Why was the Mass changed after Vatican II?

[Paxvobis]

Hello,

I’m familiar with both forms of the Mass. I do prefer the Extraordinary Form, but I like both.

So here’s my question: Why was a new rite of Mass, the Ordinary Form, created after Vatican II? Vatican II itself didn’t ask for any changes in the rite of Mass (although it allowed for the readings, the Epistle and the Gospel, to be said in English), so why did Pope Paul VI authorize changes?

The reason I ask is because after studying the EF Mass, I’ve come to see just how perfect and complete it is. Especially at Solemn High Mass, every movement of the priest, the deacon, the sub deacon, and the servers has clear, distinctive meaning. For example, the celebrant moving from the Epistle side of the altar to the middle before the Gloria denotes the journey Mary and Joseph took to Bethlehem. The celebrant moving back denotes the journey back to Nazareth, and the Prayer which follows denotes the 30 years Christ spent in quiet prayer with his parents.

Additionally, the prayers in the EF are so much more theologically meaningful. Compare the preparation of the gifts in both rites:

In the new Mass, “Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.”

In the old Mass, “Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this immaculate oblation, which I, thy unworthy servant, offer to Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting.”

They both express the same basic theological point, but in my opinion, one is clearly more theologically deep and metaphysically illustrative than the other.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to offend anybody who prefers the OF or pit both forms of the Mass against the other. They’re both equally valuable. Most of the Masses I’ve been too have been OF, and I just happily went to one this morning.

But that said, and in return to my original question, why was the Mass changed?

 

[GloriousOrder]

I’ve often heard the reasoning that it was to “remove scaffolding” that had pointlessly accrued in the Mass. Perhaps there was a feeling that “old” and “simple” are equivalent? Either way, the things I’ve heard are not real reasons, only rumours and famous quotes. It’d be lovely to hear some actual rationale, because I don’t know any specifically.

 

[ProVobis]

In the old Mass, “Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this immaculate oblation, which I, thy unworthy servant, offer to Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting.”

The old Mass was never officially translated for actual use in the liturgy. One criticism on most of the translations is that hostia should be referring to the Victim (not “host” or “oblation”) as the priest is alter Christus or in persona Christi here.

I’ll let others comment on your other points.

 

[Paxvobis]

I’ve often heard the reasoning that it was to “remove scaffolding” that had pointlessly accrued in the Mass.

So like the Last Gospel, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Confiteor before Communion, and the like?

But then why were things like the Offertory prayers, or the Prayers before the Gospel, or the Sequences for the Requiem Mass and for the Feast of our Lady of Sorrows changed? Was it to make it more simple and easy to understand for the faithful?

 

[PiousTemplar]

According to research done by Michael Voris, to make it more protestant friendly, to remove things that might offend protestants.

 

[sistermouse]

I would also like to know the answer to this question. I was gone for about 35 years and when I came back things had REALLY changed a lot!!

 

[Vico]

I would also like to know the answer to this question. I was gone for about 35 years and when I came back things had REALLY changed a lot!!

I was an altar server for the eight years preceeding the new mass, so I experienced those changes first hand.

Sacrosanctum Concilium include these goals:

more manifest connection between parts of the mass
clearer nature and purpose
more use of scriptures
vernacular use
move devout and active participation of the faithful
simplification - including removal of duplications

Which resulted in the above and these in the Missale Romanum:
restoration of some removed elements (homily, general intercessions, penetential act, kiss of peace)
alternative eucharistic prayers and prefaces

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

 

[CHCatholic]

I was an altar server for the eight years preceeding the new mass, so I experienced those changes first hand.

Sacrosanctum Concilium include these goals:

more manifest connection between parts of the mass
clearer nature and purpose
more use of scriptures
vernacular use
move devout and active participation of the faithful
simplification - including removal of duplications

Which resulted in the above and these in the Missale Romanum:
restoration of some removed elements (homily, general intercessions, penetential act, kiss of peace)
alternative eucharistic prayers and prefaces

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Clearer nature and purpose? The TLM is quite clear in it’s nature and purpose, in it’s character that it is a non-bloody representation of Our Lord’s crucifixion. The NO has no sacrificial character to it whatsoever.

How the heck is the NO more devout? Have you ever been to the TLM? The NO is a quasi-Protestant hippy fest centred on man, the TLM is divinely revealed worship of God. And the active participation thing is nonsense too. How did the Apostles participate at the Last Supper? They sat there and took it all in. That’s how we ought to be at Mass as well. Not swinging our hands in the air singing new age, protestant songs

More use of scripture how? The TLM has two gospel readings, and the epistle.

Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t even promulgate the NO, the Pope did. Goes to show.

 

[PA650]

Clearer nature and purpose? The TLM is quite clear in it’s nature and purpose, in it’s character that it is a non-bloody representation of Our Lord’s crucifixion. The NO has no sacrificial character to it whatsoever.

How the heck is the NO more devout? Have you ever been to the TLM? The NO is a quasi-Protestant hippy fest centred on man, the TLM is divinely revealed worship of God. And the active participation thing is nonsense too. How did the Apostles participate at the Last Supper? They sat there and took it all in. That’s how we ought to be at Mass as well. Not swinging our hands in the air singing new age, protestant songs

More use of scripture how? The TLM has two gospel readings, and the epistle.

Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t even promulgate the NO, the Pope did. Goes to show.

I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy. - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

beatificvision.blogspot.com/2007/02/ratzinger-on-disintegration-of-liturgy.html

 

[thistle]

Clearer nature and purpose? The TLM is quite clear in it’s nature and purpose, in it’s character that it is a non-bloody representation of Our Lord’s crucifixion. The NO has no sacrificial character to it whatsoever.

How the heck is the NO more devout? Have you ever been to the TLM? The NO is a quasi-Protestant hippy fest centred on man, the TLM is divinely revealed worship of God. And the active participation thing is nonsense too. How did the Apostles participate at the Last Supper? They sat there and took it all in. That’s how we ought to be at Mass as well. Not swinging our hands in the air singing new age, protestant songs

More use of scripture how? The TLM has two gospel readings, and the epistle.

Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t even promulgate the NO, the Pope did. Goes to show.

That is not what the Church says. So are you being disobedient to the Church by rejecting the NO and claiming it is invalid??

 

[Revert_43]

More use of scripture how? The TLM has two gospel readings, and the epistle.

Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t even promulgate the NO, the Pope did. Goes to show.

The number of readings in the Mass are the same but there is a larger cycle of readings, so over a period of time there is more scripture reads, see this thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=581101

“The bishops assembled at Vatican II declared, “The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly so that a richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way the more significant part of the Sacred Scriptures will be read to the people over a fixed number of years” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #51).”

 

[Phyllo]

According to research done by Michael Voris, to make it more protestant friendly, to remove things that might offend protestants.

I agree with Michael Voris. They wanted our Mass on almost equal level with the protestant service. We have the Real Presence and that is something that the Protestants will never have. Vatican II had, was it 5 or 6 Protestant ministers revamping our Mass?
The NO is a valid Mass but they are changing some of the words in the liturgy to make it more spiritual.(my word–spiritual) The change will take place in November 2011.
The Magnificat has a wonderful little book on the changes in the wording of the prayers with commentary.

 

[TrueLight]

Mass as well. Not swinging our hands in the air singing new age, protestant songs

More use of scripture how? The TLM has two gospel readings, and the epistle.

If by two Gospel readings you’re including the last Gospel, in all fairness, it is the same John chapter 1 reading each week.

 

[Carolus_Martell]

…“Judge me, old Lord and distinguish my cause from the nation not holy: deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man…”

That opening from the old mass …I love it as a taste of what’s to follow.

As a young altar boy consumed with giving the proper response I never appreciated the beautifully translated prose. Now I know better and what a joy it is to follow along the Latin mass in English.

As far as ‘why the change?’ I also wondered about this for many years as I watched the slow decay and nothing was done…except they tried to make the mass more ‘fun’.

Well now I think what Michael Voris thinks, and I’m not embarrassed or ashamed to say it.

In a brave new world where everyone wanted to get along our Church was the only so called impediment to ‘progress’. The Dad that loved you but always said NO!

If you listen the Voris’s well thought out explanation of ‘why’ the Church wanted to become more ‘Protestant’ it makes perfect sense. Of course the great thinkers in the church will vehemently deny there was absolutely no intention of being Protestant like, and yes they are correct.

But now that sufficient time has passed we can calculate the change and it sure does seems the objective we’re at, albeit maybe temporary, is Protestant-like.

And for all of you that are content with the status quo…well God bless you too.

 

[Cat]

According to research done by Michael Voris, to make it more protestant friendly, to remove things that might offend protestants.

I don’t believe this.

I grew up Protestant (b. in 1957).

Around the time that the Catholic Mass was re-done, many Protestant churches were completely changing the way they did their worship services, too. So I don’t see how anyone can say that the Catholic Church was trying to become “Protestant friendly” because the Protestant services, at least in the rapidly-growing evangelical Protestant churches, did not and still do not, in any way, shape, or form, resemble the Catholic OF Mass.

When my husband and I started attending Mass in 2000, it was at a modern Catholic church that did an OF Mass. To us, this Mass was utterly strange. We used words like “ritualistic” and “ancient.” I remember once saying to my husband that it was so nice to be worshipping in the same way that Christians worshipped 2000 years ago–we didn’t realize that there were two forms of the same rite.

When we bring non-Catholic relatives to Mass now, in 2011, they say the same thing we said. "This is ritualistic. This is so ancient. This is very old-fashioned. The music is so ancient (they’re referring to Haugen, Haas, and all the rest of the St. Louis Jesuits.)

I do realize that some of the mainline Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, etc.) had and still have worship services that are simliar to the Catholic Mass, although even these worship services are changing to try to be more like the burgeoning evangelical Protestant denominations. The mainline denominations are losing members at an alarming rate, and have been losing members for several decades. They are trying lots of “new” things to become more appealing. It isn’t working, mainly because these denominations are often pro-abortion (or soft on abortion) and pro-gay marriage, and true Christians will not tolerate this, and leave these old denominations for the evangelical denominations. Also, all of these denominations have a large number of female pastors, and there are quite a few Christians who do not go along with this (My husband and I did not accept female pastors and left one of our Protestant churches over this issue.)

But what you have to understand is that it is the EVANGELICAL Protestant churches, especially the non-denominational churches, that expanded hugely and are still growing rapidly. The non-denom megachurch in our city has over 10,000 people in attendance every weekend–that’s almost 10% of our city’s population! Willowcreek in nearby Barrington, IL, has over 20,000 people at the Sunday seeker services, and just as many members attending weekday services.

Our Christian and Missionary Alliance church in Raleigh tripled its numbers in 10 years while we lived there.

So it is the evangelical churches that you need to study, not the mainlines. And I assure you, in all truth, that the most modern OF Mass does not in any way, shape, or form, resemble an evangelical Protestant worship service, and it did not resemble it after Vat II, either.

Here are some examples of how Protestant churches began changing their worship services back in the late 60s and early 70s. I was THERE for it. I am speaking the truth.

A lot of the liturgical denominations relaxed their liturgy and added or took away things from it. And the evangelical churches (my background) totally changed everything. Most of these churches had some kind of “order of service”, but in the late 60s and early 70s, they began making major changes, eliminating any vestige of a “liturgy.” Many of the services included some kind of drama. There was a lot more music and less recitation. Old songs like the Gloria Patri and the Doxology were no longer used. Contemporary and rock music was used more frequently, and often a small rock band accompanied the service. The organ was phased out, although many churches still used it. Teenagers and children were included in the service. Although the churches had done testimony times during singspiration services, they began incorporating testimony time in the actual worship service. Also, churches did the “altar call” less frequently, although it was still done. Lots of churches began offering a traditional and a contemporary worship service. Finally, Communion was given a back seat and many churches stopped doing it even once a month.

 

[ProVobis]

…“Judge me, old Lord and distinguish my cause from the nation not holy: deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man…”

The Latin Psalm 42 was dropped in 1965. Therefore all its translations, which had never been part of the Mass anyway, were dropped as well. So whether the English is preferred is a moot point.

More use of scripture how? The TLM has two gospel readings, and the epistle.

The Last Gospel was also dropped in 1965, well before the promulgation of the 1970 Latin Missal.

Sacrosanctum Concilium include these goals:

SC was only one of 16 Vatican II documents. The issues of ecumenism and collegiality no doubt were also influential in the liturgical reforms following Vatican II.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Wrong! The old mass only had the epistle, the tract, the alleliah and the gospel.
there was never a “second reading”.

The number of readings in the Mass are the same but there is a larger cycle of readings, so over a period of time there is more scripture reads, see this thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=581101

“The bishops assembled at Vatican II declared, “The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly so that a richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way the more significant part of the Sacred Scriptures will be read to the people over a fixed number of years” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #51).”

 

[Eric_Olsen]

I don’t believe this.

I grew up Protestant (b. in 1957).

Around the time that the Catholic Mass was re-done, many Protestant churches were completely changing the way they did their worship services, too. So I don’t see how anyone can say that the Catholic Church was trying to become “Protestant friendly” because the Protestant services, at least in the rapidly-growing evangelical Protestant churches, did not and still do not, in any way, shape, or form, resemble the Catholic OF Mass.

oh yes it does! I was in the ELCA lutheran church for many years and when I came back, I noticed the two were alomost identical.

The old mass has the last gosple, the prayers at the foot of the altar that the protestant services do not or never had.

When my husband and I started attending Mass in 2000, it was at a modern Catholic church that did an OF Mass. To us, this Mass was utterly strange. We used words like “ritualistic” and “ancient.” I remember once saying to my husband that it was so nice to be worshipping in the same way that Christians worshipped 2000 years ago–we didn’t realize that there were two forms of the same rite.

When we bring non-Catholic relatives to Mass now, in 2011, they say the same thing we said. "This is ritualistic. This is so ancient. This is very old-fashioned. The music is so ancient (they’re referring to Haugen, Haas, and all the rest of the St. Louis Jesuits.)

I do realize that some of the mainline Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, etc.) had and still have worship services that are simliar to the Catholic Mass, although even these worship services are changing to try to be more like the burgeoning evangelical Protestant denominations. The mainline denominations are losing members at an alarming rate, and have been losing members for several decades. They are trying lots of “new” things to become more appealing. It isn’t working, mainly because these denominations are often pro-abortion (or soft on abortion) and pro-gay marriage, and true Christians will not tolerate this, and leave these old denominations for the evangelical denominations. Also, all of these denominations have a large number of female pastors, and there are quite a few Christians who do not go along with this (My husband and I did not accept female pastors and left one of our Protestant churches over this issue.)

But what you have to understand is that it is the EVANGELICAL Protestant churches, especially the non-denominational churches, that expanded hugely and are still growing rapidly. The non-denom megachurch in our city has over 10,000 people in attendance every weekend–that’s almost 10% of our city’s population! Willowcreek in nearby Barrington, IL, has over 20,000 people at the Sunday seeker services, and just as many members attending weekday services.

Our Christian and Missionary Alliance church in Raleigh tripled its numbers in 10 years while we lived there.

So it is the evangelical churches that you need to study, not the mainlines. And I assure you, in all truth, that the most modern OF Mass does not in any way, shape, or form, resemble an evangelical Protestant worship service, and it did not resemble it after Vat II, either.

Here are some examples of how Protestant churches began changing their worship services back in the late 60s and early 70s. I was THERE for it. I am speaking the truth.

A lot of the liturgical denominations relaxed their liturgy and added or took away things from it. And the evangelical churches (my background) totally changed everything. Most of these churches had some kind of “order of service”, but in the late 60s and early 70s, they began making major changes, eliminating any vestige of a “liturgy.” Many of the services included some kind of drama. There was a lot more music and less recitation. Old songs like the Gloria Patri and the Doxology were no longer used. Contemporary and rock music was used more frequently, and often a small rock band accompanied the service. The organ was phased out, although many churches still used it. Teenagers and children were included in the service. Although the churches had done testimony times during singspiration services, they began incorporating testimony time in the actual worship service. Also, churches did the “altar call” less frequently, although it was still done. Lots of churches began offering a traditional and a contemporary worship service. Finally, Communion was given a back seat and many churches stopped doing it even once a month.

 

[agnes_therese]

Vatican II had, was it 5 or 6 Protestant ministers revamping our Mass?

Proof, please, that it was the Protestant observers who revamped the Mass? (Actual documentation, not someone’s opinion.)

 

[Danquayle76]

Proof, please, that it was the Protestant observers who revamped the Mass? (Actual documentation, not someone’s opinion.)

Father Cekeda, a notorious sedevacantist, just wrote a book, Work of Human Hands, on the creation of the Novus Ordo which garnered a relatively positive review from the director of ICEL (the commission responsible for the new English translation of the missal).

He said he expected to find lots of evidence for the involvement of the Protestant observers, but found nothing. In fact the only thing he really found was that Archbisop Bugnini was concerned that in scrapping the old calendar and its readings that this would have a negative affect on Protestants, many of whom at the time relied on the same calendar and readings. On this issue he sought out the Protestant observers to discuss what impact the change in the calendar might have on them.

So even Father Cekada has dismissed the claim that Protestant observers played a role in the creation of the Novus Ordo.