Will faithful be taught liturgical prayers in Latin and sing Greg. Chant?

[hosemonkey]

Amen! We ain’t dead yet…we’re feeling better!

That’s right, “we ain’t dead yet.” But I am seeing something here that I predicted a long time ago. There is an “us and them” feeling going on. The TLM is not just another Mass, it is a lifestyle and an attitude that, sad to say, is foreign to the average Catholic in the pew today. Now I know that I am going to get some heat for saying that, but I believe that it is true. The NO is Catholicism Lite. The TLM is strong beer, straight up. There is a different feeling, a different demeanor, at the TLM. A quiet. a reverence not found at your average NO Mass. Back in the day, those aspiring to the priesthood knew that the road would be hard, but the culmination of years of study was the privilege of celebrating something that was powerful and mysterious and trancendant. To me, the NO, while equally valid, provides too much distraction from the business at hand, which is a spotless sacrifice to our God. Man-centered, too often, not God-centered. I know why that many of our Bishops are scared to death of the TLM, because the TLM often creates two camps. If I can choose, I will choose the Mass that sustained the Church and the faithfull for centuries, I would rather take the hard road, rather than the easy. Our God deserves the best. I’ll stand by for the flak.

 

[Brendan]

I

This could not happen under the TLM as it was being celebrated.
Its what drove the Novus Ordo to become the ordinary.

Jim

Could you explain how “full and active participation” could not happen under the TLM?

The TLM is actually more conducive to full and active participation than the N.O.

 

[Brendan]

For me, if the Pope were to mandate that the Mass return to the TLM, it wouldn’t kill me. It would be sad, because I know, many people would stop going to Mass and probably convert toward protestant religions.
Jim

So you know that many people who would care more for Marty Haugen music than they do Christ in the Eucharist?

That’s wrong no matter what form of the Liturgy is being celebrated. Nothing is more important than God Himself Present among us ( by definition)

Then again, John 6 shows us that when presented with a choice between the Eucharist and other forms of worship, many left Christ,…and Christ let them go.

 

[I_Believe]

I_Believe

All I can say is, read the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy and you will learn that the TLM was changed by Vatican II.

The first paragraph to the intro says exactly what their intent was;

also;

This could not happen under the TLM as it was being celebrated.
Its what drove the Novus Ordo to become the ordinary.

Jim

Hmm, but they didn’t discard the latin. And I read nothing there to lead me to believe they intended it. BTW, what language was used to introduce the NO ? Wasn’t the Pauline Missal in latin ?

Not a single Pope has said we should consider substituting venacular for latin in the TLM. But many have stressed the importance of latin.

We just are not going to agree on the subject Jim.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

hosemonkey

There is a different feeling, a different demeanor, at the TLM. A quiet. a reverence not found at your average NO Mass.

This is because at a TLM these days, you get a more devote Catholic than at the average NO Mass. People literally drive out of their way, to attend an TLM. They are the minority of Catholics however. Also, such was not the case in pre-Vatican II, even by priest.

I remember the grumpy old priest, who people went to when he said Mass, because he’d say it in 15 minutes.

I remember people sleeping through Mass, and walking out as soon as they receive the final blessing.

So, I believe that if the TLM were to become the ordinary, you’d see irreverence that doesn’t come close in todays NO.

When I attend the NO Mass in English at the Trappist monastery, its very reverent. Why? Because the people who attend, are more devote Catholics than those in their home parish. Same is true for the Latin Mass that I attend on occasion, at the Benedictine Monastery. The people there are more devote.

Jim

 

[Cat]

So you know that many people who would care more for Marty Haugen music than they do Christ in the Eucharist?

That’s wrong no matter what form of the Liturgy is being celebrated. Nothing is more important than God Himself Present among us ( by definition)

Then again, John 6 shows us that when presented with a choice between the Eucharist and other forms of worship, many left Christ,…and Christ let them go.

I know that there are a lot of Catholics who really don’t believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and who truly have no idea what their faith is about.

They come to Mass out of habit, and they come to Masses that feature Haugen music because they like it better than classical.

So yes, I suppose you could say that some Catholics prefer Haugen to Jesus, because they are not fully aware of what’s actually happening at Mass. This could be the fault of poor catechesis while growing up, or it could be their fault for being lazy and careless in the practice of the faith.

IMO, it’s better that they continue to come to Mass, any Mass, even if they don’t understand what they are actually participating in. They will receive some graces from the Eucharist, and the Holy Spirit can work in them to eventually lead them to a fuller understanding.

I agree that TLM would probably drive these nominal Catholics away towards the more lively and entertaining Protestant churches. Maybe not–for some, the opposite might happen and they would “wake up” to true Catholicism. Everyone is different.

IMO, the best approach would be for dioceses to offer both TLM and NO in areas that are close enough for all to drive to easily, and that way, the Holy Spirit has all kinds of opportunities to work in the hearts and souls of Christians.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hmm, but they didn’t discard the latin. And I read nothing there to lead me to believe they intended it. BTW, what language was used to introduce the NO ? Wasn’t the Pauline Missal in latin ?

Not a single Pope has said we should consider substituting venacular for latin in the TLM. But many have stressed the importance of latin.

We just are not going to agree on the subject Jim.

They said that Latin should be preserved. However, participation of the people over the years, superseded the use of Latin, which is why the use of Latin in the Mass, ceased being used rapidly.
For one, the people had to be trained to participate in Mass, i.e. sing and responses, never mind have to learn the Latin parts, which they were disconnected with in the TLM.

You’re right, we’ll never agree on this, but one thing I have, is expense in both worlds. Pre-Vatican II and Post Vatican II. Post Vatican II is far better, believe me.

Jim

 

[I_Believe]

Yes, he allows for the extraordinary TLM to be said. However, he doesn’t mandated it, and it doesn’t seem to be growing in the dioceses in the United States. In fact, most Bishops will probably ignore request for it, because they don’t have the priest young enough and trained in it, to do it properly.

Jim

Jim, I’m not trying to pick apart everything you say.(I know, you didn’t say that anyway)
I’ve read your thoughts on other threads and never disagreed with you enough to post my thoughts.

But I have to ask, do you truly believe the TLM hasn’t seen wider usage since the MP ?

And do you truly believe any Bishop has the right to ignore the MP simply because there are a few hurdles to overcome ? BXVI didn’t simply say priests are now free from the restraints of the previous indult. He has encouraged wider use of the Missal of 1962.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I_Believe

But I have to ask, do you truly believe the TLM hasn’t seen wider usage since the MP ?

Not in my dioceses and as far as I can tell.

And do you truly believe any Bishop has the right to ignore the MP simply because there are a few hurdles to overcome ?

They’re not ignoring PBXVI. They’re not mandated to have the TLM. Also, I have been told by credible experts, that under canon law, no priest can be forced to say Mass. That means, a Bishop can not order a priest to say the TLM if that priest does not want to.

BXVI didn’t simply say priests are now free from the restraints of the previous indult. He has encouraged wider use of the Missal of 1962.

No, he didn’t encourage further use of the 1962 missal. He merely prevented Bishops from prohibiting its use. There were some dioceses here in the US and and Europe, where the Bishops were prohibiting the TLM, even where parishies, along with their pastors desired it, and in some cases, where doing it anyway.

Jim

 

[I_Believe]

They said that Latin should be preserved. However, participation of the people over the years, superseded the use of Latin, which is why the use of Latin in the Mass, ceased being used rapidly.
For one, the people had to be trained to participate in Mass, i.e. sing and responses, never mind have to learn the Latin parts, which they were disconnected with in the TLM.

You’re right, we’ll never agree on this, but one thing I have, is expense in both worlds. Pre-Vatican II and Post Vatican II. Post Vatican II is far better, believe me.

Jim

So do you believe the average catholic family today has a better understanding of what it means to be catholic ?

Post VII better ? If you see the merging of parishes into clusters as a necessity due to lack of enough regestrations to support those that are closed as a good thing perhaps. That is just one thing. I’ll spare everyone my rant on abuses creeping into the user friendly version of the week NO.

 

[trimont]

I feel it’s my responsibility (privilege) to relearn the Latin prayers of Mass. The thing is that I’m an audio learner and it helps me to learn by listening - over and over and over . Do any of you know of any recordings of the Latin Mass (prayers & chant) that are available?

 

[Cobbfmly]

…The worldwide Catholic Church can sing “Adeste, Fideles” together in our common language this Christmas!! It’s an outward expression of what Catholic means.

The more appropriate way to term this is “The worldwide Latin Rite of the Catholic Church…” To many posts in this thread make statements that overlook the fact that the Catholic Church has used many different languages (often, but not always, correlating to different rites of the Catholic Church) since the earliest days. Latin became most prevalent because Latin was what the most powerful and widespread nation in the world at the time was using it. I can only imagine how many more rites the Catholic Church would have if Rome had fell in the very earliest years of the Catholic Church.

 

[Cobbfmly]

…
But the problem is that the Latin prayers that the Church has identified as correct doctrinally and spiritually are not always translated correctly into the vernacular. The Confiteor (“I confess, to Almighty God…”), for example, is not translated accurately into English. If what we pray in English is noticeably different from what was prayed in Latin for numerous centuries, that difference must be explained. Is the difference negligible (and if so, why does it exist in the first place)? Or is the difference problematic, ignoring (or denying) dogmas of the faith?..

Many of the problems with translation are being addressed with the revision of the English translation of the GIRM that is underway. Previous translations have been with consideration for how English was used (I don’t know the technical name for this method), while the new translation will be direct from Latin. Two places people will definitely see differences is the Confiteor and the Profession of Faith.

 

[Cobbfmly]

For me, if the Pope were to mandate that the Mass return to the TLM, it wouldn’t kill me. It would be sad, because I know, many people would stop going to Mass and probably convert toward protestant religions…

I would not convert to a protestant religion. The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus found and I would not want to be a member of any other church. However, I would seriously consider attending another rite of the Catholic Church that was at least partially in the vernacular.

 

[Brendan]

They said that Latin should be preserved. However, participation of the people over the years, superseded the use of Latin, which is why the use of Latin in the Mass, ceased being used rapidly.
Jim

I think you have a very grave misunderstanding about what Vatican II mean about “active participation”

Pope Benedict has an excellent book out entitled “Spirit of the Liturgy”. In it, he describes exactly what the Council meant, and it doesn’t involve language at all, in fact, for one to fully and actively partipate as the Council envisioned it, the faithful should be SILENT.

The reason for that is the two actia (the active part of 'active) of the Liturgies of the Word and Eucharist respectively all require that the faithful be silent while participating.

namely, the faithful fully and actively participate in the Liturgy of the Word by their attentive listening to the readings, Gospel and Homily.

In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the faithful are to actively particpate in the Sacrifice of the Mass being offered by the Ministerial Priest by silently offering themselves as members of the Common Priesthood.

Pope John Paul confirmed that in his Nov 1998 address to the US Bishops during their ad lima visit to Rome.

Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

So given what the Popes have said on the subject, could you explain how Latin interferes with the active pariticpation of “following along with the prayers of the celebrant and the chants and music of the Liturgy”

If you don’t have a copy of Pope Benedict’s “Spirit of the Liturgy”, I would highly recommend that you pick up a copy. It’s very enlighting on exactly what the Liturgy is about theologically. As I mentioned above, an entire chapter is devoted to what is, and what is not, active paricipation in the Liturgy.

 

[ravenonthecross]

I know that there are a lot of Catholics who really don’t believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and who truly have no idea what their faith is about.

They come to Mass out of habit, and they come to Masses that feature Haugen music because they like it better than classical.

So yes, I suppose you could say that some Catholics prefer Haugen to Jesus, because they are not fully aware of what’s actually happening at Mass. This could be the fault of poor catechesis while growing up, or it could be their fault for being lazy and careless in the practice of the faith.

IMO, it’s better that they continue to come to Mass, any Mass, even if they don’t understand what they are actually participating in. They will receive some graces from the Eucharist, and the Holy Spirit can work in them to eventually lead them to a fuller understanding.

I agree that TLM would probably drive these nominal Catholics away towards the more lively and entertaining Protestant churches. Maybe not–for some, the opposite might happen and they would “wake up” to true Catholicism. Everyone is different.

IMO, the best approach would be for dioceses to offer both TLM and NO in areas that are close enough for all to drive to easily, and that way, the Holy Spirit has all kinds of opportunities to work in the hearts and souls of Christians.

thank you. I agree with you.
God bless thee.
sincerely,
Ravenonthecross

 

[Brendan]

I
IMO, it’s better that they continue to come to Mass, any Mass, even if they don’t understand what they are actually participating in. They will receive some graces from the Eucharist, and the Holy Spirit can work in them to eventually lead them to a fuller understanding.

That is a really dangerous belief. It will only be true for the truely ignorant.

Recieving the Eucharist if one only considers it a symbol gives no Graces, and may even bring condemnation, depending on the obstinance of the erronous belief.

On the other hand, if one does believe that it is truely Christ, there would be *no excuse *for abandoning the Eucharist in favor of a happy-clappy Protestant service.

 

[japhy]

In fact, most Bishops will probably ignore request for it, because they don’t have the priest young enough and trained in it, to do it properly.

Ignoring the requests of the faithful for something that will help them in their faith is not something bishops should do. Bishops don’t even need to be requested; priests are the go-to men now, as far as the motu proprio is concerned. If pastors say no, and bishops ignore the requests, the faithful will send word to Ecclesia Dei and they will do what is right.

 

[brigid12]

I hope I’m wrong, but I would very much doubt they’ll be taught in this diocese.

 

[Cat]

That is a really dangerous belief. It will only be true for the truely ignorant.

Recieving the Eucharist if one only considers it a symbol gives no Graces, and may even bring condemnation, depending on the obstinance of the erronous belief.

On the other hand, if one does believe that it is truely Christ, there would be *no excuse *for abandoning the Eucharist in favor of a happy-clappy Protestant service.

Brendan, the Eucharist is Jesus, the Lord of heaven and earth, whether someone believes it or not. He can work in spite of our unbelief.

Many people who don’t believe in the True Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament have adopted these beliefs because they were wrongly taught. They surely are not culpable for their wrong beliefs because they received wrong teachings from someone else. (Woe to that teacher!)

In the book, Imitation of Christ, Jesus tells us to continue to receive Him in Holy Communion even when we have doubts! The Sacrament will help us to not doubt, if we continue to receive It.