Latin Mass Discussion

katydid · 13-10-2015 09:16AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the medieval man or woman typically couldn't read. And, even if literate, couldn't possibly afford a manuscript bible.

All this starts to change with the invention of printing.

There's a common trope in which Protestant reformers encourage the reading of scripture against an oppressive Catholic church which had always forbidden or discouraged it.

There is relatively little truth in this. What mainly discouraged the reading of scripture in medieval Europe was (a) lack of literacy, and (b) lack of money. Those who could read, and who could afford books, were perfectly free to read the scriptures, and in lots of pious hagiographies from the period are praised for the amount of time they devoted to doing so. One of the first books to be printed in Europe was the bible (specifically, the Gutenberg bible of 1455). Obviously printers thought there would be a market for bibles, and they were right - it was a great success, commercially speaking

The Gutenberg was in Latin, of course, but at the time anyone who could read, could read Latin. But there were plenty of vernacular translations of the Bible into various languages in the Middle Ages and, while particular translations might be criticised or banned if associated with particular heresies (e.g. the Waldensians) the church in general didn't have a problem with translations. Well before the Protestant reformation, the bible was available in French, Czech, German, Catalan, Castilian, Italian, English, Welsh and many other languages. But in fact it was still mostly read, and mostly printed, in Latin. This wasn't the result of any church or state control; it was a response to market demand.

Probably the increasing affordability (and therefore accessiblity) of the scriptures is one of the factors that led to the Protestant reformation, rather than the other way around. And once the reformation turned into a power struggle, one of the tactics used by both sides was the attempt to control the scriptures, by banning translations that they disapproved of, or producing and circulating translations that they approved of. It's common to present the Catholic church as engaged in this activity; in fact all sides were at it, to one degree or another. For example the English church (then still Catholic) banned Wyclif's bible in the early fifteenth century (too Lollard), but the same church, post-reformation, at various times banned Tyndale's bible (too Lutheran), the Geneva Bible (too Calvinist), the Great Bible and the Douay-Rheims (both too Catholic).

I take your point that the average medieval man or woman couldn't read, but my point was that this meant they were fed a diet of simplistic pap, designed to keep them devout and God-fearing. It wasn't, however, just about reading, but about hearing; one of the main points of vernacular worship was to allow the faithful to hear the scriptures in the vernacular.

Of course, once you get into the vernacular and into translations, you run into disputes about which translation, but it's not as if there were no disputes about Latin and other translations from Greek, or different versions of Latin translations...

katydid · 13-10-2015 09:21AM

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Again that's false. Translated bibles were available as soon as printed books became affordable. 'Real Church history' to you is likely some Pentecostal ministry's or Conservopedia's potted 'history.' That last sentence needs 'where' not 'were.' We should get back to the topic. Religious polemic is not on topic.

The Rosary is based around episodes of the New Testament. I take it you are barely aware of it. A Pentecostal Protestant also is selective in his or her reading of the Bible. Luther edited out the Apocrypha (for Purgatory etc), Epistle of James (for works) and those parts of the Bible contradicting his distortions of the Faith. A Late Medieval work like the Cloud of Unknowing shows an easier grasp of the Bible than most moderns. Widespread illiteracy was a barrier to deep knowledge, but the idea that medieval man was a primitive held in ignorance by the Church is a bad myth.

The Novus Ordo Missae, and more relevantly for this part of the Anglosphere (to deal in facts) the ICEL paraphrasing (not translation really) of Abp Bugini's work saw a filleting of so many parts, so many prayers of the Mass. A person should just compared the two Missals. I might link a comparison later. There are also issues like how the nature of Christ's Sacrifice, it's propriatory nature is not explicit in the text, although the Catechism states that this is the nature of the Sacrifice.

Again religious controversy is not the topic, but rather Catholic parishes.

I am more than aware of what the rosary is - I was subjected to the drone of it often enough in my childhood. It refers to certain episodes from the New Testament, hardly a vast source of knowledge of scripture for those reciting it.

Your "explanation" of your problem with Novus Ordo leaves more questions than it answers.

katydid · 13-10-2015 09:22AM

Manach wrote: »

Attending mass in other languages still has the same flow and cadence, thus is still a familiar experience. This is even more so in Latin as the words resonate with the same phrases from the earliest times as part the past communities of the Church.

The same flow and cadence is good. Knowing what is being said is surely better, where possible? Why deliberately create a barrier when none is necessary?

Peregrinus · 13-10-2015 09:40AM

katydid wrote: »

. . . It wasn't, however, just about reading, but about hearing; one of the main points of vernacular worship was to allow the faithful to hear the scriptures in the vernacular.

Yes, good point.

katydid wrote: »

Of course, once you get into the vernacular and into translations, you run into disputes about which translation, but it's not as if there were no disputes about Latin and other translations from Greek, or different versions of Latin translations...

Actually, there were surprisingly few. The Septuagint (for Greek) and the Vulgate (for Latin) were pretty well universally accepted for the thousand years or so before the Reformation, even among Christians who disagreed about virtually everything else. In fact, the Vulgate was so universally accepted that many of the the early Protestant reformers made their vernacular translations from the Vulgate, rather than from the original languages.

I think what happened at the time of the Reformation was that both the scriptures themselves, and the business of scriptural translation, became politicised in a way they hadn't been before. Hence the scramble by civil and ecclesiastical authorities on both sides to claim control over them.

On the plus side, this did result in significant additional resources being devoted to the study and translation of the scriptures by both Catholics and Protestants.

Manach · 13-10-2015 09:43AM

katydid wrote: »

The same flow and cadence is good. Knowing what is being said is surely better, where possible? Why deliberately create a barrier when none is necessary?

For latin, I'd know some having done a little classics/history. For other unknown languages, it is still the same sacramental ceromony which involves that air of mystery & beauty that is at the heart of Christendom.

katydid · 13-10-2015 09:56AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, there were surprisingly few. The Septuagint (for Greek) and the Vulgate (for Latin) were pretty well universally accepted for the thousand years or so before the Reformation, even among Christians who disagreed about virtually everything else. In fact, the Vulgate was so universally accepted that many of the the early Protestant reformers made their vernacular translations from the Vulgate, rather than from the original languages.

I think what happened at the time of the Reformation was that both the scriptures themselves, and the business of scriptural translation, became politicised in a way they hadn't been before. Hence the scramble by civil and ecclesiastical authorities on both sides to claim control over them.

On the plus side, this did result in significant additional resources being devoted to the study and translation of the scriptures by both Catholics and Protestants.

Yes, I agree that there were relatively few disputes about translation within the Western church in the thousand years or so leading up to the Reformation. But before that, there was quite a hive of activity, with texts being translated left, right and centre without any co-ordination, and into the various languages of Christendom. Things settled down with the canonisation of scripture, the council of Nicea etc., and remained so for a long while.

You're right about the "politicisation" of the business of scriptural translation - it was bound to happen, because it was an easy and visible target for the demonstration of the new thinking. And nowadays, even in English, there are so many versions of the Bible, you can't just walk into a shop and ask for "a bible"...

katydid · 13-10-2015 09:58AM

Manach wrote: »

For latin, I'd know some having done a little classics/history. For other unknown languages, it is still the same sacramental ceromony which involves that air of mystery & beauty that is at the heart of Christendom.

Of course there is, but that doesn't answer my question - why deliberately put up a barrier when there is no need? Not everyone has studied classics/history.
While it's possible to follow the gist of things, I like to be able to hear and understand when the priest utters the words of consecration.

Peregrinus · 13-10-2015 10:03AM

katydid wrote: »

You're right about the "politicisation" of the business of scriptural translation - it was bound to happen, because it was an easy and visible target for the demonstration of the new thinking. . . .

I think it's a bit more than that. Both the reformers and the reactionaries relied heavily on state power, civil power, legal compulsion to try to have their respective views prevail. Thus what started out as an ideological conflict almost immediately became an intensely political one, with each side attempting to prevail not through faith but through the exercise of power. (There were notable individual exceptions on both sides but they were, alas, exceptions.) Thus all points of dispute in the Reformation were almost immediately politicised, and the scriptures are a prime example of this.

Peregrinus · 13-10-2015 10:07AM

katydid wrote: »

Of course there is, but that doesn't answer my question - why deliberately put up a barrier when there is no need? Not everyone has studied classics/history.
While it's possible to follow the gist of things, I like to be able to hear and understand when the priest utters the words of consecration.

You may like that, but not everybody feels the same way (and the attenders at St. Kevin's clearly don't). So what would be a barrier for you is not a barrier for them.

And, in fairness, when the liturgy is familiar enough to you, you don't need to hear what is being said in order to know what is being said - you've heard it a thousand times before. You may like to hear the words clearly spoken in your vernacular language, but that's a subjective preference. You don't need to hear the words in your own language in order to know what they mean.

hinault · 13-10-2015 10:33AM

Manach wrote: »

Attending mass in other languages still has the same flow and cadence, thus is still a familiar experience. This is even more so in Latin as the words resonate with the same phrases from the earliest times as part the past communities of the Church.

Yes.

It is a bizzare line of argument to say that because something is conducted in a foreign language that one cannot know or understand what is going on.

A truly bizzare argument. What is the motivation for such an argument?

I remember attending a friends wedding in France. The Mass was offered "en Francaise".
No difficulty at all following the Mass.
Granted following the homily was difficult because my French isn't great.

Then again no two homilies anywhere in the world on a given Sunday will be exactly the same, unlike the Mass.

uck51js9zml2yt · 13-10-2015 12:08PM

Manach wrote: »

For latin, I'd know some having done a little classics/history. For other unknown languages, it is still the same sacramental ceromony which involves that air of mystery & beauty that is at the heart of Christendom Roman Catholicism.

I've corrected your post

katydid · 13-10-2015 01:27PM

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

I've corrected your post

Why is what he wrote wrong? Roman Catholicism doesn't have a monopoly on the mystery of the sacrament of the Eucharist

katydid · 13-10-2015 01:28PM

hinault wrote: »

Yes.

It is a bizzare line of argument to say that because something is conducted in a foreign language that one cannot know or understand what is going on.

A truly bizzare argument. What is the motivation for such an argument?

I remember attending a friends wedding in France. The Mass was offered "en Francaise".
No difficulty at all following the Mass.
Granted following the homily was difficult because my French isn't great.

Then again no two homilies anywhere in the world on a given Sunday will be exactly the same, unlike the Mass.

How is it bizarre? When something is happening in a language you don't understand, you can't understand it in the same way as when it's in a language you do understand. It doesn't mean you can't follow it, but not in the same way.

I'm a language teacher; I've had thirty years of observing how people interact with second and third languages. But you don't need to be a language teacher or a linguist to understand that basic fact.

katydid · 13-10-2015 01:31PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may like that, but not everybody feels the same way (and the attenders at St. Kevin's clearly don't). So what would be a barrier for you is not a barrier for them.

And, in fairness, when the liturgy is familiar enough to you, you don't need to hear what is being said in order to know what is being said - you've heard it a thousand times before. You may like to hear the words clearly spoken in your vernacular language, but that's a subjective preference. You don't need to hear the words in your own language in order to know what they mean.

It IS a barrier, whether they acknowledge it or not. They may have ways of overcoming or ignoring the barrier, because it doesn't matter to them, but it is nevertheless a barrier. On a purely linguistic level.

You can approximate what words mean if you are familiar with them in your own language, but it involves an extra layer of processing to understand them if you have to work through a second language with which you are only vaguely familiar.

uck51js9zml2yt · 13-10-2015 01:36PM

katydid wrote: »

Why is what he wrote wrong? Roman Catholicism doesn't have a monopoly on the mystery of the sacrament of the Eucharist

I took his post in context.
Plus Protestant churches don't look on the Eucharist in the same way the RCC does.

Peregrinus · 13-10-2015 01:43PM

It's obviously a barrier to them, if their object is to understand the words spoken.

But, fairly obviously, people participate in religous rituals (or, for that matter, secular rituals) for a variety of purposes, and "understanding the words spoken" may come fairly far down on the list of their purposes, or may not be on the list at all. The sense of connection and/or universality they get from the use of the Latin may mean more to them than immediate understanding of a verbal formula that they are already intimately familiar with. For them, not using Latin could conceivably be more of a barrier to what they are seeking from their participation than using it.

After all, people go to rock concerts where the music is played at a volume which makes discerning the lyrics impossible; they have a good time just the same. People go to operas sung in languages that they do not understand; they experience intense emotions.

There is more to sacramentality and to connection than verbal comprehension, is all I'm saying.

Peregrinus · 13-10-2015 02:15PM

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

I took his post in context.
Plus Protestant churches don't look on the Eucharist in the same way the RCC does.

Well, they mostly do. Most would certainly put the eucharist at the heart of their worship and their communal experience, and most would affirm the Real Presence. They wouldn't have an understanding of the Real Presence which aligns precisely with the Roman Catholic understanding, but it's close enough. And you could say the same for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

I'm aware that some Evangelical traditions don't celebrate the eucharist that frequently but, even then, I've always assumed that they would still assert that the Eucharist is central to their lives as Christians, and the sense of themselves as a Christian community.

Am I wrong?

katydid · 13-10-2015 02:59PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's obviously a barrier to them, if their object is to understand the words spoken.

But, fairly obviously, people participate in religous rituals (or, for that matter, secular rituals) for a variety of purposes, and "understanding the words spoken" may come fairly far down on the list of their purposes, or may not be on the list at all. The sense of connection and/or universality they get from the use of the Latin may mean more to them than immediate understanding of a verbal formula that they are already intimately familiar with. For them, not using Latin could conceivably be more of a barrier to what they are seeking from their participation than using it.

After all, people go to rock concerts where the music is played at a volume which makes discerning the lyrics impossible; they have a good time just the same. People go to operas sung in languages that they do not understand; they experience intense emotions.

There is more to sacramentality and to connection than verbal comprehension, is all I'm saying.

I agree totally with you; all I'm saying is why put unnecessary barriers up. Of course the barriers are clearly overcome, or rather, compensated for by the holistic experience, but still, why have it in the first place?

Of course, it's not only in the RC church that such a debate exists - there is still a strong cohort in the Anglican church which holds on for dear life to the old style Elizabethan language of the Book of Common Prayer, and in general they are accommodated. In the modern Irish version of the BCP, the old liturgies and language are included, and are used now and then, at the discretion of the minister and/or the congregation. In my parish, they are used on the fifth Sunday of the month, and that seems to keep the language lovers and the older generation, who grew up with the old liturgy and find comfort in it, happy. Even if it can in places be just as much of an alien language as Latin - praying for the "quick and the dead", for example.

However, you do find unsettling instances of people clinging to the old language no matter what, almost on a point of principle, and in these cases the point of the liturgy is forgotten. In one church I occasionally take services in, they are very set in their ways, and insist that, although the new liturgy is used, the Lord's Prayer be said in the old form. One day, I went wild and used the new form, as there were some children in the congregation, and I thought it might be nicer for them. After the service, over coffee, I was "told off" in no uncertain terms by one of the churchwardens - it was disguised as a "I have a bone to pick with you" kind of joke, but it was seriously meant. I smiled and said I thought it would be nice for the children, but the answer was that the traditional form was good enough for her as a child so it was good enough for them...
What was more unsettling was that one of the younger women, in her mid thirties, said that she had been very upset when she heard me leading with the new form, and didn't know what to do, so she just kept on saying the old form.

When people become so entrenched that the form of worship rather than the meaning of worship is more important, that's not good. Getting back to the original issue, if Latin works for some people, fine. They are clearly happy to circumvent the linguistic barrier in the spirit of a different experience. There's room for everyone. My personal opinion is to make worship as accessible as possible by not having barriers such as linguistic ones, but then someone else might consider other things as barriers that I don't see in that way, such as the idea of rubrics and a liturgy instead of a free flowing worship.

katydid · 13-10-2015 03:00PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, they mostly do. Most would certainly put the eucharist at the heart of their worship and their communal experience, and most would affirm the Real Presence. They wouldn't have an understanding of the Real Presence which aligns precisely with the Roman Catholic understanding, but it's close enough. And you could say the same for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

I'm aware that some Evangelical traditions don't celebrate the eucharist that frequently but, even then, I've always assumed that they would still assert that the Eucharist is central to their lives as Christians, and the sense of themselves as a Christian community.

Am I wrong?

Tatrasnka is always at pains to point out that he/she isn't a Protestant, so maybe not in a position to answer that question. :-)

katydid · 13-10-2015 03:01PM

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

I took his post in context.
Plus Protestant churches don't look on the Eucharist in the same way the RCC does.

Says who?

Peregrinus · 13-10-2015 04:11PM

katydid wrote: »

Tatrasnka is always at pains to point out that he/she isn't a Protestant, so maybe not in a position to answer that question. :-)

He identifies as an Evangelical, though, so maybe he could comment on the place of the Eucharist in that tradition.

Thinkingaboutit · 13-10-2015 10:31PM

katydid wrote: »

Tatrasnka is always at pains to point out that he/she isn't a Protestant, so maybe not in a position to answer that question. :-)

People who believe the world is 6000 years old might claim that the Church persecuted translators of the Bible. I cannot prove it did not, as negatives cannot be proven.

People claim that St Thomas Moore tortured heretics in his basement. Fox's Martyrs is the origin of that dubious and unproven claim. Calvinist Geneva lit stakes for people it judged heretical. Michael Servetus was burnt for what Geneva's elders judged heretical. One could also note how the English created Black Legend of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries massively exaggerated the Spanish Inquisition. It should be noted that English judges of that time and later were fairly liberal in the sense of sentencing people to hang (draw and be quartered if their offence was somehow religious which was often cast as treason of a sort) for the most trifling offenses. Nor was Protestant England too relaxed about religious dissent. No pre modern state was.

People who say they are not Protestant tend to either follow some sort of Pentecostal Protestantism which describes itself as non-denominational, or they are a Catholic who holds to that 70s 'People's Church' idea espoused by Jesuits of the 1970s who variously joined Latin American guerrilla groups and/or spouted the worst sort of Marxism in the lecture halls.

This People's Church enthused many, but its Marxist core is rightly discredited, even if it still has elderly adherents who are be quoted too often as spokesmen for the Faith in the Irish Times. In fact, in the wake of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae there was a collapse in Mass attendance and an even more startling loss of vocations among priests, monks and nuns.

This collapse was only arrested when Pope John Paul II made it harder for the religious person to discard their vocation. New vocations outside certain ethnic Rites and Tradition remain miserable. Vocations remain strong in poorer countries where the Church can still attract people of ability and provides essential services. Yet that is a brittle and transient position. Witness the collapse experienced by the Church in Latin America, the tramping ground of those guerrilla Jesuits. People might take their charity, but they go to Pentecostal services.

All those bizarre puppet Masses or vile sacrilege like liturgical dancing show a desperate attempt to hold people's attention with novelty. Church attendance remained strong in Ireland for a longer time as it was the normal done thing. That perception was brittle enough to be shattered by a mixture of worthless religious education for children, and simply events, that is, the paedophile scandals and the cover-ups.

The great beauty of the Mass caused a number of English people among them the Protestant Agatha Christie to seek and gain an Indult from Paul VI for the bishops England and Wales. This Indult or permission, permission to say the Mass in the Tridentine Latin rite, was far wider than the Indults given to individuals (the Opus Dei founder Fr Josemaría Escrivá got one while his secretive Order sidelined the Tridentine Rite) or religious orders who can still say Masses which predate even the Council of Trent.

The Society of Pius X say that their weekly total Sunday Mass attendance in France exceed that in Novus Ordo diocesan churches. Maybe, maybe not. People like the members of the Association of Catholic Priests might be too old and proud to admit failure, but the New Mass has been something of a disaster. It was the work of an Archbishop, Annibale Bugini, strongly suspected of Freemasonry (why did Paul VI exile him to a non job in Iran so quickly?) who largely listened to six Protestant advisors rather a Concilium of theologians who were meant to guide the work. People are put asleep it if exceeds half an hour, which is not helped by priests incapable of preaching sermons with a beginning, middle and end. I hope the coming years see an end to the Novus Ordo Missae, a failed experimental rite. Suppressing it is not realistic, but I hope more see the great beauty of the Mass of Ages.

This is part of a series by Fr Anthony Cekada based on his book Work of Human Hands: A THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE MASS OF PAUL VI. Fr Cedaka fully rejects Vatican II, which is too radical a position. Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, was able to assent to all but one position, that on Ecumenism. However, it puts forward the Traditional position in an uncompromising way:

I took the clear exposition of the issues with the NOM from the US SSPX website:

What is wrong with the Novus Ordo Missae?

A. Preliminary remarks

A criticism of the New Rite cannot be a criticism of the Mass in itself, for this is the very sacrifice of Our Lord bequeathed to His Church, but it is an examination, whether it is a fit rite for embodying and enacting this august Sacrifice.
It is difficult for those who have known nothing other than the Novus Ordo Missae to understand of what they have been deprived, and attending a “Latin Mass” often just seems alien. To see clearly what it is all about, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the defined truths of our Faith on the Mass (principles 11-18 are some of them). Only in the light of these can the “new rite” of Mass be evaluated.
B. What is the Novus Ordo Missae?

Let us first examine the elements of the Novus Ordo Missae. Some are Catholic:

a priest,
bread and wine,
genuflections,
signs of the Cross, etc.,
but some are Protestant:

a table,
common-place utensils,
communion under both kinds and in the hand, etc.
The Novus Ordo Missae assumes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness. Indeed, the Novus Ordo Missae presents itself as:

a meal (vs. principle 11). This is shown by its use of a table around which the people of God gather to offer bread and wine (vs. principle 18) and to communicate from rather common-place utensils, often under both kinds (vs. principle 15), and usually in the hand (vs. principle 16). (Note too the almost complete deletion of references to sacrifice).
a narrative of a past event (vs. principle 12). This told out loud by the one presiding (vs. principle 14), who recounts Our Lord’s words as read in Scripture (rather than pronouncing a sacramental formula) and who makes no pause until he has shown the Host to the people.
a community gathering, (vs. principle 13). Christ is perhaps considered to be morally present but ignored in his Sacramental Presence (vs. principles 16 & 17).
Notice also the numerous rubrical changes:

the celebrant facing the people from where the tabernacle was formerly kept.
just after the consecration, all acclaim He “will come again.”
sacred vessels are no longer gilt.
Sacred Particles are ignored (vs. principle 15)
the priest no longer joins thumb and forefinger after the consecration.
the vessels are not purified as they used to be.
Communion is most frequently given in the hand.
genuflections on the part of the priest and kneeling on the part of the faithful are much reduced.
Moreover, the Novus Ordo Missae defined itself this way:

The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is a sacred synaxis, or assembly of the people of God gathered together under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. (Pope Paul VI, Institutio Generalis, §7, 1969 version)
What is the aim of the Novus Ordo Missae as a rite?

...the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy... there was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist service...*
*Jean Guitton on December 19, 1993 in Apropos (17), p. 8ff, also in Christian Order, October 1994. Jean Guitton was an intimate friend of Pope Paul VI. Paul VI had 116 of his books and had made marginal study notes in 17 of these.

That Paul VI's intention was accomplished is made clear by Michael Davies:

When I began work on this trilogy I was concerned at the extent to which the Catholic liturgy was being Protestantized. The more detailed my study of the Revolution, the more evident it has become that it has by-passed Protestantism and its final goal is humanism. (Pope Paul's New Mass, pp. 137 and 149)
This latter is a fair evaluation when one considers the changes implemented, the results achieved, and the tendency of modern theology, even papal theology (cf. question 7).

Who made up the Novus Ordo Missae?

It is the invention of a liturgical commission, the Consilium, whose guiding light was Fr. Annibale Bugnini (made an archbishop in 1972 for his services), and which also included six Protestant experts. Fr. Bugnini (principal author of Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium) had his own ideas on popular involvement in the liturgy (La Riforma Liturgia, A. Bugnini, Centro Liturgico Vincenziano, 1983), while the Protestant advisors had their own heretical ideas on the essence of the Mass.

However, the one on whose authority the Novus Ordo Missae was enforced was Pope Paul VI, who “promulgated” it by his apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969). However, his proscription was highly unclear.

In the original version of Missale Romanum, signed by Pope Paul VI, no mention was made either of anyone’s being obliged to use the Novus Ordo Missae or when such an obligation might begin.
Translators of the constitution mistranslated cogere et efficere (i.e., to sum up and draw a conclusion) as to give force of law.
The version in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (which records all official texts of the papacy) has an added paragraph “enjoining” the new missal, but it is in the wrong tense, the past, and reads praescripsimus (i.e., which we have ordered) thereby referring to a past obligation, and nothing, moreover, in Missale Romanum prescribes, but at most permits the use of the “New Rite" (The Angelus, March 1997, p. 35).
Can it be true that Pope Paul VI wanted this missal but that it was not properly imposed (it is known moreover, that Pope Paul VI signed the Institutio Generalis without reading it and without ensuring that it had been previously confirmed by the Holy Office).
Judgment on the Novus Ordo Missae

Judging the Novus Ordo Missae in itself and in its official Latin form (printed in 1969)*, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Pope Paul VI:

...the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent." (A Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae, September 25, 1969)

*A Novus Ordo Missae celebrated according to the 1969 typical edition would look very similar to the traditional Roman Rite, with the celebrant saying most (if not all) the prayers in Latin, facing the tabernacle and wearing the traditional Mass vestments, with a male altar server, and Gregorian chant, etc. None of the current abuses, e.g., Communion in the hand, Eucharistic Ministers, liturgical dancing, guitar-masses, etc., have part with this official form. Hence, the aforementioned cardinals' (as well as the SSPX's) critique of the Novus Ordo Missae is not of its abuses or misapplication, but rather of its essential and official form.

Archbishop Lefebvre definitely agreed when he wrote:

The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules ...is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith." (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29)
The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have. The Church was promised the Novus Ordo Missae would renew Catholic fervor, inspire the young, draw back the lapsed and attract non-Catholics. Who today can pretend that these things are its fruits? Together with the Novus Ordo Missae did there not instead come a dramatic decline in Mass attendance and vocations, an “identity crisis” among priests, a slowing in the rate of conversions, and an acceleration of apostasies? So, from the point of view of its fruits, the Novus Ordo Missae does not seem to be a rite conducive to the flourishing of the Church’s mission.

Does it follow from the apparent promulgation by the popes that the Novus Ordo Missae is truly Catholic?

No, for the indefectibility of the Church does not prevent the pope personally from promoting defective and modernist rites in the Latin Rite of the Church. Moreover, the Novus Ordo Missae:

was not properly promulgated (and therefore does not have force of law; cf., [vi] above),
the old Roman Mass (aka, the Tridentine or traditional Latin Mass) was not abolished or superseded in the constitution Missale Romanum, hence in virtue of the of Quo Primum (which de jure [by law] is still the liturgical law and therefore the official Mass of the Roman Rite), it can always be said (principle 19),
and lastly, the constitution Missale Romanum does not engage the Church's infallibility.*
*Let us remember that a pope engages his infallibility not only when teaching on faith or morals (or legislating on what is necessarily connected with them) but when so doing with full pontifical authority and definitively (cf. Vatican I [Denzinger §1839]. But as regards the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope Paul VI has stated (November 19, 1969) that:

...the rite and its related rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. They are capable of various theological qualifications, depending on the liturgical context to which they relate. They are gestures and terms relating to a lived and living religious action which involves the ineffable mystery of God's presence; it is an action that is not always carried out in the exact same form, an action that only theological analysis can examine and express in doctrinal formulas that are logically satisfying."
It should be also be understood that the papal bull, Quo Primum is neither an infallible document, but rather only a disciplinary document regarding the liturgical law that governs the Tridentine Rite (cf. this Catholic FAQ for details).

Is the Novus Ordo Missae invalid?
This does not necessarily follow from the above defects, as serious as they might be, for only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), proper:

matter,
form,
and intention.
However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting).

Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity.

The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in principle 5) been respected? While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt.

Are we obliged in conscience to attend the Novus Ordo Missae?

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).

I hope all of this posts. Apologies for the excessive length, but I dislike post little bits again and again.

hinault · 13-10-2015 11:26PM

Interesting post, Thinking.

There appears to be a lot of debate as to the comparison in spiritual between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass.
There are some commentators who say that the spiritual benefits deriving from the Tridentine Mass are greater than those derived from the Novus Ordo.

How do they arrive at this conclusion? That's the difficult part.

Part of their argument is that spiritual benefits manifest themselves in material benefits for worshipers, for their congregation and for their parish. How reliable is the measurement of these material benefits is debatable of course. I know people who attend the Tridentine Mass and their view seems to accord with the view that spiritual benefits and material benefits go hand in hand.

I'm not best placed to judge the merits of the arguments which say that one Mass is superior to the other Mass. I simply have no basis to know whether those judgements are right or wrong, or partly right or partly wrong.

I attend both the NO and TLM.
As a member of the congregation, I find TLM far more reverential and "God focused" compared to the NO Mass.

Having said that I hold no objection to the NO Mass. I accept that the Church has ruled on the NO Mass. While I question some aspects of the introduction of the NO Mass in to the Church, there are other aspects of that same introduction which do make sense.

However I have to trust that the Church and her decision to permit the celebration of the NO Mass.

looksee · 14-10-2015 07:37AM

Going back to the start of the discussion, there was mention of accessibility to the mass in Latin, and a few people said they had no problems following the Latin Mass. However, would this not be because they had been extensively exposed to the Mass in English?

If they had never heard anything other than a Mass in Latin, had no knowledge of Latin and no guidance or education in the meaning of the Mass then the whole experience would surely be mysterious and impressive, but something from which they were detached.

My understanding (ie, I was told) was that in times before people had education they were not expected to understand the Mass, that was the prerogative and responsibility of the Priests; they were only required to be physically present.

Peregrinus · 14-10-2015 07:58AM

looksee wrote: »

Going back to the start of the discussion, there was mention of accessibility to the mass in Latin, and a few people said they had no problems following the Latin Mass. However, would this not be because they had been extensively exposed to the Mass in English?

Nowadays, mostly yes.

looksee wrote: »

If they had never heard anything other than a Mass in Latin, had no knowledge of Latin and no guidance or education in the meaning of the Mass then the whole experience would surely be mysterious and impressive, but something from which they were detached.

Not necessarily. Back in they day, when the Latin mass was all there was, everyone had a bilingual missal, so you could follow along. And, of course, after you had been doing that for a while, you could follow along without the missal.

looksee wrote: »

My understanding (ie, I was told) was that in times before people had education they were not expected to understand the Mass, that was the prerogative and responsibility of the Priests; they were only required to be physically present.

There's a measure of truth in that, but you are putting in a very negative way. It's correct, I think, that there was a devotional culture in which "assisting at mass" meant simply being there, and people were encouraged to pray privately, reflect on the sacred mysteries, etc rather than necessarily following what the priest was saying. The practice of ringing the sanctuary bells at the elevation was intended to call your attention to the moment of consecration, the assumption being that your attention might otherwise be on your own prayers, which is where it was for much of the mass.

At this time, remember, you mostly couldn't hear what the priest was saying, no matter what language it was in, because (a) he had his back to you, and (b) there was no amplification - this technology didn't exist, or wasn't widely available in churches. And this was especially true from the nineteenth century onwards, where you had large suburban churches with hundreds, and sometimes more than a thousand, in the congregation. So in part this attitude to participation in mass was simply a response to circumstances, rather than a theological conviction that this was how it ought to be.

It's not entirely fair to say that people "weren't expected to understand the mass". The weren't expected to understand the words as they were spoken - they weren't expected to hear the words as they were spoken - but they were expected and encouraged to understand what happened at the mass, what the mass signified, etc, and to meditate during the mass on the sacrifice of Christ, etc.

looksee · 14-10-2015 08:25AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nowadays, mostly yes.

Not necessarily. Back in they day, when the Latin mass was all there was, everyone had a bilingual missal, so you could follow along. And, of course, after you had been doing that for a while, you could follow along without the missal.

There's a measure of truth in that, but you are putting in a very negative way. It's correct, I think, that there was a devotional culture in which "assisting at mass" meant simply being there, and people were encouraged to pray privately, reflect on the sacred mysteries, etc rather than necessarily following what the priest was saying. The practice of ringing the sanctuary bells at the elevation was intended to call your attention to the moment of consecration, the assumption being that your attention might otherwise be on your own prayers, which is where it was for much of the mass.

At this time, remember, you mostly couldn't hear what the priest was saying, no matter what language it was in, because (a) he had his back to you, and (b) there was no amplification - this technology didn't exist, or wasn't widely available in churches. And this was especially true from the nineteenth century onwards, where you had large suburban churches with hundreds, and sometimes more than a thousand, in the congregation. So in part this attitude to participation in mass was simply a response to circumstances, rather than a theological conviction that this was how it ought to be.

It's not entirely fair to say that people "weren't expected to understand the mass". The weren't expected to understand the words as they were spoken - they weren't expected to hear the words as they were spoken - but they were expected and encouraged to understand what happened at the mass, what the mass signified, etc, and to meditate during the mass on the sacrifice of Christ, etc.

I did not intend it to come over as negative, while I am normally putting a non-religious point of view, in this case it is simply a neutral interest in something I have only peripheral knowledge of.

I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that missals translating into the vernacular were only introduced around the 1950s? This is very recent in terms of the history of the Mass.

I would not argue with your point about people understanding what happened at the Mass and its significance, but apart from the use of imagery in the form of illustrative windows and the Stations of the Cross plaques or carvings, how were illiterate people taught about the meaning of the Mass and their obligations? The phrase about people (historically) not being required to understand the Mass, just to attend, was given to me in explanation by a devout person with RC education and both an academic and personal interest in ensuring my understanding (ie he was hoping for a conversion

).

katydid · 14-10-2015 09:29AM

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

ain.

Far too much information to even start responding. All I can say, reading it, is that a Christian who thinks a Eucharist may not be valid because the priest doesn't join his thumb and forefinger together at a certain point in the rite, or because a table rather than an altar is used, really needs to get their priorities right.

And maybe think of the early Christians, including those who knew Christ, who sat around a table in a room, and ate and drank from ordinary cups and plates, and celebrated the sacrament of the Eucharist...

Peregrinus · 14-10-2015 09:36AM

It's before my time, but I think parallel-text missals were common from the nineteenth century, i.e. from the time when the "average" Catholic had at least a primary education, and could read. What happened in the 1950s is that the vernacular started to be used in masses, (as well as responses by the congregation, rather than just the altar servers and acolytes). That may have led to people paying a lot more attention to their missals, but the parallel-text missals had been around for a while.

As for "how illiterate people were taught" about the mass, I think we need to distinguish between the 1950s and, e.g, the 1750s. As noted above, from about the mid-nineteenth century, the "average" adult Catholic has been literate, and has had at least a primary education, often in a church school, so there has been plenty of opportunity to engage in religious instruction. Much earlier that that, the average Catholic was illiterate and never had more than rudimentary schooling, but of course exactly the same was true of the average Protestant. For both Catholics and Protestants, there were what we would recognise as Sunday Schools, but I suspect there was quite a diversity from place to place and from time to time in how much Sunday schooling was provided, how many people participated and the age at which they stopped participating. Sunday schools were supplemented by preaching, which, in both traditions, was in English. Again, the quality of preaching would depend on the quality of the preacher, and on the stress which the local bishop laid on preaching, and on training for preaching in clerical education. So I suspect levels of knowledge and understanding were, um, variable in both traditions.

If we look at commentary on religion and religiosity from this time, it pays a lot of attention to regularity of church attendance, and decency, generosity and charity in people's habits of life. A "good" Catholic or Protestant went to church, respected others, lived decently, did works of charity and virtue, etc, etc. Little attention was paid to the depth of his theology. This, of course, was in a very class-ridden world in which it was taken for granted that the respectable lower orders did not have, and were not expected to cultivate, much in the way of intellectual attainment; that was for gentlemen and higher. Most Christians weren't considered to be called to develop a deep appreciation of the theology of the eucharist; the "simple faith of a peasant" would be manifested in a virtuous Christian life. And I don't know that there was a huge difference between Protestants and Catholics in this regard.

hinault · 14-10-2015 11:31AM

looksee wrote: »

Going back to the start of the discussion, there was mention of accessibility to the mass in Latin, and a few people said they had no problems following the Latin Mass. However, would this not be because they had been extensively exposed to the Mass in English?

If they had never heard anything other than a Mass in Latin, had no knowledge of Latin and no guidance or education in the meaning of the Mass then the whole experience would surely be mysterious and impressive, but something from which they were detached.

My understanding (ie, I was told) was that in times before people had education they were not expected to understand the Mass, that was the prerogative and responsibility of the Priests; they were only required to be physically present.

You didn't bother either to open the Latin-English Booklet Missal that was linked in this thread earlier.

katydid · 14-10-2015 12:24PM

hinault wrote: »

You didn't bother either to open the Latin-English Booklet Missal that was linked in this thread earlier.

Why would that be relevant?

Latin Mass Discussion

Comments