Why was the Mass changed after Vatican II?

[ProVobis]

This is true, but what is interesting is that even in the newer definition,

“…ad memoriale Domini seu sacrificium eucharisticum celebrandum
(to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord, or the Eucharistic Sacrifice)”

I should have added that the seu is also used before that:

“In missa seu Cena dominca… (In the Mass, or Supper of the Lord…)”.

One can draw his own conclusions.

 

[Phyllo]

Things change with time. Since the people did not understand Latin, it was time for change and it is a BEAUTIFUL change.Prior to that the priests’ back faced us and we couldn’t see what was going on. It is beautiful to see how the bread and wine are changed to the body and blood of christ.

Why have you changed wearing the same clothes the last 20 years?

The priest with his back to us was leading us to Christ. With his back to us we could still see the consecration. We the priest facing us I think he is breaking the flow of leading us to Christ. Just my opinion.

 

[Phyllo]

Without doing a whole lot of research, I can say, quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia:
In the meantime, ambassadors from several Protestant princes and cities reached Trent. They made various demands, as: that the earlier decisions which were contrary to the Augsburg Confession should be recalled; that debates on questions in dispute between Catholics and Protestants should be deferred; that the subordination of the pope to an ecumenical council should be defined . . . .
That said, I would love to know what people would say if there were a line in the documents of Vatican II that went, “Well, we were going to publish some statements about the Mass and the Eucharist, but we’d greatly prefer having the (name removed by moderator)ut of Protestants about it first before we say anything publicly. So we’re going to hold off for a while until any Protestant who wants to come can get here and prove all his ideas to us.” Can you even imagine what dark meaning people would ascribe to those words? Because that is exactly what the Council of Trent said.

Needless to say, my point is not to run down the Council of Trent here, but to show vividly why the common practice – common in the case of Vatican II, that is – of drawing the wildest adverse inferences from any sort of openness or accommodation to the Protestants is so ill-conceived. If there were a line such as I gave above in the proceedings of Vatican II, there can be no doubt that it would be repeated constantly as irrefutable “proof” that everything which came out of the Council was irretrievably tainted by a maniacal desire (they even admitted it! ) to please the Protestants, to become more Protestant, and so on and so forth. Yet obviously we do not think that in the case of the Council of Trent. This goes to show that arguments about what is “Protestant” have to be made on the basis of the facts, not of insinuations deriving from who was invited to what council.

Thanks for all you research. More shame on us then if we Protestanized the Mass our self.

 

[Phyllo]

There was a poster here who mentioned the Gregorian Chant at the NO mass. Where I attend Mass we sing,at least to me Protestant songs. The NO Mass here does not have the Gregorian Chant. I also asked for the a TLM Mass here and was told no. They don’t have Priests trained to say it.

At least that is the answer I got.

 

[OraLabora]

The priest with his back to us was leading us to Christ. With his back to us we could still see the consecration. We the priest facing us I think he is breaking the flow of leading us to Christ. Just my opinion.

On the other hand the priest is acting as in persona Christi at the Mass, and at the Last Supper, Christ most certainly was facing his disciples during the first Eucharist.

I see nothing theologically wrong with versus populum (though I am by no means a theologian). In any event the image of being “led” to Christ wouldn’t work at St Peter’s in the Vatican. I believe ad orientem’s theological basis isn’t so much leading the population as facing liturgical east.

But whatever the case, the Church has ruled that both are valid, and thus it becomes not a matter of theology, but of preference.

There was a poster here who mentioned the Gregorian Chant at the NO mass. Where I attend Mass we sing,at least to me Protestant songs. The NO Mass here does not have the Gregorian Chant.

There’s nothing to prevent the use of Gregorian chant at the OF. In fact official texts and music exist to do so (the Graduale Romanum). The issue is that it has, in many cases, become a lost art. In my area, there are two abbeys using it (one of monks, one of nuns), and our choir sings monthly in parishes of my neighbouring diocese and occasionally in other dioceses. There are also at least 2 groups that I know of doing Gregorian chant at OF parishes in Montreal, one in Quebec City and one in Chicoutimi. Perhaps being French Canadians makes us more at ease with Latin, who knows. But I do know there are groups in the US and monasteries in the US using Gregorian chant.

I also asked for the a TLM Mass here and was told no. They don’t have Priests trained to say it.

At least that is the answer I got.

There is nothing wrong with that. The rubrics for the EF, especially a high Mass with incense, are incredibly complicated, and there is the language factor. Many priests never had the training in seminary. For example, for censing the altar, depending on the type of altar there rubrics prescribe the exact number of swings and the pattern to use.

 

[crazzeto]

Well for starts, there is no “new rite” there is however a new Mass. The new Mass was introduced because Pope Paul VI saw a need to reform the Church, specifically with regard to updating some of the practices to bring it into the new century.

I too an gratified greatly with the EF Mass and attend when I can, however I can see the utility of the OF Mass in the Venacular. When properly done (the new Missal will help greatly) it will help inform the masses of lay believers about the faith, and enrich them.

EF is a great thing, but OF is a good thing too.

 

[crazzeto]

EVERY liturgical church (and even the Orthodox Jewish synagogue, today) has the priest (or rabbi) facing the front (in the case of Christians, this is the altar he is facing), with his back to the people.

The novus ordo church is the only one that has the priest facing THE PEOPLE.

The Eastern Orthodox and Traditional RC liturgies are regarded as SACRIFICES, that is WHY the priest AND the people BOTH face the same direction: the altar.

So you see, there is a REASON WHY the priest and the people face ONE direction: the altar. That is how it is done when it is the Holy SACRIFICE of the Mass.

With all due respect, the norm is not that the preist is facing away from the believers… The norm is that the preist is facing east, which with many (but not all) traditional churches would have the preist facing away from the congregation.

It should be noted however, that in St. Peter’s bascillica cardinal direction East happens to face towards not away from the congregation so the Pope has traditionally celebrated facing the congregation historically not away.

This doesn’t even address the fact that you are fundamentally wrong about what exactly makes the eucharist the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass. It is the Sacrafice of Christ alone, institued by the priest durring the Mass using the words of institution that makes it the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass. It has nothing to do with the location (believe it or not, this has been done outside of church all together, such as on top of Mt. Mickinley not long ago) or what direction the priest faces.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Without doing a whole lot of research, I can say, quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia:
In the meantime, ambassadors from several Protestant princes and cities reached Trent. They made various demands, as: that the earlier decisions which were contrary to the Augsburg Confession should be recalled; that debates on questions in dispute between Catholics and Protestants should be deferred; that the subordination of the pope to an ecumenical council should be defined . . . .
That said, I would love to know what people would say if there were a line in the documents of Vatican II that went, “Well, we were going to publish some statements about the Mass and the Eucharist, but we’d greatly prefer having the (name removed by moderator)ut of Protestants about it first before we say anything publicly. So we’re going to hold off for a while until any Protestant who wants to come can get here and prove all his ideas to us.” Can you even imagine what dark meaning people would ascribe to those words? Because that is exactly what the Council of Trent said.

Needless to say, my point is not to run down the Council of Trent here, but to show vividly why the common practice – common in the case of Vatican II, that is – of drawing the wildest adverse inferences from any sort of openness or accommodation to the Protestants is so ill-conceived. If there were a line such as I gave above in the proceedings of Vatican II, there can be no doubt that it would be repeated constantly as irrefutable “proof” that everything which came out of the Council was irretrievably tainted by a maniacal desire (they even admitted it! ) to please the Protestants, to become more Protestant, and so on and so forth. Yet obviously we do not think that in the case of the Council of Trent. This goes to show that arguments about what is “Protestant” have to be made on the basis of the facts, not of insinuations deriving from who was invited to what council.

And what were the changings in teh Mass due to protestants participation? as far as I know the Mass was confirmed due to protestant influence on teh people. I think this document shows that they were to come and be heard and to get the answers and not to draw council papers on how the Mass should be conducted. Their participation was only to make known their complaints and maybe to draw them back into the Church and not to follow their footsteps.
There is a big difference between the Council of Trent and the Council VII. The warnings of the Past popes were ignored.

 

[ProVobis]

When properly done (the new Missal will help greatly) it will help inform the masses of lay believers about the faith, and enrich them.

How will the new Missal help those who draw their theology from the Spanish or Vietnamese Masses, for example? The same definition of the Mass applies to them, no?

 

[TexasJoe]

Phyllo,

It sounds to me like your pastor (or bishop) are coming up with rather poor excuses not to have an extraordinary form (TLM) mass in your area. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI, 7 July 2007, sets forth the procedure involved in providing the TLM if it is desired by the faithful in a particular location:

      "Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who
      adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly
      accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of
      the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of
      these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the
      parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon
      392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

      "Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 sec. 1, has not
      obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should
      inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to
      satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take
      place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission
      "Ecclesia Dei".

      "Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who
      for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the
      Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to obtain counsel and assistance."

I don’t know whether your pastor (or bishop) are aware of these provisions. If not, you should kindly inform them. It seems that your case is not unique. In many other instances the faithful have requested the TLM and been turned down also for a variety of reasons. I hear rumors to the effect that the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” is expected to issue some further guidance on this subject soon. I’m not aware of how far any appeals in this process of obtaining the TLM for a particular congregation may have progressed. Perhaps someone closer to this situation would care to comment.

The excuse that you were given that there were no priests trained in the TLM available in your area is a particularly lame one. Both the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) and the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius (CR) offer training courses for priests and seminarians to learn to celebrate the TLM.

The FSSP seminar for 5 days training in the Low Mass costs $400 and the High Mass for another 5 days is also $400. The FSSP website for this is at:

fssptraining.org/

The 5-day CR workshop costs $575 total and is described at:

sanctamissa.org/workshops/for-priests/registration.html

I would think that if you and some of your fellow parishioners wanting the TLM could assemble the costs of the seminar plus transportation to either Denton, NE or Chicago for at least one priest, that would provide you considerable ammunition in advancing your request.

Retrofitting an existing church to fulfill the minimum requirements of celebrating the TLM would be another cost element. I don’t know what’s involved there, but I’m sure that the FSSP or the CR could provide this information readily to your pastor or bishop. I don’t think they would have to go to all the expense of converting a church to the equivalent of an FSSP chapel, for example, especially if the TLM is to be only occasional.

Good luck in your quest and my prayers will be with you.

TexasJoe

 

[ProVobis]

There is nothing wrong with that. The rubrics for the EF, especially a high Mass with incense, are incredibly complicated, and there is the language factor. Many priests never had the training in seminary. For example, for censing the altar, depending on the type of altar there rubrics prescribe the exact number of swings and the pattern to use.

Much as I agree with you, this did not happen overnight. Before Vatican II, every priest and seminarian had the training. Servers had the training. Deacons had the training. Subdeacons had the training. And the congregation had the training to follow. It took a new culture of 40 years (and continuing) to turn against its own identity and delve into some experimentation without a backout plan. Protestants have demonstrated that different translations, different practices, and “personal interpretations” have led to well over 20,000 denominations. Yes, we are now all “brothers” and many lines are blurred and different cultures are good, blah, blah, blah, but hopefully, the Catholic Church need not follow the path of added tensions and divisions. The language is the first step in establishing some unity. The Popes have known that. The rest of us must step it up a bit to help them. No excuses. We have the internet now to provide the necessary tools.

 

[OraLabora]

Much as I agree with you, this did not happen overnight. Before Vatican II, every priest and seminarian had the training.

I daresay that the seminaries aren’t doing a good job in training for the OF either.

The language is the first step in establishing some unity.

Respectfully, I disagree. The Latin language was only for one rite in the 23 Churches in communion with Rome. With the Anglican Use we will have an excellent English-language rite.

What divides us is not the language of the Mass, but the Mass itself. High-church Anglican comes very close to the Tridentine rite, and that will come back to us with the Anglican Use. Somehow high-church Anglicans have managed to come up with something “new” 500+ years ago and it is now part of their well-established tradition, with a beautiful hymnology.

Yet they too went down the road of a watered-down right about 30 years ago (the Book of Alternative Services, in Canada). They still have the same language (English) but a very wide gulf divides the two rites. In some parishes like my wife’s, both rites are used, but there is zero dialogue between the faithful in the two rites, and the poor pastor is stuck in the middle trying to cater to both groups. I believe it is this road we are headed down with the OF and EF, if we are not careful.

 

[crazzeto]

How will the new Missal help those who draw their theology from the Spanish or Vietnamese Masses, for example? The same definition of the Mass applies to them, no?

The Spanish Mass - Doesn’t have the same translation “problems” the english Mass does. The english Mass is the onlyone done with a dynamic equivolency, the others were literal translations of the latin.

That said, if greater reverence is forced in the English speaking world (which I believe the new missal will achieve), then that certainly will have an affect on the 3rd world which looks to the first world for guidence on all matters (unfortunetly).

 

[ProVobis]

I daresay that the seminaries aren’t doing a good job in training for the OF either.

Agreed. Many priests aren’t even trained to do the OF in the language of the Church.

High-church Anglican comes very close to the Tridentine rite, and that will come back to us with the Anglican Use. Somehow high-church Anglicans have managed to come up with something “new” 500+ years ago and it is now part of their well-established tradition, with a beautiful hymnology.

So can I have this in Polish if it’s so good? I hate to tell you this but the Church isn’t all about pushing Elizabethian English into all countries. Besides that, I (and many theologians) never cared for this translation of the Tridentine Rite. As they say, close but no cigar.

 

[ProVobis]

The Spanish Mass - Doesn’t have the same translation “problems” the english Mass does. The english Mass is the onlyone done with a dynamic equivolency, the others were literal translations of the latin.

Though Spanish is a descendant of Latin, many linguists and Latin scholars would disagree with you on that. Cognates don’t always mean more literal translations. Every language has its own nuances that stem from its history, culture, politics, and national borders. No translation is perfect and each seems to convey its own theology which we discussed under a different thread recently.

 

[OraLabora]

I hate to tell you this but the Church isn’t all about pushing Elizabethian English into all countries.

No it isn’t but you missed my point that it will be an addition to our patrimony and likely treasured by members of that rite. It doesn’t mean it is for everyone, no more than Latin is for the Eastern sui juris Churches. We could however, without too much difficulty do a correct and modern translation of the Tridentine Mass. The Anglican use proves that something very close to it can be done in the vernacular.

Also my seems to have been missed that the disunity is in the Mass itself and not its language, as the Anglicans have low-church and high-church factions, with a different Mass, but both in the same language. In their case language can hardly be said to be a glue that holds them together.

The thing here is, that ritual brings people a sense of comfort and familiarity. I myself am perfectly comfortable in the OF as I grew up in it; I would just like to see it properly done, everywhere. I’d rather see a correctly done Mass without music, that follows the missal to the letter, than a Mass full of liturgical errors that has clappy-happy music. A said Mass, with silent intervals between readings, etc., can have an austere and prayerful character.

 

[Phyllo]

Well for starts, there is no “new rite” there is however a new Mass. The new Mass was introduced because Pope Paul VI saw a need to reform the Church, specifically with regard to updating some of the practices to bring it into the new century.

I too an gratified greatly with the EF Mass and attend when I can, however I can see the utility of the OF Mass in the Venacular. When properly done (the new Missal will help greatly) it will help inform the masses of lay believers about the faith, and enrich them.

EF is a great thing, but OF is a good thing too.

I don’t think that Pope Paul VI envisioned the reform that we did get from his wanting to reform the church, In my opinion I think the church is not the same one I grew up in. And the change isn’t for the better. We have the Mass in English but I think the revised wording coming in November will be good. It seems to me that the church doesn’t take a stand on some important issues and is a little lax.

 

[Phyllo]

And what were the changings in teh Mass due to protestants participation? as far as I know the Mass was confirmed due to protestant influence on teh people. I think this document shows that they were to come and be heard and to get the answers and not to draw council papers on how the Mass should be conducted. Their participation was only to make known their complaints and maybe to draw them back into the Church and not to follow their footsteps.
There is a big difference between the Council of Trent and the Council VII. The warnings of the Past popes were ignored.

I agree

 

[Phyllo]

Phyllo,

It sounds to me like your pastor (or bishop) are coming up with rather poor excuses not to have an extraordinary form (TLM) mass in your area. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI, 7 July 2007, sets forth the procedure involved in providing the TLM if it is desired by the faithful in a particular location:

      "Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who
      adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly
      accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of
      the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of
      these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the
      parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon
      392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

      "Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 sec. 1, has not
      obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should
      inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to
      satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take
      place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission
      "Ecclesia Dei".

      "Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who
      for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the
      Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to obtain counsel and assistance."

I don’t know whether your pastor (or bishop) are aware of these provisions. If not, you should kindly inform them. It seems that your case is not unique. In many other instances the faithful have requested the TLM and been turned down also for a variety of reasons. I hear rumors to the effect that the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” is expected to issue some further guidance on this subject soon. I’m not aware of how far any appeals in this process of obtaining the TLM for a particular congregation may have progressed. Perhaps someone closer to this situation would care to comment.

The excuse that you were given that there were no priests trained in the TLM available in your area is a particularly lame one. Both the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) and the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius (CR) offer training courses for priests and seminarians to learn to celebrate the TLM.

The FSSP seminar for 5 days training in the Low Mass costs $400 and the High Mass for another 5 days is also $400. The FSSP website for this is at:

fssptraining.org/

The 5-day CR workshop costs $575 total and is described at:

sanctamissa.org/workshops/for-priests/registration.html

I would think that if you and some of your fellow parishioners wanting the TLM could assemble the costs of the seminar plus transportation to either Denton, NE or Chicago for at least one priest, that would provide you considerable ammunition in advancing your request.

Retrofitting an existing church to fulfill the minimum requirements of celebrating the TLM would be another cost element. I don’t know what’s involved there, but I’m sure that the FSSP or the CR could provide this information readily to your pastor or bishop. I don’t think they would have to go to all the expense of converting a church to the equivalent of an FSSP chapel, for example, especially if the TLM is to be only occasional.

Good luck in your quest and my prayers will be with you.

TexasJoe

Thanks. I printed this out for future use.
I have talked to some members in my parish and so far I seem to be the only one who would like the TLM at least once a month.

thanks again

 

[Phyllo]

Things change with time. Since the people did not understand Latin, it was time for change and it is a BEAUTIFUL change.Prior to that the priests’ back faced us and we couldn’t see what was going on. It is beautiful to see how the bread and wine are changed to the body and blood of christ.

Why have you changed wearing the same clothes the last 20 years?

WOW comparing the beautiful Latin Sacrifice of the Mass to old clothes. What is the church coming to.