Dear Father: Please Stop It

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

So, in summary.  This isn't a thread about personal preference, which seems to be a huge sticking point to some.  It simply isn't.  The Church is clear in her teaching through Vatican Council II.

I'm going to break this down pretty succinctly.

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (Sacrosanctum Concilium)  -  This is first.  Legally speaking this holds pride of place in the conversation.  Before all other things mentioned, this is what is to be understood as primary.

2. (SC) 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.  -  This doesn't mean that there is to be a wholesale abandonment of Latin.  No.  It is quite simply the opposite.  Latin is to be preserved and there are parts, which may, not will, not should, not can, but may be extended into the vernacular.  One has to understand English to understand the importance of the word may.  There is no edict as to it being a normative or accepted as universal action.  Which speaks to the larger point.

3. (SC) 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.  -  There is a great amount of discussion as to whether these norms are being observed as laid down in Article 22, 2.  The argument that has gained enough steam in the last few years to warrant another look is that the use of the vernacular is so abusive to the intent of the Mass and Sacraments that more Latin should be employed.  This is gaining favor among younger bishops and priests.

54. (SC) 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 the 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....  -  We are commanded to know our parts in Latin.  While the readings and "the common prayer" (which has come to be known as the prayers of the faithful), it is very hard to argue that the exclusive use of the vernacular is applicable as Articles 22,2 and 36 envision.  That being said, the argument is still valid and sound that the use of Latin has been supplanted by the vernacular in an abusive way, as designed by the Council Fathers.

63. (SC) Because of the use of the mother tongue in the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals can often be of considerable help to the people, this use is to be extended according to the following norms:

a) The vernacular language may be used in administering the sacraments and sacramentals, according to the norm of Art. 36.  -  Again, the issue lies in understanding the term may, as well as the a proper application of Article 36.  If Article 36 has not been enacted in a normative and proper way, then it is easy to argue that the use of the vernacular is abusive.  Which speaks to the point of many, including myself, on this thread.

113. Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song, with the assistance of sacred ministers and the active participation of the people.

As regards the language to be used, the provisions of Art. 36 are to be observed; for the Mass, Art. 54; for the sacraments, Art. 63; for the divine office. Art. 101.  -  As we are clearly seeing there is a pattern forming.  There are normative actions which are in question.  Specifically, Article 36.  If Article 36 has not been properly enacted or provided, then we have a bigger issue.  And let's remember, aside from the Pope himself, no one (even if he be a priest, including a lone bishop) can change something in the Mass of his own accord.  This includes the language.  However, we have seen a full scale abandonment of Latin.

In closing, a word.  The legality of this is not a matter of personal preference or interpretation.  As we have seen, we are supposed to know our Latin.  This is universal.  You, me, the guy next to you and the girl next to him.  We cannot simply say, "Well, since the rest of the world does it, so should we."  That is disingenuous.  We have an obligation to be authentic in our Faith.  We are to succumb to obedience.  It is clear that we have not.  And to argue that Latin is a dead language is ludicrous.  It is not dead, it is static.  There are plenty of Latin speakers in the world.  I am one, there are others on this site.  It is the official language of a sovereign nation, today.  It is hardly dead.  I agree that it is unchanging or static, but certainly not dead.   

Illi qui latine loqui non est necesse appellare mortuum. Illi autem qui non sunt ab ecclesia praecepta discere satis respondet ad sacrificium.

I suppose that a little more Latin in church couldn't hurt.

[Cam42]

So, I made an allusion to a discrepency in the Offertory between the NO and the EF.  Which, as a point of clarification, the EF was the Mass that was normative when Sacrosanctum Concilium was being discussed.  Not the NO.  That didn't come into being until almost 7 years after the fact.

The Tridentine Offertory: (Normally entirely in Latin, however I have translated so that it may be understood by those who have not been catechized yet in Latin, as Vatican Council II commands of us in Sacrosanctum Concilium.)

[The priest now says the Offertory for the Mass being offered. He then uncovers the chalice and in a lower voice says:]

P: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.

[The priest goes to the Epistle side and pours wine and water into the chalice.]

P: O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end. Amen.

[At the middle of the altar, the priest says:]

P: We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching Thy clemency that it may ascend as a sweet odor before Thy divine majesty, for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.

P: Come, Thou, the Sanctifier, God, almighty and everlasting: bless (+) this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy name.

[Going to the Epistle side, the priest washes his fingers and says:]

P: I will wash my hands among the innocent, and will cleanse compass Thine altar, O Lord. That I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works. I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house, and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked; nor my life with men of blood. In whose hands are iniquities: their right hand is filled with gifts. But as for me, I have walked in my innocence; redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot hath stood in the right way; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be; world without end. Amen.

[The priest returns to the middle of the altar and bowing slightly, says:]

P: Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation offered up by us to Thee in memory of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of blessed Mary, ever a virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of these, and of all the saints, that it may be available to their honor and to our salvation; and may they whose memory we celebrate on earth vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

P: Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin.

[The priest kisses the altar and turning to the people, says:]
 
P: Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be well pleasing to God the Father almighty.

R: May the Lord receive this sacrifice at thy hands, to the praise and glory of His name, to our own benefit, and to that of all His Holy Church.

[Then with hands extended, the priest says the Secret prayers.]
[The priest now says in a louder voice:]

P: World without end.

R: Amen.

 

The Novus Ordo Offertory:

[The celebrant raises the host on the paten saying:]

P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

R. Blessed be God for ever.

[The celebrant pours wine and a little water into the chalice saying quietly:]

P: By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

[The celebrant then raises the chalice above the altar and says:]

P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

R: Blessed be God for ever.

[Bowing, the celebrant says quietly:]

P: Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts.

[Then the celebrant washes his hands, saying quietly:]

P: Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin.

P: Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

R: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Holy Church.

[The priest recites the prayer over the gifts.]

P. Amen.

 

It's pretty stunning the oversimplification to which the Offertory was subjected.  The lack of clarity, the lack of completeness, the lack of humility that the priest is asked to show is telling.  While validity isn't in question, there is more than validity which speaks in this instance.  The lack of sacramental catechesis is undeniable, compared to the former.  Also the ritual actions have been so simplified that the necessary movement of the priest from one side of the altar to the other has been eliminated.  The purpose of movement is to show that there is a journey being undertaken from him who is not ritually clean, on the epistle side, to him who is, at the center.  This is made manifest in several stages, firstly, with the uncovering of the chalice, secondly at the lavabo.

Also, the lack of invocation of both the Blessed Virgin and the saints is concerning.  Intercession is a necessary part of prayer and throughout the EF there are intercessory prayers which are completely omitted.  This lack is to our detriment, because the saints are not going to intercede, if they are not called upon.

In short, the Offertory was so obliterated that the essence is barely visible.

[superblue]

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

 

Also, the lack of invocation of both the Blessed Virgin and the saints is concerning.  Intercession is a necessary part of prayer and throughout the EF there are intercessory prayers which are completely omitted.  This lack is to our detriment, because the saints are not going to intercede, if they are not called upon.

In short, the Offertory was so obliterated that the essence is barely visible.

so you really believe that after a person enters into heaven , is pronounced a Saint by the Church, that the person can not intercede for anyone for any reason unless called upon ?  That kind of implies that one looses ones free will upon entering into heaven. or is equivalent to here in the now, seeing someone who needs help, and saying, sorry you didn't ask for my help so I can't help you while having everything needed to help that person, and just walk right by that person.

Side question,

what business is it to the congregation to have access to or even know what the priest is praying in silence or doing at the Altar , or to even know if he is doing things in order ? because literally no one can do anything about it once things have begun , and after things are over, either the mass is still valid even if not said and done to the T or it isn't. Last time I checked there isn't a form anywhere in the church to be filled out and turned into the bishop if we notice anything amiss , so sarcasm aside is the congregation supposed to know what the priest is doing , and in what order and is saying , and if so why.

[Anomaly]

So the vast majority of all the priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, church functionaries who manage and print the missals and say Mass have been doing it wrong all these decades because the congregation has failed to call them on their errors?  

Sad.  The clergy just aren't suitably educated in Catholicism now a days.   It was those felt banners...

[Cam42]

17 minutes ago, superblue said:

so you really believe that after a person enters into heaven , is pronounced a Saint by the Church, that the person can not intercede for anyone for any reason unless called upon ?  That kind of implies that one looses ones free will upon entering into heaven. or is equivalent to here in the now, seeing someone who needs help, and saying, sorry you didn't ask for my help so I can't help you while having everything needed to help that person, and just walk right by that person.

Side question,

what business is it to the congregation to have access to or even know what the priest is praying in silence or doing at the Altar , or to even know if he is doing things in order ? because literally no one can do anything about it once things have begun , and after things are over, either the mass is still valid even if not said and done to the T or it isn't. Last time I checked there isn't a form anywhere in the church to be filled out and turned into the bishop if we notice anything amiss , so sarcasm aside is the congregation supposed to know what the priest is doing , and in what order and is saying , and if so why.

So, I'm going to put it right back on you.  If you do not ask for the intercession of St. Thomas Aquinas on a matter of study, do you expect him to intercede for you regardless?  

There is no loss of free will.  To the contrary, free will has nothing to do with you and I, it has everything to do with God.  Free will is how we dispose ourselves to God's will, not to each other.  I act freely to support you, because it is what God asks of me.  I don't act freely to support you, just because of you.  Sounds a little harsh, but by and large, we don't have a proper understanding of what free will is.  Free will isn't a carte blanche attitude to act, it is the freedom to assent our will to God the Father.

The faithful don't need to know what the priest is doing at the altar.  However, it isn't a secret.  The ritual belongs to the priest, but we as the faithful worshiping and the priest acting as our mediator (in persona Christi) has a solemn obligation to follow the rubrics and celebrate the Mass properly.  We are owed that by the Church.  As far as a form to be turned in no, but I would point you to Redemptionis Sacramentum 184.  It states, "Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity."

Reading that document is pretty important to Catholics and this discussion.

15 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

So the vast majority of all the priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, church functionaries who manage and print the missals and say Mass have been doing it wrong all these decades because the congregation has failed to call them on their errors?  

Sad.  The clergy just aren't suitably educated in Catholicism now a days.   It was those felt banners...

That argument has been made.  Personally, I don't call into question validity, but I will call into question whether an action is licit or illicit.  But that really isn't at question here either.  My point about the change is that the NO has been oversimplified almost to a fault.  It has nothing to do with whether it is valid or licit or not on either account.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I do believe there's an element here that is beyond personal preference. The Church does encourage use of Latin etc officially. Also I think certain things are near universal in promoting reverence in piety. For example kneeling. 

I think there's an objective side to the argument. 

The Mass has (infinite) intrinsic value but also extrinsic value which depends on various things. 

[superblue]

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

So, I'm going to put it right back on you.  If you do not ask for the intercession of St. Thomas Aquinas on a matter of study, do you expect him to intercede for you regardless?  

There is no loss of free will.  To the contrary, free will has nothing to do with you and I, it has everything to do with God.  Free will is how we dispose ourselves to God's will, not to each other.  I act freely to support you, because it is what God asks of me.  I don't act freely to support you, just because of you.  Sounds a little harsh, but by and large, we don't have a proper understanding of what free will is.  Free will isn't a carte blanche attitude to act, it is the freedom to assent our will to God the Father.

The faithful don't need to know what the priest is doing at the altar.  However, it isn't a secret.  The ritual belongs to the priest, but we as the faithful worshiping and the priest acting as our mediator (in persona Christi) has a solemn obligation to follow the rubrics and celebrate the Mass properly.  We are owed that by the Church.  As far as a form to be turned in no, but I would point you to Redemptionis Sacramentum 184.  It states, "Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity."
 

 

Well then considering by your assumption of no loss of free will in heaven, then yes I would expect any saint in heaven to help me if he or she could, for the simple fact I am not some mega database of knowing which saint to pray to in a time of need, just like I would help someone on the side of the road who needs my help and I am able to give that person help with out waiting for that person to bleed out first because why, because I am not a complete fool to just stand by and wait for someone to beg for help. so I can't agree with the harsh stupidity you suggest. But at least you deflected my question long enough to let you sink your own ship.

Then again you are contradicting your self,  the faithful don't need to know, but then you know about Redemptionis Sacramentum 184 ? So which is it, we either do or do not need to know, even if it isn't a secret, which would kinda be nice if it was a secret just so nut jobs don't go around thinking just because it is out there they can perform ones own lil special mass on their own. One can not have it both ways, not being given the information by the church to be well informed on what is supposed to be said; and then be expected or at the very least allowed to file a formal complaint to the bishop. But even then, even if many of those here or at least the person who originally posted on that website that one article, is sitting at mass with his or her check list of what the priest is to be doing, you still are taking a gamble that the priest is actually saying the private prayers as they should be said. There is no way to verify that.

So guess what, that means all the crying about this in the first place is just that, crying. hypothetically the priest can do everything that is seen and heard according to the T, and when it comes time for the silent prayers, can make up any prayer he wants, and then crying and sniveling  wont even take place because no one can hear him. So thusly for the self righteous church patrollers who like to go online and create an article declaring they have a liturgical abusing priest, yet have not shown that they took the time to contact their bishop on the matter, everything would have to be verbally said out loud, in the language of those of in attendance. so then again the question becomes , does the mass at  that point to be considered valid, and if so, then who is being hurt, the priest, or the congregation ?  Hey better yet, who hammers down on the Pope or an elderly priest if he mistakenly says or does something wrong during mass ? does who ever wrote that original article get called up to make the notification or does everyone just ignore it and move on with life because the priest/ Pope is human and just made an honest mistake.

This entire thread would have better if it was based on a topic on how to reach ones bishop, and or how to approach ones bishop on the matter and how to follow up to make sure that the bishop did his job to make sure the priest does his job, because someone decided that they are now the church police of making sure things are done by the book.  This is the exact same non sense that in part helps create a schism and has, from debating how to recite something, to physical movements to be done in a certain way, an in some churches, if it isn't done in a certain way, the entire mass is considered invalid and if the priest even so much as sneezes it is game over and an invalid mass. It is a nice sentiment to want to have the mass executed perfectly by the book, but the truth is 90 % of those in the seats have no idea in the first place the correct way it is to be done. An then when the enlightened here can not even explain if it is still a valid mass or not, and why, how does anyone expect anyone in the seats to understand.

 

[Ash Wednesday]

Dear Phatmass,

I love you.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

1 hour ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Dear Phatmass,

I love you.

No you don't!

Sorry. Debate table humor.

[Peace]

On 1/28/2016, 3:42:57, Cam42 said:

It's pretty stunning the oversimplification to which the Offertory was subjected.  The lack of clarity, the lack of completeness, the lack of humility that the priest is asked to show is telling.  While validity isn't in question, there is more than validity which speaks in this instance.  The lack of sacramental catechesis is undeniable, compared to the former.  Also the ritual actions have been so simplified that the necessary movement of the priest from one side of the altar to the other has been eliminated.  The purpose of movement is to show that there is a journey being undertaken from him who is not ritually clean, on the epistle side, to him who is, at the center.  This is made manifest in several stages, firstly, with the uncovering of the chalice, secondly at the lavabo.

Also, the lack of invocation of both the Blessed Virgin and the saints is concerning.  Intercession is a necessary part of prayer and throughout the EF there are intercessory prayers which are completely omitted.  This lack is to our detriment, because the saints are not going to intercede, if they are not called upon.

In short, the Offertory was so obliterated that the essence is barely visible.

Hmm. The NO Offertory is not really a simplification of the EF Offertory is it? It is not as though they took the EF and said "OK how can we cut this down and make it simpler for people to understand". I do not think that was the point or what they were trying to do.

At least according to this document:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/catechesis/catechetical-sunday/eucharist/upload/catsun-2011-doc-pitre-roots.pdf

the NO Offertory was based off of ancient Jewish table blessings that were given at the passover meal. The point seems not to be to simplify the EF, but rather to make more of a mental connection between the Jewish Exodus / Passover and what follows next in the liturgy on the altar.

Whether or not that is a good thing I will leave it up to the good judgment of the Church.

[Peace]

But at a more basic level my question for you is this. How can one form of the Mass (properly conducted) be better than another form of the Mass, when Jesus is the Head of the Church, and when Jesus is the principal priest at Mass?

How is it that Jesus would allow his Church to fall into authorizing a Mass that is inferior to the EF (as you seem to suggest with your citicisms of the NO)?

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

But at a more basic level my question for you is this. How can one form of the Mass (properly conducted) be better than another form of the Mass, when Jesus is the Head of the Church, and when Jesus is the principal priest at Mass?

How is it that Jesus would allow his Church to fall into authorizing a Mass that is inferior to the EF (as you seem to suggest with your citicisms of the NO)?

It has happened before. The Gallican liturgies during the French revolution for instance were mainly valid, but very heretical.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

It has happened before. The Gallican liturgies during the French revolution for instance were mainly valid, but very heretical.

Now there is something you don't hear about every day. Do you have a source for that information?

[Nihil Obstat]

18 minutes ago, Peace said:

Now there is something you don't hear about every day. Do you have a source for that information?

Yep. Not handy, but I can find it again. There was also more recently a Mozarabic Mass I think which was suppressed, essentially because it was wildly inauthentic. The Ethiopian Rite had to be totally purged at one point, though that was kind of the opposite scenario.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Yep. Not handy, but I can find it again. There was also more recently a Mozarabic Mass I think which was suppressed, essentially because it was wildly inauthentic. The Ethiopian Rite had to be totally purged at one point, though that was kind of the opposite scenario.

Thanks. I am pretty unfamiliar with the process by which rites are created / authorized thorughout the Church - but I suppose my question here would be, were those rites authorized by the church in Rome at some point in time, and then later suppressed? Or are these rites that had never received approval from "On High" in the first place?