of us, especially yours truly, who haven’t. until now, delved into the whys and wherefores of topics like this to understand the difference among the teachings of the Popes pre Vatican II and Post Vatican II. I hope you understand, that some of us, are still learning.

I totally understand, when I first came back into the Church I was the same way. We have to be faithful to what we know as we learn it. I’m ashamed to say that due to vanity there are some things that I have not yet changed, though I know I should.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the post V-II popes are evil or wretched sinners, but some things that were said or done were not quite right (this goes for all popes throughout history). Many have the mentality that “the Pope said/did it therefore it’s approved by God.” This is not the teaching of the Church, otherwise it would be okay for us to dig up the bodies of others to desecrate, there would be nothing wrong with fornication, and many other sins.

And until we learn the difference for ourselves we prefer to remain with what we know, in this instance the pronouncements of the Popes after Vatican II.

All I would ask anyone is to continue to pray and study.

I was always taught the Pope receives his spiritual power directly from St. Peter. If we do not adhere to what all Popes say, as best we can, are we not trying to break the chain from St. Peter to now? Peace

The Pope receives special graces from the Holy Ghost, and he is protected from teaching (infallibly) error. Everything else he says should be heeded and obeyed *unless *it is sinful and against Catholic teaching.

 

[Claudius]

The answer is simple. Ecumenism.
In the words of Annibale Bugnini the chief architect of the New Mass.
"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow **of a stumbling block **for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.”
(Archbishop Bugnini before the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, quoted in “Osservatore Romano”, March 19, 1965)

I suppose that you could call my life before Catholicism as one of a Protestant though I was not baptized until I became a Catholic. My personal opinion is that very few protestants qualify for the word Christian, chief among them those that do not practice baptism. I went to just one Catholic Mass, Novus Ordo when I was 13 and I have been Catholic ever since even though that meant my family turning their backs on me.

Yet, even though the Novus Ordo got me into the Church and has been the normal Mass that I have attended since, one of the first things that it inspired me to do was learn Latin and I have been a Latin speaker now for over ten years. Knowing Latin lead me to learn about the Extra Ordinary Form of the Mass and I can, though most can’t, see the great beauty in it. However, I can not say that if I had seen an Extra Ordinary Mass if I would have become a Catholic beyond all objection. I just don’t know because that is not what happened. The Novus Ordo convinced me of the absolute truth of the Catholic Church with just one Mass. I am indebted to it for that at least.

We need protestants to convert to Catholicism for the good of their souls. I wouldn’t care if they became Latin Catholics or Maronite Catholics or Ukrainian Catholics, as long as they become Catholic and abandon protestantism. If the Novus Ordo helps to do that, then it is a good thing.

Personally, I think the real reasons for many of the changes was to allow the Mass to be translated more accurately into the vernacular. The Extra Ordinary Form is in very idiomatic Latin that is hard to translate directly. The Ordinary Form is is in very simple Latin that can be translated directly for most languages.

As for me, I now attend Mass in Japanese but I am looking forward to the day when Latin will be avaliable because I sure would go.