"Oh but it wasn't how it was done at the last supper and in the early church"

[RogerDeCourcy]

Sir,that’s why the Catholic Church has a pope and bishops, and the concept of obedience.

I’ve read that’s the problem. A traditionalist asks: “Well, what exactly are we supposed to obey in Vatican II?”. The response seems to be “Whatever novelty the Catholic mass mind wants to validate after it arises as a fashion, (until the Pope or local bishop clarifies matters)”.

Like, you can’t even argue against altar girls, ecumania, CITH and the like. You must ‘obey’ i.e. be quiet. Then you find out that you can bypass these things entirely and still have a licit mass and be a Catholic in good standing.

Your supposed to have a rite that is supernatural, holy, a serious sacrifice. Then they add guitars, ‘On Eagles Wings’ and the performers facing the audience. There’s a discontinuity there.

 

[clem456]

I’ve read that’s the problem. A traditionalist asks: “Well, what exactly are we supposed to obey in Vatican II?”. The response seems to be “Whatever novelty the Catholic mass mind wants to validate after it arises as a fashion, (until the Pope or local bishop clarifies matters)”.

Like, you can’t even argue against altar girls, ecumania, CITH and the like. You must ‘obey’ i.e. be quiet. Then you find out that you can bypass these things entirely and still have a licit mass and be a Catholic in good standing.

Your supposed to have a rite that is supernatural, holy, a serious sacrifice. Then they add guitars, ‘On Eagles Wings’ and the performers facing the audience. There’s a discontinuity there.

Many people don’t understand things like “ecumania”. Why would they argue about something they don’t understand? They should not, in fact, argue about it, unless they have spent some time educating themselves. I include myself in this categpory.

Is something like CITH something you should make noise to your bishops and pope about?

I don’t think traditionalists as a group ask this question: “what exactly are we supposed to obey in Vatican II?”. ? -Some- traditionalists do, as do some progressives…It’s not fair or accurate to tag traditionalists with confusion, lack of due diligence, or disobedience (not sure which you think it is) in regard to V2.

Guitars and Eagles Wings? Yea? So? Why do you have such prejudices against styles of worship and cultures? .

 

[Jason_Matthew]

One must not go by title alone, but must look at the content of the OP. The OP suggested that the Tridentine form of the Mass should not be used, and my assertion through the whole thread is that both forms, OF and EF are allowed and valid in accordance with the Holy See.

Hi there, let me just clarify my position. I wasn’t saying that the EF should not be used. I was just quoting what a friend of mine’s views were. I was trying to defend the use of the EF against his arguments and I was trying to look for more ways of explaining to him how the Mass can’t possibly be exactly celebrated as it was at the Last Supper

 

[Jason_Matthew]

Thanks to everyone for your insightful answers

 

[Jason_Matthew]

Thanks you everyone for your insightful answers

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

I’m prejudiced against styles of worship that are banal and on-the-spot fabrications. Adding local ‘culture’ in Ireland, for example, could mean anything from Gaelic in the Mass, to sentimental non-hymns, to Ceili dancing.

I didn’t say “traditionalists as a group ask this question: “what exactly are we supposed to obey in Vatican II?””. But it helps clarify what the real questions are, if one does. Otherwise “Spirit Of Vatican II” is a good cover for whatever the speaker wants to try out.

The old rite offers a respite from local ‘creativity’ and also from pseudo-learned modifications based on supposition about what happened in 80AD.

I would like the mass not to be a tinker-toy for local liturgists. I am hoping Pope Benedict’s efforts in exerting some quality-control in our worship will be kept up by subsequent Popes.

 

[patrick457]

Perhaps then it would be worthwhile then to examine the history of the Dominus vobiscum in the Mass. What is its real purpose, as a sort of filler or break between the more formal prayers or readings? I have tried all kinds of searches on this but not to too much avail.

Simply put, Dominus vobiscum, Pax vobis, Dominus sit semper vobiscum, Eirene pasin (‘Peace to all’), etc. is in essence really a Semitic greeting (like the Hebrew shalom (aleichem) or the Arabic as-salamu alaikum or the Syriac shlomo 'laikhon or the Maltese sliem galikom - all meaning ‘peace be to you’ and being used as a greeting; cf. Ruth 2:4 “Yhwh be with you”; 1 Samuel 17:37 “Go and may Yhwh be with you”; Luke 1:28 “The Lord is with you”; Luke 24:36 John 20:19, 21, 26 “Peace be with you”; 2 Thessalonians 3:16 “The Lord be with you all”).

 

[OraLabora]

I’m prejudiced against styles of worship that are banal and on-the-spot fabrications. Adding local ‘culture’ in Ireland, for example, could mean anything from Gaelic in the Mass, to sentimental non-hymns, to Ceili dancing.

I didn’t say “traditionalists as a group ask this question: “what exactly are we supposed to obey in Vatican II?””. But it helps clarify what the real questions are, if one does. Otherwise “Spirit Of Vatican II” is a good cover for whatever the speaker wants to try out.

The old rite offers a respite from local ‘creativity’ and also from pseudo-learned modifications based on supposition about what happened in 80AD.

I would like the mass not to be a tinker-toy for local liturgists. I am hoping Pope Benedict’s efforts in exerting some quality-control in our worship will be kept up by subsequent Popes.

I agree largely with you views on improvised and novel liturgies (not to mention banal music), but one thing strikes me: if the old rite was the only rite, what makes us suppose there would be no abuses? Too many priests in the new rite have enough trouble “saying the black and doing the red”. Presumably these same priests would be just as disobedient if the EF was the only form they could celebrate. I therefore really don’t think the form used is the issue.

The reason I suspect that the EF is relatively abuse-free (though probably far from error free: some of the rubrics are quite intricate, and to err is human…), is because it has become the focal point of those who are trying to escape liturgical laxity, and it has largely been entrusted to priests dedicated to preserving that form, something they do with great care.

I would rather see much more effort put into making the ordinary form live up to its liturgical expectations. I often wonder whether wider availability of the EF might make this more difficult as people might be inclined to say “they can always go to the EF if they want chant/incense/fidelity to the missal/Latin/etc…”

I can assure you such OF Masses are not only possible, they are being sung daily in many monasteries and other places around the world. A case in point is the monastery I am associated with: daily Mass is has the propers and ordinary sung in Gregorian chant with the rest in French plainchant. It is all very reverent and beautiful, and done with care and attention to detail, the same care and attention to detail that I’m sure the FSSP provide for the EF. I’ve also been to monasteries where all was done in the vernacular (in particular in French both in Canada and in France), and they also were reverent and carefully done; in one case, Cistercians that had translated the Latin propers into French plainchant.

That to me indicates that the issue is really one of, well, care and attention to detail, not whether it’s the EF or OF.

 

[ProVobis]

Simply put, Dominus vobiscum, Pax vobis, Dominus sit semper vobiscum, Eirene pasin (‘Peace to all’), etc. is in essence really a Semitic greeting (like the Hebrew shalom (aleichem) or the Arabic as-salamu alaikum or the Syriac shlomo 'laikhon or the Maltese sliem galikom - all meaning ‘peace be to you’ and being used as a greeting; cf. Ruth 2:4 “Yhwh be with you”; 1 Samuel 17:37 “Go and may Yhwh be with you”; Luke 1:28 “The Lord is with you”; Luke 24:36 John 20:19, 21, 26 “Peace be with you”; 2 Thessalonians 3:16 “The Lord be with you all”).

Thanks.

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

I’m prejudiced against styles of worship that are banal and on-the-spot fabrications. Adding local ‘culture’ in Ireland, for example, could mean anything from Gaelic in the Mass, to sentimental non-hymns, to Ceili dancing.

I didn’t say “traditionalists as a group ask this question: “what exactly are we supposed to obey in Vatican II?””. But it helps clarify what the real questions are, if one does. Otherwise “Spirit Of Vatican II” is a good cover for whatever the speaker wants to try out.

The old rite offers a respite from local ‘creativity’ and also from pseudo-learned modifications based on supposition about what happened in 80AD.

I would like the mass not to be a tinker-toy for local liturgists. I am hoping Pope Benedict’s efforts in exerting some quality-control in our worship will be kept up by subsequent Popes.

Some details:

Gaelic on the mass no ? Suprised !
Sentimental non-hymns ? What is that ? Hymns are not the only genre in liturgy.
Dancing no ? Why? When King David danced in the procession, everybody was laughing at him. His answer was superb. Dancing is offering one’s body to God. If the dance is liturgical, of course.

 

[patrick457]

Some details:

Gaelic on the mass no ? Suprised !
Sentimental non-hymns ? What is that ? Hymns are not the only genre in liturgy.
Dancing no ? Why? When King David danced in the procession, everybody was laughing at him. His answer was superb. Dancing is offering one’s body to God. If the dance is liturgical, of course.

Just my two cents.

Let’s just say that dancing is historically not a part of European liturgies (such as the Roman). Sure, there are some cultures - such as the Ethiopians and other Africans - which have a form of dancing in their spirituality (the Ethiopian aqqwaqwam, IMHO, is true liturgical dance), but the problem with many of the ‘dances’ in our own Masses are, rather than being woven into the fabric of the liturgy and being an integral part of it like these legitimate examples are, they are rather crudely grafted into the structure of the Mass and thus tend to be ‘show-stoppers’, in fact these often tend to be ‘shows’ which ‘stop’ the natural flow. Unless you could find a way to really fit dancing in the Roman liturgy it would stick out like a sore thumb. And that is something that we would not want.

Cardinal Arinze once said this:

Has liturgical dance been approved for Masses by your office?

There has never been a document from our Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments saying that dance is approved in the Mass.

The question of dance is difficult and delicate. However, it is good to know that the tradition of the Latin Church has not known the dance. It is something that people are introducing in the last ten years – or twenty years. It was not always so. Now it is spreading like wildfire, one can say, in all the continents – some more than others. In my own continent, Africa, it is spreading. In Asia, it is spreading.

Now, some priests and lay people think that Mass is never complete without dance. The difficulty is this: we come to Mass primarily to adore God – what we call the vertical dimension. We do not come to Mass to entertain one another. That’s not the purpose of Mass. The parish hall is for that.

So all those that want to entertain us – after Mass, let us go to the parish hall and then you can dance. And then we clap. But when we come to Mass we don’t come to clap. We don’t come to watch people, to admire people. We want to adore God, to thank Him, to ask Him pardon for our sins, and to ask Him for what we need.

Don’t misunderstand me, because when I said this at one place somebody said to me: “you are an African bishop. You Africans are always dancing. Why do you say we don’t dance?”

A moment – we Africans are not always dancing! [laughter]

Moreover, there is a difference between those who come in procession at Offertory; they bring their gifts, with joy. There is a movement of the body right and left. They bring their gifts to God. That is good, really. And some of the choir, they sing. They have a little bit of movement. Nobody is going to condemn that. And when you are going out again, a little movement, it’s all right.

But when you introduce wholesale, say, a ballerina, then I want to ask you what is it all about. What exactly are you arranging? When the people finish dancing in the Mass and then when the dance group finishes and people clap – don’t you see what it means? It means we have enjoyed it. We come for enjoyment. Repeat. So, there is something wrong. Whenever the people clap – there is something wrong – immediately. When they clap – a dance is done and they clap.

It is possible that there could be a dance that is so exquisite that it raises people’s minds to God, and they are praying and adoring God and when the dance is finished they are still wrapped up in prayer. But is that the type of dance you have seen? You see. It is not easy.

Most dances that are staged during Mass should have been done in the parish hall. And some of them are not even suitable for the parish hall.

I saw in one place – I will not tell you where – where they staged a dance during Mass, and that dance was offensive. It broke the rules of moral theology and modesty. Those who arranged it – they should have had their heads washed with a bucket of holy water! [laughter]

Why make the people of God suffer so much? Haven’t we enough problems already? Only Sunday, one hour, they come to adore God. And you bring a dance! Are you so poor you have nothing else to bring us? Shame on you! That’s how I feel about it.

Somebody can say, “but the pope visited this county and the people danced”. A moment: Did the pope arrange it? Poor Holy Father – he comes, the people arranged. He does not know what they arranged. And somebody introduces something funny – is the pope responsible for that? Does that mean it is now approved? Did they put in on the table of the Congregation for Divine Worship? We would throw it out! If people want to dance, they know where to go.

 

[RobbyS]

I wonder if you shoudn’t read “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Dr. Brant Pitre.

-Tim-

I have, and while I take his point, the thing to remember that the Christian Eucharist is presented by Jesus as something “new.” In the early Church, the believers would celebrate the sabbath in temple of synagogue and then offer the Eucharist. Formally this progression i was retained in the mass of the Catacumens and the mass of the faithful. The new man makes a deeper bow to Jewish roots by including the reading from the Old Testament, then the rest of the Eucharist. IAC, let us not forget that the Eucharistic forms are historical developments, which is why the Latin and Greek rites and other rites are so different in form.

 

[patrick457]

(Entering nitpick mode ) And yes, King David’s dance before the Ark is brought up as a classic prooftext for liturgical dancing.

Yes, dancing in Israelite culture, while not described in detail by the Biblical writers, is apparently a form of celebratory ritual that went hand-in-hand with music; religious and secular feasts are celebrations accompanied with song and dance. Celebratory occasions like birthdays (Matthew 14:6; Mark 6:21-22), weddings (Jeremiah 31:22; Matthew 11:17; Luke 7:32), and family reunions (Luke 15:25) are all marked by dancing. Unlike Egyptian culture, which reserves the dance for mourning and burial, the Israelites associated it with times of joy.

Overwhelmingly, however, dance is associated with religious, cultic events. The prophets of Ba’al performed a “leaping dance” (wayəfassəḥû) before the altar to beseech their god (1 Kings 18:26); the Israelites danced before the golden calf (Exodus 32:6, 18-19); David danced when the Ark was being brought to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:1-23; 1 Chronicles 13:1-14; 15:1-29); dancing in praise of Yhwh is also referenced (Psalm 26:6; 87:7; 149:3; 150:4). It has even been observed that the local manifestation of Ba’al in Lebanon is Ba’al Marqad, “Ba’al of the Dance” and that another Ba’al, Ba’al-Tzaphon (aka Ba’al-zephon) is depicted in one cylinder seal ‘skipping’ from mountain to mountain.

Two types of cultic dancing appear to be the exclusive province of women: women danced in celebration of an Israelite victory in battle - warfare being a sacred activity for the Israelites (Exodus 15:20-21; Judges 11:34; 1 Samuel 18:6-7; Judith 15:12-13), and as part of a cultic revel at the annual fall vineyard festival (Judges 21:19-21; Jeremiah 31:12-13). In fact, the root word of Pesach or ‘Passover’ is the Hebrew verb pāsaḥ (piel stem), ‘to perform a limping dance.’ Dancing also appears as an antithesis to mourning (Psalm 30:11 (12); Ecclesiastes 3:4; Lamentations 5:15): since mourning was a highly ritualized behavior in Israelite and other Semitic cultures, the dance juxtaposed to it would have been a ritualized ceremony as well.

And it was told to David, saying, “Yhwh has blessed the house of Obed-edom and all that he owns because of the ark of Elohim.” So David went and brought up the ark of Elohim from the house of Obed-edom to David’s-City with gladness. And it came to pass, when those bearing the ark of Yhwh had gone six steps, that he sacrificed an ox and a fatling calf. And David was hopping (məḵarəkēr) with all his strength before Yhwh - and David was girded with a linen ephod. And David and all [the house] of Yisrael brought up the ark of Yhwh with shouting and with the sound of the shofar. And as the ark of Yhwh came into David’s-City, Mikal bat-Sha’ul looked out the window and saw the king David leaping (məfazzēz, “showing agility”) and hopping before Yhwh; and she despised him in her heart. They brought the ark of Yhwh and put it in its place in the middle of the tent that David had spread out for it. Then David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before Yhwh. And when David had finished offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of Yhwh-of-Armies. And he handed out to all the people, to all the throng of Israel, both the women and the men, to everyone a loaf of bread, and one date-cake, and one raisin-cake. And all the people went, each to his house.

And David returned to bless his house - and Mikal bat-Sha’ul came out to meet David, and said, “How the king of Israel has honoured himself this day, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the slave girls of his servants, as one of the foolish shamelessly uncovers himself!” And David said to Mikal, “It was before the face of Yhwh, who chose me over your father and all his house and appointed me as ruler over the nation of Yhwh, over Yisrael; Therefore I will laugh before the face of Yhwh, and I will shame myself still more than this and I will be lowly in my eyes! But with the slave girls of whom you have spoken, with them I will be held in honor.” Therefore Mikal bat-Sha’ul had no children until the day of her death.

The interesting thing here is that the word used in 2 Samuel 6, karar (literally “to hop”), actually appears only in this passage - in 1 Chronicles 15:29 David is said to have been “skipping” (məraqqēḏ) and “laughing” (məś[sup]a[/sup]ḥēq, also ‘to make sport’, ‘to celebrate’, ‘to play [an instrument, sing, dance]’). While as mentioned, there are other passages in the Old Testament which talk of dance (Exodus 15:20, 32:19; Judges 11:34; 21:21; 1 Samuel 18:6, 21:11, 29:5; Song of Songs 6:13; Jeremiah 31:13), the word used in many of those passages is məḥōlah (from a root word meaning “to whirl”) - which usually signifies the ‘round dance’ commonly performed by women. (As an aside, David’s dance is interpreted by some to be a vestigial remnant of a nomadic custom when transferring a sacred object from one place to the other.)

Sometimes I can’t help but wonder. If we are going to use David, why don’t we also use the Baalite prophets and the Israelites before the golden calf?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

The reason I suspect that the EF is relatively abuse-free (though probably far from error free: some of the rubrics are quite intricate, and to err is human…), is because it has become the focal point of those who are trying to escape liturgical laxity, and it has largely been entrusted to priests dedicated to preserving that form, something they do with great care.

I agree. I’m afraid my blood went cold when I realised what might happen if the EF became the norm again. I don’t think traditionalists should agitate for that. They might not like the consequences.

I think a kind of brute evolution will come into play, if there is no crackdown from above on what may and may not be done at Mass. People will just fall away from Catholicism-lite parishes. It’s going to be hard work to restore rigour, as there are many forces inside and outside the Church working against it. But was Catholicism ever easy?

• By sentimental non-hymns I meant a local songs which don’t have anything to do with religion. I heard such at a First Holy Communion. I think at least it was after the dismissal.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

I agree. I’m afraid my blood went cold when I realised what might happen if the EF became the norm again. I don’t think traditionalists should agitate for that. They might not like the consequences.

I think a kind of brute evolution will come into play, if there is no crackdown from above on what may and may not be done at Mass. People will just fall away from Catholicism-lite parishes. It’s going to be hard work to restore rigour, as there are many forces inside and outside the Church working against it. But was Catholicism ever easy?

• By sentimental non-hymns I meant a local songs which don’t have anything to do with religion. I heard such at a First Holy Communion. I think at least it was after the dismissal.

**There you go again…Mines better. Catholicism-lite??? **

 

[RobbyS]

**There you go again…Mines better. Catholicism-lite??? **

In the years since Vatican II, I have attended some very bizarre masses. Left on their own, priests come up with innovations that are very strange. In the old days, I attended masses in Mexican parishes where the old ladies practically downed out the priest during mass as they said rosaries outloud. Now it is the musicians who are the chief offenders because the music they choose is not an integral part of the mass. There is just too much noise, and I mean that literally. And where you might expect to have congregatioinal singing, such as at the Pater Noster, you don’t get it.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

In the years since Vatican II, I have attended some very bizarre masses. Left on their own, priests come up with innovations that are very strange. In the old days, I attended masses in Mexican parishes where the old ladies practically downed out the priest during mass as they said rosaries outloud. Now it is the musicians who are the chief offenders because the music they choose is not an integral part of the mass. There is just too much noise, and I mean that literally. And where you might expect to have congregatioinal singing, such as at the Pater Noster, you don’t get it.

If the pastor is not willing to take control of his congregation, then it should be brought to the attention of the bishop. It is not the fault of the ordinary form that a pastor lets his congregation run roughshod over him. All music should be cleared through the pastor or his advisory committee. A pastor should lead his Church. Not be led by it. A pastor should have a good parish council that will help him lead the parish in the faith. One thing that is a plus for the future is that many of the more unconventional priests, that led the parishes after the roll out of Vatican II, are reaching retirement.

 

[RobbyS]

If the pastor is not willing to take control of his congregation, then it should be brought to the attention of the bishop. It is not the fault of the ordinary form that a pastor lets his congregation run roughshod over him. All music should be cleared through the pastor or his advisory committee. A pastor should lead his Church. Not be led by it. A pastor should have a good parish council that will help him lead the parish in the faith. One thing that is a plus for the future is that many of the more unconventional priests, that led the parishes after the roll out of Vatican II, are reaching retirement.

One unfortunate result of the reforms of the Liturgy was the amount of experimentation by priests, which led many to think that the whole liturgy was no more than a human invention.

 

[Mike30]

Someone I know said to me that because the Tridentine Mass is not how it was done at the Last Supper and in the early church, it is not how mass should be celebrated. He further went on and said that Jesus did not have his back faced towards the disciples during the Last Supper and therefore, ad orientem should not be used

I tried to explain to him that the mass developed and evolved as a result of increased theological understanding and the changing of circumstances but he is still reluctant.

How do you counter his argument?

Neither is the Ordinary Form, any of the Eastern Liturgies, none of the Orthodox or the Coptic and especially none of the various protestant services,.

That’ s it, have fun:thumbsup:

Of course if he is as apparently some are that make this same argument all the time, an eyewitness, then I guess you could listen to what he has to say and assign some merit to it. Otherwise, just ignore him.

It’s easy:thumbsup:.

 

[John_of_Woking]

“So all those that want to entertain us – after Mass, let us go to the parish hall and then you can dance. And then we clap. But when we come to Mass we don’t come to clap. We don’t come to watch people, to admire people. We want to adore God, to thank Him, to ask Him pardon for our sins, and to ask Him for what we need.”

Just read that from Arinze…He is truly a legend