|
Post by Stephen on Dec 10, 2017 13:21:39 GMT
The Traditional Latin Mass is profoundly more reverent and this can be easily proven. Here we go again. How? And I need hard, rigorous evidence. It can't just be "This is how I feel", or anecdotal evidence. And of course you maky quote from sources, but just copying and pasting in bulk is out! (As a matter of fact, I agree that the Latin Mass is more reverent. My argument is that any given person at a Novus Ordo Mass is not necessarily less reverent than anyone at a Latin Mass.) All one has to do is show what western culture see as a reverential acts and then analysis each Mass to see how many times they are performed. Also could analyze the prayers, Laity, etc. Would this do.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 10, 2017 13:22:09 GMT
It's as I say...it seemed more like a performance than worship. If the Latin Mass was restored, could every church put together a choir like that? It's a bit too fancy for me, to be honest. I do think aesthetics can distract from worship. I realize other people think that aesthetics are an aid to worship. But when they're too elaborate, I think they become a distraction. All Mass before the changes had to offer a Solemn High Mass with Choir, it was only because of a lack of priests lower forms were allowed. Also I think most Church's could have a. Basic choir. An example is Belfast that only has had a full time Mass for 9 months and already has a decent choir with mainly people that never song before.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 13:24:08 GMT
So you believe reverence is always manifested in gestures?
Judas kissing Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane was obviously being reverential, then.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 13:28:35 GMT
The truth is that reverence is a spiritual state and it's impossible to observe from outside.
You could argue that the Latin Mass is less reverential because it has fewer readings.
You could make any amount of arguments. It could go round and round forever.
I do think it's a mistake for Traditionalists to be so dismissive of non-Traditionalists. It is perceived as spiritual pride and arrogance. And it risks alienating those, like me, who are inclined to be pro-Traditionalist.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Dec 10, 2017 15:25:18 GMT
It all seems fairly question-begging. If you're judging a Mass's reverence by gestures etc then surely Eastern Orthodoxy with its sometimes 4 hour long ceremonies would win, no?
I know we've had this debate before but from what we know of it, the most "traditional" mass would surely mimic the Last Supper. The priest would sit at the centre of a table and we'd all be around him like an evening out at a restaurant. But I can assume most Tradies would be horrified by that.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 15:44:25 GMT
As I say, I'm very sympathetic to Traditionalism. I'm grateful the Latin Mass has been preserved. Heck, I'd celebrate if the liturgical status quo ante Vatican Ii was restored. But I also feel perfectly fulfilled in the Novus Ordo, which the actual Magisterium tells me is the Ordinary Form.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 11, 2017 4:05:32 GMT
It's as I say...it seemed more like a performance than worship. If the Latin Mass was restored, could every church put together a choir like that? It's a bit too fancy for me, to be honest. I do think aesthetics can distract from worship. I realize other people think that aesthetics are an aid to worship. But when they're too elaborate, I think they become a distraction. I've no idea what St Kevin's has, if it was 'a bit too fancy' it sounds like polyphony or even so-called romantic style. Not many parishes would ever have this. But simple Gregorian chants don't always require tremendous musical ability or a great voice or great numbers in a choir. It's actually learnt in a very methodical, almost mathematical way. And it's very prayerful, no matter where we're coming from. Any parish can do this. When the traditional Mass is said properly, even a sung Mass is not overdone. I know of places where the ordinary form is said with incense without any adherence to rubrics. It's insane. Incensing at the embolism, incensing during the final procession, doing basically what they feel like. Liturgy should really form organically through the centuries, all the more reason why complete ruptures in Liturgy are unwelcome.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 9:52:39 GMT
I know of places where the ordinary form is said with incense without any adherence to rubrics. It's insane. Incensing at the embolism, incensing during the final procession, doing basically what they feel like. Liturgy should really form organically through the centuries, all the more reason why complete ruptures in Liturgy are unwelcome. The problem is that the Ordinary Form is a much bigger target than the Extraordinary Form. How many more Ordinary Form Masses are said every day, compared to Latin Masses? So it's correspondingly more likely someone would have come across abuses or eccentricities at an Ordinary Form Mass. For example, at the daily Mass in UCD, there are no abuses that I can think of. (Unless you accept Stephen's definition of Communion in the hand being a "sacrilege", whereas I see it as licit but undesirable). There are various practices such as Communion in the hand and unnecessary extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist which I see as undesirable, but licit-- so I don't consider them abuses per se.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 10:02:03 GMT
When I went to the Latin Mass I encountered lots of people coming in late, and the priest informed us with great confidence that Lenin was a Freemason-- for which there is no evidence, as I learned when I looked it up. Nothing is perfect. If the Church tells me the Novus Ordo is the Mass, then the Novus Ordo is the Mass. To be precise the Novus Ordo is a rite(the ordinary rite of mass in the west) of mass. This is all I meant, that the Ordinary Form is a valid rite, as is the Extraordinary Form.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 11, 2017 10:57:58 GMT
So you believe reverence is always manifested in gestures? Judas kissing Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane was obviously being reverential, then. What I was trying to get at is, If a Priest offers both masses. The Traditional Latin Mass is more reverent than the New Mass. The internal and external should match of course. 😀
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 11, 2017 11:27:46 GMT
I know of places where the ordinary form is said with incense without any adherence to rubrics. It's insane. Incensing at the embolism, incensing during the final procession, doing basically what they feel like. Liturgy should really form organically through the centuries, all the more reason why complete ruptures in Liturgy are unwelcome. The problem is that the Ordinary Form is a much bigger target than the Extraordinary Form. How many more Ordinary Form Masses are said every day, compared to Latin Masses? So it's correspondingly more likely someone would have come across abuses or eccentricities at an Ordinary Form Mass. For example, at the daily Mass in UCD, there are no abuses that I can think of. (Unless you accept Stephen's definition of Communion in the hand being a "sacrilege", whereas I see it as licit but undesirable). There are various practices such as Communion in the hand and unnecessary extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist which I see as undesirable, but licit-- so I don't consider them abuses per se. I wasn't really referring to abuses per se,I was following your point that "high church" can become a performance- it can happen with both masses. Most weeks our church has a choir consisting of a few volunteers, mostly girls. Sometimes they venture the complicated introit,gradual and alleluia chants. Other times it's monotone. Sometimes it's ethereal. The odd time it can sound plain unearthly. About monthly a polyphonic choir sings mostly renaissance music. (Mostly, but not always- they've sung pieces by young Scandinavian composer Ola Gjeilo.) Some parishioners like them, but not all: Many prefer the gentle singing of the unprofessionals. I think that stands as an indication that these people are not there for a 'concert.'
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 11, 2017 11:45:03 GMT
It all seems fairly question-begging. If you're judging a Mass's reverence by gestures etc then surely Eastern Orthodoxy with its sometimes 4 hour long ceremonies would win, no? I know we've had this debate before but from what we know of it, the most "traditional" mass would surely mimic the Last Supper. The priest would sit at the centre of a table and we'd all be around him like an evening out at a restaurant. But I can assume most Tradies would be horrified by that. To the first question I would suggest NO. I've mostly been to the Ukrainian rite (with a Latvian friend),I felt there was less respect for the Eucharistic elements of the liturgy, while the incensing of and bowing to icons seemed overdone. The petitions seemed too abundant and too repetitive. To the second point,I would say NO also. We don't have any photographic image of the Last Supper, we weren't meant to. There were no laity present, I was taught when I was young that the Apostles were ordained priest and bishop at that moment. Just as Christ said that fasting was inappropriate while the Bridegroom was living, so the Last Supper was a transition from knowing Christ in His Incarnation to his Eucharistic presence.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 12:15:20 GMT
It all seems fairly question-begging. If you're judging a Mass's reverence by gestures etc then surely Eastern Orthodoxy with its sometimes 4 hour long ceremonies would win, no? I know we've had this debate before but from what we know of it, the most "traditional" mass would surely mimic the Last Supper. The priest would sit at the centre of a table and we'd all be around him like an evening out at a restaurant. But I can assume most Tradies would be horrified by that. To the first question I would suggest NO. I've mostly been to the Ukrainian rite (with a Latvian friend),I felt there was less respect for the Eucharistic elements of the liturgy, while the incensing of and bowing to icons seemed overdone. The petitions seemed too abundant and too repetitive. To the second point,I would say NO also. We don't have any photographic image of the Last Supper, we weren't meant to. There were no laity present, I was taught when I was young that the Apostles were ordained priest and bishop at that moment. Just as Christ said that fasting was inappropriate while the Bridegroom was living, so the Last Supper was a transition from knowing Christ in His Incarnation to his Eucharistic presence. I can see your point, but you see how it seems like special pleading-- or question-begging, as kj put it? And would we want to say that Christ is any less present in the Eucharist than he was at the Last Supper? Do you think the early Christian celebrations of the Eucharist, those described by Justin Martyr, were more like the Latin Mass or the Ordinary Form?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 12:20:11 GMT
The Traditional Latin Mass is more reverent than the New Mass. I do agree with this, all things being equal.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Dec 11, 2017 12:40:54 GMT
For me, the crux of the matter is the "seemed". It may have seemed so to you, but clearly it's not to those who practice.
And of course those Protestant denominations whose liturgy is very stripped back would claim their practices are equally reverent in their simplicity and lack of "clutter".
Some love high ceremony and elaborate ritual - they find it increases their reverence; in others it induces boredom and a wandering mind. I fail to see how once the minimum requirement that a ceremony excludes all disrespectful and cheap trash elements one can decide which is "best".
|
|