BENEDICT XVI +T† AΩ †T+ CATHOLIC XVI
I have a few problems with the Novus Ordo Mass of today because I know that the Novus Ordo form used in the United States and most places around the world is not the Novus Ordo that Vatican II had called for. My reasoning is as follows:
> The older parts of the Novus Ordo that came from the Tridentine Mass are still supposed to be said in Latin.
> More Gregorian Chat was supposed to be sung at Mass (with the entire congregation singing).
> Certain parts of the Mass should always be sung in Latin: kyrie, agnus dei, etc.
> Vatican II never called for “altar girls”
> Vatican II never called for contemporary music
> Vatican II called for more Gregorian Chant and for everyone to sing it at Mass.
> Vatican II only called for the Precious Blood to be received during Communion during special occasions such as someone’s baptism into the Church.
> Vatican II never banned the reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling either.
> Vatican II never called for EMHCs to be present at every Mass under any circumstances.
> Vatican II never told the priest to face the people.
> Vatican II never told anyone to ban kneeling during communion.
> Vatican II never said to remove altar rails.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html
And, yes, I do believe that Vatican II is a True council, and that Pope Paul VI, Blessed John XXIII, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI are all true popes–not antipopes!
First off, Cardinal Arinze, former Prefict of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments said that the Holy See never said to remove altar rails, and only the Holy See has the power to change Cannon law… Any bit of a rubric that a bishop or Conference of Bishops wants to change, add to, or select an option from MUST be approved by the Holy See. He also said that the Holy See said that any Catholic anywhere in the world may choose to receive on the tongue and while kneeling (which is done more easily when an altar rail is present)… which it is present in the beautiful adoration chapel on EWTN.
Secondly, Vatican II called for more Gregorian Chant or other Latin songs to be sung by both the choir and congregation, and it is harder to do this when other music is brought into play. The council is indeed referign to Gregorian Chant and Latin music when it says “The musical tradition of the Universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art.” -Sacrosanctum Concilium, paragraph 112.
Thirdly, the purpose of the altar server is to train a boy to one day be a priest… that is why altar serving is still done by seminarians at the seminarian Masses at seminaries. It is then for the young boy to consider becoming a priest. Vatican II asked that the people be more involved with Church duties of the world… the laity is apart of the secular world (that is called to a greater world… that of God), so Vatican II asks them to go out and preach the turth, help the sick, visit those in prision, etc. (this does not mean that anyone can do anything at Mass). And, I am not saying it is bad or evil to have woman altar servers, but it does not lead to go things (e.g., woman being “ordained” invalidly and later excommunicated–I’ve seen the cause of this personally when I altar served with young women).
“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 to the Common Prayer. But also as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people.” “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” –paragraph 54
The following quotations are from the Holy See’s website from the document called Sacrosanctum Concilium, the 1963 document of Vatican II, which was, at the time, headed by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI.
“54. 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 tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.”
A suitable translation was to be made for the readings and common prayer. Then, if the local bishops would think that more should be put in the mother tongue, they may follow article 36, which says: “1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”. Meaning, the following law remains: the use of Latin in the Mass must be present in the Latin Rite (perhaps referring to the statement, “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.”???). It goes on to say: “2. 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.” Meaning that, in this case, the following may be translated and approved to be acceptable translations:
“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.” Then it goes on to say: “3. 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.” So, the local bishops are to decide when the vernacular language is used (while following the guide lines), but their decrees must be approved by the Apostolic See,and they may need to consult with neighboring countries. Not only that, but “4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.” ((END ARTICLE 36)). Article 54 then (after referencing article 36) goes on to say:
“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.” So, the original parts of the Mass (the Kyrie, Agnus Dei, Sanctus, Pater Noster) should be able to be said in Latin so that the people may say or sing the Latin. So, the bishops should have taken steps to make the rubrics of their country use Latin in these parts of the Mass (which pertain to them–the faithful). Article 54 goes on to say:
“And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.” ((END ARTICLE 54)) So, we must refer to Art. 40, which says:
“40. In SOME PLACES and CIRCUMSTANCES, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:” meaning that in some cases, which will result, people will need more of the Mass translated for some reason that will probably not occur in every location across the globe. It goes on to say:
“1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.” Meaning that when an area really needs more of the prayers translated for some reason, they should try to keep at least some prayers in Latin, while they may need to carefully choose and translate more of the Mass into the vernacular tongue. Then, it says:
“2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.” Meaning that, before this changes can even be used for the general public of the area, the bishops are to test the translations out at some Masses with a smaller amount of people than the general public of the area, and this should be done for only a certain amount of time before the results are reviewed. Then it says:
“3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.” Meaning that experts must be hired to translate the texts from Latin into the vernacular (which obviously did not happen in places such as the United States). ((END ARTICLE 40)).
__________________________________________________________
This is indeed the DECEMBER 4, 1963 document, SACROSANCTUM, CONCILIUM, which was headed by Pope Paul VI as a Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which was meant for the new Mass that would follow the Second Vatican Council… the Mass known, today, as the Ordinary Form. The quotations in the above paragraph come from the Holy See’s website: www.vatican.va or, more specifically, from http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
__________________________________________________________
AMDG. Ad maiorem Dei gloriam. “for the greater glory of God”
July 18th, 2009 by 
catholicxvi 
No Comments »