Would serious alterations to the Missal Require Vatican III?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mburn16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mburn16

Guest
Hello all,

As the Catholic church begins the process of introducing the new Missal for the English-speaking churches, it seems to me that the RCC is moving back towards a more traditional direction, this is certainly true with our current Pope who, though not yet reintroducing the coronation or Papal Tiara, has nonetheless been largely friendly to traditionalism through his restoration of some Papal traditions and easing of restrictions on the use of the TLM.

Inevitably, this brings up the discussion of future, serious revisions to the order of Mass - almost certainly back in the general direction of the Tridentine form.

Yet the current form is a product of Vatican II, and, although the Holy Father can do largely what he wants, one must ask whether it would require another ecumenical council to make such significant changes.

What do you all think? And how likely do you think it is we’ll see a Vatican III within the next 50 years?
 
mburn16 said:
Yet the current form is a product of Vatican II, and, although the Holy Father can do largely what he wants, one must ask whether it would require another ecumenical council to make such significant changes.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, everything an ecumenical council does must be approved by the Pope. Also, the Pope is free to promulgate anything he wants, without the use of an ecumenical council. How do you think Popes promulgated five typical editions in the nearly four hundred years between the close fo the Council of Trent and the opening of the Second Council of the Vatican?
mburn16 said:
And how likely do you think it is we’ll see a Vatican III within the next 50 years?
Click to expand...
It’s definitely a possibility. Though you really shouldn’t call this hypothetical ecumenical council “Vatican III,” as the Holy Father could assign another place for it. Say “another ecumenical council.” Sorry to be nit–picky.
 
I should clarify…by “required” I mean more politically and bureaucratically than legally.

The Pope, of course, could rewrite the Mass completely by himself of his own authority and have it be entirely valid.
 
mburn16 said:
The Pope, of course, could rewrite the Mass completely by himself of his own authority and have it be entirely valid.
Click to expand...
THAT STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!:mad:
WHAT IF THERE WAS NO CONSECRATION IN THIS “REWRITE”?
AS ONE EXAMPLE…

Let’s here more learned people than me comment on this subject.
Thanks
 
mburn16 said:
Hello all,
As the Catholic church begins the process of introducing the new Missal for the English-speaking churches, it seems to me that the RCC is moving back towards a more traditional direction, this is certainly true with our current Pope who, though not yet reintroducing the coronation or Papal Tiara, has nonetheless been largely friendly to traditionalism through his restoration of some Papal traditions and easing of restrictions on the use of the TLM.
Inevitably, this brings up the discussion of future, serious revisions to the order of Mass - almost certainly back in the general direction of the Tridentine form.
Yet the current form is a product of Vatican II, and, although the Holy Father can do largely what he wants, one must ask whether it would require another ecumenical council to make such significant changes.
What do you all think? And how likely do you think it is we’ll see a Vatican III within the next 50 years?
Click to expand...
fall fox

There are a couple things here, first of all it is not a new Missal, It is a revised Missal, a retranslation of the Roman Missal. Since the Pontiff with the Magisterium are infallible on matters of Faith, I’ll just say that the translation that was a result of Vll, regardless of intent, turned out to be not so good for the Church. It really takes someone my age to be able to remember how Sacred the Mass was. It wasn’t necessarily the Latin, I was an alter boy in the 1950’s &1960’s,
I prefer the Mass in English. We seemed to have lost the sacredness of the Mass. Fellowship seems to be what is most important now. We don’t have the reverence toward the Holy Eucharist that we should have. Many of our churches are treated like social halls instead of a place of worship. We have the second person of the Blessed Trinity our Lord Jesus the Christ with us in the Tabernacle, and a lot of Catholics don’t seem to understand that. I think right now our Church is as close to being the same as Protestant Churches as it can be.
Moving toward a Traditional Direction, Oh My God I Hope So, From what I understand of the Revised Missal it will move in that direction without the Latin.
That is what a more exact translation will do for us. Our Priests need to get on board and bring out of our Catholic attic some of those things that were stored away. The biggest thing is their attitude toward the sacred event they are participating in. Also bring back some of the trappings that connoted a Sacred event, Incense, Chalice Vail, and so on. Also the alter servers need to be more aware of what they are involved in, I have seen some wonderfully trained servers, but more often than not servers aren’t trained well.
We only have one Pope, do you want him to dress in a white business suit? I am proud to see our Holy Father in papal trappings, can you point out someone that has a more important position than Benedict XVlll. I don’t think we could have gotten a better man than Joseph Alois Cardinal Ratzinger. I really think it is difficult for this humble man to wear the trappings of the papacy but I think it makes a positive statement of the office he holds.
 
mburn16 said:
As the Catholic church begins the process of introducing the new Missal for the English-speaking churches
Click to expand...
We are getting a newer translation into English from Latin of the current Missal; there is no new Missal.
mburn16 said:
it seems to me that the RCC is moving back towards a more traditional direction, this is certainly true with our current Pope
Click to expand...
It is the same Missal not a changed one. The current Missal was the work of Bl. John Paul II not Pope Benedict XVI.
mburn16 said:
easing of restrictions on the use of the TLM.
Click to expand...
The Pope is mainly emphasising that the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms did not abrogate the 1962 Roman Missal. He has also mainly re-enforced what was already in place. He has just made sure that it is easier to have Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

IMHO I think the Church will continue with both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite. I do do not envision a wholesale return to the Extraordinary Form.

While we cannot rule out the possibility of an Ecumenical Council in the medium-term future I would be surprised if it were summoned mainly to consider a revision of the Mass. If the Pope wanted to revise the Mass I think he would do this without an Ecumenical Council.
 
AFISHN said:
THAT STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!:mad:
WHAT IF THERE WAS NO CONSECRATION IN THIS “REWRITE”?
AS ONE EXAMPLE…

Let’s here more learned people than me comment on this subject.
Thanks
Click to expand...
I’m sure God would deal with him if such a pope ever tried to remove essential parts of the Mass.
 
As others have said, the Holy See could reform the liturgy on its own initiative. Technically it could so with any liturgy, though reforming any Eastern liturgy from Rome would likely have disastrous consequences.

Whether a massive reform or deform of the Roman Liturgy such as happened after Vatican II is likely without another Ecumenical Council, or whether it is likely in the foreseeable future even with another Ecumenical Council, is debatable.

Personally I don’t see a Vatican III being likely in our lifetimes, but then again someone might have said the same thing about a Vatican II in 1958.
 
AFISHN said:
THAT STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!:mad:
WHAT IF THERE WAS NO CONSECRATION IN THIS “REWRITE”?
AS ONE EXAMPLE…

Let’s here more learned people than me comment on this subject.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Seriously? Then it wouldn’t be mass. Like, literally, it would not be mass.
 
mburn16 said:
I should clarify…by “required” I mean more politically and bureaucratically than legally.

The Pope, of course, could rewrite the Mass completely by himself of his own authority and have it be entirely valid.
Click to expand...
A council addressing the issue of one particular Church (ie the Latin Church) is not an Ecumenical Council. Its a synod. For a council to be Ecumenical, all Churches must be represented. I don’t know why the Eastern Churches need to be involved in an issue that doesn’t concern them.
 
mburn16 said:
What do you all think? And how likely do you think it is we’ll see a Vatican III within the next 50 years?
Click to expand...
The OF has been considered a success in Africa and the Far East. The Polish and Spanish Masses aren’t doing too badly. I doubt if there any plans to revise the OF.

The 500 or so languages in the new liturgy are another story but there’s nothing much another council can do about it. Those matters and practices are pretty much left to the 5000 or so bishops.
 
AFISHN said:
THAT STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!:mad:
WHAT IF THERE WAS NO CONSECRATION IN THIS “REWRITE”?
AS ONE EXAMPLE…

Let’s here more learned people than me comment on this subject.
Thanks
Click to expand...
The Assyrian Church of the East does not have an Institutional Narrative in their Eucharistic Prayer, and it is still considered a valid Mass (see part 3).
ProVobis said:
The Vatican has already approved a rite without a consecration.

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/addai.htm
Click to expand...
…and you beat me to it. 🙂
 
I agree with posters who say that this is simply an updated translation of the Latin Mass that is supposedly more accurate. We will get used to it in a relatively short time I think. On the sacredness of the rite, I do not find the Mass in English to be less sacred than the Latin one. Certainly it is more participative since one can understand what is going on. I appreciate that some here read/write/speak? Latin, but most in the church do not. I am not anxious to go back to the form of Mass where most said the Rosary during Mass rather than attend to what was going on on the altar.

What I do miss is going into a church knowing that the Blessed Sacrament is present. Now the Blessed Sacrament is usually in a chapel or room to the side of the main church. It is not the same. I am not sure why that change occurred. I have heard it is to prevent the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, but it seems to me the tabernacle could be secured as much as the chapel. Just sayin . . .
 
i didn’t mean to suggest that the mass itself had been heavily revised…only that by issuing the new translation, more true to the literal latin than previously, the church seemed to be moving in a more formalized, academic direction…
 
No council would be necessary to revise the mass further.

I think vast rubrical re-tightenings and whatnot will happen, in due time, with or without a council.
 
mburn16 said:
i didn’t mean to suggest that the mass itself had been heavily revised…only that by issuing the new translation, more true to the literal latin than previously, the church seemed to be moving in a more formalized, academic direction…
Click to expand...
Many of the other languages are already more in line with the Latin. English is probably one of the toughest to translate into.
 
mburn16 said:
What do you all think? And how likely do you think it is we’ll see a Vatican III within the next 50 years?
Click to expand...
In the next 50 years? Not likely.

The Church in many ways is still reeling from the last one. When a counsel is called, it’s very disruptive. There is also always a risk of schism etc etc.

Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 in Summorum Pontificum has already declared that both the Mass of Paul VI (ie Novus Ordo, or Ordinary Form) and the Traditional Latin Mass (ie EF, Extraordinary Form) are equally valid.

Joseph Ratzinger is seen as one of the greatest theologian of the 20th century so it’s a safe bet the Church in the years to come will look at back on his works and words as solid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top