Why was The Latin Mass Changed after Vatican II?

[elt1956]

I have never understood the reasoning behind this. I am a Cradle Catholic and although I have attended the Novus Ordo since its inception, I have questions about why it was started in its present form. No arguing please. Peace.

 

[stmaria]

I have never understood the reasoning behind this. I am a Cradle Catholic and although I have attended the Novus Ordo since its inception, I have questions about why it was started in its present form. No arguing please. Peace.

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)

 

[elt1956]

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)

Do you think it was the form of the Mass in Latin that turned Protestants away? I know many Traditionalist Catholics think this change has lead to many errors. ie. a loosening of Doctrine and Dogmas? I think the loosening of much of the Faith of the World whether it be through the Catholic Church or another is endemic of a world situation.

 

[stmaria]

Do you think it was the form of the Mass in Latin that turned Protestants away? I know many Traditionalist Catholics think this change has lead to many errors. ie. a loosening of Doctrine and Dogmas? I think the loosening of much of the Faith of the World whether it be through the Catholic Church or another is endemic of a world situation.

Of course the Latin turned Protestants away. One of the first things that Martin Luther did to his Mass was to abolish Latin.
The New Mass has nothing to do with a loosening of Doctrine or Dogma. That has been done by theologians that teach in seminaries and in Catholic Universities.
Protestants have always wanted to destroy the Latin Mass.
Consider this quote from the year 1840 by Dom Prosper Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France and first abbot of Solesmes,he wrote the following in* Liturgical Institutions*

“ Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit… We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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)

Dear Stmaria,

I want to point out for you and for other readers that you have unintentionally spread slander against Archbishop Bugnini:

Critics falsely attribute to Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the body that Pope Paul VI set up to implement the Second Vatican Council’s decree on the liturgy, the statement: “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”, and claim that this was published on L’Osservatore Romano of 19 March 1965.

The bad-faith attribution to Father Bugnini of these words is evident, when they are compared with what he actually wrote on that issue of L’Osservatore Romano: “Love of souls and the desire to facilitate in every way, by removing anything that could even remotely be an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, the road to union on the part of separated brethren, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices” (page 6, column 4).

The sacrifices that Father Bugnini felt were painful to make concerned some familiar words omitted from one particular prayer in the Good Friday liturgy. This prayer, previously titled “For the unity of the Church”, is now headed “For the unity of Christians” (the Church is always one). Instead of “heretics” and “schismatics”, it now speaks of “all our brethren who believe in Jesus Christ” and asks “that God may gather and keep together in his one Church all those who seek the truth in sincerity.”

 

[elt1956]

Of course the Latin turned Protestants away. One of the first things that Martin Luther did to his Mass was to abolish Latin.
The New Mass has nothing to do with a loosening of Doctrine or Dogma. That has been done by theologians that teach in seminaries and in Catholic Universities.
Protestants have always wanted to destroy the Latin Mass.
Consider this quote from the year 1840 by Dom Prosper Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France and first abbot of Solesmes,he wrote the following in* Liturgical Institutions*

“ Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit… We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace.”

Wow!! That makes sense. Peace.

 

[Genesis315]

The best place to look would be in the official explanation given by the Pope who promugated that missal. It can be read here:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

I think Neil makes a good point too.

 

[stmaria]

Dear Stmaria,

I want to point out for you and for other readers that you have unintentionally spread slander against Archbishop Bugnini:

How so? Your translation is simply different that the one that I have. But let’s take a look at yours.

: “Love of souls and the desire to facilitate in every way, **by removing anything **that could even remotely be an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, the **road to union **on the part of separated brethren, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices”

Now mine"
"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"

The meaning is the same. The Mass was changed for ecumenism. The Latin Mass was an “impediment” it made the Protestants feel “ill at ease”.

Here in his own words is what Bugnini though of the Mass of countless saints and martyrs and over 250 Popes.
“Signs and rites are likely to become incrusted by time, that is, to grow old and outmoded. They may therefore need to be revised and updated, so that the expression of the Church’s worship may reflect the perennial youthfulness of the Church itself…the Liturgy feeds the Church’s life; it must therefore remain dynamic and **not be allowed to stagnate or become petrified **“

 

[Dan-Man916]

Of course the Latin turned Protestants away. One of the first things that Martin Luther did to his Mass was to abolish Latin.
The New Mass has nothing to do with a loosening of Doctrine or Dogma. That has been done by theologians that teach in seminaries and in Catholic Universities.
Protestants have always wanted to destroy the Latin Mass.
Consider this quote from the year 1840 by Dom Prosper Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France and first abbot of Solesmes,he wrote the following in* Liturgical Institutions*

“ Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit… We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace.”

I am simply amazed by this kind of thinking.

One must wonder about all of those Ukrainians who celebrate the divine liturgy in Ukrainian, then.

Catholicism exists outside of Rome, people. Latin is not the universal language of the Church; only western Catholicism.

 

[stmaria]

I am simply amazed by this kind of thinking.

One must wonder about all of those Ukrainians who celebrate the divine liturgy in Ukrainian, then.

Catholicism exists outside of Rome, people. Latin is not the universal language of the Church; only western Catholicism.

Did Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer abolish Latin in their Mass or not?
The quote comes from the year 1840. Dom Prosper Gueranger was not spouting conspiracy theories. He was writing the truth.

 

[Dan-Man916]

it must therefore remain dynamic and **not be allowed to stagnate or become petrified **“

If one finds a problem with this statement, then one must think ill of the Fathers of Trent, who “updated” the liturgy to make it uniform for all of latin rite Catholicism.

There is no pristine liturgy that we can all hearken back to at the beginning of the Church. Liturgy always develops to the needs of the people and the culture.

Reform of the liturgy isn’t code for some conspiracy by modernists to subvert the One True Church. The liturgy has been reformed and has developed over time.
The Tradition of the Church is not stagnant. It is living.

I don’t understand why people take such a simplistic view of the development of liturgy throughout 2000 years by turning it into a boogeyman, by making the tridentine reform tha standard by which to judge that which came both before as well as after.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Did Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer abolish Latin in their Mass or not?
The quote comes from the year 1840. Dom Prosper Gueranger was not spouting conspiracy theories. He was writing the truth.

Who cares what they did.
The point is that one needs to look beyond Rome to see Catholicism as a whole. Look at the Catholic Churches of the Eastern and Oriental Rites. Their liturgies have always been in the native tongue.

There is no magic in Latin. While there certainly may be better translations of the liturgy in latin, the fact that you clamor for Latin only is a preference. Latin never has been the official language of the Church. The Byzantine Rite never had the universality of Greek.

There is nothing inherently heretical about using other languages for the liturgy.

 

[japhy]

I think it’s important to read what Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) mandated, and to note what they did NOT mandate. Many changes were made which were never called for, and some things were taken so far as to appear to be a rupture with the traditional Rite of the Church. Where did the Latin go? Where is the Gregorian Chant? Vatican II reaffirmed these, it did not call for their removal.

Also read this address by Pope Paul VI. In it, he calls the new liturgy of the Mass a “liturgical innovation”, a “many-sided inconvenience”, a “novelty” that is “no small thing”. It’s not an encouraging read, especially when you look back, 40 years later. He mentions the loss of Latin and Gregorian Chant… but, like I said before, Vatican II did not call for their removal or foresee their loss from the liturgical reform!

 

[chrisb]

The best place to look would be in the official explanation given by the Pope who promugated that missal. It can be read here:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

I think Neil makes a good point too.

I honestly don’t see any real ground for criticism…

What has changed since then that causes us to question this? The abuses?

 

[stmaria]

There is no magic in Latin. While there certainly may be better translations of the liturgy in latin, the fact that you clamor for Latin only is a preference. Latin never has been the official language of the Church. The Byzantine Rite never had the universality of Greek.

There is nothing inherently heretical about using other languages for the liturgy.

Latin is a sign of unity. No one has said there is something heretical about using other languages. Traditionalist prefer the Traditional Mass not for just the Latin. Please check out the following which asked that very question. It clearly shows that you have a misconception.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=231079

 

[AJV]

How so? Your translation is simply different that the one that I have. But let’s take a look at yours.

: “Love of souls and the desire to facilitate in every way, **by removing anything **that could even remotely be an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, the **road to union **on the part of separated brethren, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices”

Now mine"
"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"

The meaning is the same. The Mass was changed for ecumenism. The Latin Mass was an “impediment” it made the Protestants feel “ill at ease”.

The original Italian:

Gli studiosi penseranno a mettere in luce le fonti bibliche e liturgiche da cui derivano o alle quali sdi ispirano i nuovi testi, elaborati col cesello dai Gruppi di studio del “Consilium”. E diciamo pure che non di rado il lavoro è proceduto “cum timore et tremore” nel dover sacrificare espressioni e concetti tanto cari, e ormai per la lunga consuetudine familiari. Come non rimpiangere per esempio quel “ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catholicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur” della settima orazione?

E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici

 

[stmaria]

Originally Posted by stmaria
Bugnini stated the liturgy, "must therefore remain dynamic and not be allowed to stagnate or become petrified

=Dan-Man916;3530015]If one finds a problem with this statement, then one must think ill of the Fathers of Trent, who “updated” the liturgy to make it uniform for all of latin rite Catholicism.

Trent did not “update” the Mass. It did make it uniform
.

Reform of the liturgy isn’t code for some conspiracy by modernists to subvert the One True Church. The liturgy has been reformed and has developed over time.

Correct. Over time. Not in a couple of years.

 

[chrisb]

I think it’s important to read what Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) mandated, and to note what they did NOT mandate. Many changes were made which were never called for, and some things were taken so far as to appear to be a rupture with the traditional Rite of the Church. Where did the Latin go? Where is the Gregorian Chant? Vatican II reaffirmed these, it did not call for their removal.

Also read this address by Pope Paul VI. In it, he calls the new liturgy of the Mass a “liturgical innovation”, a “many-sided inconvenience”, a “novelty” that is “no small thing”. It’s not an encouraging read, especially when you look back, 40 years later. He mentions the loss of Latin and Gregorian Chant… but, like I said before, Vatican II did not call for their removal or foresee their loss from the liturgical reform!

Dear Friend,

Pope Paul VI (of blessed memory) never called the Mass a “many-sided inconvenience” nor a “novelty”, etc. He is clearly speaking of the “change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.” He is not speaking of the Mass. Please be more careful in how you use his words out of context. You have done a grave disservice in representing what he has said.

 

[bpbasilphx]

** One of the first things that Martin Luther did to his Mass was to abolish Latin.**

Not so. He personally wanted to keep Latin. It ws only after other locations had begun using the vernacular (mostly German) that he grudginly published his Deustche Messe–and said as much in it.

 

[japhy]

Pope Paul VI (of blessed memory) never called the Mass a “many-sided inconvenience” nor a “novelty”, etc. He is clearly speaking of the “change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.” He is not speaking of the Mass. Please be more careful in how you use his words out of context. You have done a grave disservice in representing what he has said.

I apologize for giving the wrong impression; he was speaking of the changes in the Mass. But that, of necessity, implies the Mass itself. Let’s look again:

1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].
2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.
3. It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.
4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.
5. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. It will not be hard to do so, because of the many fine efforts being made by the Church and by publishers. As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council’s prescription and put them into practice.
   Pope Paul VI didn’t paint a pretty picture, and one wonders if such damage control was necessary following the previous liturgical reforms. Pope Paul VI called the changes in the Mass a “many-sided inconvenience”. I apologize for saying he called the Mass the inconvenience; he was referring to the change in the liturgy. But I stand by my statement that such a remark speaks to the liturgy itself.