From a wonderful exposition of the unique features of the Latin Mass (link), here is a meditation on the silence of the Canon:I favor greater spaces of silence during the Mass, but I think the ability for the faithful to hear is entirely beneficial and brings home the reality of what’s happening. It happens whether one can hear or not, but I cannot imagine not wanting to hear those precious words.
*The sacrifice of the cross, and the consecration in the Mass, are timeless entities in a temporal world.
** The silence, therefore, enables us to transcend our present existence and become present at the foot of the cross itself. Our senses, so active in the outside world, are suppressed so that our soul can touch the divine presence of God on the altar, so that we may be lifted up with the oblation to the altar of God Himself in heaven, surrounded by all the Hosts and angels in constant prayer and adoration. We, in effect, dip our toes into the pool of eternity, no longer limited by our earthly existence in time and space, but instead become one with our Lord in offering ourselves to God the Father in the one perfect act of self-giving, love and adoration.*
- Our senses are not totally silenced though. Through our eyes, we see the Holy Victim raises up to the Father in the form of bread and wine; closing our eyes we see the cross above us and the angelic party beyond. In our ears, we hear the ringing of bells, confirming what we see and what we feel in our hearts. In our nostrils, we smell the sweet odour of incense, floating up to heaven accompanying the Victim to the altar of God. It is truly an entire experience of Body and Soul where the carpet of life is swept from underneath us revealing the eternal reality of the cross and the truth of God’s love for each and everyone of us.*
I am NOT one of those who believe the Novus Ordo is invalid. I do believe however, if more people could experience the kind of traditional Latin Mass I am privileged to attend weekly, there would be less talk of a weakening of belief in the Real Presence.
- Using vocal words in the canon would defy this divine reality, it would seemingly bring the events down to a level of speech and thought, rather than action and sacrifice. We must feel with our heart and soul the event taking place, not hear with our ears the words which enact the event. Only silence can penetrate this mystery, with our spirit lifting us above that temporal actions of the priest into the divine and eternal reality of the High Priest: our Lord on the Cross.*
Attending the Latin Mass has made me resolve to learn Latin in earnest. In the meantime, understanding is not a problem, as I follow along by reading the English in my missal. Even the English translation is beautiful and poetic! Some examples:I would attend the Tridentine, if it were in the vernacular (which it easily could be) and if I could hear it. Both of these are, I think, the chief virtues of the Pauline (hearing it and understanding it).
I so second your post. No more beautiful words than “This IS my body” As English is my native tongue ( Do know some Latin, don’t remember much), I want to close my eyes and give thanks to God for his beautiful gift, not scramble to try and keep my place in the missal.I am conscious that as I get older I find the Mass more of an emotional event. Sometimes it is very embarrassing for a 'grown man, sacristan and server to have tears running down my face!!!
What on earth will it be like at a latin mass? Don’t know if I dare
They weren’t. They were not consultors in the sense that they helped out, but were observers, esp. at Vatican II (the Orthodox were also observers. Trent invited the Protestant heretics to participate. It’s nothing new. Read Church history.Just wondeirng, why would Protestants ever be consultants in a commission that was writing a liturgy for the Church? How could the Holy Father, Paul VI, ever allow this? Even if it they were only there to look at the finished product?
They weren’t. They were not consultors in the sense that they helped out, but were observers, esp. at Vatican II (the Orthodox were also observers. Trent invited the Protestant heretics to participate. It’s nothing new. Read Church history.
Hi Kirk. The quotation that you are looking for from Luther comes from his letter ** Reply to Henry VIII**. Henry had made an attack on the Pope , and I suppose in the spirit of ecumenism Martin chimed in as follows:Utter rubbish, radical traditionalist propaganda.
And can we have a primary source for your quotation attributed to Luther?
No, no, I never was under the impression he was virtuous nor was I taught that in either my history courses or my religious instruction (I remember my alma mater, Baylor University, celebrating “Luther Week,” and wondering why, since he loathed Anabaptists!). I was simply asking for a citation. I knew he loathed the papacy, I didn’t know he so overtly hated the Mass (it still has nothing to do with the NO Mass, however). I’ve read Marius’ book on him and I don’t remember this bit (Luther doesn’t come off well in that book, either).Hi Kirk. The quotation that you are looking for from Luther comes from his letter ** Reply to Henry VIII**. Henry had made an attack on the Pope , and I suppose in the spirit of ecumenism Martin chimed in as follows:
"The Mass once conquered, we shall, I think, have conquered papacy. The Mass was the rock on which papacy rested, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, and its doctrines; its belly and its members. All these will crumble away with the abomination of their sacrilegious Mass.
“. . . I have trampled under foot the idol of the Roman abomination which had put itself in the place of God, and had established itself mistress of kings and of the whole earth” .
"This power and domination of the pope’s, God has brought to confusion and destruction by my pen.
“. . . My doctrine will stand, and the pope will fall, despite all the gates of hell, all the powers of the air, of the earth, of the sea” (Reply to Henry VIII.).
Old Martin had a few other things to say as well:
From the Smalcald articles:
Article II: Of the Mass.
That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious. For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it.
Secondly. It is an unnecessary thing, which can be omitted without sin and danger.
Thirdly. The Sacrament can be received in a better and more blessed way [more acceptable to God], (yea, the only blessed way), according to the institution of Christ. Why, then, do they drive the world to woe and [extreme] misery on account of a fictitious, unnecessary matter, which can be well obtained in another and more blessed way?
Let [care be taken that] it be publicly preached to the people that the Mass as men’s twaddle [commentitious affair or human figment] can be omitted without sin, and that no one will be condemned who does not observe it, but that he can be saved in a better way without the Mass. I wager [Thus it will come to pass] that the Mass will then collapse of itself, not only among the insane [rude] common people, but also among all pious, Christian, reasonable, God-fearing hearts; and that the more, when they would hear that the Mass is a [very] dangerous thing, fabricated and invented without the will and Word of God.
Fourthly. Since such innumerable and unspeakable abuses have arisen in the whole world from the buying and selling of masses, the Mass should by right be relinquished, if for no other purpose than to prevent abuses, even though in itself it had something advantageous and good. How much more ought we to relinquish it, so as to prevent [escape] forever these horrible abuses, since it is altogether unnecessary, useless, and dangerous, and we can obtain everything by a more necessary, profitable, and certain way without the Mass.
Fifthly. But since the Mass is nothing else and can be nothing else , than a work of men (even of wicked scoundrels), by which one attempts to reconcile himself and others to God, and to obtain and merit the remission of sins and grace (for thus the Mass is observed when it is observed at the very best; otherwise what purpose would it serve ?), for this very reason it must and should [certainly] be condemned and rejected. For this directly conflicts with the chief article, which says that it is not a wicked or a godly hireling of the Mass with his own work, but the Lamb of God and the Son of God, that taketh away our sins.
I know that in many current CCD and RCIA programs Luther is held up as virtuous and full of concern for the Catholic Church. He was not so inclined. Trust me Kirk, he wasn’t.
Not what I remembered, though I’m grateful for an actual primary source. I understood that the Church WANTED them to come (rather that it being the Protestants’ idea, though apparently some Germans may have wanted to come) and so gave them safe passage. But they didn’t come, despite that assurance. We can be grateful (well, some of us) that they saw their way clear to come to Vatican II. My point about that still stands: it wasn’t the first council at which Protestant attendance was requested, so if we’re going to be scandalized by the latter, then we may as well be by the former.
Actually JKirkLVNV—the protestants requested to attend the Council of Trent. The Church with the intent of bringing them back in—agreed to safe passage. Can the same be said of Vat. II.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html
SESSION THE THIRTEENTH,
Being the third under the Sovereign Pontiff, Julius III., celebrated on the eleventh day of October, MDLI.
DECREE FOR POSTPONING THE DEFINITION OF FOUR ARTICLES TOUCHING THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST, AND FOR GIVING A SAFE-CONDUCT TO PROTESTANTS
The same holy Synod,-desiring to pluck out of the field of the Lord all the errors which like thorns have sprung up again on the subject of this most holy sacrament, and wishing to provide for the salvation of all the faithful, …But whereas those, of the most noble province of Germany, who call themselves Protestants, desire to be heard by the holy Synod upon these said articles before they are defined, and for this end have asked for the public faith from the Synod, that they may be allowed to come hither in safety, dwell in this city, speak freely and set forth their sentiments before the Synod, and afterwards depart when they please; this holy Synod,-although It has looked forward with great earnestness for many months past for their coming, nevertheless, as an affectionate mother that groaneth and travaileth, most ardently desiring and labouring after this, that, amongst those who bear the Christian name, there may be no schisms, but that, even as all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer, so may all say the same thing, believe the same, think the same,-trusting in the mercy of God, and hoping that the result will be that they may be brought back to the most holy and salutary concord of one faith, hope, and charity, (and) yielding to them herein, hath, as far as the said Synod is concerned, given and granted, according to their request; a public assurance and faith, which they call a safe-conduct, of the tenor which will be set down below; …
Not what I remembered, though I’m grateful for an actual primary source. I understood that the Church WANTED them to come (rather that it being the Protestants’ idea, though apparently some Germans may have wanted to come) and so gave them safe passage. But they didn’t come, despite that assurance. We can be grateful (well, some of us) that they saw their way clear to come to Vatican II. My point about that still stands: it wasn’t the first council at which Protestant attendance was requested, so if we’re going to be scandalized by the latter, then we may as well be by the former.
It wasn’t so much the Mass that he hated but the Sacrificial nature of it. He felt the sacrifice was complete, a done deal and could not be improved on, altered or affected in any way by mans actions. He felt that salvation if true was total and needed nothing else at all. So no Mass, no Priests, no Purgatory, no indulgences etc.No, no, I never was under the impression he was virtuous nor was I taught that in either my history courses or my religious instruction (I remember my alma mater, Baylor University, celebrating “Luther Week,” and wondering why, since he loathed Anabaptists!). I was simply asking for a citation. I knew he loathed the papacy, I didn’t know he so overtly hated the Mass (it still has nothing to do with the NO Mass, however). I’ve read Marius’ book on him and I don’t remember this bit (Luther doesn’t come off well in that book, either).
Trent was convened because of the Protestant demands. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions this briefly. In fact, as the secretary +Massarelli tells us, on the 3rd July 1545 it was communicated to those assembled after sung Vespers by the papal legates that it was not opportune to open to the Council because of the refusal of the Lutherans to attend.
Actually JKirkLVNV—the protestants requested to attend the Council of Trent. The Church with the intent of bringing them back in—agreed to safe passage. Can the same be said of Vat. II.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html
SESSION THE THIRTEENTH,
Being the third under the Sovereign Pontiff, Julius III., celebrated on the eleventh day of October, MDLI.
DECREE FOR POSTPONING THE DEFINITION OF FOUR ARTICLES TOUCHING THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST, AND FOR GIVING A SAFE-CONDUCT TO PROTESTANTS
The same holy Synod,-desiring to pluck out of the field of the Lord all the errors which like thorns have sprung up again on the subject of this most holy sacrament, and wishing to provide for the salvation of all the faithful, …But whereas those, of the most noble province of Germany, who call themselves Protestants, desire to be heard by the holy Synod upon these said articles before they are defined, and for this end have asked for the public faith from the Synod, that they may be allowed to come hither in safety, dwell in this city, speak freely and set forth their sentiments before the Synod, and afterwards depart when they please; this holy Synod,-although It has looked forward with great earnestness for many months past for their coming, nevertheless, as an affectionate mother that groaneth and travaileth, most ardently desiring and labouring after this, that, amongst those who bear the Christian name, there may be no schisms, but that, even as all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer, so may all say the same thing, believe the same, think the same,-trusting in the mercy of God, and hoping that the result will be that they may be brought back to the most holy and salutary concord of one faith, hope, and charity, (and) yielding to them herein, hath, as far as the said Synod is concerned, given and granted, according to their request; a public assurance and faith, which they call a safe-conduct, of the tenor which will be set down below; …
I tend to see more well behaved children in my fssp parish.Oh brother… the old my Mass is better than your Mass ****.
I have attended both Masses, and am a regular attendee to an Orthodox NO mass - we sing the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei.
My main observation is that it is very difficult to teach your children how to participate in the Mass if it is said in a language they don’t understand.
There are issues with the kind of Catholic I have met at Traditional Mass communities, but I think it is just picking nits.
Its this Novus Ordo nonsense thats confusing.
As one who expresses his love for the Mass, it sends the reader a doubletake to read that a form of the holy mass is poohed as “nonsense.” If you wish to gain converts, you will gain them by your love [also joy which is noticably missing in your posts], not by ridiculing another liturgical rite.While most of the kids ive seen at Novus Ordo Masses also look like they are about to die… but for a totally different reason.
But don’t you see? While you and I attend exactly the same Holy Mass, the EWTN type Holy Mass, you read thread after thread on this board and many others about how all there is for most people is the Catholic Community mass and nothing else.I have attended both Masses, and am a regular attendee to an Orthodox NO mass - we sing the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei.
My main observation is that it is very difficult to teach your children how to participate in the Mass if it is said in a language they don’t understand.
There are issues with the kind of Catholic I have met at Traditional Mass communities, but I think it is just picking nits.
It’s called either “the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” or just “Mass.” Our priests are clear in their teaching (admittedly, it isn’t mentioned every Sunday, except in the canon of the Mass).It wasn’t so much the Mass that he hated but the Sacrificial nature of it. He felt the sacrifice was complete, a done deal and could not be improved on, altered or affected in any way by mans actions. He felt that salvation if true was total and needed nothing else at all. So no Mass, no Priests, no Purgatory, no indulgences etc.
Now knowing that it is easy to see why so many now say the Pauline Rite is Protestantized. The sacrificial nature is played down almost completely, hardly mentioned and pretty much unknown to the rank and file. Is the Mass referred to primarily as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ? Be honest Kirk, how is it referred to at your Parish? I will bet you dime to a dollar it is not called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In fact it is a pretty much commonly held belief that it is a primarily celebration of the Last Supper and not a re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary.