S
Spirithound
Guest
What could be considered an “organic development” of the Mass? Any examples occurring regarding the Tridentine Mass?
- Status
P
passus
Guest
A
ASD
Guest
No reference books handy, but off the top of my head, I think these might be examples:
- Names of women Saints added to Nobis quoque peccatóribus (Felicitáte, Perpétua, Agatha, Lúcia, Agnéte, Cæcília, Anastásia)
- Joseph added to Communicantes c. 1955: sed et beáti Joseph, ejúsdem Virginis Sponsi
- Reading scripture in vernacular, which may have begun around time of Divino Afflante, 1943?
- Third Confiteor just before Ecce Agnus Dei dropped in 1962.
- Some people think that the prayers of the Canon were reordered at some point. I guess that kind of tinkering would be organic development.
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
A
ASD
Guest
Another class of examples occurs to me. Consider the antiquarian practices that were revived for NO/OF. They were dropped because they didn’t make sense any more; they weren’t quite right for the way people lived, so the liturgy grew away from them organically.
I think it was organic change when these were dropped:
Antiquarianism: Pretended continuity with previous generations whose lives were very different from ours. Not only is it totally fake, but if the scholars get it wrong, as I think they may have done with question of versus populum, then it’s downright ridiculous.
I think it was organic change when these were dropped:
- Bringing the gifts to the altar. There was a time when that was a substantial action: people were making a real contribution of stuff that was actually used. Now, it’s just fake. Only a kid would think that’s “participation.” In fact, carrying the “gifts” from the back of the Church to the front is my idea of Children’s Liturgy; like giving them money so they can buy their own present for my wife on her birthday.
- Dismissing catechumens after the Mass of the Catechumens and before the Credo. I guess that made sense in a pagan world where Christians were persecuted. At a certain point, it didn’t make sense any more. So, it was discontinued. In our society, anybody – Protestant, Hindu, atheist – can sit through any Mass. So, what’s the point of sending catechumens away?
- Maybe celebration of Mass versus populum? At one point scholars thought that’s what ancient Christians did when they were down in catecombs, or something like that. I’m not sure that’s the scholarly consensus now. Anyway, if it was an ancient practice it was dropped when something else made sense.
Antiquarianism: Pretended continuity with previous generations whose lives were very different from ours. Not only is it totally fake, but if the scholars get it wrong, as I think they may have done with question of versus populum, then it’s downright ridiculous.
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
B
benedictgal
Guest
I agree. In my former parish in Austin, although it was fairly liberal, we did dismiss the Catechumens (then, the Elect) after the Liturgy of the Word. When I came home and assumed responsibilities at what would later be our Cathedral, I explained this to the pastor and he initially made the same remark, but, he did it.
C
Cluny
Guest
No reference books handy, but off the top of my head, I think these might be examples:
The Roman Canon, give or take a phrase or two at the end during the final doxology, is used in the Ambrosian Liturgy, and refers to local saints of Milan.
Celtic Saints and OT Righteous appear in the Bobbio recension of the Roman Canon.
- Names of women Saints added to Nobis quoque peccatóribus (Felicitáte, Perpétua, Agatha, Lúcia, Agnéte, Cæcília, Anastásia)
The Roman Canon, give or take a phrase or two at the end during the final doxology, is used in the Ambrosian Liturgy, and refers to local saints of Milan.
Celtic Saints and OT Righteous appear in the Bobbio recension of the Roman Canon.
A
ASD
Guest
OK. Maybe that phrase should be changed to “it wasn’t necessary anymore.”
The thing that’s bothering me is that some of the items on the first list don’t seem very organic. On the other hand, some recent changes that I find almost unbearable do seem to fit the definition reasonably well.
Here’s my proposed definition:
By “justifiable” I mean what Sacrosanctum Concilium expresses as required for the good of the Church.
Two useful metaphors are:
- The way an old tree has grown. Sometimes straight up; sometimes this way or that way; sometimes not at all.
- An old city. Without historical knowledge, it looks crazy. In fact, it would drive Le Corbusier crazy. The opposite of, say, the Empire State Plaza in Albany.
Now, some test cases:
*]Names of women Saints added to Nobis quoque peccatóribus. Like adding a new public building to meet obvious need. OK.
*]Ambrosian Liturgy refers to local saints of Milan. Like adding a new public building to meet obvious need. OK.
*]Celtic Saints and OT Righteous appear in the Bobbio recension of the Roman Canon. Like adding a new public building to meet obvious need. OK.
*]Joseph added to Communicantes. I guess this was an attempt to emphasize anew the importance of families in the world of Chairman Mao and UN World Population Conference. OK.
*]Reading scripture in vernacular. Response to changing attitudes about Bible. OK.
*]Drop third Confiteor just before Ecce Agnus Dei. Seems like tinkering. Like cutting tree branches back to make an old tree look nicer (in the opinion of somebody). Not OK.
*]Prayers of the Canon were reordered. The changes may have been made one-by-one, each in an organic way. Unclear.
*]Drop procession that brings gifts to altar. When the “gifts” weren’t being used anymore, the procession was dropped. OK.
*]Drop dismissal of catechumens before Credo. I thought this was dropped when it didn’t reflect current needs. If so, OK.
*]Drop celebration versus populum. If this ever existed, it atrophied because there was more light in another direction. OK.
*]Use of vernacular in Mass. Rational people argue that once Romance languages, or other local languages, have reached a certain literary level, Latin is no longer necessary. Others think that dangers of translation and relative stability of Latin outweigh other considerations. To me it seems kinda like systematically rerouting city traffic. Unclear; but probably not OK.
*]Altar girls. Response to (a) horizontal conception of Church emphasizing lay roles; (b) development of liberal individualism and feminist derivatives in surrounding culture.
Unclear.
A year or so ago I did read the book mentioned above, The Organic Development of the Liturgy: The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the Twenthieth-Century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second Vatican Council by Dom Alcuin Reid. My struggles here make me think it’s worth reading again.
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
C
Cluny
Guest
Drop third Confiteor just before Ecce Agnus Dei. Seems like tinkering. Like cutting tree branches back to make an old tree look nicer (in the opinion of somebody). Not OK.
The “third confiteor” aka “second confiteor” is an imporation intot he Order of the Mass of the Order of Communion Outside of Mass, which at one time was VERY common. People would receive Communion before (or after) mass, and make assistance at Mass their thanksgiving or preparation. This extra Confiteor for Communicants was not actually indicated in the Altar Missal.
Use of vernacular in Mass. Rational people argue that once Romance languages, or other local languages, have reached a certain literary level, Latin is no longer necessary. Others think that dangers of translation and relative stability of Latin outweigh other considerations. To me it seems kinda like systematically rerouting city traffic. Unclear; but probably not OK.
The Eastern Churches have never used Latin, but always either a classical liturgical language (such as Slavonic or Syro-Aramaic) or an elevated form of the vernacular (such as Greek or Romanian or Arabic).
The “third confiteor” aka “second confiteor” is an imporation intot he Order of the Mass of the Order of Communion Outside of Mass, which at one time was VERY common. People would receive Communion before (or after) mass, and make assistance at Mass their thanksgiving or preparation. This extra Confiteor for Communicants was not actually indicated in the Altar Missal.
Use of vernacular in Mass. Rational people argue that once Romance languages, or other local languages, have reached a certain literary level, Latin is no longer necessary. Others think that dangers of translation and relative stability of Latin outweigh other considerations. To me it seems kinda like systematically rerouting city traffic. Unclear; but probably not OK.
The Eastern Churches have never used Latin, but always either a classical liturgical language (such as Slavonic or Syro-Aramaic) or an elevated form of the vernacular (such as Greek or Romanian or Arabic).
A
ASD
Guest
How interesting. So, when I see the members of the choir saying the Confiteor together when they take Communion after Mass, they’re doing the Order of Communion Outside of Mass?
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
D
drforjc
Guest
Yes! Reid’s book is a must for understanding the concept. The detail and examples he uses are extensive, but after reading the book I felt that I understood the concept itself.
A
anon77300002
Guest
Thanks Spirithound. You started a very educational thread. So a thank-you to all posters too. Reg.
C
Cluny
Guest
How interesting. So, when I see the members of the choir saying the Confiteor together when they take Communion after Mass, they’re doing the Order of Communion Outside of Mass?
Why is the choir taking communion AFTER Mass? The proper time is DURING Mass.
Why is the choir taking communion AFTER Mass? The proper time is DURING Mass.
A
ASD
Guest
I don’t know why. They come down from the choir loft after Mass to take Communion. I’ll ask this Sunday.
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
R
Robster7
Guest
I occasionally go to the Latin mass, usually the high mass.
Among the things I do not understand is the disconnect between the celebrant and the congregation.
Having the server say the responses for the congregation does not make sense to me. Nore does the priest praying the prayers silently, rapidly, esp. at Low Mass. .Nor does it make sense that the some in the congregation pray the rosary instead of following the mass.
At one particular mass I go to, the congregation makes the response out loud at the high mass. That makes sense to me.
I also dont understand why the celebrant, particularly at Low Mass, says everything silently. It just doesn’t make any sense if the mass has a congregation.
One explanation I heard for this was in the days when several priests would do private masses as side altars simulaneously without a congregation, a server would make the responses in lieu of a congregation being present. The silence in saying the prayers would be because with presumably several priests celebrating separate masses out loud, a distracting babble would result. Somehow this became the rule. I cant consider it an “organic” development; just a tradition adopted at a certain time for certain conditions
Anyway, among some traditionalist, it seems that everything about the latin mass is perfect and should not be changed.
The mass is supposed to be a group effort, with the priest leading the congregation, and the congregation making its responses.
Just some thoughts
Among the things I do not understand is the disconnect between the celebrant and the congregation.
Having the server say the responses for the congregation does not make sense to me. Nore does the priest praying the prayers silently, rapidly, esp. at Low Mass. .Nor does it make sense that the some in the congregation pray the rosary instead of following the mass.
At one particular mass I go to, the congregation makes the response out loud at the high mass. That makes sense to me.
I also dont understand why the celebrant, particularly at Low Mass, says everything silently. It just doesn’t make any sense if the mass has a congregation.
One explanation I heard for this was in the days when several priests would do private masses as side altars simulaneously without a congregation, a server would make the responses in lieu of a congregation being present. The silence in saying the prayers would be because with presumably several priests celebrating separate masses out loud, a distracting babble would result. Somehow this became the rule. I cant consider it an “organic” development; just a tradition adopted at a certain time for certain conditions
Anyway, among some traditionalist, it seems that everything about the latin mass is perfect and should not be changed.
The mass is supposed to be a group effort, with the priest leading the congregation, and the congregation making its responses.
Just some thoughts
F
franklinf
Guest
Mass isn’t a “group effort.” Only the priest consecrates the Host. The congregation is called to unite their prayers with those of the priest, but they have no direct role.
As for silence during the Mass:
"The reason for the silence is, that at a very early stage in the Church’s liturgical awareness, it was realized that the miracles of grace which occur during the canon should not risk trivialization by being spoken out loud as if the sacred words which effected these miracles were simply in the normal run of ordinary speech. The mystery of the Real Presence, the miracle of transubstantiation, the subsequent pleading of the oblation, all this is the stuff of heaven, heaven come down to earth. Perhaps we would better say that in the canon, earth is raised to heaven. In the canon, the worshipping Church does not sink into silence. No, the truth is, that we rise into silence, a contemplative, anointed silence, over which the Holy Ghost is hovering, a timeless silence which breathes the life of heaven.
The pious and traditional instinct of the Church is that the Lord’s astounding words over bread and cup should be breathed again only in a hushed and reverent whisper by the unworthy human agent of the miracle, the priest who is acting in persona Christi. These are not words to say aloud, much less, heaven forbid, to sing aloud. These are words of love, words to whisper in awe and trembling. These are the words of the new and everlasting covenant which changed the world for ever. These are the words which make the Mystery of Faith accessible to humankind, at every moment of every day, until the Lord returns…"
latin-mass-society.org/canon.htm
A
ASD
Guest
This is not very closely related to question about organic development, but quick observation.
When I first discovered TLM/EF, the very idea of it appealed to me very much. So, I had an open mind about it. Even so, I realized after a few months that I was bringing NO/OF attitudes to the TLM/EF. E.g., I thought I had to sit up front on the right side of the church so I could see the Priest’s hands during consecration, etc. Wrong-headed. The spirituality of the TLM/EF is different.
Robster7, I hope you will approach TLM/EF on its own terms, not NO/OF terms. Approach it with an open heart and open mind.
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
R
Robster7
Guest
My comments *were *related to the organic development issue.
I am not an expert on liturgy, ok?
I sometimes think that certain folks think that way they have known things existed forever. So they start with the assumption that something is correct as is and spend a good deal of time justifying the status quo, rather than examining how it developed and why.
Of the things mentioned before, some have to do with practices that are common in my limited experience of TLM.
The way one usually experiences the Latin mass, esp. low mass,
is the priest saying things quietly, and rapidly. What’s the hurry?
Praying like that seems less than ideally reverent, and there is no need for it. I suspect it became the practice when churches had masses every hour on the hour, and needed to keep things moving so the mass was finished in time for the next one to begin. Just a guess.
The participation by the congregation, even if just following along in the Missals, seems logical just praying some other prayer.
Somewhere, there is a church doc against praying the rosary while attending mass. And St. Pius X said once; "Don’t pray *at *mass; pray the Mass! By which I presume he meant some ssort of participation and connection to what the priest was doing, eeven if just following along in the missal.
Doing another prayer during mass seems as rude as reading a book while someone is talking to you in a one on one conversation. Do one or the other well, and at the appropriate time. Don’t do 2 things at once!
I just believe there are just a few things that could be done to the latin mass in terms its current practices. I have no desire to change the ceremony as such, just some practices which seem to me to be unnecessary holdovers from another time.
The restoration of the Sistine Chapel ceiling provoked great dismay in the art world. The solemn murky colors that folks had alway known were now shockingly vibrant and bright, even, by comparison to what they had know, cartoonish. Some thought it had been ruined. But they only knew what they were used to, they never saw the original.
So too with TLM. What elements are sometimes thought of as a natural part of it may actually be adaptations that may not be appropriate nowadays.
Let’s continue this friendly discussion.
I am not an expert on liturgy, ok?
I sometimes think that certain folks think that way they have known things existed forever. So they start with the assumption that something is correct as is and spend a good deal of time justifying the status quo, rather than examining how it developed and why.
Of the things mentioned before, some have to do with practices that are common in my limited experience of TLM.
The way one usually experiences the Latin mass, esp. low mass,
is the priest saying things quietly, and rapidly. What’s the hurry?
Praying like that seems less than ideally reverent, and there is no need for it. I suspect it became the practice when churches had masses every hour on the hour, and needed to keep things moving so the mass was finished in time for the next one to begin. Just a guess.
The participation by the congregation, even if just following along in the Missals, seems logical just praying some other prayer.
Somewhere, there is a church doc against praying the rosary while attending mass. And St. Pius X said once; "Don’t pray *at *mass; pray the Mass! By which I presume he meant some ssort of participation and connection to what the priest was doing, eeven if just following along in the missal.
Doing another prayer during mass seems as rude as reading a book while someone is talking to you in a one on one conversation. Do one or the other well, and at the appropriate time. Don’t do 2 things at once!
I just believe there are just a few things that could be done to the latin mass in terms its current practices. I have no desire to change the ceremony as such, just some practices which seem to me to be unnecessary holdovers from another time.
The restoration of the Sistine Chapel ceiling provoked great dismay in the art world. The solemn murky colors that folks had alway known were now shockingly vibrant and bright, even, by comparison to what they had know, cartoonish. Some thought it had been ruined. But they only knew what they were used to, they never saw the original.
So too with TLM. What elements are sometimes thought of as a natural part of it may actually be adaptations that may not be appropriate nowadays.
Let’s continue this friendly discussion.
D
drforjc
Guest
The term “organic development” as it has been discussed of late has specifically referred to changes in the rite itself- text and rubrics-- not really to the practices of the laity during mass.
R
Robster7
Guest
Text and rubrics, such as? Some examples, please.
- Status