New Mass / Validity versus Scandal

Historically that's not quite the way it happened. The vernacular versions of the New Mass came first. Then the Latin version was back-translated from the vernacular. But when they created the official Latin version, they retained much more language from the traditional Mass than the vernacular versions had done.

That's why the same errors are present in every major European language (I'm told that Polish is an exception). They were all created with the same (heretical) meanings in their own vernaculars long before an official Latin Novus Ordo was created.

You can compare this process to what happens today with encyclicals. When the pope is the primary author, he writes it in Polish. Then he with assistance translates it into Italian which is then the working document in the Vatican. The Italian is translated into French which becomes the language of the official release. (For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was released first in French and took several years before it was available in English.) Then the French is translated into Latin which become the official version of record, but it's actually the LAST version created.

I've never heard of such a thing. Do you have any evidence of this? I can cite present-day examples that would refute this. Both the new GIRM and the third Roman Missal are in Latin, and were first promulgated as such. We had "unofficial" translations of the GIRM to look at before an official one was made.

If it was in English first, then why the delay?

The Third Missal is the subject of the new ICEL and Vox Clara effort to produce a faithful translation into English. The Vatican rather harshly slapped down many errors in the second edition translations. We never have had an approved text for the second missal.

So why all the fuss aobut translating the Latin Missal into English? According to you, the missal was written in English first.

I think the real test would be to find a Tridentine Rite parish that had some liberal priest in charge, a leftover, burnt-out hippie in charge of music, and Sister Feminazi in charge of the CCD program --- and then see how the average parishioner's faith was shaped. Would the Tridentine Rite Mass ensure, despite the environmental disadvantages, proper catechetics

Yes, exactly. Thank you for the discussion. The point is is the decay in faith symbolized and facilitated by the irreverence tolerated in the NO Mass, or is it caused by the New Mass.

I have a hard time believing causation here.

But if the priest was saying the *technically* incorrect words, but with the *correct* meaning and understanding (that is, he's saying it meaning the appropriate belief regarding Christ's blood shed for men), wouldn't Trent allow for that? Conversely, a priest could say the correct words, but internally disbelieve or mean something else by the words -- would it still be a validly consecrated host? I would imagine not -- and the reason why being the intent of the priest. But that's just my opinion. Feel free to correct me.

There's two seperate issues here. On a matter of form, if the wrong matter or the wrong words are used, the sacraments can not be valid.

On the matter of intent, it is not dependent upon each individual priest having the proper understanding. Rather, the priest will effect a valid sacrament if he intends to do what the Church does.

For a valid sacrament there are 3 elements required: matter, form and intent. The lack of any 1 element will invalidate the sacrament.

For Baptism, the matter is water -- beer or soda pop is invalid. The eucharist requires plain unleavened bread made with flour and water. Any signicant amount of other matter invalidates it. Many Masses for the past couple decades have been invalid due to matter. My sister-in-law says that every Mass she attended for 4 years at Notre Dame was invalid due to lack of proper matter (they always used invalid bread).

The form is the specific words that cause the effect. In Baptism, one must say, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Just recently a priest in Canada was forced to track down dozens of families of children he had baptized in the past couple years because they were all invalid because he said, "I baptize you in the name of Christ, the Savior" (or something to that effect -- leaving out the rest of the Trinity). The words that are necessary to the form in order to validly confect the eucharist are printed in traditional missals separate from the rest of the text and in all capital letters so that the priest doesn't accidentally make a mistake at that part of the Mass which would be more serious than an error in another part. In the New Mass these words were changed significantly such that they mean something different than they used to mean. Thus the "form" of the Mass is different.

The third element is the intent. The priest has to intend to do what the Church intends to do. He does not have to personally intend everything, nor does he have to understand everything perfectly. Even if his understanding is heretical, as long as he intends to do whatever it is that the Church intends him to do, then "ecclessia supplet," the church supplies whatever may be missing in his personal intent. But if he intends to do something different from what the Church intends, if he deliberately does something different in order to have a different result, then the sacrament is invalid.

"I agree with all that you say. Except that the gross error was not to "abandon" the Latin liturgy, but rather to not police the entirely reasonable efforts to use the vernacular where appropriate."

Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Given the nature of the enemy in the culture war, it was--and is--a given that *any* change *will* be used as an opening for abuse. There may be a time to take off your armor and repair it, but that time is not when your enemy is chopping at you with a broadsword.

It was--and is--a time for one response to the enemy: "No, no, no, no, no, no, no." (Pounds table with shoe.)

Further, the Church *had* a special language that no one spoke as his first language, but which united all Catholics everywhere. I wonder how you would react to the mass in Japanese.

A couple of weeks ago a priest I don't know was saying, "Kiristo no karada" as he dispensed the Eucharist, as usual. He saw me stepping forward, had a moment of perplexity as he tried to figure out what language to use for me, then dropped back on "Corpus Christi." I nearly cried.

"That people should not be rewriting and injecting their own ideas into the liturgy is a given, regardless of what tongue it is in."

Agreed.

"The complete failure to control and police the actions of priests and bishops is the issue."

That is certainly one issue, but another issue is that the Church has given an opening to those who were looking for one. Once you agree that something needs to be changed, or can be changed, then it becomes just that much easier to say that it needs another change. The first change was an opening for a strategy of incremental change.

How many of us are educated enough to state with certainty that this change is okay and that one not? In the last couple of days here I've seen support both for and against the proposition that the Pope has authorized altar girls. Right now, I don't know which is correct.

I do believe that altar girls are an abomination, but I don't know whether that places me in agreement with the Holy Father or in disagreement. The Church should have held the line at NO change until Civilization's flirtation with lunacy abates.

"When priests were fluent in Latin, it would have been completely possible for them to "ad lib" parts of the Mass that they objected to, or thought needed their own particular "influence."

But...everybody would have picked up on it right away, and would have known it was not authorized. There would have been delegations to bishops, like in Don Camillo.

"Today we are selfish and each priest wants to tailor the Mass to suit himself. This is made easier by being in the vernacular, but it is made possible by the loss of faith and respect for the Church."

Without getting into a chicken-and-egg argument, if we are agreed that it is made easier by being in the vernacular, IMO it stands demonstrated that the vernacular should never have been authorized.

"I have a hard time believing causation here"

Why? Really. Serious question.

Going to the vernacular removed some of the mystery, the majesty, and the link with antiquity. Many things in the NO are less reverent.

You can't say the music is as bad as a Choctaw, Oklahoma Assembly of God, because it's worse. It's like their rejects.

Special things require special trappings. If the thing is special, how can you justify doing away with the trappings? The language, the music, the statues, the altars, the kneeling...What can you say except, "Gee, I guess it wasn't special after all, since it was so easy to stop treating it as though it were special."

And altar girls...to boys of a certain age, nothing that girls can do too is worth doing. Allowing altar girls is *directly* responsible for a large part of the decline in vocations. Further, that was so predictable that I have a hard time believing that the people who advocated altar girls didn't intend to produce that drop--perhaps to prepare for insisting that we just *have* to start ordaining women.

I really just don't understand how you can dispute the causal relationship. It's predictable based only on common sense. It was predicted, and it happened. How can you not see it?

"The complete failure to control and police the actions of priests and bishops is the issue."

That is certainly one issue, but another issue is that the Church has given an opening to those who were looking for one. Once you agree that something needs to be changed, or can be changed, then it becomes just that much easier to say that it needs another change. The first change was an opening for a strategy of incremental change.

Uh, not necessarily. If I say that the blue widgets should now be red, this is not an authorization for them to be green, or totally non-existent.

One change, and authorized change does not mean that any change whatsoever is hereby authorized. It is, as I said, a failure to police and control the actions of bishops and priests. If the first person to start ad libbing was disciplined, then further change would have been inhibited.

Don't you see this?

"When priests were fluent in Latin, it would have been completely possible for them to "ad lib" parts of the Mass that they objected to, or thought needed their own particular "influence."

But...everybody would have picked up on it right away, and would have known it was not authorized. There would have been delegations to bishops, like in Don Camillo.

Um, there are rubrics for the NO Mass. And those of us familiar with them do indeed "pick up" on it right away and we know what things are not authorized.

It's really not that hard to look at your missalette and see that the priest is deviating.

The difference is that complints about such thing fall on empty ears at the chanceries. Which is why I said it is not a function of the language, but of the lack of discipline and policing of the actions of bishops and priests.

Say you attended an Indult Tridentine Mass, and the priest decided to violate the rubrics. Would the local bishop pay special attention to your complaint because the Mass was in Latin instead of English?

Without getting into a chicken-and-egg argument, if we are agreed that it is made easier by being in the vernacular, IMO it stands demonstrated that the vernacular should never have been authorized.

Is it possible that you are looking at only one side of the equation? Are there no benefits to having parts of the Mass in the vernacular?

"I have a hard time believing causation here"

Why? Really. Serious question.

Cause society was going to hell in a bucket anyway. Do you really think all these miscreant priests and "progressive" people (many of whom came from pre-Vatican II seminaries) would not have pushed their agenda, if they had to say the Mass in Latin?

That's naive. Troublemakers will make trouble. They set out to make trouble and that is what they would have done. Regardless of the language of Mass.

"If I say that the blue widgets should now be red, this is not an authorization for them to be green, or totally non-existent."

The analogy is too simple, and I'm not speaking of authorization. I'm speaking of pretexts.

The situation was that the modernists were clamoring for change, and obviously willing to go as far as outright defiance to bring it about. Since they act in bad faith, it was obvious that they would seize upon the admission that *anything* needed to be changed as a pretext for claiming that other things needed to be changed, too.

And, in fact, that is what has happened.

"One change, and authorized change does not mean that any change whatsoever is hereby authorized."

Once again, the point is not authorization. When dealing with unscrupulous modernists, it is necessary to deny them even a pretext to claim rectitude, and to deny them even the pretense of credibility.

The moment the Church agreed to change *anything,* even if it were moving the fonts two inches to the left, they handed the modernists both a pretext and a pretense of credibility.

"If the first person to start ad libbing was disciplined, then further change would have been inhibited."

As the modernists had already infiltrated the clergy and risen to bishop, that wasn't in the cards.

"Don't you see this?"

Yes, I see it, and I agree it should have been done. However, prior to that, the first form of discipline should have been a refusal to give the modernists a vernacular mass, altar girls, Big Mac with fries masses, and all the rest.

"It's really not that hard to look at your missalette and see that the priest is deviating."

It is when it is the missalette that is deviant. I never pick a new one up without wondering what fresh abuses it contains.

"The difference is that complints about such thing fall on empty ears at the chanceries...Would the local bishop pay special attention to your complaint because the Mass was in Latin instead of English?"

Here the problem is that I would be only one person. If the bishop had entire parishes trampling his flowers and banging on his door, I think he'd be more likely to listen.

In a time when an entire parish had heard the same mass every time since birth, changes would be more jarring. Instead of one crank complaining, you would have huge crowds complaining.

We have become desensitized to change, and even abuse. When the missalette suddenly proclaimed that Christ was crucified between two "revolutionaries" instead of two thieves, I think I was the only one who said anything to the priest. When the music director decided that amplified rock and roll boogie woogie was appropriate for mass, I don't think anybody complained but me.

This desensitization began with the Church's decision to make changes. That decision should never have been made.

"Is it possible that you are looking at only one side of the equation? Are there no benefits to having parts of the Mass in the vernacular?"

Aside from the homily--presuming it's a theologically orthodox homily--no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Only harm and great loss.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.