Microphone at TLM?

[CradleCath]

Last Sunday the priest at our TLM. wore a mic. I’m not complaining, just wanting to know if anyone here has had the same thing happen at their Latin Mass. It was a little disconcerting to me, as I’ve been attending this Mass exclusively for 3 years & have really found the silence beneficial. I’m sure that Father did this because a few people always complain that they can’t be sure that they are “keeping up” with the priest, which really doesn’t matter for all that is important is that we are saying the prayers of the Mass. Most of us have our own missals, but for those who don’t, there are missalettes available.

In the 1950s there were some experiments with allowing the priest to have a microphone or to raise the level of his voice so the faithful could follow more easily. Myself, I prefer the sacred silence.

Again, I am so blessed to have a TLM 10 minutes away from my home, so please realize that I’m not criticizing…just curious.

 

[ProVobis]

There’s nothing preventing him from using a mike, especially during the Propers. In fact, it may be beneficial in a large church and when they have fans blowing. As long as he respects that certain parts of the Mass are to be said in a “low tone.”

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I had the same question from someone who wanted to hear Father whisper the words of consecration. What is not always appreciated is that the turned back of the priest and secret prayers mirror the Old Testament high priest going into the Holy of Holies alone so as to make offerings for himself and the faithful, while the faithful watch and wait prayerfully.

It was important to distinguish the priest from the people in Moses’ day no less than in ours. In our day, I think I would have to welcome anything that maintains a clear distinction between priest and people. This is one of the shortcomings that bothers me the most about the Ordinary Mass.

If you’re listening to the whole thing you miss that momentary jolt when he raises his voice audibly for the Nobis quoque pecccatoribus in a moment of uniting himself with us either. He is one of us as a sinner, but he is separate from us as one uniquely qualified to offer the Supreme Sacrifice.

 

[CradleCath]

There’s nothing preventing him from using a mike, especially during the Propers. In fact, it may be beneficial in a large church and when they have fans blowing. As long as he respects that certain parts of the Mass are to be said in a "low tone."

He does. Ours is a small Church without fans. I believe that he is using the Mic as a courtesy to a few people who think that it’s very important to “be where the priest is” re. the prayers. We seem to have quite a few young families, who are new to the TLM. starting to attend during these last 2 months.

I think it’s admirable that he’s trying to help them, but I don’t want to lose the fact that he is the priest…praying for both himself & us & we are the laity. The whispering of the prayers in the TLM. is considered a sign of the sacredness of the words which should not be loudly proclaimed. After Mass today, we are having a pot luck dinner…so I’ll learn more then.

 

[CradleCath]

I had the same question from someone who wanted to hear Father whisper the words of consecration. What is not always appreciated is that the turned back of the priest and secret prayers mirror the Old Testament high priest going into the Holy of Holies alone so as to make offerings for himself and the faithful, while the faithful watch and wait prayerfully.

It was important to distinguish the priest from the people in Moses’ day no less than in ours. In our day, I think I would have to welcome anything that maintains a clear distinction between priest and people. This is one of the shortcomings that bothers me the most about the Ordinary Mass.

If you’re listening to the whole thing you miss that momentary jolt when he raises his voice audibly for the Nobis quoque pecccatoribus in a moment of uniting himself with us either. He is one of us as a sinner, but he is separate from us as one uniquely qualified to offer the Supreme Sacrifice.

The old Roman Canon…I missed it so for 40 YEARS. When the priest says that prayer & includes himself amongst us sinners it always makes a great impression on me. “Nobis quoque peccatoribus”… The humility of the priest in the TLM. is a major factor in making this Mass so sacred & special to me.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The old Roman Canon…I missed it so for 40 YEARS. When the priest says that prayer & includes himself amongst us sinners it always makes a great impression on me. “Nobis quoque peccatoribus”… The humility of the priest in the TLM. is a major factor in making this Mass so sacred & special to me.

The “Nobis quoque peccatoribus” is also in the OF of the Mass (EP I), though the current English translation is lacking in that regard. But, here is the new approved translation of that prayer:

To us, also, your sinful servants, who hope in your abundant mercies, graciously grant some share and fellowship with your holy Apostles and Martyrs:

 

[JMJ_coder]

When my Priest says the EF Mass, he usually wears a microphone. This is good as it aids in following along with a missal (you can’t follow if you can’t hear anything ).

 

[ProVobis]

(you can’t follow if you can’t hear anything ).

But that’s where the rubrics come in. Genuflections, signs of cross, bowing toward missal and to the crucifix, hands not spread during the epistle, and other motions with the hands, should provide at least some clue as to where you are in the Mass. I have to admit, though, it is tough for a beginner in the EF or someone who hasn’t attended for a while to pick up on all the rubrics.

 

[AnneElliot]

It just takes practice to get used to the flow of the TLM. The first few times I went to the TLM, I put my missal in the pew and just watched. The servers can’t always hear everything Father is saying either (crying babies, etc.), but they know where he is in the Mass by his gestures (as ProVobis mentioned). Now, after having attended the TLM for a few years, I can look at the altar and know where we are in the missal anytime I might become distracted and/or lose my place.

I think a microphone is really unnecessary, but as far as I know, it’s not prohibited.

 

[JMJ_coder]

But that’s where the rubrics come in. Genuflections, signs of cross, bowing toward missal and to the crucifix, hands not spread during the epistle, and other motions with the hands, should provide at least some clue as to where you are in the Mass. I have to admit, though, it is tough for a beginner in the EF or someone who hasn’t attended for a while to pick up on all the rubrics.

But doesn’t that start to get too dangerously close to being victim to a “it doesn’t matter what language it’s in since no one but the Priest will hear it” type argument?

 

[paramedicgirl]

It just takes practice to get used to the flow of the TLM. The first few times I went to the TLM, I put my missal in the pew and just watched. The servers can’t always hear everything Father is saying either (crying babies, etc.), but they know where he is in the Mass by his gestures (as ProVobis mentioned). Now, after having attended the TLM for a few years, I can look at the altar and know where we are in the missal anytime I might become distracted and/or lose my place.

I think a microphone is really unnecessary, but as far as I know, it’s not prohibited.

I have been going to the FSSP TLM for three years now. I am not sure when I started to be able to follow along without losing my place, but it sure was not in the first year! It is much easier now, and I also used to just watch (in awe) all the sacred gestures and traditions that took place at the altar.

 

[ProVobis]

But doesn’t that start to get too dangerously close to being victim to a “it doesn’t matter what language it’s in since no one but the Priest will hear it” type argument?

My preference is to be able to hear it. Nothing to me sounds as beautiful as the priest saying the Latin Mass. I agree with Cardinal Arinze when he says that “the Latin language has a nobility and dignity which are not negligible (cf. Veterum Sapientia, nn. 5, 6, 7). We can add that Latin is concise, precise and poetically measured.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061111_gateway-conference_en.html

Remember that even non-Catholics were petitioning the Pope to keep the old Latin Mass (Agatha Christie Indult).

 

[Cathryn]

My pastor uses a microphone. He is quieter at the quiet parts and raises his voice when he is supposed to. It seems to work well for us. I am very grateful also to have a parish priest who does the TLM as well as the Novus Ordo.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

There was a decree under Pius XII that allowed a microphone to be placed on the altar so long as it was covered by flowers or the like. The clip-on microphone lacks taste and looks ridiculous. Since it was specified in the decree that the microphone be invisible, it seems that these sorts of things would either be forbidden or not in accord with the spirit of the permission. As has been duly noted on here by several people, it is not necessary for the laity to hear what is going on at every instant (or at all). Of course, for centuries the low Mass was entirely a silent Mass for the faithful, at least those who were at any distance at all from the altar. In most old churches the sanctuary is so large that it is very difficult to hear the priest at a spoken even in the first few pews.

On a slightly different note, I’ve seen priests using headset microphones, which I think is even worse. Although they are the color of skin and can be hidden a bit more, the wires and the rest simply make it look goofy. These priests also say the consecration into the microphone (but not any other quiet parts). This is an abuse that moral theologians addressing the issue consider to be a mortal sin. Hopefully someone will fill these priests in about that.

 

[JMJ_coder]

My preference is to be able to hear it. Nothing to me sounds as beautiful as the priest saying the Latin Mass. I agree with Cardinal Arinze when he says that “the Latin language has a nobility and dignity which are not negligible (cf. Veterum Sapientia, nn. 5, 6, 7). We can add that Latin is concise, precise and poetically measured.”

Yes, and Cardinal Arinze in the same speech also said:

The reasons for the introduction of the mother tongue are not far to seek. It promotes better understanding of what the Church is praying, since “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy… (and which) is their right by reason of their Baptism” (SC, n. 14).

I think that Latin should be retained for at least some of the Mass at least some of the time if for nothing else than to be obedient to what Holy Mother Church has asked of us – but there are many, many other good reasons to retain Latin. However, one cannot deny the beneficialness of the vernacular to aid in understanding. Even in the EF, it was never 100% in Latin since the homily (which is a part of the Liturgy) was almost always in the vernacular and various parts in Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic.

 

[CradleCath]

Yes, and Cardinal Arinze in the same speech also said:

The reasons for the introduction of the mother tongue are not far to seek. It promotes better understanding of what the Church is praying, since "Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to **that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations **

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, and Cardinal Arinze in the same speech also said:

The reasons for the introduction of the mother tongue are not far to seek. It promotes better understanding of what the Church is praying, since “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and** active **participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy… (and which) is their right by reason of their Baptism” (SC, n. 14).

That baffled me too. The Latin is “actual participation.”

I guess his point of difficulty of translation was well made.

 

[AnneElliot]

One of the problems of our modern society is that we equate action with movement of the body alone, and forget about movement of the mind.

There is a definite full, active, and conscious participation on the part of the laity in the pew at the TLM… but it is first and foremost the attentiveness of mind. (but the body is definitely not forgotten… and the newbies who have a hard time kneeling throughout the Eucharistic Prayer would definitely vouch for me on that one )

 

[JMJ_coder]

That baffled me too. The Latin is “actual participation.”

I guess his point of difficulty of translation was well made.

The Latin word used is “actuose”, which means active. Both “The New College Latin & English Dictionary” by Dr. John C. Traupman and “Cassel’s Latin Dictionary” by D.P. Simpson, M.A. both define the adjective “actuose” as ‘actively, with energy’ (as well as the online University of Notre Dame Latin dictionary).

In the reverse direction, both of those sources give as “actual” to ‘verus’.

 

[ProVobis]

The Latin word used is “actuose”, which means active. Both “The New College Latin & English Dictionary” by Dr. John C. Traupman and “Cassel’s Latin Dictionary” by D.P. Simpson, M.A. both define the adjective “actuose” as ‘actively, with energy’ (as well as the online University of Notre Dame Latin dictionary).

In the reverse direction, both of those sources give as “actual” to ‘verus’.

Okay, presuming that that translation is correct (I do have my doubts about any translation), why can’t we actively participate in Latin? I hear people around me being “actively participating” during the EF with no problems, although I do admit, they could use a little motivation and confidence every now and then.