The Latin Mass and Vatican 2?

My mother-in-law has been studying the traditional Latin Mass and has even attended one recently. She has told me the Mass since Vatican 2 has been watered down purposely by I believe Masons to try and get rid of the true Faith. She claims in the english mass now a days is not good because: The Altar where the Body and Blood are kept in used to be in the front of the Church but now its pushed aside and the Priest now sits where God once did, the prayers are different, anyone seems to be able to walk up by the altar but before only the priest was, all were once required to kneel before the Body and Blood before taking comunion, now everyone just walks up,etc. She’s also heavily into prophecy about the end times that’s soon to come.

I don’t understand? Some of what she says makes sense to me but man I’m so confused and even angry. I actualy feel like the way I once did when I was a Protestant investigating Catholicism and now this “Latin” stuff seems pretty strong. Can anyone explain this?

J.W.B.,

If your mother wants to attend a Tridentine Mass (most dioceses will have some church or churches that celebrate them), fine. (Unless, of course, she’s going to a Pius X group.) Different strokes for different folks—I know some good Catholics who would not care for such a Mass. The point is: regardless of whether a Mass is Novus Ordo or the Tridentine, it should be done with proper reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ. I attend a parish that has a very beautiful and reverent Novus Ordo Mass, and although I wouldn’t mind going to a Tridentine Mass I don’t have a problem with the Novus Ordo when properly celebrated.
The placement of the Tabernacle and the altar are a function of the architecture, not of the type of Mass. I agree that some of what she is saying is right regarding those things, but to blame that on the Novus Ordo instead of to the attitudes of dissent that influenced such changes is to miss the mark. Nor would I place a lot of faith in conspiracy theories about Masons. And an obsession with “end times” and prophecy is NOT a good sign for any Christian. I would pray for your mother, but I wouldn’t let her anxieties and odd ideas overly influence your faith, as you seem to indicate that it has. Sure, fight the legitimate abuses and irreverence that are out there. But don’t get into this “the-sky-is-falling” syndrome—it’s very destructive to your faith. I’m sure Satan LOVES it when Catholics get so bent out of shape about the inevitable stupid and irreverent things that occur within the Church that they doubt their faith and leave it to join some simplistic Utopian sect like the Pius Xers. Hang in there, and pray for your mother.

Let’s set down some facts and address this situation without emotion.

Latin is the official language of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. All official Church documents and liturgies are in Latin and translations can never be used unless approved by the Holy See. Vatican II did nothing to eliminate Latin, but rather, gave the option of having some of the Mass said in vernacular languages with the Holy See’s approval.

Because of many of the liturgical abuses since Vatican II and the very, very poor catachesis of the 60s/70s generation, those who were correctly catachized and have fervent devotion to orthodoxy have become frustrated with those who have wanted to modernize the Church not by proclaiming the New Evangilization proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council and championed by John Paul the Great, but by accepting the sinful actions and fads of the modern world. So called “cafeteria catholics”.

The Second Vatican Council was a very good and very necessary council. The problem is that many bishops and priests, on returning from the council, decided to implement what they thought was the “Spirit of Vatican II” (shudder) rather than the actual DOCUMENTS of Vatican II. Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, who became Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI was one of the shapers of the council, but as he saw the implementations take place, he was appalled. Pope Paul VI, on seeing the complete removal of the Latin language, issued a book called “Jubilate Deo”, that included very simple chant settings of all the Mass Ordinaries (Kyrie, Gloria, etc…). The problem with this book was that it used the simplest settings, which were the Requiem settings. One can imagine Requiem settings of the Mass ordinaries were not overly popular at the Easter Vigil.

Seeing the decay of the Roman Rite, many disgusted Roman Catholics joined schizmatic groups such as the Society of St. Pius X, which questions the validity of the Post Vatican II Mass, or the Society of St. Pius V and the “True Catholic Church”, which regard Blessed John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as anti-popes and who have elected their own popes.

I blame both sides for this sad situtation. The modernist cafeteria Catholics have destroyed the Mass of Paul VI. They pick and choose which doctrines and parts of scripture they want to believe and unite themselves with the world rather than with Heaven. Their lack of faith in the real presence has caused the profaning of Our Dear LORD in the Blessed Sacrament. Their lack-a-daysical attitude toward the faith has fueled the fire of the Anti-Vatican II crowd, especially when said Council is used by those uneducated in the Council’s documents to defend their acts.

The “Traditionalists” have lost faith in Christ’s promise that the fires of Hell will never prevail against his Church. They have disobeyed, some going so far as to profane the Holy Father and His successors of happy memory. If only they would remain within the Church and help us to defend her against the modernists. Many see the falling of the Church as a sign that the end is near and are very interested in prophecy.

We must remain faithful to Holy Mother Church, even when those uneducated in the faith or who have made the faith more man-centered than Christ-centered assault us with scathing words and deriding comments.

My apologies for making this posting so long, but I felt the need to look at this topic rationally.

Obedient to Rome,

Adam

NetNuncio,

Amen!!

J.W.B.,

In re-reading my post I see I wrote “Sure, fight the legitimate abuses and irreverence that are out there.” Sorry, that was a temporary brain quirk on my part—there is no such thing as a “legitimate abuse”. I think I meant to say “illegitimate abuses” (though that seems like a redundancy); or “fight, through legitimate means…”. I guess I ought to re-read before I hit the “submit” button!

[quote=Sherlock]NetNuncio,

… I guess I ought to re-read before I hit the “submit” button!
[/quote]

Is that the same as the "Islamic" button?:bounce:

NetNuncio - that was an excellent post!

THe reality is a bit more complicated than what your Mother in Law says. It is true that Abp Bugnini, who was the main force in the design of the Novus Ordo, was a suspected Freemasn, and was abpruptly in 1975 reassigned from an important Vatican office to the Papal Nuncio of Iran(a county at the time that maybe had 1,000 Roman Catholics). That said, the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in Latin, with the priest facing the altar, and with people kneelingf or communion. In fact there is a local parish near me that celebrates mass without altar girls, EMHCs, and uses the altar rail for communion, even though it is a Novus Ordo, with the tabernacle in the front and center of the altar.

[quote=J.W.B.]My mother-in-law has been studying the traditional Latin Mass and has even attended one recently. She has told me the Mass since Vatican 2 has been watered down purposely by I believe Masons to try and get rid of the true Faith. She claims in the english mass now a days is not good because: The Altar where the Body and Blood are kept in used to be in the front of the Church but now its pushed aside and the Priest now sits where God once did, the prayers are different, anyone seems to be able to walk up by the altar but before only the priest was, all were once required to kneel before the Body and Blood before taking comunion, now everyone just walks up,etc. She’s also heavily into prophecy about the end times that’s soon to come.

I don’t understand? Some of what she says makes sense to me but man I’m so confused and even angry. I actualy feel like the way I once did when I was a Protestant investigating Catholicism and now this “Latin” stuff seems pretty strong. Can anyone explain this?
[/quote]

[quote=JNB]THe reality is a bit more complicated than what your Mother in Law says. It is true that Abp Bugnini, who was the main force in the design of the Novus Ordo, was a suspected Freemasn, and was abpruptly in 1975 reassigned from an important Vatican office to the Papal Nuncio of Iran(a county at the time that maybe had 1,000 Roman Catholics). That said, the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in Latin, with the priest facing the altar, and with people kneelingf or communion. In fact there is a local parish near me that celebrates mass without altar girls, EMHCs, and uses the altar rail for communion, even though it is a Novus Ordo, with the tabernacle in the front and center of the altar.
[/quote]

I have never seen anything reliable (ie, not connected with “Tradito” or other extreme traditionalist sites) that upheld anything about Bugnini being a Free Mason or the Protestant observers at Vatican II have any hand whatsoever in the “invention” of the Mass of Paul VI.

The Mass of Paul VI can be said in Latin. It can also be said in the vernacular (which Cardinal Arinze has stated would continue, thank God). I understand the people who are attached to the TLM, because I am attached to the Mass of Paul VI, the Mass under which I was brought into the Church by a group of very orthodox Carmelites. In my parish, it is celebrated lovingly and reverently, without the abuses that are rampant elsewhere (I’ve been fortunate in that I’ve personally seen very few instances of abuse in the Mass of Paul VI). Is it possible to discuss the TLM in such a way as to not denigrate the Mass of Paul VI?

Also, is it true that in the TLM (either) that the entire Mass is silent from after the Sanctus? To what point? If so, then I pray that our bishops will humbly, but persistently press the Holy Father to retain the current normative Mass. I would not care at all to not hear those magnificent words of the Holy Sacrifice. If this is the case, I would never attend a TLM, sanctioned or not.

First off- Amen, amen to your excellent post, Netnuncio.

[quote=JKirkLVNV] Is it possible to discuss the TLM in such a way as to not denigrate the Mass of Paul VI?
[/quote]

An excellent question. I would hope not, but I have very rarely (once, maybe) heard anyone discuss the TLM without doing so, either on this board or elsewhere.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Also, is it true that in the TLM (either) that the entire Mass is silent from after the Sanctus? To what point? If so, then I pray that our bishops will humbly, but persistently press the Holy Father to retain the current normative Mass.
[/quote]

Yes, in the TLM, the Mass is largely silent from the Sanctus to the minor elevation (“through Him, with Him, in Him.”) The words of consecration are whispered by the priest. (Although, I’ve been to a TLM where they were spoken aloud- but I understand that this is an abuse.)

[quote=JKirkLVNV]I would not care at all to not hear those magnificent words of the Holy Sacrifice. If this is the case, I would never attend a TLM, sanctioned or not.
[/quote]

I must say I agree with you. I understand the sentiments of those attached to Latin and to the more reverent traditions and music of the Church. I understand the objections to the wretched ICEL translations of the Mass. Consequently, I attend a Latin Pauline Mass, but I would never willingly give up the blessed priviledge of hearing those words with my own ears and speaking those prayers in my own voice.

Exactly.

[quote=JKirkLVNV] Also, is it true that in the TLM (either) that the entire Mass is silent from after the Sanctus? To what point? If so, then I pray that our bishops will humbly, but persistently press the Holy Father to retain the current normative Mass. I would not care at all to not hear those magnificent words of the Holy Sacrifice. If this is the case, I would never attend a TLM, sanctioned or not.
[/quote]

I can understand your sentiments. I’m sure I felt the same way…until I tried it. As one who attends daily Pauline Mass and the TLM on Sundays, I prefer the TLM consecration.

[quote=J.W.B.]She has told me the Mass since Vatican 2 has been watered down purposely by I believe Masons to try and get rid of the true Faith.
[/quote]

There is no solid proof of this. Abp. Bugnini was suspected of being a mason, perhaps even by the Pope. He was sent abruptly sent to Iran in 1975 amid the allegations. Bugnini himself was bewildered by the whole thing. But the Vatican denied that he and others were masons on October 10, 1976. That’s all we have to go on.

[quote=J.W.B.] She claims in the english mass now a days is not good because: The Altar where the Body and Blood are kept in used to be in the front of the Church but now its pushed aside and the Priest now sits where God once did
[/quote]

While its technically true that the changes in the mass did not call for moving the tabernacle, it was almost never anywhere other than front and center before the changes in the mass. They were part and parcel of the whole change in the liturgy: removing the altars, communion in the hand, etc.

[quote=J.W.B.] the prayers are different, anyone seems to be able to walk up by the altar but before only the priest was, all were once required to kneel before the Body and Blood before taking comunion, now everyone just walks up,etc.
[/quote]

All pretty much correct (altar boys were also allowed on the altar).

[quote=NetNuncio]Let’s set down some facts and address this situation without emotion.

Latin is the official language of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. All official Church documents and liturgies are in Latin and translations can never be used unless approved by the Holy See. Vatican II did nothing to eliminate Latin, but rather, gave the option of having some of the Mass said in vernacular languages with the Holy See’s approval.

Because of many of the liturgical abuses since Vatican II and the very, very poor catachesis of the 60s/70s generation, those who were correctly catachized and have fervent devotion to orthodoxy have become frustrated with those who have wanted to modernize the Church not by proclaiming the New Evangilization proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council and championed by John Paul the Great, but by accepting the sinful actions and fads of the modern world. So called “cafeteria catholics”.

The Second Vatican Council was a very good and very necessary council. The problem is that many bishops and priests, on returning from the council, decided to implement what they thought was the “Spirit of Vatican II” (shudder) rather than the actual DOCUMENTS of Vatican II. Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, who became Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI was one of the shapers of the council, but as he saw the implementations take place, he was appalled. Pope Paul VI, on seeing the complete removal of the Latin language, issued a book called “Jubilate Deo”, that included very simple chant settings of all the Mass Ordinaries (Kyrie, Gloria, etc…). The problem with this book was that it used the simplest settings, which were the Requiem settings. One can imagine Requiem settings of the Mass ordinaries were not overly popular at the Easter Vigil.

Seeing the decay of the Roman Rite, many disgusted Roman Catholics joined schizmatic groups such as the Society of St. Pius X, which questions the validity of the Post Vatican II Mass, or the Society of St. Pius V and the “True Catholic Church”, which regard Blessed John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as anti-popes and who have elected their own popes.

I blame both sides for this sad situtation. The modernist cafeteria Catholics have destroyed the Mass of Paul VI. They pick and choose which doctrines and parts of scripture they want to believe and unite themselves with the world rather than with Heaven. Their lack of faith in the real presence has caused the profaning of Our Dear LORD in the Blessed Sacrament. Their lack-a-daysical attitude toward the faith has fueled the fire of the Anti-Vatican II crowd, especially when said Council is used by those uneducated in the Council’s documents to defend their acts.

The “Traditionalists” have lost faith in Christ’s promise that the fires of Hell will never prevail against his Church. They have disobeyed, some going so far as to profane the Holy Father and His successors of happy memory. If only they would remain within the Church and help us to defend her against the modernists. Many see the falling of the Church as a sign that the end is near and are very interested in prophecy.

We must remain faithful to Holy Mother Church, even when those uneducated in the faith or who have made the faith more man-centered than Christ-centered assault us with scathing words and deriding comments.

My apologies for making this posting so long, but I felt the need to look at this topic rationally.

Obedient to Rome,

Adam
[/quote]

Please do not apologize!
This is one of the best post’s in quite sometime!
I agree with your arguments wholeheartedly
A very well thought out and reasoned post.
God bless!

Perhaps you guys answered my question but I missed it. So is the way we do the Mass in English since Vatican 2 (not kneeling before comunion, prayers changed, people allowed to approach the altar, etc.) good or bad? Because my mother-in-law has come to believe it’s bad and watered down. Frankly I am so sick of all this “who is right” and “who is wrong” stuff! Is God playing a guessing game where He says “You guessed the wrong Faith and wrong practice so your going to hell!”

[quote=J.W.B.]Perhaps you guys answered my question but I missed it. So is the way we do the Mass in English since Vatican 2 (not kneeling before comunion, prayers changed, people allowed to approach the altar, etc.) good or bad?
[/quote]

You have to decide for yourself. I personally think it is worse. But surely others will say different. It is a valid mass.

[quote=J.W.B.]Because my mother-in-law has come to believe it’s bad and watered down.
[/quote]

I agree with the watered down part.

[quote=J.W.B.]Frankly I am so sick of all this “who is right” and “who is wrong” stuff! Is God playing a guessing game where He says “You guessed the wrong Faith and wrong practice so your going to hell!”
[/quote]

This is an important issue, and it sounds like I agree with your mother in law about many things, but if she says you are going to hell for attending the “english” mass, she is WRONG!

[quote=J.W.B.]Perhaps you guys answered my question but I missed it. So is the way we do the Mass in English since Vatican 2 (not kneeling before comunion, prayers changed, people allowed to approach the altar, etc.) good or bad? Because my mother-in-law has come to believe it’s bad and watered down.
[/quote]

Sigh.

What makes this so complicated is some of the things your mother-in-law complains of – not kneeling before communion, for example-- were never intended to be a part of the post-Vatican II mass and are not done at everywhere.

I attend a Mass according to the post-Vatican II missal where we kneel for communion. Not kneeling is not a product of the new Mass.

But other things that your mother-in-law complains of – the changes in the prayers, for example – were approved by the Church and, as such, cannot be bad. Your mother-in-law is welcome to prefer the Tridentine Mass, but she must admit that it is a personal preference, and not claim that the Pauline Mass is invalid. Frankly, I think claiming that the changes in the prayers are “worse” is a) ignorant and b) shows a lack of trust that the Church will prevail because Christ has prevailed.

[quote=J.W.B.]Frankly I am so sick of all this “who is right” and “who is wrong” stuff! Is God playing a guessing game where He says “You guessed the wrong Faith and wrong practice so your going to hell!”
[/quote]

Be consoled – God is most certainly not playing guessing games. The infinite, all-knowing God knows better than we do what is important and will not condemn you over human customs. Christ has said “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Believe what the Church teaches and do your best to live your faith and God will not abandon you.

[quote=J.W.B.]Perhaps you guys answered my question but I missed it. So is the way we do the Mass in English since Vatican 2 (not kneeling before comunion, prayers changed, people allowed to approach the altar, etc.) good or bad?
[/quote]

“Good” and “bad” are terms which are used subjectively in this context. “Bad” means things I do not like. “Good” are things. Mass is better discribed as licit (allowed) or illicit (not allowed).

Arguements may also be made for a licit variation being prudent or imprudent based on whether it builds up the faithful or hinders the faithful.

The Mass in all its history and variations has is always holy. While we should all decry its desecration when we see illicit practices (and report them to the bishop) we must acknowldege the legitimacy of the Mass and the authority of the Church to regulate its celebration. As Catholics, we are not free to pick the parts of the Faith we agree with and disregard that which we do not like. This is true in liturgy as much as it is in faith and morals.
Many a well-meaning person have responded to the way liturgical innovators disregard what they do not like by doing the same thing.

Here is a comparison text between the two Missals:
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

Read it carefully especially the Offertory of the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass.

[quote=pnewton]“Good” and “bad” are terms which are used subjectively in this context. “Bad” means things I do not like. “Good” are things. Mass is better discribed as licit (allowed) or illicit (not allowed).

Arguements may also be made for a licit variation being prudent or imprudent based on whether it builds up the faithful or hinders the faithful.

The Mass in all its history and variations has is always holy. While we should all decry its desecration when we see illicit practices (and report them to the bishop) we must acknowldege the legitimacy of the Mass and the authority of the Church to regulate its celebration. As Catholics, we are not free to pick the parts of the Faith we agree with and disregard that which we do not like. This is true in liturgy as much as it is in faith and morals.
Many a well-meaning person have responded to the way liturgical innovators disregard what they do not like by doing the same thing.
[/quote]

Re: "report them to the bishop"
I suppose a good question would be:When did we find it necessary to bring “report cards” to Mass?
Then we have Pope B-XVI:
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(now Pope Benedict XVI):

“But the fact that [the liturgy] was presented as a new structure, set up against what had been formed in the course of history and was now prohibited, and that the liturgy was made to appear in some ways no longer as a living process but as a product of specialized knowledge and juridical competence, has brought with it some extremely serious damages for us.” Cardinal Ratzinger on the State of the Catholic Liturgy, The Wanderer, May 8 1997

“I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us." Cardinal Ratzinger on the State of the Catholic Liturgy, The Wanderer, May 8 1997

“[there] is need for a new liturgical movement to call back to life the true heritage of Vatican Council II . . . For the life of the Church, it is dramatically urgent to have a renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation, which goes back to recognizing the unity in the history of the liturgy and understands Vatican II not as a break, but as a developing moment.” Cardinal Ratzinger on the State of the Catholic Liturgy, The Wanderer, May 8 1997

“Today we might ask: Is there a Latin Rite at all anymore? Certainly there is no awareness of it. To most people the liturgy seems to be rather something for the individual congregation to arrange.” The Feast of Faith, p. 84

“One of the weaknesses of the postconciliar liturgical reform can doubtless be traced to the armchair strategy of academics, drawing up things on paper, which, in fact, would presuppose years of organic growth. The most blatant example of this is the reform of the calendar: those responsible simply did not realize how much the various annual feasts had influenced Christian people’s relationship to time. In redistributing these established feasts throughout the year according to some historical arithmetic -inconsistently applied at that - they ignored a fundamental law of religious life.” The Feast of Faith

[quote=TNT]Re: "report them to the bishop"
I suppose a good question would be:When did we find it necessary to bring “report cards” to Mass?

[/quote]

I never have, but then I have never seen anything inappropriate. I was speaking in short-hand, of which reporting to the bishop was only one possible step. Specifically, I was thinking of Redemptonis Sacramentum in which Arinze outlined responsibilities of the faithful to report specific abuses in an effort to curtail them

We should not have to sit through Mass constantly thinking about what is licit and not, like an enforcement officer. Instead when something does occur that is wrong, we become a bystander and a witness to what happens. Like any civic minded person reporting a crime, we may need to contact someone charged with the oversight of liturgy.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.