Ef In The Vernacular

[OraProMe]

I was wondering why Vatican II didn't just mandate that the missal of John XXIII be said in the vernacular [i]versus populum[/i]. Why did we need an entire new missal that only retained 30% of the original prayers?

For those who attend the OF (like I usually do) would you prefer a vernacular Mass according to the missal of John XXIII or the Mass that you have now? In the ordinary form.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1878893' date='May 31 2009, 12:04 AM']I was wondering why Vatican II didn't just mandate that the missal of John XXIII be said in the vernacular [i]versus populum[/i]. Why did we need an entire new missal that only retained 30% of the original prayers?

For those who attend the OF (like I usually do) would you prefer a vernacular Mass according to the missal of John XXIII or the Mass that you have now? In the ordinary form.[/quote]



NOT VERSUS POPLUM!

Edited May 31, 2009 by Resurrexi

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1878976' date='May 31 2009, 12:14 AM']

NOT VERSUS POPLUM![/quote]

haha! I don't like it either, but some people may prefer it and it's a legitimate way of celebrating the Mass.

Atleast if the Old Mass was used the prayers would better express our faith and the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

[puellapaschalis]

I think there are two issues: the language used, and the posture of the priest. In my personal opinion the latter is what does and has done the most "damage" to your average person's understanding of the Mass.

EF in the vernacular? It could work (fsvo "work")...although I much prefer the silent Canon

[OraProMe]

I was thinking a few days about what must have been going through the heads of the hierarchy when they allowed Mass to be said facing the people.

The only possible "benefit" that can come from this is that the people get to see what's going on, but surely they know it's not about the people. It's about God.

ughhhhh
Our church is so sick ):

[Resurrexi]

antiquitarianism

[goldenchild17]

[Brother Vinny]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1879128' date='May 31 2009, 03:50 AM']I was thinking a few days about what must have been going through the heads of the hierarchy when they allowed Mass to be said facing the people.

The only possible "benefit" that can come from this is that the people get to see what's going on, but surely they know it's not about the people. It's about God.

ughhhhh
Our church is so sick ):[/quote]

I thought Mass is where the saints, both visible and invisible, [i]commune[/i] ("comm" [i]with/become[/i] + "une" [i]one[/i]) with each other and with God. If we're becoming one with God, then the distinction you draw ("about the people" vs. "about God") is a false dichotomy.

The benefits that I can see are multiple. First, allowing the gathered to see the priest acting [i]in persona Christi[/i] gives us an opportunity to view the model we are supposed to be following. Jesus could do nothing by Himself, but He did that which He saw His Father doing (John 5:19). Apart from Jesus, we could do nothing (John 15:5). After Christ ascended into Heaven, he left us shepherds like the Apostle Paul, who said that we are to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). Viewing the priest's actions in the Mass on Sunday provides us with a paradigm for how we are supposed to live out the rest of the week: in reverence, thanksgiving, and self-sacrifice.

Second, since the priest is acting in the person of Christ, how the people view him during Mass impacts how they see God as a person. At best, seeing a Christ whose back is toward us indicates an aloofness we don't see in Him in the Gospels, and one that runs counter to the idea that He is there to commune with us. At worst, it could indicate rejection, a notion that God has forsaken us. I cannot imagine Christ having celebrated that last Passover with the Twelve, His back turned almost the entire time, can you?

Finally, yes, the Church is sick, but has there ever been a time when this was not so? The Church is both an armory for saints to equip them for battle and a triage unit for sinners who leave the battlefield, acknowledging their need for a Physician. Changes to the Order of the Mass are, IMHO, a response to the people's sickness and, as one of my favorite Catholic musicians has said, "You can't take the effect and make it the cause."

[Groo the Wanderer]

Aw geeze not again.....



OK folks. Here is some wisdom from the gospel of the Mass according to Groo:

1. Both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo forms of the Mass are equally valid. The magisterium has said it is so. Further bickering on this is pointless, divisive, and reeks of disobedience.

2. The Tridentine Mass is NOT the original form of the Divine Liturgy, nor is Latin the original language of the Church. Neither is English, Spanish, Russian, or Klingon.

3. The Mass was not originally said with the priest facing away from the people. The Novus Ordo restored that part to how it was originally done.

4. Vatican II did not mandate the use of the vernacular in the Mass for all parts, nor did it banish Latin (or Greek) from the Mass.

5. Just as the Tridentine Mass was formulated to meet the needs of the Church and her people at the time, so also true for the Novus Ordo Mass. When celebrated properly, according to the guidelines from Vatican II (not the craptastic so-called 'spirit of Vatican II') the Novus Ordo form is quite beautiful, spiritual, and uplifting. Watch/listen to EWTN to see this.

6. The heart of the Mass is the Eucharist. That does not change. Which way the priest faces, what language is spoken, what music is played or not played, what colors are used, and on what side of the church the door is located will all change with time. The Real Presence of Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is eternal. Focus on that.

The word of Groo. Thanks be to coagulated milk dip.



Personally, I hope to see a merging of the Tridentine and Novus Ordo forms in the near future. I do not like the lack of laity participation in the Tridentine form nor the complexity of the various movements, and gestures. One may be linked to the other. I do not like the abuses that have pervaded the Novus Ordo form from liberalistic 'spirit of Vatican II' yahoos putting their own spin on the Mass: clowns, liturgical dance, blue vestments, Haugen/Haas tripe. I love the solemnity, dignity, and reverence of the Tridentine Mass. I feel that the use of Latin ties us to our Catholic roots and unites us in our liturgy to our brethren around the world and throughout time. I love the amount of laity participation in the Novus Ordo Mass since we are all called to share actively in the mission of Christ as priest, prophet, and king. I like how much of the Mass is in the vernacular, particularly the Liturgy of the Word, so that it can be readily understood.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1879223' date='May 31 2009, 12:40 PM']1. Both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo forms of the Mass are equally valid. The magisterium has said it is so.[/quote]

I don't think anyone has argued differently.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Headin' it off at the pass, pardner

[Donna]

Proly won't work, Goo.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1878893' date='May 31 2009, 01:04 AM']I was wondering why Vatican II didn't just mandate that the missal of John XXIII be said in the vernacular [i]versus populum[/i]. Why did we need an entire new missal that only retained 30% of the original prayers?[/quote]

Because they were seeking a more significant reform. It wasn't an issue of dealing with the Three Language Heresy,* but of making sure the liturgy of the Church is an authentic and proper way of worshipping God. Reforms and renewals of all aspects of Christian life have been needed throughout the years, and the Council decided it was time to reform the liturgy in a substantial way. Obviously, some people view the reform as unnecessary, but if the question asks why Vatican II did that, it's pretty clear the majority of the bishops in attendance didn't see it that way.

I for one am very glad they restored the Easter Vigil to an evening service. I can't imagine doing that on Sat. morning!

[quote]For those who attend the OF (like I usually do) would you prefer a vernacular Mass according to the missal of John XXIII or the Mass that you have now? In the ordinary form.[/quote]

The mass I have now, in the ordinary form, is the only mass I have ever known, and I have loved it all my life. I attended an extrordinary form mass for the first time just this past month, and I felt like a complete stranger - a tourist in the Church. I imagine that familiarity would change that impression, but I would find it an odd compromise that satisfies no one. If you're going to have a Schola choir, they might as well sing in Latin!


*This heresy states that the mass may only be said in a language that was represented on the cross. It cropped up when people distrusted translating the Bible/liturgy into Slavonic languages. But since Cyril and Methodius are saints, it's pretty clear where the Church landed on that dispute.

[scardella]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1879223' date='May 31 2009, 11:40 AM']2. The Tridentine Mass is NOT the original form of the Divine Liturgy, nor is Latin the original language of the Church. Neither is English, Spanish, Russian, or Klingon.[/quote]

Question: can a Mass be validly celebrated in Klingon? or, for that matter, Esperanto?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1880201' date='Jun 1 2009, 09:00 AM']Because they were seeking a more significant reform. It wasn't an issue of dealing with the Three Language Heresy,* but of making sure the liturgy of the Church is an authentic and proper way of worshipping God. Reforms and renewals of all aspects of Christian life have been needed throughout the years, and the Council decided it was time to reform the liturgy in a substantial way. Obviously, some people view the reform as unnecessary, but if the question asks why Vatican II did that, it's pretty clear the majority of the bishops in attendance didn't see it that way.

I for one am very glad they restored the Easter Vigil to an evening service. I can't imagine doing that on Sat. morning!



The mass I have now, in the ordinary form, is the only mass I have ever known, and I have loved it all my life. I attended an extrordinary form mass for the first time just this past month, and I felt like a complete stranger - a tourist in the Church. I imagine that familiarity would change that impression, but I would find it an odd compromise that satisfies no one. If you're going to have a Schola choir, they might as well sing in Latin!


*This heresy states that the mass may only be said in a language that was represented on the cross. It cropped up when people distrusted translating the Bible/liturgy into Slavonic languages. But since Cyril and Methodius are saints, it's pretty clear where the Church landed on that dispute.[/quote]

What the [i]Consilium [/i]gave us is certainly not what was intended in [i]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/i].

I do not support the idea that the liturgy can only be celebrated in those languages, but it's certainly not a [i]heresy[/i] to say so, since it has never been defined as dogma that the liturgy can be celebrated in any language.

The following is what the Church spoke in the matter:
"We rightly praise the Slavonic letters invented by Cyril in which praises to God are set forth, and we order that the glories and deeds of Christ our Lord be told in that same language. Nor is it in any wise opposed to wholesome doctrine and faith to say Mass in that same Slavonic language, or to chant the holy gospels or divine lessons from the Old and New Testaments duly translated and interpreted therein, or the other parts of the divine office: for He who created the three principal languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, also made the others for His praise and glory" ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14041b.htm"]Pope John VIII[/url])

Note well that [b]Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are the principal languages for divine worship[/b].