Catholic Church reformation

[markadm]

Mark, you do know you’re going to get yourself into trouble with that.

Sorry; I’m confused, Hrolf. Do you mean I have the wrong attitude?

I’m not trying to come across as obnoxiously pious; all I meant is that I think I am paying more attention, when serving (because you’re “closer”), and thus being exposed to liturgical gems of the Roman Rite.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Though I must admit I am attached to the elements of the '62 Missal not found in the novus ordo one, particularly now that I am serving Mass.

I meant this statement. Things like saying Domine non sum dignus X3.

 

[markadm]

I meant this statement. Things like saying Domine non sum dignus X3.

Ah; I was thinking more the prayers at the foot of the Altar – not the things that are repeated in the '62 and only said once in the novus ordo but rather the stuff that was deleted (or substantially changed, e.g. the confiteor).

 

[brotherhrolf]

Well, yes. The NO opens rather abruptly compared to the TLM. Likewise the Kyrie X 1 rather than X 3.

Believe it or not the Confiteor used to be said in the NO up until the 80s. The NO in the 70s is not what it is today. Just take a look at the use of the four canons. Which one do you hear the most (#II) One (I) is only used on high feast days and I couldn’t tell you the last time I’ve heard (III or IV). Options, options, and more options - didn’t have that with the TLM.

 

[Like]

EWTN had a new order of priests from Argentina on around All Saints Day. They said the most awesome NO Mass I have seen in years. They sucessfully combined both Latin and English elements and out reverenced the normally reverent EWTN Mass.
I don’t have any problem with that.

Brotherhrolf, Do you have a link to that Mass? Sorry, I can only receive EWTN on the internet.

Thanks & God bless!

 

[markadm]

Believe it or not the Confiteor used to be said in the NO up until the 80s. The NO in the 70s is not what it is today. Just take a look at the use of the four canons. Which one do you hear the most (#II) One (I) is only used on high feast days and I couldn’t tell you the last time I’ve heard (III or IV). Options, options, and more options - didn’t have that with the TLM.

Ah; no, I meant the words of the confiteor being changed; gone are the supplications to the Saints.

I’ve never heard the Roman Canon (EP I) in my home Parish. Ever.

 

[Brother_John]

Just take a look at the use of the four canons. Which one do you hear the most (#II) One (I) is only used on high feast days and I couldn’t tell you the last time I’ve heard (III or IV). Options, options, and more options - didn’t have that with the TLM.

As an altar boy, we HAD to know the first words of each one, to be ready with the bells…and back then as a kid, the five dreaded words were…“We come to you Father…”

oooooooooohhhhhhhhh, noooooooooooooo…he’s doing the LONG one

Most priests I encounter today use II or III. However, our last pastor before the current one, ALWAYS used numero uno. As an adult, I actually prefer it. That priest could sure roll off those saints’ names…but I must admit to having “Peanuts” flashbacks every time he said “Lucy”…she would have made a great nun

 

[brotherhrolf]

Oh, no! He’s doing the long one! Indeed.

Yes, but you forgot it is Linus, Lucy In all seriousness I could not tell you the last time I heard III or IV at my cathedral parish. II is the norm.

Mark - wow! Eucharistic Prayer I is the direct translation of the canon of the TLM into English. Not even on Easter Sunday? Pentecost? How can we call ourselves truly Catholic if we have never heard the Roman Canon either in Latin our in our own languages?

 

[cecilia97]

Why not Bible study for adults and Vacation Bible school for kids…its fun?

Almost every Cathlic parish I’ve been a member of offers both these things. It’s up to the individual to take advantage of them and to educate himself about his faith (or educate his children). Don’t blame the Church for the actions of lazy people.

Grandma says “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”.

The whole premise of this thread is rather unscientific since we have no proof that there’s currently any mass exodus from the Church to Mormonism.

 

[mgrfin]

See the difference for yourself. There are more prayers in the Traditional Mass plus you kneel to receive communion on the tongue. Altar boys only, Traditional Music, the priest faces the Tabernalce not the people and the sermons are on teachings of the Church that have been handed down.
Latin is no problem. The missal has the translation. Very easy to follow after only a few times.
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

Talk about going backwards - nothing like putting your back to the faithful when we pray.

Does the priest give little hand signals to the altar boy when to change the Book from the Epistle side to the Gospel side?

There are more genuflections by the priest (I think 8).

Does the altar boy ring the bell at the Sanctus? Also after the specific consecrations? (That’s because the people supposedly don’t know when it happened)

Then, there is the ‘last Gospel’, which ironically, is the first chapter of St. John’s Gospel. It was read when people were fleeing out the door. And then there was this strange custom of saying prayers after the Mass by the priest at the foot of the altar. Does that still exist?

The Mass had all these little clues to the altar boy when to do something, or make some response in Latin (hand signals, actions like turning to the people, or genuflecting).

Talk about strange. Some 8 year old boy speaking Latin. “Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis, ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui, ad utilitatem quoque nostram, totiusque Ecclesiae suae santae.”

Let me tell you, you could get excommunicated in the Diocese of Orange (county in California) if you try kneeling to receive Communion. Orange County? The most Republican, red necked county in all of the United States. And you better not stick your tongue out at the Bishop to receive communion. He will pass you by.

Missal, or no missal, proclamation of the Gospel in a foreign language is very troubling.

I love the latin Canon, but that is because I am fluent in Latin, and I think, and this is a very personal thing, it is very powerful.

But, this is all going backwards…

peace

 

[brotherhrolf]

The Bishop would pass me by? Even as a member of the choir? Thank God, not in my diocese.

 

[jkarp]

Talk about going backwards - nothing like putting your back to the faithful when we pray.

Does the priest give little hand signals to the altar boy when to change the Book from the Epistle side to the Gospel side?

But, this is all going backwards…

peace

You’re opinion regarding the orientation of the priest is rather misguided. I would highly recommend reading the book Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer by Father Uwe Michael Lang (forward by Cardinal Ratzinger). In short, the priest shouldn’t “face the people” or “face away from the people.” The priest should face the Lord. Whether or not that happens to be facing the same direction as the congregation (ad orientem,or “to the east”) or in the opposite direction as the congregation (*versus populum, *towards the population), the prayer’s direction is to be *versus Deum per Iesum Christum *(to God through Jesus Christ).

Highly Recommended Reading:
Turning Towards the Lord** by U.M. Lang**

And you better not stick your tongue out at the Bishop to receive communion. He will pass you by.

If this is true, this appears to be quite an abuse. A bishop denying a sacrament to a person attempting to receive in a approved posture? I have a very hard time believing this.

 

[mgrfin]

You’re opinion regarding the orientation of the priest is rather misguided. I would highly recommend reading the book Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer by Father Uwe Michael Lang (forward by Cardinal Ratzinger). In short, the priest shouldn’t “face the people” or “face away from the people.” The priest should face the Lord. Whether or not that happens to be facing the same direction as the congregation (ad orientem,or “to the east”) or in the opposite direction as the congregation (*versus populum, *towards the population), the prayer’s direction is to be versus Deum per Iesum Christum (to God through Jesus Christ).

In the old rite, the priest faced to the east, so I guess this is 'versus Deum".

More appropriately, the priest should face like Jesus did at the Last Supper. He was in the center of the table, surrounded by his Apostles. As close as this is possible with a large congregation, the priest faces the laity, as it were, surrounded by them.

The idea of an altar rail further separated the priest from the people. That is why the altar rail was removed.

I fully understand the liturgy of 1945. I was an altar boy at the time.

peace

 

[Dianne2us]

Ah, but we did understand the language. When I received my First Holy Communion in 1958 at age 7, I also received what was called then my “little missal”. The Latin was on the left side of the page and the English was on the right. The rubrics (in red) explained the actions of the priest on the altar. My mother knelt next to me and pointed out word-for-word as it was being said on the altar. This was in addition to the catechesis we received in school.

Then I became an altar boy at the end of third grade. Father taught us the Mass and then drilled us on our responses during the summer between third and fourth grade. When I was confirmed in 1963, I received my “big” (or adult) missal which included more of the readings and prayers. I still have both of my missals in my possession as does my wife.

Yes, the readings were in Latin and yes they were read again in English. Priests didn’t give homilys back then, they gave sermons and sermons didn’t necessarily have anything to do with the readings. The readings today are one of the best things that came out of Vatican II. That I wouldn’t change - nor would I change the homily.

What I get out of it personally? Hard to explain. Emotions have a lot to do with it. I recognize that this is the same Mass that my ancestors responded to - often at great danger to themselves -e.g. the Irish out in the countryside when Mass was forbidden by the English. Part of it was being an altar boy. Altar boys had a far greater role then than the servers today. Being focused towards God rather than focused towards the community.

In all honesty, the wide variety of abuses I see today if I venture away from my cathedral parish. I’m at Mass to worship God not to fellowship with my fellow parishoners. It’s not about us, it’s about Him. I think that’s what it all comes down to.

That makes sense. Sometimes its sad when things change that you have grown fond of.

 

[jkarp]

In the old rite, the priest faced to the east, so I guess this is 'versus Deum".

No, that would be *ad Orientem *(Orientem means east). The point of my post (and the book) is that the direction of the prayer is to God not to the people, not to the wall, not to the east, not to anything or anyone else.

In both the old and new rites, the priest faces the altar. In the old rite, the altar was generally attached to the back wall. The Novus Ordo directs that the altar should be constructed to be freestanding so that one may move around it. This allows the priest in the Novus Ordo Mass to celebrate either* ad orientem *(as in the “old” way) or versus populum (the “new” way); there is no preference by the Church. In fact, Pope Benedict celebrated Mass on the feast of the Baptism of the Lord ad orientem.

 

[mgrfin]

No, that would be *ad Orientem *(Orientem means east). The point of my post (and the book) is that the direction of the prayer is to God not to the people, not to the wall, not to the east, not to anything or anyone else.

In both the old and new rites, the priest faces the altar. In the old rite, the altar was generally attached to the back wall. The Novus Ordo directs that the altar should be constructed to be freestanding so that one may move around it. This allows the priest in the Novus Ordo Mass to celebrate either* ad orientem *(as in the “old” way) or versus populum (the “new” way); there is no preference by the Church. In fact, Pope Benedict celebrated Mass on the feast of the Baptism of the Lord ad orientem.

I think you are getting stuck on definitions. Most churches built in this country were built where the aisle runs from west to east, or (orient, if you insist). In this rite you are describing, even is the aisle ran to the south, it still wouldn’t matter since the Mass would have it so that the priest has his back to the people. So, he faces the south, and the people face the south. He is still out of touch with the people - that is the point.

Regardless of what rite you are using, the priest should be leading the people in prayer, facing them. A conductor in a symphony faces the musicians. That is what the priest is, if you will, a conductor, leading. His back to the laity is purely rude to me.

peace

 

[markadm]

Mark - wow! Eucharistic Prayer I is the direct translation of the canon of the TLM into English. Not even on Easter Sunday? Pentecost? How can we call ourselves truly Catholic if we have never heard the Roman Canon either in Latin our in our own languages?

Nope, never it seems.

Of course my memory may be shaken, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard EP I in my own Parish. And we have never ever spoken/sung a word of Latin (or any other non-English language) in the time I’ve been there.

You will understand, therefore, why I choose to “commute” to an FSSP Apostolate on Sundays/major Feasts.

 

[mikew262]

errors of the “spirit of vatican II”.

Ken

And what errors might that be?

 

[stmaria]

I think you are getting stuck on definitions. Most churches built in this country were built where the aisle runs from west to east, or (orient, if you insist). In this rite you are describing, even is the aisle ran to the south, it still wouldn’t matter since the Mass would have it so that the priest has his back to the people. So, he faces the south, and the people face the south. He is still out of touch with the people - that is the point.

Regardless of what rite you are using, the priest should be leading the people in prayer, facing them. A conductor in a symphony faces the musicians. That is what the priest is, if you will, a conductor, leading. His back to the laity is purely rude to me.
peace

What theology school did you get your degree from? The priest is a conductor? Leading a symphony? His back to the people is rude?
The Mass is a sacrifice, Not a concert.
Do you disagree with this quote?

" a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a** common direction for prayer"**

 

[Hesychios]

Have you even read the entire thread? I don’t think anyone was trying to “kill the messenger” as you say. Oh,well. Good luck with that

Yes, I did!