Antiquity confers solemnity in shape of Latin mass

[NeelyAnn]

**Antiquity confers solemnity in shape of Latin mass **

**Cate Devine
Herald Scotland
Published on 17 Jan 2010 **

Attending a traditional Latin mass in Glasgow yesterday was a chilling experience.

Father Stephen Dunn, left, says mass in Latin, above, at the Sacred Heart RC church in Bridgeton, Glasgow

There was no heating in the Sacred Heart RC church in Bridgeton, a vast 100-year-old building in the bosom of a parish first established in 1873.

Perhaps that was because there were only 31 of us in the congregation, but being freezing cold certainly helped focus the mind. After all, they do say austerity is good for the soul.

I was curious to remind myself what mass used to be like, following a debate about how the liturgy is celebrated. This was revealed in the Herald on Saturday, and has been sparked by Pope Benedict XVI’s imminent visit to Scotland.

It was the first time I’d been at Latin mass since I was a child in the 1960s, pre-Vatican Council II, and boy did I have to concentrate. Hard.

Although I attended a convent school, have a Latin O-Grade and studied French at University, the rhythmic delivery of our affable celebrant was difficult to follow. Yet the church was in total silence: this being low mass, there was no singing or any participation in the liturgy, apart from responding to Mgr Hugh Boyle’s familiar repetitions of “Dominus Vobiscum”.

Traditional Latin Mass is said with the priest facing the altar rather than the congregation. This is to help us focus on the altar, the symbol of Christ’s perfect sacrifice to his Father’s will. Thus is the mass depersonalised. As Father genuflects and kisses the altar more frequently than usual, the sense of reverence is palpable.

By the term “Latin mass”, I mean traditional mass said in the Extraordinary Form – that is, the old rite, according to the Roman Missal of l962, before Vatican Council II. It is better known as Tridentine Mass. The version that most modern Catholics are familiar with is the Ordinary Form, or new mass, issued by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

In Scotland there has been a resurgence of interest in, and the practice of, the Latin mass, yet traditional Latin mass was effectively re-instated by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007. In his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum the Holy Father said that there were two forms of expression of the Roman Rite of the Mass, effectively decreeing that all priests were now free to choose whether to offer the Tridentine Mass or the new mass.

However, the majority of parishes in Scotland don’t offer Latin mass, and some Scottish bishops are not in favour of it. This, say traditionalists, contradicts not only Benedict but even the late Pope John Paul II, who in 1988 asked bishops to actively support those who felt “attached to the Latin liturgical tradition”.

The anticipated visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Scotland in September therefore highlights a problem. If as expected the Holy Father will want to celebrate mass, could it be in the Extraordinary Form?

The majority of his concelebrants, and therefore their congregations, do not know the liturgy in Latin. Unlike 73-year-old Mgr Boyle, who has celebrated Latin mass throughout his ministry, if not always in public, younger priests will not have learned liturgical Latin.

Father Stephen Dunn, the 48-year-old parish priest at Sacred Heart in Bridgeton, started saying mass in Latin only last May, having made what he calls a “concerted effort” to learn it since 2007. Ordained in 1994, he says he feels “bullied and suppressed” by the Glasgow Archdiocese’s “reluctance to accept” the Pope’s 2007 decree, as shown in Archbishop Conti’s response to it in a letter to Glasgow’s priests on August 10, 2007, in which he questioned the need for it.

Yet as I was about to rediscover yesterday, it’s not just the fact that it’s said in Latin that makes the Extraordinary Form so different. The entire structure of the Mass is almost recognisable from what it is today.

The first thing I noticed on entering Sacred Heart were the altar railings. These are a rarity in Catholic churches, because most were removed post-Vatican II to facilitate the taking of the Host from the priest at Holy Communion and self-administering it. The traditional mass, by contrast, encourages us to kneel and be given Communion as we did in the old days because it helps engender a greater sense of reverence for the sacrament, and humility to God.

We’re reminded that only baptised Catholics, and those in the state of grace, are invited to receive Holy Communion. This is to remind us that we are sinners and to encourage us to attend Confession.

Nobody recites the Creed except the priest, and he says most of the Offertory quietly to himself. The Canon – the very heart of the mass, as it leads to the Consecration – is also silent. There is only one form of the Canon, though there are four options in the new mass.

There are no tambourines or guitars, and no lay church members stepping on to the altar.

Everything is in the priest’s gift, which leaves us free to take from mass what we’re meant to.

It does at first feel stern and authoritarian, but in the end I was humbled by Latin mass, and felt awed by its solemn simplicity. It forced me turn in on myself and to examine my conscience in a way that, for better or for worse, reminded me what being a Catholic is really all about. As soon as I returned home, I felt compelled to look out my childhood Catechism and to re-learn the fundamentals of my faith.

Yes, I could warm to it. If they turned up the heating a bit.

**Continue here:

heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/antiquity-confers-solemnity-in-shape-of-latin-mass-1.999395**

 

[JKirkLVNV]

NeelyAnn;6184045:

Let’s hope that just as the EF influences the OF, the OF’s audible canon and the recitation of the Creed will become the standard for the EF (I’d really like to hear the EF in English…the prose is really beautiful).

 

[malphono]

Let’s hope that just as the EF influences the OF, the OF’s audible canon and the recitation of the Creed will become the standard for the EF (I’d really like to hear the EF in English…the prose is really beautiful).

It must have been Low Mass, since at either Missa Cantata or Missa Solemnis the Creed is sung. And when the choir sings, anyone in the congregation who is familiar with the music can join in. Also in the “we’d like to see” department is the Pater Noster sung by all. It was allowed by De Musica Sacra (1958) but is (and was, even then) a rarity.

I agree that the Canon – or at the very least major parts of it – should probably be said aloud, (something along the lines of how it was done the short-lived and ill-fated “interim Missal” of 1965), but, as I’ve said umpteen times in other thread, not in the vernacular.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It must have been Low Mass, since at either Missa Cantata or Missa Solemnis the Creed is sung. And when the choir sings, anyone in the congregation who is familiar with the music can join in. Also in the “we’d like to see” department is the Pater Noster sung by all. It was allowed by De Musica Sacra (1958) but is (and was, even then) a rarity.

I agree that the Canon – or at the very least major parts of it – should probably be said aloud, (something along the lines of how it was done the short-lived and ill-fated “interim Missal” of 1965),** but, as I’ve said umpteen times in other thread, not in the vernacular.**

We will agree to disagree (and thus live in charity!).

 

[ProVobis]

(I’d really like to hear the EF in English…the prose is really beautiful).

You mean, the unofficial one with the “Thees” and “Thous” and “Thys” and “Art” and “Vouchsafe”, etc?

Why not just put them into the OF? Or attend an Anglican Use Mass?

 

[ProVobis]

the OF’s audible canon

I’d like that too but Trent says otherwise. Actually Trent uses the words “low tone” (which means no microphones )

I didn’t know they had Latin Masses in Las Vegas.

 

[Shin]

WDTPRS did a commentary on this article that I liked.

Especiallt the point father made:

Although I attended a convent school, have a Latin O-Grade and studied French at University, the rhythmic delivery of our affable celebrant was difficult to follow. Yet the church was in total silence: this being low mass, there was no singing or any participation in the liturgy, apart from responding to Mgr Hugh Boyle’s familiar repetitions of “Dominus Vobiscum”. [WRONG. There was plenty of participation! The writer herself said that she had to concentrate. That is a deeper and necessary form of participation than mere outward activity.]

This ‘active participation’ in the mass thing meaning laity responses and gymnastics idea, instead of in the soul and mind, has got to end.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’d like that too but Trent says otherwise. Actually Trent uses the words “low tone” (which means no microphones )

I didn’t know they had Latin Masses in Las Vegas.

They do, in fact.

And Trent is not the last word on the rubrics of the Mass, because this is a matter of discipline, not dogma. The Holy See can allow the EF in the vernacular and order that it be said audibly.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

WDTPRS did a commentary on this article that I liked.

Especiallt the point father made:

This ‘active participation’ in the mass thing meaning laity responses and gymnastics idea, instead of in the soul and mind, has got to end.

I wish I could understand WHY some so-called “traditionlists” object to the responses on the part of the laity…I understand the antipathy to EMHC, lectors, etc., but why would anyone object to the whole “and with your spirit” or “we lift them up to the Lord.” It’s written as a dialog, so let’s do it as a dialog. We don’t have to shout at the priest, we can keep a low, respectful tone, but it’s plain absurd and wrong-headed to insist that we NOT answer what is plainly intended to be a dialog.

 

[ProVobis]

They do, in fact.

That’s good to know. But I wouldn’t drive great distances to hear vernacular prayers. Even if I had to watch liturgical choreography at the closest OF. Which, by the way, I don’t think is bad if done in good taste and have a purpose.

And Trent is not the last word on the rubrics of the Mass,

Apparently Trent has no authority anymore in anything. Anathemas are now common practices. So you can believe what you want.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That’s good to know. But I wouldn’t drive great distances to hear vernacular prayers. Even if I had to watch liturgical choreography at the closest OF. Which, by the way, I don’t think is bad if done in good taste and have a purpose.

Apparently Trent has no authority anymore in anything. Anathemas are now common practices. So you can believe what you want.

No, I don’t think you can believe anything you want. I DO believe that one is required to believe that the Church can govern the disciplines of Her Sacraments, because that is what Catholics have always (and everywhere) believed. She can establish them and she can dispense with them. She has that authority.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Further, ProVobis, don’t the anathemas read that one cannot insist on the vernacular or assert the validity of the Mass is in question if the Canon is inaudible? Isn’t it that kind of thing to which the anathemas apply? Or would you say that the anathemas apply to those who might suggest that the vernacualr or an audible canon might be disireable? Do the anathemas apply if the Holy Father permits those things?

 

[ProVobis]

Further, ProVobis, don’t the anathemas read that one cannot insist on the vernacular or assert the validity of the Mass is in question if the Canon is inaudible? Isn’t it that kind of thing to which the anathemas apply? Or would you say that the anathemas apply to those who might suggest that the vernacualr or an audible canon might be disireable? Do the anathemas apply if the Holy Father permits those things?

It depends on how you read the translation(s) and interpretations. I think one needs to read all of Trent and study the Reformation movement fully in order to understand what exactly Trent’s anathemas attempted to achieve. That said, there is no dispute that one of almost every Reformist’s high priorities was to “vulgarize” (as it was referred to in those days) the liturgy. I don’t know what the normal decibel levels of the canon were in those days.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It depends on how you read the translation(s) and interpretations. I think one needs to read all of Trent and study the Reformation movement fully in order to understand what exactly Trent’s anathemas attempted to achieve. That said, there is no dispute that one of almost every Reformist’s high priorities was to “vulgarize” (as it was referred to in those days) the liturgy. I don’t know what the normal decibel levels of the canon were in those days.

Actually, ProVobis, it depends on how the CHURCH reads and understands or interprets it. She doesn’t seem to agree with a lot of so-called “traditionalist’s” interpretation of those documents.

 

[Filioque]

The way I read Trent, based on the pre-Vatican II commentators and historians like the late Fr. Hubert Jedin’s The History of the Council of Trent is, the intent of the Fathers was not to forbid any language except Latin in the Roman Liturgy, but rather to counter the wrong assertion that the language of the Liturgy must be in the vernacular.

While I would hope that the Latin Language in the West would be revived, and used in private and public worship, just as the Jew use Hebrew, and the Eastern Churches use their own liturgical languages.

While not dealing directly with the prayers at Mass, and the Liturgical language, the Council (Trent) did state that while retaining the Liturgical language, the mysteries of the Mass should be explained, (we assume in the local language) on Sundays and Holy Days.

SESSION THE TWENTY-SECOND,
Being the sixth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the seventeenth day of September, MDLXII.
CHAPTER VIII. On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people.
Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord’s days and festivals.

Later the venerable Fathers stated the below (not a command to use latin,) but rather a condemnation of those who would require it be said in the vernacular.

CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, ProVobis, it depends on how the CHURCH reads and understands or interprets it. She doesn’t seem to agree with a lot of so-called “traditionalist’s” interpretation of those documents.

Nonsense. We are all part of the Church, aren’t we? God never told us that we couldn’t do some studying on our own. Where there’s a difference of opinion, we can discuss those differences without harming our faith or integrity with other humans, one would hope.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I wish I could understand WHY some so-called “traditionlists” object to the responses on the part of the laity…I understand the antipathy to EMHC, lectors, etc., but why would anyone object to the whole “and with your spirit” or “we lift them up to the Lord.” It’s written as a dialog, so let’s do it as a dialog. We don’t have to shout at the priest, we can keep a low, respectful tone, but it’s plain absurd and wrong-headed to insist that we NOT answer what is plainly intended to be a dialog.

I grew up with the Missa Cantata or dialogue Mass as did my wife. To this day I would have no problem chanting the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Pater Noster or Agnus Dei or in saying any of the responses which the congregation replied. This article is speaking of a Low Mass and the solution to hearing the priest is to sit up front. In addition, most of us had missals and were perfectly capable of keeping track of what was going on by reading the rubrics and listening for the bells.

I have absolutely no objection to laity participation and, if such a Mass were offered, could probably do a fairly good job of participation just from memory although I and my wife have our missals from when we were kids.

 

[ProVobis]

Later the venerable Fathers stated the below (not a command to use latin,) but rather a condemnation of those who would require it be said in the vernacular.

You’re right. It was Vatican II which asked/insisted/required that Latin be retained in the liturgy. But the document also had time bombs.

Pope John XXIII, who called the council, wrote this beautiful encyclical on Latin.

 

[Filioque]

You’re right. It was Vatican II which asked/insisted/required that Latin be retained in the liturgy. But the document also had time bombs.

I’ve read the “Time Bomb” theory and while some of what Davies wrote, (Req. Aetern) has it’s merits, in the spirit of your previous post that “God never told us that we couldn’t do some studying on our own”, I am not convinced that there were “Time Bombs” as much as that the Council and Post-Conciliar “Spririt” were in many places railroaded. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath-water, I think we need to, pray for, and work within the structure of the Church. (No implication that any poster here would do otherwise) If you look over what Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have written you will find any number of directives, and encouragement to maintain the unchanging truths, and practices of the Church. Liberals seem to have disregarded these directives, and some Traditionalists seem to have blamed the Popes on the disobedience of those who reject not only the Pope, but their own positions.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I grew up with the Missa Cantata or dialogue Mass as did my wife. To this day I would have no problem chanting the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Pater Noster or Agnus Dei or in saying any of the responses which the congregation replied. This article is speaking of a Low Mass and the solution to hearing the priest is to sit up front. In addition, most of us had missals and were perfectly capable of keeping track of what was going on by reading the rubrics and listening for the bells.

I have absolutely no objection to laity participation and, if such a Mass were offered, could probably do a fairly good job of participation just from memory although I and my wife have our missals from when we were kids.

That’s the way I personally think it ought to be. “Participation” doesn’t mean everyone has a job (I get impatient sometimes with Offeratory Procession, though I understand what it’s suppposed to represent), but we ought to be able to make the response instead of an altar server making it for us.