The Death of the Novus Ordo in Latin?
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    " the Church chose Latin, not others" I mean to say 'Roman' Catholic Church. Once again I didn't specify it, because this discussion was about Latin rite. I never said vernaculars are not valuable. Vernacular languages have their own places in the Roman Catholic church, but not in the same place as latin. Gregorian Chant has its place, and organ has its own place in Latin rite, (not in Eastern rites), even if other songs and instruments are allowed. And I'm sure you can use and see them as sacred as you can, but they don't hold the same places in Roman liturgy and Church. It's my faith that unless the Church changes Her own language, latin is the sacred language for my Roman Catholic faith, whether I appreciate other languages or not ,and other secular things are allowed in the church or not . It seems very strange for me that I have to defend Latin for Latin rite. It seems more logical here to talk about Hebrew EF and Greek OF than defending latin for Latin rite.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Charles, W. There's no magic but maybe a mystery in what I experience with the sacred language and Traditional mass and Gregorian chant. And so are those of many of my schola members with whom I tried to share that experience.
    OF Latin is a bridge betweem OF and EF for many people who are interested in traditional Mass or just the tradition of the Church. This all comes to the willing hearts, and the Church knows that. They are not enforcing it with the loud voice. I agree that beautiful music with secular languages is a good stepping stone for people who need them.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 825
    And, again, CharlesW, you Easterns treat Slavonic differently than we Latins treat Latin. As Fortescue says, "intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church" (The Orthodox Eastern Church, p. 96, footnote).

    The Latin Mass is growing exponentially. It is not an anachronism, unless you are accusing us of worshipping anachronism as an idol. That would be a whopper of a charge. Is that what you're accusing us of doing, Charles?
  • Chrism
    Posts: 825
    Michael O'Connor:

    AFAIK nobody has come up with sound legal reasoning to explain the "never abrogated" in Summorum Pontificum. The 1962 Missal was in fact abrogated in law like all the others. The famed "Agatha Christie" indult applies only to the 1968 version of the Missal, not the 1962.

    The only remaining explanation, one that we must reach reluctantly, is that Summorum Pontificum was an admission that the abrogation of approved orthodox liturgy is always ultra vires, i.e. against the constitution of the Church. That is to say, once suitable for worship, always suitable for worship; once indefectible, always indefectible. Likewise, a Pope could never abrogate a dogma duly defined by his predecessor, or uncanonize a canonized saint. All are exercises of the Petrine charism. But I'm sure I'm simplifying things.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,373
    Chrism, what I am saying is, let's not worship anachronisms. Some of that intolerance you mention sounds more like SSPXrs and extreme Latin traditionalists. Some of the EF-only people I have met, definitely come across as cultists. They show up clutching rosaries, women properly veiled - looks a bit Muslim to me - are gun nuts waiting for an invasion, survivalists, and condemning anyone who worships at that pagan NO, etc. My RC parish has an EF mass every Sunday. One of the attendees stopped me after my last mass one Sunday and inquired why I wanted to go to that heretical NO mass, when the EF was available. As an aside, I always wondered what young traditionalists do on dates, hurl anathemas at each other? ;-)

    Granted, some traditionalists are lovely people, but that nutty element is unfortunately there, as well. I have found in my own area of the country, that much more is involved than simply Latin. There's a definite political element to some of those traditionalists. Time will mellow all that out, I think. But I suspect the Latin mass has a built-in limit to its growth. For now, at least, I don't see the majority of U.S. Catholics expressing any interest in it.

    Slavonic is interesting, to say the least. BTW, I don't speak it, although some say it was never a spoken language to begin with. If you think translating Latin into English is difficult, try some of the Slavonic languages. They have, for example, consonant clusters, that leave excess notes and blank spots in the the text when translated into English. The chant melodies generally have to be simplified. There was a priest, the late Fr. Vladimir Soroka, who spent his life translating Russian chants into English so the chants would not be lost when the change to English occurred. He did an excellent job and the chants are beautiful. He did such fine work, I suspected he secretly had a bow-tie stashed somewhere. ;-) May his memory be eternal.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 825
    They show up clutching rosaries, women properly veiled - looks a bit Muslim to me - are gun nuts waiting for an invasion, survivalists, and condemning anyone who worships at that pagan NO, etc.

    As a Christian, you can't condemn rosaries and you can't condemn veils. As a Churchman, you can't condemn valid prudential political opinions, however weird they may be, as long as they are not objectively evil (i.e., pro-invading-Canada). As far as their vocal condemnation of the NO, if they are condemning the rite itself as intrinsically impious then they are heretics. If they are condemning the practice at your parish as impious, then that's an accusation that would need to be analyzed further.

    Happy?

    I suspect the Latin mass has a built-in limit to its growth.

    At the EF Masses I attend, monarcho-libertarian distributists and distribu-libertarian monarchists are now decidedly in the minority. We still have plenty of Republicans, however, whom I sometimes find more annoying than the monarchists--at least the monarchists have a coherent ideology. I don't see any limit on the growth of the EF, because we keep attracting those normal families from the parish, and our numbers keep rising, whereas the total number of practicing Catholics keeps falling.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,412
    As a liberal, folk-Mass, heretical, feminist (etc, etc) I am prone to jump on CW's "there's nutballs in the EF crowd" line...
    Except...

    There's nutballs everywhere!

    Most OF-people are normal, decent, sincere... and then every now and then you get clown mass.
    Most EF-people are normal, decent, sincere... and then every now and then you get idol-worshipping Latin-cultists.

    Whatever the merits or demerits of any rite, language, or tradition, I'm not sure appealing to the "some of the people who are into that stuff are crazy" is a very good way to go.


    On that note (and you may know it sometimes pains me to say this) one of the very strong benefits of the Latin Language and the older rite is that it is much, much harder to hijack. You could have a heretical priest, a heretical music director, three heretical subdeacons, and a congregation full of heretics- if they're doing the EF, it's unlikely that anything heretical will be done or said in the liturgy (except maybe the homily). A bunch of heretics doing the OF can (and often will) make up their own prayers, sing ridiculous songs, dance around like pagans, and generally bend the liturgy to their own way of thinking.
    It is possible to hijack the EF with a non-orthodox political/theological agenda- but much more difficult (anything of that much weight takes a lot more energy to move).

    [As a side note- I get very upset when people (even ones who hold identically heretical beliefs to my own) hijack the liturgy to promote their agendas or their non-orthodox theologies. I have a lot of issues with it- but my biggest might be: if you don't like the teaching AND you don't like the practice... why are you Catholic? If you believe in at least one or the other, that makes sense. But neither? That's why we have Protestants, for goodness sakes!]
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,393
    As for the MP and abrogation: note that it does not apply to the pre-1962 editions of the Missal; note also that there is silence about the 1965 amendments to the 1962 edition of the Missal. Et cet.This aspect of the MP was designed by the Pope to avoid reinforcing a positivist approach to the issue - he declared a fact into being rather than legislating a revival, as it were. It's a kind of legal fiction. Anyway, it has its limitations.

    Oh, and one can sing ridiculous songs and dance around like pagans in the EF. You'd see that soon enough if the OF were abrogated tomorrow.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,373
    I suspect that during the years when the EF generally was not available and sanctioned, the movement did kind of go underground. When that happens, strange things can occur. Now that the EF is approved and open to all, the cultists will eventually lose out to a more balanced crowd. That appears to be happening. Interesting that you mention monarchists. I am told that the SSPX in France is dominated by monarchists.

    Chrism, the condemnation of the NO was because it is the NO and not the EF. My parish is the conservative parish in town and our NO music and liturgical practices are very much by-the-book. The pastor tolerates no liturgical aberrations.

    Adam, you are correct that nuts are everywhere. I have at times thought there is no normal, just varying degrees of dysfunctional. ;-) Unfortunately, I suspect too many Catholics in the U.S. may be Protestant in practice, if not in name. Interesting, also, that you mention hijacking the liturgy to promote agendas. I attended mass at a school last year, when the lady leading the Prayer of the Faithful prayed for sexual justice in the church and the world. I scratched my head over that one, since I have no idea what she meant.

    "invading Canada?" Now there's a thought! ;-)
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,021
    CharlesW said: "For now, at least, I don't see the majority of U.S. Catholics expressing any interest in it."

    This hits the nail on the head, even if it's a glancing blow that goes on to dent the woodwork! Specific to our American culture, everything is about us. You can certainly see this in modernist congregations who go to such lengths for every member to be holding some one's hand at the Lord's Prayer. Really, it's like circling the wagons! We ARE THE Body of Christ, here inside these walls. Nothing else exists to us. We try very hard NOT to be aware that, simultaneous to OUR Mass, another congregation the other side of the world is celebrating THEIR Mass. This is where the concept of the modern Mass has come off the rails. All Masses are outside of time by the very definition of the Eucharist. We ALL are celebrating with each other worldwide, AS WELL AS with the other, much larger parts of the Church - the souls in purgatory and in heaven. That WE are so involved in our local culture that we can decide that we control all aspects of OUR Mass, and have no need whatsoever of expressing interest in anything else is so narrow and isolationist that it's downright scary! The United States is not, and has never been a "democracy". "Majority" is not the be all and end all of existence. And the Catholic Church has no characteristic of democracy - only in some parochial communities where the sheeple have not been taught about their own Church.

    No one should be forced to attend Latin Mass any more than they should be forced to serve in the U.S. military via a draft system. But is there is no interest in this ME generation for Latin and good liturgy like there seems to be no interested in serving a few years of one's life to protect the liberty of all who even want to attend any Mass, then the slippery slope has just increased its decline!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,373
    Steve, my hopes for improvements are based on the young. The people my age are pretty set in their American Church ways. All you need is love, etc. As a school teacher, I see the desire for authenticity in worship in many of my middle-schoolers, not in their parents. Too many of us Woodstock-aged are looking for no discouraging words, uncloudy skies, and feelings-based worship. I think that's the culture we are dealing with. But the kids are great, and my hopes are in them.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,021
    Yes, I agree. For me, the 1960s were something to be survived! I hated every minute of it, including the 1.5 years I spent on a college campus. The only fond memories I have of "Woodstock" are actually from Woodstock, Illinois where I found a used 1966 Thunderbird convertible back in about 1973. I should never have sold it!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,373
    My passion was a 57 New Yorker my dad gave me. It had a 392 Hemi and would outrun all the mustangs at the time. Good thing my dad never caught me racing. :-) Kept that from 1964 until near 1970 and gave it up for a GTO. As for Woodstock, I would no longer be alive if I had even attempted to go. LOL. Other than that, the 60s were not so great. I think it started to go downhill when the ex-nuns showed up with guitars one morning around 1967.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    Linguam latinam nimis amo. Ritui Latinae adpertinet. Quoniam nunc Ritus Latina solum ea utitur--vivat, crescat, floreat!

    If I implied or said anything else, forgive me.

    I think the question really is, did the makers and implementers of the OF really mean to make a vernacular Mass, or to make a Latin Mass that could be celebrated in the vernacular at times?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,393
    I suspect the answer is that they left the answer to bubble up rather than direct the answer preemptively.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 825
    I think the question really is, did the makers and implementers of the OF really mean to make a vernacular Mass, or to make a Latin Mass that could be celebrated in the vernacular at times?

    The question is what did the Authorities whose authority established the new Rite of Mass think, not what the "makers" and "implementers" thought. You make it sound like Bugnini and the clown Mass people are the ones who count.

    The Fathers of the Council are clear in what they were looking for. Paul VI did not mention the vernacular at all when he promulgated a "revision of the Roman Missal" for "the priests of the Latin Rite".
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,373
    Who knows, Jam. The Council Fathers went home several years before Paul VI promulgated the OF. They may not have even envisioned the possibility of it. Even worse than the NO, it seemed to me at the time, was the total upheaval of the liturgical calendar. I still haven't fully made sense of it.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 825
    Can we all get a grip? The Novus Ordo was promulgated in Latin. What's with the baseless suspicions of rupturism? This is such a fruitless discussion.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 825
    Sinking the thread. I'll allow it to bump if people want to talk about the topic at hand instead of entertain Byzantine fantasies about the de-Latinization of the Latin Church.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,373
    I don't think the intent was de-Latinization. The original Novus Ordo was a Latin mass. But in practice, I don't even remember it being celebrated in Latin at the time. The first time I saw it, and for many years afterwards, it was always done in English. Some 20 years after it was promulagated, I witnessed a Latin NO. What happened between promulgation and implementation, is something I can 't answer. However, I am old enough to remember that after 1970, it was just understood that the vernacular would be used. Was there an edict to that effect from the bishops? If so, I didn't see it. In retrospect, I can say I don't know what the reason was.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    The first official mass using English in the U.S. happened in 1964 in St. Louis, so it's not like the vernacular hadn't taken root here by 1969/70.

    The original translation used at that mass and then more generally beginning in Nov. 1964 was approved by the U.S. bishops, in case there was any question of authority.

    I don't know exactly what these facts add to the discussion, but they seem relevant.
  • mahrt
    Posts: 514
    As I understand it, abrogation of the Missal of 1962 would have prohibited its use absolutely. This was not possible, since old priests were given permission to continue to say that Mass; likewise, soon an indult was given for England, so it always remained legitimate under certain circumstances.

    What is more puzzling, though, was the widespread prohibition of any Latin after the council. Sacrosanctum concilium gave bishops the authority to regulate the amount of vernacular, but it seems unlikely that the bishops of the council ever thought that they or their successors would take that authority to the extreme of saying that the vernacular must be used exclusively. There were many dioceses where even a motet could not be sung in Latin.

    This was not the case, however, in my own diocese, and we continued to sing the Latin propers and ordinary; on ordinary Sundays, the priest's parts were sung in English, but we continued occasionally to sing Masses all in Latin except for the lessons. We have recently gone back to all Latin but the lessons for all the Sunday Masses as well.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 825
    Re: the English Indult - "The Missal to be used on these occasions should be that published by the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (27 Jan.1965), and with the modifications in the Instructio altera (4 May 1967)."

    Not sure what edition was granted to the old priests.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,021
    The equating of the Latin Mass to the "new Mass" was operational from day #1 in the spring of 1965. Whatever the Council, way over in Rome, may have said or written, it was not made available to the laity until almost 10 years later. What DID happen was that our Pastor stepped up to the pulpit one Sunday morning and announced during the Sermon that this would be the last Latin Mass, and that something would be provided the next Sunday in English. Done! The "liberals" had gotten their way after years of underground fomenting in the Seminaries. And the good "conservative" people in the pews (aka "PIPs") took everything that came from the mouth of the priest as pure Gospel. No one complained, at least openly.

    So calling the old Mass the Latin Mass, and the new Mass the vernacular, while totally incorrect, IS the perception (possibly intended) from the very beginning throughout the USA.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    What I meant by makers and implementers was the council ("makers," i.e. the ones who called for reform) and the bishops ("implementers" the ones theoretically in control of how the reform went down in their dioceses). I realize the ambiguity of that now. While it is important to understand what the writing committee and laypeople in charge of liturgy thought they were doing, what's most important is what the official church line thinking was. Even that doesn't have a simple answer though it seems.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 825
    Even that doesn't have a simple answer though it seems.

    Huh? Here was your question:

    did the makers and implementers of the OF [A.] really mean to make a vernacular Mass, or [B. ] to make a Latin Mass that could be celebrated in the vernacular at times?

    And the simple answer is B. They meant to make a Latin Mass that could also be celebrated in the vernacular.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,617
    In my experience as a musician in the Roman Catholic Church for 48 years, many who are members struggle with the "Latin". However, for many of them it goes much deeper than the outward sign of the language, if you know what I mean.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,617
    ...sorry... i always unsink a discussion when i have something to say... mea culpa. ^
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,373
    I am glad you unsunk it. I think many of us need a better understanding of how we got to this place where vernacular masses are considered as Church law. That's not law, as I know. But how did this perception come to be widely accepted?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,393
    I think it was a natural overrreaction to a situation that had been maintained and prolonged artificially and had thereby come under tremendous strain.

    What I mean is, if the use of the vernacular had not become an ideological shibboleth during the Reformation, it's quite possible that the vernacular would have eventually made its way into the liturgy of the Roman rite. But the dam that was set up held out for a long time, but once broken, there was a flood.

    I started attending Mass on Long Island (hardly the land of radicals: this was Nixon Country) in the mid-1960s. There was no Latin to be heard. Morever, there was not a single lament of its absence, though I realize that was not true in all quarters, but my experience is one I've compared with a lot of my peers over the years, and it's an overwhelming pattern. (When some traditionalists were noticed gathering in their own chapel in Uniondale, but anyone who took notice appeared to treat them as strange outliers.)

    There were, however, audible expressions of relief. Now, I think of my father, who had served Mass for years as a young man in a German parish, and was proud of his ability to do the servers parts. Not even he lamented the passing of this, and he's no liturgical progressive. (He missed the clackers during Lent and other aspects of ceremonial that he was fond of, but these were not a big deal either.)

    The Latin/vernacular issue was an utterly quiet revolution compared to the Friday abstinence changes. *That* was an issue a lot of people noticed and expressed opinions about ("what do you mean - one year I would have been sent to hell because I ate meat on Friday, and now I don't if I do?!!") (The shift on the Eucharistic fast was probably not as dramatic as what had occurred with regard to that in the 1950s) And the lead-up and follow-through to Humanae Vitae caused lots of commentary. But the shift to the vernacular was certainly not experienced as a widespread trauma or violent thing by most people in the pews.

    And I write this with the requisite disclaimer that the plural of anecdote is not data.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,393
    I do think the people who noticed the change most were (1) clerics and religious who prayed the Breviary, and (2) musicians who had cultivated the chant and polyphonic repertoire, particularly with a hopeful eye towards a renewal that would be founded on that repertoire. The latter were probably liable to being very aggrieved unless they took the path taken by folks such as Theodore Marier and figuring out a way to thread the needle.

    In my parish, we had one priest (out of a half dozen) who was interested in teaching the congregation to engage in chanting the dialogs with the celebrant (in the vernacular). I loved him. But he was only on staff for a few years, and otherwise there was no one for years upon years who had the slightest interest. The most important thing to the clergy and the PIPs was to fulfill our preceptual obligations and get people in and out as reasonably quickly as possible (this being the Baby Boom, we had to have LOTs of Masses (at least we weren't limited to Sunday morning anymore), and that meant parking lot gridlock could only be avoided if congregations were loaded and unloaded with dispatch). Everything else was gravy. It's very hard to convey to people nowadays how much this dynamic prevailed in so many places.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,373
    Much of this is what I remember, too. There was an unspoken understanding that we didn't do mass in Latin anymore. Other than a handful of people, no one objected. Most seemed relieved it was gone. Our organist held on for some years and kept as much Latin alive as possible. Ours was a conservative parish, so I think we were the only ones in town holding on to any Latin. Women had never been allowed to wear pants at mass, so many of them were rejoicing that they now could. Some said it made kneeling easier.
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,336
    Dear Jackson: I like your comments. My thought is I could never quite understand the attraction of the NO in Latin. If you want the ancient liturgy, expressed in the ancient language of the church, why prefer one written in 1967?
    NO vernacular, or EF Latin, in my humble opinion anyway. GH