1
1holycatholic
Guest
The extraordinary form of the Mass is no guarantee that liturgical abuses will go away. There were plenty of hastily mumbled and irreverent Latin Masses said prior to the mass of Paul VI.
- Status
T
Tigg
Guest
I clamped my lips tightly together at the offertory song yesterday - not certain of the name, but the lyrics are “here we become what we eat…” in the refrain!
A
Alan55
Guest
This thread went off-track because of the photo (surprise!). Let me answer the original question: I think that the new missal will have no perceptible long-term impact on the mass. People will go through a period when they pay more attention to the words because they are not operating from memory. The fact that the missal uses kludgy, latinate language will seem strange and unsettling, but will that stilted language will soon grow familiar and we’ll be back to square one.
The issue was never about a renewal of the mass. It takes more than a change to the missal by a Vatican committee (over the objections of the U.S. and other English-speaking bishops) to accomplish that. It was much more about centralizing authority over the liturgy in Rome, despite all the brave talk about inculturation, and about disputes over the best way to translate (dynamic equivalence vs. word-for-word translation from the Latin). I think the Vatican got this one wrong, but I don’t get a vote. The advance reports from places like South Africa, for example, indicates that the people in the pews don’t like the new missal and don’t experience a deeper reverence and appreciation for the mass.
Now, a whole generation of English-speaking catechists will have the pleasure of explaining Aristotelian philosiphy to school children in order to construe what “consubstantial” means. Good luck…
The issue was never about a renewal of the mass. It takes more than a change to the missal by a Vatican committee (over the objections of the U.S. and other English-speaking bishops) to accomplish that. It was much more about centralizing authority over the liturgy in Rome, despite all the brave talk about inculturation, and about disputes over the best way to translate (dynamic equivalence vs. word-for-word translation from the Latin). I think the Vatican got this one wrong, but I don’t get a vote. The advance reports from places like South Africa, for example, indicates that the people in the pews don’t like the new missal and don’t experience a deeper reverence and appreciation for the mass.
Now, a whole generation of English-speaking catechists will have the pleasure of explaining Aristotelian philosiphy to school children in order to construe what “consubstantial” means. Good luck…
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Which is why many parishes are simply going to use the Apostles’ Creed instead.
W
Wolseley
Guest
My son knows what it means, and can explain it intelligently----and he’s ten.
He can do this because I explained it to him. He also knows what transubstantiation means, and he’s a fair hand at explaining the mystery of the Trinity.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Ummmm, the words thee and thou were the English equivalent of the INformal (and singular) tu in Spanish and French. You would call your best friend, your spouse, your sibling, thou, and your boss you.
Then thee and thou were used only in religious settings and became words with which we adressed God: Hallowed by Thy Name, so we thought of them as being formal…
O
OriginalJS
Guest
This is correct. Thou and thee were the informal or familiar forms of address. Thou is nominative; thee is objective form, thy is the possessive pronoun. Over time the distinctions have been hopelessly confused. These forms have been going out of use for over 500 years and have been preserved largely in religious forms and in some religious communities (e.g. Amish). I have read that those who urged the use of these forms did so with the hope that they would make something like a sacred impression on the laity.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
The Mass isn’t “new.” There are a few liturgical changes. I don’t know any reason why the changes would translate into a deeper faith.
A
Alan55
Guest
Me either. However, on the USCCB website, we are told, “Now is the time to seize the opportunity given to us for all Catholics in the United States to deepen, nurture, and celebrate our faith through the renewal of our worship and the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy.”
A lot of marketing hype for a translation that will likely frustrate and annoy Catholics much more than it will deepen their faith.
M
Madaglan
Guest
The new translation, as I have seen it, is more literal and closer to the standard Roman missal in Latin. The new translation uses more highly wrought language and I believe fosters a more reverent atmosphere than the informal, simplified translations in place since the implementation of the Novus Ordo Mass.
To my understanding, traditionally non-English speaking Catholic dioceses have not had the same issue of dynamic translation that has affected the mostly English-speaking dioceses. Do these Catholics have a deeper faith than English-speaking Catholics, by virtue of a better translation until present? I’m willing to venture most English-speaking Catholics would concede no.
I personally think the translation is a step in the right direction. Yet, I believe the Novus Ordo Mass itself is a dead end road, and that there are more difficulties with it than translation. Its lack of organic development (despite the addition of in themselves fine Patristic prayers) poses problems that cannot be patched up but instead call for re-evaluation. Future Latin Catholic leaders, long after the original advocates of the Novus Ordo are deceased, may give this re-evaluation.
To my understanding, traditionally non-English speaking Catholic dioceses have not had the same issue of dynamic translation that has affected the mostly English-speaking dioceses. Do these Catholics have a deeper faith than English-speaking Catholics, by virtue of a better translation until present? I’m willing to venture most English-speaking Catholics would concede no.
I personally think the translation is a step in the right direction. Yet, I believe the Novus Ordo Mass itself is a dead end road, and that there are more difficulties with it than translation. Its lack of organic development (despite the addition of in themselves fine Patristic prayers) poses problems that cannot be patched up but instead call for re-evaluation. Future Latin Catholic leaders, long after the original advocates of the Novus Ordo are deceased, may give this re-evaluation.
M
Madaglan
Guest
A change in routine to those who become familiarized with routine never goes easy. I think the translations are better and reinforce traditional Catholic piety, but I think the meaning needs to sink in, which is subject to several factors: education and Mass attendance.
Those who will be most peeved are the liberal Catholics who see the new translation as a wrong step back into medievalism, the obscuring of the simplified, common-man translation that exists today.
L
louis91766
Guest
How do you suppose it will annoy and frustrate Catholics?
T
Tigg
Guest
^
I believe Alan is correct because the typical cultural Catholic these days often times rejects obedience to a higher authority, and does not want the focus placed back on a transcendant (vertical) plane.
I believe Alan is correct because the typical cultural Catholic these days often times rejects obedience to a higher authority, and does not want the focus placed back on a transcendant (vertical) plane.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
The changes I am reading about have some linguistic issues that will have to be accepted. Examples: The censer will now be called the thurible; “the cup” becomes “this precious chalice”; Christ’s hands are referred to as “venerable,” a word that means “old” to many Americans. Important nouns are capitalized, e.g. ‘Priest,’ while unimportant nouns, e.g. ‘people,’ are not. Some of this seems a bit old fashioned and stilted; not current English. Maybe that’s the point. We’ll see.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
In my opinion the issue is not whether Catholics are annoyed or frustrated, anything new always results in some annoyance and frustration, but whether the changes, as they are accepted, will be understood by them as I believe they are intended - that is to bring them closer to the teachings and traditions of the Church. Liturgy, even if those at Mass seem to be “going through the motions” is an important and delicate matter.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I sense a lot of hype about this but realistically new English Bibles haven’t been proven to translate into a deeper faith (how many new ones have we had?) and I can’t see where another English translation of the Mass (don’t forget the Anglicans have been doing so for 500 years) will suddenly transform Anglosphere into a more Catholic community.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t believe this had anything to do with status. If you observe, in the Romance Languages, “with your spirit” is the stanard response. The response was chosen that way, not because of the rank of the priest vs the congregation. Remember, there are places (such as monastic and mendicant religious houses) where they have ordained an non-ordained religious, but only one of the ordained may celebrate mass and the rest of the community attends the mass. We really can’t tell those men that there is a difference in rank or dignity between them. Some of them sitting in the congregation are priests and all of them are equal members of the same community.
The answer has nothing to do with the rank. If one reads the Latin very carefully, one is wishing the pace of the Lord to be with the person’s spirit. One is not saying that the person receiving the response, priest, deacon or bishop, has something that the rest do not have. This was a very classic greeting in the early Church, before the scriptures were even written.
The problem was with the English translation that ICEL thought that to say “Also with you” would get the meaning across more clearly. I don’t think this did what it was intended to do. The idea was to impress upon the entire community, clergy, laity and religious, that man has a spirit that is called to ultimately rest in God, as the Fathers of the Church teach us. “Also with you,” misses that mark. It’s too vague. Some people may get it, because they understand the nature of man. Others who never thing about the nature of man, will miss it completely. “With your spirit” is a much better choice.
Like this, little changes in wording here and there and in complete phrases in the parts of that the priest, deacon and bishop say will drive hom some of these more subtle points.
The good thing about the recovery of the original translation is that it does re-introduce English speaking Catholics to the whole idea that the language that we use for worship is different from the language that we use for other purposes. Even if it’s English at hom, English at a science conference and English at mass, there are not the same register of English. They shouldn’t be.
I teach OT Christology to Grade 6 on Weds night. I can tell you from experience that the language is so different from what the kids get in any other situation, that if actually affect the way they approach the class. Just a few qick examples so as not to derail. They arrive very early and eager to help setup. There are 25 in the room and you can hear a pin drop. They observe the ancient Franciscan customs such as how to organize the page in your notebook, not to sit with the back 3" from the chair, standing when someone enters the room, not entering the room if they’re late, but stading by the door until they are invited to come in, everyone using the same format to write their notes and using the same script and letter formation as do the friars, the use of Greek, Hebrew, Latin and English to go through the OT as the friars to do it, the focus on what the OT says about the nature of Christ from beginning to end
All of this requires very special language. Even though we teach it in English, they often have to learn the original word in Hebrew and Greek, the later translations into Latin and the current translations into English.
The point is when these 11 - 13 year old kids come to this class, the fact that they don’t speak in teh same English that they use dayin in and day out, helps them to feel that they are in a different setting. Just as would be the case if you were in medical school talking about seeing. You wouldn’t use the common man’s vocabulary to describe seeing. To begin with, it’s not even called seing, it’s called visual perception and it goes from there. You know that you’re in an opthamology class.
By having a very specific language for the liturgy, one knows that this is not the same as what one does in other places, even if it’s in English. The priest’s parts are even more different than the part of the congregation.
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, we have to be careful here, Louis. Holding hands durign the Lord’s Prayer is not against the rubrics in the dioceses of the United States and in certain religious orders. If you attend mass in a Latin Catholic Church in the USA or at a chapel or church run by certain religious, you are allowed to hold hands. I my own community, which is where this began back in the 1500s, it was meant to bring the priest into the community. He was standing up at the altar alone while the non-ordained friars or even other ordained friars sat in front of him.
In the early days,our chapels were very simple. They had no communion rails. The friars stood around the altar. Later, bishops would commission the friars to build parish churches for them. Obvioulsy, these were not the property of the friars. Therefore, they were built according to the general rule, with the communion rails. If the sanctuary was large enough, the friars would all be in the sanctuary and around the priest. I places where the sancturay was small, they had to sit outside of the communion rail and the friar priest was alone on the other side. This set him apart.
I’m not sure what province or house started it and I don’t think that anyone knows. The friars would form a chaing and hold hands. This custom was taken with those Catholics who left the Church to join the Protestant Reformers. The friars continued to use it as well. It was never against our rubrics.
In later years, it was made popular by the Charismatic movement who actually learned it from the Franciscans at Stubenville. The bishops in the USA askef for permission to allow it and permission was given.
There are some variations to it. In the original Franciscan custom, not one could tough the priest who had just consecrated, for fear that particles might be stuck to his hand. That’s the version that goes way back to the 1500s. The pries stands in the orans position and the other friars and laity if they are guests, hold hands to form a wring with the priest at the origin. This way, you respect the role of the pirest, but you also bring him back into the fraternity as one of the brothers. Normally, we don’t hold hands, because we are usually right there in the sanctuary or if not in the sanctuary, right around the atlar or directly in front of it, so it’s not necessary. The friar-priest is not way out there alone. Observe the mass on EWTN. The friar - priest is physically very close to the his brothers and there is no barriar between and them. Even when they go over the the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament, observe that they deliberately openthe gate on the communion railing. This is to unite the priest with his brothers. The other friars are in and out of the sanctuary the whole time of the mass or sit right in front, if they are not part of the service.
It all began as a way of drawing the priest back into his brotherhood, respectfing his priesthood and reminding him that he was a brother serving his brothers by celebrating the sacraments for them.
That concept of the priest was been lost in many places, that a priest is a brother who serves his brothers and sisters by leading them in worship. It has been replaced by the priest who is set apart, but few people can aswer, set apart for what? Whereas, Benedictines and Franciscans are quick to answer, “Set apart to serve their brothers through the priesthood of Christ.” There is that double focus on Christ and brotherhood.
This is what the American bishops wanted to capture. I don’t find that the American people really get it. I don’t see it has having much value.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, OSF
L
louis91766
Guest
I don’t know why the Catholic Church can’t make up its mind about what is and what is not against the rubrics at Mass. You say it is not against the rubrics. But that is not what Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum says:Actually, we have to be careful here, Louis. Holding hands durign the Lord’s Prayer is not against the rubrics in the dioceses of the United States and in certain religious orders. If you attend mass in a Latin Catholic Church in the USA or at a chapel or church run by certain religious, you are allowed to hold hands. I my own community, which is where this began back in the 1500s, it was meant to bring the priest into the community. He was standing up at the altar alone while the non-ordained friars or even other ordained friars sat in front of him.
In the early days,our chapels were very simple. They had no communion rails. The friars stood around the altar. Later, bishops would commission the friars to build parish churches for them. Obvioulsy, these were not the property of the friars. Therefore, they were built according to the general rule, with the communion rails. If the sanctuary was large enough, the friars would all be in the sanctuary and around the priest. I places where the sancturay was small, they had to sit outside of the communion rail and the friar priest was alone on the other side. This set him apart.
I’m not sure what province or house started it and I don’t think that anyone knows. The friars would form a chaing and hold hands. This custom was taken with those Catholics who left the Church to join the Protestant Reformers. The friars continued to use it as well. It was never against our rubrics.
In later years, it was made popular by the Charismatic movement who actually learned it from the Franciscans at Stubenville. The bishops in the USA askef for permission to allow it and permission was given.
There are some variations to it. In the original Franciscan custom, not one could tough the priest who had just consecrated, for fear that particles might be stuck to his hand. That’s the version that goes way back to the 1500s. The pries stands in the orans position and the other friars and laity if they are guests, hold hands to form a wring with the priest at the origin. This way, you respect the role of the pirest, but you also bring him back into the fraternity as one of the brothers. Normally, we don’t hold hands, because we are usually right there in the sanctuary or if not in the sanctuary, right around the atlar or directly in front of it, so it’s not necessary. The friar-priest is not way out there alone. Observe the mass on EWTN. The friar - priest is physically very close to the his brothers and there is no barriar between and them. Even when they go over the the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament, observe that they deliberately openthe gate on the communion railing. This is to unite the priest with his brothers. The other friars are in and out of the sanctuary the whole time of the mass or sit right in front, if they are not part of the service.
It all began as a way of drawing the priest back into his brotherhood, respectfing his priesthood and reminding him that he was a brother serving his brothers by celebrating the sacraments for them.
That concept of the priest was been lost in many places, that a priest is a brother who serves his brothers and sisters by leading them in worship. It has been replaced by the priest who is set apart, but few people can aswer, set apart for what? Whereas, Benedictines and Franciscans are quick to answer, “Set apart to serve their brothers through the priesthood of Christ.” There is that double focus on Christ and brotherhood.
This is what the American bishops wanted to capture. I don’t find that the American people really get it. I don’t see it has having much value.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, OSF
"Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.
While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended — so they at least should not hold hands.
One could argue that holding hands expresses the family union of the Church. But our singing or reciting the prayer in unison already expresses this element…
The use of this practice during the Our Father could detract and distract from the prayer’s God-directed sense of adoration and petition, as explained in Nos. 2777-2865 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in favor of a more horizontal and merely human meaning."
J
JReducation
Guest
[/QUOTE]I don’t know why the Catholic Church can’t make up its mind about what is and what is not against the rubrics at Mass. You say it is not against the rubrics. But that is not what Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum says:
nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.
In the USA the USCCB has allowed for it. It is not mandatory. Also, in religious communities, the chapter may allow certain things, even if it involves the laity. So, if you attend mass at a parish run by X order, you must follow their way of doing it, because the bishop has promised the major superior that if he takes this parish, the faithful will comply with the traditions of that religious community.
.
This is what I pointed out about how it started. Originally, when the Franciscans started this, the celebrant (there was only one) did not hold his brothers hands. They formed a ring with him as the point of origin.
But our singing or reciting the prayer in unison already expresses this element…
This is why I feel that it does not work in the USA. It was originally meant to express the common brotherhood of the friars. However, there is a difference between the friars and the laity. The friars are truly brothers. Even the priest who is presiding at the mass is one of the brothers (one of the guys).
The laity seems to go from one extreme to the other. Either priests are other worldly or they are the guys that Catholics love to hate.
This is why I don’t think it works well among most lay people. Most do not have the concept as the priest being brother who leads in prayer and adoration. Among lay people the focus seems to be on the community.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status