Arguments for the NO Mass?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,300
    ..
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103
    Dots? Francis is channeling Jackson. ;-)
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • I just read on the internet news (my only source of 'news', since I neither take the newspaper nor have a television set) that the pastor, Msgr McSweeney, of the nation's largest Catholic church (St Matthew's, with 10.000 families) is retiring and will go to Haiti to serve the poor and follow in Jesus' footsteps. This is nothing but laudable - 'if ye have done it unto the least of these...'. However, like HF Francis, he is to me a man of pluses and minuses. He shares the pope's pastoral vision, which to me, though it does at times appear to present problems with orthodox Catholicism, nevertheless seems to show a concern for many of those whom the church really doesn't, and doesn't really care to, do justice. But, also like our holy father, he is neither liturgically nor musically intuitive.

    His very minus side, to me, is that he is undoubtedly amongst those who give the NO a bad, a very bad, name. He lamented the recent story of the priest who 'resigned' because all his people left when he (rough quote) 'threw out popular hymns and replaced them with Gregorian chant' - which, of course, is an indictment, not of the priest, but of his obstreperous flock. The irony of Msgr McSweeney and his too many colleagues is that they wax strong about the reforms of Vatican Two whilst glibly pretending that the council said nothing specific about music and liturgical praxis, and, somehow, through some twisted logic, entertain the eccentric notion that what they are doing to the NO represents what the council ordained. He also laments all the new priests who are coming out of seminary and are trying to 'turn the clock back' by re-introducing chant and a traditional praxis of the NO. One can only surmise that, if the cause of Msgr McSweeney's dismay has any basis in reality, there is hope for the Church's spiritual life and worship! I wonder, though: why can we not have orthodox belief and worship, and a more pastorally sensitive Church. Real people with real angsts in their lives are suffering needlessly. Our Lord would not have been pleased to cite canon law and alienate them whilst not mentioning with equal contempt the sins of others. Neither would he be pleased with the nature of some of the prevalent worship in his Father's house, be it NO or EF.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    I wonder, though: why can we not have orthodox belief and worship, AND a more pastorally sensitive Church.


    We can, but we cannot change the liturgy to get it. The Mass is a matter of faith, not discipline, and by way of lex orandi, lex credendi, you cannot have orthodox belief without orthodox worship. One theory could be that the Church at the Second Vatican Council attempted to make a more "pastorally sensitive Church" by making a more "pastorally sensitive" liturgy. This changed the faith, because by creating a new liturgy, which has been acknowledged as the public prayer of the Church, and by way of lex orandi, lex credendi, they changed what must be believed, and/or created new beliefs. There are other ways that the Church can be "pastorally sensitive."
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,300
    Dots? Francis is channeling Jackson. ;-)
    No, EYEBALLS, watching my comrades say delicately what I usually say quite "Frankly".
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,300
    Frankly speaking, how about this for reality?

    Pope Benedict’s Great Restoration

    Pope Benedict XVI prays during a mass at Saint Bartolomew Basilica in 2008. (Photo: Alberto Pizzoli/Pool/Reuters)

    A decade ago today, he revivified the Mass of the Ages. Ten years and a few months ago, I met Bill Buckley when he invited me to his home. It was just a few weeks after his wife, Patricia, had died, in May 2007. We talked about Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard, because I couldn’t help my contrary nature even then.

    We talked about a film, The Lives of Others, which Buckley told me was the greatest film he had ever seen. By the end of the conversation, he discovered that, like him, I was a devotee of a certain religious rite. He invited me to the Traditional Latin Mass at St. Mary’s in Stamford that afternoon. We were members of this lonely fraternity of souls, a group that we didn’t know was about to grow much larger.

    Ten years ago today, Pope Benedict XVI issued a document that vindicated the arguments that Catholics like Buckley and me had repeated in safe company for years: that the Latin Mass that was common to almost all of Western Catholicism for centuries was never abrogated.

    It is so difficult to explain to young Catholics the fugitive feeling of attending a Traditional Latin Mass before the seventh day of the seventh month of the seventh year in this millennium. I had been doing so for just five years. Latin Mass communities were detested by bishops and cardinals, most of whom believed it was their life’s mission to modernize a defective Church. It also marked one out for scorn from most who considered themselves conservative Catholics. They called us disobedient schismatics. We often deplored them in return for the personality cult they built around the papacy of John Paul II. (In truth, our side of this dispute did and still does have cranks in its ranks.)

    These years shaped in me a deep distrust of ecclesiastical persons in the Church. I made a study of periods of apostasy in the Church and kept reminding myself of the words of St. John Chrysostom that “the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” The child-abuse scandal didn’t surprise traditionalists. In some ways, we thought it proved our point about the depth of corruption in the Church. It was obvious to Traditionalists that, in many dioceses, it was better for a priest to rape children or carry on an active sex life with other adults than to say the Latin Mass for people like us, “the crazies.” I learned, in my heart, a notion Thomas Aquinas expressed in Scholastic doctrine: that the blessed in heaven must enjoy the torment of the wicked in hell.

    Loyalty to the liturgical books of 1962 was slightly more common among political conservatives than among others. It was a trait shared by Buckley and Patrick Buchanan, and also by libertarian Thomas Woods and Gladden Pappin, who writes for American Affairs. Nor was it just political scribblers who found themselves attracted to “the TLM.” The new rite of the Mass was almost instinctively detested by real literary giants, who saw it as a banal substitute for a ritual whose words and forms had been shaped by the great ages of faith.

    Simon Tolkien recalled his grandfather’s displeasure with modern “worship” in the Catholic Church: “I vividly remember going to church with him [J.R.R.] in Bournemouth. He was a devout Roman Catholic and it was soon after the Church had changed the liturgy from Latin to English. My grandfather obviously didn’t agree with this and made all the responses very loudly in Latin while the rest of the congregation answered in English. I found the whole experience quite excruciating, but my grandfather was oblivious.” Evelyn Waugh intuitively sensed the bizarre intellectual alliance that informed the making of the new rite of the Mass; it was slipshod scholarship paired with a facile desire for revolution: “There is a deep-lying connection in the human heart between worship and age. But the new fashion is for something bright and loud and practical. It has been set by a strange alliance between archaeologists absorbed in their speculations on the rites of the second century, and modernists who wish to give the Church the character of our own deplorable epoch. In combination they call themselves ‘liturgists.’”

    Waugh’s son Auberon stopped going to Mass and likely lost his faith, feeling that the modern Church had almost no connection to the faith of his father. Modern Masses appeared to him to be “kindergarten assemblies.” It wasn’t just Catholics who were distressed by the replacement of their rites. Agatha Christie petitioned Pope Paul to keep the old rite alive in England: “The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has . . . inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts — not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters, and sculptors in all countries and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians.”

    The opponents of the old Mass are still well-represented in the Church, especially in the universities that retain the name “Catholic” yet never reflect on how their schools turn out so many disillusioned men and women. They still rage at the old Mass, and at Pope Benedict for what he did to re-legitimize it. These so-called theologians remind one of the French intellectual Alain Badiou, in that they insist that all legitimate intellectual exercise must be carried out in fidelity to some great “Event.” For Badiou, the event was Communist revolution, and Mao the only true intellectual. For these so-called theologians, the “Event” was the Second Vatican Council — the Council itself, not the texts it produced, which are of secondary importance.

    This Event created a new church, in need of a new intellectual party of adepts. But their methods are sloppier and shallower than Badiou’s. These theologians greet every novel utterance of a pope or a Church document as a new revelation that “develops” previous Church teaching. In their parlance, development means the opposite of what it did to John Henry Newman. He meant further articulation; they mean “obviate or overturn.” Their words, like the liturgy they prefer, are a self-referential clamor.

    I am not a particularly devout man. I am inconstant and have numerous vices, which are easy to name. I attend the old Mass, in part, because it respects me as a sinner. And ten years on, I can only thank Pope Benedict for giving legal sanction to this august rite that unites me again with my coreligionists, from scribblers like Buckley and inconstant men like Waugh to all the saints and angels; this Mass where before the awful moment at which the bell is rung and the the sacrifice of Calvary breaks through into the present, all clamor disappears into silence.


    by MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY July 7, 2017 4:00 AM
    Thanked by 2ClergetKubisz WGS
  • Very lively discussion in these last dozens of posts, very much like the article posted above.

    Minor corrections:
    Trent doesn't actually condemn the vernacular nor the audible voice. Rather, it condemns the idea (and those that hold it) that the vernacular or the audible voice are absolutely necessary. Remember, heresy is often found in adhering to a position to such an extreme as to entirely reject the alternate positions (free will vs. divine election, audible vs. silent, vernacular vs. sacred language, etc...). It is both sloppy and inaccurate to say that Trent condemns the use of language intelligible to the people:
    Session XXII, Chapter ix, Canon 9:
    If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    Rather, it condemns the idea (and those that hold it) that the vernacular or the audible voice are absolutely necessary. Remember, heresy is often found in adhering to a position to such an extreme as to entirely reject the alternate positions (free will vs. divine election, audible vs. silent, vernacular vs. sacred language, etc...). It is both sloppy and inaccurate to say that Trent condemns the use of language intelligible to the people:


    We have both in the NO today, at least where I'm from. Latin is all but banished from parishes in this area, and everything is always said audibly so that "the people" (who are "the people" anyway?) can hear. I've been told by several priests that there is no alternative, because "the people have to be able to hear and understand," and "nobody here speaks Latin, and they can't understand it."
  • Clerget,

    This seems as good a time as any to point out this fundamental problem in the Ordo of Paul VI, as it is practiced in our day and age.

    While the Mass is, in fact, an act of worship which can educate the faithful, it is constantly construed as an act of education, rhetoric and dialogue, without which worship is meaningless or, at the very least, unimportant.

    There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the vernacular, per se, except that we now have to decide whose vernacular (and whose vernacular hymnody), and that it leads to the balkanization of the Church by Mass, by parish, by region and by nation.
  • While the Mass is, in fact....

    I must say, Chris, that this assertion seems to me to be a complete novelty with no basis in reality. Who does the 'construing' of which you speak?

    Too, it is mighty generous of you to admit that 'there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the vernacular...', but is your characterisation of its leading to 'the balkanisation' of the Church based in objective reality? One can only refer to a certain 'balkanisation' that existed in the pre-Vatican II era, what with Polish, Irish, German, French, Italian, and more communities which proudly maintained their distinctive identities and, often, (to put it mildly!) disparaged others - not just in Europe, but especially within these very shores where ethnic boundries were glaringly distinct and commonplace. To hear some tell of it, we in this country are to this day cursed with the low mass heritage of the Irish. We'd be better off, far better off, if the German ethos had been predominant over here. Nay, ye can't blame 'balkanisation' on the vernacular mass - it's an old spectre.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    No, but back in the day, everyone easily, in theory, came together for Corpus Christi, a public rosary in October, and what have you. Corpus Christi in Louisville was so large that they used Churchill Downs. Now, none of that happens, and I believe that it could not happen, at least in the US where there are multiple vernaculars in play if Latin is to be shunted aside.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,747
    ye can't blame 'balkanisation' on the vernacular mass


    Umnnhhhh....not so fast.

    There is a 'balkanization' of the world here, not of the US or of Louisville. Some of the world now is "English" Catholic, other is "Swahili" Catholic, or "Cantonese" Catholic. So I'll repeat a story which touches on that.

    At one of the early Christendom College CMAA colloquia, we went to the National Shrine and celebrated Mass in the crypt-church. The choir (all 40 of us) was in the front, on the Epistle side, with the portativ organ. As a result, we singers were able to look at the congregation.

    It was a weekday (Friday??) and there were about 200 souls present for Mass. In the front row, Epistle-side, was a 30-ish African woman with a very colorful sari and matching head-dress.

    When we began the Kyrie from Mass VIII (we were celebrating an OF in Latin), she joined, and belted it out exceptionally well, indeed.

    That, my friend, is a NON-Balkanized Catholic congregation. That image will stay with me for as long as I live, as the symbol (to me) of the One, Catholic, church.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,547
    @MatthewRoth and @dad29 exactly,

    If we can't all worship together we no longer have one Catholic Church, and we become no different from the various 'christian' groups, that have split from the One Church over the centuries.

    It is all very well having our vernacular songs etc. but they are not a sign of unity. Each community or nationality has their own popular melodies and texts, but they do not allow us to worship as one Church!

    As for before the 1960's we had one Rite and a small number of very similar usages, you could go to Mass in any Church and you would be able to feel at home, the Liturgy would be familiar. Of course the devotions external to the Mass and Divine Office is where we have the wonderful differences between cultures...

    Don't look to the Germans the Church there is almost dead...

    In a few weeks time I will be in Zurich, and I will be invited to sing with the schola, I can do this because we are using the same Liturgy, the same music, the same rubrics... I would not be able to participate in the Ordinariate and English N.O. to anyway near the same extent, and that is the problem with vernacular Liturgy it is exclusive not inclusive.
    Thanked by 2ClergetKubisz CCooze
  • Jackson,

    Have seen your response, and will reply this evening (local time), if other obligations don't intervene.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103
    I'm not so sure the pre-conciliar mass was a sign of unity. You could go anywhere in the world and not understand any more than in your home parish. My memory of this is the the majority of people understood very little Latin and were just along for the ride. The truly interested could read the translations in their missals. Many didn't bother. What we had was uniformity, not unity. Ideally, and more in line with the Vatican Council's teachings, we were supposed to be well-versed in both the Latin and the vernacular. Didn't quite work out that way.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,747
    not understand any more than in your home parish


    OK, Charles, I will ask this question seriously: So What?

    I expect a serious response from you; you're pretty good at that. We've already had a hint of the "It Ain't DIDACTIC" above, so I expect that with your Eastern sensibility you'll agree: it ain't didactic. That means you'll have to give us reasons other than 'understanding the text.'
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103
    Understanding the text is important, otherwise it becomes little more than a magic show with the sorcerer muttering incantations. That being said, Vatican II had in mind the laity would understand and be able to respond in both Latin and the vernacular. Failure of education, maybe. No one in authority actually gave a damn what the council intended, more likely. There really is not much of an excuse for congregations not understanding what is going on in Latin. I can follow Latin masses quite well, and I am Eastern. Why are Latins not taught to do the same? It can't all be because of ineffectual teachers, but has to be deliberately caused. This is not a new problem and has been around for a number of years.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • ...little more than...,

    Spot on!

    The equation of understanding as no more than 'didactic' is quite lame and not very well thought out.
    ...has to be deliberately caused.

    Spot on!

    Charles is brilliant today.
    This state of affairs was indeed deliberately caused. There is no other explanation than that those who came home from the council cared not a whit for what it said but only wanted to erase the culture they had inherited and replace it with one that they stitched together out of whole cloth. If Latin and chant and other things the council stated should be preserved are foreign to contemporary Americans (and others elsewhere) it is because those in power (I didn't say 'authority' because authority for what they did does not and never did exist) deliberately saw to it that they didn't learn it and told them lies about its having been 'thrown out' or 'done away with'. This is more of the very familiar technique of casting one's own ignorance and dislikes onto others and dumbing them down - deliberately institutionalised ignorance.

    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,747
    Understanding the text is important, otherwise it becomes little more than a magic show with the sorcerer muttering incantations.


    So from ~650AD to ~1940AD (when the hand-missal became common) all those Catholics attended a magic show with a sorcerer muttering incantations, eh?

    Tens of millions of shepherds, farmers, blacksmiths, coopers, storekeepers--all showed up weekly or more to attend a magic show. They had no idea what was going on and were stupid enough to show up because .....tradition in the family.

    That's your contention, Charles?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    Understanding the text is important, otherwise it becomes little more than a magic show with the sorcerer muttering incantations.


    This brings up a pertinent question: why have words in the first place? I think there are two possibilities here: 1. They were put there so that they could be read and understood by all, and have DIDACTIC functions (otherwise, why the emphasis on congregational understanding; the priest’s intention is all that matters during the Mass, whether the faithful know what’s going on or not does not affect the sacrifice); or 2. They were put there as prayers to be said about the altar, pursuant to the task of completing the ritual, and ARE NOT DIDACTIC (therefore, there is no necessity of understanding for the congregation). I will entertain sources for either theory.

    That being said, Vatican II had in mind the laity would understand and be able to respond in both Latin and the vernacular.


    From Sacrosanctum Concilium #54: (emphasis mine)

    54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings
    and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those
    parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of
    this Constitution.

    Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or
    to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to
    them.


    And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass
    appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be
    observed.


    1. Sacrosanctum Concilium does not indicate that it desires to have the faithful responding in the vernacular, but it does indicate that it desires to have the faithful respond in Latin. The document states that it is possible and permissible to have the faithful responding in the vernacular, but does not state that it is a desired practice.

    2. The last paragraph is confusing, because it does say something about “desirable,” but it references article 40, which I will reproduce here:

    40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical
    adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:
    1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must,
    in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions
    and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine
    worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be
    submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

    2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which
    they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial
    ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the
    necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among
    certain groups suited for the purpose.

    3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to
    adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters
    must be employed to formulate them.


    Therefore, if the bishop or abbot (who is the competent ecclesiastical authority, per Article 22, 2) decides that it would be advantageous to introduce greater vernacular than that which was given permission in Article 54, he must submit the request to the Holy See, which will consider the request and render a decision. Only upon the approval of the Holy See can greater vernacular than that which was permitted by Article 54 be introduced into the liturgy.

    In light of the above, I disagree that the Second Vatican Council envisioned the congregation making responses in the vernacular. The Council envisioned the continued use of the Latin language, and that the faithful would be taught to use it and understand it, while at the same time granting permission for the vernacular in what it deemed “suitable places,” which can be found in Article 54. It does not seem that the Council intended for the congregation to use the vernacular.

    Please also see the following from Sacrosanctum Concilium #36: (emphasis mine)

    36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
    2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the
    administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be
    of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.
    This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the
    prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down
    separately in subsequent chapters.
    3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical
    authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the
    vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is,
    confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this
    authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same
    language.
    4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the
    liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority
    mentioned above.


    There really is not much of an excuse for congregations not understanding what is going on in Latin. I can follow Latin masses quite well, and I am Eastern. Why are Latins not taught to do the same? It can't all be because of ineffectual teachers, but has to be deliberately caused.


    You are correct: there isn’t any excuse for congregations not understanding ecclesiastical Latin. It’s not really that hard if you put some effort into learning it. I would agree with your and MJO’s assessments that it is due to lack of instruction, and more specifically, a deliberate neglect of instruction.
  • Jackson,

    This is the nearest thing I've got to a time to answer your question.

    The Ordo last widely in use in 1962 is clearly an act of worship. It is an act of the head and members and all the heavenly court. Prayers are said facing a crucifix, an altar and a tabernacle. Some people were well versed in Latin, and some less so, and Pope Pius XII takes account of this reality in Mediator Dei. Even among those who were well versed in Latin, some were in the state of grace, and others not. All came together in an act of worship, one which is clearly and unambiguously so.

    The ordo of Paul VI, by contrast, is celebrated facing not God, but the people. The chanting of Scripture, rather than being presented as an act of worship is presented in the Ordo of Paul VI as an educational exercise. (This, surely, is why there are parts we can leave out, such as "wives, be subject to your husbands".) God doesn't need the proclamation in multiple vernaculars, but a "diverse" congregation frequently does. God doesn't need either a microphone or a hearing aid, but these exist because what is supposed to be an act of worship is presented in such a way as to be "accessible". In the 33 years since the publication of the original translation, it has had to undergo multiple updatings and corrections. This is either the result of incompetence, malice, or the "development" of the language. Since we know (thanks to the Anglican experiment) that worship in the vernacular can be beautiful, I'll eliminate the need to update the language. I won't choose between incompetence and malice because, to quote Pope Francis, "who am I to judge?"

    As to the balkanization question, when Mass is not in the language of one group or another, there is less competition, at least in the context of the Mass, between these groups. Hence, even at the Vatican Council and since, the Church fathers urged that at international gatherings, Latin be preserved. This creates a kind of glue, but it also reduces competition among the assembled groups.

    I grew up just north of Buffalo, New York, where the balkanization would have been supremely possible. The art in the ethnic parishes used to represent something of that ethnic group, always within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith. Now, sadly, in too many places, ugly is the order of the day.

  • Well, Chris! We do agree about one thing - 'ugly is the order of the day'. This is true of fashion (especially men's fashion), much art, and much else (such as automobiles) - even some architecture. And, it's all expensive, too!

    We also agree as to the nature of your points against the OF - except! that they aren't, objectively, against the OF, but again, as has been said here many times before, against what people of this era do to it. How often does one have to say it - the OF neither requires nor calls for these gross and impudent abuses. Now, if, um, we could just get these people out of the way... Note the new priests coming along who have a better understanding of these matters and, much to the chagrin of people like Msgr McSweeney (whom I mentioned way up above), are dragging chant, Latin, and worshipful praxis out of the basement closet and back into the light of day. A true reform is on the way.

    About that balkanisation - in one form or another it will manifest itself anywhere and by any signifers available where there is more than one person (and!, sometimes, within just one person). One of the most remarkable things about humans is that, no matter their formal relationship they will discover discord, dis-unity, and even enmity when you get them under the same tent. This is true of royalists, republicans, Catholics, Protestants, EF, OF, Americans, musicians, religious, educators, ordinary parishes, even the worshipers at a given mass, and any other formal relationships imaginable. All within the Catholic Church in the pre-conciliar era were not, in the words of the BCP, 'in love and charity with your neighbours'.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103
    Tens of millions of shepherds, farmers, blacksmiths, coopers, storekeepers--all showed up weekly or more to attend a magic show. They had no idea what was going on and were stupid enough to show up because .....tradition in the family.

    That's your contention, Charles?


    One would hope they were better instructed and educated in the mass than is the case today where they often learn nothing much at all. Of course they could have all been Irish and you know how hard it is to teach them much of anything.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103
    This state of affairs was indeed deliberately caused. There is no other explanation than that those who came home from the council cared not a whit for what it said but only wanted to erase the culture they had inherited and replace it with one that they stitched together out of whole cloth.


    I think so. I have told the story before of listening for nearly an hour to a sermon by the local bishop telling us all the wonderful things he and his brother bishops had done for us at the Council. One would have thought heaven had come to earth. The man was a misguided fool, at best, and never saw what he and his brother bishops had unleashed at that council.
  • Jackson,

    At one point I would have agreed with you, that the failings of the Ordo of Paul VI are not part of the rite itself, but deformations by the bushel. On the other hand, when abuses go not corrected but blessed by changing the law [the most recently obvious example is the changing of the Mandatum on Maundy Thursday, but there's no shortage of others] and when bishops, who are (at least de jure) moderators of the liturgy understand their jobs to include the banning of chant, Latin and all sorts of good things the Council required, I'm hard pressed to blame the abusers.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,747
    One would hope they were better instructed and educated in the mass than is the case today


    Hope is your evidence?

    No Pope made any move to utilize vernacular and one Council is on the record banning it. You still want us to believe that all those millions were there for incantations? Witch-doctors? OR they were hopefully 'educated'?

    You can do better than that, I hope.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103

    You can do better than that, I hope.


    Oh, come on! Are you sure you are not actually Elizabeth Warren nattering at everything behind a persona?

    There was, at one time, a fine Catholic school system. Most all Catholic children attended, whether they could afford it or not. Part of their education was learning the mass. It wasn't a slap-dash two week course, but they actually spent quite a bit of time on it. Usually, they were taught by sisters who did great work for little or no pay. Not so today. Having taught in Catholic schools, there is no comparison. I didn't say they were there for "incantations" but that without understanding, there wouldn't have been much difference. They were educated, and far better than is the case today, at least on religion and the mass.

    No Pope made any move to utilize vernacular and one Council is on the record banning it.


    Trent wasn't the only council in the west. There have been others. Vernacular liturgy is legitimate, and has been promulgated by competent Church authority. Get over it.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    On the other hand, when abuses go not corrected but blessed by changing the law [the most recently obvious example is the changing of the Mandatum on Maundy Thursday, but there's no shortage of others] and when bishops, who are (at least de jure) moderators of the liturgy understand their jobs to include the banning of chant, Latin and all sorts of good things the Council required, I'm hard pressed to blame the abusers.


    I agree. It is often said that the problem is not the NO, but the abuses heaped upon it, but those abuses are hardly, if ever corrected. There are a few possibilities here to explain why those abuses still persist:

    1. As Fr. Vogel coins in another thread on this forum, “legalistic liturgical minimalism,” is rampant. For those that are unfamiliar with his phrase, it is whereby clergy choose the path of least resistance in all matters liturgical, whether it is the best practice or not, so long as is conforms to the least requirements of the law. A good example of this is throwing out Latin: priests choose the vernacular time and time again because it is easier than learning Latin themselves and teaching it to the faithful, and it is permitted in the NO. Therefore, the vernacular is within the minimum requirements of the law, and is an easier option than Latin, so it is chosen more often.

    2. Those clergy that banish Latin and throw out Gregorian chant in clear opposition to what V2 desired do so because they do not like those things themselves. Personally, I think it has probably more to do with Latin than chant. Removing the chant was a way to ensure Latin had no place any longer.

    3. Those clergy that banish Latin and throw out Gregorian chant in clear opposition to what V2 desired do so because they believe it is “ecumenical.” They believe that in order to appeal to Protestants, these things must go. Our “separated brethren” never heard Latin in their liturgies, with the exception of some Lutherans and Anglicans, and were accustomed to singing common meter hymns. It has been pointed out whenever else I have brought up this theory that in some places before the Council, Catholic congregations also sang common meter hymns. I recognize this, however, I am pointing out that the widespread adaptation of them in place of Gregorian chant could possibly be an “ecumenical” move.

    4. Some clergy that banish Latin and throw out Gregorian chant in clear opposition to what V2 desired may do so because they are simply heretics. They may wish that the Church enact changes similar to what the Synod of Pistoia had prescribed, which were then denounced in Auctorem Fidei of Pope Pius VI. Many of the abuses that are seen in the NO today mirror the errors of the Synod of Pistoia.

    Trent wasn't the only council in the west. There have been others. Vernacular liturgy is legitimate, and has been promulgated by competent Church authority. Get over it.


    Before Trent, no other council approached the liturgy in detail, much less discussing the language of it. The liturgy before Trent was handed down as Tradition, and nobody dared to touch it. St. John Chrysostom said, “Is it tradition? Ask no more!”

    Much of the vernacular liturgy is not legitimate, because per Article 54 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, written by the Second Vatican Council, the bishop must formally request and receive permission from the Holy See in order to expand the use of the vernacular in the Mass in his diocese. However, and I don’t have evidence to support this but I would imagine that it is very likely the case, I would make an educated guess that most if not all dioceses in the United States do not have this permission, and if some time in the future, the Holy See asked for documentation of said permission, I believe no diocese in the United States would be able to produce it.

    I also must take issue with the use of the word “promulgate.” Vernacular liturgy was not promulgated. Here is the definition of the word:

    1. to make known by open declaration; publish; proclaim formally or put into operation (a law, decree of a court, etc.).

    2. to set forth or teach publicly (a creed, doctrine, etc.).


    1. Part of the first definition is true: the Second Vatican Council did make known openly that vernacular use in the liturgy was permitted. However, the qualifier at the end of the first definition, to put into operation as in a law, decree of court, etc. is not true. The Second Vatican Council did not require vernacular to be used in the liturgy. In that way, the vernacular was not promulgated.

    2. The second definition does not apply to our situation, as the Second Vatican Council did not teach that vernacular liturgy was to be the norm.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103
    Much of the vernacular liturgy is not legitimate, because per Article 54 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, written by the Second Vatican Council, the bishop must formally request and receive permission from the Holy See in order to expand the use of the vernacular in the Mass in his diocese.


    SC is an older document and much has changed since, for good or ill. The Vatican has turned liturgy, for the most part, over to the bishop's conferences. They don't need permission since they already have jurisdiction and responsibility. Granted, how well individual conferences do that job may be open to question.

    The second definition does not apply to our situation, as the Second Vatican Council did not teach that vernacular liturgy was to be the norm.


    See above. The bishop's conferences in most places have decided vernacular is the norm. However, and I think thanks goes to Benedict XVI, there is more Latin used in my area now than in the last 50 years combined.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    SC is an older document and much has changed since, for good or ill.


    This is relativism. SC still applies to the NO, regardless of what has changed in other areas. SC is still the law for the NO.

    Legitimacy and validity are not the same. Let us examine:

    Valid:


    1. sound; just; well-founded:a valid reason.

    2.producing the desired result; effective:a valid antidote for gloom.

    3.having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.

    4.legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force:a valid contract.

    5.Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

    6.Archaic. robust; well; healthy.


    1. In the first definition, the vernacular liturgy would be considered valid by way of a just or sound reason. The only reason that I have been given for using the vernacular in the liturgy is so "people can understand" or "so that the people may easier understand the liturgy." This was condemned in Auctorem Fidei #66:

    66. The proposition asserting that "it would be against apostolic practice and the plans of God, unless
    easier ways were prepared for the people to unite their voice with that of the whole Church"; if
    understood to signify introducing of the use of popular language into the liturgical prayers,—false,
    rash, disturbing to the order prescribed for the celebration of the mysteries, easily productive of many
    evils.


    2. The second definition doesn’t apply. What is the desired result of the vernacular liturgy? If the reason given is to foster greater understanding of the liturgy, see Auctorem Fidei #66 quoted above.

    3. The third definition doesn’t fit either, because the use of the vernacular in the liturgy was not forcefully prescribed, it was permitted.

    4. The fourth definition does not fit either, because the use of the vernacular, while its permission does have legal status in certain circumstances, with permission from the Holy See, as set forth in SC #54, it was not required by the law, and its use is not binding on anyone. But even SC #54 is at odds with Auctorem Fidei #66.

    5. Since we’re not dealing with an argument per se here, the fifth definition does not apply.

    6. The sixth definition does not apply.

    So, while permission to use the vernacular in certain circumstances is certainly valid, per SC #54, the vernacular liturgy without said permission is not. (See below)

    Legitimate:

    1. according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.

    2. in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.

    3. born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children.

    4. in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.

    5. resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: a legitimate sovereign.

    6. not spurious or unjustified; genuine: It was a legitimate complaint.

    7. of the normal or regular type or kind.



    1. The first definition would apply in the circumstances set forth in SC #54. However, it would not be lawful to go beyond those circumstances without the permission of the Holy See.

    2. The second definition would apply in the same circumstances as the first. The established rules give permission for the vernacular to be used in certain circumstances, but beyond that, such as having a completely vernacular liturgy, while ignoring Latin altogether would require permission from the Holy See.

    3. The third definition does not apply.

    4. Since we’re not dealing with an argument per se, the fourth definition does not apply.

    5. Since we’re not dealing with heredity or inheritance, the fifth definition does not apply. However, if the traditions of the Church handed down through the centuries are considered the inheritance, the vernacular liturgy is not legitimate according to the fifth definition, since that is not what was handed down to us: we did not inherit a vernacular liturgy.

    6. It would be difficult to claim that the vernacular liturgy is not genuine liturgy, or that if only the vernacular is used that it is not the Mass, only that the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent condemned such an idea:

    CHAPTER VIII. On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people.
    Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; [Page 158] and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.


    The explanation during the liturgy mentioned above happened most frequently during sermons, so having a completely vernacular Mass was not necessary to address this.

    7. In practice, the seventh definition applies.

    So, the completely vernacular liturgy, while legitimate per the seventh definition, in that is has become the norm through common practice, is not valid without permission from the Holy See per article 54 of Sacrosanctum Concilium. It is also possibly not legitimate without said permission, per the first definition of legitimate.

    Fr. Gregory Hesse has a great lecture on the validity of Novus Ordo sacraments and the Mass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur1OlGrTU7s
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    See above. The bishop's conferences in most places have decided vernacular is the norm. However, and I think thanks goes to Benedict XVI, there is more Latin used in my area now than in the last 50 years combined.


    But that is in clear violation of SC #54.

    That the conferences of bishops exercise this power was also condemned after the Synod of Pistoia. See Auctorem Fidei #7,8:

    7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of
    ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are
    opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of
    the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and
    decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or
    even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which
    these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,—leading to schism
    and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.

    8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the
    government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise
    of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return
    to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that it intimates
    that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a
    bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to
    subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous.

  • Liam
    Posts: 3,819
    "SC is still the law for the NO."

    In many respects, it has been superseded by later legislation. It's not a "constitution" in the American legal sense of that word.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    In many respects, it has been superseded by later legislation.


    Which legislation? Please cite your source. And which legislation normalized and made mantadory the use of the vernacular in the liturgy?

    It's not a "constitution" in the American legal sense of that word.


    What, then is the Roman Church's legal sense of the word "constitution?" It has long been my understanding that SC has the force of law.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103
    Despite word-stacking, word-parsing, and word-linking, the fact remains that the current missal is vernacular and it is the norm for liturgy in the U.S. whether anyone likes it or not. Given the current administration in Rome, I don't look for any edicts from on high to change that. Again, I give Pope Benedict credit for the current missal being as excellent and accurately translated as it is. Under another pope, we might not have fared as well, of that I am sure.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    ...the fact remains that the current missal is vernacular and it is the norm for liturgy in the U.S. whether anyone likes it or not.


    The current missal's original text is still Latin, but vernacular translations have been made and distributed all over the world. Part of the revision in 2010 was because of inaccuracies in earlier translations, particularly in the Rite of Consecration.

    Given the current administration in Rome, I don't look for any edicts from on high to change that. Again, I give Pope Benedict credit for the current missal being as excellent and accurately translated as it is. Under another pope, we might not have fared as well, of that I am sure.


    You are correct.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103
    I sometimes expect to see a small crowd of unhappy people outside USCCB headquarters with picket signs reading, "Not My Missal" or maybe "Not My Mass!"

    I readily admit the NO mass suffers in application and could be better. But, it is what it is and I can't do much of anything about it.
    Thanked by 1Settefrati93
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,819
    CK

    I was responding to the *general* thrust of that statement of yours, not specifically about the vernacular aspect. SC doesn't exist in Olympian remove in the same way that American federal and state constitutions do as a supreme fundamental law that cannot be modified in practical effect by statute or regulation.

  • dad29
    Posts: 1,747
    The Vatican has turned liturgy, for the most part, over to the bishop's conferences. They don't need permission since they already have jurisdiction and responsibility.


    Nope. Under Canon Law, ONLY the Vatican has jurisdiction over the liturgy. Bishops' conferences may propose, but only the Vatican disposes. OBviously, if the text specifies "at the option of the ...conference," then the Vatican pre-disposed.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,747
    Now, Charles, let's get back to the justification, advanced by some, that the Mass should be said in the vernacular so that "the people" may understand it better--as a consequence of which, they will be more 'in union with the liturgy' or some such idea. You are one of those who advances this justification.

    When I say that the Mass was in Latin and therefore, by your standard, un-intelligible to the vast majority of "the people" for about 1300 years, you counter by stating that it is your hope that priests did a good job of explaining it all to them.

    When I suggest that your hope is not founded on any sort of known facts for the general case (albeit perhaps true in small, specific cases), you counter that nuns in the schools did the job very well.

    OK, but what about BEFORE grade-school-teacher nuns? Like the period from, say, 600AD to 1800 AD?

    I'm not picking on YOU, Charles; I'm picking on the argument that 'vernacular is better.' It's simply foofoodust. The Greeks who use (to this day) Ionic, the Jews who use (to this day) Hebrew; the Russians who (to this day) use Old Slavonic, would agree with me, not you.

    You cannot possibly argue that 'salvation was impeded' for those peasants who regularly attended Mass in Latin without knowing the language--and in the end, WHAT is MORE important than salvation? "Understanding"?

    OK, then. If one grants that "understanding" the text is a good, do modern Mass-goers "understand" transubstantiation? Do they "understand" EVERY parable in the Gospel?

    So, then, "understanding" is NOT necessary for salvation, nor is "understanding" complete, when we use the vernacular. It's just another pragmatism shoved down our throats by a bunch of Germanic characters--and I remind you that the next item on their agenda is the total demolition of marriage. (Previously, they succeeded in splitting the Northern European church--about in 1600.)

    I think somebody told you that the vernacular is a good and you accepted their declaration without asking "why" enough, Charles!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103
    You are one of those who advances this justification.


    We easterners have supported mass (liturgy) in the vernacular for 2000 years. Cyril and Methodius created an alphabet and translated the Bible and liturgy into OCS. Note the Latins still battling over vernacular scripture translations centuries later. Keep in mind that the differences between Old Church Slavonic and modern Slavic languages are not as great as say between English and Latin. Folks who speak one of those Slavic languages can usually decipher what is being said in the others. It is similar to Portuguese people who understand Spanish, even though they don't speak it. However, there is nothing inherently necessary for salvation that comes from using OCS or Latin. It's the content they convey that is of significance. Of course, it is all too easy to get mired in externals and miss that content.

    I think you underestimate people in previous times. Even folks who couldn't read could look at cathedral windows and "read" the scripture stories depicted there. Sermons are not a new invention, either. People listened and learned. Maybe the sermons were better then, because not so many do that today. I think much understanding comes from proper education, then and now.



    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    And who's to say that previous people, when illiteracy was common throughout most of Christendom, didn't know their Latin? Even if they could not read the words, they could still possibly understand and translate aurally. How many children do you know that can speak their native tongues, but not read them? Being a teacher, sadly I know many.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,819
    Well, that's a queer over-speculation . . . understanding orally what was not being heard . . . and also given the earlier argument that the sacred language used was *not* the type used/understood by the people.

    This universal widget isn't even cutting julienned potatoes.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,103
    I suspect that as one goes back in time closer to the fall of Rome, quite a few understood Latin. As the vernacular languages developed over centuries, that would have changed. As a retired teacher, I remember one student who could write quite well and clearly, but referred to himself as linguistically illiterate. When he spoke, his language was garbled and hard to understand. There are all kinds of variations and sidetracks on the language curve. On the learning curve, too.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,819
    CharlesW

    Irish scholars visiting Rome in the early Middle Ages were quite shocked at what they viewed as the exceedingly poor quality of the Latin they found Roman prelates using. This of course during the time when Latin was giving way to its Romance progeny. It doesn't surprise me that it's when this process is well underway that we find the formerly strenuously resisted practice of the silent canon being embraced - it seems it probably made a certain practical sense given the migration of language, why waste effort and time (since you can whisper on the inhale and the exhale) on proclaiming that which was less and less understood?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    Well, that's a queer over-speculation . . . understanding orally what was not being heard . . . and also given the earlier argument that the sacred language used was *not* the type used/understood by the people.


    I don't think so. It's a theory and entirely possible, as I said.

    What do you mean by "understanding aurally what was not being heard...?" Do you mean the differences between the text read in the soft versus the loud voice? Some parts of the Mass were heard by the congregation and some parts were not. Why was the Mass said this way? Why were there some parts not read aloud so that all could hear? My theory:

    The parts sung by the schola or read in the loud voice pertained to the people and those that were read in the soft voice, and thus not sung by the schola, did not. The congregation had no need of the text said in the soft voice, so it was not read to them during the Mass. For example, it matters not if the congregation says the Canon of the Mass, because they have not the power to consecrate the Eucharist. However, the priest does, and because it is his role to consecrate the Eucharist, it is important that he says the Canon of the Mass. This theory, if true, supports the idea that the text of the Mass is a ritual text pursuant to the completion of the sacrifice.

    @CharlesW, good observation.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,819
    CK

    Except it wasn't so for many centuries.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    Liam,

    What are you talking about? I don't understand what you're getting at.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,819
    My last comment was about the silent canon. It was a practice that was condemned into Late Antiquity. So obviously there was no such developed theology supporting it...
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,747
    However, there is nothing inherently necessary for salvation that comes from using OCS or Latin.


    Nor English. That is the whole point. If salvation is the goal, the language of the Mass is irrelevant. So what's the big deal about "understanding" the Mass?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,517
    One of my grandmothers got an elementary education in rural Ireland around 1880. She told me that she knew no Latin grammar, but was well drilled in 'Latin roots', sufficient to know what the texts were about.