Why was The Latin Mass Changed after Vatican II?

[latinmasslover]

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.

Too many fumes inhaled over time.

 

[agr4028]

Too many fumes inhaled over time.

Another comment sure to draw others to the TLM

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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

It is not just a different translation. It was modified for polemical purposes. The word “protestant” appears nowhere in the Italian, for example. Also the phrase “strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy” was wrongly added. It is a lie.

You must see that to distort a statement of anyone, especially a bishop, no matter what your reason, is a sin. Not only is it false witness, but you are causing scandal by attributing these things to Archbishop Bugnini. You are leading people to doubt the Church hierarchy.

 

[Genesis315]

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

But it did state the authority of the Church to change how the sacraments are dispensed to fit the needs of time, place and circumstance (which is what an update is).(Session 21, Ch. II).

There have been plenty of innovations throughout history that would have seemed radical–even scandalous–when they were introduced, but are now seen as venerable traditions today–for example, private confession and mild penances of prayers rather than more corporal satisfactions, the different modes of Baptizing, or the application of indulgences primarily to satisfaction in the after life, rather than the lessening of prescribed satisfaction to be done in this life.

The previous practices made a great many Saints, and yet they were changed–and according to the traditional doctrine of the Church, there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[latinmasslover]

Another comment sure to draw others to the TLM

You have a problem with what I said?

 

[agr4028]

You have a problem with what I said?

just responding in a like manner

 

[Dan-Man916]

Latin is a sign of unity.

Ok, I wouldn’t necissarily argue with you there. It can be a sign of unity, but it is not necissary for the Unity of the Church. It is not an essential.
I can understand that people prefer the use of latin, and again, I have no problem with that.

But that wasn’t really what you were talking about.

 

[latinmasslover]

just responding in a like manner

Sorry to bite your head off there, that green grinner is sometimes viewed as the smart-aleck smiley…hard to tell the tone with that one.

 

[stmaria]

It is not just a different translation. It was modified for polemical purposes. The word “protestant” appears nowhere in the Italian, for example. Also the phrase “strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy” was wrongly added. It is a lie.

You must see that to distort a statement of anyone, especially a bishop, no matter what your reason, is a sin. Not only is it false witness, but you are causing scandal by attributing these things to Archbishop Bugnini. You are leading people to doubt the Church hierarchy.

I don’t see that is is such a “distortion and causing scandal” as you do.

Instead of “remove anything” my quote says, “strip”.
Instead of “impediment"and “feel ill at ease” my quote says " shadow of a stumbling block”.
Yours and mine say “separated brethren”.
Mine adds “Protestant”. Where’s the “scandal?”

By the way, why be concerned if our “separated brethern” feel* ill at ease *at the Sacrifice of the Mass.?
"

 

[Dan-Man916]

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

that is a distinction without a difference. The uniformity imposed by the tridentine fathers would have been seen just as imposing to those in the 16th century who had their liturgy changed in ways that was not to their liking either.
.

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

So this is simply an issue of the number of years?

The fact that we live in close proximity to the ending of an ecumenical council is the reason why there is uncertainty today.
Implementation of a council often takes over a hundred years.
Areas in which there need to be corrections will be done. It is for the Magesterium to decide what is in keeping with the teachings of Vatican II, and what is not. And over time, everything will even out.

We live in an unprecented time, in which communication is immediate. The Church has never moved at that speed. That is why we still have growing pains in these reforms in which both progresives and traditionalists constantly feel that they are getting the short end of the stick from the Church.

 

[latinmasslover]

I don’t see that is is such a “distortion and causing scandal” as you do.

Instead of “remove anything” my quote says, “strip”.
Instead of “impediment"and “feel ill at ease” my quote says " shadow of a stumbling block”.
Yours and mine say “separated brethren”.
Mine adds “Protestant”. Where’s the “scandal?”

By the way, why be concerned if our “separated brethern” feel* ill at ease *at the Sacrifice of the Mass.?
"

Have to say, I’d don’t see the scandal in the wording. One’s in plain English, the other is a little more "careful."

Of course, let’s just toss out the statues of Mary and start using a King James Bible? Maybe that will satisfy them.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I don’t see that is is such a “distortion and causing scandal” as you do.

Instead of “remove anything” my quote says, “strip”.
Instead of “impediment"and “feel ill at ease” my quote says " shadow of a stumbling block”.
Yours and mine say “separated brethren”.
Mine adds “Protestant”. Where’s the “scandal?”

By the way, why be concerned if our “separated brethern” feel* ill at ease *at the Sacrifice of the Mass.?
"

If you don’t understand that it is wrong to add a word and a phrase between quotation marks and call it a direct quote from someone, then you will need to receive some very basic instruction in writing. Around grade 4 English is where I learned about how to properly quote someone. I will not waste any more time explaining it to you.

 

[stmaria]

Ok, I wouldn’t necissarily argue with you there. It can be a sign of unity, but it is not necissary for the Unity of the Church. I

It can be? No it is a sign of unity.

Pope John XXIII removed Bugnini from the commission writing the Constitution on the Liturgy because he was pushing for the removal of Latin in the Mass’
From his book in his words:
Pg 23 …on February 22, 1962 , at the tomb of ST Peter and amid great pomp, he [Pope John XXXIII } signed the constitution *Veterum sapientia on the preservation of Latin. The preparatory was being depicted in the Curia as the number one enemy of Latin…The secretariat of the preparatory commission {Father Bugnini} had already been called on the carpet and had to defend himself against this manifest calumny.”

Cardinal Ottaviani, as head of the Roman Curia, had gone to Pope John to protest the draft of the *Constitution on the Liturgy *being prepared by Bugnini and the preparatory commission. He complained to Pope John that it had gone too far. The vernacular was being introduced into the Liturgy. {Time Magazine’s Robert Kaiser Pope, Council and the World}

Eight months after *Veterum sapientia *Bugnini **was removed **from the Commission and **was banned **from attending Vatican II by Pope John XXIII.

Pope John XXIII - *Veterum Sapientia *February 22, 1962
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

“Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression… For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws… Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority… There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings… But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use… Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular… In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy Sees will in this regard or interprets it falsely.”

 

[Dan-Man916]

It can be? No it is

a sign of unity.
That is not entirely true. The use of latin in the mass does not gurantee the unicity of the Church that we profess in the Creed. It is a sign of unity among roman rite Catholics. As I said, I don’t argue with you, but you seem to be in the mindset that the catholicity of the Church is found only in the roman rite. This is the problem with most Roman Catholics who have never stopped to think about the things that they say in regards to how their perspective relates to our sister Churches of the different rites that all have equal dignity. It is the short-sided view of the Church is solely Roman that makes many assertions of traditionalists unfounded, because their assertions are made as universal for all of Catholicism but ignore the other Eastern Rites that do not use Gregorian chant and are prayed in the vernacular.

Latin cannot be the sign of unity of the universal Church because the universal Church is not comprised solely of Catholics.

“Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

The context of this can only be seen within the Roman rite or else this statement would be absolutely contrary to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which affirms the equal dignity of all rites.

As I keep stating, there is nothing wrong with the Latin.
The problem is the assertion by traditionalists that the liturgy and the faith utterly falls apart without it. That is an assertion that cannot be hold up to scrutiny when we consider the non-Roman Rite Catholic Church.

 

[AJV]

I don’t see that is is such a “distortion and causing scandal” as you do.

Instead of “remove anything” my quote says, “strip”.
Instead of “impediment"and “feel ill at ease” my quote says " shadow of a stumbling block”.
Yours and mine say “separated brethren”.
Mine adds “Protestant”. Where’s the “scandal?”

By the way, why be concerned if our “separated brethern” feel* ill at ease *at the Sacrifice of the Mass.?
"

Strictly speaking, since he was talking about the “settima orazione”, “sepearated brethren” refers to both the Protestants and the Eastern/Oritental Orthodox.

And furthermore he is talking in the past tense, not future tense, about the change in wording from “heretics and schismatics” to “those who believe in Christ”. He does not speak about the liturgy in general, neither does he make reference to any doctrinal changes. All these impressions are given by the first (inaccurate) paraphrase.

In any case, stmaria, don’t you think that it is fairer to give the exact quote rather than paraphrases? Assuredly, if you compare it with the Italian I provided, the one you originally gave is not by any stretch a translation.

 

[Joe17]

As many stated above, ecumenism was a big factor. They wanted to make a service that would be acceptable, in most of it’s details, to Cranmer/Luthur.
I would recommend reading the "Ottaviani Intervention". Also, look at "'Tumultuous Times" by the Frs Radecki. "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber" gives an excellent day to day description of the goings on of the Council. Good background info to help one get the feel of what was going on back then.

 

[chrisb]

I apologize for giving the wrong impression; he was speaking of the changes in the Mass.

Grace and Peace japhy,

Your humility is to be admired and imitated.

That said I don’t believe on careful reading we can say that he was even talking about the changes but the impression he foresaw some of the Laity having concerning these changes. This was an attempt to avoid rash reaction to the Mass not an attempt to characterize 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].

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

Pope Paul VI (of blessed memory) recognized the new Mass had the potential of disrupting the spiritual lives of the faithful. In Pastoral language, the Pontiff attempted to ally any concerns and to sure up and trepidation that these changes might engender on the behalf of the Laity. If I dare say, you are reading doubt where there was none.

 

[japhy]

I don’t believe on careful reading we can say that he was even talking about the changes but the impression he foresaw some of the Laity having concerning these changes.

I see where you are coming from, but I am not convinced. Now, as a comparison, Pope Benedict said something similar in the letter accompanying his recent motu proprio:This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter. In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. … In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities.
Both of these fears the Holy Father called “unfounded”. Read his letter (if you have not already done so) and you will see his form of damage control.

Pope Paul VI had a very different tone. I’m not saying he should have candy-coated the situation, but he sure puts a high price on the “active participation” called for by the Council: “perhaps with some feeling of annoyance”, “many-sided inconvenience”, “pious persons are disturbed most”, “priests may feel some annoyance in this respect”, “the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms”, “introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin”, “We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant”, “We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment”.

The price is paid for the comprehension of the Mass: “Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more.]” It is as if there could be no understanding without the vernacular taking over (which leads us to question the wisdom of letting the TLM remain). The Council called for liturgical catechesis above all, before it mentioned its few changes to the liturgy. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 14) And one wonders if the desired understanding of the Mass was even accomplished.

He goes on to mention the Council’s mandate that the faithful should be able to sing parts of the Mass in Latin, and he says “the Latin language will not thereby disappear… If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.” Latin was nearly obliterated; it is hard (nearly impossible) to introduce it in American parishes whence it was banished (under whose order?!) decades ago. And again, he’s admitting that the new liturgy does not conform to the Council’s mandate (at least in terms of use of Latin and Gregorian Chant). As it turns out, the liturgy can be celebrated with Latin and chant, but from the words of the Pope, it doesn’t sound like it!

Pope Paul VI (of blessed memory) recognized the new Mass had the potential of disrupting the spiritual lives of the faithful. In Pastoral language, the Pontiff attempted to ally any concerns and to sure up and trepidation that these changes might engender on the behalf of the Laity. If I dare say, you are reading doubt where there was none.

See, that bothers me, in and of itself. Surely the laity didn’t call for such liturgical reforms that would cause them spiritual unrest! (I say this in light of the common argument that the liturgical reform of Vatican II was the product of the laity being dissatisfied with the Tridentine liturgy.)

I’d like my stance to be clear: I align myself with the “reform of the reform” movement. I have attended the Ordinary Form of Mass all my life; I’ve attended only one Mass in the Extraordinary Form, although I plan on attending another one in two weeks in Albany. I would like to see three things happening in the Church: a) the reverent and traditionally-minded celebration of the Ordinary Form, one that operates along the “hermeneutic of continuity”, b) the continued celebration of the Extraordinary Form, and c) a reapplication of the reforms called for by Vatican II, on the Missal of 1962 – and a stern re-evaluation of the post-conciliar reforms that went outside the dictates of the Council – resulting in a singular form of the Roman Rite.

My self-education on the liturgical changes of the past 40-50 years has opened my eyes; I now know what was (and what wasn’t) called for by Vatican II. One of my biggest grievances is the liturgical catechesis called for, and echoed numerous times since then, is still wanting. Instead of catechesis, things are dumbed down; instead of catechesis, numerous abuses are introduced (because people just don’t know any better!); instead of catechesis, the things that need explaining are omitted and replaced with banality.

 

[elt1956]

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 **“

Hi St.Maria, Although both paragraphs mean the same, I like Neil’s translation better. With yours, I feel pushed away, with Neil’s I feel drawn closer. Funny me. But that is the way I am.

Also you said theolgians and seminarians are responsible for errors now promulgated in the church. Since Latin is a more “solid” , “specific” language, I don’t understand why Latin was not part of these people’s training so they could give the right meanings etc. better to their students. That was crazy. It is okay to help Protestants feel more at ease, but correct translations are the foundation of faith. Of course correct interpretations after correct translations are even more important… Peace.

 

[I_Believe]

Hi St.Maria, Although both paragraphs mean the same, I like Neil’s translation better. With yours, I feel pushed away, with Neil’s I feel drawn closer. Funny me. But that is the way I am.

Also you said theolgians and seminarians are responsible for errors now promulgated in the church. Since Latin is a more “solid” , “specific” language, I don’t understand why Latin was not part of these people’s training so they could give the right meanings etc. better to their students. That was crazy. It is okay to help Protestants feel more at ease, but correct translations are the foundation of faith. Of course correct interpretations after correct translations are even more important… Peace.

'twas a blatant disobedience of, and denial of ,Veterum Sapientia.
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

No wonder John XXIII uttered the words “Stop the Council” on his deathbed. God rest his soul.