What were the reasons for changing the Mass?


#1

I was talking about this the other day with my brother. I really don’t see any good reason why the Church changed the Mass. They say that it was changed so that the people would know better what was being said and listen, but it has led to mass ignorance about what the Mass is. The Church spent 1900 years developing the liturgy to where it was. There was never a time when they just took the mass tossed what they had and wrote something knew. This is what has happened in the last 40 years. This flies right in the face of tradition. It seems that they put themselves above tradition and what thousands of saints have thought to be perfect. They all of a sudden said one day the Church has made mistakes with the Mass so we must change it. Pope Benedict in his book Spirit of the Liturgy put it in the way that they were trying to white wash it and wash away the excess. How can anyone presume to think they are able to change the Liturgy? That is impious(or a lack of humility) at best and error at the worst. How can anyone have the audacity to say that all of Catholic history was in error but I am correct(That is what they say when they completely change the Liturgy and everything that has any reference to it)?

They completely deemphasized some important things in favor of some other things. They have brought in music that is horrible and impious to be sung in Mass. It seems like they have effectively droped the Latin part of the Church in the middle of the desert and now they will be wandering trying to find what is good liturgy. They destroyed the essence of the Liturgy.

I am not SSPX or a sedevacantist. I accept VII and I accept the new order of the Mass but I find it severely deficient compared to the old order. But I am a person who can’t stand the fact that it changed. As I said above it is a denial of tradition. The new order of the mass would be acceptable if it developed out of a different tradition. In other words there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the it as assumption grotto says it but it was a poor movie considering that the mass had developed in a different direction for the past 1900.

What do you guys think? Please don’t give me any false history by saying that the old Mass was created by the council of Trent or Pope Pius V. Even if that were true it would still be impious on the part of the modern Church to just drop it and pick something else up instead. It is false though; the old mass developed out of the Galican rite from the fifth century which was probably a development from the eastern liturgies. Gregory the Great then helped to develop it. The council of Trent was not a big thing in the development of the Liturgy.

Can anyone give me a good reason for the liturgy being changed? Why was it a good idea? Why not just translate what they had to English?


#2

Catholic Encyclopedia Mass

The Church spent 1900 years developing the liturgy to where it was. There was never a time when they just took the mass tossed what they had and wrote something knew.

I disagree with this statement for three reasons.
1, The Mass was not tossed out and something new replaced it. I took a look at an old missal. The mass is basically the same and what is important is the center of it, The Euchrist.
2. The liturgy stopped developing for sometime so it did not develope for 1900 years.

  1. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia

his brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon.

My personnel opinion is that there is greater degree of participation. In times pass, you would see people engaged in private prayer with rosaries or prayer books unaware of what was occuring on the altar.
Small case tradiditon is important but not essential.


#3

[quote=adrift]Catholic Encyclopedia Mass

I disagree with this statement for three reasons.
1, The Mass was not tossed out and something new replaced it. I took a look at an old missal. The mass is basically the same and what is important is the center of it, The Euchrist.
2. The liturgy stopped developing for sometime.

  1. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia
    [/quote]

It is completely different. It uses many of the same prayers but it is striped bare.

My personnel opinion is that there is greater degree of participation. In times pass, you would see people engaged in private prayer with rosaries or prayer books unaware of what was occuring on the altar.

I don’t find any problem with people saying the rosary during mass. Some popes even encouraged it in encyclical letters, for example Pope Pius X I think wrote an encyclical that mentions it. The old mass has a more internal experience with God. It is more of a contemplative nature. I am praying in my heart, even though it may appear from the outside that I am not participating. In the latin mass a person is participating just as much even though they may not sing the different prayers with the choir. The people can sing the prayers if they want though. This was encouraged by several popes including Pius XII. The new mass focuses more on outward projections of this relationship.

I find it interesting also that it went from the priest and the servers being the primary people who said the prayers to the priest not saying them and the congregation being the primary people who say the prayers. Have you noticed that the priest will start the first line of the prayer and then stop once the people start?


#4

Growing up with the Latin Mass was a very difficult experience since you really did not know what you were saying. Simply words.

When the Mass changed the children especially could understand the prayers a little more.

As far as the music today I agree with you. The music is lost the beauty of Catholicism. I remember the beauty of Sunday Latin Choirs and I do miss those. But again we did not know the lyrics what was being sung. But given what has been handed to us today I would almost perfer the Latin music.

As an adult I could attend a Latin Mass but did not get anything out of it as a child.


#5

Toni, I see what you are saying. But I don’t think that is reason to change the Liturgy. It is reason to say it in English, which would be good. Why not just translate what they had into English?

I can’t stand songs like On Eagles Wings which do not have any nature of prayer. It is just a bunch of verses thrown together. The old hymns had a majestic feel to them and made you feel like praying.


#6

It is completely different. It uses many of the same prayers but it is striped bare.

I don’t see it as being completely different.

It began with contemplation and expression of sorrow for sins.
The Gloria was said accept for Lent Advent and Masses for the dead.
The Gospel was said.
The Nicene Creed was said
the Sanctus
There was the washing of the hands
The Consecration
The Our Father
The Agnus Dei
The reception of Holy Communion
It is hard for me to understand your statement that it was stipped bare. If all it consisted of was the Consecration and reception of Our Lord Jesus, it would be the riches of the world.

I find it interesting also that it went from the priest and the servers being the primary people who said the prayers to the priest not saying them and the congregation being the primary people who say the prayers.

Actually the servers took the place of congregation. It was the congregation that was suppose to respond but did not because they didn’t speak latin. It was always intended to be a dialogue between the priest and the people and so now you have another reason for a change.

The old mass has a more internal experience with God. It is more of a contemplative nature

As one who lived during the time of these masses, I can tell you that people did not have this experience. That is the reason bells were used. I really think that is a sad commetary that there were unaware of the great miracle occuring. I am not saying that the what we have now is perfect or even better than what we did have. Looking back we tend to romantize and end up with something that never was.


#7

[quote=jimmy]Toni, I see what you are saying. But I don’t think that is reason to change the Liturgy. It is reason to say it in English, which would be good. Why not just translate what they had into English?

I can’t stand songs like On Eagles Wings which do not have any nature of prayer. It is just a bunch of verses thrown together. The old hymns had a majestic feel to them and made you feel like praying.
[/quote]

Funny I have never really looked that closely at the Latin and English translations.
But man that is one of the few songs I like after reading about the Eagle and where the song coming from the old testament. It is one of the songs that gives me strength because the eagle God’s great creature flies above all the storms etc. I have to do this just about every Sunday if I attend a parish Church.
The rest of todays songs you can go after!


#8

[quote=Toni]Funny I have never really looked that closely at the Latin and English translations.
But man that is one of the few songs I like after reading about the Eagle and where the song coming from the old testament. It is one of the songs that gives me strength because the eagle God’s great creature flies above all the storms etc. I have to do this just about every Sunday if I attend a parish Church.
The rest of todays songs you can go after!
[/quote]

It might give you strangth but look at the way the song is structured. Here is a traditional hymn.

romaaeterna.web.infoseek.co.jp/basil/sb057.html

It is structured in a way to praise God or as a prayer.

Now look at on Eagles Wings, it is just a bunch of lines thrown together. You have statements that are from Gods perspective. How can they sing this during Mass? It may be fine outside Mass. Be Not Afraid is another one. It has lines that are from the perspective of God. They took prayer out of hymns and turned it into a reading of scripture.


#9

It began with contemplation and expression of sorrow for sins.
The Gloria was said accept for Lent Advent and Masses for the dead. - Changed
The Gospel was said. - Changed
The Nicene Creed was said - Changed
the Sanctus - Almost Same
There was the washing of the hands - Changed
The Consecration - Def Changed
The Our Father - Protestant
The Agnus Dei- Changed
The reception of Holy Communion - Disrespectful


#10

[quote=adrift]As one who lived during the time of these masses, I can tell you that people did not have this experience. That is the reason bells were used. I really think that is a sad commetary that there were unaware of the great miracle occuring. I am not saying that the what we have now is perfect or even better than what we did have. Looking back we tend to romantize and end up with something that never was.
[/quote]

As a child (10 or 11 years old) I would get up early and ride my bike to 6:30 am Mass in the dark so as to attend before school.

I had a Latin/English missal and, while I followed the Mass in English, I studied to learn the Latin. When I sang the Latin hymns
I knew from the translations what I was singing about.

I was perfectly conscious of the great miracle occurring. That is why I got up to go to Mass when the rest of my family were sleeping.

Today I am fortunate to be able to attend a TLM in a nearby parish. It is awesomw to participate in the same Mass that nourished so many of our Saints and Martyrs throughout the centuries.


#11

It is completely different. It uses many of the same prayers but it is striped bare.

I don’t see it as being completely different.

It began with contemplation and expression of sorrow for sins.
The Gloria was said accept for Lent Advent and Masses for the dead.
The Gospel was said.
The Nicene Creed was said
the Sanctus
There was the washing of the hands
The Consecration
The Our Father
The Agnus Dei
The reception of Holy Communion
It is hard for me to understand your statement that it was stipped bare. If all it consisted of was the Consecration and reception of Our Lord Jesus, it would be the riches of the world.

I find it interesting also that it went from the priest and the servers being the primary people who said the prayers to the priest not saying them and the congregation being the primary people who say the prayers.

Actually the servers took the place of congregation. It was the congregation that was suppose to respond but did not because they didn’t speak latin. It was always intended to be a dialogue between the priest and the people and so now you have another reason for a change.

The old mass has a more internal experience with God. It is more of a contemplative nature

As one who lived during the time of these masses, I can tell you that people did not have this experience. That is the reason bells were used. I really think that is a sad commetary that there were unaware of the great miracle occuring. I am not saying that the what we have now is perfect or even better than what we did have. Looking back we tend to romantize and end up with something that never was.


#12

[quote=A.Pelliccio]It began with contemplation and expression of sorrow for sins.
The Gloria was said accept for Lent Advent and Masses for the dead. - Changed
The Gospel was said. - Changed
The Nicene Creed was said - Changed
the Sanctus - Almost Same
There was the washing of the hands - Changed
The Consecration - Def Changed
The Our Father - Protestant
The Agnus Dei- Changed
The reception of Holy Communion - Disrespectful
[/quote]

None of this is true. It has not been changed. Give an example of the change. You are very judgemental to say that Communion is disprespectful you cannot possilby know the hearts of others perhaps you are speaking of yourself only?


#13

[quote=Eileen T]As a child (10 or 11 years old) I would get up early and ride my bike to 6:30 am Mass in the dark so as to attend before school.

I had a Latin/English missal and, while I followed the Mass in English, I studied to learn the Latin. When I sang the Latin hymns
I knew from the translations what I was singing about.

I was perfectly conscious of the great miracle occurring. That is why I got up to go to Mass when the rest of my family were sleeping.

Today I am fortunate to be able to attend a TLM in a nearby parish. It is awesomw to participate in the same Mass that nourished so many of our Saints and Martyrs throughout the centuries.
[/quote]

As a child, I went to 6 am mass. I agree with most of your post but I am commenting on the majority of the people that were at mass. I find great nourishment at mass and it does not matter the incidentals what matters is the Euchrist. I would also say that many today don’t appreciate what we have but it has nothing to do with the how of it.


#14

[quote=jimmy]I

Can anyone give me a good reason for the liturgy being changed? Why was it a good idea? Why not just translate what they had to English?
[/quote]

Between 1965 and oh I’d say about 1970 or so, that is essentially what happened. The mass was said in the vernacular, up to what was called the remembrance of the church, ie: te igitur clementisime Pater etc where it switched to latin. It remained in Latin until the final doxology, . After that it switched back to the vernacular for the remainder of the Mass. Almost everything else was the same. The Our Father was prayed in common, aloud, and there was a prayer for peace, not quite the same as now.

Overall the mass was still sacrificial in nature and the sacrificial aspect still pre-eminent. In order to understand what happened later you have to understand what went on at Vatican II.

Vatican II was concerned primarily with ecumenism, and repairing the rift between Catholicism and other Christian faiths. To that end it was apparently decided that Catholicism had a lot of baggage that need to be shed in order to modernize it and make it more acceptable to other Christians especially Protestants. Now Protestants, following the lead of the great seeker of truth Martin Luther hated and reviled the Mass as being non-biblical in nature and a blasphemy, saying that the re-presentation of Christs sacrifice by the priest denied the sufficiency of that sacrifice. OK? Now we know that the Mass is two fold, a re-presentation of the sacrifice AND a remembrance of the Last Supper. Now I’m just assuming here, but if you look at all the documentation you will see that when the Mass is referred to these days, it is seldom if ever referred to as a sacrifice, and is constantly called a meal. In fact, it is seldom that you will hear the altar referred to as an altar as it is usually called the table. That in and of itself clearly shows that the idea is to elevate the meal aspect and downplay the sacrifice.

The role of the Priest was also attacked by Luther, who felt that there was too much separation between the laity and the clergy and that abuses existed because of it. Quite true, there were a lot of them. He felt that every one should in essence be a priest and really saw no need for the ordained priesthood and the hierarchial church. You will note that in Protestant denominations if you don’t like the church you are in you are perfectly free to form another, with you as the pastor. Luthers belief was that everyone, reading scripture, would be led by the Holy Spirit and would come to the correct interpretation. You will also note that in Catholicism the role of the Priest has been decreased and the role of the laity expanded and elevated.

What I believe happened is that the framers of the Pauline Mass wanted to create a new Mass that retained enough of the essential elements to remain valid, yet change it enough that it was not threatening to Protestants. Hence, the reference to the Meal instead of the sacrifice, the expanded role of the laity in all aspects of the Mass, the emphasis on the congregation and the communal aspect rather than on the adortaion of God and the sacrifice of Christ…

Other things flowed from it as well. For example until Pope John Paul II of Blessed memory, there was a marked decrease of Marian devotion and veneration of the saints. Both of those practices infuriated Protestants. In fact many churches removed all objects pertaining to them. However, after his assasination attempt, the Holy father encouraged a return to such practices and they showed a marked increase, much to the chagrin of many in the church, who saw it as a step backward.

The tabernacle in many churches was removed from the altar or from the sanctuary area and placed off to the side somehwhere. Again, a bow to Protestant sensibilities. Protestants see the entire practice of Eucharistic adoration and even transubstantiation itself as being abhorrent and blasphemous. How could Christ be contained in any object at all? So such practices as adoration, benedictions etc were downplayed to a huge degree, eliminated in many places and ridiculed as being relics from more superstitious times.Only recently have they started to come back.

Was changing the mass a good idea? I don’t think so, in fact I’m sure it wasn’t. I do believe that the unstated purpose of re-unification of all Christians was good, but naive and flawed from inception. Will the changes stick,. maybe, who knows. Marian devotion and veneration of the Saints has come back in a strong fashion, Eucharistic adoration is increasing and traditional religious orders are growing at an unparalled rate. Attendance at the indult masses is growing and there appears to be a general move back towards conservative, I won’t say traditional, Catholicism, so we’ll see what happens in another ten years or so.


#15

[quote=A.Pelliccio]It began with contemplation and expression of sorrow for sins.
The Gloria was said accept for Lent Advent and Masses for the dead. - Changed No it is the same
The Gospel was said. - Changed Gospel is still read
The Nicene Creed was said - Changed The only change is that it begins with we I think this will change shortly but that is a slight change
the Sanctus - Almost Same
There was the washing of the hands - ChangedNot changed
The Consecration - Def ChangedNot changed
The Our Father - ProtestantIf you are referring to the For thine is it is not protestant and it is not part of the Our Father
The Agnus Dei- Changed Same
The reception of Holy Communion - Disrespectful How can you judge others? Or are you refering to yourself only?
[/quote]


#16

OK if your call the rearanging of the Glorai with a poor translation the same I guess its ‘in the eye of the beholder’

Gosepl has changed but I guess thats prefrence and it deals with the new ’ liturgical cycle’

Creedo has changed because of poor translation and the removal of proper reverence during the mention of the word made flesh. Now a profound bow may be adequate but its not enforced and not practicied by many.

The Lavabo has changed because I havent seen many priests do it anymore or reciet the proper prayer.

The consecration has most certainly changed. The words of the lord has changed, it has been made more inclusive.

As for the Our Father, I only refer to the protestant intrustion as part of the our father becuas thats how i see it practiced. When hold hands during the our father and then raise them during the next part it makes it seem like its one prayer because of the flow.

And on communion I am judging others. When i watch my priest not genuflect, people moving the blessed sacrament around like cookies, then people doing their own little private devotions with making the sign of the cross in their hand before they recive, or trying to walk over to the precious blood of christ, or to recieve in the wrong hand. Yes I am judging its disgraceful to watch mass anymore.

This all can be corrected with proper catechism and enforcement. Enough of this inidivudialist nonsesne. Maybey I dont tolerate these things or that individual stuff becase im in the Army, but we need to start holding feet to the fire.

And yes the Agnust Dei has changed im hearing ‘bread of life’

Just because you hear the mass in your language doesnt mean you know what goes on. The failure to educate children in the faith has lead to such things as mentioned above. Mass is no longer taken with the seriousness and devotion it deserves.


#17

A.Pelliccio

You are equating those that practise an abuse as being a change that was made.

OK if your call the rearanging of the Glorai with a poor translation the same I guess its ‘in the eye of the beholder’

I have both Gloria’s in front of me. There is no rearrangment. There are minor differences and you might be right that it is a poorer rendition.

Gosepl has changed but I guess thats prefrence and it deals with the new ’ liturgical cycle’

It has changed by having a larger amount of the gospels. That I can see as being a preference. I forgot the Epistles. We still have those readings but now we have more than just those readings.

Creedo has changed because of poor translation and the removal of proper reverence during the mention of the word made flesh. Now a profound bow may be adequate but its not enforced and not practicied by many.

The only real change is the I believe to the We believe. This is a poor translation that is in the process of being changed I believe. I would prefer to genuflect rather than bow at the word made flesh

The consecration has most certainly changed. The words of the lord has changed, it has been made more inclusive.

If this is being done, it is an abuse and is not an approved change.
At the church’s I have attended it is done the same as it was when I was six. I have been to mass in California, North Carolina, Alaska, Florida, Equidor, Germany, and Italy and this is the only way I have seen it.

As for the Our Father, I only refer to the protestant intrustion as part of the our father becuas thats how i see it practiced. When hold hands during the our father and then raise them during the next part it makes it seem like its one prayer because of the flow.

Holding hands is an abuse. I agree that this would make it seem like one prayer. It is not a prayer of protestants. It is our prayer they stole.

And yes the Agnust Dei has changed im hearing ‘bread of life’

another abuse

This all can be corrected with proper catechism and enforcement. Enough of this inidivudialist nonsesne. Maybey I dont tolerate these things or that individual stuff becase im in the Army, but we need to start holding feet to the fire.

Just because you hear the mass in your language doesnt mean you know what goes on. The failure to educate children in the faith has lead to such things as mentioned above. Mass is no longer taken with the seriousness and devotion it deserves.

I couldn’t agree more with you.
We no longer have the dedicated women who taught the faith. Parents drop children at religion class and feel they have fulfilled their obligation to pass on the faith. The Parish priest is afraid to rock the boat.


#18

palmas, that is pretty much what I think. I am hoping that things gravitate more toward a traditional view. I think it is impossible to go back to how it was before because that is essentially admitting to making a mistake. But I hope that they will atleast allow a universal indult or something. Hopefully they will develop what they have given us to a more Catholic expression.

For everyone else, here is the order of the mass of the traditional rite.

fisheaters.com/TLMinstructions.html

I don’t endorse this site, but I will you it as a link to show what the Mass was like.


#19

[quote=adrift]I don’t see it as being completely different.

It began with contemplation and expression of sorrow for sins.
The Gloria was said accept for Lent Advent and Masses for the dead.
The Gospel was said.
The Nicene Creed was said
the Sanctus
There was the washing of the hands
The Consecration
The Our Father
The Agnus Dei
The reception of Holy Communion
It is hard for me to understand your statement that it was stipped bare. If all it consisted of was the Consecration and reception of Our Lord Jesus, it would be the riches of the world.
[/quote]

Plus there was

The Aspérges
Prayers at the Foot of the Altar
Munda Cor Meum
Prayers After Consecration
Prayers for Holy Communion

Here is the modern order of the mass to contrast with the above link.
latinliturgy.com/nomass.html

The whole nature of the liturgy is different. They have not given any reason that would justify changing the liturgy. The Liturgy is the center of Catholic life, and over the period of 1 year(1969 to 1970) they completely changed it. This is imprudent. Now you see documents that say the language of the prayers should rarely be changed and only for very serious reasons, yet they completely changed the order of the mass. Attend an indult latin mass, you will see the difference.

Actually the servers took the place of congregation. It was the congregation that was suppose to respond but did not because they didn’t speak latin. It was always intended to be a dialogue between the priest and the people and so now you have another reason for a change.

THat is not a reason to change the mass, it is a reason to change the language. The people could have easily said the responses before. It was encouraged that the people sing the prayers.


#20

[quote=jimmy]I was talking about this the other day with my brother. I really don’t see any good reason why the Church changed the Mass. They say that it was changed so that the people would know better what was being said and listen, but it has led to mass ignorance about what the Mass is. The Church spent 1900 years developing the liturgy to where it was. There was never a time when they just took the mass tossed what they had and wrote something knew.
[/quote]

Nor has that happened now. The Council had excellent reasons for overhauling the Missal as it did - not least that the history of the liturgy generally (including the history of the Eucharistic celebration in the Roman Rite, AKA the Mass) is much more adequately known than it was in 1564, when the Council of Trent ended.

One of the weaknesses of the “TLM” in practice, was that the Mass is very much a one man affair - it became a matter of the what the priest did; not of what the Christian people as a whole (of whom the priest is a member) did. As the Eucharist, in whatever Rite celebrated, is the offering of the entire Church, this emphasis has very rightly been restored - and not before time, either. ##

This is what has happened in the last 40 years. This flies right in the face of tradition.

On the contrary - it is precisely because it became possible, as a by-product of the Renaissance & the Council of Trent, to have a progressively fuller appreciation of the past of the Liturgy, that it became possible to get behind the liturgy as it was at the close of the Middle Ages and retrace the history of oits forms and development; and this appreciation took all of 350 years or so. It depended on the development of doctrine and of a properly historical understanding of the cultus of the Saints too - if there had been no Bollandists from the 1640s onward, there might very well have been no reform of the Universal Calendar, and we might still be honouring non-existent Saints such as Barbara or the eleven thousand companions of St.Ursula.

It seems that they put themselves above tradition and what thousands of saints have thought to be perfect. They all of a sudden said one day the Church has made mistakes with the Mass so we must change it. Pope Benedict in his book Spirit of the Liturgy put it in the way that they were trying to white wash it and wash away the excess. How can anyone presume to think they are able to change the Liturgy? That is impious(or a lack of humility) at best and error at the worst.

So tell that to Pius V and Pius X - who have nothing in common, apart from being Italian and Papal, except being canonised. They apparently did not see anything impious, lacking in humility, or errant, in changing the Liturgy.

Besides, the Liturgy has a long history of change - unless the present Pope does precisely, and without change, what Jesus did at the Last Supper. Those who condemn the Pauline reforms in the name of the Pian Missal of 1570, never seem to ask themselves whether there are not some differences in the liturgy in 1570, as compared with the Last Supper. ##

How can anyone have the audacity to say that all of Catholic history was in error but I am correct(That is what they say when they completely change the Liturgy and everything that has any reference to it)?

[continue…]


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.