Not "participating" in Tridentine?

[dljl]

Joe Gloor:

Once again, the implication of the text of Sacrosanctum Concilium is that the faithful were not as easily able to achieve fully conscious and active participation in the TLM as they are supposed to be able in the NO.
How well the NO has been able to achieve the desired results is another matter, but it seems clear that the Holy See found problems with the participation of the faithful under the TLM or they would not have felt the need to make the change.

Nicely summarized. I would however suggest (only my opinion) that perhaps the perceived lack of participation in the TLM was more a function of bad catechesis rather than any deficiency in the liturgy.

 

[mosher]

otm:

Sorry, you might want to read the good Cardinal’s book again, and then you might want to talk to a number of individuals who were alive long before the vernacular came about.

The professor was at least partially correct.

The book was actually a text book in two of my liturgy classes - I am very familiar with its contents as I have studied it line by line. The experience of the individuals at that time is not germane to the topic. If they did not engage themselves in the liturgy that is their fault as it provides ample opportunity. Further, I attend the Tridentine Mass every Sunday and can cite my experience as an opposition view to anyone who would claim that one does not participate fully in the Tridentine Liturgy. Experience is subjective - the objective reality is that true and complete participation in the Liturgy is done in and through the praying of the Eucharistic prayer. When we enter into this prayer we engaged in active participation in the liturgy. In the book this is specifically stated including an argument for the return to the silent canon.

While it is true that the use of responses have the purpose of helping the lay faithful enter more fully into the liturgy it is not correct to say that it is because of the responses that the lay faithful enter more fully into the liturgy. Active participation is not the same as actively participating.

 

[tom.wineman]

Catholic2003:

However, if people were privately praying the Rosary without regard to what the priest was doing, I would be hard pressed to call that “participation”.

I still see that at the mod Mass.

 

[otm]

dljl:

Nicely summarized. I would however suggest (only my opinion) that perhaps the perceived lack of participation in the TLM was more a function of bad catechesis rather than any deficiency in the liturgy.

Actually, the state of catechesis was much better before Vatican 2 than it was starting in the early 70’s, when some misguided but well meaning individuals decided that learning doctrine did not develope faith, and that they neede to concentrate on faith developement.

I don’t know that I would use a word such as deficiency in reference to the TLM. I don’t think that one looking at a scientific text written in German, when one could not speak German, would lable the scientific work as “deficient”. but it would certainly be more accessible to the individual needing the information in the text if they spoke German or if the text was translated into their own native language. It would certainly make it more useable.

The same could certainly be said for Latin in the Mass; there is a difference perceived by many people in being able to listen to and understand the prayers the priest is saying as he says them, as opposed to listening to him speak a language they do not speak, and attempt to read a translation as they hear him spek the prayers.

A somewhat similar analogy is to operas and operettas. One can sit and listen to the music and understand little or nothing of the text. One can read a translation of the text before going to the opera and have a pretty good idea of what is transpiring, but still not understand the language; most would agree that one was participating more in the opera by at least having some idea of the story line. Or one could have a translation in one’s lap and be able to follow along (and thereby participate more fully) as one listened. Or one could hear an opera/operetta in one’s own language, and one would be able to catch a lot more simply by not having to do two different things at the same time - read and listen.

However, in none of the cases would most people say the opera was deficient.

and given that work on the liturgy started well before Vatican 2, I am inclined to thin that it was not just a perceived lack of participation; I think there were any number of people who were aware that there was all too often minimal participation; it wasn’t just a perception, but a reality.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

dljl:

Nicely summarized. I would however suggest (only my opinion) that perhaps the perceived lack of participation in the TLM was more a function of bad catechesis rather than any deficiency in the liturgy.

Thanks. I presume the ‘bad catechesis’ you refer to is on the part of the congregation. Much the same can be said about the deficiencies in the way the NO is celebrated although that may not be limited to the congregation but also to the ‘innovative’ Priests and Liturgists.

 

[SnorterLuster]

otm:

and given that work on the liturgy started well before Vatican 2, I am inclined to thin that it was not just a perceived lack of participation; I think there were any number of people who were aware that there was all too often minimal participation; it wasn’t just a perception, but a reality.

I don’t really think that most of us had any real problem understanding and participating in the Mass even though it was in Latin. You are correct that work on the liturgy started many years before Vatican II, but I have come to the conclusion that it was just the experts with a solution in search of a problem.

I think that many who were “working” on the liturgy were like the efficiency experts who have plagued business for years. The experts come into a firm with the latest fads and completely remake the firm so it is more relevant or compassionate or whatever. I think the experts did the same to the mass. They had an agenda or outlook that the people should participate more, that the mass was about community, that it was too rigid, and needed “renewel”. It had little to do with helping the laity in achieving their salvation. They had THE SOLUTION and all they had to do was find the PROBLEM.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

SnorterLuster:

I don’t really think that most of us had any real problem understanding and participating in the Mass even though it was in Latin. You are correct that work on the liturgy started many years before Vatican II, but I have come to the conclusion that it was just the experts with a solution in search of a problem.

I think that many who were “working” on the liturgy were like the efficiency experts who have plagued business for years. The experts come into a firm with the latest fads and completely remake the firm so it is more relevant or compassionate or whatever. I think the experts did the same to the mass. They had an agenda or outlook that the people should participate more, that the mass was about community, that it was too rigid, and needed “renewel”. It had little to do with helping the laity in achieving their salvation. They had THE SOLUTION and all they had to do was find the PROBLEM.

This is a pretty cynical viewpoint.
The change to the Mass isn’t referred to as a “renewel” in Sacrosanctum Concilium, but rather as a “Restoration” whose purpose is “to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church.”
Are you suggesting the Church just wanted to ‘tinker’?

 

[SnorterLuster]

Joe Gloor:

This is a pretty cynical viewpoint.
The change to the Mass isn’t referred to as a “renewel” in Sacrosanctum Concilium, but rather as a “Restoration” whose purpose is “to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church.”
Are you suggesting the Church just wanted to ‘tinker’?

No, not tinker. I think experts, regardless of the field, think they have a special insight in their field.

Read your quotations above:*
"to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; (the poor bumpkins in the pew just sit there and pray, we need to move them to understand that the mass is about community, not worship)

to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change;* (the mass hasn’t changed for centuries and as experts we are tired of studying it. We need to get with the times, God surely wants us to be modern)*

to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; (if we have to drop the sacrifice from the mass, water down the worship to God in order to attract the Lutherans back into the fold, well lets do it.)

to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church."* (The world has gone materialistic, we can’t compete unless we scrap tradition and make new traditions with a sunset provision. Lets change things every few years to keep peoples interest. Maybe rock music and dancers will draw the heathens to the Mass. Oh yea, and we will have the Masses in the venacular. That way we can do away with the word Catholic, you know universal. Heck, we may even end up with churches in one town using 8 or 9 different languages.)

No, I don’t think they intended to tinker.

 

[mpeacock]

I also think that you have a cynical viewpoint…After all these were(and are) the experts.
We are all human and therefore are not at all perfect. Sometimes a tweak here or there is in order.
We are not changing theology --don’t worry.
Be not afraid. Isn’t that what He said?

 

[otm]

mosher:

The book was actually a text book in two of my liturgy classes - I am very familiar with its contents as I have studied it line by line. The experience of the individuals at that time is not germane to the topic. If they did not engage themselves in the liturgy that is their fault as it provides ample opportunity.

The experience of individuals at that time is not only germane to the topic, it is the topic. Go back and read the first post; the question on the test says “(people) were” . :The question ws not about the TLM today, but prior to Vatican 2.

mosher:

Further, I attend the Tridentine Mass every Sunday and can cite my experience as an opposition view to anyone who would claim that one does not participate fully in the Tridentine Liturgy.

Again, read the first post. The discussion is not about what people today are doing in the TLM; it is about the TLM prior to the Pauline rite.

mosher:

Active participation is not the same as actively participating.

Then what is it? If one is actively participating, then one is engaged in active participation. I am sure you are not saying that if one is actively participating, one is engaged in passive participation.

I have no bone to pick with you about what people do, or don’t do, who go to the TLM. I would suspect that people who go are seeking it out, and not just showing up because it is Sunday and they would go to hell if they didn’t sit through Mass. Further, missals are as readily available, if not more so, than 40 or 50 years ago, and I would suspect that many if not most may have them. I would be quite surprised to find very many, if any at all, at a TLM engged in a private devotion during the Mass now.

However, the discussion is not about the TLM now, so your experience of the TLM now is irrelevant to the discussion of what occured 40 or 50 years ago.

 

[otm]

SnorterLuster:

I don’t really think that most of us had any real problem understanding and participating in the Mass even though it was in Latin. You are correct that work on the liturgy started many years before Vatican II, but I have come to the conclusion that it was just the experts with a solution in search of a problem.

I think that many who were “working” on the liturgy were like the efficiency experts who have plagued business for years. The experts come into a firm with the latest fads and completely remake the firm so it is more relevant or compassionate or whatever. I think the experts did the same to the mass. They had an agenda or outlook that the people should participate more, that the mass was about community, that it was too rigid, and needed “renewel”. It had little to do with helping the laity in achieving their salvation. They had THE SOLUTION and all they had to do was find the PROBLEM.

Well, actually, they had a lot of research, and a fairly thorough understanding of what the Mass was about, and they had the backing of several Popes. I think that they knew very well what the problem was. I also think that the solution got itself somewhat derailed for a series of reasons, not the least of which was that there were a lot of priests at the time who’s knowledge of liturgy amounted to not much more than how to follow the rubrics.

Further, if you look at the history of the Mass, you will find that there have been changes throughout the centuries, in spite of the fact that Sister so and so insisted that it was identical in 1950 to what was said in, sy, 40 AD and 1250 AD.

Too many people seem to have a rather blind spot historically in the issue.

 

[otm]

SnorterLuster:

No, not tinker. I think experts, regardless of the field, think they have a special insight in their field.

And you think they don’t? I guess that makes you an expert in the field…

"to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; (

the poor bumpkins in the pew just sit there and pray, we need to move them to understand that the mass is about community, not worship)* *Excellent. Now, Please back that up with a Church document which says that, or even implies it. I know of no Pope, Cardinal or bishop who has taken that position, and I know enough about the Mass to know that the Pauline rite is as much about worship as the TLM, or the Divine Mysteries. Unless you are playing the SSPX card, that statement doesn’t fly; and if it is an SSPX card, it doesn’t even land on the table.
Snorter Luster:

to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change;

(the mass hasn’t changed for centuries and as experts we are tired of studying it. We need to get with the times, God surely wants us to be modern)* *Actually, there were a number of changes over the last 5 centuries, most of them minor; the fact that it was not a central issue at any given time is not proof that nothing needed to be done. Your arguement is that because nothing was done, that is proof that nothing needed to be done. Not a particularly well constructed arguement.

SnorterLuster:

to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ;

(if we have to drop the sacrifice from the mass, water down the worship to God in order to attract the Lutherans back into the fold, well lets do it.)* *Given that the sacrifice was not dropped, this is a non sequitur.

SnorterLuster:

to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church."

(The world has gone materialistic, we can’t compete unless we scrap tradition and make new traditions with a sunset provision. Lets change things every few years to keep peoples interest. Maybe rock music and dancers will draw the heathens to the Mass. Oh yea, and we will have the Masses in the venacular. That way we can do away with the word Catholic, you know universal. Heck, we may even end up with churches in one town using 8 or 9 different languages.)Given that the Mass has been said in the vernacular for most of the history of the Catholic (Universal) Church, as opposed to the Latin or Roman rite, your knowledge of the Mass is a bit lacking. Further, it started in the vernacular. Seemed to be good enough for the Church then, and through the centuries. Next you will want to get rid of the other 20+ rites.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

palmas85:

You Rosary bashers are really something else you know that?

And I know what too:

uncharitable thought]

censored]

edit]

You get the idea… :yup:

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Correction: It was not in the participation of the faithful under the TLM where the Holy See found problems. It was problems with the non-participation of elitist Protestants in the TLM. Why is it so hard for everyone to accept the fact that accomodation to Northern European denominations with their creeping secularism was the motivating factor?

Perhaps because it was such a misguided attempt and in many respects a lose-lose all the way around.

Have courage, folks. Read the history of the Council. I dare you!

Anna

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

mpeacock:

At the risk of being miscast as a “rosary basher”, I would remind my friend, that the very reason for the translation to vernacular was to encourage and further engage the congregant.

I beg to differ with you. If that was the “very reason for the translation to vernacular” there would have been no reason to change the form of the the rite, now would there? In fact, we went from the 1500 year-old Eucharistic Prayer to four (plus) new ones, including one that scrupulously avoids any mention of sacrifice.

Hmmmn. Something else going on?

Question. In those churches where the Tabernacle has been removed from the main church (for deeper, more meaningful participation??), to what or whom do many people still genuflect? It must be to something or someone important of which they are now cognisant after 40 years of more active, deeper and meaningful participation!

C’mon, Behind the rote responses and heartfelt contemporary hymns are congregations less catechised and more poorly instructed in the Mass than ever! (And I observe this in a part of the country generally recognized as better educated than the average in all ways.) Mechanical, mechanical, and at what price!!

Sad

Anna

 

[SnorterLuster]

otm:

And you think they don’t? I guess that makes you an expert in the field… **They may have done more study, but that knowledge is too often ivory tower knowledge. The experts read each other’s writings, go to the same meetings, and end up like the politicians–believing everyone thinks like them. **

Excellent. Now, Please back that up with a Church document which says that, or even implies it. I know of no Pope, Cardinal or bishop who has taken that position, and I know enough about the Mass to know that the Pauline rite is as much about worship as the TLM, or the Divine Mysteries. Unless you are playing the SSPX card, that statement doesn’t fly; and if it is an SSPX card, it doesn’t even land on the table. **Back up what? **"to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; seems to say it all. The Council seemed to think that we were just sitting there, no vigor in our Christian life. I guess that is why so many people believe that Christ in not really present in the Eucharist; why the seminaries have enlarged and new ones built to handle the demand; why Catholic charities have to feed off the government teat since in our vigor we quit giving to them. Yes, we are holding hands, having processions, shouting and singing, showing our vigor.

Actually, there were a number of changes over the last 5 centuries, most of them minor; the fact that it was not a central issue at any given time is not proof that nothing needed to be done. Your arguement is that because nothing was done, that is proof that nothing needed to be done. Not a particularly well constructed arguement. As you say, there were minor changes, bu not an entire new mass. If the people were worshiping God and the Church was growing, why would you throw out the entire liturgy if favor of something untried and unproven? Wouldn’t it have been better to take it slow and easy?

Given that the sacrifice was not dropped, this is a non sequitur.
I may have overstated, but the sacrifice has certainly been deemphasized. To use the buzz words of the day, went went from vertical to horizontal worship.

Given that the Mass has been said in the vernacular for most of the history of the Catholic (Universal) Church, as opposed to the Latin or Roman rite, your knowledge of the Mass is a bit lacking. The mass was said in the vernacular for most of its history? Since this topic was about participation in the TLM, I assumed we were discussing the Latin Rite. It was said in French in 900 and German in 1100. English in 700? In my ignorance, I thought it was said in Latin all over Europe. Glad you cleared that up for me. Further, it started in the vernacular. Seemed to be good enough for the Church then, and through the centuries.And if Latin was good enough for centuries, then why change it now? Next you will want to get rid of the other 20+ rites. **No, I don’t think I ever said that or even implied that. **

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

mpeacock:

I also think that you have a cynical viewpoint…After all these were(and are) the experts.
We are all human and therefore are not at all perfect. Sometimes a tweak here or there is in order.
We are not changing theology --don’t worry.
Be not afraid. Isn’t that what He said?

While I won’t ascribe bad intentions to the “experts” of the immediately post-conciliar era, I do know that I have come into contact with enough liturgists during my theology studies that I wouldn’t let most of them touch the Mass with a 39 1/2 foot pole. In modern theological parlance, “expert” often means “person with the newest crackpot idea that has no continuity at all with the rest of Catholic thought but is really popular because of how progressive and modern his thought is.”

 

[tom.wineman]

Is the measure of participation the amount of motion and commotion a person physically displays to observers ?
Or is it what is between the heart and God ?

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Sorry, you might want to read the good Cardinal’s book again, and then you might want to talk to a number of individuals who were alive long before the vernacular came about.

The professor was at least partially correct.

I can give four instances of talking to people alive before the vernacular.

The first was my grandfather. He was born in 1924, and had a good portion of his life in which the Mass was said in Latin. I greeted him one day with “Introibo ad altare Dei.”
I got the reply, “Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.”

It will have been at least 40 years since he had heard that Mass, but he ‘wasn’t paying attention’, at any rate. That is why it has been impressed into his mind.

He told me he wished the Mass were still in Latin, and gave me his St. Joseph Missal (1950) as a gift.

He does not speak Latin.

---

The second is my maths teacher. He is not as aged as my grandfather, but he grew up with and had the Latin Mass for early adulthood. He witnessed the changes firsthand, as well.

He, too, wishes that the Mass were restored to Latin. I have that in good faith.

He speaks rudimentary high school Latin which he says he has forgotten most of.

---

The third is a Latin teacher at my school. Granted, she has a special love for the language, but she is also quite pious. She was one vow from becoming a nun.

She says that she loves the Latin Mass, and wishes it were back. She was jubilant when she learnt of the indult Mass we have at the Cathedral.

---

The only person I have met who does not want it back is my grandmother, but she still has quarrel with the way in which the new Mass is commonly said.

---

The people before the vernacular may not be as thrilled with it as you think.

Nay, you may have run into people who are GOOD CATHOLICS, and obey the Pope whether they like it or not. I acknowledge the validity of the vernacular Mass, and it’s equal graces bestowed. I do not, however, have to like it.

Pax Domini sit semper tecum. :tiphat:

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Andreas Hofer:

While I won’t ascribe bad intentions to the “experts” of the immediately post-conciliar era, I do know that I have come into contact with enough liturgists during my theology studies that I wouldn’t let most of them touch the Mass with a 39 1/2 foot pole. In modern theological parlance, “expert” often means “person with the newest crackpot idea that has no continuity at all with the rest of Catholic thought but is really popular because of how progressive and modern his thought is.”

Forgive me if you all have heard this, but just in case someone has missed it:

God created liturgists so that those of us who will never have the opportunity to undergo physical persecution may still suffer in His Name.

Anna