Improving the NO

[Uncle_Norbert]

Re-introducing Latin into the NO will take a long time. Most people seem to think that since its a foreign language, there is no way they can understand it. My advice is to learn the Gloria, Holy Holy Holy, Our Father, and Lamb of God, in Latin. These four are easily memorized, especially in conjunction with a gregorian chant CD. Then there are simple grammar instructions for homeschoolers grades 1-5 widely available. These are very simple steps to take, and the results are very rewarding.

With a LITTLE effort, these prayers will no longer be in a “foreign” language.

Why would I want to “memorize” in Latin, what I can readily understand and read in English? The Mass is already so “rote” as it is, said in language we DO understand readily. Why make it more so, and reduce the congregation to observers?

 

[peregrinator_it]

Few are quicker to complain about any thread suggesting any changes to the NO than WanderAimlessly. The persecution complex he (she?) seem to have would be a bit amusing if he (she?) weren’t so hypocritical about these threads.

Why complain that the NO is being attacked in a thread if you are at the same time participating in a thread that is the polar opposite - suggesting changes to the TLM.

It is hypocrisy and it is dishonest.

Uh, sorry, I don’t get the same impression that you do.

I don’t think participating in a thread equates to supporting the position of the OP, or the majority position, or any position, in fact, but your own.

The link you gave shows WanderAimlessly jokingly warning someone about suggesting improvements to TLM in the “Traditional” forum…

But this is a side track and I’m unwilling to go any farther down it…

I would wish (again) we could discuss the changes with some degree of intellectual honesty (i.e. discuss the changes, only; not mistranslations, not abuses, not the misbehavior of individual congregations, or priests) and without turning preferences into prejudices or dogma…

 

[peregrinator_it]

Why would I want to “memorize” in Latin, what I can readily understand and read in English? The Mass is already so “rote” as it is, said in language we DO understand readily. Why make it more so, and reduce the congregation to observers?

There’s a value in the Mass being “rote” (in any language.) When you memorize something, you make it your own. You have your own “file copy” so, to speak, that can’t be easily destroyed.

When you memorize a prayer, the text of that prayer is always available to your mind, as a subject for further prayer, meditation, for reference… etc.

I’m not saying this very well, but to me one of the rewards, of learning a prayer or Scripture by rote is being able to think and pray on the words further, or being able to use it in answer to questions I may have…

 

[James0235]

As a former Latin teacher, I would like to say that a first year Latin student would most definately have left out the word “spirit.” Or mistranslated it as “mind.” And would also have translated the whole phrase in the wrong case.

One of the first things I learned as a first year Latin student was that you have to try really hard to forget to translate the word “spiritu”.

I have been told by 2 Latin teachers and 3 priests that a 1st year student could have probably translated the Mass better. Of course, unlike how I imagine most learned Latin, we were taught using the Mass as a basis for translation. Just about everything we translated were parts of the Mass. I suppose can see it maybe being different with students who were translating Plato or Cicero instead.

You might be right about the wrong case. But you don’t have to know a word of Latin to realize that spiritu might have something to do with spirit.

But, seriously, as to the above, huh??? I don’t get you at all.

One of my frustrations as one who prefers the OF in (trying) to converse with the Traditionalists, is the majority of them base their complaints about the OF on the wretched ICEL translation and treat it as though it were the original text of the Pauline Mass. Incidentally, the saints & angels etc. are still present in the Latin, but the listing of saints by name has been reduced…

Here is where you are making very little sense. You seem to be complaining about my complaining about the Mass translation. And then you back up my point by pointing out that it is wretched.

If someone’s major complaint about the Ordinary Form of Mass is the poor translation then doesn’t it stand to reason that once their major reason for complaint is taken away form them then they will have no cause to complain.

From what I have seen of the new Mass translations they are pretty darn good. They seem much less dry than our current texts. I am very much looking forward to them.

I will say that the dull English is my biggest complaint.

Other than that I would love to see at least a little bit of Latin used more often. It doesn’t have to much. Really, I know a lot of people in here seem to hate Latin and don’t want to ever hear it but would it really be so difficult to follow along if the priest occasionally said “Dominus Vobiscum”. I really don’t think that is too much to ask.

And then I would like to hear a little more Gregorian Chant used. But, I guess this goes hand in hand with using a little Latin. For a form of music that is given “pride of place” by the 2nd Vatican Council it seems to me that most parishes that I have attended define this as “never under any circumstances to be used”.

No other major complaints here. I could complain about Liturgical abuses. They are the norm on too many parishes. But, that isn’t really fair as they are not permitted in the Mass anyway.

James

 

[James0235]

Uh, sorry, I don’t get the same impression that you do.

I don’t think participating in a thread equates to supporting the position of the OP, or the majority position, or any position, in fact, but your own.

The link you gave shows WanderAimlessly jokingly warning someone about suggesting improvements to TLM in the “Traditional” forum…

Nope. It was in Liturgy and Sacraments.

WanderAimlessly suggested:

WanderAimlessly:

To tell you the truth, I think it would improve the Extraordinary Form if the readings and calendar that the rest of the Latin Rite Catholics use. I have some other ideas, but my asbestos underwear is in the wash

And I personally don’t mind someone expressing their opinion like this. He has something he would like to see changed in the EF of Mass. That is fine.

The problem is that when the OP on this thread did something very similar - suggest some things he would like to see changed in the OF of Mass
Mickey Jackson:

I here humbly offer four suggestions for a “reform of the reform” of the Roman Liturgy, to use the words of Pope Benedict:

1. Reinstate the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar at the beginning of Mass and the Concluding prayer (“May be performance of my services…”) at the end.
2. Eliminate the options found in the Roman Missal: have one penitential rite, one Preface, and one Eucharistic prayer (specifically, make mandatory what is now the Eucharistic Prayer I, aka the Roman Canon).
3. Require that every Mass be said ad orientum
4. Form a commission chaired by Cardinal Arinze to devise and implement a plan to, over the next few years, reinstate the regular use of Latin, with the goal of eventually requiring the Ordinary of every Sunday Mass to be said completely in Latin (with the Propers still in the vernacular).

WanderAimlessly says

WanderAimlessly:

Seriously, why is this thread here other than being another “bash the Ordinary Form Mass” thread.

He accuses the OP of bashing the Ordinary Form of Mass for merely stating his opinion - the very same thing he himself did in the other thread.

That is certainly hypocritical.

James

 

[James0235]

peregrinator_it,

what, if anything, would you like to see changed in the Ordinary Form of Mass?

 

[ac_claire]

And the suggestion by someone to make us once again kneel and receive communion on the tongue at an altar rail will also turn off most US Catholics.

I much prefer kneeling and receiving on the tongue. If this became the norm again, I don’t understand why it would “turn off” anybody. It’s the way it was done for a very long time. Even when I was a kid, we didn’t kneel, but everyone received on the tongue.

Other changes I wouldn’t mind seeing:

-Some Latin, bring back chant.

-Only organ for the music, or (like at my cathedral) sometimes violin or piano on special occasions. My other parish also uses a horn of some sort…trumpet? I don’t know, but they usually pull it out for the final verse of the processional and it’s really nice. No guitars please, no tamborine, nothing “originally composed” by the music director.

-Sign of peace at the start of mass is an awesome idea. It messes with the flow of the liturgy where it is now.

-Lock the doors until the last line of the closing hymn is sung and the procession is out of the sanctuary.

-Just kidding about the locked doors.

-Not so much a liturgical issue, but there should be confession offered before every mass. At least before the Sunday masses.

-Excepting any actual pressing news, save the announcements for the bulletin.

-Any little extra anything that requires us to applaud during mass needs to go.

-Please let me genuflect when entering and leaving the pew without having to fear for my life.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I’m sorry, but I’m going off-topic for the relief of my feelings.

One of the first things I learned as a first year Latin student was that you have to try really hard to forget to translate the word “spiritu”.

I have been told by 2 Latin teachers and 3 priests that a 1st year student could have probably translated the Mass better… I suppose can see it maybe being different with students who were translating Plato or Cicero instead.

I don’t know whether to tell you to lighten up, or to complain that your comment is causing the derioration of my tooth-enamel as (semi-hemi) classicist…

Look, I was being somewhat facetious, hence the smiley.

I suppose it depends somewhat on how old your Latin students are. Anyway, mine (7th/8th grade) wouldn’t have translated “spiritu” not because they forgot but because they wouldn’t know what to do with it (since it looks like 2nd declension, but isn’t, and lunch and other excitements would have chased the entire 4th declension from their minds.) Their strategy across the board tended to be “when in doubt, leave it out” and pray Miss P doesn’t notice.

And being able to translate Cicero or Plato (who wrote in GREEK- more destruction of the tooth-enamel) wouldn’t impede anyone’s ability to translate the Mass.

And yes, the ICEL translation stinks, although to say that a first year could do better might be an exaggeration.

End of self-indulgent Latin teacher rant. I’ll save the more substantive response for another post.

 

[peregrinator_it]

peregrinator_it,

what, if anything, would you like to see changed in the Ordinary Form of Mass?

As my home parish celebrates it (Latin NO, congregtion chants the ordinary & responses, readings in English), nothing essential.

We’ve been doing it this way literally since Vatican II and for all my life.

Our current pastor has introduced some (non-essential) changes that we don’t entirely like, but that’s him, not the Mass. I wouldn’t mind if he’d agree to celebrate it ad orientem.

 

[James0235]

I suppose it depends somewhat on how old your Latin students are. Anyway, mine (7th/8th grade) wouldn’t have translated “spiritu” not because they forgot but because they wouldn’t know what to do with it (since it looks like 2nd declension, but isn’t and lunch and other excitements would have chased the entire 4th declension from their minds.) Their strategy across the board tended to be “when in doubt, leave it out” and pray Miss P doesn’t notice.

I probably took slightly less than the equivalent of first year Latin from a man who taught it at the high school level after having studied it himself at Cambridge (if I remember correctly). And he is now in the FSSP seminary in Nebraska.

And, like I said, everyting we translated was from the Mass. Maybe that changes things a bit.

But, 7th and 8th graders taking Latin is awesome.

And being able to translate Cicero or Plato (who wrote in GREEK- more destruction of the tooth-enamel) wouldn’t impede anyone’s ability to translate the Mass.

Doh! I knew that.

Like I said we didn’t do anything with classical Latin - just ecclesiastical.

And yes, the ICEL translation stinks, although to say that a first year could do better might be an exaggeration.

End of self-indulgent Latin teacher rant. I’ll save the more substantive response for another post.

lol. I have heard the claim from more than one person fluent in the language.

It might be an exaggeration but it is not an exaggeration that is original to me.

James

 

[James0235]

As my home parish celebrates it (Latin NO, congregtion chants the ordinary & responses, readings in English), nothing essential.

We’ve been doing it this way literally since Vatican II and for all my life.

Our current pastor has introduced some (non-essential) changes that we don’t entirely like, but that’s him, not the Mass. I wouldn’t mind if he’d agree to celebrate it ad orientem.

I do not believe there is a single parish in the diocese of Columbus that offers a Mass like this.

The next time I am able to take the 1st Wednesday of the month off of work I am going to head over to Fr. Fox’s parish in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. The Mass he offers one weekday a month sounds very much like Mass at your parish. And I would love to see it at least once.

James

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I will probably get banned for this, but here it goes.

There seems to be almost an elitist bigotry with those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

It seems that the most fervent of those who think the Ordinary Form of the Mass is inferior and thus Christ is less present in the Mass. I not only get this impression from here, but from people I have spoken to in person.

Christ is present fully in both forms of the Mass.

Saying that. Yes, the Ordinary Form of the Mass can be improved, but I think the Extraordinary Form of the Mass can be improved too. I will get back to you on the EF Mass on another thread.

Let me be very, very clear: I am not suggesting that the NO is substantially inferior to the Tridentine Rite. If I have come off as elitist, I apologize, because it is this very same trait that I see and despise in semi- (if not fully) schismatic organizations such as Tradition in Action and the SSPX.

Of course every Mass, no matter what rite it is celebrated in, is the re-creation of the one, eternal Sacrifice of Calvary. Every Catholic is bound to accept that. It is precisely because Christ is truly present in the NO that I offer these suggestions. If the substance of the two rites is the same, then the accidents of the latter should reflect that fact.

I do think that many of the changes found in the Novus Ordo are good and even necessary, most particularly the requirement that the priest recite the Eucharistic prayer aloud (it stops him from getting away with skipping the Consecration, which actually did happen with the Old Mass). Furthermore, I get very angry when people deny its validity, or say untrue things about the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Popes. I started this post not to bash the Novus Ordo, not to bash the Council, not to bash Bl. John XXIII or Paul VI, but simply discuss potentially feasible ways to rediscover the reverence that is sorely lacking in the American Church.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Here is where you are making very little sense. You seem to be complaining about my complaining about the Mass translation. And then you back up my point by pointing out that it is wretched.

I thought you were saying that the changes in the Mass were bad based on the translation… sorry.

As you say, fixing the English translation, would eliminate a lot of complaints about the OF; but (I know I’m nit-picking a little) a problem with the translation is not a problem with the Order of the Mass itself.

(It’s just that we get into these “what’s wrong with the OF” discussions and they’re really conversations about what’s wrong with the translation, or with priests & liturgists who misinterpret Vatican II & the GIRM. Just once I’d like to actually discuss the changes…)

I do not believe there is a single parish in the diocese of Columbus that offers a Mass like this.

That is too bad. I think, 'though, if you can find a willing priest and some like-minded people you could have one. “My parish” (I’m not near it anymore) offers this sort of Mass in the highly liberal SF Bay Area, so if it can be done there…

And finally (not able to resist gravitational pull of Latin):

Like I said we didn’t do anything with classical Latin - just ecclesiastical.

I think ecclesiatical Latin types exaggerate the distinction between the two. Really, in terms of basic grammar and the grammar you need to translate the Mass or even the Vulgate (maybe Psalms excepted), there’s no significant difference. You only start seeing a difference when you start translating Augustine or Thomas Aquinas.

But, 7th and 8th graders taking Latin is awesome.

Latin is awesome, yes, but 7th and 8th graders, not so much.
(Joking, joking…)

 

[peregrinator_it]

Let me be very, very clear: I am not suggesting that the NO is substantially inferior to the Tridentine Rite.

I I started this post not to bash the Novus Ordo, not to bash the Council, not to bash Bl. John XXIII or Paul VI, but simply discuss potentially feasible ways to rediscover the reverence that is sorely lacking in the American Church.

Fair enough.

Out of curiousity, why do you see it important to bring the prayers at the foot of the altar? I haven’t seen that on a proposed list of improvements before.

I agree that a sense of reverence is lacking in the American Church, and that the Liturgy is often celebrated in a way that discourages rather than inspires reverence, but, I’ll go out on a limb a little here and point out that, while one shows it outwardly, reverence is first an internal disposition.

I very much prefer the Mass in Latin, however, I don’t think bringing back the Latin will neccessarily produce reverence in the congregation. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the vernacular in principle (I do, as previously posted, think the current English translation is just bad, but that’s a separate issue.)

I think the Mass will be reverently celebrated when both celebrant and congregation are so mindful of what is taking place that the accidents are treated as accidents (and not the main event the way the music, for example, often is today.) But this can be done without mandating the use of Latin (much as it pains me to say it.)

 

[James0235]

That is too bad. I think, 'though, if you can find a willing priest and some like-minded people you could have one. “My parish” (I’m not near it anymore) offers this sort of Mass in the highly liberal SF Bay Area, so if it can be done there…

I’m not sure if there is any demand at all for a Latin NO in the Columbus area. There is one parish that occasionally uses a little Latin and Gregorian Chant.

And another parish just a few miles away offers the TLM. This is my preferred place to go on Sundays. But, I would still like to experience a Latin NO.

I think ecclesiatical Latin types exaggerate the distinction between the two. Really, in terms of basic grammar and the grammar you need to translate the Mass or even the Vulgate (maybe Psalms excepted), there’s no significant difference. You only start seeing a difference when you start translating Augustine or Thomas Aquinas.

I seem to remember that it was occasionally pointed out that something was different in Classical Latin. This left me with the impression that most of the time they were the same.

Latin is awesome, yes, but 7th and 8th graders, not so much.
(Joking, joking…)

I have spent 8 years in high school youth ministry (the average person lasts 18 months) and it has been great. But, I taught 8th grade CCD one year and I will never do it again. High school teens and adults I can deal with. But not 8th graders.

James

 

[James0235]

Fair enough.

Out of curiousity, why do you see it important to bring the prayers at the foot of the altar? I haven’t seen that on a proposed list of improvements before.

The reason that I like the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and wouldn’t mind seeing them in the OF of Mass is that the priest and the servers both ask forgiveness of their sins befroe approaching the altar. I always find it a very humbling thing to witness.

“Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that we may be worthy to enter with pure minds into the Holy of Holies.”

“We beseech Thee, O Lord, by the merits of Thy Saints whose relics are here and of all the Saints, that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to forgive me all my sins.”

If the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were restored then it might be logical to restore the last Gospel as well. They sort of form a bookend surrounding the Mass.

Prayers at the Foot of the Altar -
“Send forth Thy light and Thy truth…”

The Last Gospel -
“In Him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it…That was the true light that enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world.”

But, that wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.

James

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

Fair enough.

Out of curiousity, why do you see it important to bring the prayers at the foot of the altar? I haven’t seen that on a proposed list of improvements before.

I agree that a sense of reverence is lacking in the American Church, and that the Liturgy is often celebrated in a way that discourages rather than inspires reverence, but, I’ll go out on a limb a little here and point out that, while one shows it outwardly, reverence is first an internal disposition.

I very much prefer the Mass in Latin, however, I don’t think bringing back the Latin will neccessarily produce reverence in the congregation. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the vernacular in principle (I do, as previously posted, think the current English translation is just bad, but that’s a separate issue.)

I think the Mass will be reverently celebrated when both celebrant and congregation are so mindful of what is taking place that the accidents are treated as accidents (and not the main event the way the music, for example, often is today.) But this can be done without mandating the use of Latin (much as it pains me to say it.)

I think the prayers at the foot of the altar add an extra bit of solemnity to the Mass and help emphasize the sanctity of what is about to occur. When the priest goes straight to the altar, it makes things seem a little rushed (in my opinion).

As for bringing back Latin, there are certainly great arguments for both sides of the issue, and the important thing is that the debate remain respectful. Personally, I think there’s something to be said for having a sacred language, much like Orthodox Jews use Hebrew. But certainly, this is an issue on which we must follow Rome. As long as the Pope says that the vernacular is licit, all Catholics must acknowledge this.

Pax vobis!

 

[peregrinator_it]

I think the prayers at the foot of the altar add an extra bit of solemnity to the Mass and help emphasize the sanctity of what is about to occur. When the priest goes straight to the altar, it makes things seem a little rushed (in my opinion).

I don’t dispute your point.

Obliquely related question (prayers said before the penitential rite)- Where/when in the TLM would the Asperges be sung? (I’m separated from the bulk of my books and don’t have a missal for reference.) Or was this never a part of the Old Rite? I can’t (now that I think of it) ever recall having been to a TLM where it was sung?

Personally, I think there’s something to be said for having a sacred language, much like Orthodox Jews use Hebrew.

I agree completely, but I had the luxury of growing up with Latin, so for me it’s something familiar and doesn’t seem foreign and inaccessible. Whereas, I’m afraid there’s a good number of orthodox, reverent, practicing Catholics for whom Latin would be a stumbling block, and I don’t see that there’s a reasonable argument against the vernacular in principle.

 

[James0235]

Obliquely related question (prayers said before the penitential rite)- Where/when in the TLM would the Asperges be sung? (I’m separated from the bulk of my books and don’t have a missal for reference.) Or was this never a part of the Old Rite? I can’t (now that I think of it) ever recall having been to a TLM where it was sung?

Before Mass begins the priest would begin the Asperges vested in a Cope. Then he would change from Cope to a Chasuble and begin the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.

If I remember correctly it is done only on Sundays and only before a Missal Cantata or a Solemn High Mass but not a Low Mass.

James

 

[peregrinator_it]

Before Mass begins the priest would begin the Asperges vested in a Cope. Then he would change from Cope to a Chasuble and begin the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.

If I remember correctly it is done only on Sundays and only before a Missal Cantata or a Solemn High Mass but not a Low Mass.

James

Thanks. I guess I never have seen it, because I would remember the vestment change…