Not Exactly A Clown Mass, But A Clown Act For Sure

[ac_claire]

ac claire;4940547:

“The Novus Ordo (or “New Mass”; the English liturgy we’re all used to) is the ordinary form of the Mass in the Latin Rite. The Tridentine (or Traditional) Latin Mass is the extraordinary form of the Mass in the Latin Rite.”

Heh heh heh. You’ll be telling me black is simply a darker shade of white next.

Um…what? lol

Are you saying that the Novus Ordo isn’t a Latin Rite Mass?

 

[Layman]

Well, yes.

Where’s the Latin in it, now? (Never mind the fact that it looks and sounds so different to the old rite.)

Looks to me like there’s a strenuous effort been made to get rid of Latin altogether, up to recently. This is strange, like a new young chief executive messing with the formula that made his company great.

Also, the terms used sound perverse. The new, vernacular version is the ‘Ordinary’ (regular?) Form and the old rite, the one that made many saints,is now ‘Extraordinary’?

Plus the ‘ordinary’ version gives leeway for creative priests to do ‘extraordinary’ things like the chap who is the subject of this post.

What a pity if you now go into a new church or parish you’re not sure what you’re going to get. At the risk of sounding impious, the Catholic Church could be like the McDonalds chain and exercise some quality control.

This seems to be what Pope Benedict is now doing. Lord protect him from the wolves outside and inside his fold!

[Edit]: I’m sorry to be so negative (it’s a character flaw), but look at this:
the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2009/03/icel-and-liturgical-anger.html

 

[adstrinity]

Well, yes.

Where’s the Latin in it, now? (Never mind the fact that it looks and sounds so different to the old rite.)…

Layman, you are missing the point.

The OF Mass is the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. The other 22 Rites didn’t change because of Vatican II (to the best of my knowledge).

Also, OF/NO and EF are what the Church calls the Masses. That’s not some invention of the laity. The term “Roman Catholic Church,” however, is. The term, “Roman Catholic,” was started as a derogatory title by Henry VIII. The Church of Rome has more than one Rite. The Latin Rite is part of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church isn’t part of the Latin Rite nor is the Latin Rite the whole of the Catholic Church.

AND, while in the Latin Rite it is a tragedy that the laize faire(sp?) communion in the hand has been permited, in other Rites in the Church, they know how to do it humbly and respectfully in the hand.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, yes.

Where’s the Latin in it, now? (Never mind the fact that it looks and sounds so different to the old rite.)

The term “Latin Rite” is not a reference to the Mass being said in Latin.

The Latin Rite is one of 23 Rites of the Catholic Church. It consists of Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and parts of Asia. It is multilingual, with most of its languages having Latin as (one of) their root language(s). It is because the languages of this Rite are mostly Latin-based that it is called the Latin Rite. It is a reference to the ancestry of the people who belong to the Latin Rite; not to the actual language of the Mass.

The Latin Rite has two Masses: tthe first is the Tridentine Mass, which is ordinarily conducted in Latin (but may be conducted in any one of the living languages of the Latin Rite) and the second is the Mass of Pope Paul VI, which is normally conducted in the local language of the people (but may be conducted in Latin, also). Other liturgies of the Latin Rite (both private liturgies and public liturgies) include the Rosary, the Divine Office, the Stations of the Cross, the Divine Mercy Chaplet, and the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, among others.

 

[Rleng616]

IMHO- The priest needs help.

I am kind of an irreverent guy myself, but WHOA!! - this is way over the line.

Imagine a Protestant in attendance because he/she wanted to see what the Catholic Mass is all about.

Bob

 

[Spirithound]

Plus the ‘ordinary’ version gives leeway for creative priests to do ‘extraordinary’ things like the chap who is the subject of this post.

Well, no, it doesn’t. Some “creative” priests just think they have that leeway. Supersoakers are just as absent from the current GIRM as they are from the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass.

 

[JReducation]

The term “Latin Rite” is not a reference to the Mass being said in Latin.

The Latin Rite is one of 23 Rites of the Catholic Church. It consists of Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and parts of Asia. It is multilingual, with most of its languages having Latin as (one of) their root language(s). It is because the languages of this Rite are mostly Latin-based that it is called the Latin Rite. It is a reference to the ancestry of the people who belong to the Latin Rite; not to the actual language of the Mass.

The Latin Rite has two Masses: tthe first is the Tridentine Mass, which is ordinarily conducted in Latin (but may be conducted in any one of the living languages of the Latin Rite) and the second is the Mass of Pope Paul VI, which is normally conducted in the local language of the people (but may be conducted in Latin, also).

Up to here this is all correct history and liturgically.

But you have mixed in public devotions with liturgies down below. The Liturgy of the Hours or the Divine Office is properly liturgy. All the others are public devotions, not liturgy. Some acts, such as blessings and benediction are liturgical acts, but not liturgy.

Other liturgies of the Latin Rite (both private liturgies and public liturgies) include the Rosary, the Divine Office, the Stations of the Cross, the Divine Mercy Chaplet, and the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, among others.

As to the shot-gun priest. One has to stop and think about several things.

1. Is it appropriate? Absolutely not.
2. Is it illicit? Not exactly. Licaity applies to the sacraments. Blessings are not sacraments.
3. Is it legal? No. It is not in the GIRM.
4. Is it a habitual custom with this priest and this setting? We don’t have that information.
5. What did the Jesuit superiors say and do? It depends on whether this was an isolated event or an on-going problem. We don’t have that information either.

Sometimes we see something on a blog and we go off, believing what the blogger puts into his site is an absolute truth and an on-going issue. I went through this blog and he has pictures in there of the Pope making funny faces too. I can’t say that I have seen Benedict do that too often. Therefore, I can’t take one or two pictures and run off saying that the pope acts like an idiot in front of the camera, because he was caught in a lighter moment. The point is that one picture is not enough to convict anyone.

The picture is certainly one event that should not have happened. I agree with that 100%

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Layman]

I am of the opinion that in a wildly-changing world the Church should offer some stability and let its flock have the mass that helped make saints in the past.

Whether allowed or not, many/most priests say the OF Mass with novelties and abuses tacked on. Using vernacular makes the Mass a more everyday affair e.g. I speak English when I’m ordering a bag of chips. I think this inclines all involved to take liberties.

If you’re using the same language you use to tell a saucy joke or swear in, if your neighbours are up in the sanctuary, if the Host is passed out by them like it was an ordinary piece of bread*, what’s sacred, set apart, forbidden about that?

Using an extinct language that even the priest would find hard to bowdlerise helps alter the consciousness of those present. The words used also have no profane associations.

I believe we have a fetish in the West for a literary approach to religion; what’s written down and what we think and say about it is what’s most important.

**Whereas what we do and the luminous Being to whom the Mass is addressed are much more important. **

(*I think cupping your hands and bowing your head looks like a silly compromise by comparison; shades of Oliver Twist?)

 

[CreosMary]

Sorry, I’m gonna be off-topic, but what’s the German translation of that?

" Wenn die Münze in der Wanne schellt, die Seele zum Himmel springs"

courtesy of babel fish

doesn’t have the same ring to it tho’

 

[Matariel]

" Wenn die Münze in der Wanne schellt, die Seele zum Himmel springs"

courtesy of babel fish

doesn’t have the same ring to it tho’

I think a better translation would be, "Sobald der Pfenning im Kasten klingt, die Seele aus dem Fegfeuer springt."

 

[Spirithound]

I am of the opinion that in a wildly-changing world the Church should offer some stability and let its flock have the mass that helped make saints in the past.

Whether allowed or not, many/most priests say the OF Mass with novelties and abuses tacked on. Using vernacular makes the Mass a more everyday affair e.g. I speak English when I’m ordering a bag of chips. I think this inclines all involved to take liberties.

If you’re using the same language you use to tell a saucy joke or swear in, if your neighbours are up in the sanctuary, if the Host is passed out by them like it was an ordinary piece of bread*, what’s sacred, set apart, forbidden about that?

Using an extinct language that even the priest would find hard to bowdlerise helps alter the consciousness of those present. The words used also have no profane associations.

I believe we have a fetish in the West for a literary approach to religion; what’s written down and what we think and say about it is what’s most important.

Whereas what we do and the luminous Being to whom the Mass is addressed are much more important.

I just have two comments. First “THE Mass”? Under one interpretation, the OF that we have now is the same Mass we’ve always had. The same Christ is made present on every altar. Under another interpretation, I hope you’re not intending to denigrate all the saints who have never assisted at the Tridentine Mass.

Secondly, as a Christian, why are you swearing and telling saucy jokes? Maybe we need to make our ordinary lives more holy, not just make artificial distinctions between the holy and ordinary.

 

[Layman]

“Under one interpretation, the OF that we have now is the same Mass we’ve always had.”

Funny, they don’t look and sound alike at all. 'Course, I’m no liturgical scholar.

“I hope you’re not intending to denigrate all the saints who have never assisted at the Tridentine Mass.”

Now, did I say that? Have another look.

“Secondly, as a Christian, why are you swearing and telling saucy jokes?”

I don’t. Except when I hit my thumb with a hammer. But many do. It’s harder to do so in Latin. Even for liturgical scholars.

Plus which, anyone hearing Latin will not associate it’s words with anything profane, as they will never hear it or use it in the working day. Unless they’re liturgical scholars.

Also: look at this.

*“Maybe we need to make our ordinary lives more holy” *

Do you mean here * I* should make my ordinary life more holy? I am attempting to do so. Latin Masses are helping tremenduously.

“not just make artificial distinctions between the holy and ordinary.”

I don’t know what that means at all. There is religious and there is secular, sacred and the profane. That’s what I mean.

What I mean is: Introduce lay lectors, EMCs in civil dress and Mass in the vernacular and by definition you are inclined towards the ordinary, the everyday.

 

[Spirithound]

“Under one interpretation, the OF that we have now is the same Mass we’ve always had.”

Funny, they don’t look and sound alike at all. 'Course, I’m no liturgical scholar.

Of course you had to delete the following sentence to make that shot appear to stick.

“I hope you’re not intending to denigrate all the saints who have never assisted at the Tridentine Mass.”

Now, did I say that? Have another look.

“the” Mass. Singular. Implies Tridentine Mass is better than any others.

“Secondly, as a Christian, why are you swearing and telling saucy jokes?”

I don’t. Except when I hit my thumb with a hammer. But many do. It’s harder to do so in Latin. Even for liturgical scholars.

Plus which, anyone hearing Latin will not associate it’s words with anything profane, as they will never hear it or use it in the working day. Unless they’re liturgical scholars.

Also: look at this.

*“Maybe we need to make our ordinary lives more holy” *

Do you mean here * I* should make my ordinary life more holy? I am attempting to do so. Latin Masses are helping tremenduously.

My apologies if I made an ad hominen attack. My implication was that if our (see, plural) language is more holy, then using the same language for holy things would not be scandalous.

“not just make artificial distinctions between the holy and ordinary.”

I don’t know what that means at all. There is religious and there is secular, sacred and the profane. That’s what I mean.

What I mean is: Introduce lay lectors, EMCs in civil dress and Mass in the vernacular and by definition you are inclined towards the ordinary, the everyday.

I don’t see that as a definition at all. For hundreds of years, the Mass was in the language of the people. It was the vernacular. To now go and say that Latin is a holy language because it can’t be understood, and English can’t be holy is an artificial distinction.

 

[Layman]

Frankly, I don’t care for liturgical archaeology; digging up something that was dropped centuries ago as a justification for present tinkering. I’m concerned about getting into Heaven.

In my opinion, the Latin Rite Catholic Mass has been bowdlerised over the past 40+ years; a great wrenching change at the beginning, and seriously-irreverent add-ons later.

They look, to me, as the sort of thing you’d do if you thought Jesus was some fairy character who you needn’t be afraid of. Focus on the Priest, give each other a congratulatory handshake, get the audience up on the stage, sing a few self-satisfied Protestant hymns etc.

I think we’ve become enchanted with ourselves, our intellectualisms and scientific advances. So the priest faces the people, we focus on him, dump ornate language so the audience can join in.

Go a bit further: Move the tabernacle so a) the priest doesn’t have his back to it and b) we’re not discomfited by the reminder of The Prisoner within; build Churches which look like ships or arts centres, keep St. Michael out both in both statue-form and prayer, use troubador guitars instead of ecclesiastic organs …

Continue for another 40 years and you’ll have a group of old ladies dancing around a basket of pre-consecrated hosts in a bare room somewhere.

Small wonder people don’t go to Mass, or behave reverently when they do, when, symbolically, and by their actions and speech, those present, and officiating, don’t seem to be taking it seriously either.

Hee, hee, they’re not even doing it according the rubrics laid down for it. I doubt if 1 in 1000 pew-warmers know the OF was supposed to be done in Latin, ad-orientem, with chant.

I wonder if it’s that old sin come round again? Pride, as in intellectual pride: Let’s change the Mass, because we can.

I can now quite see why people went to the SSPX. It’s painful to go to your local Mass and have to suffer these novelties. The worry arises: If our central rite can change so drastically, can it still transmit the same graces?

Went to an OF yesterday, Saint Patricks day. Fairly brusque, as there was a novena after it. The congregation didn’t really quiet down until aound the consecration. Communion distributed by the priest and one black elderly female EMC; side by side, almost partners in the enterprise.

At least the queue for the priest was a good deal longer; suggests some people understand this is not quite right, or that he has a virtue an EMC doesn’t.

 

[Arthur_of_Lancs]

Re Layman’s most recent post: You know, I agree with you in every detail in your description of the sheer mediocre ordinariness of the Ordinary Form. I am just old enough to remember how things were before the iconoclasts got to work, as destructive of the beauty of our worship as the sixteenth and seventeenth century protestants were of our churches, smashing altars, statues and stained glass windows.

So I would normally give you my 100% support.

However, some advice: tread very carefully indeed when mentioning race. One word out of place and you are (very dark) toast these days. I once heard Peter Bottomley MP put it rather well: “The colour of a man’s skin should be seen in the same way as the colour of his eyes or his hair: something we notice and use to identify him by, but not something we judge him by.” The Catholic Church is by definition multi-racial and Internationalist (and was from the beginning, two millenia before marxists tried to appropriate that word - Matthew 28: 19-20).

Like you, I fail to see why extraordinary ministers of communion (“EMC”) of any age, gender or race are necessary at a Mass. Priests managed to distribute Holy Communion by themselves when communicants were much more numerous. Also, Holy Communion in both forms for the laity reeks of the Lutheran heresy of the priesthood of all believers. The sight of a layman or woman in ordinary clothes handing out communion to a queue of standing communicants, to me, is not particularly reverent or sanctifying. The same mood - well behaved, patient, but not demonstrably focused on heaven - would not be out of place in Burnley Football Club’s ticket office queue (no disrespect to Burnley FC intended - I hold a season ticket there).

I’m sure (I am, really) that you didn’t mean to disparage the EMC at the OF Mass yesterday because of her age, gender or race, but it may have been read by others that way - so please be careful.

Otherwise, as our American friends say: Way to Go, Layman, Way to Go!
Pax vobiscum.

 

[weepixie71]

Frankly, I don’t care for liturgical archaeology; digging up something that was dropped centuries ago as a justification for present tinkering. I’m concerned about getting into Heaven.

In my opinion, the Latin Rite Catholic Mass has been bowdlerised over the past 40+ years; a great wrenching change at the beginning, and seriously-irreverent add-ons later.

They look, to me, as the sort of thing you’d do if you thought Jesus was some fairy character who you needn’t be afraid of. Focus on the Priest, give each other a congratulatory handshake, get the audience up on the stage, sing a few self-satisfied Protestant hymns etc.

I think we’ve become enchanted with ourselves, our intellectualisms and scientific advances. So the priest faces the people, we focus on him, dump ornate language so the audience can join in.

Go a bit further: Move the tabernacle so a) the priest doesn’t have his back to it and b) we’re not discomfited by the reminder of The Prisoner within; build Churches which look like ships or arts centres, keep St. Michael out both in both statue-form and prayer, use troubador guitars instead of ecclesiastic organs …

Continue for another 40 years and you’ll have a group of old ladies dancing around a basket of pre-consecrated hosts in a bare room somewhere.

Small wonder people don’t go to Mass, or behave reverently when they do, when, symbolically, and by their actions and speech, those present, and officiating, don’t seem to be taking it seriously either.

Hee, hee, they’re not even doing it according the rubrics laid down for it. I doubt if 1 in 1000 pew-warmers know the OF was supposed to be done in Latin, ad-orientem, with chant.

I wonder if it’s that old sin come round again? Pride, as in intellectual pride: Let’s change the Mass, because we can.

I can now quite see why people went to the SSPX. It’s painful to go to your local Mass and have to suffer these novelties. The worry arises: If our central rite can change so drastically, can it still transmit the same graces?

Went to an OF yesterday, Saint Patricks day. Fairly brusque, as there was a novena after it. The congregation didn’t really quiet down until aound the consecration. Communion distributed by the priest and one black elderly female EMC; side by side, almost partners in the enterprise.

At least the queue for the priest was a good deal longer; suggests some people understand this is not quite right, or that he has a virtue an EMC doesn’t.

BRAVO layman!!!

 

[Maureen_L]

I once attended a Christmas Mass in which Santa Claus was invited to the altar with the priest, to “speak to all the little children about Christmas…” - I’m afraid I left.

 

[Layman]

I mentioned the lady’s race and gender simply point out the oddness of it. I’m from the Republic Of Ireland, which was 98% white and Catholic up until recently.

To see a black woman standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the priest handing out communion is peculiar. (I lapsed in the 80’s when this sort of thing still wasn’t the norm. Never saw the like.)

It detracts from the sacredness of the rite. If anyone can get up there, what’s special about it?

Side note: I’ve read it’s a sign of a poor entertainer that he encourages audience participation; "Let’s have a sing-along! (because I can’t carry the show myself)"

Here’s what’s likely to happen over the next 20 years: Liberal parishes will decay as older parishioners die off and younger ones work on a Sunday.

Traditional Catholics will struggle to find a regular Sunday TLM until, and if, we get a new wave of conservative seminarians who have the courage of their consecration and can put their foot down about OF novelties.

You’ll have have to travel to get to a TLM for the medium term. I don’t see the general impiety and, lets face it, degeneracy of our society abating soon unless there’s a terrible shock like world war or economic collapse to focus people’s minds on what’s important.

**Hopefully, instead, the word will go 'round that in the TLM and traditional practices like Indulgences, fasting, abstinence and chastity you have a Way to spiritual fulfillment which is both easy to do and effective. **

It would also be nice if Catholicism became popular as a fashion trend, if nothing else: a film about the life of St. Padre Pio would be good. I don’t expect much from Hollywood, California, but you never know.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Whether allowed or not, many/most priests say the OF Mass with novelties and abuses tacked on. Using vernacular makes the Mass a more everyday affair e.g. I speak English when I’m ordering a bag of chips. I think this inclines all involved to take liberties.

If you’re using the same language you use to tell a saucy joke or swear in, if your neighbours are up in the sanctuary, if the Host is passed out by them like it was an ordinary piece of bread*, what’s sacred, set apart, forbidden about that?

English is also used for things like:

1. swearing in a new president
2. our personal private prayers to God
3. making marriage vows

The language you use to tell saucy jokes is probably full of swear words and poor grammer and slang. Any language can be used in ordinary and profane, or sacred and reverent ways.

 

[Layman]

Because the vernacular is in common use, its words can acquire profane associations.

Because Latin is extinct, its words cannot, unless you’re a scholar.