Why was The Latin Mass Changed after Vatican II?

[ProVobis]

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.

Speaking of the Church hierarchy, I wonder what Christ thinks of how they changed His words at the Consecration.

 

[stmaria]

=Dan-Man916;3530904]]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.

Well this is a forum for Roman Rite Catholics. The Eastern have their own forum.

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.

Not at all, but again this is where Roman Rite Catholics post.

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

.
The universal Church is not comprised solely of Catholics? Are you including Protestants in the universal Church?

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

That is what the Constitution says yet the Latin Rite has not had equal dignity. It required an indult to be said.

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 Churc]

Some traditionalists maybe but not the majority. There are far more reasons to prefer the Latin mass than the language.

 

[stmaria]

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

Latin had nothing to do with the seminaries ignoring previous Popes and Councils. They studied theologians that do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope or the Resurrection. Theologians that believe in birth control etc. If you want an insight into the seminaries of the 70’s-90’s read the book Good-bye Good Men
An entire chapter of the book is about Father Trigilio and his path to priesthood.

“Father John Trigilio, who co hosts Web of Faith, a popular apologetics program on Mother Angelica’s EWTN television network, recounted his seminary days…spanning three seminaries, three dioceses, and a host of rejections from others…because he overtly supported the teachings of the Church, he was targeted as an “orthodox” candidate”…during his first week at St Marks seminary in Erie, Pennsylvania] he was was accosted by a faculty priest, “ I hear you don’t want women priests?”…and then the priest warned me that if I wanted to get ordained, I’d better get those ‘old’and ‘outmoded’ ideas out of my head.”…I remember being humiliated because I wanted to pray the rosary…I think a lot of the younger students were sucked in by the gay subculture there…the students were actively coached to keep quite about the seminary’s strange goings-on…at Mary Immaculate Seminary in Northampton, Pennsylvania…four years of indoctrination…some guys wore women’s clothing, lingerie, makeup…[the faculty] would come right out and deny dogmas of the Catholic faith…we had a nun who taught us liturgy, She maintained that sacrifice is a pagan idea that needed to be expunged from the Mass. She also taught us that the Church has only six sacraments since she cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

The book also points out that many seminaries, not all, were taught by a very liberal faculty. St Thomas Aquinas was ignored and instead they read the dissenters from Catholic teachings like Richard Mcbrien, Edward Schillebeeckz, Hans Kung and Charles Curran and Edward Schillebeeckz

The book points out that in 1981 Pope John Paul ordered studies of the seminaries in the United States. The visitation team was know as the “Marshall Committee”

Father Trigilio EWTN} said this when the team visited Mary Immaculate page 181 “papal encyclicals mysteriously appeared as if we wee actually taught from them” Things they never did , like benediction of the BLessed Sacrament, were all of a sudden done. It was a big show. And soon as the delegation left the encyclicals got placed back onto remote shelves, rosaries were put back into drawers…by 1980 the revolution had completely taken hold…the 1980’s were the crest of a wave of the liberals rise to power…by then, liturgical experimentation was systematized into a series of abuses that had become "norms’ had become “norms”,moral thrology had been confused, and was reflected practically in the moral lives of faculty students’

 

[elt1956]

Latin had nothing to do with the seminaries ignoring previous Popes and Councils. They studied theologians that do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope or the Resurrection. Theologians that believe in birth control etc. If you want an insight into the seminaries of the 70’s-90’s read the book Good-bye Good Men
An entire chapter of the book is about Father Trigilio and his path to priesthood.

“Father John Trigilio, who co hosts Web of Faith, a popular apologetics program on Mother Angelica’s EWTN television network, recounted his seminary days…spanning three seminaries, three dioceses, and a host of rejections from others…because he overtly supported the teachings of the Church, he was targeted as an “orthodox” candidate”…during his first week at St Marks seminary in Erie, Pennsylvania] he was was accosted by a faculty priest, “ I hear you don’t want women priests?”…and then the priest warned me that if I wanted to get ordained, I’d better get those ‘old’and ‘outmoded’ ideas out of my head.”…I remember being humiliated because I wanted to pray the rosary…I think a lot of the younger students were sucked in by the gay subculture there…the students were actively coached to keep quite about the seminary’s strange goings-on…at Mary Immaculate Seminary in Northampton, Pennsylvania…four years of indoctrination…some guys wore women’s clothing, lingerie, makeup…[the faculty] would come right out and deny dogmas of the Catholic faith…we had a nun who taught us liturgy, She maintained that sacrifice is a pagan idea that needed to be expunged from the Mass. She also taught us that the Church has only six sacraments since she cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

The book also points out that many seminaries, not all, were taught by a very liberal faculty. St Thomas Aquinas was ignored and instead they read the dissenters from Catholic teachings like Richard Mcbrien, Edward Schillebeeckz, Hans Kung and Charles Curran and Edward Schillebeeckz

The book points out that in 1981 Pope John Paul ordered studies of the seminaries in the United States. The visitation team was know as the “Marshall Committee”

Father Trigilio [EWTN} said this when the team visited Mary Immaculate page 181 “papal encyclicals mysteriously appeared as if we wee actually taught from them” Things they never did , like benediction of the BLessed Sacrament, were all of a sudden done. It was a big show. And soon as the delegation left the encyclicals got placed back onto remote shelves, rosaries were put back into drawers…by 1980 the revolution had completely taken hold…the 1980’s were the crest of a wave of the liberals rise to power…by then, liturgical experimentation was systematized into a series of abuses that had become "norms’ had become “norms”,moral thrology had been confused, and was reflected practically in the moral lives of faculty students’

If Father John Trigilio knew these things were being done, didn’t he have a conduit to the Vatican? If he was actually taught these things, how did he learn the true dictates of the church.
[/quote]

 

[stmaria]

If Father John Trigilio knew these things were being done, didn’t he have a conduit to the Vatican? If he was actually taught these things, how did he learn the true dictates of the church.

He eventually ended up at a traditional seminary. Not all were corrupt. No he didn’t have a conduit to the Vatican. Read the book and you will see how the complaints from the seminarians were ignored by the Bishops.

 

[Joe17]

Provobis, for all men, and then for all, was as opposed to for many was changed to go along with the new ecclessiology of VII. If the Vatican wanted to have pro multis properly translated, they would have it corrected in the same amount of time that they gave the Good Friday prayer for the Jews change to be implemented. Funny, the motu communities get what, a month and a half to change this prayer; the Vatican has had 40+ yrs now to direct this change and nothing has happened. It should show the discerning observer where the Vatican is really at.

It is unfortunate that more people do not look at what the Roman Catechism teaches in this area. It specifically tells us why for many was used and why for all was not and could not be used. Christ’s Mass is for the many who will correspond to the graces offered, not for all. The Sacrifice on Calvary is sufficient to save all men, if they avail themselves of it. Christ, being God, choose say that it is for the many because he knew in reality it would end up being efficient for the many who would avail themselves of it by joining his Church and living the faith.

The New Mass has also removed Mysterium Fidei from the consecration. Only by the grace of God did I learn what it refers to. It took going to the Ancient Mass and an elderly priest, coupled with old, safe books on the faith to teach and clarify what I was supposed to understand concerning the Mass and faith.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Well this is a forum for Roman Rite Catholics. The Eastern have their own forum.

1. Everyone is allowed to post on this board. This is a forum to discuss traditional catholicism, not a forum where only Roman Rite Catholics can post. There is a difference.
2. I am a Catholic of the Roman Rite, so even by your own standard, I can post here.

Not at all, but again this is where Roman Rite Catholics post. .
The universal Church is not comprised solely of Catholics? Are you including Protestants in the universal Church?

My apologies as I mis-spoke and did not proof read my statement. I meant to say “The universal Church is not comprised solely of Roman Rite Catholics.”

That is what the Constitution says yet the Latin Rite has not had equal dignity. It required an indult to be said.

The latin Novus Ordo can be said anywhere. And now, the TLM can also be said anywhere. So even where there was a feeling of injustice in this, the pontiff has reached out to those who prefer the Tridentine Mass.

Some traditionalists maybe but not the majority. There are far more reasons to prefer the Latin mass than the language.

As I said, I am not arguing with a particular person’s perference. We are all allowed our preferences, and I respect yours. That has never been my argument here.

 

[japhy]

If the Vatican wanted to have pro multis properly translated, they would have it corrected in the same amount of time that they gave the Good Friday prayer for the Jews change to be implemented.

It is due to be corrected in the translation of the latest edition of the Roman Missal.

The New Mass has also removed Mysterium Fidei from the consecration. Only by the grace of God did I learn what it refers to. It took going to the Ancient Mass and an elderly priest, coupled with old, safe books on the faith to teach and clarify what I was supposed to understand concerning the Mass and faith.

I have heard many explanations for what mysterium fidei is spoken in relation to; what is the explanation you have learned? I am most eager to know.

 

[Dan-Man916]

It’s really too bad that many Catholics put the opinion of the Popes (and *only *recent popes) above Catholic teaching.

How ironic as an Eastern Orthodox priest said the same thing just recently as well. They also have difficulty discerning that the Magesterium has the guidance of the Holy Spirit to teach the Tradition of the Church, and not their own individual interpretation of the Tradition.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Provobis, for all men, and then for all, was as opposed to for many was changed to go along with the new ecclessiology of VII.

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.
There certainly is a translation problem, but it is a liturgical issue, not a doctrinal one.

Christ’s Mass is for the many who will correspond to the graces offered, not for all.

The way you have phrased this is incorrect; or ambiguous at best.
As the link above affirms: It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2)

It took going to the Ancient Mass

there are other ancient liturgies of the Church that don’t even have an institution narrative, and yet the Magesterium of the Church has affirmed that the consecration takes place because of the intention of the priest. See the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari of the Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East.

This is a liturgical issue, not a doctrinal one.

 

[Dan-Man916]

It is due to be corrected in the translation of the latest edition of the Roman Missal.

This is a good thing! The translation is a sloppy one. No one is going to argue about that. It should be properly translated.

Why I don’t understand is why these changes (and there are more than just this one) have been sitting on some pencil pusher’s desk in the curia for over 2 years now.

I know that Rome moves at a very slow pace, but the changes that are to take place are good ones, so they should move them along.

 

[japhy]

This is a good thing! The translation is a sloppy one. No one is going to argue about that. It should be properly translated.

Why I don’t understand is why these changes (and there are more than just this one) have been sitting on some pencil pusher’s desk in the curia for over 2 years now.

I know that Rome moves at a very slow pace, but the changes that are to take place are good ones, so they should move them along.

Once bitten, twice shy. In the years after Vatican II, there were changes every other month! Nowadays, changes are made as a whole, not piecemeal. One notable exception to this would be, as the poster pointed out, the alteration of the prayer for the conversion of the Jews from Good Friday.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Once bitten, twice shy. In the years after Vatican II, there were changes every other month!

Of course. There would be. Chaos occurs after every single council. The reason we think it is such a travesty today is that we are living through it. Couple that with the rapid pace at which life occurs today, with media and communications, and that only exacerbates the situation. Even the slow moving Church is moving rapidly by the standards of the past because it is responding to the normal chaos that ensues after every council.

I suspect that we would be arguing about this chaos in the same way if we lived right after Trent. The only difference would be that communications were done by carrier instead of phone, Fed-Ex, and email, so communication moved at a pace of months and years, instead of hours and days.

I can certainly understand people’s frustration for those who prefer the tridentine mass. I share some of those feelings eventhough, given my choice. Personally , I prefer the Byzantine rite over all others (but still remain a Roman). However, IMO the Novus Ordo does not “water down” the faith when you understand how it fits into the whole. There is a beauty in its simplicity. I acknowledge that these things have been taken too far in some cases where the music and architecture have lost the sense of the sacred.

However, I can still participate in the holy sacrifice made present in any Catholic liturgy whether the liturgy stresses the heavenly banquet (Byzantine), the sacrificial aspect (Tridentine), or community of faith (Novus Ordo). The sacrifice happens in each, and if one knows the liturgy of each, one can appreciate them in themselves without having to always compare one against the other.

IMO, that’s the biggest problem with some traditionalist Catholics. It’s always an either-or, instead of an appreciation for the dignity and worth of what each contains.

 

[latinmasslover]

I’m curious, how was Trent (and the other Councils) abused when first put into action? I hear of it a lot, that this happens all the time, I would just like to know in what ways.

 

[Joe17]

Dan Man and japhy,

Pro vobis is the name of another poster her, that's why I started out with that.  As to pro multis, I have know of what Cardinal Arinze has written.  That was over 16 months ago.  It has been over 40 years since the "mistranslation" came into use.  My original queery still stands.  If they can mandate a new Good Friday prayer in a matter of a little over a month, then they sure can mandate a change of one word in the same time.  We have had "instant communication" well before the internet was around.  Face it, it was and is an intentional mistranslation.

It is doctrinal. Of the two sacraments, Christ gave the form in Scriptue to two-baptism and the Eucharist. Even if you do not accept the argument of for many not being necessary for validity in the Roman Rite, it is still an effrontery to God to attribute words to him that he never spoke-esspecially in such a serious matter and one that doctrinally alters what his Sacrifice on Calvary will actually accomplish.

Please read De Defectibus. It speaks of how the consecration can become illicit or invalid. He is giving(Pius V), a lesson in moral theology here. He says if by changing the words and substituting words that have the same meaning, you will consecrate the Sacred Species, but you will sin gravely.
If the priest changes the words, and the words you change it to does not have the same meaning, you will NOT confect the sacrament and will sin gravely. Up until the mid-60’s, this document was in the front of all altar missals, meaning other popes kept to it, put their weight behind it, and didn’t meddle with it. Pius V had to protect the Mass in ways in did not quite need before, for obvious reasons.

I am sorry if my writing could be misleading in what I intended.  Indeed, Christ did die on the Cross for all men and for all women.  I think my sentence after speaking of the Mass being for many and not all was filling in the blank, but I can see how it could be thought differently.  My apologies.

Potentially, Christ’s dying on the cross was suffient to save all men. In act, Christ’s dying on the cross will save(obtain the Beatific vision)only the many who avail themselves of His sacrifice. That is clearly taught in the Roman Catechism(Catechism of the Council of Trent). Likewise, the Mass, true, can be offered for anyone-publicly, a Catholic, privately, a non-Catholic. When offered, we know it could be for their welfare, conversion, special grace, soul, etc. But that doesn’t change the fact that in actuality it is the representation of the Sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner, and so likewise it will be said and understood in the manner in which Christ meant it-that in the end,because God is omnipotent, every Mass will have been in actuality for those who loved him and kept his commandments, not for the world at large. Please go to the Catechism for a most just and Catholic explaination.

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.
By the way, the way the NO has “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith”, does it not strike you odd, to say the least, that you have your attention immediately taken away from the sacrifice that is supposed to have occurred, and they already got you thinking about his 2nd coming? So much can be said here.

As to a consecrationless Mass/Divine Liturgy, that liturgy of the Assyrian’s has always been held to be invalid. Church teaching requires Christ’s words. Remember, he gave baptism’s
form and the Eucharist’s at least in part/mostly in Scripture. The fact that some Orthodox sects believe that their liturgy does not need a consecration, or that it is cover by “the calling of the Holy Ghost” over the gifts is not sufficient. The Roman Church has always required the Words of Consecration. The fact that the priest is asked in JPII/Cardinal Ratzingers statement concerning this in 2002 to say the words shows that they know that the rite does not have the words of consecration. They cannot change what the Catholic Church has always taught. Liturgy, in many aspects, is covered by doctrine as well.

I would recommend on the subject to read “The Robber Church” by Patrick Omlor as well as look at traditionalmass.org for articles pertaining to this and other similiar topics. Don’t let the names turn you off. Argue the arguement, not the man.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us

 

[japhy]

If they can mandate a new Good Friday prayer in a matter of a little over a month, then they sure can mandate a change of one word in the same time. We have had “instant communication” well before the internet was around. Face it, it was and is an intentional mistranslation.

I agree the ICEL mistranslated it on purpose; they translated many things poorly because of their low expectations for English-speaking Catholics to understand the language. Why? I have no clue. I can understand the language in the 1961 Latin-English daily missal I have just fine.

Of some interest is that they translated two things differently here which I think saved their hides: “For you and for many” became “For you and for all”, and “unto the remission of sins” became “so that sins may be forgiven”. In doing so, I think they avoided a grievous error of describing the shedding of Christ’s blood as being unto the remission of the sins of all. The blood was shed so that the sins of anyone may be forgiven, but not everyone will have their sins forgiven.

It is doctrinal. Of the two sacraments, Christ gave the form in Scriptue to two-baptism and the Eucharist. Even if you do not accept the argument of for many not being necessary for validity in the Roman Rite, it is still an effrontery to God to attribute words to him that he never spoke-esspecially in such a serious matter and one that doctrinally alters what his Sacrifice on Calvary will actually accomplish.

But the question which then arises is, when did Jesus Christ say “the mystery of faith”? (Answer: from the Tradition of the Church, right?) In addition, the phrase hoc est enim corpus meum does not appear in the Latin Scripture, but simply hoc est corpus meum. Why was enim added? The Latin in the Roman Canon does not match the Latin of the Gospels, not counting the mysterium fidei. And why are these two words not found in the Divine Liturgy of Eastern Catholics?

I’m not trying to start a fight, I’m just asking honest questions about the nature of the language of the consecration.

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.

By the way, the way the NO has “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith”, does it not strike you odd, to say the least, that you have your attention immediately taken away from the sacrifice that is supposed to have occurred, and they already got you thinking about his 2nd coming? So much can be said here.

First, the Latin of the Ordinary Form still simply says “mysterium fidei”; it is the poor English “translation” that renders it as “Let us proclaim…”

Second, yes, I do find the “Memorial Acclamation” in the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer to be out of place and odd. I really wish it would be re-reformed out of there. The ICEL introduced the banal third-person “Christ has died…” text (which is the most common in the US, I would bet, at least in parishes that don’t just use some other text like “We remember how you loved us…”). The other three texts at least address Jesus Christ personally. However, as you’ve pointed out, those aren’t “the mystery of faith”, the sacramental Real Presence of Jesus Christ on the altar is. Although I will say that the parousia, the second coming, is foreshadowed by the coming of Jesus on the altar. But certainly this shouldn’t be done in a way to distract us from the reason for his presence: the sacrifice being offered to the Father.

 

[Phemie]

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.?
"

Didn’t that article state that he was referring to the intercessions on Good Friday and NOT the Mass?

 

[Phemie]

Of course. There would be. Chaos occurs after every single council. The reason we think it is such a travesty today is that we are living through it. Couple that with the rapid pace at which life occurs today, with media and communications, and that only exacerbates the situation. Even the slow moving Church is moving rapidly by the standards of the past because it is responding to the normal chaos that ensues after every council.

I suspect that we would be arguing about this chaos in the same way if we lived right after Trent. The only difference would be that communications were done by carrier instead of phone, Fed-Ex, and email, so communication moved at a pace of months and years, instead of hours and days.

Exactly, I can often get a new document straight from vatican.va on the day of its’ release when my pastor won’t see it until its sent by the bishop – who, in the case of Redemptionis Sacramentum, sometimes makes a point of not sending it to anyone. Kind of a 'fingers in ears 'la,la,la,la,la;la,la,la,la,la; I can’t hear you…" attitude.

 

[agr4028]

Exactly, I can often get a new document straight from vatican.va on the day of its’ release when my pastor won’t see it until its sent by the bishop – who, in the case of Redemptionis Sacramentum, sometimes makes a point of not sending it to anyone. Kind of a 'fingers in ears 'la,la,la,la,la;la,la,la,la,la; I can’t hear you…" attitude.

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?