S
Seamus_L
Guest
It never ceases to amaze me, how many Catholics today accept the Protestant claim that prior to the mass being said in the vernacular, that only the priest knew what was going on.
- Status
P
palmas85
Guest
It more or less proves that if you repeat a lie often enough many people will believe it to be true.
P
palmas85
Guest
When I first came to the US, I spoke Visayan, a little Tagalog and a few words, mainly bad wordsYes, I can see from your near-illiteracy in the English language that you must have a terrible time understanding a mass in English
Look, it’s been interesting and, um, a learning experience to post here in the traditional forums, but it’s time for me to leave. I disagree with the opinions of those who posit that Latin is the “higher way” for the mass, that it’s a matter of laziness for those of us who prefer mass in a language in which we can communicate, and that the TLM must return in exclusivity or the Holy Roman Catholic Church, against whom the gates of hell will not prevail, we dissolve into dust.
So long as the Holy Father himself allows for the mass in the vernacular, the only point of this discussion (as it now stands) is to pat each other on the back for being right, or to condemn those with different (and clearly inferior) opinions. If and when the Holy Father decrees the TLM as the sole expression of the mass, this single mom will start teaching my son the Latin he needs to fully participate in the mass. (Incidentally, the Catholic school he’ll start kindergarten in next fall has a TLM once a month, and the parish’s altar servers are taught how to assist at these masses as well as the OF masses.)
My needing to work on a doctorate to support my son may make me a hundred steps below the likes of brotherrolf’s beloved mother, but I know where my salvation lies regardless. And I’m not about to go around thinking I know better than the Holy Father, nor that I can read his heart or anticipate his actions.
If I don’t see y’all on the other forums, I pray we meet in the Lord’s Kingdom
Gertie
in English. I was lost to put it bluntly. I was in an alien environment, had no relatives here, except for my immediate family and no one and I mean no one spoke my language. Not the best situation to be in.But, I had been serving Mass for several years and knew the Mass, knew the responses, knew what was going on and because of that was able to return to doing something that I had been doing with no difficulty. The Mass as celebrated in New Orleans was almost identical to that in the Philippines, not as much incense and the entrance procession was different but everything else was the same. right down to the cues Father used to signal the Altar Boys…
So having the Mass in Latin, far from being devisive and a detriment, actually allowed me to fully participate in a way I would have been unable to otherwise.
So when people make these outrageous claims that only with vernacular can people truly be a part of the Mass I remember a very small, very dark skinned very skinny and out of place kid who would definitely and most vehemently disagree
Thanks for complimenting my English. It took a long time and a lot of work to develop it, I’m still trying by the way.
W
weepixie71
Guest
actually some girls did show up dress immodestly to our mass one day. a group of, id say about 6. when one of the men told father before mass, he politely asked the girls to put on an alb. when the priest explained why he wanted to cover them the girls looked very surprised but when along with it. over a period of time we watched these girls slowly dress a little bit better, little by little. now they even wear some stylish hat.
we thought for sure that once father came out they were going to turn around and leave, and we were even more surprised to see that they wanted to return. i am so glad they did. it has been a true joy to watch them change and grow.
also i should mention we have a sign inside our doors at church that request modest dress.
A
ASD
Guest
When I first posted on this thread about a week ago, my take was: Yea, lots of people are scared, and I hope their fears are well founded. No doubt some of you recognized that as a WDTPRS view of the matter. Here’s some more along the same lines.
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
And I’m going to add my two cents to this since that “very small, very dark skinned, very skinny and out of place kid” served at the parish that my Irish forebears helped build and went to the Redemptorist high school associated with both St. Alphonsus and St. Mary’s Annuciation that two of my cousins on either side of the family went to.
We have forgotten that we are unam, sanctam, Catolicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam. We have lost that image in favor of “let’s see how many ways we can divide a parish to suit constituent groups”…Hispanic Masses, Life Teen Masses, Vietnamese Masses…ad infinitum. In 1965 there was ONE Mass which any Catholic, anywhere across the Earth could go to and participate.
And what about all those Cuban refugees who came to New Orleans in 1960/1? Long connections between NO and Cuba. Same Mass. No Missa Cubana. The Mass they knew in Cuba was the Mass that was said in New Orleans.
A
ASD
Guest
I think I get what you mean, but I don’t really see whyASD;4718250:
sacrament. The language barrier inherently excludes people in at least one way, because Latin as a language is only spoken fluently by a handful of people in the whole world. I have heard many people say that the Latin Mass is inclusive on a worldwide scale because they can go anywhere and hear ‘the same prayers’ being said (which is odd enough in itself, as the prayers themselves are the same but in a different language), however it is only inclusive in the fact that it excludes (nearly) all people equally.
That’s the conventional line these days. In fact, it’s the party line. It’s been asserted over and over again for 40 years, like a drum beat. And, it’s plausible enough, right? So, we’re all just supposed to accept it uncritically.
However, I’m skeptical. Personally, I wish I had some evidence. E.g., how about a poll or some other kind of empirical evidence showing that Catholics these days understand the Mass better than people did before Vatican II? (I won’t hold my breath.)I think there’s a difference between understanding the Mass (ie. having an idea of what’s going on, on a practical level) and understanding the Mass (ie. the mystery etc.). I hope that makes sense… I think people would definitely have a better understanding of the first, and it certainly couldn’t hurt with peoples (italicised
(a) fluent, intuitive grasp of words spoken in mother tongue with no real appreciation of what’s happening
is so obviously better than
(b) rough, second language understanding of words with relatively good grasp of what’s actually happening.
I know that’s what they tell us. Constantly. But (b) seems better to me. And, although that’s a minority position now, I think it was once the conventional wisdom.
Well, it’s gracious of you to say that. But, honestly, no. We’re as average as average can be. The fact is that many families who care about the Mass work with their kids and do just fine.
Come to think of it, it’s one of the most important points brotherhrolf and I have been making: The party line about vernacular and versus populum is seriously misleading. Ordinary people do just fine with TLM/EF.
Mea culpa. (That’s Latin for my bad.) You gotta understand: People have been sneering at us for 45 years now, telling us that the most beautiful thing this side of heaven is silly and contemptible. We’re a little sensitive.
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
C
Candace_Alexis
Guest
Here is another question. I quite enjoy the Breastplate Prayer of St. Patrick. I started out preferring the Thomas Cahill translation:“I arise today through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity…” Then I decided I liked the seemingly more literal translation: “I bind to myself today the strong virtue of the Invocation of the Trinity…”. I have always wondered, though, what a really literal translation is. I have an Old Irish version which no one I can find can translate:“Atomriug indiu niurt treun: togairm Trindoit faistin Oindatad …”. So. Is there anyone out there who can translate the Irish? Or perhaps there is a Latin version as I am sure St. Patrick spoke Latin as well as French etc.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
To be honest, the most lyrical translation of the Lorica of St. Patrick and one that I dearly loved to sing in my cathedral choir came from the 1940 Episcopalian hymnal. (This was during our period when we were forbidden to sing in Latin). Nonetheless - this is the melody on organ.
I am now laughing all over myself. I googled the lyrics and found myself two years ago on CAF
cyberhymnal.org/htm/s/t/stpatric.htm
Mine was an Irish parish before Vatican II. We would have loved to have sung something like this. It ranks right up there with “Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All” and “To Jesus Christ Our Sovreign King”, “Praise to the Lord”, and “Immaculate Mary”. “Hail Glorious St. Patrick” is only so-so.
There is a key change and melodic change when you come to the “Christ be with me” but the cyberhymnal does not seem to play this.
I will be fair. Our Anglican brothers and sisters did a superb job in keeping the melodic line of Gregorian chant and translating the Latin into English. However, having sung Pange Lingua on Holy Thursday in Latin as a child and being forced to sing “Sing my tongue the Saviors glory” or the Vidi Aquam on Easter Sunday morning as “I saw water flowing forth from the Temple”. It always felt like I was taking a shower with a raincoat on.
Same thing goes for the Easter/Pentecost sequences. Veni Creator Spiritus is just not “Come Holy Spirt, Come.”
L
LexKnight
Guest
Actually, I would agree with you that (B) is better than (A) - however it makes the assumption that all those who attend TLM have a better grasp of what’s going on than at the NO.
While this may in fact be the case, it probably has more to do with the attitudes of those attending the various Masses rather than the Mass itself. What I mean by that is that the less devoted Catholics (those who attend Mass only out of a mild sense of obligation) or the Catholics who do not want to put as much effort into their worship as others are more likely to attend Mass in the vernacular. This isn’t to say that Mass in the vernacular is “worse.” It is, however, easier to get in to (assuming it is done well) than a Latin Mass, particularly with newbies or young people.
C
CradleCath
Guest
I understand your anger & frustration, Brotherholf. I feel it to. However, when I read something like Lex Knight’s post…I begin to realize why the council Fathers thought that the Mass should be “dumbed down”.
L
LexKnight
Guest
What exactly is that supposed to mean?I understand your anger & frustration, Brotherholf. I feel it to. However, when I read something like Lex Knight’s post…I begin to realize why the council Fathers thought that the Mass should be “dumbed down”.
P
ProVobis
Guest
“Dumbed down” isn’t a new term in describing the New Mass, even in the Latin Novus Ordo. For one thing, they’ve expanded the number of options allowing the priest more flexibility in fulfilling his pastoral duties.
I would question, however, why the Novus Ordo has fewer references to the Holy Sacrifice. If anything you would expect more. Right now very few would know that it is the Holy Sacrifice unless you tell them, especially if the EPII is said.
L
LexKnight
Guest
I know that, however it was more the implications in the post about my intelligence that I was questioning.
I think it’s because one of the big things to come out of Vatican II was a friendly reminder that Jesus is not only present in the Blessed Sacrament, but in other aspects of the Mass as well.
A
ASD
Guest
I am highly confident that an empirical study would indicate (1) TLM/EF Catholics know the Mass pretty well; and (2) NO/OF Catholics are clueless.
We need some kind of research grant to determine:
*]What do current NO/OF Catholics know about Mass? Questionnaire.
*]What do current TLM/EF Catholics know about Mass? Questionnaire.
*]What did pre-Vatican II Catholics know about Mass? Historical research using private letters of deceased Priests, old parish records, personal interviews, etc.
My pseudo-scientific amateur sociologist predictions:
*]Almost nothing. Questionnaire grades: D- to F.
*]A great deal. Questionnaire grades: A or B.
*]Some. Questionnaire grades: C.
The point of the empirical study would be to demonstrate a theoretical point: Reform of the liturgy, however plausible or well-intentioned, is a flawed idea in principle. It predictably fails on its own terms. See below.
That is a good clarification, and it’s related to another good point you have been making persuasively: There’s anecdotal evidence that before the new Mass, many Priests and ordinary Catholic laymen were casual and sloppy about old Mass.
However, to my mind, the striking point has to do with the reform project itself, the very idea of reforming the Mass. Two points that I think are very thought-provoking when put side-by-side:
*]Everything that I know about reform of the Mass seems highly plausible. It sounds like a good idea. (E.g., from SC@CrossReference: “In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.”)
*]However, ordinary Catholics today have very little understanding of the Mass.
To me, it seems like the old story of social engineering:
*]Somebody notices something that needs to be “reformed.”
*]A clever idea.
*]A huge, disruptive change forced on people in an authoritarian way.
*]Very little actual gain.
In the case we’re discussing:
*]Prior to 1962, many Catholics were ill-informed and careless about Mass.
*]Sacrosanctum Concilium
*]In 1970 the Church used its authority to deprive people of the old Mass and require them to attend the new Mass.
*]After 1970, many Catholics are ill-informed and careless about the Mass.
It’s hard not to use words like naive, self-important, over-confident.
I’ll venture this summary, LexKnight:
You emphasize (1) the original problem and (2) the plausible reform idea. I emphasize (3) the cost of the change and (4) the paltry results.
Bottom line: I am not convinced when people go on about how great the reform is (Mass is vernacular, Priest celebrates versus populum, congregation recites responses, etc). I see very little gain from it. On the other hand, the costs (traumatic loss of religious tradition, dopey translations, Priest as star of Sunday Morning Show, etc) are enormous.
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
A
ASD
Guest
I think the point is that LexKnight gave anecdotal evidence that in the old days people didn’t understand the old Mass as well as they might have. So, reformers decided that the solution was to “dumb down” the Mass. Argh. I’m going off to read Leviticus 19:18 and Romans 12:19.CradleCath;4730699:
What exactly is that supposed to mean?I understand your anger & frustration, Brotherholf. I feel it to. However, when I read something like Lex Knight’s post…I begin to realize why the council Fathers thought that the Mass should be “dumbed down”.
A
ASD
Guest
That’s true, and it’s another interesting point to analyze. My understanding of the friendly reminder is that Christ is present at Mass in four primary ways:
*]Eucharist
*]Priest in persona Christi
*]Scripture, especially Gospel
*]Congregation
The first two are what was always emphasized.
However, the second two make me scratch my head. They just don’t seem to be distinctive features of the Mass. I mean, I have Bibles at home, and the people of God are around me everywhere every day.
Again, I just don’t see what big gains the new perspective brings us.
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
L
LexKnight
Guest
This makes some really sweeping (and very unfair) generalisations about the people who attend both kinds of Masses and to be honest I actually disagree with your guesses.
Still, to be honest, those kinds of statistics don’t actually matter because they don’t actually tell us the effect the Mass itself has on people. As I said before, those who attend the Latin Mass are more likely to be very devout, conservative Catholics. These kinds of people are more likely to devote time and effort to learning about their faith, and are more likely to be well Catechised (is that the right word?). Since Latin Masses aren’t the norm, it’s also likely that those who are there have actually gone out of their way to be there - indicating that they have probably studied the Mass and have a specific reason to be there.
On the other hand there are devout Catholics who attend N.O. Masses, but the N.O. is more likely to be attended by less-devout Catholics who generally don’t go out of their way to attend Mass or learn more about it. However, they are at least attending the Mass because they have some idea of what’s going on - even if it’s not a highly-informed and complex understanding of the ritual taking place. In a TLM these people would probably be completely lost (assuming they show up at all).
My point is, because of the nature of the people attending the Masses the statistics would be relatively irrelevant as they say something about the kinds of people who attend the Mass, not anything about the Mass itself.
On your point of reform (I won’t quote everything to save space) - there is nothing wrong with the reform itself - rather what was probably an imperfect execution of a good idea. The idea was to make the Mass a more inclusive environment. This is an excellent idea, I don’t care what anybody else says. And, in fact, I still strongly believe that when done well the N.O. achieves this. The problem is that, unfortunately, it’s not done well all that often.
L
LexKnight
Guest
I think the point is that we must remember that even though they aren’t distinctive features of the Mass that they are no less important. Jesus is present in these things. Period. Yes, they’re around us all the time, but we cannot take them for granted even in a Mass situation (I would even say especially in a Mass situation).
A
ASD
Guest
Well, one of these days we’ll get that research grant.
I claim they certainly would tell us the effect the Mass itself has on people. E.g., they would tell us whether the reforms driven by Sacrosanctum Concilium have succeeded on their own terms. E.g., did wider use of vernacular increase understanding?
This is how I understand it:
*]Churchmen decided that Catholics didn’t appreciate or understand the Mass sufficiently.
*]Therefore, in order to remedy that situation, they put in motion a reform program designed to have a cause and effect relationship.
*]However, they didn’t remedy the situation. I claim Catholics today don’t appreciate or understand the Mass sufficiently.
OK. And, to be fair, maybe I brought up question of how well TLM/EF Catholics understand the Mass. But, that doesn’t actually bear directly on the question of how well reforms such as switch to vernacular have succeeded on their on terms, right?
So, maybe it would be more fair to compare highly engaged NO/OF Catholics to highly engaged TLM/EF Catholics? There probably wouldn’t be a big difference. That seems like a fair point.
However, again, keep in mind: The idea of the broader use of vernacular was to make ordinary Mass-going Catholics better informed, right?
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
- Status