Do you want the EF as normative for the entire Latin Church?

[Fairwinds]

…- on arrival, a young woman was seen not to bother genuflecting when going into her seat. I presume this was because her skirt was so obviously short that it barely covered her buttocks whilst she was standing, and so genuflecting would have caused (more) problems with modesty…

• priests often failed to acknowledge the presence of the tabernacle, often breezing past without a second thought…

I voted for the ordinary form exclusively.

I don’t like latin, but that’s not the main reason. I don’t like this kind of angry scrutiny (especially of the priests who “breeze by the tabernacle”), the us-against-them divisiveness and all it implies. the same people attending that ordinary form Mass will attend the latin mass if that’s all there is. babies will cry, people will seat late (unless you were also watching the doors they may have been standing in the back, looking for a seat, possibly at an usher’s direction).

one question: in your parade of horrors, why do you selectively use the indirect form “a young woman was seen” and then give a detailed description of her attire and figure? why were **you **paying so much attention to her?

 

[JRKH]

There is only one “proper” way to receive communion - receiving on the tongue, while kneeling.

Receiving in the hand is an “indult”, widespread in Western nations.

(I presume the two ways you mention are on tongue, and on hand? Sorry If I misunderstood).

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong…but doesn’t an “indult” make the thing “proper” where “proper” = permissible.
I think that what you mean to say is that the norm is kneeling and on the tongue.

Peace
James

 

[babochka]

Some Eastern parishes use a lot of the vernacular in the Mass while others use more Coptic, Slavonic, Aramaic, etc.

But Coptic, Slavonic, Aramaic, etc. are generally the vernacular for a large part of the population a those churches which use these languages. The Chaldean church near me uses Assyrian/Aramaic, with some Arabic and English because those are the languages spoken in that community. One of the Ukrainian churches uses Slavonic and Ukrainian, while the other uses exclusively English. The Maronite church uses a combination of English, Arabic, and Aramaic. My own church uses English almost exclusively, as does the Melkite church. Each of the churches that use a language other than English does so in order to serve the needs of immigrant parishioners. Our tradition (at least Byzantine - I can’t speak for other rites) is to pray the liturgy in the language of the people. This goes back to Saints Cyril and Methodius, who translated the liturgy from its original Greek into the language that we know as Church Slavonic, so that it could be understood by the people. When our people immigrated to other lands, the liturgy was translated and prayed in other languages to meet the needs of the people. When our people first came to this country, they prayed in Slavonic, as they had in their homeland. When their English-speaking children and grandchildren came of age, the liturgy was duly translated into English, to serve their needs.

 

[jwinch2]

Voted yes with no exceptions because my true answer wasn’t available so I will say it here:

Not for the entire Latin Church - but I want all the other Latin Rites to go back to their traditional Rites rather than say the OF or the newer version of their Rite (i.e. Ambrosian EF, Dominican Rite, etc).

I also want to keep the Anglican Use liturgy - and if desired, in the vernacular. In fact if the OF got swapped with the Anglican Use liturgy I’d be happy.

Its funny that you bring this up. I just posted on this exact thing in another thread. I guess great minds really do think alike.

I am pretty much in agreement with this. The Anglican Use liturgy, as it developed from the Pastoral Provision of His Holiness, John Paul II, is a pretty good approximation of what enacting the liturgical reforms of Vatican II might have looked like if done in continuity with tradition rather than a break from it. It has three Scripture readings, to include one from the OT, rather than 2. It is in the vernacular. It does increase the number of responses from the laity, and encourages their participation in song, but it does not turn them into “ministers” or confuse the Faithful about he nature of the Sacred Priesthood. Here is a good example of what this could look like: youtube.com/watch?v=Q251EywW__M

The video quality is poor, but the Mass is beautiful.

 

[GWright]

Actually, as I understand it, this is not exactly true.

Hi there,

You are right, thanks for correcting me.

I was really meaning that things had been largely constant for nearly 2000 years, but you are correct there were slightly different versions over time.

With all due respect, what you want is a return to reverence - regardless of the form the mass used.

Excellent point and yes, if the novus ordo was more reverant than I would be much happier with it.

My issues with it are not purely regarding reverance, but they largely are.

I also dislike the vernacular languages, as I feel these are a barrier between Catholics.
It makes sense for the Unviersal Church to have a Universal language.

Sure, I cant “speak latin” but during a latin mass I know what the priest is saying - thanks to hearing it often, or from using my missal. Accordingly, I could go into any latin mass in any nation in the world, and follow what was happening.

But when every nation uses its own language for the mass, that is an obvious barrier.

Also, if we only had latin masses - it would be dead easy to find a mass when on holiday. Just go to the nearest church and “bobs your uncle”.

However, with vernacular masses, you need to scrape around looking for an english language mass - which may not exist, or be very limited or whatever. And in my experience, such tourist masses are usually full of non-english speakers trying to use english as a common medium, with the result that the mass is usually shambolic*.

(*I attended a mass in english, in Venice, (Italy), but there were all kinds of nationalities at it, and the Priests english was quite poor and halting. I could have wept, it was actually painful. Looking back, I regret not volunteering to do a reading, as having my Scots accent in the confusing mix would have been the icing on the cake lol).

If the EF became norm…all of the “norms” of behavior in the pews that you abhor would be seen in the Tridentine mass just as they are seen in the N.O. now.

A very wise point, with unarguable logic.

(thats why I am happy for the N.O. to remain - the noisy / thoughless people can keep going to that, so as not to ruin my latin mass haha! )

So - While I support your desire, that desire needs to be recognized for what it is…not so much a problem with the form of mass, but rather with the reverence with which it is approached.

I think you are largely right and I apprcciate hearing your thoughts on this.

I have heard the rubics of the N.O are “too loose” and allow abuses / “ad-libbing” but I am no expert and so I wont pursue that point here.

To be honest, Im not keen on creating a new “hybrid” mass - we could very easily make a pigs ear of that and so endure another half century of chaos and decline.

Why not just go back to “the mass of all time”? We know it ‘works’.

Incidentally, I am sure the Council of Trent made a statement saying it was forbidden for anyone to create a “new mass”, another reason to avoid invention.

Peace
James

Cheers mate - I appreciated your thoughts.
Graham

 

[Basilios]

The Tridentine Mass was a reform of the previous uses.

Not as far as I know. This is a myth promoted usually by neo-conservatives who want to show the legitimacy of a complete overhaul in a specific Rite as a way to justify the changes and departure that the Pauline Missal represents. St Pius V did not ‘reform’ in the same way as the Pauline Missal was a reform. The idea that St Pius ‘reformed’ the Missal is true if you mean it in one way and false if you mean it in other. If St Pius was a reformer, then it makes Pope Paul VI something-not-so-good in comparison.

Pope St Gregory the Great reformed the previous Roman Mass.

But did he though? This is another myth - at least when one is trying to use the same meaning of reform as when someone says “The Pauline Rite is a reform of the 1962 Rite”. If Pope St Gregory reformed the Mass; then one cannot use reform in the same sense as what happened between 62 and 96. Whatever word you want to use, reform is not the word.

I tend to think that “the way it was intended” means properly executed, proper reverent actions retained, retaining Roman liturgical art (images, statues, beauty, etc).

The way some intended, definitely. But it is well documented that many in fact didn’t intend that. What they intended was what we have right now. This isn’t conspiracy theory, this is fact based on a thousand and one articles based on quotes and historical facts surrounding the creation of the new Rite. The liturgical committee that created the new order of Mass were mostly not ones who would’ve wanted reverence, sacrificial and eucharistic theology or Roman liturgical customs or aesthetics. They mostly wanted something that distances itself from that - this is an historical fact. They wanted to depart from traditional observances and piety and liturgy in the name of ecumenism, in the name of updating, and in a sense of false archeologism.

“But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.” - Venerable Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei

Amen to that

 

[Zekariya]

But Coptic, Slavonic, Aramaic, etc. are generally the vernacular for a large part of the population a those churches which use these languages. The Chaldean church near me uses Assyrian/Aramaic, with some Arabic and English because those are the languages spoken in that community. One of the Ukrainian churches uses Slavonic and Ukrainian, while the other uses exclusively English. The Maronite church uses a combination of English, Arabic, and Aramaic. My own church uses English almost exclusively, as does the Melkite church. Each of the churches that use a language other than English does so in order to serve the needs of immigrant parishioners, not out of a desire preserve the language of the home country.

Coptic, Slavonic, Aramaic are dead languages. The people who once spoke Coptic and Aramaic now speak Arabic. Slavonic has been replaced with Russian, Ukrainian, ect.

 

[GWright]

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong…but doesn’t an “indult” make the thing “proper” where “proper” = permissible.

An indult is essentially permission to “do it wrong”.

Certain Bishops introduced communion in the hand on their own authority, the indults were the Vatican way of trying to make it look official and prevent the practice from spreading, which was a failure.

I think that what you mean to say is that the norm is kneeling and on the tongue.

Same difference! (but I understand the point you make).

 

[Zekariya]

Not as far as I know. This is a myth promoted usually by neo-conservatives who want to show the legitimacy of a complete overhaul in a specific Rite as a way to justify the changes and departure that the Pauline Missal represents. St Pius V did not ‘reform’ in the same way as the Pauline Missal was a reform. The idea that St Pius ‘reformed’ the Missal is true if you mean it in one way and false if you mean it in other. If St Pius was a reformer, then it makes Pope Paul VI something-not-so-good in comparison.

But did he though? This is another myth - at least when one is trying to use the same meaning of reform as when someone says “The Pauline Rite is a reform of the 1962 Rite”. If Pope St Gregory reformed the Mass; then one cannot use reform in the same sense as what happened between 62 and 96. Whatever word you want to use, reform is not the word.

The way some intended, definitely. But it is well documented that many in fact didn’t intend that. What they intended was what we have right now. This isn’t conspiracy theory, this is fact based on a thousand and one articles based on quotes and historical facts surrounding the creation of the new Rite. The liturgical committee that created the new order of Mass were mostly not ones who would’ve wanted reverence, sacrificial and eucharistic theology or Roman liturgical customs or aesthetics. They mostly wanted something that distances itself from that - this is an historical fact. They wanted to depart from traditional observances and piety and liturgy in the name of ecumenism, in the name of updating, and in a sense of false archeologism.

Amen to that

Oh, to be clear, I do not see the Mass of Pope Paul VI as being a reform in the same sense of the other reforms that I mentioned. The Roman Mass had been organicly-reformed over 2,000 years until it was drastically edited and changed in the 60’s.

 

[babochka]

Coptic, Slavonic, Aramaic are dead languages. The people who once spoke Coptic and Aramaic now speak Arabic. Slavonic has been replaced with Russian, Ukrainian, ect.

I have an Iraqi friend who’s native language is Assyrian. She tells me that Assyrian is essentially the same as Aramaic, with a few differences in pronunciation/usage. Sort of an old English/modern English difference. I’m not at expert, so I have to defer to her knowledge. Slavonic is essentially old Bulgarian, which is the mother language of the Slavic languages, and is intelligible to speakers of modern Slavic languages, particularly Eastern Slavic languages, much as Latin is intelligible to speakers of Italian and Spanish. I don’t actually know anything about Coptic, so I shouldn’t have mentioned it.

 

[PRmerger]

An indult is essentially permission to “do it wrong”.

Could you cite your source, please?

 

[babochka]

I also dislike the vernacular languages, as I feel these are a barrier between Catholics.
It makes sense for the Unviersal Church to have a Universal language.

Sure, I cant “speak latin” but during a latin mass I know what the priest is saying - thanks to hearing it often, or from using my missal. Accordingly, I could go into any latin mass in any nation in the world, and follow what was happening.

But when every nation uses its own language for the mass, that is an obvious barrier.

Also, if we only had latin masses - it would be dead easy to find a mass when on holiday. Just go to the nearest church and “bobs your uncle”.

However, with vernacular masses, you need to scrape around looking for an english language mass - which may not exist, or be very limited or whatever. And in my experience, such tourist masses are usually full of non-english speakers trying to use english as a common medium, with the result that the mass is usually shambolic*.

I’ve frequently, when traveling attended Masses in German, Spanish, French and Italian. I would attend Mass in English if it were convenient, but I’ve never felt the need to go out of my way to find one. It is still the Mass, and I still know what’s going on. That’s the universality of the church. No matter what the language, the same Mass is celebrated - it is the same sacrifice. That transcends language.

 

[godisgood77]

Mainly because the “EF” (as its now known) was normative for the entire Latin Church for nearly 2,000 years, and was then done away with due to very questionable wisdom indeed.

Your comment about the ‘EF’ being normative for the entire Latin Church for nearly 2000 years simply is not true. Might want to double check your history.

 

[Esrb99]

I have an Iraqi friend who’s native language is Assyrian. She tells me that Assyrian is essentially the same as Aramaic, with a few differences in pronunciation/usage. Sort of an old English/modern English difference. Slavonic is intelligible to speakers of modern Slavic languages, much as Latin is intelligible to speakers of Italian and Spanish. I don’t actually know anything about Coptic, so I shouldn’t have mentioned it.

Old english is ‘essentially the same’ as modern english?

Um… I’m pretty sure Latin is closer to italian OE is to ME…

Here’s an example of Old English:

Fæder ūre, ðū ðē eart on heofonum,
Sī ðīn nama gehālgod.
Tō becume ðīn rice.
Gewurde ðīn willa
On eorþan swā swā on heofonum.
Urne gedægwhamlīcan hlāf syle ūs tōdæg.
And forgyf ūs ūre gyltas,
Swā swā wē forgyfaþ ūrum gyltendum.
And ne gelæd ðū ūs on costnunge, ac alȳs ūs of yfele.

Pretty difficult, eh? Here’s the latin translation of that…

Pater noster qui es in coelis,
sanctificetur nomen tuum;
adveniat regnum tuum,
fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in coelo et in terra.
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,
et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
et ne nos inducas in tentationem
sed libera nos a malo.

Maybe still unfamiliar? How about the Italian:

Padre nostro che sei nei cieli,
sia santificato il tuo nome;
venga il tuo regno,
sia fatta la tua volontà,
come in cielo così in terra.
Dacci oggi il nostro pane quotidiano,
rimetti a noi i nostri debiti,
come noi li rimettiamo ai nostri debitori
e non ci indurre in tentazione,
ma liberaci dal male.

If anyone’s still stumped, here’s the modern english:

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name.
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day, our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Old English is more understandable for us than latin to italians? I don’t believe it for an instant.

 

[maryjk]

I also dislike the vernacular languages, as I feel these are a barrier between Catholics.
It makes sense for the Universal Church to have a Universal language.

Sure, I cant “speak Latin” but during a Latin mass I know what the priest is saying - thanks to hearing it often, or from using my missal. Accordingly, I could go into any Latin mass in any nation in the world, and follow what was happening.

But when every nation uses its own language for the mass, that is an obvious barrier.

Also, if we only had Latin masses - it would be dead easy to find a mass when on holiday. Just go to the nearest church and “bobs your uncle”.

However, with vernacular masses, you need to scrape around looking for an English language mass - which may not exist, or be very limited or whatever. And in my experience, such tourist masses are usually full of non-English speakers trying to use English as a common medium, with the result that the mass is usually shambolic*.

(*I attended a mass in English, in Venice, (Italy), but there were all kinds of nationalities at it, and the Priests English was quite poor and halting. I could have wept, it was actually painful. Looking back, I regret not volunteering to do a reading, as having my Scots accent in the confusing mix would have been the icing on the cake lol).

I’m not sure I understand your problem.

It is okay to have a Mass in Latin even though you don’t understand the language. But it is not okay to have a Mass in Italian, because you don’t understand the language?

When I attend a Mass in another language, it is easy to follow along because I know “what comes next.” If for some reason, I want to follow along, I simply print out the Mass in the language of the Mass.

 

[agnes_therese]

There is only one “proper” way to receive communion - receiving on the tongue, while kneeling.

Receiving in the hand is an “indult”, widespread in Western nations.

(I presume the two ways you mention are on tongue, and on hand? Sorry If I misunderstood).

The Church allows Communion in the hand. I don’t have the authority to overrule the Church’s decision.

 

[agnes_therese]

An indult is essentially permission to “do it wrong”.

You might want to re-think accusing the Vatican of deliberately misleading the faithful.

 

[Esrb99]

When I attend a Mass in another language, **it is easy to follow along because I know “what comes next.” ** If for some reason, I want to follow along, I simply print out the Mass in the language of the Mass.

In that case, what’s wrong with mass in Latin then???

 

[babochka]

Old english is ‘essentially the same’ as modern english?

Um… I’m pretty sure Latin is closer to italian OE is to ME…

Here’s an example of Old English:

Fæder ūre, ðū ðē eart on heofonum,
Sī ðīn nama gehālgod.
Tō becume ðīn rice.
Gewurde ðīn willa
On eorþan swā swā on heofonum.
Urne gedægwhamlīcan hlāf syle ūs tōdæg.
And forgyf ūs ūre gyltas,
Swā swā wē forgyfaþ ūrum gyltendum.
And ne gelæd ðū ūs on costnunge, ac alȳs ūs of yfele.

Pretty difficult, eh? Here’s the latin translation of that…

Pater noster qui es in coelis,
sanctificetur nomen tuum;
adveniat regnum tuum,
fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in coelo et in terra.
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,
et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
et ne nos inducas in tentationem
sed libera nos a malo.

Maybe still unfamiliar? How about the Italian:

Padre nostro che sei nei cieli,
sia santificato il tuo nome;
venga il tuo regno,
sia fatta la tua volontà,
come in cielo così in terra.
Dacci oggi il nostro pane quotidiano,
rimetti a noi i nostri debiti,
come noi li rimettiamo ai nostri debitori
e non ci indurre in tentazione,
ma liberaci dal male.

If anyone’s still stumped, here’s the modern english:

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name.
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day, our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Old English is more understandable for us than latin to italians? I don’t believe it for an instant.

Ok, maybe more of an Elizabethan English. At any rate, according to the only native speaker of Assyrian that I know, Assyrian and Aramaic are one and the same, with a few differences in usage and pronunciation. The Assyrian language (also called Syriac) is sometimes called neo-Aramaic. I just did an online search, and found that the similarity is close to Shakespearean English vs. Modern English. Hardly a dead language.

Old English certainly shows the Germanic roots of our language, doesn’t it?

 

[maryjk]

In that case, what’s wrong with mass in Latin then???

Didn’t say there was anything wrong with having Latin in the Mass. In fact, there should be some Latin in every Mass.

Or do you mean the Extraordinary Form of the Mass?