A
Augustinian
Guest
Back when the English mass first came down, I thought they would have translated it into a classier voice as well, with words like “sitteth” and “proceedeth” and “quick and the dead”.
But it was not to be.
- Status
But it was not to be.
S
stpurl
Guest
I do have a question here though.
Is there any reason that the Latin Church should as it were jettison not simply ‘excess’ (and who decides what that is) prayer, not to mention everything from language to music to vestments to responses, in favor of a pretty much unknown supposed ‘early style’ liturgy?
Unless we ourselves are prepared to go back to early Christian style EVERYTHING (that includes, folks, slavery, no industrialization, limited rights for women --silence in the church, ladies!–agrarian living, COMMUNAL living, no more things like flush toilets, refrigeration, etc.) why would we decide that a liturgy that was held under less than optimal conditions (catacomb living, persecutions, barbarian invasions, and all the above socioeconomic and daily living struggles) is somehow ‘better’ than any that came after? As if it is somehow to be preserved in amber instead of being something which developed into the liturgy we now call the EF??? That EF to be completely repudiated and only the ‘early’ part retained?
Sorry, to me a lot of this smacks of a neo-Puritan, ‘bare bones, Jansenist, ascetic kind of one-upmanship. "Look at us, we’re practicing a liturgy that we think is closer to what Jesus would have experienced, that makes it better’ --as if Jesus never had taken pains over some 2000 years to have His people advance in knowledge rather than "Let’s cosplay that we’re third century AD Christians sharing our new, improved, totally wrenched out from a liturgy that had been developing endemically for 2000 years, because we think we can disregard it and go back to the ‘real deal’.
Ironically some of the loudest proponents extolling the OF as being 'purer, closer to the original" etc. are some of the loudest in accusing people who like the EF as trying to take us back to the Middle Ages instead of letting us progress and move forward. We live in the 21st century, people!
We live in the 21st century, yet we’re patting ourselves on the back for trying to recreate a hardly known liturgy from extremely problematic times over 1500 years ago?
And screeching at people who want to celebrate a liturgy that was THE Roman rite until less than 50 years ago, but we’re calling THAT 'going back to the Middle ages"?
It is. . .puzzling.
Is there any reason that the Latin Church should as it were jettison not simply ‘excess’ (and who decides what that is) prayer, not to mention everything from language to music to vestments to responses, in favor of a pretty much unknown supposed ‘early style’ liturgy?
Unless we ourselves are prepared to go back to early Christian style EVERYTHING (that includes, folks, slavery, no industrialization, limited rights for women --silence in the church, ladies!–agrarian living, COMMUNAL living, no more things like flush toilets, refrigeration, etc.) why would we decide that a liturgy that was held under less than optimal conditions (catacomb living, persecutions, barbarian invasions, and all the above socioeconomic and daily living struggles) is somehow ‘better’ than any that came after? As if it is somehow to be preserved in amber instead of being something which developed into the liturgy we now call the EF??? That EF to be completely repudiated and only the ‘early’ part retained?
Sorry, to me a lot of this smacks of a neo-Puritan, ‘bare bones, Jansenist, ascetic kind of one-upmanship. "Look at us, we’re practicing a liturgy that we think is closer to what Jesus would have experienced, that makes it better’ --as if Jesus never had taken pains over some 2000 years to have His people advance in knowledge rather than "Let’s cosplay that we’re third century AD Christians sharing our new, improved, totally wrenched out from a liturgy that had been developing endemically for 2000 years, because we think we can disregard it and go back to the ‘real deal’.
Ironically some of the loudest proponents extolling the OF as being 'purer, closer to the original" etc. are some of the loudest in accusing people who like the EF as trying to take us back to the Middle Ages instead of letting us progress and move forward. We live in the 21st century, people!
We live in the 21st century, yet we’re patting ourselves on the back for trying to recreate a hardly known liturgy from extremely problematic times over 1500 years ago?
And screeching at people who want to celebrate a liturgy that was THE Roman rite until less than 50 years ago, but we’re calling THAT 'going back to the Middle ages"?
It is. . .puzzling.
K
KMG
Guest
Pius XII warned against archaeologism in Mediator Dei.
J
jas84173
Guest
The notion that the OF is more ancient is debatable. Here is why.
The Council of Trent didn’t create the Mass of Pius V in 1570. The Council, to combat liturgical abuses which were a huge concern with the Protestant Revolution, made the Church realize it needed a Liturgical Missal that was universal. Thus the EF Mass Missal of 1570 of Pius V and the last typical edition in 1962 by John XXlll is the legal EF. It’s kind of like the OF. Sure it came out in 1970 but we are now on the third typical edition of 2008.
So the Council of Trent made the Missal propagated binding on the whole Church except some orders which had a liturgy in set for over 300 years. The Council however didn’t just make up a Mass. They basically just legalized the most common way it had been said for centuries. Many argue the EF or Latin Mass had been nearly the same since codified by the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great (ca. 600) and to have lasted intact until 1970. So year 600 is when the Mass in its mostly unchanged form was introduced. Again all the Council of Trent did was make a Missal that was universal which prior too there were variations but still were close to the same. Thus it isn’t as if the Latin Mass only came to be in 1570.
The OF , yah it could be ancient, we have much more historical records now. A few more Eucharistic Prayers that supposedly are ancient. Prayer one is nearly identical to the Eucharistic Prayer of the EF.
As for if Mass was only said by the Priest like in the EF or it was a congregational effort with responses, I don’t think anyone will ever know. Note most of the Mass is the same in both forms besides that in one form the priest makes the sacrifice himself. The other the faithful are more involved. And other aspects such as the priest facing the altar, which I believe is the more ancient form. The last reading in the EF, the beginning of the Gospel of John, is one part of the EF liturgy I really wish the OF took along with it. It basically is reminding us of the gist of what being a Christian means before we leave Mass.
The Council of Trent didn’t create the Mass of Pius V in 1570. The Council, to combat liturgical abuses which were a huge concern with the Protestant Revolution, made the Church realize it needed a Liturgical Missal that was universal. Thus the EF Mass Missal of 1570 of Pius V and the last typical edition in 1962 by John XXlll is the legal EF. It’s kind of like the OF. Sure it came out in 1970 but we are now on the third typical edition of 2008.
So the Council of Trent made the Missal propagated binding on the whole Church except some orders which had a liturgy in set for over 300 years. The Council however didn’t just make up a Mass. They basically just legalized the most common way it had been said for centuries. Many argue the EF or Latin Mass had been nearly the same since codified by the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great (ca. 600) and to have lasted intact until 1970. So year 600 is when the Mass in its mostly unchanged form was introduced. Again all the Council of Trent did was make a Missal that was universal which prior too there were variations but still were close to the same. Thus it isn’t as if the Latin Mass only came to be in 1570.
The OF , yah it could be ancient, we have much more historical records now. A few more Eucharistic Prayers that supposedly are ancient. Prayer one is nearly identical to the Eucharistic Prayer of the EF.
As for if Mass was only said by the Priest like in the EF or it was a congregational effort with responses, I don’t think anyone will ever know. Note most of the Mass is the same in both forms besides that in one form the priest makes the sacrifice himself. The other the faithful are more involved. And other aspects such as the priest facing the altar, which I believe is the more ancient form. The last reading in the EF, the beginning of the Gospel of John, is one part of the EF liturgy I really wish the OF took along with it. It basically is reminding us of the gist of what being a Christian means before we leave Mass.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
Of course I know what you meant. I just think your comment that it is “unacceptable” that people don’t have their preferred form of the mass within easy driving distance is a bit over the top.
I prefer a mass with polyphonic musical choices. It’s unacceptable to me that my archdiocesan website doesn’t let us filter our mass choices on their website by style of music for a mass that is valid.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Hahaha.
The vernacular is 2018 English not Shakespearean English.
The vernacular is 2018 English not Shakespearean English.
…
D
Duesenberg
Guest
My diocese is nearly 200 miles long. When SP was released, the bishop took the initiate and placed it in a number of parishes guaranteeing fairly easy access for all. At least half are struggling. Two have shut down altogether. The demand is weak.
A
anon10271182
Guest
TLM. Not big on guitar Mass or hand shaking and chatting during the Liturgy. Though I have been to some, more reverent services in English. Especially at Guasti.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
I have re-posted this before. It really resonates with me:
"Reasons Why I Prefer the Pauline Mass
As a traditionally minded Catholic Christian I was thinking about why I prefer the abuse-free Pauline Mass over an abuse-free Tridentine Mass. Here is my own “top 10” of the reasons why:
It’s in a Language I Can Understand: While I certainly appreciate the Latin language, I do prefer to FOCUS on the Mass in a truly hardcore manner which I cannot do when I must use a missalette.
The Penitential Rite: Some suggest the EF has no PR, others suggest that function is filled by the celebrant and the server for the entire congregation. Either way I find it extremely cathartic for me to personally take part in the PR and humbling that everyone else present is also personally taking part in the PR.
Enlarged Reading Cycles: This sorta goes without saying. The OF exposes the faithful to FAR more of the Bible with its three cycles. This may be the #1 reason why I prefer the OF – greater exposure to God’s word within the context of the Mass.
More Readings on Sundays: Again, this sorta goes without saying. The readings from the OT and NT epistles, the sung responsorial Psalm and the proclaimed Gospel are a definite improvement of the EF offering.
Lay Readers: This is one area that I think involvement from the laity is a most positive addition to the Mass. To me it underscores the importance of reading and studying the Bible by all members of the Church.
Eucharistic Prayer Collection: The Roman Canon is still my favorite, but in no way is it optimal for all Masses given the other EPs that now exist. I appreciate how the OF allows a priest to pick the EP which best matches that day’s Mass and his own homily.
Sign of Peace: An important and humbling yet joyous and ancient part of the Mass dating from the early church. When visiting celebrants employ it at the daily EWTN Mass, it fills a gap and makes a most positive contribution to the Mass.
Allowance of EMsHC: Until we are choke-full with an abundance of priests and deacons once again at all Masses, there are times where the allowance of EMsHC (in a non-abusive manner per the Church) is a good thing.
Receiving the Precious Blood from the Chalice: The improved sign value of receiving under both species in this matter is very important to me. Perhaps it makes me feel more like I am at the table?
The 46 approved Saturday Masses for the BVM: I REALLY appreciate these 46 individual Masses for the Blessed Virgin Mary (and their optional readings) that are approved for Saturdays."
Ref: Top 10 Reasons Why I Prefer the OF Mass
"Reasons Why I Prefer the Pauline Mass
As a traditionally minded Catholic Christian I was thinking about why I prefer the abuse-free Pauline Mass over an abuse-free Tridentine Mass. Here is my own “top 10” of the reasons why:
It’s in a Language I Can Understand: While I certainly appreciate the Latin language, I do prefer to FOCUS on the Mass in a truly hardcore manner which I cannot do when I must use a missalette.
The Penitential Rite: Some suggest the EF has no PR, others suggest that function is filled by the celebrant and the server for the entire congregation. Either way I find it extremely cathartic for me to personally take part in the PR and humbling that everyone else present is also personally taking part in the PR.
Enlarged Reading Cycles: This sorta goes without saying. The OF exposes the faithful to FAR more of the Bible with its three cycles. This may be the #1 reason why I prefer the OF – greater exposure to God’s word within the context of the Mass.
More Readings on Sundays: Again, this sorta goes without saying. The readings from the OT and NT epistles, the sung responsorial Psalm and the proclaimed Gospel are a definite improvement of the EF offering.
Lay Readers: This is one area that I think involvement from the laity is a most positive addition to the Mass. To me it underscores the importance of reading and studying the Bible by all members of the Church.
Eucharistic Prayer Collection: The Roman Canon is still my favorite, but in no way is it optimal for all Masses given the other EPs that now exist. I appreciate how the OF allows a priest to pick the EP which best matches that day’s Mass and his own homily.
Sign of Peace: An important and humbling yet joyous and ancient part of the Mass dating from the early church. When visiting celebrants employ it at the daily EWTN Mass, it fills a gap and makes a most positive contribution to the Mass.
Allowance of EMsHC: Until we are choke-full with an abundance of priests and deacons once again at all Masses, there are times where the allowance of EMsHC (in a non-abusive manner per the Church) is a good thing.
Receiving the Precious Blood from the Chalice: The improved sign value of receiving under both species in this matter is very important to me. Perhaps it makes me feel more like I am at the table?
The 46 approved Saturday Masses for the BVM: I REALLY appreciate these 46 individual Masses for the Blessed Virgin Mary (and their optional readings) that are approved for Saturdays."
Ref: Top 10 Reasons Why I Prefer the OF Mass
Last edited:
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Nor am I. It’s disingenuous to imply that both are unique to the OF Mass and that neither ever takes place during the celebration of the EF Mass.
The Kiss of Peace on the other hand is ancient, dating to the early church. I am pleased the OF Mass preserves this tradition, although I think it would be more appropriate at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Word.
Last edited:
D
Duesenberg
Guest
I’m not certain that I understand your question, but I will do my best. First, make no mistake – the OF Mass can be celebrated in as solemn and reverent a manner as the Pontifical High (EF) Mass. You mention “jettisoning”, yet you don’t mention the additions to the OF Mass like the greater exposure to Sacred Scripture.
Many of the things that some suggest have been “lost” or “suppressed” – beautiful music, different styles of vestments, bells, incense, etc. have not been and are welcomed by the rubrics of the OF Mass. Suggesting otherwise is unhelpful and just not true.
Further, to suggest we cannot appreciate and more importantly preserve features of ancient liturgical practices from the early church without also going retreating to an ancient secular lifestyle is just silly.
Last edited:
A
anon10271182
Guest
I’ve never seen the “sign of peace,” guitars or socializing during a Tridentine Mass. I have seen this outside the entrance, though, at a parish which offers the TLM:
K
KMG
Guest
“FAR more Scripture”…and yet curiously, key passages that used to be read from Scripture in the EF are completely omitted from the OF. Curious indeed.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Ever been to Italy? You’ll see the same thing outside churches and religious sites that offer…uniquely the OF Mass.
Again, this sort of thing has nothing to do with the form of the Mass.
Again, this sort of thing has nothing to do with the form of the Mass.
S
stpurl
Guest
Thanks for replying, but you didn’t really answer me; you came up with examples of your own (not mine), then criticized THOSE examples.
The mere fact that you mention that the OF ‘can be solemn and reverent’ presupposes the opposite-- that it likewise may NOT be. And for many of us we do not experience the former, but instead experience the latter, through no fault of our own. And I didn’t mention simply the HIgh Mass.
I made no untrue statement. the ‘many’ things like music, vestments etc again like the first ‘may be’ used in the OF but in many many cases are not; therefore are de facto ‘lost’ to the many who no longer experience them. That is true.
As for the ‘appreciate and reserve’, the point was not a ‘silly’ ‘you must go back to the old lifestyle’ but a serious 'why choose a single liturgical time point in which the liturgy practices were NOT really known, and in which one ‘assumes’ or ‘deduces’ ‘might have’ appeared or contained, and erect that as the ‘current’ liturgy, while ignoring every liturgical and theological development in between question.
The mere fact that you mention that the OF ‘can be solemn and reverent’ presupposes the opposite-- that it likewise may NOT be. And for many of us we do not experience the former, but instead experience the latter, through no fault of our own. And I didn’t mention simply the HIgh Mass.
I made no untrue statement. the ‘many’ things like music, vestments etc again like the first ‘may be’ used in the OF but in many many cases are not; therefore are de facto ‘lost’ to the many who no longer experience them. That is true.
As for the ‘appreciate and reserve’, the point was not a ‘silly’ ‘you must go back to the old lifestyle’ but a serious 'why choose a single liturgical time point in which the liturgy practices were NOT really known, and in which one ‘assumes’ or ‘deduces’ ‘might have’ appeared or contained, and erect that as the ‘current’ liturgy, while ignoring every liturgical and theological development in between question.
B
babochka
Guest
I’ve seen a similar sign outside (and in the bulletin) of a parish in an extremely poor neighborhood that has a sign of peace, guitar choir/band comprised of youth volunteers, and a generally casual atmosphere. The Mass there isn’t my cup of tea, but the love of God and neighbor is impressive.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
That’s true of the EF Mass as well. In fact by definition, the low EF Mass is NOT solemn.
They’re not lost, nor suppressed…
S
stpurl
Guest
That’s semantics. You are applying the ecclesiastical form of ‘solemn’ in place of the secular definition ‘solemn/reverent’.
Neither was the EF ‘suppressed’ for some 14 years (1970-1984 Pope John Paul II) and then from 1984 to 2007 (Pope Benedict Motu Proprio) but exactly how many people had ‘access’ to it?
Neither was the EF ‘suppressed’ for some 14 years (1970-1984 Pope John Paul II) and then from 1984 to 2007 (Pope Benedict Motu Proprio) but exactly how many people had ‘access’ to it?
- Status