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

[pnewton]

Frankly, I don’t care for liturgical archaeology; digging up something that was dropped centuries ago as a justification for present tinkering. … The worry arises: If our central rite can change so drastically, can it still transmit the same graces?…

I see here a contradiction. Is it the change or the lenghth of time that it takes that causes concern for you? If we look at the Mass of the apostles and the Mass of 1950, is not the change much greater? Yet it still transmits the same grace as it did originally.

 

[ncjohn]

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.

And yet the only reason we had Latin to begin with was because it was the vernacular of the time and people wanted to pray in their own language instead of Greek.

The idea that we would not be able to express our devotion in the language we most commonly speak quite frankly boggles my mind. The idea that we would not be able to express the reverent because we use that language for the mundane similarly boggles my mind. We can’t pray in the vernacular because we also use it to order dinner? PLEASE!!

It is expressly because I can most completely form my thoughts and direct them toward God in the language with which I am most familiar that I can most sincerely express myself rather than spending my time trying to translate my thoughts into another language, or translate what is being told to me during Mass rather than being able to fully concentrate on, and participate in, what is occurring.

If one feel that it adds some special dimension to their worship, I have absolutely no problem with that. But please recognize that there is no objective truth to that and no inherent “specialness” about it.

Peace,

 

[Layman]

“But please recognize that there is no objective truth to that and no inherent “specialness” about it.”

There I would disagree. Words have power. I’ve read demons detest Latin. If a prayer is said the same way for centuries I think it will build up a ‘charge’ that a new one won’t have. For example, from memory, I read Fr. Gabriel Amorth, the Vatican exorcist was displeased at the new rite of exorcism that’s been drawn up. I think he said it looked like the people who wrote it had never attended an exorcism. And that brave man is really at at the front lines of our religion!

It seems the prayers of our religion are now in the hands of scribes rather than living saints.

My emphasis: “It is expressly because I can most completely form my thoughts and direct them toward God in the language with which I am most familiar that I can most sincerely express myself rather than spending my time trying to translate my thoughts into another language, or translate what is being told to me during Mass rather than being able to fully concentrate on, and participate in, what is occurring.”

I like the Latin mass because it is more impersonal and more communal. You can participate as much or as little as you want. You have time to think. We are all there together in silent adoration. In the N. O. Mass you have less time to say your own private, silent prayers. In the Latin, there are long stretches when you can do private ones, or simply meditate.

“I see here a contradiction. Is it the change or the length of time that it takes that causes concern for you? If we look at the Mass of the apostles and the Mass of 1950, is not the change much greater? Yet it still transmits the same grace as it did originally.”

Year 0 - 1950 is a lot longer than 1950-2008. And what a drastic change we’ve had in that time. If it continues at the current pace, the N.O. will descend into contradiction and farce. There was no need to change the Mass. No heresy to address. Forbidding the old Mass was especially perverse.

I don’t perceive I get the same graces from the N.O. as the Latin. It’s curious. I’m really trying to discern if it’s just a prejudice or something deeper. At the Latin, there’s less distraction, that I’m sure of. I was at one this evening. I was afraid to rustle my hymn sheet, it was that quiet.

And that’s an interesting point: Here is the nub of it: how do you judge the worth of a Mass? I’m pretty sure justifying it by reference to this or that document is not the ultimate measure.

I’ve read that the number of saints it makes and the number of seminarians it fosters are two measures. I think the number of conversions also.

We have two Anglican converts in our little schola, for example.

So what’s the score on that with the N.O. vs. the TLM?

 

[wildjmp]

Where are these clown masses taking place? Luckily, I have never seen one… I’d be pretty POD. I’ve grown fond of the Tridentine mass as of late. I don’t care for the cheesy music and a few other things that are in the novus ordo mass. Does anyone know how I can request a Tridentine Nuptial Mass at my church? Is it difficult? Can I write to my bishop about it?

~Jen

 

[Layman]

I’d guess ask your priest first. If he can’t do it, you could check with your country’s Latin Mass Society, if it has one.

But ask the local priest or parish priest first. Diplomacy and good manners are important.

 

[Arthur_of_Lancs]

Layman, your thoughtful posts are like telepathy - I think it here - you write it there. Well done with the advice just now on trying to get the local priest onside with the wedding request.

Another angle: the (Anglican) Church of England has gone through its own dumbing-down modernisation process with their banal Alternative Service Book (1979 vintage or thereabouts), mercilessly pilloried as the “Rocky Horror Service Book” in the UK satirical magazine Private Eye, in more or less every issue.

OK, from a Catholic perspective, the Anglican 1666 Book of Common Prayer (“BCP”) was openly heretical, ."…a sacrifice made once and for all upon the Cross…" ] but Cranmer’s prose - translated in part from the Roman Missal of the time - was (and is) a jewel of the English language - and is incidentally the basis of the Anglican Use rite used in the USA for some converted Episcopalian parishes that have come over to us. It’s not just the Catholic Church that has exchanged its heritage for a mess of potage. If you must be a Protestant, (and no Catholic could condone the heresies therein) the 1666 BCP was, in the dignity of its language if not its doctrines, a beautiful way to worship God.

For me, the use of the vernacular per se is not objectionable in the Mass, just the mundane ordinariness of the 1969 new Mass language. “Happy are the peacemakers” UGH! The word is Blessed, for Heaven’s sake. We Catholics have our own treasures in the English language: the Douai Bible, and the English translation of the 1962 Missal. We should offer to God the best that we have, not some “accessible” , mundane, run-of-the-mill language.

 

[Layman]

Aye, and there’s also the ‘pro multis’ controversy. It’s like Alice Through The Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master - that’s all.”

 

[pnewton]

I don’t perceive I get the same graces from the N.O. as the Latin.

I think this is something that needs repeated often and I applaud your ability to see yourself objectively.

Detractors of any Latin and promoters of all things modern will tell you (correctly) that the Holy Sacrament is not dependent on our senses, our perception. Truly our faith is best exercised best and we are blessed when we “believe, yet have not seen.”

Yet we must not forget that the idea behind the Incarnation and the Sacraments is that men are sense-oriented creatures. We believe best when we perceive best. We need the time of seeing and feeling so that we build the faith we need to go through the times we can not see or feel. This is why I wish every bishop would be more open to reaching those who desire the TLM as a matter of spirituality would recognize the need it to be offered often and conveniently.

 

[maurin]

And yet the only reason we had Latin to begin with was because it was the vernacular of the time and people wanted to pray in their own language instead of Greek.

The idea that we would not be able to express our devotion in the language we most commonly speak quite frankly boggles my mind. The idea that we would not be able to express the reverent because we use that language for the mundane similarly boggles my mind. We can’t pray in the vernacular because we also use it to order dinner? PLEASE!!

ncjohn, if you continue to roll your eyes like that, there is a distinct possibility–I was told as a child–that they can remain like that.

I don’t believe you’ve latched on to the correct meaning of layman’s words. All throughout history our private devotions have been prayed in our own vernaculars: the Rosary, etc. The prayers after the Mass, added by Leo XIII, are also prayed in the vernacular. The Homily is also preached in the vernacular.

However, the Mass itself, which is the Highest Prayer, the Prayer which makes present again tangibly Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary in an unbloody manner, is Prayed in a language which is no longer in common use and whose vocabulary and grammar is not subject to shifting meanings. Lex means law unequivocally, rather than law meaning law or policeman depending on context, as it can in English.

 

[ncjohn]

ncjohn, if you continue to roll your eyes like that, there is a distinct possibility–I was told as a child–that they can remain like that.

LOL, yeah I remember that one too, along with a couple other similar nuggets that also turned out to be less than accurate.

I don’t believe you’ve latched on to the correct meaning of layman’s words. All throughout history our private devotions have been prayed in our own vernaculars: the Rosary, etc. The prayers after the Mass, added by Leo XIII, are also prayed in the vernacular. The Homily is also preached in the vernacular.

However, the Mass itself, which is the Highest Prayer, the Prayer which makes present again tangibly Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary in an unbloody manner, is Prayed in a language which is no longer in common use and whose vocabulary and grammar is not subject to shifting meanings. .

Actually, I think I have understood him, maurin. A quick look through his posts makes it pretty clear what he is saying. I still totally disagree that there is anything inherently more special about using another language, be it Latin, Greek or Aramaic. I think the overwhelming majority of people will tell you that they fell more connected during a Mass where they understand the prayers that are being said without having to read or translate them. The idea of presenting more quiet time is a valid one but is really a side issue. I’ve been to many OF Masses that do actually have more quiet time.

That being said, as I mentioned previously, I have no problem with those who find otherwise and feel more connected or feel more of a sense of awe in the TLM and I am glad that it is more available for those who desire it.

Lex means law unequivocally, rather than law meaning law or policeman depending on context, as it can in English.

Hmmm, and yet we have continual and ongoing disagreements between scholars as to the proper translation of so much of that Latin, much less the language of the scriptures on which it was based. Translation will never be an exact science. Heck, we don’t always agree about what someone means or meant in our native language. Look at how often we have people misunderstand what we write here and then attack us for things we didn’t even say! That is an inherent shortcoming of language in general.

The original Latin means what it means, but how you put it into a form that someone today understands will vary from person to person and people will continue to disagree about the best way to do that. Since we don’t think in Latin and have to translate its meaning in some way we’re stuck with that dilemna whether we hear it in Latin or not.

Peace,

 

[maurin]

LOL, yeah I remember that one too, along with a couple other similar nuggets that also turned out to be less than accurate.

just make sure you’re wearing clean undergarments in case of any mishaps that might send you to the hospital, and you will have avoided any embarrassment.

Actually, I think I have understood him, maurin.

actually, I believe you haven’t from reading your replies.

A quick look through his posts makes it pretty clear what he is saying. I still totally disagree that there is anything inherently more special about using another language, be it Latin, Greek or Aramaic. I think the overwhelming majority of people will tell you that they fell more connected during a Mass where they understand the prayers that are being said without having to read or translate them. The idea of presenting more quiet time is a valid one but is really a side issue. I’ve been to many OF Masses that do actually have more quiet time.

an overwhelming majority of people are like running water, you may agree: they seek the easiest course. As Our Lord reminds us over and over again in the Scriptures, that is not necessarily the most efficacious way.

That being said, as I mentioned previously, I have no problem with those who find otherwise and feel more connected or feel more of a sense of awe in the TLM and I am glad that it is more available for those who desire it.

And I will not begrudge you or anyone else their “feelings.” However, this is totally extraneous to the small dialogue you and I are having.

Hmmm, and yet we have continual and ongoing disagreements between scholars as to the proper translation of so much of that Latin, much less the language of the scriptures on which it was based. Translation will never be an exact science. Heck, we don’t always agree about what someone means or meant in our native language. Look at how often we have people misunderstand what we write here and then attack us for things we didn’t even say! That is an inherent shortcoming of language in general.

The original Latin means what it means, but how you put it into a form that someone today understands will vary from person to person and people will continue to disagree about the best way to do that. Since we don’t think in Latin and have to translate its meaning in some way we’re stuck with that dilemna whether we hear it in Latin or not.

Peace,

This is not at all necessarily so. We survived very well in the English speaking world with the Douay Reims translation of Scripture, and similar language used on the right hand page of our Missals while assisting at Mass. Since when did the Church become so concerned with appealing to the lowest common denominator and at the same time dragging down, rather than appealing to the highest common denominator and at the same time lifting up?

 

[pnewton]

. Since when did the Church become so concerned with appealing to the lowest common denominator…

Day one?

Jesus

And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Paul

Why then do you judge your brother? Or you, why do you look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.”
So (then) each of us shall give an account of himself (to God). Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.

The Church has never had a preference for the elite or the educated, but rather for the poor and illiterate.

 

[I_Believe]

And yet the only reason we had Latin to begin with was because it was the vernacular of the time and people wanted to pray in their own language instead of Greek.

The idea that we would not be able to express our devotion in the language we most commonly speak quite frankly boggles my mind. The idea that we would not be able to express the reverent because we use that language for the mundane similarly boggles my mind. We can’t pray in the vernacular because we also use it to order dinner? PLEASE!!

It is expressly because I can most completely form my thoughts and direct them toward God in the language with which I am most familiar that I can most sincerely express myself rather than spending my time trying to translate my thoughts into another language, or translate what is being told to me during Mass rather than being able to fully concentrate on, and participate in, what is occurring.

If one feel that it adds some special dimension to their worship, I have absolutely no problem with that. But please recognize that there is no objective truth to that and no inherent “specialness” about it.

Peace,

Provisions for the Promotion of Latin Studies

With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, **We now, in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:

Responsibility for enforcement

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.**

1. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, **writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies *or in the Liturgy, ***or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

You going to roll your eyes at that ? The Veterum Sapientia pretty much discredits your entire post.

 

[Layman]

**If you go to attend a benevolent and just and powerful king in his court, it is both courteous and wise to address him formally. **

You bow to him. You never turn your back to him. You kneel if he’s bestowing an honour upon you.

What a proud generation we seem, intoxicated with our literary cleverness. Did anyone run the changes implemented post-Vatican II by the Lord Jesus Christ before implementing them? i.e. ask a living saint or two; those whom, when they ask of Him, He answers.

Just to be sure it was alright. Just to be polite.

 

[I_Believe]

I didn’t edit post 92 in time.

And yet the only reason we had Latin to begin with was because it was the vernacular of the time and people wanted to pray in their own language instead of Greek.

The idea that we would not be able to express our devotion in the language we most commonly speak quite frankly boggles my mind. The idea that we would not be able to express the reverent because we use that language for the mundane similarly boggles my mind. We can’t pray in the vernacular because we also use it to order dinner? PLEASE!!

It is expressly because I can most completely form my thoughts and direct them toward God in the language with which I am most familiar that I can most sincerely express myself rather than spending my time trying to translate my thoughts into another language, or translate what is being told to me during Mass rather than being able to fully concentrate on, and participate in, what is occurring.

If one feel that it adds some special dimension to their worship, I have absolutely no problem with that. But please recognize that there is no objective truth to that and no inherent “specialness” about it.

Peace,

Provisions for the Promotion of Latin Studies

With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, **We now, in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:

Responsibility for enforcement

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.**

1. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, **writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies *or in the Liturgy, ***or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

You going to roll your eyes at that ? The Veterum Sapientia pretty much discredits your entire post. Seems H.H. John XXIII saw what was getting ready to raise it’s ugly head, as did others at the Council. H.H. Pius XII saw it as well

“The day the Church abandons her universal tongue is the day before
she returns to the catacombs.” Pope Pius XII

And at the Council, H.E. James Cardinal McIntyre spoke

“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

continued…

 

[I_Believe]

Of course after JXXIII’s death GRHS, those “eager for revolutionary change” gained sway. After time had passed, Churchmen spoke out…

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” (Milestones, page 148). ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

The Novus Ordo itself, is not the problem, but what it has become has torn the souls of many Catholics to pieces.

No one will ever convince me that the USCCB has one iota of concern for the souls of US Catholics as long as the atrocious abuses like the one in my OP continue.

And to continue to say “for all”, when each and every Bishop in this country knows that the proper translation is “for many”, is, imo, evidence of dissidence and blatant disregard for Tradition. And it’s never going to stop as long as those who embrace dissidence, along with those who simply don’t know better, keep funding this fiasco via the collection basket.

It’s gone on for so long, and the average Catholic is so jaded, and ignorant of Tradition and the proper reverence a Latin Rite demands, that I fear all is lost, short of a Pope who is willing to begin sweeping and widespread excommunications of those Bishops who continue their mockery.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us

 

[pnewton]

Did anyone run the changes implemented post-Vatican II by the Lord Jesus Christ before implementing them? i.e. ask a living saint or two; those whom, when they ask of Him, He answers.

This powerful king has delegated much to the one who hold His authority, the keeper of His keys. One also, when attending a just, powerful and benevolent king, allows those to whom the king has entrusted His authority and royal signet to handle such matters as the king has delegated. These are the ones to make decisions, not the ones we in our human wisdom deem saints before their time.

Can one even be a living Saint? I do not think St. Paul thought this possible.

Great analogy, by the way.

 

[Layman]

A smart prime minister checks every major decision with his King. And it’s not just an analogy; Christ is The King, most puissant and worthy of praise. That’s why we bow and kneel in Church. I find it useful to keep this in mind as a balance to the ‘Jesus is my pal and whatever I do he’ll forgive me’ attitude.

*“Can one even be a living Saint? I do not think St. Paul thought this possible.” *

Sure they can. St. Padre Pio was noted in his day. I’m pretty sure a Pope or bishop could make some discreet enquiries to find some if he wanted to.

Or are there so few holy men and women around these days?

The business of the Church is doing God’s will. Makes sense to find people who can get authoritative answers to questions.

Personally I’d prefer to do religion and get the benefits rather than talk and write about it. I see Vat. II as what happens when you let academics at something rather than the ‘professionals’.

 

[pnewton]

A smart prime minister checks every major decision with his King.

he business of the Church is doing God’s will. Makes sense to find people who can get authoritative answers to questions.

Yes, and as Catholics we believe those authoritative answers come from the Holy Father, the only one we know to hold authority. While you may believe in living saints, the Church canonizes no one until after death.

 

[Layman]

We obey the Pope. This is smart. It stops schisms. I understand, however, that Vat. II was a pastoral council and no infallible utterances were made at it.

The Pope is a man, as are his bishops, and men make mistakes. It would have been wise to ask Heaven via noted holy men and women if what they were doing was right.

We have free will. We can make mistakes and go to the devil if we want to. While the gates of Hell may not prevail against the Church, that doesn’t mean there won’t be trouble within Her, and errors made.

I remember reading in a biography of St. Padre Pio that the Pope at that time was asking whether anyone “could obtain a certain grace for him”. Padre Pio’s name was mentioned, to which the Pope replied testily, “yes, yes” because he associated Padre Pio with the ructions his saintliness was causing in his locale.

So the idea of consulting holy men and women is not a foreign one. After all, divining Heaven’s will is kind of the business of the clergy, after all!