Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We'll Take "The Quiet Mass"
Catholic Exchange ^ | October 16, 2002 | Jeffrrey Tucker

Posted on 10/16/2002 10:48:45 AM PDT by ultima ratio

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-149 next last
To: WriteOn
Get a good 1962 Missal. Ebay is a decent source as is Tan Books and The Angelus Press.
41 posted on 10/16/2002 6:19:56 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey
>>Cranmer was not a member of ICEL.

That's a great one! I've got to remember that.
42 posted on 10/16/2002 6:31:42 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
Before the NO was implemented, Mass attendance among Catholics was quite high. In the 80-90 percent range from the figures I've seen.

Yes. In the '50s, the attendance was 80%, which was down from 90% in the '40s. And, in the '60s, it was down to 70%. See a pattern here?

In the aftermath of the reform Mass attendance is now in the 10-20 percent range.

As is attendance at most mainline Protestant Churches, and even old-line Baptist churches.

America is a religious country that doesn't go to church. But, America is more observant than Europe.

It would seem that a fair assessment of the question of a popular "vote" should compare the NO and Tridentine acceptance in a climate where each is fully taught and supported by the Church. In that light, the Tridentine "wins" hands down.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that most Catholics would not choose to attend Mass celebrated in a language they do not understand.

When the NO was implemented, no vote was taken or considered at the time. What do you suppose the results would have been if they had? I'd wager Church-goers would overwhelmingly reject the NO in favor of the Tridentine. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree. But, over time, the NO would have gained the greater acceptance.

Do you remember the atmospherics at Tridentine Masses? I remember that most women said the rosary during Mass, and there were zealots who made the stations during the celebration. Why do you think they did this?

They were bored, with a priest with his back to them, praying silently in a language they didn't understand.

The Spirit has spoken. I'm all for a liberal application of the Indult.

But the idea that there is some kind of groundswell for reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass as the normative liturgy is simply ludicrous on its face.

43 posted on 10/16/2002 6:32:10 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dusty Rose
Humanism has crept into the church, and man has, in a sense, made himself God, or has established independence from God. There needs to be a real repentance and conversion of heart so that one knows with all his being that he depends on God and that He alone deserves our highest reverence and our worship.

Talk about hitting the nail on the head!

44 posted on 10/16/2002 6:33:56 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
They say the Creed on Sundays and Feast Days. Omitting it from the daily mass is permissible under the rubrics. I believe the same applies in the 3rd edition of the Missale Romanum. Creed then is reserved for Sundays and Solemnities and Major Feasts. That's what I recal....
45 posted on 10/16/2002 6:37:31 PM PDT by Siobhan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: livius
>>The "reform" was already happening: the question is why the powers that be wanted to change the whole thing.

Livius, you're exactly right. That is one of the main points of Msgr. Klaus Gamber in his book, "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy." There was a huge liturgical movement already underway for 100 years at the time of Vatican II. It was completely ignored and blown away by the New Mass.

Gamber was the world's foremost liturgist (I know it's a bad word now, but not so bad back then) and he was not even consulted once during the preparation of the New Mass.

They totally ignored 100 years of development of things like the "dialogue Mass" and created their own concoction out of whole cloth.
46 posted on 10/16/2002 6:38:49 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
I can't understand what's going on. My wife thinks we should go to the Latin Mass. But how in the h*ll do you learn it?

Every Latin Mass I've ever been to, and that's at least a dozen different locations, has missals in the church. They have Latin and English on facing pages. My children understand it just fine. My 11-year old has memorized the whole Mass so he can serve.

But even if you are illiterate, you can pray just as well. Unlike the New Mass, the point is not to follow every word of the priest, the point is to PRAY. You can spiritually join your intentions to those of the priest without paying any attention to what he's saying on the altar.

It's better if you understand the Latin, of course. But centuries worth of illiterate peasants got plenty of spiritual value out of the Latin Mass.

47 posted on 10/16/2002 6:44:28 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
Maybe you shouldn't try to understand literally at first, but let your heart respond to the sense of the sacred. Let it wash over you and just dispose yourself internally and prayerfully. Gradually it will become clear. It is not all that difficult. Even small children learn to follow it. You would eventually use a missal with Latin on one side, English on the other. These prayers are very ancient and very beautiful. One of the secret pleasures is the knowledge that the Canon of the old Latin Mass was codified as far back as the fifth century A.D. So much of what you're experiencing is an ancient ritual that connects you to the early Church.
48 posted on 10/16/2002 6:52:07 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"What does that have to do with whether or not American Catholics like the Novus Ordo?"

Simply put, if the majority of American Catholics know so little about their Faith that they consistently vote for the Party Of Moloch, then the probability that the selfsame majority favours the continued primacy of the Nervous Ordo hardly tells in favour of the N.O. Mass (or no mas, as the case may be).

"Or are you going to try to make some lame equivocation between the Democratic Party and the Novus Ordo?"

I doubt that the equivalence would be lame. Do you know any traditionalists at all who have voted Democrat?

49 posted on 10/16/2002 6:58:55 PM PDT by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
That is very true. "Liturgical renewal" (prior to Vat II) just that: renewal of a splendid liturgy that had gotten a bit dusty. There was a lot of enthusiasm, even in small parishes, for singing/chanting parts of it, etc. Even the written support - the missals produced in English - were beautiful and contained not only the text of the Mass and various devotions, but prayers and reflections from 2000 years of Christianity.

And yes, I think the Vat II zealots did create the Novus Ordo out of whole cloth. Actually, they created it out of their strange suppositions about practice in the "early Church," which, in addition to being nothing more than suppositions, also threw out all of the accumulation of Catholic tradition between then and now.
50 posted on 10/16/2002 7:00:16 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
Simply put, if the majority of American Catholics know so little about their Faith that they consistently vote for the Party Of Moloch, then the probability that the selfsame majority favours the continued primacy of the Nervous Ordo hardly tells in favour of the N.O. Mass.

That doesn't follow.

If the majority of American Catholics who favor the Novus Ordo eat carrots, does that "hardly tell in favour" of the Novus Ordo? Or of carrots?

Non-sequitur.

Do you know any traditionalists at all who have voted Democrat?

Other than on the anonymity of Free Republic, I don't know any traditionalists.

51 posted on 10/16/2002 7:06:01 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey
Something of a Freudian skip. Why NOT an Anglican rite?
52 posted on 10/16/2002 7:10:26 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dusty Rose; Polycarp
Everything has been done to suppress the doctrine of the Real Presence. Genuflections have been removed, except for a single one at the Consecration. Kneeling is now prohibited at communion. Communion in the hands further desacralizes the experience. The liturgical text has been radically altered so that there is now no real Offertory; references to sacrifice and expiation for sins are radically reduced; the term "Mystery of Faith" no longer refers DURING Consecration to the change of bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood, but has been shifted to AFTER the Consecration and refers instead to Christ's death, resurrection and promise to come again. Everything has been changed to focus on Christ's VIRTUAL Presence in the assembly and in the Scripture readings--as in a Methodist or Lutheran Lord's Supper worship service. His ACTUAL Presence is ignored in the ways mentioned.

For all these reasons--and much much more--the Novus Ordo is an insult to Catholic teachings and deliberately aims to approximate Protestant, not Catholic, tradition. That many Catholics prefer the Novus Ordo is no surprise. It is what they are now, after a full generation, used to. It is easy, it is pleasant. But it is NOT truly Catholic. It is the liturgy of a new quasi-Protestant religion.
53 posted on 10/16/2002 7:14:14 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
The New Mass is a much greater departure from the Latin Mass than were the services of Luther and Cranmer. I don't think so. To focus on Cranmer, his service is quite Calvinistic in tone.
54 posted on 10/16/2002 7:22:07 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dusty Rose
Should what you desire come to pass, that NO is abolished and Latin re-instated, that would not re-instate your 80-90% attendence of pre-Vatican II.

A slight correction. I'm not sure exactly what I desire to come to pass. My own desire isn't the point anyway. It's about what is right regardless of individual preference.

I think the abolition of the Tridentine was a terrible thing in the first place. Despite its flaws, I'm not sure abolition of the NO would be any wiser. The Church needs to stop making hasty and radical decisions, and do a better job listening to the wisdom of the ages. That was always the Church's strength in the past. Only when the Church filled with "modern" men did she forget this.

I am definitely in favor of a papal declaration giving universal permission to celebrate the Tridentine to any Catholic priest. But I'm not calling for supression of the Novus Ordo (though suppression of Modernism and other heresies would be nice).

I totally agree that Church attendance would not automatically or quickly follow restoration of the old Mass. But I think it is a step in the right direction. The Tridentine treats the Mass as a serious and reverent matter - not something to be taken lightly. That's something the NO seems to leave "optional" - it's reverent in some parishes and not at all in others. That fact alone leads me to believe the old Mass would not be so lightly avoided as the current one.

55 posted on 10/16/2002 7:55:56 PM PDT by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
There is a reason why the old Mass is reverent, no matter who says it. The priest faces away from the people. He is faceless, an anonymity, and he must necessarily submerge his identity in the liturgical action. In other words, the focus is on God, not the priest. The priest can't be the star of the action even if he wanted to. In the Novus Ordo the priest faces the people and is therefore center stage. It is like turning on the lights and camera. It is no wonder some egocentric priests see this as an opportunity to perform. The temptation to show off is much much greater in the NO than in the old Mass.
56 posted on 10/16/2002 8:10:49 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Yes. In the '50s, the attendance was 80%, which was down from 90% in the '40s. And, in the '60s, it was down to 70%. See a pattern here?

I don't disagree. This among other problems was one of the reasons the Church saw a need for another Vatican Council. However the new rite was specifically promoted as a tool to reverse this trend. That never happened. If anything, the trend accelerated.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that most Catholics would not choose to attend Mass celebrated in a language they do not understand.

That is a nonsensical statement in light of Church history. First of all, what is this Protestant-flavored nonsense about Catholics not understanding the Latin of the Mass? Part of Catholic education through the centuries was dedicated to teaching this understanding. It was apparently quite successful, because Latin stopped being a popularly understood language around the fifth century, and it wasn't until the late twentieth that it was deemed incomprehensible - and in that case by people who have shown no greater devotion to a Mass in their own native language.

Secondly, why do you imagine Catholics throughout the ages chose a Mass in Latin when other worship services in their own languages were available? Mass in one's native tongue wasn't exactly a groundbreaking discovery of the Novus Ordo. It has existed in various forms throughout the entire history of the Church. Yet when the faithful were most faithful, language was not an issue. And when the faithful became less so the change in the language of the Mass did not convince them to stay.

I don't disagree. But, over time, the NO would have gained the greater acceptance.

Don't you believe the same is true of the Tridentine rite in the "popular vote" climate of today? Wouldn't the same formula apply?: Give it a fair chance and it will gain broader acceptance.

They were bored, with a priest with his back to them, praying silently in a language they didn't understand.

And now they are bored with priests performing the Novus Ordo. Bored to the point they avoid going entirely in numbers the old Mass never knew. Despite your characterization, the NO isn't some popular festive event people look forward to in large numbers. Most view it as a chore, as they always have. Only now, not as many bother to attend at all.

The NO has not abolished the boredom you attribute to the Tridentine rite. So perhaps your concerns about the facing of the priest and the language of the Mass were never the source of boredom in the first place.

But the idea that there is some kind of groundswell for reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass as the normative liturgy is simply ludicrous on its face.

Groundswell would probably be stretching the point, but something unexpected is certainly going on. An entire generation never taught the Tridentine rite is beginning to fill the pews where it is offered. Young seminarians are flocking to seminaries where they are trained in the old Mass. And all of this in an environment of hostility from their bishops, priests, and in large part their parents.

The Church does not (and should not) make quick, radical changes in the normative form of the Mass. These sort of issues are supposed to take generations. However, in a few generations, the normative form of the Mass question may not sound quite as ludicrous.

57 posted on 10/16/2002 8:27:19 PM PDT by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Great post. Thanks very much.
58 posted on 10/16/2002 8:27:56 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I don't know enough about the Lutheran and Anglican services to have an opinion myself. But it was the judgement of Msgr. Klaus Gamber who was the founder and director of the world's foremost liturgical institute. People on FR who attend the Anglican Usage like Sockmonkey and B-chan might know better whether the AU is Calvinistic in tone.
59 posted on 10/16/2002 9:27:12 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
I have no training in Latin to speak of...

LOL!! Thank you for making my point. As "narses" noted, you can pick up a 1962 missal. These feature Latin on one page with English on the opposing page. Even with the English translation, you will find yourself trying to "follow along" rather than participating.

In the Tridentine Mass, the priest has his back to you throughout most of the mass and the altar boys speak the Latin responses on behalf of the congregation. You are an observer, rather than a participant. Here are links to the side by side Latin/English texts.

LATIN MASS

Here is another web site with extensive links, including an address where you can purchase a missal.

TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS

60 posted on 10/16/2002 10:55:56 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson