Liturgy as expression of doctrine

[MarkThompson]

My Missal has the statement on its first page:

Since there are four ends that need to be met, it seems likely that shifting emphasis to one will take it away from the others. I question using “active role of the individual in the liturgy” as a criterion for assessing how well the Mass achieves its ends. From what I have seen the idea of activity comes from a misunderstanding of the Latin “actuosa” and is often mistaken.

So, if I understand you, we should not change the current form of the Mass to give any additional emphasis to propitiation, because that would “take away from” adoration, thanksgiving, and petition?

There are, naturally, different views about “active participation.” I’ve heard people even try to defend a churchfull of people sitting there praying the Rosary as actively participating in the Mass. In my view, the problem isn’t that they’re not being active, it’s that they’re not participating. And as to the Mass qua act of thanksgiving, I do think that “active participation” is pretty essential to the accomplishment of that goal. Like I said, we don’t communicate thanks (very effectively) by deputing someone else to do it for us.

 

[EasterJoy]

Nothing except maybe the prohibitive costs of maintaining several hundred vernacular texts of the EF, each of them having to be authenticated by the Vatican. English alone and its subtleties in meanings (amongst other things in culture) have changed over the last 40 years, forcing a newer translation of the English OF. These changes required many resources and certainly didn’t come free of charge. And the translations will always be controversial where the Latin texts are hardly criticized anymore. Just trying to being practical here as well as fall in line with the spirit of Veterum Sapientia, which, by the way is as close to being a definition without actually using the words, “We define…” IMO anyway.

As already pointed out, the necessity of eventually arriving at a satisfactory translation of the definitive version has existed for as long as the faithful have been without receptive fluency in Latin. Those translations must each be authenticated, even if they are not used in the Mass itself. The only question is whether it is preferable for the priest to offer the Mass in Latin or in the language of the faithful, once a suitable translation exists.

To my mind, the trade-off is this: use the translation, and the people will better understand what is being said in real time. This sacrifices either the poetic rhythm or the poetic subtlies in the original, it can’t be helped. Otherwise, use the original. This sacrifices the understanding, because some people are too young or too slow to make the connection between the left side of the page and the right side. If there is no receptive fluency, there is a barrier to how active the participation is going to be, just as there is a limit to how much you can get into an Italian opera when you don’t know a word of Italian going in. The subtleties are lost on someone like that, anyway. Still, there are always going to be “people like that”, and of all of us they are among the little sheep that above all must not be neglected by the shepherds.

Ideally, the original ought to be available at least some of the time to some of the people, because the ideal is that the people who do have enough receptive fluency to pray the original in its full poetic rhythm and with its full import ought to have the opportunity to achieve that level of excellence, both on their behalf and on behalf of the whole Church. I don’t think it necessary that every Mass be in Latin, but ideally, some should be.

 

[ProVobis]

No child ever read the Baltimore Catechism in Latin.

I think there were like at least three different versions of the BC? I forget the one we studied with but I found to be somewhat confused when I started reading a different version. Moot point, I know, since we’ve now moved on to still a newer Catechism.

 

[floresco]

So, if I understand you, we should not change the current form of the Mass to give any additional emphasis to propitiation, because that would “take away from” adoration, thanksgiving, and petition?

I think the TLM achieved a much better balance among these ends than the current form of the Mass. I think the new form needs a great deal of change. We should have something that is much closer to the traditional Mass than what we ended up with.

There are, naturally, different views about “active participation.” I’ve heard people even try to defend a churchfull of people sitting there praying the Rosary as actively participating in the Mass. In my view, the problem isn’t that they’re not being active, it’s that they’re not participating. And as to the Mass qua act of thanksgiving, I do think that “active participation” is pretty essential to the accomplishment of that goal. Like I said, we don’t communicate thanks (very effectively) by deputing someone else to do it for us.

If I am sitting in my pew thinking about the Sacrifice of the Mass and thanking God for His love and mercy that is both an act of thanksgiving and active participation. It may look like I am just sitting there but I am taking part in the Mass.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think the TLM achieved a much better balance among these ends than the current form of the Mass. I think the new form needs a great deal of change. We should have something that is much closer to the traditional Mass than what we ended up with.

I agree. I just also happen to think that the old Mass -]needed/-] would benefit from significant changes as well – something that looked maybe 60% like the old form and 40% like the new form would, in my opinion, strike things about right.

If I am sitting in my pew thinking about the Sacrifice of the Mass and thanking God for His love and mercy that is both an act of thanksgiving and active participation. It may look like I am just sitting there but I am taking part in the Mass.

If you were doing that, then that’s okay. It’s sort of “parallel worship” rather than corporate worship, but that’s better than nothing, I guess. The problems that people, including the current Holy Father, have described, however, were that many people weren’t doing that, and the Mass wasn’t particularly structured to help them in that respect.

 

[floresco]

I agree. I just also happen to think that the old Mass -]needed/-] would benefit from significant changes as well – something that looked maybe 60% like the old form and 40% like the new form would, in my opinion, strike things about right.

When I read Sacrosanctum Concilium it is clear that the Council Fathers saw a need for some reforms. Yet the reform we received does not much resemble what they described. What we received seemed determined more by the “loopholes” in the document, than its intent. I sometimes speculate on what a Mass that had followed that intent would look like. I think it would be much more like the TLM than the new Mass.

My sense is that prayers (and their doctrinal value) would be very little changed. The cycle of readings would be much like the current one and in the vernacular. The Ordinary of the Mass would be in Latin. I think the Canon would be primarily audible. People would receive Communion on the tongue, kneeling. The priest would be ad orientem but would turn to face the people when addressing them. The laity would say the prayers as is done in a dialogue Mass.

 

[japhy]

I’ve been thinking about the Church teaching on the Eucharist as propitiatory sacrifice … How is this doctrine expressed in Ordinary Form of the Mass? I have looked and cannot find anything of comparable clarity or explicitness.

Every Eucharistic Prayer mentions that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is meant for a propitiatory end, at the very least in the words of consecration (of the wine). Most Eucharistic Prayers also mention it elsewhere (although E.P. II is particularly impoverished in this regard). For example, E.P. III mentions the “sacrifice which has made our peace with you”.

 

[floresco]

Every Eucharistic Prayer mentions that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is meant for a propitiatory end, at the very least in the words of consecration (of the wine). Most Eucharistic Prayers also mention it elsewhere (although E.P. II is particularly impoverished in this regard). For example, E.P. III mentions the “sacrifice which has made our peace with you”.

Yes, “impoverished” is a good word for this. It is not that the OF contradicts Catholic teaching but it just doesn’t convey it with clarity and richness. Even the words of consecration can be interpreted as a historical narrative rather than a statement that applies to the Mass.

 

[japhy]

Yes, “impoverished” is a good word for this. It is not that the OF contradicts Catholic teaching but it just doesn’t convey it with clarity and richness. Even the words of consecration can be interpreted as a historical narrative rather than a statement that applies to the Mass.

I’m not a fan of the phrase “institution narrative”, as I don’t think it provides an accurate description of what the sacramental words of consecration truly are. It’s clear in the Latin that in the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest is speaking to God the Father about His Son, Jesus Christ, “who, on the night He was betrayed, took bread…” In the English translation (even the new one coming next year…), this is not rendered the same way…

 

[floresco]

I’m not a fan of the phrase “institution narrative”,

I’m not saying that it should be understood as an institution narrative, only that it is open to such an interpretation.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree. I just also happen to think that the old Mass -]needed/-] would benefit from significant changes as well – something that looked maybe 60% like the old form and 40% like the new form would, in my opinion, strike things about right.

Don’t forget, Mark, we started changing the old Mass in the '60s to make it comply with Vatican II but none of the changes were sustainable. Maybe changing it now would be different, I don’t know, but if you start removing too many differences between the OF and the EF, you will probably not have so many people driving 30-60 minutes to an EF any more and some parishes will hurt, IMO.

 

[ProVobis]

. Even the words of consecration can be interpreted as a historical narrative rather than a statement that applies to the Mass.

Indeed, the most precious moments of the EF are where the priest bends over the host and chalice and SLOWLY pronounces the words of consecration in Latin. You definitely know something very important is happening.

 

[MarkThompson]

Don’t forget, Mark, we started changing the old Mass in the '60s to make it comply with Vatican II but none of the changes were sustainable.

Yes, ideally you’d have a much slower process of change (though not as slow as was permitted after the codification of the missal at Trent), rather than a whirlwind of change in the 60s. Right now I’d like to see the Holy Father make one or two very minor changes, like reforming the old calendar to add modern saints’ days, just to shake things up and remind people that he expects the old Mass to be a living and breathing Catholic liturgy as it has always been, not a museum piece forever frozen in 1962. My own personal hobby-horse is moving the Ite missa est back to the actual end of the Mass. I’d love to see him do that, but boy, some people would really blow their tops, wouldn’t they!

Maybe changing it now would be different, I don’t know, but if you start removing too many differences between the OF and the EF, you will probably not have so many people driving 30-60 minutes to an EF any more and some parishes will hurt, IMO.

Possibly, and although that’s unfortunate I’m not sure that the speculative financial health of a handful of parishes can really be allowed to create such a roadblock on the path of liturgical reform (not to mention reform of the reform).

 

[ProVobis]

My own personal hobby-horse is moving the Ite missa est back to the actual end of the Mass. I’d love to see him do that, but boy, some people would really blow their tops, wouldn’t they!

Yes, it would make more sense. But then not everyone is supposed to jump out of his/her seat in the OF the moment when the priest says “The Mass is ended. Go in peace” either as most are expected to sing the closing hymn and waiting for the priest to exit first. And this can take longer than the reading of the Last Gospel, which really isn’t the “last” Gospel but the beginning of John’s Gospel at the end of Mass. Maybe something got lost in the translation somewhere again.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Indeed, the most precious moments of the EF are where the priest bends over the host and chalice and SLOWLY pronounces the words of consecration in Latin. You definitely know something very important is happening.

When the Priest is racing to finish Mass in 10-15 minutes, how SLOWLY can he go? At least it seems those in the FSSP, the ICRSS, and even the SSPX take more care about not being concerned with rushing the Mass.