Will all we see with the new missal be word changes?

I read that the new translation was confirmed and is now being sent to the Vatican.

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=34862

I understand that a missal has a primary attempt to change the wording of a mass, but does anyone expect that through these workshops all the liturgical abuse that makes the traditionalist Catholic upset be addressed? Does anybody have any other insight into what the new Ordinary Form of the mass in the United States look like other than the new responses, prayers, etc.?

Thanks

The celebration of Mass (as I understand it) is guided by the rubrics of the Missal itself, the GIRM, and directives from the diocesan bishop in that order.

Any deliberate contravening of these norms would be a liturgical abuse.

Most people are not upset with the Pauline Missal as such, but these illicit acts. (This is not counting those who are unhappy with ANY liturgical practice they don’t remember from childhood.)

But masses or anything else are NOT micro-managed from Rome, as some people think. It’s up to the Bishops to clean up their own parishes.

Nothing is changing in the Mass except the translation of the prayers into English.

Liturgical abuse should upset us all, wherever we place ourselves on the ‘traditionalist’ spectrum.

One of the problems with having all abuses lumped into one category as “liturgical abuse” is that it has the same effect as lumping all crimes in the world into one category as “illegal.” Problem is, the person who jaywalks is lumped in the same pile as the axe murderer. That leads to two problems around one large division; those who witness the jaywalking get upset because they view it as serious as premeditated murder when it clearly isn’t; those who witness the murders and try to get anything done about them have to compete in the noise of everyone complaining about the jaywalkers.

Thus those who get upset over the slightest infraction remain continually upset. The people who try to effect change for more serious abuses have a tough time getting people to listen because its perceived as yet another person complaining over a sit/kneel/stand or body posture issue, even when it is much more.

I think it would be a great benefit if “abuses” could be broken down a bit more into a serious and a less serious grouping.

[quote="need_to_know, post:4, topic:176846"]
Liturgical abuse should upset us all, wherever we place ourselves on the 'traditionalist' spectrum.

[/quote]

I do not understand.

That’s exactly what was done in Redemptionis Sacramentum (numbers 172 to 175). Abuses are indeed categorized. The problem is that too many people think that just because “I don’t see a problem with it” that means they’re free to move abuses down a few categories, or just to do it anyway. For example, changing the words of the Eucharistic Prayer is defined as “grave matter”, yet we all know many priests who freely change those words. Many people would think that it’s not such a big deal if the priest changes a few words in the Canon–but the Church says otherwise.

The simple truth of the matter is that we need to change people’s attitides–especially the clergy. There is no license to make ones own changes to the Mass. Priests need to have the attitude that they simply don’t make changes and leave it at that.

I just want to note that liturgical abuses don’t always occur among the more liberal clergy. We have an ultra conservative priest in our parish that does things in the liturgy that sometimes are a combination of the OF and the EF and sometimes are personal pietistic devotions and sometimes he just comes out with something I have never seen before in either form and know it is not there. People think that because he is so conservative that what he is doing is fine, but what he is doing is not in the rubrics and is just as much as an abuse as Fr. Farleft who is using inclusive language or adding his own words to the EP. So yes, Fr. David is right, the clergy need to stick to the rubrics.

That's exactly what was done in Redemptionis Sacramentum (numbers 172 to 175). Abuses are indeed categorized. The problem is that too many people think that just because "I don't see a problem with it" that means they're free to move abuses down a few categories, or just to do it anyway. For example, changing the words of the Eucharistic Prayer is defined as "grave matter", yet we all know many priests who freely change those words. Many people would think that it's not such a big deal if the priest changes a few words in the Canon--but the Church says otherwise.

Thanks for that, FrDavid. You're correct, it does make two major distinctions about matters that are grave, specifying the Graviora delicta to the purview of the CDF, and specifying matters effecting the Eucharist (not part of the above) are grave. Everything else, according to 173 has to "be judged." That section also goes on to say all matters should be addressed and corrected.

The value of any document is in how well it is followed. I would ask the question, "How well is this document followed?"

From my perspective, it appropriately puts the very, very serious matters (bogus ordinations and such) in appropriate hands, and I don't see serious issues that are not handled by the CDF. Everything else, though, gets laid in a sort of nebulous category ultimately at the feet of the local Ordinary. The problems come in when people try to get situations they see as abuses addressed.

In that process, there are some that the Bishop sees as matters for the Pastor to solve, while the Pastor views it as a matter that isn't a problem unless the Bishop wishes to pick a bone with him. As a result, some things fall into a sort of do-loop like we see in large bureaucracies, characterized by situations that make fodder for cartoons; you can't get the information from the clerk at window #7 until you fill out the form at window #3, and you can't get the form from window #3 until you get the information from window #7.

That's not a "system" that is conducive to addressing all matters no matter how grave, and ensuring they all get addressed and, if necessary, corrected. Instead, it is an example of "a fine set of laws" that no one, in everyday practice, truly follows. THAT then leads to situations where clergy don't see a problem with altering this or that because no one seems to have a problem with it. And no one has a problem with it because getting it addressed can be like trying to pull a mule. Meanwhile, look at the lovely set of laws we have that covers things like this!

That's what I'm saying could use a little breaking down, a little clarification. Maybe something a bit more clear, like "If the Priest does not say/do this EXACTLY as it is prescribed, it is a ____ matter and should be corrected by (whatever means)." The same could be done for other, more commonly seen abuses. The question that, IMHO, needs to underlie all of this is, who exactly is expected to recognize the abuse when they see it, and what guidance are we giving them to help get it addressed?

As a matter of balance, I'd also not want to have forms in the back of the church to fill out after Mass listing all possible abuses observed. I dislike the idea, honestly, that we go to a priest for our Sacraments, then have to, in some way, be the Priest Police. I wish I knew a better way than we have, but I don't.

[quote="DOShea, post:9, topic:176846"]
The value of any document is in how well it is followed. I would ask the question, "How well is this document followed?"

[/quote]

I disagree completely. That would speak volumes against Humanae Vitae among other documents.

[quote="japhy, post:10, topic:176846"]
I disagree completely. That would speak volumes against Humanae Vitae among other documents.

[/quote]

Are you saying the Church doesn't follow Humanae Vitae? :confused:

HV isn't given as the same kind of list of rules and procedures as the document in question. If you have rules and don't always follow those rules, is the value of that system as good as a system that's easy to use and everyone follows it?

I’m saying certain people in the Church (including bishops and priests, possibly) don’t accept Humanae Vitae’s moral doctrine, nor do they accept Redemptionis Sacramentum’s liturgical discipline.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments didn’t promulgate Redemptionis Sacramentum so that clergy would ignore it, even though many do. The people who don’t follow RS are not the people who promulgated it.

Has anybody heard that the priest will not face the contraception anymore?

[quote="fish90, post:13, topic:176846"]
Has anybody heard that the priest will not face the contraception anymore?

[/quote]

(I think you meant congregation...)

The Ordinary Form of the Mass can be celebrated either facing towards the people (versus populum) or facing in the same direction as the people (ad orientem). This has nothing to do with whether the Mass is being celebrated in Latin or English (or Spanish or French or Chinese, etc.).

[quote="fish90, post:1, topic:176846"]
I read that the new translation was confirmed and is now being sent to the Vatican.

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=34862

I understand that a missal has a primary attempt to change the wording of a mass, but does anyone expect that through these workshops all the liturgical abuse that makes the traditionalist Catholic upset be addressed? Does anybody have any other insight into what the new Ordinary Form of the mass in the United States look like other than the new responses, prayers, etc.?

Thanks

[/quote]

Are you insinuating that all masses done in OF contain liturgical abuses??? Remember there can be liturgical abuses made during and EF mass as well. I love both the OF and EF equally and the talk the the OF has all these liturgical abuses just makes me sick to my stomach. Take the new missal as it comes. :mad: I don't really like the fact that some treat the OF as it is an inferior piece of garbage. The EF and OF are on equal grounds.

[quote="fish90, post:1, topic:176846"]
... Does anybody have any other insight into what the new Ordinary Form of the mass in the United States look like other than the new responses, prayers, etc.?

Thanks

[/quote]

Yes. We all do, actually; it's public knowlege.

Nothing else in the Mass will change. No change to the rubrics, no change to the structure. Nothing is changing in the Mass other than the words as they appear in English.

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.