Posted on 01/18/2005 11:11:11 AM PST by corpus
One famous liturgical historian has described the quality of liturgical celebration in the middle ages as a time of “dissolution, elaboration, reinterpretation and misinterpretation.”
This unfortunate situation was due to a number of factors. There was very little conscious and active participation on the part of the assembly. The Mass was celebrated in Latin, which only the tiny majority of the educated might understand. And the Mass had really become simply the priest’s Mass. People were silent spectators. As one historian explains, people were indeed pious, but theirs was not a liturgical piety; they did not pray the Mass, but prayed during it.
To give the people some sort of deeper access to the liturgy, pastors and teachers fell back on allegory and symbolism. An allegorical meaning is a meaning applied to some aspect of the liturgy that is symbolic. It is not necessarily an obvious meaning, but used as a form of instruction. For example, not long ago, on a Catholic radio program, I heard the host explain to a caller that there are seven steps leading up to the altar because seven represents the seven sacraments (I was taught nearly 50 years ago that the seven steps represent the seven steps required to reach ordination to the priesthood). The reality, of course, is that most altars do not have seven steps, and the purpose of the steps is simply to elevate the altar so that it can be seen. Stairs or steps are an architectural or design necessity, and don’t have to mean anything.
Pious allegorical interpretations were just added in the past by good-willed individuals.
Allegorical interpretations of the details of the liturgy are not common today, since we are able to participate fully and actively in the ritual without such interpretations. One of the difficulties of allegorical interpretations is that, with the passage of time, they could become an official part of the liturgy. Indeed, one of the purposes of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II was to remove allegorical symbolism that had worked its way into the liturgy over decades and centuries. One example was the prayers that the priest used to say as he put on each of the Mass vestments. These prayers tell of the allegorical or symbolic meaning of each vestment, and they originated as the personal, pious sentiments of individual priests. But these prayers became so popular that they were eventually standardized for use throughout the world, and their recitation was required of every priest before every liturgy.
The long white alb, for example, was said to represent the desire for purity of action and intention. The rope or cord fastened around the waist came to mean purity. The stole was a symbol of immortality, and the chasuble, the large outer garment, symbolized the “yoke of Christ” as well as the virtue of charity. Over the decades historians and liturgical scholars have rightly questioned the allegorical interpretations that had been applied to various parts of the liturgy. With the reforms of Vatican II, many of these private prayers of the priest, with their allegorical contents, were eliminated from the Roman rite.
Father Jan Larson is the pastor of Our Lady of Sorrows Parish in Snoqualmie and a consultant in liturgy for the archdioese. He can be reached at Liturgy@comcast.net
Thank goodness for Vatican II and Fr. Larson to dispell all the allegory and make the Mass understandable for "the people". //sarcasm
But making up new symbols...like a sand and cactus display during Lent to tell us what a desert looks like is OK. It's OK for the modernist priests to push their "personal" tastes as official liturgy, but centuries old traditions have to go but those symbols mean nothing.
This is a classic rationalistic nonsense and reeks of iconoclasm all the way. This is the higher historical criticism as it applies to the liturgy.
"People were silent spectators."
It's not just the Modernists and their personal tastes, it has become a "show" for what Fr. (presider) Larson calls "spectators". Hence clown "Masses", biker "Masses", etc.
No. The TLM was a "show" at which congregants sat silently or prayed the Rosary or did the stations.
Attendees at Mass are now participants, since they respond to the priest and are able to see and understand the language of the liturgy.
"Attendees at Mass are now participants, since they respond to the priest and are able to see and understand the language of the liturgy."
People who pray at Holy Mass, no matter if it is silently, following along in the Missal, or praying the rosary, are participating in a manner pleasing to God based upon their own personal dispositions, rather than being FORCED to make inane, rote responses to prayers that aren't even theologically correct, nor translated correctly.
According to Dom Gueranger, Pope St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI, "ACTIVE" participation meant primarily, being able to sing the Ordinaries using plain chant tones in Latin.
You doing this in your parish? If not, then you are NOT doing what the Council Fathers envisioned.
"Attendees at Mass are now participants, since they respond to the priest and are able to see and understand the language of the liturgy."
People who pray at Holy Mass, no matter if it is silently, following along in the Missal, or praying the rosary, are participating in a manner pleasing to God based upon their own personal dispositions, rather than being FORCED to make inane, rote responses to prayers that aren't even theologically correct, nor translated correctly.
According to Dom Gueranger, Pope St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI, "ACTIVE" participation meant primarily, being able to sing the Ordinaries using plain chant tones in Latin.
You doing this in your parish? If not, then you are NOT doing what the Council Fathers envisioned.
If the liturgical movement had not been hijacked, the TLM would be universally bursting with congregations singing in Latin and chant. Many efforts were under way before Vatican II. Those efforts were slow, yes, but would have succeeded given it more time. Fortuntately, the fruits of the original liturgical movement are alive and well in places like Mater Ecclesiae in NJ and in most SSPX and FSSP churches. However, I find most Indult Masses to be exactly what you describe..silence and Rosary beads. Both are good, but they need to yield to the Mass. The TLM does not have to be the old 1950's style silence. In fact, my experience with it (and I'm 25) is much the opposite. I credit it for fostering a personal piety that is very much liturgically based.
Are you asserting that responding to the priest is the same kind of participation as someone saying the Rosary, silently?
This would be a happy co-existence.
Sinkspur,
I tend to disagree with you on many of your posts, but on this, I agree whole-heartedly. Let the TLM be free and grow. The other good part about Mater Ecclesiae and SSPX and FSSP churches is that they are mostly in the suburbs or rural areas rather than bad parts of cities.
"We do not sing the Ordinaries in plain chant in Latin, no."
I know of three in our small diocese that do. Paul VI issued a collection of plain chants in the early '70s and asked ALL the bishops to implement. Who was/is still being disobedient to the Pope and the Council?
"I don't know of any place where it is done, in fact."
The thing speaks for itself.
"Are you asserting that responding to the priest is the same kind of participation as someone saying the Rosary, silently?"
Most of the families I know have a hard enough time trying to keep their many children quiet in the pews. To think we are "actively participating" simply because we are saying "It is right to give Him thanks and praise" when it really should be "It is right and just" is just plain silly. Do the people know the theology of the Mass better NOW due to active participation than they did prior to Vatican II? I'm sorry. I mean to say, those Catholics who are left.
Do they understand transubstantiation and the connection between Christ's sacrifice and our sacrifice of our lives BETTER now that we can so "actively participate?"
Objectively, and subjectively, the "little old lady" or the "young man" who is praying the rosary, while uniting her/his intentions with those of the priest at the altar, can certainly be as "participative" and perhaps moreso, than the person who responds rotely during Mass, but really has absolutely no understanding of the meanings behind the words in which he responds.
Besides, why are YOU making judgments on people's interior dispositions? Can anyone read anyone else's mind during Mass? My Jesuit spiritual director said that contemplation is the highest form of private prayer. Simple silence.
Can one bein contemplative or meditative prayer during Holy Mass? Certainly. Can one be uniting one's intentions with those of the priest even if one doesn't "follow along" with all the responses and gestures like everyone else?
Certainly.
"We do not sing the Ordinaries in plain chant in Latin, no."
I know of three in our small diocese that do. Paul VI issued a collection of plain chants in the early '70s and asked ALL the bishops to implement. Who was/is still being disobedient to the Pope and the Council?
"I don't know of any place where it is done, in fact."
The thing speaks for itself.
"Are you asserting that responding to the priest is the same kind of participation as someone saying the Rosary, silently?"
Most of the families I know have a hard enough time trying to keep their many children quiet in the pews. To think we are "actively participating" simply because we are saying "It is right to give Him thanks and praise" when it really should be "It is right and just" is just plain silly. Do the people know the theology of the Mass better NOW due to active participation than they did prior to Vatican II? I'm sorry. I mean to say, those Catholics who are left.
Do they understand transubstantiation and the connection between Christ's sacrifice and our sacrifice of our lives BETTER now that we can so "actively participate?"
Objectively, and subjectively, the "little old lady" or the "young man" who is praying the rosary, while uniting her/his intentions with those of the priest at the altar, can certainly be as "participative" and perhaps moreso, than the person who responds rotely during Mass, but really has absolutely no understanding of the meanings behind the words in which he responds.
Besides, why are YOU making judgments on people's interior dispositions? Can anyone read anyone else's mind during Mass? My Jesuit spiritual director said that contemplation is the highest form of private prayer. Simple silence.
Can one bein contemplative or meditative prayer during Holy Mass? Certainly. Can one be uniting one's intentions with those of the priest even if one doesn't "follow along" with all the responses and gestures like everyone else?
Certainly.
To each his own. It's not worth arguing over.
"sigh"
Ping
"To each his own."
OR
Non serviam...
Disobedience is disobedience and breeds disobedience.
"To each his own." Classic. Simply classic.
Our parish follows the GIRM to the letter.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment."
1 Corinthians 11:33-34
-----------------------------------------------------------
Some early Christians
apparently treated their
celebrations of
the Lord's Supper as
just another meal. This hints
that early Christians --
Christians who knew Christ! --
did not stage these events as
big dramatic scenes.
"Christians who knew Christ! --
did not stage these events as
big dramatic scenes."
See post #3
Once again, as the article shows, we have the denial of the supernatural reality. No. Prayers for vesting are useless, right? Maybe, just maybe a priest recieves grace from God when he says these vesting prayers. Maybe,just maybe that's why the priestly sexual scandals were not nearly on a scale they are today.
What the neos don't get through their skulls is that they are participants at Mass by being Witnesses to an action that is happening upon the altar. The Old Mass leaves no room for doubt on this aspect. The New Mass is BY DESIGN intended to take away this understanding. Charles Coloumbe is quite correct in his often referenced quote "It's not a distraction. It's the point."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.