Help me work through this: Since the TLM is now back, why bother with the Novus Ordo in Latin? [Fr. Z]

[Jedinovice]

I shouldn’t wade into this – I’ll only regret it – but…

I keep trying to say this – different people have different needs! Some love ornate architecture, others simplicity.

Hey, I’ll make this personal to make a point.

I don’t like Latin. I’d attended Pauline rites Midnight masses with Latin, Gregorian chant and incense to the nines. The priest describes the Easter vigil Mass as “The best night of the year.”

Left me cold.

For me, in those kind of Masses, God is a million miles away. He’s a transcendant King, beyond us lesser mortals. Such a Mass was, for me, an alienating experience. Hey, the congregation loved it – and good for them – but it left me cold.

I drop down to a 12th Century Benedictine monastry (a museum) showing a simple alter and chalice. Suddenly, I feel in the presence of God – a mighty King indeed, but who loves the humble. I can’t describe it. The Pauline rite works for me. But I like simple, not too ornate. I like to be involved, not just a spectator.

Fact is that people are different and respond to different things. Now, by the logic of the post, my spiritual understanding is ‘childlike’, ‘milk’ and not meat. Yet I have been a Christian for 23 years after making a commitment at age 13. I’m in a worldwide evangelistic Catholic Community, I have a spiritual director, I do informal apologetics to Protestants and atheists and, if I may so, I’ve been tested by God hard. Praise be, He is now blessing me and I got married this year. Oh, I’ve even written a book refuting Richard Dawkins which is published online. Ok, that’s not a great achievement since logically refuting the good Professor is like shooting fish in a barrel but it suggests I don’t have the mind of a child.

Now I’ve tried all manner of forms of prayer. Yup, including rosary groups! At the end of the day, 23 years on, my prayer style is simple. I read the Bible, I talk informally, intercede informally and listen. As I said to my wife, “It may not be the greatest form of prayer but it’s got me through over twenty years.” And I live in the “People’s Republic of New Labour” where Christianity is nearly a crime and Christian have to start thinking about potential jail time for certain thought crimes

In those 23 years my Mass and prayer preference has not changes . So now I’m being told I’m simple. My faith is ‘immature’ by dint of my Mass (and by logical extension my prayer) preference. Not convinced and find it rather insulting I’m afraid.

Look, there was a reason for Vatican II. The Tridentine Rite was too detached from the people. It was a mystery to most. It needed opening up. Did the Pauline rite go too far the other way? Maybe. Did the Liberal hijack – definitely. But the Liberals have hijacked EVERYTHING in the West since the 1960’s! I live in England, I know! Is there room for a merging of the best of both? I hope so.

But to argue that someone’s faith is ‘simple’ because of their Mass preference, well I just think that’s insulting, particularly to the saints of old who didn’t have access to the sublime Tridentine rite. My, those Agape meal Christians like St Peter and Paul were real simpletons! Besides, the errors of understanding I have met by Traditionalists I have known in my time (examples: “Souls in Purgatory go to hell is no-one prays for them”, “People get to Heaven by their own works” – they don’t know their catechism!) I don’t see spiritual maturity automatically signified by prayer/Mass preference. Indeed, logically it leads to a form of spiritual snobbery, “Well I go to the TLM so I must be more spiritually mature than you.” Now that’s leading to one of the deadly sins – and the biggest.

I see spiritual maturity in faithfulness, wisdom, knowledge of the faith and constancy in prayer. Hey, someone famous once said “By your fruits you shall know them” but “By their Mass.” Someone else said something about “Faith, hope and love.” Hey, one of the holiest, warmest people I knew was an old lady interceding for three hours every day on top of her usual prayer time! She loved the Pauline rite and was a (gasp) Charismatic. Ergo she was spiritually immature…

I do think there is an issue in the Mass in that there are people that respond more easily to different external stimuli. Make the Mass too ‘ornate’ and people like me get alienated. Make it too simple and people like you get alienated. It’s hard to get a balance in a uniform rite. So I say, have one rite but allow some flexibility in presentation so those of us who don’t like two and half hours of Latin and incense can still partake of the Mass and not feel alienated, or, for that matter, judged. (Yes, I know this cuts both ways but I have always supported the liberating of the TLM.) We’re the Church Catholic. We can afford to be a little bit generous to all.

 

[John_Higgins]

Jedinovice:

But to argue that someone’s faith is ‘simple’ because of their Mass preference, well I just think that’s insulting

So true. I see this just like when you ask someone if they watched a particular show on TV and the answer comes back (in a VERY haughty voice) " I ONLY watch PBS!"

Goodness “My Mass is better than your Mass…”

Wow.

John

 

[brotherhrolf]

Look, there was a reason for Vatican II. The Tridentine Rite was too detached from the people. It was a mystery to most.

You’re right! I had no idea what was going on back in 1958 when I made my first Communion. Nor did I know what was going on in 1960 when I became an altar boy nor did I understand when I was confirmed in 1963. Yep, we all just went through the motions.

Well, guess again. First and foremost…none of us back then would have considered being disobedient to the magisterium of HMC. Holy guacamole Batman! Just buy into the fiction that all of us wanted change and that the Tridentine Rite was too detached from the people! Nothing could be further from the truth!

Understand, please, what a sea change Vatican II brought about. You need to understand that the vast majority of us submitted to the authority of HMC. Didn’t mean we liked it. Didn’t mean that we were happy going from traditonal hymns to a’strummin’ and a’grinnin’. We had no choice. That is a very bleak reality.

We have driven 25 miles for 23 years to attend a reverent NO. I’ve sung for years in the cathedral choir using Anglican hymns and translations of OUR Latin hymns, etc. It may not matter to you, but it is a big deal for me. My Irish ancestors had to attend Mass along the hedge rows. That Mass was in Latin.

Latin leaves you cold. Fine. Unfortunately, I’m not dead yet and there is a whole bunch of us 50+ somethings who feel significantly different from you. Do you honestly believe that I wanted to sing Simon and Garfunkle’s Bridge over Troubled Waters and Sounds of Silence at my high school graduation Mass in May of 1969?

(Okay they’re archaic so here’s the link to the two songs…you tell me where the Catholic theology is…)

amazon.com/Best-Simon-Garfunkel/dp/B00002MZ41/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1195858976&sr=8-1

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I shouldn’t wade into this – I’ll only regret it – but…

I keep trying to say this – different people have different needs! Some love ornate architecture, others simplicity.

Hey, I’ll make this personal to make a point.

I don’t like Latin. I’d attended Pauline rites Midnight masses with Latin, Gregorian chant and incense to the nines. The priest describes the Easter vigil Mass as “The best night of the year.”

Left me cold. …

Jedinovice, thanks for your post. I agree that we shouldn’t think someone is less spiritual depending on the form of Mass they prefer. Conversely I’ve heard it said that those who prefer the TLM are really just spiritual children who need the comforts of the bells and whistles and the externals until they grow up to a more mature faith.

However, I think when dealing with the liturgy it is far more objective than what you or I may like. I liken it to educating students. If a teacher is good, he wants to educate his students so they grow in wisdom and virtue. With that goal in mind, he is most likely going to use certain means and reject others. Thus, (as in my example above), if the students all tell him that they really get more out of comic books and find more meaning in Britney Spears videos, (to use an exaggeration), if he is a good teacher he is going to reject their requests. Instead he will impose on them a course of Shakespeare, Homer, and other great works because he knows those will help him accomplish his goals.

Similarly, the Church has already spoken about the superiority of Gregorian chant and about the use of Latin having pride of place in the liturgy. Thus, if someone doesn’t like Gregorian chant or Latin, or ornate, (I would use the word beautiful), architecture well, that’s really too bad. Further, I think the more time they spent with a liturgy in Latin and Gregorian chant in a beautiful church the more they would appreciate it.

Further, I don’t know exactly how Christ celebrated the Last Supper. From what I understand, it was in the context of a pre-established liturgy, the Passover of the Jews. Further, Jesus, being a Jew, was of course familiar with the liturgical traditions of Judaism, and I don’t think those were a simple affair by any means. The Temple, the Hebrew language, the vestments, the exact prescriptions of what the Priest is to do in the OT, and even the Priest going into the Holy of Holies alone (gasp! He’s not facing the congregation), do not speak of a simple, bare bones, liturgical tradition. And the TLM’s roots go back to the 6th century and beyond, so the great majority of Saints would have celebrated a Mass similar to what we have with the TLM.

 

[KathleenElsie]

As there are no, none, zilch Latin NO Masses anywhere within driving distance from us (100 miles) I can not say if it would be a choice for us. We attend TLM when we can and the NO in English at our local parish when we can’t get to a TLM.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am not sure I will succeed in expressing what I want to say, but here goes.

I am not persuaded there really is a basis for making a radical distinction between the TLM and the NO, particularly if one considers the NO when said with reverence and dignity.

I have, rather late in life, come to recognize how profoundly Latin I am. My ancestors were all of the Latin Church. Some were even Italians. The West is so Romanized, in so many ways, that if “de-Romaned” the West would not exist as a conceptual subdivision of humanity. Our laws, our approach to science and technology, our devotion to building, to commerce, our most revered public buildings our concept of ourselves are all Latinate. Much of our language is derived from Latin. Even English is about 1/3 Latin-derived. Even German was “restructured” some centuries ago to more closely resemble Latin structure. Then, of course, there are the Romance Languages. The mundane fact that virtually all western men shave is derived from Rome.

There is something else too. Latins are, and have always been, basically oriented to practical simplicity. Latin thinking embraces logic and reason. It embraces direct address and direct thinking. Certainly, Latin (or western) ways include some elements of ornateness and a sense of mystery, and that’s a fine thing. But even the TLM was very simple in its own way. It had a perfectly logical progression. Latin is a very direct language, and the Latin prayers were direct appeals to a God who could be approached as the Ultimate Person. But like the Roman Forum, grandeur always had its place, but always in a clean, clear way. There were more ornate “high Masses” and very simple “low Masses”. But, if one paid attention at all, both were as clear as clear gets.

I do not in any way denigrate Eastern Catholic ways here. But while deserving of respect and, in many ways, our admiration, they are not the ways of most of us. Nor are our ways theirs, and that’s okay too. But even the Latin “High Mass” was not even comparable to Byzantine ornateness and mysticism, and was rather plain by comparison.

To me, then, the NO is an intensely Latin liturgy. It is direct, logical, organized and crystal clear. To an early Catholic whose second language, if not his first, was Latin, the “low Mass” was the Novus Ordo to him. Even later, when Germanic and Slavic languages surged into virtually language of the West, many, many, many people understood Latin, much as uncounted millions in Europe today understand English. They studied it, and many could read and speak it; from Ireland to Poland; from Finland to Sicily. Latin was retained in the Western Church precisely because it was the language that was at least somewhat comprehensible to many, and approachable to all. At the very minimal, people who grew up with the TLM more or less had the prayers memorized and knew by rote exactly what the Latin meant. It was a practical thing. If English had been the language of the Roman Empire and its sphere of influence, we would be talking about restoring the 'TEM" now, not the TLM.

I love the TLM. I love the NO. They are not different things. In my mind, neither is alien to “us Latins”. To me, it is a small shift to think of the TLM as the “High Mass”; the one that reminds us of the continuity of 2000 years and of those innumerable saints who heard it. It is the Mass of grandeur; of long thoughts and profound piety. It is a small shift to think of the NO as the “Low Mass”; the Mass of everyday; the Mass of practicality and simplicity; the Mass of busy people, where all understanding is direct and immediate.

I think the pendulum did swing too far, but I don’t think the answer is to totally reverse the swing. There is a reasonable and stable state. There will be difficulties in transition. If nothing else, we have a whole generation of priests who don’t know Latin from Tagalog, and they may be resistant. There are true Modernists as well, and haters of Western Civilization and all things traditional. It is going to take time for the pendulum of thinking to get its rhythm. But it will happen.

 

[John_Higgins]

Ridge,

Good comments, but I disagree. My wife was getting her doctorate at a prominent Jesuit university where the Sunday 10PM Mass was, in essence, a Solemn High Novus Ordo Mass. Concelebrated by seven Jesuits, there was also a thurifer, acolytes, a choir, and an orchestra. What a magnificent celebration of the Holy Sacrifice! If churches wanted to do the “smells and bells” in the NO, they could.

John

 

[Jedinovice]

Look, a couple of things here. Having recently had the misfortune of experiencing a liberal American Priest hold Mass (and a Baptism) at my Church recently, I understand more the abuses you encountered. But the American experience is not the same as the rest of the world. I have never known ‘Bridge over troubled water’ at Mass, or anything else by the Beatles – and I live in the UK.

The Pauline rite, I now know, was hideously subverted in the US. The abuses were not limited to the US but it does seem the Liberals REALLY took over in the US. The stories I have read almost make me weep. I was shocked by this priest from Boston who came over for a couple of weeks. I’ll say no more but suddenly I got a lot more sympathy for the US traditionalists when I so just how left wing, political, super-liberal this priest was and how he distorted a Baptism.

But your experience is not that of the world. I also refuse to believe a particular rite is inherently ‘superior’ when ordained by the magesterium. Talking of Jewish ritual and prescribing, the Pauline rite was based on a 2nd Century rite used by the Church. I know this because the Church of England used the same sources as us and have a very similar Communion service. So the liturgy of the Pauline rite was not just invented in the 1960’s out of thin air and does draw upon ancient liturgical practice. It was not pure innovation.

Now it can be argued that Liturgy develops and the Tridentine was an organic development, etc, etc. But that’s not the question here. The question is, is one rite not only inherently superior to another but does attendance at one rite mark great ‘spiritual maturity’ than other. I don’t see it because there have been many rite across the ages and across the world. We can’t pick one and say “This is the Mass for the spiritually enlightened and the rest of you are just plebs.” That’s just a form of snobbery. In saying the Pauline rite is like a ‘comic book’ one is saying hat the Christians of the 2nd Century worshipped in comic book style, that Byzantine rite Catholics are worshipping ‘Mills and Boon’ (say) and anything pre-Trent was not Shakespeare but maybe Chaucer. Historically and globally it makes no sense. The Pauline rite is by far the norm in the East (I belong to a Filipino Community and have an Indonesian Catholic wife) and Africa. It’s boom time for the Church in Africa, and stable in the East. The abuses of the West, especially in the US where it looks things went really crazy are not normative to the rest of the world! My wife has no knowledge of the abuses of the west. None. “Bridge over troubled water” is an American super-liberal abuse I have never heard of such even the UK which follows the US pretty closely. As I say, I was blown away by this loony, anti-war, hippie priest politicising the Mass and changing the Baptism rite on the fly. It was a shock – showing it wasn’t normal in my experience of the Pauline rite.

The West has collapsed by the West has been subject to intellectual attack for over a century. It’s been ideological war. There have been casualties. But that’s not down to the Mass form. By saying the Magesterium produced a ‘comic book’ Mass form is to argue the Holy Spirit was absent from guiding an ecumenical council and from the formation of the central form of our worship. Hey, the talk of the Tridentine as ‘the Mass of all ages’ is the same kind of argument as “The King James is the only true English Translation of the Bible – for all ages.” I’ve read those websites.

 

[Jedinovice]

The error in thinking, on all sides, is demanding that one person’s preference for form = spiritual maturity (which was the whole point of the original post!) I do sympathise with Traditionalists. I do not think the TLM should have been banned as it was. Hippies and militants did take over the implementation of the Pauline rite. It was an implemented disaster in the West. The blasted 1960’s was revolution in the West and it wasn’t right how the revolutionaries took over the Church in the West. But abuse does not equal essence. Furthermore, counter-revolution also goes too far normally. There are now two rites able to be utilised by Catholics in the West. We do have a choice. I applaud that. Reform of the abuses of the past is taking place. So, since we have choice, let’s use it and not sneer at those that have a different preference. I have never argue that the Latin rite was inferior to the Pauline or Traditionalists were less Christian than, I dunno, more ‘contemporary’ style worshippers. But here I’m told those that go to the Tridentine are eating ‘real meat’ and are, thus, spiritually mature and the ‘Pauline’ brethren are/must be spiritually children by attending an inferior rite. That argument makes a mockery of history, of the experience of the worldwide Church (not just the west and certainly not the US) and of Jesus’s criteria for identifying spiritual maturity. Hey, given that Pope B16 uses the Pauline rite, and did JPII, they must be spiritually immature, unformed, eating spiritual milk.

The Tridentine is back. It will affect the implementation of the Pauline rite. Rejoice! The days of the great abuses is ending. The dark night is ending (liturgically. In terms of coming persecution the dark night is deepening, but there you go.) Rejoice and be glad! Let’s not now spoil things with liturgical snobbery.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I have not been to Europe since the early 70s where the transition from the TLM to the NO was still being implemented. All of the Masses I attended then were TLMs.

I have, however, been to NO masses in my diocese and the neighboring diocese and archdiocese. I can count on one hand the number of parishes I have attended which approximate the reverent NO of my parish. I have attended Masses across the US. I don’t believe it is a matter of snobbery on my part. It is simply a matter of memory and what I have personally experienced during the last 40 years.

I have seen the reverence and quiet of a Catholic church before Mass 40 years ago turn into a social club where private prayer beore or after Mass is no longer possible. I have been to parishes where Mass begins not with the sign of the cross, but with “Everyone turn around and introduce yourself to your neighbor in the pew!” I could go on and on.

And then my bishop wrote a one sentence statement published in my diocesan newspaper stating that he “acknowledges” the presence of the Motu Proprio. We currently have one indult Low Mass parish to serve a diocese which is 90 x 120 miles. The Motu Proprio is the first glimmer of hope many of us have had in over 40 years that the abuses which have become so routine may stand some chance of being reigned in.

Snobbery or longing? I do not attend a TLM but a reverent NO parish. Forty years ago, I could walk into any Catholic church the world over and it would be the same experience. So many of us on these forums in the US have “voted with our feet” and drive miles to attend a reverent parish. I don’t believe that’s snobbery. Things in Europe are evidently very different from what all too many of us are reporting from here.

 

[Jedinovice]

Things in Europe are evidently very different from what all too many of us are reporting from here.

---

It certainly does seem that the US experience is particular. The US has been described as a land of extremes and it seems to me (and my Irish fried who has moved to the US) that the Traiditonialists in the US are REALLY traditional and the liberals are virtually Marxists with another name. It’s not great in Europe but it’s not as bad (in terms of liturgy. In terms of Christian prescence, don’t ask!)

So, yes, I think it’s important keep a global perspective on this. Thank you for understanding that - am I mean that sincerely.

But also, the other point I want to make is that people do relate to different things. Wors lke ‘reverence’ and ‘worship’ can be interpreted in different ways. Don’t count me as a liberal on this! I just mean that when it comes to reverence, for me personally, I find I am NOT feeling reverent at, shall we say, ‘high style’ Masses. I just feel distracted, like you and many Traidiotnalists feel distracted by the Pauline rite. The trouble is the peole are wired differently and gain experience in different ways. That does NOT make on inherently spiritually immature (or spiritual mature for that matter.)

So any one rite is going to feel uncomfortable to some. It’s a given. A uniform rite means some feel spiritual uplifted and some distracted. God did not make us all the same. So, to my mind, to have a choice of rites is reasonable sennsible and since we have been given such AND given the pendulaum is swinging the Traditionlists way, let’s be gentle on each other and let us have our preferences as allowed by the Vatican.

I do think it’s important to recognise that the US experience is not the worlds, and, also, to take into account rhe HAMMERING the Church has had in the West. We’ve been at ideological war (leading to literal war) for over 100 years. Of ocurse abuses took place because people WERE determined to undermine the Church in every possible way and, yes, in the US it led to ‘bridge over troubled water.’ In the UK it’s legislation closing the Church down and make practicing your faith a criminal offence! I wish I was exaggerating! So let’s also see the Paulie rite in the context of our time and location. Hey, I admit, I find any wrangling over liturgy in the UK a bit 'amusing; given that the days are approaching when Europe is gonna ban the Mass outright anyway!

I’ve always advocated a high Mass early on Sunday morning for the ‘smells and bells’ crowd and a simple Mass with gentle music later on. Some of us are Pope Pius X, and some of us more like St Francis. Both are saints. There’s room to be the Church Catholic.

Thanks for hearing me.

 

[D317]

Confession time.

I grew up under the “old mass” and was an alter boy in the 1960’s. It was majestic, reverent, and seemed very Holy. Truth was, I didn’t have a clue as to what was being said. I had to memorize the words, but didn’t know the meaning. I knew Agnus Dei was “Lamb of God” but didn’t know which word was lamb, which was God, and what happened to the “of”!!

Today, I understand the meaning of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass like I never had before–and it is beautiful. Would I like some reversions? Sure! I miss the bells rung at the calling down of the Holy Spirit and at the Consecrations. I miss only priests giving Holy Communion. I am concerned about the abuses also.

That doesn’t mean that I want the Mass in Latin any more than I want it in Greek or Aramaic! It is important that people understand precisely what is taking place and to hear & understand every word.

Why are we not discussing the “under performance” of the Homily? This should be the part of the Mass that gets folks fired up with the Word of God. It is often so lame and watered down that it could be pointed to as the primary reason why folks don’t attend mass.

Our priests now walk around the congregation during the Homily and tell stories, as if that will get peoples attention. In the 7 years I’ve attended Mass at my parish, I can not recall a single Homily that addressed abortion, sin, hell, or salvation directly. Oh, they dance around the topics occasionally; but, never hit the nail on the head.

The Homily is the real problem we face today, not the language of the Mass.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I would be willing to acknowledge that my faith was formed in an ethnic context here in the US. I grew up in a parish with French, Sicilian, and Irish influences. I have a French surname but I was raised ethnically 19th century Irish (and I am making that distinction to acknowledge that just like my Acadian French ancestors, my Irish ancestors carried on their culture as they received it.)

I have no problem with the Pauline rite as it is celebrated in my cathedral parish. We do “smells and bells” quite well, actually. But I have to drive 25 miles to attend and have done so for the last 24 years.

I don’t feel like I am an elitist. By 1967 when my new parish church was consecrated, I was the senior altar boy and knelt and kissed the archbishop’s ring. A year later, it was whip out the guitars…

I am not going to say that what I feel is universal. I have friends of my age on these forums for whom the change was welcomed and embraced. I guess the best way I could put it would be…I would give anything for people to keep their mouths SHUT before Mass like they did when I was a kid.

If we were wrong 40 years ago with too much emphasis on The Most High, the pendulum has swung to too much emphasis on community today.

I was 17 when I graduated from a Catholic high school in 1969. Jedinovice doesn’t have a clue as to who Simon and Garfunkle were (it would seem). Sic transit gloria mundi! Paul Simon is still around, young Jedi. Like me, he’s not dead yet!

Plainsong is gentle music to me. Evidently, y’all over in GB and Ireland aren’t hearing what is going on over here.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I grew up under the “old mass” and was an alter boy in the 1960’s. It was majestic, reverent, and seemed very Holy. Truth was, I didn’t have a clue as to what was being said. I had to memorize the words, but didn’t know the meaning. I knew Agnus Dei was “Lamb of God” but didn’t know which word was lamb, which was God, and what happened to the “of”!!

For every one of my generation who says they didn’t have a clue as to what was being said, I ask:

Did you have a handy-dandy St. Joseph Missal when you were in the pew with your folks and not serving Mass? I did. 1958 St. Joseph “little Missal” for first Communion and 1962 St. Joseph “big Missal” when I was confirmed in 1963. What about the prayer cards that were on the altar which included the English translation on the right side. ?

“I had no idea what I was saying”. Baloney. The sheer number of Latin words adopted into the English language during the Shakespearean period makes mockery of this. Dominus - domination or lordship. Non - no (oh that is so tough) sum dignus (dignity - worthiness). Good Lord! I wanted to take Lati in high school but my parents forbade it - “learn a useful language like Spanish”…Cognates -all over the place then and today now.

I KNEW what I was saying. If I didn’t know what I was saying then explain to me how the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons, France when he departed from the “script” of the Mass and gave the Apostolic Blessing in Latin that I didn’t have a clue as to what he was saying?

I get so tired of this baloney that we didn’t know what we were saying back then. It’s an urban legend, you know and we don’t want to go there.

 

[Jedinovice]

Absolutely what seems to have happened in the US was (is?) extraordinary. Having said that, we do have guitars (and terrible choirs!) in the UK. My parish being a prime example of hideous music at the 9:30! I personally don’t have a problem with guitars in principle but it seems that in the US guitars were used to turn the Churches into rock concerts. I does appear that happened in the US was almost like the Vietnamisation of the Mass. The protests against Vietnam and the radical elements in it made everything up for grabs. I got a flavour of this, as I say, with this Boston priest. He literally still seemed to think the Vietnam war was still being fought. It was weird. His memory was clearly going but his radicalisation was clear to see and gave me photograph of what must have happened your way. You have my sympathy!

Also, in regard to the old Mass being a mystery, I’m not saying the Tridentine Mass was incomprehensible to people. I’m saying that reform was needed because people were being excluded. In some parishes the Priest whispered everything, mumbled it and the laity just WATCHED the Mass - or brought their rosaries. That’s was well established fact. It was LONG acknowledged that the Tridentine needed reform. Ratzinger supported reform! Many though the Pauline rite went too far. Maybe - though I prefer to think the Holy Spirit is involved in the construction of any approved rite, in line with the infallibility of the Magesterium.

Now, does that mean the Tridentine Mass is an inferior rite? No. It lasted for several centuries. Indeed, it is back. But… while a minority LIKE the Mass that way, they like to feel the TRANSCENDANCE of God, the majority rather like to feel a bit involved. The considerations of Vatican II were that the laity should be involved, praying the Mass, not just praying alongside the Mass, with a greater focus on scripture. A lot of priests were mumbling the Mass through in 20-25 minutes.

I think, overall, the problem is that the Tridentine was abused, Vatican II brought in reforms and they were abused. It’s kinda the spirit of the 20th Century. Whatever the Church does is abused.

Particularly so in the US it seems.

But the reaction should not be, “Yeah, well, the Pauline rite bunch are spiritual plebs” which, come on, is the point being made in this thread. After all, in the US it seems the Liberal took over and the Church made a big BAD mistake in banning the Tridentine. That was insensitive. So, post VII the traditionalists heard, “Yeah, well, the Tridentine is archaic, only for oldies who know nothing. We’ll ban it and they’ll have hippy music and like it.” That wasn’t right! But, the danger here is a counter reform ends up with people like me hearing, “Yea, well, the Pauline rite is for spiritual babes, let’s ban it - they’ll have the Latin and incense and like it!” Let’s not become that which we oppose.

My vague hope is that elements of the Tridentine will merge with the Pauline with the consecration taking place with the priest’s back to the people - but facing them the rest of the time! I hope there will be more Latin in the Mass but still keep the vernacular. It is known the current translation of the Pauline rite in English is very inaccurate and new translation is on it’s way. The current rendering (I think it is finalised) looks quite good.

But, for me, having the full Gregorian chant, incense to the nines, Latin all the way, it kinda alienates me. But I know the sort of person I am. Formality is not my nature. I don’t look down on those who find formality comfortable nor who prefer to experience the transcendence of God. That’s why I think there is room for two rites and room for a formal Mass and a less formal Mass. People is different. So you’re never going to satisfy everyone with one rite. That’s the nightmare of the Catholic Church - it wants Uniformity in the Mass, but also knows people come with different personalities. Today we have two rites. That’s some diversity without a Protestant scramble. We can live with that can we not (in principle?)

 

[Jedinovice]

Now, hopefully, we can come together, take each others preferences, look to HELP each other in finding the best expression of the Mass that people are comfortable with (sanctity is hard enough! Why work against your personality?!) If the Traditionalists would look out for the, I don’t know, ‘standard pew sitters’ and the pew-sitters looked out for the Traditionalists, wow, we’d reform and be a hot bed of love!

The point about homilies is WELL made! My complaint is far less the rite and the utter, utter mess our teaching in the Church is! Cor 'eck! I had to learn everything through the internet! The teaching from the priest is USELESS! I had to teach myself and now have to teach everyone else these days. It’s awful! If we concentrate on people understanding the faith properly a lot of the abuses would go away anyway! But I understand you have particular problems in the US. In the UK I would say we have problems with dying priests not being replaced and ineffectual priests. I think this about Cardinal Comic. I know him. He’s a god man, a real pastor, but he’s not media savvy and is ineffectual in the role he’s ended up in. He’s orthodox, but he’s not effective - not when dealing with a aggressive, secularist government that wants a fight. But in the US you seem to have had rampant disobedient priests with a radical agenda. That I don’t think we saw in the UK.

Anyway, if we take into account the fact people relate to God differently (because He, er, makes people different to His purpose) then we look out for each other. There are many factors in people’s lives that affect their spiritual walk and many different influences according to their personality. We can’t raise one spirit influenced rite above another without insulting the Holy Spirit!

We can, however, complain about human madness. Oh yes. But let’s not confuse the two.

 

[D317]

My dear brotherhrolf: Sorry to bring out your frustrations.

I in fact have my 1959 copyright dated Saint Joseph Daily Missal right here! I only had the “big Missal” which I received in 1964.

Since you seem to be a linguist as well as a specialist in specific kinds of delicatessen meats (“baloney”), you will know that there is a tremendous difference between hearing words, reading there meaning simultaneously, and being able to speak the language.

Yes, I followed along in the English, but still couldn’t tell anyone what specific words meant if asked me out of context. Yes, I did know certain phrases, but if asked what “Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est…” meant, I would fall short in the translation as I was only 8-years old. I had a much better understanding, although not perfect understanding, as to what the English words meant.

If all that is required for internalizing the Word of God is to read the English, perhaps we could just have the Mass in Esperanto with English subtitles?

As for your claim of Latin words “adopted into the English language during the Shakespearean period” I still can’t find Dominus, sum dignus, or Cognates in the dictionary (I did find cognate, which the latin is cognatus) BTW). Perhaps I’m not blessed with a good enough dictionary?

I do not have your gift of reading minds (since you are able to tell me what I “knew” back then) so I can’t tell you what you did or didn’t know about the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons, France. Did that gift come from the Holy Spirit?

Since I was not very charitable in my response, I’ll go to Confession this afternoon. I will also pray for you.

 

[brotherhrolf]

My dear brotherhrolf: Sorry to bring out your frustrations.

I in fact have my 1959 copyright dated Saint Joseph Daily Missal right here! I only had the “big Missal” which I received in 1964.

Since you seem to be a linguist as well as a specialist in specific kinds of delicatessen meats (“baloney”), you will know that there is a tremendous difference between hearing words, reading there meaning simultaneously, and being able to speak the language.

Yes, I followed along in the English, but still couldn’t tell anyone what specific words meant if asked me out of context. Yes, I did know certain phrases, but if asked what “Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est…” meant, I would fall short in the translation as I was only 8-years old. I had a much better understanding, although not perfect understanding, as to what the English words meant.

If all that is required for internalizing the Word of God is to read the English, perhaps we could just have the Mass in Esperanto with English subtitles?

As for your claim of Latin words “adopted into the English language during the Shakespearean period” I still can’t find Dominus, sum dignus, or Cognates in the dictionary (I did find cognate, which the latin is cognatus) BTW). Perhaps I’m not blessed with a good enough dictionary?

I do not have your gift of reading minds (since you are able to tell me what I “knew” back then) so I can’t tell you what you did or didn’t know about the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons, France. Did that gift come from the Holy Spirit?

Since I was not very charitable in my response, I’ll go to Confession this afternoon. I will also pray for you.

And I will pray for you since we are of an age.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am not frustrated. Since you and I seem to be of an age, I have a differing opinon from you and one which did not get heard in 1968 or 69.

Shakespeare and his contemporaries did indeed introduce thousands of Latinate words into the English language. I am not a linguist but I am an anthropoologist - linguistics being one of the four sub-disciplines of anthropology.

All those years of me serving Low Mass at 6 am on a weekday before school. All those years of me serving Solemn High Masses. All those recent years of singing in a cathedral choir in Latin. It is not rocket science…cognates are simply words which have a common origion. Pater is instantaly recognizable as father as is mater. Can you understand “Oure faether, thu the art on heofunum”?

The Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons departed from the “script” of the Mass in English and gave the Apostolic Blessing in Latin. Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini…

Five people all of my age or older (out of 30) in a Roman Catholic cathedral choir are able to respond to what was commonplace thirty some-odd years earlier?

Maybe it was just me…or maybe it was the Brothers of the Sacred Heart who mandated five years of vocabulary lessons from 8th grade to 12th grade. I’m not a mind reader but I was an altar boy before Vatican II. I can’t speak Latin anymore than I can speak Spanish…But I read Spanish fluently - required of us anthropology majors in grad school. I can’t conjugate a Latin verb but I can discern cognates.

I was not a wunderkind (oh, gee, a German cognate!) ( and I am sorry for being sarcastic)

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

… I also refuse to believe a particular rite is inherently ‘superior’ when ordained by the magesterium. Talking of Jewish ritual and prescribing, the Pauline rite was based on a 2nd Century rite used by the Church. I know this because the Church of England used the same sources as us and have a very similar Communion service. So the liturgy of the Pauline rite was not just invented in the 1960’s out of thin air and does draw upon ancient liturgical practice. It was not pure innovation.

… By saying the Magesterium produced a ‘comic book’ Mass form is to argue the Holy Spirit was absent from guiding an ecumenical council and from the formation of the central form of our worship. Hey, the talk of the Tridentine as ‘the Mass of all ages’ is the same kind of argument as “The King James is the only true English Translation of the Bible – for all ages.” I’ve read those websites.

Hi Jedinovice,

I used the term “comic book” as an exaggeration to make the point that just as teachers should not necessarily indulge students’ preferences, so the Church should not necessarily conform the liturgy to any particular preference. I don’t mean to say the New Mass is a “comic book” Mass. Though I do not think it is in line with organic development.

I do think the Holy Spirit ensured that the New Mass would be valid. However, I don’t think there is any guarantee that Archbishop Bugnini and his committee would bring forth a liturgy which is necessarily just as good as the Tridentine or better.

Regarding the New Mass being based on a 2nd Century rite I assume you are primarily referring to the canon of Hyppolytus. I think Fr. Joseph Fessio’s comments are apropos here:

 "One problem, both at the time of the Council and after, is rationalism, which the Holy Father has spoken against. This is the idea that we can do it all with our own minds. The liturgists after the Council tried to construct a more perfect liturgy. But you know something? When you've grown up in a house and a room is added on and a story added on, a garage is added on, it may not be architecturally perfect, but it's your home. To destroy it and try to construct a new one out of steel and glass and tile because that's the modern idea, is not the way you live a human life. But that's what's happened to the liturgy.

Look at the other canons. First of all, when I celebrate Mass with the Roman Canon, I’ve often had people come up and say, “What canon was that, Father?” I say, “Well, that was the Roman Canon, the one that has been used for about 1600 years.” “Oh, I haven’t heard that.” Generally, you get Canon Two. Why? Because it’s the shortest. So, you can spend all kinds of time with singing, and the commentators explaining things, and a long homily, with big processions and greeters coming in and whatever else. But for the Sacrifice of the Mass, the attitude seems to be “Let’s get that over as soon as we can with Canon Two.”

Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr. Around the year 215, he wrote an outline of how Mass was celebrated in Rome. It was probably never used as a liturgical text because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the celebrant.

Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council, which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, “Oh, let’s pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.” That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically criticized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei.

     The Third Canon was entirely made up. There has never been a canon like          the Third Canon in the history of the Church, except in bits and pieces.          Father Vagaggini, with the help of Father Bouyer, I believe, actually          constructed it using their knowledge of liturgical history, which was          enormous. But they totally invented the canon. It would be like taking          piece of a carrot, a piece of a tomato, a piece of a peach and a piece          of some tree, then putting them together and saying, "Well, you see that?          It's organic." But it's not organic; it's constructed.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp