Allergic to tradition

[otjm]

I suspect that between your posts and answers to it, that we may be discussing different things.

There is an old saying that familiarity breeds contempt.

That is not an absolute; but there is definitely truth in it. In my parish, we have one priest. This week he celebrates the Mass 10 times; assuming he only averages 7 per week, that amounts to saying over 360 Masses a year. It takes a special grace to each and every one of them reverently. The same can be said for the EF, and in particular, for the EF prior to Vatican 2.

So there is the reverence of the priest.

Then there is the issue of my perception of reverence; and the reverence with which I attend and participate in the Mass. Some of that can be elicited by the reverence (or casualness) of how the priest says mass; some of that can be my internal disposition; and the two may be joined, or not. I may be distracted by any number of things - and not necessarily by things occurring at Mass; but by
other issues in my life. And some of it may be due to aesthetics, other than the priest (e.g. music, or decorations, etc.). The choir is “singing” Gregorian chant, though approaching closer to slaughtering it. Or the choir may be made up of professional singers, singing Palestrina as if I were in a concert hall. One, the other, or both may be distracting; or to another listener, sublime. Does that make either of the Masses reverent?

My answer would be “no”.

So, in essence, I see too many people making statements one way or the other, and having far more to do with their personal preferences than with what I consider to be reverence of the Mass - how the priest celebrates it. Thus we end up talking past each other.

 

[PetraG]

I did not realize this- do you have a reference for this?

I would have thought that Hebrew would have been the first liturgical language, as it was the language the Jewish people have always used to worship and the apostles were Jews

The Jews of the time of the early Church spoke Aramaic in everyday conversations and at home, and Christian liturgies took place in private homes. Apparently the evidence for this is that words such as “abba” and “maranatha” are Aramaic, not Hebrew, but you will want to consult with someone who has a better background in the linguistic history of the Church if you want to be certain to get the straight scoop. My point was that Latin was a relative latecomer to Christian worship. It has pride of place in the Western Church, but it was not the original language of Christendom.

 

[PetraG]

My reference was primarily to the use of the vernacular, and the general comment in the Constitution as to the use of the vernacular. People took to the vernacular like ducks to water.

I am not a liturgist (nor a terrorist), but I suspect that a bishop might be able to require that the three prayers be said in Latin, in the OF. Perhaps some do. It has been my experience (and that has not been farther east than North Dakota) that exceedingly few parishes use Latin for those prayers. My recollection is that the cathedral in Salt Lake does (or did, several years ago). It has been a few years since I attended the Chrism Mass in Oregon, and I simply don’t recall if Latin was used then or not.

But it is my strong impression that, lacking direction from the bishop, parishes are generally likely to not use Latin (the East Coast may be more formal).

Archbishop Sample, Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, is enthusiastic about not just the beauty but the teaching potential of the older rite and would love for all priests to be familiar with it, but he is more inclined to “propose rather than impose,” as the saying goes.

Archbishop Sample on the Latin Mass and Liturgical Reform

With so much enthusiasm and anticipation resulting from Cardinal Robert Sarah’s recent talk at Sacra Liturgia U.K., it would seem appropriate for us to look back at another significant contri…

liturgyguy.com

He does not talk as someone who would replace the new with the old, but rather someone who believes the new is only understood correctly and fully when in the light shed by familiarization by the old.

Does that make sense? I get what he means, and I could not agree more. If you read his insights, I think it is clear that he is suggesting that both have a positive contribution to make to the contemporary appreciation for and celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Spyridon]

question was, for the person who attends the O.F. regularly and has for most of his/her life, does THAT person truly feel that the E.F. is exactly as holy and reverent as the O.F.?

Yes, I do.

All Liturgies of the Church are equally holy and reverent in and of themselves.

The way they are individually celebrated may be more or less reverent or holy.

You can have an incredibly reverent, holy EF then a horrific OF.

You can have an incredibly holy and reverent OF, then a horrific EF (although irreverent EF Masses today are a rarity due to the fact that only people who have a special attachment to that usage use it. When the EF was the OF it was common for Mass to be done in ultra speed in 15 minutes…)

 

[stpurl]

I was with you all the way until the last sentence. The 'ultra speed 15 minutes" number 1 would refer to a low Mass, during a weekday, and often done for the convenience of WORKING PEOPLE who needed to get to work quickly and could not afford much ‘time’. Number 2, it was far, far less COMMON than has been ‘charged’.

Do you object to weekday Masses which are reverent but which are done with careful dispatch in order for today’s workers to be able to attend during a lunch half-hour? If you don’t, then you would have no business criticizing the ‘same thing’ done for the same purpose in the EF. . .