Vernacular Masses but with Latin consecration?

A kind reader alerted me to a story which will be in tomorrow’s number of the Italian weekly Panorama.  This item by Ignazio Ingrao was previewed on Dagospia

This very much concerns important work we did with WDTPRS a few years back, namely examination of the infamous pro multis question, and the proper translation of sacramental forms.

The present official translation of pro multis in the formula of consecration of the most Precious Blood, in English is wrong.  It is presently "for all" and it should be "for many – for the many – for the multitude" (Spanish “por todos los hombres”, Italian "per tutti", French is actually good, "pour la multitude”, the German "für alle", Portugese "por todos" Slovak "za vsetkych”, Hungarian "sokakert", Polish "za wielu", etc., and all the Eastern Catholics translate their form as "for many" or something similar).  

Frankly, its a mess right now.

And NO! – saying "for all" (in a vernacular Mass) does NOT make the consecration invalid and those who say it does are dead wrong.  Period. 

Moving on….

For years a debate raged, a war, about the translation of pro multis in various languages. WDTPRS played a strong part in the deep in fighting, where the elbows are sharp.

To make long story of sweat and intrigue short, eventually Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect of the CDW sent out to all Bishops Conferences one of the happiest letters ever issued by the Holy See: Prot. n. 467/05/L of 17 October 2006.  Card. Arinze told all the bishops in the world that His Holiness wanted pro multis to be translation correctly, in some form like "for many, for the many" and so forth.  Furthermore, this was not the decision of either the CDWDS or the CDF.  This was the Pope’s decision.  There is no appeal. 

The Holy Father reserves to himself the approval of translations of sacramental forms (AAS 66 (1974) 98-99 – a circular letter dated 25 October 1973).  Remember that all the sacraments have both matter and form, the form being the words spoken in the conferring or confecting of the sacrament.

However, lots of people whined and whinged about this. 

I am sure it has been very difficult to secure some agreement on the best way to do this in English as well as all the other languages through the whole world that need to be adjusted.

Now we read this very significant bit (my emphases and comments):

Benedict changes the Mass again – a study of the new liturgy entrusted to the Congregation for Divine Worship

The Rite of Mass could change. According to some leaks, Benedict XVI has give the Congregation for Divine Worship the task of studying some modifications in the liturgy. In particular, it is said the Pope intends to reinstate the Latin for the formula of the Eucharistic consecration in Mass in the vernacular, i.e., the one celebrated in different national languages. [This means that in Masses in English, Italian etc., when the priest would get to the two fold consecration, he would switch to LATIN.] The same thing could happen for the [sacramental] formulas of baptism, confirmation, confession and the other sacraments. In addition the sign of peace among the faithful during Mass, which today takes place before the distribution of the Eucharist, could be moved forward (as in the Ambrosian rite) to the offertory in order so as not to disturb the recollection before Communion.  [This is something Papa Ratzinger wrote about in one of his books, I forget which.  But honestly, this leaves me a little troubled.  Let’s leave the Ambrosian Rite aside, the Sign of Peace has had its proper place in the Roman Rite since the early Church.  I would rather have it moved to before the Offertory if it is going to remain a group grope.  But I would much rather leave it in its traditional place and then do it right, which might mean not inviting the congregation to do anything.  That’s the way I prefer, and say, the Novus Ordo.  Since the invitation to the Sign of Peace is an option left to the priest, I opt not to make the invitation.]

These modifications would be joined to the changes to the liturgy and sacred vestments which the Pope, together with his Master of Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, has accomplished in these last few months, in order to recover ancient traditions: the restoration of the Crucifix at the center of the altar, the distribution of Communion to the faithful on the tongue while kneeling, [though non of these things are changes to the liturgy as such, they are changes in practice] the retrieval of the pastoral staff of Pius IX (the ferula), the alteration of the shape of pallium (the strip of white wool with red crosses worn by the Pope), the restoration of the papal throne used in a consistory and the celebration of Mass with the back to the assembly, as happened in January in the Sistine Chapel.

I amuse myself to think about all the fussbudgeting bishops in certain conferences, pushing one eerie objection to "for many" after another, dragging feet, advocating resistance to the Holy See’s translation norms, etc, now being informed by the Holy See that, basically, "Since you can’t decide what words to go with, Papa says ‘Do it in Latin, if you can’t get your act together.’"

Worse than saying "for many" certainly must be to have to say it in… in… gulpthat other language!

Seriously, I think if this is all true, and it really sounds like this could be a possibility, the problems of rendering certain things into the vernacular are simply not worth the risk of loss of content

But that really begs a few answers, doesn’t it?

If this is so for the consecration, admittedly the most important part of the Eucharistic Prayer, there are lots of other important things being said in Holy Mass too!  Why not have those in Latin too? 

If some liturgists and theologians like to argue that the whole Eucharistic Prayer is consecratory, and not just the "magic words" in the "institution narrative", then perhaps we had better do the whole Prayer in Latin.  Right?

And since the Preface is now considered part of the Eucharististic Prayer, and since the people speak part of that dialogue, should pastors of souls start teaching their people Latin responses that pertain to them?

But.. no wait.  That is already the responsibility of pastors, isn’t it?  Yes… I believe I read that somewhere.

Folks, the vernacular is here to stay for the near and perhaps far future. 

But shouldn’t it be used along the lines that the Second Vatican Council actually mandated rather than what we actually got? 

It can be useful … in some occasions … for some parts of Mass, perhaps with children in the liturgy of the word or for catechumens.

It is all about the content.  

It’s all about what the prayer really says.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Brian2 says:

    Wow… first comment. This is new to me.

    The idea of doing the consecration in Latin while the rest of the Mass may be in the vernacular reminds me of the Maronite rite, where the consecration is done in Aramaic, while the rest of the liturgy, with some exceptions, is in the vernacular.

  2. Antonio says:

    “Seriously, I think if this is all true, and it really sounds like this could be a possibility…”.

    Fahter, I love you say this, because I frankly can’t beleive this is going to happen. It would be so wonderful, that I just can’t beleive it.

  3. Brian Walden says:

    If this is true, the changes can’t come fast enough for me. But they’ll need about 10 ambulances waiting outside my parish for all the people who have coronaries.

  4. Maynardus says:

    Wow – wasn’t someone quoting (in a different thread) the old Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times”?

    Well, these sure qualify as “interesting times” in the Church, but definitely in a good way.

    And the anniversary which we shall observe on Monday reminds me of what “interesting times” we were all having a year ago, waiting with bated breath…

    Maybe we’re seeing the rollback of the excesses in reverse order – first the formulae of consecration back into Latin, then the whole Canon, then the Preface, and so on until we have only the readings and perhaps the orations in the vernacular.

    “Mr. Peabody, set the WABAC Machine for 1964…”

  5. KOM says:

    *Folks, the vernacular is here to stay for the near and perhaps far future.*

    *But shouldn’t it be used along the lines that the Second Vatican Council actually mandated rather than what we actually got?*

    That latter point is well said: Vatican II never called for a vernacular-only Mass, in fact, just the opposite, and such was anathemized in Canon 9 at the Council of Trent.

    Your fist point may be true. But, in my humble opinion, when SSPX is regularized, people will see what the traditional latin mass is all about (“the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.” fr. Farber,) and there may, just may, be a revolution in the Church towards the traditional rite.

  6. toomey says:

    Brian Walden, save one of those ambulances. I think my archbishop is going to need one of them.

  7. Marilyn says:

    I agree-it’s all about what the prayer really says, and it’s also about the unity of the Catholic Church. I was recently at Sunday Mass at Sainte-Thérèse Basilica in Lisieaux. Almost all of the Mass was in French, as I expected–but after the homily we all chanted the Credo III. In Lourdes, too, we chanted the Credo III and the Salve Regina at the end of the candlelight procession. In both cases, I was surrounded by people who didn’t speak English, but nearly all seemed to know these Latin chants. The Latin brought us all together. Hearing the consecration in Latin the world over would also work to that effect.

  8. Chironomo says:

    I don’t know why, but I have less trust in the Italian press when it comes to these kinds of things… perhaps because such things are still important in Rome and journalists are thus trying to “scoop” other outlets to get the story first? I know the proposal seems “out there”, but consider just a year ago another “out there” proposal that was a rumor as well….everything that Benedict has written about liturgy has emphasized the critical role of the Latin language. That being said, wouldn’t it make sense to eventually come out with some kind of ruling? What better time than before the new translation of the Missal is promulgated…

  9. EDG says:

    That’s certainly an interesting possibility! I wonder if the latest USCCB fiasco with the objections to the new ICEL translation might have given the Pope a little nudge in this direction. It may be spiteful of me, but I’d love to see certain bishops – who complained about both the new translation and the (old) Latin Mass – suddenly have the whole thing taken out of their hands. And on a more elevated plane, I think it would be excellent to have that part in Latin, partly as a toe in the door, and partly to make the point that the words of the Mass have doctrinal content and are not personal expressions.

  10. SM says:

    Thank you Pope Benedict.

    When will Pope Benedict order the communion rails back into churches?!

  11. Kradcliffe says:

    Well, it will save us from newspaper headlines saying, “Pope changes Mass to say that Jesus didn’t die for everybody.”

  12. Guy Power says:

    Fr. Z,

    I just had to smile when I saw this NY Times front page article this morning:

    The ’60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire

    photo: “…younger faculty members tend to be more politically moderate.”

    Seems that one could substitute “faculty” for “cleric” in much of the article and get a snapshot of the new generation of priests??


  13. Guy: This is the “demographic solution”.

  14. joy says:

    Forget 100, may our Sweet Jesus on Earth live to 120!

  15. Geoffrey says:

    So this would mean an official change in the rubrics, forbidding the words of consecration in the vernacular? Very interesting.

  16. Oh please, God, let this be true! Just shy of SP, this would be the most exciting thing to happen in this happy reign of the Holy Father!

  17. RichR says:

    What’s next, asking us to use the Propers of the Mass? (shudder) That’s something a lot of people don’t even realize. When was the last time you heard an Introit, a Gradual, an Offertory, or Communion Antiphon from the Roman Gradual? People don’t realize that the Entrance Hymn, Responsorial Psalm, etc…. are not the first choices. These are substitutes for the antiphons that Catholics used to hear in Gregorian chant at Mass (before the Council). The thing is, the Propers are STILL THERE. I think this is a HUGE link to the past that is almost universally ignored. If you want to tap into the whole “hermaneutic of continuity”, why not attempt some Propers?

    Seriously, the Church is sooooooo used to all the exceptions to the rule, that the “norms” are in complete oblivion. Everyone has EMHC’s, altar girls, Communion in the Hand, no Latin, always has the Sign of Peace, no Eucharistic Prayer I, no incense, no Gregorian chant, no pipe organ…….. All of these things are options or exceptions to the norm. No one even thinks to ask:

    “What’s the norm?”

    Long live Pope Benedict for trying to reinstate the norms.

  18. JL says:

    This would indeed be a wonderful development–and let’s remember that, at the parish level, we don’t need a Papal ruling to start doing it. Any priest celebrating the OF may (and should!) say the words of consecration, or the entire Eucharistic Prayer, or any other part of the Mass in Latin at any time without any special permission.

    Maybe some of the priest readers would consider giving it a try?

  19. Mark M says:

    In addition the sign of peace among the faithful during Mass, which today takes place before the distribution of the Eucharist, could be moved forward (as in the Ambrosian rite) to the offertory in order so as not to disturb the recollection before Communion. [This is something Papa Ratzinger wrote about in one of his books, I forget which.]

    He also spoke of it in Sacramentum Caritatis:

    (note 150) “Taking into account ancient and venerable customs and the wishes expressed by the Synod Fathers, I have asked the competent curial offices to study the possibility of moving the sign of peace to another place, such as before the presentation of the gifts at the altar. To do so would also serve as a significant reminder of the Lord’s insistence that we be reconciled with others before offering our gifts to God (cf. Mt 5:23 ff.); cf. Propositio 23.”

  20. JML says:

    I second Maynardus.

    My altar boy years were spent under the 1964/65 rite. Outside of the tossing of Psalm 42 and The Last Gospel, it was pretty much the same Mass as the Gregorian Rite.

    Honestly, if we went back to 1965 as the single rite (maybe with A,B,C readings), I would not have too much heartburn. The 65 rite could be celebrated in Latin or the vernacular, but from the Sanctus to the Final Doxology, everything was in Latin.

    And I still have my Missal!!!! :)

  21. John Enright says:

    It took a long time to implement the Pauline Mass in its entirety in Philadelphia due in large part to the reluctance of His Eminence, John Cardinal Krol, who was the titanic Archbishop of Philadelphia during my formative years. As an Altarboy, I can remember using the hybrid semi-official Missal of 1965 until, I think, 1972 or 1973 or so. From 1965 until 1970, the EF form of the Mass was mainly followed, but with a twist. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were shortened and said in English as were all of the texts thereafter until the Offertory. At that stage, the Mass shifted into Latin Mode; the Offertory and Canon were said in Latin ala the EF, including the “silent Canon” together with all of the traditional gestures, genuflections and rubrics. The English version of prayers contained in the Mass of the Catechumens such as the Confetior were very faithful translations of the Latin text, and very different from the current version.

    Maybe that form should again be used for the NO Mass. Just a suggestion, for what its worth.

  22. Cathguy says:

    This would be huge! I am a traditionalist. I am sympathetic to the SSPX.

    That said… most Sundays I worship at the OF in my home parish. If one… (just one!!).. of the OF Masses was celebrated this way at my parish, a change that would require the PERMISSION OF NO ONE, I do not think I would have to drive an hour once a week to attend the EF where it is offered under the Motu Proprio.

    The OF has really good things about it. The extra scripture reading (and Scripture readings in the vernacular) leaps to mind. Its just EVERYTHING ELSE that stinks. And the stuff that stinks is NOT what VII called for.

    For what little my opinion is worth, the big issues are a) orientation b) reverence c) an inclusion of traditional CATHOLIC elements

    These can be taken care of within the NO Mass if it is celebrated correctly. As a matter of practice (priests like Fr. Z aside) it NEVER is.

  23. vox borealis says:

    I would dearly love to see these changes, but I remain pretty skeptical about these rumors. In particular I doubt that there will be a change in the sign of peace any time soon. Why? Well, changing when the sign of peace occurs means issuing another missal, which would mean translations of the new missal into all of the various languages, which would justify endless delays and stonewalling by the various bishops councils. Heck, here in Canada the CCCB has yet to approve the 2000 GIRM.

    Promoting or imposing Latin during the consecration could be done much easier, though, because it would require no local translation approval.

  24. Michael says:

    Note to the Holy Father: Please ban all Bishop’s Conferences!!!

  25. joy says:

    ‘Pax tecum’ would require no translation…

  26. LCB says:

    As an italian friend of mine quipped, “They came to SEE John Paul II, but they come to HEAR Benedict.”

    John Paul II may not be the only one worthy of being called Great.

  27. John Enright says:


    Good call! I agree.

  28. Joshua says:

    Just a warning, wrt the link to the story. There were soft-pornographic pictures in the right hand side when I clicked on the link.

  29. LCB says:


    Ever been to Italy? Par for the course, advertised on Church buildings as they’re being remodeled.

  30. Mitch says:

    Father Z,
    I can only pray this will all trickle down to the guy in the pew…I attend a TLM in a major city NYC, and whenever I return to the NO across the street (my parish) nothing changes. And I hear that from most people who go to the NO service. I do not want to appear ungrateful, for I love the TLM that I am fortunate to have one, but I am thinking about growth, change, and future. I am anxious for it to get all over, into, and around.
    BTW I love and use the word vexed often. Imagine if it were proposed to the US Bishops to be included in the reform of the liturgy that they voted on in Orlando recently? AGHAST would be their reaction, and they must understand that word in order to feel it. Or at least the reverse is true of their opinion of the faithful in regards to the proposed changes…Is that too harsh??

  31. vincentius says:

    JML and Maynardus:
    I remember during the concilliar years that numerous reports said the eucharistic prayer will always be in Latin-apparently B XVI has the same recollections

  32. One of our priests at our last base did this for Holy Mass during the week…we sang the Sanctus & Angus Dei in Latin, and he prayed the Consecration and the prayers after the Consecration in Latin…I liked it very much, especially since I got to serve as acolyte and choir :-)

  33. JPG says:

    a few years ago I purchased a Daily Roman Missal from Scepter for my 84 yo father since his Parish was offering the NO or OF in Latin. (Our Lady Of Lourdes in Philadelphia.) He was the 83 or 84. I held off and purchased a Baronius Press 1962 Missal(BEST PURCHASE EVER-A LIFELONG COMPANION) but held off on a purchase of the Scepter Daily Roman Missal for myself since I had a sense that things would change again. I hope this all comes to fruition. Please eliminate likewise the General Intercessions or Prayer of the Faithful since it always sounds like something crafted by a PC (politically Correct) Bimbo in Washington whose sole purpose is to induce nausea in anyone who is paying attention. Pope Benedict, I believe , In the Spirit of the Liturgy suggests replacing this with a Litany such as the Great Litany of the Divine Liturgy. This although not Roman would be a HUGE improvement. For those not sure of that which I am speaking it opens the Divine Liturgy of St. John with the words “In peace let us pray to the Lord…

  34. BobP says:

    Can we say that anyone still saying “for all” is being disobedient to the Pope? Or that his Masses are valid but now illicit? [No. We can say that the priests saying those words are following the approved book, according to their duty. – Fr. Z Say the Black – Do the Red.]

  35. Fr W says:

    An even nicer step forward, would be for the Holy Father to allow priests to pray the Novus Ordo as is, but with the substitution of the Tridentine form from the offertory prayers to Communion. To the priest it would be a marvel, to the people it would be a small change – they would be saying: that silence – those bells – very moving!’ It would be a marvelous step forward, and heck – make it an option for the parish.

  36. Ioannes Andreades says:

    Fr. Z, I’m surprised not to see all sorts of red after the lead statement, “Benedict changes the Mass again.” Again?!

    Based on the article, I’m not too worried about the exact placement of the sign of peace; the symbolism on whether it takes place before the gifts are brought forward may simply be lost on the writer. I concur that it should happen before the gifts are presented. I know that the sign of peace is often disorganized, but when I’ve attended EF masses, I’ve found the disorderly approach to the communion rail frequently as disorganized and distracting. Am also not sure whether the writer really means the entire canon or simply the institution narrative will be in Latin. Would very much prefer the former.

    RichR, check GIRM 61 re: the order of preferences for the responsorial psalm.

    In the NO/OF I like the responsorial psalm, prayer of the faithful, and offertory procession. True some of these might have been added via archaeologizing or because of faulty scholarship, but I think they can serve to increase intellectual involvement and piety from the congregation. I think that having most of the parts of the mass that vary from week to week in the vernacular to be indispensible, especially for children, those hard of seeing, and the illiterate. Am making my way through A. Reid’s book on organic liturgical development. Interesting food for thought.

    I have to admit that I’m not particularly a fan of the ABC year readings, as the propers in the Gradual were fit to an annual basis, and the unity of the mass suffers as a result. Scholae now often go three years between singing some very complicated music. The Graduale Romanum scrambled to come up with chants to fit the new reading cycle, but there wasn’t enough ancient material. Am also not a fan of the having two readings before the Gospel. The Old Testament reading usually comes out of left field for the congregation, and if the homilist has to spend time giving background and context to that reading, the homily suffers too. Whereas the Epistle and Gospel readings follow sequentially more or less one week from the rest, the Old Testamet reading can come from anywhere on any given Sunday. I like the responsorial psalm, but I don’t think that it’s correct placement should normally come after an Old Testament reading, at least on Sundays.

  37. Margaret says:

    A few years ago, I spent a week at small college. The priest offered daily Mass in a really tiny setting, so much so that there was only room for one, small, back altar. Additionally, those of us in attendance for the most part only had a handbook of prayers with us– the fixed parts of the Mass in both English and Latin– but not the prayers that change. So the priest proceeded to say a NO Mass each day, ad orientem for the parts of the Mass that addressed God, then turning and addressing us when the prayers did. The fixed parts of the Mass were in Latin, the changeable parts in English. All in all, it worked beautifully, and I had to wonder if that wasn’t closer what the Council Fathers had in mind all along…

  38. Note to the Holy Father: Please ban all Bishop’s Conferences


  39. David O'Rourke says:

    If the consecration is indeed to be in Latin I hope that the latin would begin at the Hanc Igitur and continue for the accalmations if these are continued. This would avoid the magic formula effect and for the people to sing or say the acclamations in Latin would be great!

  40. NoName says:

    I attend the Melkite Catholic Liturgy in Sydney some Sundays. It is all in Arabic (I think), but the consecration was in English a few weeks back. The priest is fully bi-lingual, so I don’t know why this was done.

  41. Al says:

    The removal of the acclamations altogether would be even better…

  42. Gustav Ahlman says:

    Just a curious question: Which form of the Mass does Fr. Z generally celebrate?

  43. Jack Regan says:

    *Just a curious question: Which form of the Mass does Fr. Z generally celebrate?*

    I would imagine I can hazard a guess :)

  44. Mike says:

    Just another rule for bishops in the U.S. to ignore. Do you really expect after 40+ years of disobedience and chaos that the American Bishops will embrace this? Expect alot of whining, handwringing and demands for an exemption to this.

  45. Robert Badger says:

    The Maronite Rite, one of the liturgies of West Syrian provenance, uses Syriac (a form of Aramaic) in the Mass. While in the USA, the Maronite Rite is now often celebrated in English, the words of institution and the epiclesis tend to be chanted in Syriac while the rest of the Mass is chanted in either English or Arabic.

  46. RBrown says:

    Just another rule for bishops in the U.S. to ignore. Do you really expect after 40+ years of disobedience and chaos that the American Bishops will embrace this? Expect alot of whining, handwringing and demands for an exemption to this.
    Comment by Mike

    Generally, yes. Despite all the talk of Individualism, etc., Americans can be meek as puppies.

    But the Germans–that’s an entirely different matter.

  47. Louis E. says:

    But the German bishops’ conference is notably restive…

  48. wsxyz says:

    Since the invitation to the Sign of Peace is an option left to the priest, I opt not to make the invitation.

    I have been to several OF masses where the Priest quite noticeably did not invite the people to make the sign of peace, nevertheless everyone knew what was “supposed to” happen at that point and the mass groping duly followed.

  49. It was in Sacramentum Caritatis that Benedict suggested that moving the sign of peace might be a good idea.
    I have to agree with Ioannes Andreades, I think that, if properly done, the NO has the potential to be wonderful.
    The five-hymn sandwich did not originate with the council, but was already established, at least in the U.S. prior to the 1960s.
    The problem then becomes how to get people to do the norms when they so obviously want to do the options? Certainly example helps. Ever time the Holy Father (re)introduces a liturgical practice some bishops take notice and follow. Some priests do the same.
    There are already some (though few) priest reintruoducing Latin propers into the Mass in conformance to what VII really asked for.
    At some point I believe the rules will have to be changed. Bishop conferences have proven to be one of the worst developments in the post councilor period. I don’t know how they’re doing in the third world, but in the west they have done nothing but hurt the faith. Their ability to procrastinate, ignore Rome and confuse doctrinal issues must be removed.

  50. TJM says:

    Sounds like an excellent idea to me and actually what Sacrosanctum Concilium intended. Cleric after cleric I know who was at the Council said the Council Fathers ALWAYS intended for the Canon to remain in the Latin language. Unfortunately, liturgical reform was highjacked by the liturgical “progressives” and as they say, the rest is history. Tom

  51. Please don’t post “anonymous” comments or as “anon”. Thanks!

  52. Rev. J. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R. says:

    Interesting. A few years ago I started praying the consecration in Latin (OF) and was told it was not aloud. I guess the Holy Father never got the word.

  53. Therese says:

    Just now approaching the one year anniversary of the Blessed Restoration–thank you, Father Benedict!–and you say there’s more to come? Be still, my beating heart.

    But a few years ago in our diocese an assistant pastor was removed from his parish by the bishop for saying the consecration in Latin. (Something, I am told, this priest was perfectly within his rights to do.) A small group of parishioners made a loud fuss, and out he went. ;-(

  54. Therese just hit on something quite important. If this does come to pass (and I think it will) and there is ANYTHING optional, so many bishops will torpedo it that it will be a worse mish-mash than we have now. If the bishops or the priests are given any lee-way, they will extend that into “do what I want”. Look at how the 1965 mass was allowed to morph from the intended basic 1962 mass with 1962 rubrics but vernacular readings and a FEW vernacular prayers into an all vernacular versus populum de facto Novus Ordo.

    Mandating the Eucharistic prayer in Latin is great, and maybe the Sanctus and Agnus Dei while your at it. But this must be combined with the elimination of most – maybe ALL of the options in the liturgy. Why, for example are there options for the confiteor??? And I have to agree with the posters who want the elimination of the sign of peace entirely. The fact that it has some reference in scripture is totally irrelevant. It is a disturbance that simply creates a party atmosphere during what should be a solemn liturgy. And NO AMOUNT of preaching or directives will change this. As far as most people are concerned, it is just a chance to say Good Morning to their pew-mates, or chuck a deuce to their golf parter across the aisle. This and every other possible distraction from the fact that this is The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has to be gotten rid of completely and by mandate – enforced mandate. Otherwise the mass at St. Ipsydipsy will continue to look like the stage at Chuck-E-Cheese.

  55. Christine says:

    I was very fortunate in being able to attend Fr.Simon Henry’s former parish,(Fr.Henry of the traditional mass parish in Liverpool fame!)and at every Novus Ordo Mass, he sang the consecration in Latin. It never failed to make a profound impression on me.


  56. John says:

    Fr. John brings up a good point. If His Holiness thinks that Latin is more practical (as far as implied meaning) than vernacular for use in the Mass, then why not mandate its use being broadened beyond that of the Consecration.

  57. Francisco says:

    The last supper was invalid then.
    Jesus did not use Latin for the consecration.
    And Is very sad seeing that everybody is talking about the reform of the reform witout being expert in liturgy.
    Te MC of the vatican is a Cannonist, not a Liturgist. The liturgy is more than application of the rubrics.

  58. RBrown says:

    The last supper was invalid then.
    Jesus did not use Latin for the consecration.
    And Is very sad seeing that everybody is talking about the reform of the reform witout being expert in liturgy.
    Te MC of the vatican is a Cannonist, not a Liturgist. The liturgy is more than application of the rubrics.
    Comment by Francisco

    The problem I have with many liturgists is that they often think of liturgy as independent of doctrine, especially the Sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.

    So for them it becomes a congregational experience, with a meal as the center.

  59. Francisco says:

    It is truth or not that our Lord Jesus Crist died for all the men, of all times and places?
    The their blood was given for all?

  60. Mark S. says:

    Francisco: Jesus did indeed die for all, but not everybody avails themselves of this. Jesus doesn’t save us all whether we want it or not, we have to actively apply the benefits of his redemption to ourselves, for example by making use of the sacraments. For it to be otherwise would remove an element of free will in us. This is why we say “for many”, not “for all” – because there will be some who don’t take advantage of what Jesus did for them, so although hopefully “many” will be saved, it seems that not “all” will be saved.

  61. Ioannes Andreades says:

    Nobody’s saying the consecration form in a language other than Latin is invalid. True, I would guess that few of the bloggers could teach a graduate course on liturgy, but we all have a profound love for it and many have done a tremendous job educating themselves. We may like to blow off some steam from time to time, but in all seriousness, something mystical and transcendent has been lost in the liturgy as widely celebrated, and hopefully some Latin and a more obedient attitude toward rubrics will help bring some of it back. The Latin canon is an extraordinary treasure of the Church, translations of which will always be somewhat deficient in meaning and eloquence, though not in efficacy. What sort of atmosphere best contributes to full consciousness of the reenactment before us of Christ’s sacrifice of the cross for our sins and redemption of our souls as well as makes us mindful of His miraculous Resurrection? Is it one in which everyday language and gestures are prevalent? Perhaps it is for some, but not at all for me.

  62. Matthew Robinson says:

    I had not given this much credence.

    But was just listening to a talk by Bishop Fellay’s given in February 2006 where he mentions rumours of a “project” in Rome called the “Ritus Modernus” which is uncanninly close to what is discussed in this article. He clarifies by “rumour” he means information that he obtained directly from Vatican sources.

    He claims that these sources in Rome mentioned that they were working on a project which would incorporate mandatory parts of the Canon in latin (he does not specifically mention the consecration), would suppress Eucharistic Prayers II and IV and make the traditional offertory an option for this “Novus Ordo 2.0” type thing.

    This gives more creedence to an otherwise unreliable Italian press report as they touch on the same points.

  63. John Michael says:

    “But shouldn’t it be used along the lines that the Second Vatican Council actually mandated rather than what we actually got?”

    This is what I want. Give us the changes the Council mandated. It’s not to hard.

Comments are closed.