 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Gloria Mundi
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 39 |
| First Name: | Gloria Mundi | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | RC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 9th, 2007 01:43 pm |
|
What is the difference between Traditional Mass and Tridentine Mass ?
Should we expect a return of the Tridentine Mass.
Is the Mass we presently have in the Church called, Novus Ordo ? please explain the difference.
Many thanks.
Sorry for all the questions at once, but it is a little confusing.
:?
Last edited on Wed May 9th, 2007 01:45 pm by Gloria Mundi
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5086 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed May 9th, 2007 03:13 pm |
|
First of all, welcome to the Coming Home Network. We're happy to have you with us, and we'll do our best to answer all your questions honestly. Please let us know if we can help in any way.
Gloria Mundi wrote: What is the difference between Traditional Mass and Tridentine Mass ?
Should we expect a return of the Tridentine Mass.
Is the Mass we presently have in the Church called, Novus Ordo ? please explain the difference.
The mass currently in use in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is known as the Mass of Pope Paul VI. Some people call it "Novus Ordo" or "New Order". This term was invented by those who opposed it, and many consider the phrase insulting, even though many of the people who use it do not intend it that way. At any rate, it is not an official Church term.
The mass in use prior to the promulgation of the revised liturgy by Pope Paul VI is commonly called the "Tridentine" mass, although that's not accurate either. The liturgy is constantly revised, and there were many revisions to the "Tridentine" liturgy in this century alone. The most recent liturgy prior to the revisions of Pope Paul VI were included in the Roman Missal of 1962, and revised by Pope John XXIII. So what is commonly called the "Tridentine" mass is actually the mass of the 1962 Roman Missal.
Vatican II called for a revision of the liturgy to make it more like the mass used by the first Christians. When Pope Paul VI formulated the revised liturgy, it became the normal liturgy for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II authorized the mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal again, under special permission of the local bishop. There are indications from Vatican officials that Pope Benedict XVI will give permission for the use of the 1962 mass in more circumstances, and he is known to favor increased use of Latin and traditional music such as Gregorian Chant.
What is the difference between the "Traditional" mass and the "Tridentine" mass? Neither are official Church terms, so I'm not sure just what comparison you are making. The current mass is closer to that used in the early Church than the 1962 mass was. However, the English translation currently in use is considered pretty bad, and is in the process of being retranslated to be more faithful to the Latin original.
Should we expect a return to the "Tridentine" mass? No. We are likely to see it's increased availability. For example, in my diocese there is one chapel that offers a Latin mass, but it is the Latin translation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. If the Holy Father gives increased permission for the use of the older liturgy, I would expect they will return to the 1962 missal. However, at this time, they use the "Novus Ordo" but also use the communion rail, and the priest faces the east along with the congregation. But until such time as the liturgy is revised again, the Mass of Pope Paul VI in the vernacular language will remain the norm within the Catholic Church.
There are many other liturgies used within the Church as well. The Eastern Catholic Churches use their own Divine Liturgies; there is a special Anglican Use liturgy for parishes and priests (primarily in Texas and Massachusetts) who have left the Episcopal church and become Catholic, and there are unique liturgies used in Milan and portions of Spain. So at any given time, there are more than a dozen Catholic liturgies in use simultaneously in different parts of the world.
Sorry for all the questions at once, but it is a little confusing.
We love lots of questions. The only thing we ask is that multiple questions on different topics be posted in different messages, as you have done. All of your questions in this post dealt with the Latin mass, so putting them together was appropriate.
Once again, welcome to CHN.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Gloria Mundi
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 39 |
| First Name: | Gloria Mundi | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | RC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 9th, 2007 04:39 pm |
|
Thankyou for your comprehensive explanations .
I see now that I was getting confused between the Old Traditional Roman Rite, and the Tridentine Rite , they are in fact the same thing. pre Vatican II ,
The New Roman Rite is the Mass we currently celebrate changes made since Pope John Paul 1969.
Sadly, the church I attend hardly every use Latin, and I like Mass said in Latin, especially the sung Liturgy. I think since Vatican II, people have become less inclined to learn Latin, and the Catholic Schools are not taught Latin , which is a great shame.
Since I became Catholic, I learnt prayers and the rosary in Latin.
:?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5086 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed May 9th, 2007 05:10 pm |
|
Gloria Mundi wrote: I think since Vatican II, people have become less inclined to learn Latin, and the Catholic Schools are not taught Latin , which is a great shame.
I agree, and so does oru Holy Father. He has issued instructions encouraging the use of Latin especially in international situations and in music; he has encouraged the use of Latin in some of the mass prayers such as the Our Father and in the music and chants; and he has asked the bishops to reintroduce Latin in seminaries and to make sure that candidates for the priesthood are trained in how to celebrate mass in Latin.
I think we will see an increase in the use of Latin in the next few years. It will not become the norm again (which is proper), but it will become more familiar to the average Catholic of the Latin Rite.
As for the teaching of Latin in schools, I was recently surprised to learn that Latin is being taught in the public high schools in my area. Learning Latin makes it easier to learn all of the romance languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and thanks to the Church, Latin is the only ancient language that has been "globalized" so that the words actually mean the same thing everywhere. An Yank, a Brit, and an Ozzie will experience more difficulty communicating in English than a Chinese, a Brazilian, and a Russian all speaking Latin. So the return of Latin to the educational system worldwide makes economic sense in a global economy.
Last edited on Wed May 9th, 2007 05:15 pm by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 9th, 2007 11:33 pm |
|
| Why does the church near you not just use the 1962 version now if it is allowable to use and they are already preferring the older customs?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5086 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10th, 2007 12:42 am |
|
brian wrote: Why does the church near you not just use the 1962 version now if it is allowable to use and they are already preferring the older customs?
Our bishop has not given his approval for use of the 1962 Missal, and so it is not permitted in our diocese.
There is a lot of resistence to the 1962 missal. One of the primary reforms instituted after Vatican II is the revised lectionary, which greatly increased the scriptural content of the mass, and instituted the multi-year cycles of readings. Use of the 1962 missal precludes the use of the revised lectionary. So our bishop has approved the use of the Latin language, eastward orientation, kneeling at communion, etc., but not the return to the liturgical calendar and lectionary of 1962. And frankly, I approve. He is allowing all of the traditional practices that some people miss so much, but keeping the greatest improvements of the revised Liturgy of Pope Paul VI.
It's the best of both worlds.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10th, 2007 01:30 am |
|
| so it is not a decision from Rome but from each Bishop. And their are many bishops who have approved of the 1962 one?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5086 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10th, 2007 02:11 am |
|
brian wrote: so it is not a decision from Rome but from each Bishop.
The decision from Rome granted permission to each bishop to authorize use of the old liturgy in his diocese. Before that permission or "indult" was granted, the 1962 liturgy could not be used anywhere in the world.
And their are many bishops who have approved of the 1962 one?
I don't know. I know there are Latin masses celebrated, but I do not know if they use the old liturgy or the new one.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10th, 2007 01:35 pm |
|
| but you do know that they have the freedom to do so if the bishop grants it and that there are many places in the world that are offering it. I mean, I went to a Tridentine mass and I am pretty sure it was approved by the Bishop so I am assuming it was the 1962 version. Anywhere offering a "Tridentine Mass" is really offering the 1962 versio and presumably with permission?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5086 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10th, 2007 02:20 pm |
|
brian wrote: but you do know that they have the freedom to do so if the bishop grants it and that there are many places in the world that are offering it. I mean, I went to a Tridentine mass and I am pretty sure it was approved by the Bishop so I am assuming it was the 1962 version. Anywhere offering a "Tridentine Mass" is really offering the 1962 versio and presumably with permission?
There are many schismatic groups that offer illicit "Tridentine" masses. If you're not sure, call your diocese and ask if it's an approved mass.
Anyone not familiar with the old mass probably couldn't tell the difference between the "Tridentine" and "Novus Ordo" masses if traditional elements are maintained, such as kneeling for communion, eastward orientation, etc.
I have seen postings on diocesan web sites listing mass times along with their language and liturgy, whether it be "Tridentine", Byzantine, Malobar, Chaldean, Anglican, etc., so I know it exists. I can't tell you where offhand. But I would assume that any "Tridentine" mass is not properly authorized unless I knew it was taking place in a legitimate parish church. If I had any doubt, I would ask.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10th, 2007 03:18 pm |
|
| I think I know of at least three parishes that offer it in my diocese and I belive they do so in union with Rome and with permission. I also thought I read a story that this mass was gaining in popularity in California and other places.
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 272 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21st, 2007 08:33 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote: The mass currently in use in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is known as the Mass of Pope Paul VI. Some people call it "Novus Ordo" or "New Order". This term was invented by those who opposed it, and many consider the phrase insulting, even though many of the people who use it do not intend it that way. At any rate, it is not an official Church term.
Isn't "novus ordo" a shortened version of the Latin term "Novus Ordo Missae" (New Ordinary of the Mass), the term used to distinguish the updated Paul VI Mass from previous versions of the Missal?
cajunrick wrote:
he is known to favor increased use of Latin
May I clarify that Latin has never stopped being the official language of the Latin Rite? Pope Benedict is re-iterating the importance of Latin that we should never have lost anyway!
Its a wonderful idea to learn prayers in Latin and be familiar enough to understand Church Latin. This familiarity allows one to understand the sentiments in Latin hymns and prayers.
Wasn't it St. Margaret Clitherow who said at her martyrdom to her tormenters objecting as she prayed in Latin rather than English, "God understands Latin perfectly well"?
There are indications from Vatican officials that Pope Benedict XVI will give permission for the use of the 1962 mass
Yup! In our Diocese we now have two parishes that our bishop officially allows to say this Mass. Yippee!!!
The current mass is closer to that used in the early Church than the 1962 mass was.
Upon what do you base this statement? Wouldn't it make sense that the version of the Mass that is closer in time to its orginal institution be more like that of the early Church's?
Anyone not familiar with the old mass probably couldn't tell the difference between the "Tridentine" and "Novus Ordo" masses if traditional elements are maintained, such as kneeling for communion, eastward orientation, etc.
Waaaht??? Okay, actually Cardinal Arinze made a similar statement at last year's summer conference at Christendom College. Cardinal Arinze is a totally awesome, extraordinary Prince of the Church and I tend to hang on his every word and speech. I went home annoyed, ruminating on what he must've meant. I regularly attend the Novus Ordo, have attended the old Mass of 1962 for years, and have frequented solemn Latin high Masses of the Novus Ordo as well with all the "smells and bells". If you compare the two versions based on reverence and both versions are reverently celebrated, then it might be difficult for the casual attendee to notice. However, for those that read along with the prayers, the differences are substantially apparent.
When I took my ex-Baptist convert husband to the Tridentine Mass at Old St. Mary's in Washington DC, he looked at me in desperation as we sped through the old Mass. He was completely and utterly lost.
Maybe I can help to add to the confusion by identifying some of the differences in the Mass versions  .
Some of the differences include
Overall, the Novus Ordo has less prayers than the old Mass; the old Mass has prayers at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Mass accentuates gratitude and penitence, the Novus Ordo does not; there's a confiteor in two places in the old Mass, the Novus Ordo drops the second confiteor right before communion; Before Communion, "Lord I am not worthy..." is said 3 times in the old Mass but once in the Novus Ordo; Throughout the Novus Ordo many descriptors such as "holy" and "Victim" don't exist which make the prayers shorter; The old Mass has one Canon whereas the Novus Ordo has at least nine Eucharistic Prayers that can be interchanged; Although not an intrinsic part of the Novus Ordo and can be left out, the old Mass does not have an exchange of the sign of peace by the congregation; Again not an intrinsic part of the Novus Ordo and can be left out, the old Mass does not include 'bringing up of the gifts'; the old Mass has a reading of the Fourth Gospel [John I] at the end of Mass which the Novus Ordo does not; the old Mass contains a lot more blessings and crossings by the priest as well as more genuflection in the rubrics; This is a very simplified overview of some differences. To really understand the breadth, read through an old missal alongside the new missal.
Carefully studying the old Mass helps me participate with more understanding any Mass I attend because the prayers are fuller and more specific.
That said, the intrinsic, absolutely necessary elements of the consecration are the Epiclesis [calling down of the Holy Spirit] and the words "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood". When the Novus Ordo was implemented, we were told that the intrinsic words needed for the Sacrifce had not changed. Rubrics can be changed or left out [descriptive prayers, blessings, genuflection], but not what is intrinsic to the Sacrifice. The Church is the author of the prayers and ceremonies of the Mass, and all Sacraments. The Magisterium concludes and defines how this is done.
There are many other liturgies used within the Church as well. The Eastern Catholic Churches use their own Divine Liturgies;
Yessiree! I think I once counted 24 different rites throughout the Church. Attending an Eastern rite can be an eye-opener. Today's Mass pre-dates the split with the Orthodox in 1000 A.D. The Liturgy is referred to as the Mass of St John Chrysostom. They tell me it really hasn't changed much since his time. No laity supports the Liturgy, they still only use Deacons for instance. No communion-in-the-hand. It is all sung except for the readings and the homily. A wall of icons encloses the sanctuary. This physical barrier represents the separation between earth and holy heaven, and between the clergy and the laity. The Eastern approach is very different from the Western - their depth of reverence for and understanding of the sacred is palpable. Familiarizing myself with this venerable rite taught me more about worshipping God.
There are many schismatic groups that offer illicit "Tridentine" masses. If you're not sure, call your diocese and ask if it's an approved mass.
I heartily agree with this suggestion - there are illicit Masses and it is wise to check it out with the local Diocese. The changes in the 60s and 70s made a lot of people angry, some with good reason. Unfortunately, some turned this into open rebellion and even schism. Some very bright, knowledgeable people decided that a "proper Mass" was more important than obedience. These became groups that operate without a licit bishop. Unfortunately attending such a Mass knowingly does not satisfy your Sunday obligation. Now how can that do you any good?
Don't be tempted to join such a group. Disobedience is the devil's favorite ploy, his ultimate sin germinated by pride. Such groups focus on hanging on to the traditions and the Truth to the extent of ignoring obedience. Individuals in these kinds of groups can be very bright, very informed, extremely well-versed in theology and general teaching, and can pin-point errors with accuracy and understanding. Obedience is tricky and can appear to make no sense at all, just dumb. Yup, its hard - who hasn't taken direction from an idiot boss? The objective isn't always what we perceive but its the act of obeying [legitimate authority] that saves us. Refer to the founding of countless denominations today to see the lesson of knowing everything but obedience. Luther led his followers with convincing arguments right out of the Church. We cannot be saved outside of obedience. Once we remove ourselves from the visible authority of the Church, we become prey.
A distinction that the neo-traditionalists often fail to see is "abuse". These abuses in the liturgy are real and worthy of anger. Flagrant disregard in saying Mass properly, inappropriate music and performance-centered extravaganzas, heretical sermons, the list is endless - and scary. Some of the neo-traditionalists equate this behavior as a fruit of Vatican II rather than of just regular ole' disobedience. When the Mass and the Sacraments are properly observed, these abuses don't exist.
The Tridentine [a.k.a. old, Traditional, Pius V] Mass is great when legal and properly said. Disobedience is bad. 
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5086 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21st, 2007 10:41 pm |
|
Tina in Ashburn wrote: cajunrick wrote: The mass currently in use in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is known as the Mass of Pope Paul VI. Some people call it "Novus Ordo" or "New Order". This term was invented by those who opposed it, and many consider the phrase insulting, even though many of the people who use it do not intend it that way. At any rate, it is not an official Church term.
Isn't "novus ordo" a shortened version of the Latin term "Novus Ordo Missae" (New Ordinary of the Mass), the term used to distinguish the updated Paul VI Mass from previous versions of the Missal?
Well, sort of. The term ordo translates to order not ordinary, but regardless, it's not an official term. The term "Novus Ordo Missae" was used in a document issued along with a preliminary revision in 1969, but as a generic reference to the changes that would be coming. The liturgy is living, and is constantly being revised. Prior to the 1962 Roman Missal of Pope John XXIII (which is the currently used "Tridentine Mass", the prior reform was in 1955, and there were many, many others. There's a good article in the Wikipedia on the Mass of Pope Paul VI, including the terms "novus ordo" and "novus ordo missae" and how they came into use. Officially, the year of the Roman Missal is used to the mass in question.
Since the Mass of Pope Paul VI was released in 1970 (which is currently referred to as the "Novus Ordo"), there have been several subsequent minor revisions, most recently in 2000, which is the Roman Missal currently being translated for use in the United States. Remember that when we talk about revisions, any change is a revision, so if a new feast is added to the liturgical calendar, that is a revision. Changes to the Holy Week liturgy are a revision; acceptance of the Second Sunday of Easter as Divine Mercy Sunday is a revision; changes in the General Instructions are revisions. Not every change is a change in words or actions visible every Sunday at mass.
I know that there are people who use the terms "Tridentine Mass" and "Novus Ordo" to honestly describe what they believe to be the mass prior to Vatican II and the mass after Vatican II, but the fact is that they are not official Church terms, and they are not accurate. There simply is no single liturgy that was in constant use prior to Vatican II, and there is no single liturgy that has been in constant use since.
There are indications from Vatican officials that Pope Benedict XVI will give permission for the use of the 1962 mass Yup! In our Diocese we now have two parishes that our bishop officially allows to say this Mass. Yippee!!!
The current rumors are that a priest will be able to use the 1962 liturgy without specific permission from the bishop, which is the current requirement. It is not known whether there will be any restrictions, whether the bishops will be able to refuse permission in their diocese, etc. Of course, it's also not known whether the document will ever actually be issued. We do know from Vatican officials that it is currently under consideration and expected to be issued "momentarily" but we've known that for over a year now, so who knows what will actually happen except our Almighty Father and our Holy Father.
Before Communion, "Lord I am not worthy..." is said 3 times in the old Mass but once in the Novus Ordo; Throughout the Novus Ordo many descriptors such as "holy" and "Victim" don't exist which make the prayers shorter;
Don't confuse the current mass with the English translation. The "Domine non sum dignus" ("Lord I am not worthy") is said once in the English, but I believe it is still said three times in the Latin. The last "unofficial working translation" I was able to read returned to three times, and also returned the phrase "under my roof" as prayed in scripture.
The current mass is closer to that used in the early Church than the 1962 mass was.
Upon what do you base this statement? Wouldn't it make sense that the version of the Mass that is closer in time to its orginal institution be more like that of the early Church's?
The stated purpose of the liturgical revisions called for by the Council Fathers at Vatican II was to return the sacraments (all of them) to the practices of the early Church.
From Sacrosanctum Concilium 50:
The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.That's why RCIA was created. Also, some of the prayers in the Mass of Paul VI, such as the offertory prayers over the gifts, are taken almost directly from writings of the early Church or the liturgies of the Eastern Rites. The Last Gospel was dropped in favor of greater use of Scripture, which went from two readings to four. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were also dropped. The Prayers of the Faithful were re-introduced, as was the Offertory Procession, which reenacts the manner in which Christians would bring bread from home to share at the Eucharistic meal. This is explained very well in Mike Aquilina's Mass of the Early Christians. Our method of receiving communion in the hand comes from instructions written by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, one of the Eastern Fathers, from a time before the Eastern Churches mixed water and wine together, so the common manner of receiving communion in the Western Church today (standing, in the hand) is actually more ancient than that used in the Eastern Rites.
As part of the research prior to the promulgation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, the Eastern Liturgies were intensely studied, including the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Liturgy of St. Basil, the Liturgy of St. James, the Liturgy of the Presanctified, and the liturgies used in the Chaldean, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, Coptic, and other Eastern Churches. Elements of those liturgies were written into the various Eucharistic Prayers, with EPII containing the most elements from the writings of the early Fathers. The mass in use today in the Western Church is closer to the mass of the early Christians than any liturgy used in the west in more than a millennium. However, there are probably more than 100 liturgies currently in use in the Catholic Church around the world, and all of them have their inherent beauty because they all include the conversion of ordinary bread and wine into the Precious Body and Precious Blood of our Savior.
By the way, the program for one of the masses said by Pope Benedict in Brazil said he was using Eucharistic Prayer V, which has not been authorized for use elsewhere. I have not been able to find out whether it was a misprint or an actual newly introduced Eucharistic Prayer. I suspect it was a misprint, since the Catholic media has not emphasized the story since the original "breaking news".
Any lack of reverence or horrible music or unintentional liturgical abuse is minor compared to the presence of our Guest of Honor.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 272 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2007 12:34 am |
|
cajunrick wrote: The stated purpose of the liturgical revisions called for by the Council Fathers at Vatican II was to return the sacraments (all of them) to the practices of the early Church.
Knowing what we know about the intentions of the Council and what actually transpired, is that really what we got? The severe problems with the ICEL translation of the Mass may not be the only thing that missed the Council's objective.
Just because it was done in the early Church, doesn't mean it was right. Communion in the hand was eventually stopped because of the terrible abuses that occurred. Touching the Sacrament only with consecrated hands helped solidify this. The abuses cited as the reason to stop communion in the hand way back then are the same abuses we see today. "Early Church practices" would mean those that were proper, not the abuses. There may be other specifics in the Mass similar to this. I guess I'll have to go look this stuff up, huh?!
There were many objections to the new developments in the Novus Ordo. I have never read the Ottaviani Intervention which was written as the Mass was about to change. I understand that it goes into great detail about the changes in the Mass. Do you know anything about it?
What I do believe is that the Mass and our practices of the Faith needed changes. I do understand that the intentions of the Council were to improve some silly things, and abuses, that had crept in. I also believe that this was not achieved. Pope Benedict describes his new efforts simply as the "reform of the Reform" as his intention is to fix what went awry. I wonder if we will ever get the Mass originally intended by the Council. I can only guess what a Mass developed from the days of Trent to the Mass of Paul VI is supposed to be. I do like the extra Scripture and the 3-year cycle to fit it all in.
Do you s'pose part of the process is that the laity needs to understand what the Mass is? I hardly know anyone who understands it or why it developed the way it did.
Alas, there is the cumbersome Church bureaucracy. Think we'll see anything before we are ninety?? Anybody know how long "momentarily" is going to take? zzzzzzzzzzzz.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5086 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2007 01:56 am |
|
Tina in Ashburn wrote:Just because it was done in the early Church, doesn't mean it was right.
Actually, Tina, we do believe that the writings and practices of the early Church are more likely to be correct because of the influence of the Apostles, who's knowledge was perfected by Christ and the Spirit. Infant baptism is one of the many things we accept because of the practices of the early Church. While not infallible, the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are considered authoritative.
That doesn't mean every practice of the early Church must be duplicated today, but our Church teaches that we follow the earliest practices possible unless there is a valid reason to do otherwise. Many of the earliest practices had been long since abandoned, often for reasons that appear today not to have had a valid purpose. For example, the reason for restricting the Anointing of the Sick to the moments before death were that priests were charging exorbitant amounts of money for the administration of the sacrament. That sacrament became "Extreme Unction" which Vatican II validly refocused as the Anointing of the Sick. Reception of all of the sacraments were restricted at an earlier time because of cost, and so the Church has had to enact laws requiring, for example, the reception of the Eucharist at least once a year.
Still, not all of the practices of the early Church have been restored. The Eucharistic celebration was once a meal presided over by the homeowner or whichever elder happened to be present. In many areas of persecution, there were no "ordained" priests, and bishops were elected and ordained by the community itself, with a neighboring bishop imposing hands at the earliest opportunity. This was necessary because bishops had a bad habit of being martyred, and the community needed leadership.
You and I agree that some of the changes in the Mass of Pope Paul VI were unwise. The 2000 Roman Missal, when it is finally implemented, will (I am confident) correct many of those errors. I have seen some early drafts, but the revisions currently under review have not been published. A "highly placed source" told me last week that the matter is considered to have the highest security at this time.
By the way, you can read the text of the Ottaviani Intervention here. It was a last ditch attempt to get Pope Paul VI to cancel the already-released revisions in the liturgy in favor of retaining the older rite. I think it does point out the haste in which the revisions were promulgated, and that (I believe) led to many of the problems. Thankfully, the current revisions, which were supposed to have been made many years ago, are being carefully considered and the English translation will not be released until everyone is satisfied with it. And this time, the Vatican will not yield to ICEL or the bishop's conference for the sake of expedience. The revisions under consideration at this time are, for the most part, grammatical in nature (where should we put this comma?) and should not be difficult to resolve. The biggest problem will be that once the changes are accepted, they will be returned to ICEL for submission to the bishops' conferences of other English-speaking countries.
However, having said all of that, the current mass is valid because the Holy Father said it was. The next revision will be valid because it will carry the signature of the Holy Father. Whether we like it or not is irrelevant. The Church says communion in the hand is acceptable and so it is. At CHN, our direction is to explain, not to discuss or debate. It is irrelevant for our purposes whether the "New Mass" is any less reverent or proper than the old; it is the mass.
I still don't like the term "Novus Ordo" because it is so imprecise. Which Novus Ordo? The one introduced after Trent? That was the "Novus Ordo" at the time. Or do you mean the one introduced 30 years later? Or the one in 1939, or 1955, or 1962? Or do you mean the 1970 Mass of Pope Paul VI? Or the 2000 Roman Missal? Or do you want to pick one of the innumerable revisions that took place in between? Which "Novus" is "Novus"? So if you want to discuss the "Novus Ordo" (or, for that matter, the "Tridentine Rite"), you'll have to let me know which one you're talking about.
Do you s'pose part of the process is that the laity needs to understand what the Mass is? I hardly know anyone who understands it or why it developed the way it did.
Yes, I do believe the laity should have a better understanding of the mass. I recommend Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper: The Mass As Heaven On Earth. To get a full understanding of its development, a person needs a thorough study of Church history, because so many of the changes were political in nature.
Alas, there is the cumbersome Church bureaucracy. Think we'll see anything before we are ninety?? Anybody know how long "momentarily" is going to take? zzzzzzzzzzzz.
To God, a moment is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a moment. I often think the Church uses God's watch.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5086 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2007 02:06 am |
|
By the way, as an additional tidbit on the Ottaviani Intervention, there is a good article on it at Wikipedia. It points out that one of the leaders in preparing the intervention was a priest working under the direction of Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre, who ultimately left the Church and formed the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).
The article quotes Cardinal Ottaviani as saying later:
I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized [by the new rite's sacrificial character]. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing."
That catechesis never took place, at least not in any parish I attended.
The article also points out that even the Vatican cited problems with the liturgy and its implementation in Redemptionis Sacramentum.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5086 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2007 02:23 am |
|
Please see this thread for the latest information on the proposal to increase use of the mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2007 07:34 am |
|
cajunrick wrote: By the way, the program for one of the masses said by Pope Benedict in Brazil said he was using Eucharistic Prayer V, which has not been authorized for use elsewhere. I have not been able to find out whether it was a misprint or an actual newly introduced Eucharistic Prayer. I suspect it was a misprint, since the Catholic media has not emphasized the story since the original "breaking news". The Apostolic See has approved several additional Eucharistic Prayers for the diocese(s) of Brazil. Eucharistic Prayer V is one of those. A search for it on google reveals a handful of blog posts about it. The general displeasure I've read (some of which I share) is that it creates unnecessary variation or difference (since these are prayers approved for a particular country, not to the whole Church), that the text of the prayer (in Portuguese) is banal compared to the four standard prayers, and that it is unlike the first four prayers in character (there are several responses made by the congregation throughout the prayer).
Rorate Caeli has a dissection of it.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5086 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2007 11:34 am |
|
japhy wrote: The Apostolic See has approved several additional Eucharistic Prayers for the diocese(s) of Brazil. Eucharistic Prayer V is one of those.
Thank you. I note that it was approved in 1975, toward the end of the papacy of Paul VI, when those in control of liturgy at the Vatican were approving practically anything. I don't find it as offensive as the posters on that thread (although I can't say I particularly like it) and I note that the translation given is not an official one, so I have no idea how accurate it is. Regardless, it is an approved liturgy, so it is valid.
I do find many of the comments offensive because they question (at least implicitly) the authority of the Church. One example is the poster who claimed that the "Novus Ordo" does not produce priests, and communion services will become the norm unless the "Tridentine mass" in Latin is restored. That is ludicrous. And I think I've been pretty clear of what I think of the phrase "Novus Ordo". It is at best imprecise and inaccurate.
The bloggers imply that all of the problems in the Church today (such as the lack of reverence in many places, and the shortage of vocations) are due to the changes in the mass, which is a gross oversimplification. It is easily proven to be incorrect by the fact that churches in Africa and Asia which have little tradition of Latin and which use the "Novus Ordo" exclusively are known for their reverence and vocations. The explosion of initiations into the Church have been since the introduction of the vernacular.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
| | |
