Traditional Latin Mass

[ncjohn]

Let me explain how I have the exact opposite reaction. I only attend the Novus Ordo for marriage, funerals, or other reasons of necessity; but have a really hard time participating actively. But I think you and I have a different understanding of “active participation”.

When the Church uses the term “active participation” it does not refer primarily to outward activity, but to inward activity. At the Traditional Mass, I am continually engaged in praying the Mass along with the Priest. When I’ve gone to a Novus Ordo, I’ve had a more difficult time “praying the Mass”. Some people may feel like they are being “included” since the Priest is looking at them and talking to them, but for me, this was a distraction. I have compared it to trying to say the Rosary while you were looking at another person who’s looking at you. The person in front of you would be a distraction, not a help. I find the same true at the Novus Ordo.

Wow, you are SO far off base regarding both me and the OF Mass as to make discussion almost pointless. All these omniscient judgments about me not knowing how to pray the Mass or not understanding. Sorry, couldn’t be further from the truth.

And no, the Church pretty darn clearly defined what it meant by “active participation” in Sacrosanctum Consilium.

27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.

1. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

You may not LIKE what the Church called for, but it is clear what it called for. While appropriate times of silence were to be observed, we were specifically called to NOT be silent during the bulk of the liturgy. I agree that our inward disposition is ultimately paramount, but the Church envisioned that occurring through our outward participation rather than the more prevalent private devotional mode that had been occurring.

I personally think they erred in thinking that this was the appropriate call for all people, which is the main reason I am glad to see the restoration of the TLM. Some of us are indeed called to the more “active participation” envisioned but others like yourself find that to be a distraction and prefer participating in a more silent way. Neither is “wrong”; they are simply different expressions of different personalities each answering the call from God.

I truly don’t understand this need to think there is only “one right way” and that those who prefer the Pauline Mass are just a bunch of illiterate, irreverent dupes who just don’t know better. I have known incredibly saintly people of both preferences, just as I have known those who are there out of nothing more than obligation in both cases. And I have known priests across the continuum in both forms.

Whatcha say we call off the turf wars and rejoice that we each can attend the Mass where we hear God calling us? This family bickering gets really old and I heard rumors that God doesn’t much like it, at least if we take Jesus at his word.

Peace,

 

[Layman]

In the TLM novelty, populism, egalitarianism and personalisation are the exception, currently. In the N.O./O.F. they are now the norm. It’s not a case of switching churches or parishes to avoid these things; they are now normal in the UK and Ireland.

I think if you make swingeing changes to an venerable institution you open a floodgate; you can’t then complain about subsequent ones and be heeded.

• If you remove the altar, then the rails are no biggie.
• If you gut the text then arguments about the meanings of indvidual words are small beer.
• If you dump Latin, then singing a pious Protestant, vernacular hymn is a small thing.
• If lay people can be lectors, then Uncle Johnny giving a sobbing, maudlin oration at a funeral Mass from the pulpit seems normal, to some;
• If you allow CITH then EMHCs become welcome helpers speeding up the Mass.

I’d recommend priests learn the TLM and compare and contrast. The ones who’ve been on courses in the UK report very positive experiences, I’ve read.

A good thing, amongst many, about the TLM is that novelty, populism, egalitarianism and personalisation stick out like a sore thumb. If the priest wants to have altar girls or a congregant wants CITH at a TLM their contrarianism and wilfulness is very obvious.

 

[brotherhrolf]

John my friend, unfortunately I have seen many of the abuses (major and minor) cited by many as abuses of the OF. The only one I haven’t personally seen was a “clown Mass”. Even more unfortunately many of the abuses were for diocesan Masses. I sang in a cathedral choir for 20 years and witnessed them with my own two eyes and ears.

Women in diaphonous gowns wafting bowls of incense a’la Cecil B. deMille movies? Yep. I had to pick my jaw up off the floor. Ten foot tall poles festooned with ribbons being danced around as if it were Mardi Gras? Yep. Glass chalices? Yep. Words changed in the Eucharistic Prayer? Yep. It finally got to to point where I and the majority of the cathedral choir found other things to do for diocesan events and they had to reactivate a diocesan choir. The difference between what went on at diocesan events and our normal reverent OF Mass was glaringly obvious. I was not the only one driving more than twenty miles in the choir or in the cathedral congregation.

I could cite numerous and even worse abuses at the two local geographic parishes in which I have resided but I won’t gild the lilly any further. I did not see the abuses you saw with the EF but I do not doubt your word. I am constantly amazed at how our experiences mirror each other but I would use it as an example of how all of us need to be aware of how quickly things can get out of hand. You and I have the “been there; done that” medal and I would ask those who disagree with either of our statements to keep that in mind and not ascribe motives that neither of us actually have.

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

"Ultima Ratio:

When the Church uses the term “active participation” it does not refer primarily to outward activity, but to inward activity.

And no, the Church pretty darn clearly defined what it meant by “active participation” in Sacrosanctum Consilium.

You may not LIKE what the Church called for, but it is clear what it called for. While appropriate times of silence were to be observed, we were specifically called to NOT be silent during the bulk of the liturgy. I agree that our inward disposition is ultimately paramount, but the Church envisioned that occurring through our outward participation rather than the more prevalent private devotional mode that had been occurring.

What I said, which you disagreed with, was the active participation is not primarily external activity. It is first and foremost internal participation, sometimes expressed also in outward actions. People today often confuse physical activity with active participation, without realizeing that *active participation *is first and foremost (but not always exclusively) interior participation.

Bishop Rober Vasa recently wrote an article about this a few months ago. The title of the article is Interior participation is the read goal:

Bishop Robert Vasa: "The Catholic Church incorporates into its liturgical practices a significant number of devotions. The most notable and traditional of these is the devotion known as exposition and benediction with the Blessed Sacrament. Others include stations of the cross, the recitation of litanies, recitation of the rosary, May crowning, statues and images of saints. One of the illegitimate interpretations of the liturgical adaptations of the 1960s was that such devotions were to be diminished and limited. The unfortunate interpretation seems to have arisen, in part, because of a previous overemphasis on devotional practices which sometimes eclipsed even the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. One still occasionally hears the stories of Mass attendees reciting their rosaries throughout Mass or engaged in other private devotions while Mass was being celebrated. My own recollections include images of my grandparents reciting Czech prayers and the rosary during Mass. The modern liturgist cringes at the thought of such a perceived aberration. Yet, I know that my grandparents had a tremendously deep and rich devotion to the Eucharist and while they may have engaged in other devotions during the course of Holy Mass they were never far in thought from the Lord whose sacrifice they were also recalling.

Nevertheless, those spiritual activities which were classified as “devotions” were frowned upon, discouraged and even forbidden. This was done, in many instances, without a suitable catechesis and without a legitimate interpretation of what full and active participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice entailed.** Full and active participation, which is the phrase from the liturgical documents, was often interpreted in an inappropriately superficial fashion to mean physical activity.** Thus there was a great increase in “participation” through recitation of the Mass parts in English, reading the scriptures, leading the prayers of the faithful, and singing, but whether this actually led to a deepened “full and active participation” in the Holy Sacrifice on the part of the congregation as envisioned by the Council is certainly questionable. It is legitimate to wonder whether my grandparents were not just as fully and actively participating in the Eucharistic Sacrifice even though their participation would have had all of the external appearances of great passivity. Our secular age certainly recognizes and praises “activity” and liturgical “activity” has been presumed to be the same as “active participation” and this is not necessarily so. In the training video for lectors and acolytes this active participation is divided into that activity which is from the neck down and that which is from the neck up. There has been a great increase in the neck down form of participation and this is not necessarily bad **but the real goal is for greater “neck up” activity throughout the whole of the Holy Sacrifice on the part of all in the congregation. **This is a much greater challenge".

Two things bring this topic to mind for me. The first is the more and more frequent reference to the future Roman Missal with its more careful, intentional and perhaps even more devotional translation. This new translation will most likely be available for liturgical use in the fall of 2010. There is a founded hope that this new work can help accomplish more completely the “full and active participation” intended by the Council. While it was the intent that this participation be interior as well as exterior, it is highly possible that the actual result was a replacement of the interior participation by the exterior participation. Since the interior looked to be more passive and the exterior more active a false sense of “greater participation” was generated.

That was my point: That “active participation” is often understood today as physical activity, whereas in reality it is primarily an interior participation, sometime expressed in exterior actions. But today most people think that the more external actions, the greater the active participation, since they confuse physical activity with active participation.

 

[ncjohn]

You and I have the “been there; done that” medal and I would ask those who disagree with either of our statements to keep that in mind and not ascribe motives that neither of us actually have.

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.

Exactly.

My only motive is to try to end the divisive bickering going on within the Body of Christ. “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God.” It gets very old hearing people trample the spirits of their brothers and sisters in Christ over small “t” traditions of men as if these traditions were the source of our salvation. And then to claim to be doing so out of love of God!!

In a way it’s not surprising though. Even those who walked with Jesus day by day didn’t “get it” and wanted to rain down thunder on those preaching in his name that weren’t of “their band”. Why true followers of Christ continue to succumb to such base instincts, as if the Body of Christ can be divided, is just a constant source of amazement to me.

Yes, there are problems as there have always been problems. You don’t solve the problems by calling each other names though, especially when the problems can be, and are, on both sides of the coin and all the “good people” are only on one “side”.

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Indeed.

 

[ncjohn]

What I said, which you disagreed with, was the active participation is not primarily external activity.

No, actually what you said was "When the Church uses the term “active participation” it does not refer primarily to outward activity, but to inward activity. " As quoted directly from the Church’s document on the liturgy, the Church has indeed made clear what it was considering “active participation”.

I also made clear that I disagree with that notion, at least when it is viewed as universal. And I do fully agree that the real goal is inward participation. Where I strongly take issue with you though is your belief that:
Ultima Ratio:

But today most people think that the more external actions, the greater the active participation, since they confuse physical activity with active participation.

What I see here is a judgment that: 1)people believe that they are being holier by “doing more stuff” and 2)that they are “wrong” and you are “right” that it is ALL about interior participation. Purely and simply it’s not a matter of right or wrong, or better or worse. It is nothing more than a matter that some people’s praise manifests itself in an outwardly expressive manner while other people’s praise manifests itself more in silence. Those are matters of personality differences, cultural and family upbringing and similar factors. Just as some families are all “huggy” and outwardly expressive, others observe the “no public displays of affection” rules. I have known many charismatics of different faiths and they just cannot express their faith without exerior movement and vocal responses. I personally feel very uncomfortable in that environment but I certainly don’t find it to be “wrong” just because it is different from how I do things. Nor do I have any problem with those who prefer total silence and want no “distraction” at all or any demand to respond vocally, much less in gesture. I just rejoice that we’re attentive enough to hear God calling and are trying our best to respond. HOW they respond is not a matter of trying to look or seem holier but is rather the result of the joy that they feel and how they express joy.

Yes, it can take us out of our comfort zone to see others responding to things in a way that we can’t identify with. Acting as if we have some secret key and know the “one right way” and then getting all huffy and superior with our brothers and sisters in Christ is just way beyond acceptable though and badly wounds the Body of Christ.

If it’s true that they’ll know we are Christians by the way we love one another I don’t think there will be enough evidence to convict an awful lot of us of being Christians.

Peace be with us.

 

[Layman]

If it’s a solemn public rite of sacrifice then individual, external expressions of piety have to be restrained as there is more than one person present. One could distract and annoy others, including the priest.

Also, restraint is an expression of courtesy and humility. It’s like when you say ‘after you’ when going through a door.

One may want to whoop for joy but Mass is the wrong place for it.

 

[ncjohn]

If it’s a solemn public rite of sacrifice then individual, external expressions of piety have to be restrained as there is more than one person present. One could distract and annoy others, including the priest.
/QUOTE]

So would you then take the position that demanding to be allowed to kneel and receive communion, when the norm for the parish and the country is to receive standing, would be a distraction and should be restrained? I’m just curious how consistent your positon is.

I don’t personally think so but then I struggle with the boundary between personal piety and being a distraction as I noted in a previous post.

 

[Layman]

I wouldn’t make a show of it.

If I was stuck in an all-N.O. parish for good I might have a word with the priest about making an arrangement for COTT, kneeling, or just motion that I want it on the tongue, standing.

I’ve done the latter many times, on holiday. Doesn’t appear to be a problem for the priests.

I’d also finally have to get a motorbike/car and a licence. Then I could travel to a TLM. Could be interesting; a bit of an adventure! [Public transport won’t get me to a TLM in Ireland on time.]

 

[Spirithound]

I can say that before 1970, one could go anywhere in the world and be able to actively participate in the EF. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for the OF.

Can’t it be said that one can actively participate in any OF Mass in the world in exactly the same way as they might actively participate in the EF Mass? In the EF, people were expected to observe quietly. In an OF where you don’t speak the language, you observe quietly, and maybe even make the responses in your own language in your heart.

 

[Layman]

Or you could go one better:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5965878&postcount=4

.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Can’t it be said that one can actively participate in any OF Mass in the world in exactly the same way as they might actively participate in the EF Mass? In the EF, people were expected to observe quietly. In an OF where you don’t speak the language, you observe quietly, and maybe even make the responses in your own language in your heart.

In the U.S., if you attend the OF and you do not sing, clap, stomp your feet, hug, and weep on your neighbor’s shoulder, you may be arrested and removed from the church bound hand and foot. Participation is required … hmm, kinda like Luther’s consecration…

 

[ncjohn]

In the U.S., if you attend the OF and you do not sing, clap, stomp your feet, hug, and weep on your neighbor’s shoulder, you may be arrested and removed from the church bound hand and foot. Participation is required … hmm, kinda like Luther’s consecration…

Gee, that was helpful. As if the “other side” couldn’t come up with equally ridiculous stereotypes. Boy wouldn’t that be funny too.

And Jesus wept…

 

[giuseppeTO]

Gee, that was helpful. As if the “other side” couldn’t come up with equally ridiculous stereotypes. Boy wouldn’t that be funny too.

And Jesus wept…

Sorry … I meant to exclude the Masses on EWTN.

 

[brigantine]

This has gone far off the trail of my original question. Its obvious there is a lot of anger and bitterness on both sides.

 

[ljubim]

That’s true.

I’m very excited that as I become accustomed to the TLM/EF, then now wherever I go in the world all I need to do is find a Latin mass somewhere, and be reminded that God isn’t limited to our individual countries and languages. The EF helps to show this.

 

[StillWondering]

My brother NCJohn and I are of an age and quite similar backgrounds. If given a choice between the EF and the OF, I would take the opposite tack from him. I could go back to the EF in a heartbeat and I could easily serve as I did for years before and after Vatican II.

The EF was the universal Mass of HMC. When I was in the Navy, I had the opportunity to visit Spain. I walked into a church and a priest came out (in a cassock no less) and asked if he could help me. In my broken Spanish I told him that I had been an altar boy and I wished to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament and to see a historic church. Father said to me “Introibo ad altare Dei”. To which I said, “Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam”. That was all it took. I got the grand tour of the church including the crypts and the historic vestments in the sacristy. Such was the power of the universal Mass at that time.

Why will they come into effect? Because it was priests raised with the TLM that did them before! Now you have priests saying the TLM who are dedicated to it and say it because they love it. If it became the norm you would no longer have only the exceptional priests saying it and the quality could not help but be diminished. On top of that, all those people who currently are the pew potatoes at the Pauline Masses would be there being pew potatoes and chatting around just like they do where they are now.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for!

I find both of these observations of the form of the Mass to be very true. I do believe that with a certain culture and aspect, yes having one universal form as a the norm would be great. However, the Catholic Church is very diverse. In fact, within America is where I would expect most of the abuses because Americans like to be their own popes. So these same Americans, our pope wanna-be’s, will bring abuses to the EF and ruin it’s reverence and credibility to other lovers of the EF.

That being said, to answer the question of why in particular the East can use traditional forms with much more success. Maybe it’s the community. An individual Eastern parish seems to have a greater sense of cultural unity even if others from different cultures join in. However, in the West, many parishes are full of different cultures that have not taken time to get to know and assimilate or live cooperatively as we should. Christ calls us to be one like He and the Father are one. Instead we are like one in the sense of a library being one place to read. But there are sure a lot of different books and some books even call the other books bad names!

Basically there will be abuses wherever there is man. And since the Catholic Church is so large, a billion strong, the prevalence of abuse will scale as such compared to a smaller church.

Returning to the issue of whether it should be the norm as the question of the topic, I think it should not officially. I think giving and encouraging priests the option of orthodox versions of both forms will benefit the priests and the laity more. The Church is in the business of saving our souls right? I don’t think it’s in the business of making us happy . Sure, being sent out after Mass is when I am the happiest in the week, but the happiness comes from the true gift, God’s Love. Thus providing for our souls the best way possible for us humans is the goal, whether that is a new norm or not.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Can’t it be said that one can actively participate in any OF Mass in the world in exactly the same way as they might actively participate in the EF Mass? In the EF, people were expected to observe quietly. In an OF where you don’t speak the language, you observe quietly, and maybe even make the responses in your own language in your heart.

That might be true if it were a Low Mass EF but the equivalent OF “low” Mass in say Vietnamese, I would not have my Missal nor would I be able to respond to any of the daily responses of the OF in Vietnamese. If the same OF in Vietnamese was offered in Latin, I would be able to respond.

I did not grow up with an EF in which people were expected to observe quietly. This is a cultural myth. We had Missals and if the Mass was not a Missa Cantata or a “dialogue” Mass, we were taught to follow along in our missals. “Observing quietly” does a grave disservice to those of us who were brought up with the EF much less those of us who were altar boys. Yes, I did understand the Latin.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I find both of these observations of the form of the Mass to be very true. I do believe that with a certain culture and aspect, yes having one universal form as a the norm would be great. However, the Catholic Church is very diverse. In fact, within America is where I would expect most of the abuses because Americans like to be their own popes. So these same Americans, our pope wanna-be’s, will bring abuses to the EF and ruin it’s reverence and credibility to other lovers of the EF.

That being said, to answer the question of why in particular the East can use traditional forms with much more success. Maybe it’s the community. An individual Eastern parish seems to have a greater sense of cultural unity even if others from different cultures join in. However, in the West, many parishes are full of different cultures that have not taken time to get to know and assimilate or live cooperatively as we should. Christ calls us to be one like He and the Father are one. Instead we are like one in the sense of a library being one place to read. But there are sure a lot of different books and some books even call the other books bad names!

Basically there will be abuses wherever there is man. And since the Catholic Church is so large, a billion strong, the prevalence of abuse will scale as such compared to a smaller church.

Returning to the issue of whether it should be the norm as the question of the topic, I think it should not officially. I think giving and encouraging priests the option of orthodox versions of both forms will benefit the priests and the laity more. The Church is in the business of saving our souls right? I don’t think it’s in the business of making us happy . Sure, being sent out after Mass is when I am the happiest in the week, but the happiness comes from the true gift, God’s Love. Thus providing for our souls the best way possible for us humans is the goal, whether that is a new norm or not.

As an anthropologist and as someone who grew up in an incredibly diverse cultural environment in Louisiana, “cultural diversity” as a means of explanation for abuses in the OF simply does not hold water for me. The Cajuns are farm more orthodox to this day. Not once have I seen the dance hall brought into Church. There is no MIssa Chank-a-Chank. One cannot say that about folk, rock, or pseudo-Southern Baptist masses which I have seen and heard.

Should we return to the EF as the norm? Absolutely not. Should ALL Catholics be exposed to Latin and to be able to appreciate their heritage? Absolutely.

 

[damooster]

I’m very excited that as I become accustomed to the TLM/EF, then now wherever I go in the world all I need to do is find a Latin mass somewhere, and be reminded that God isn’t limited to our individual countries and languages. The EF helps to show this.

This was one of the main reasons I became a Catholic. The thought that I could go to any parish in the world and attend Mass really appealed to me. I did not know about the OF of the Mass until I already started the RCIA process; until I went to that Mass, I thought all Masses were TLM’s.