|
Post by Séamus on Dec 11, 2017 12:42:15 GMT
Don't entirely understand the questions. As far as St Justin's description goes- it was a very brief overview, while he mentioned everything as WE, meaning the Church, it doesn't necessarily mean that the average laity preformed these readings etc. He specifically mentioned deacons bringing Communion to the sick, in other words- only people totally dedicated to the Church were distributing Communion in his area, not part-time Eucharistic ministers as we have now. The kiss of peace he mentioned is actually much more similar to the Pax of the traditional high Mass (ie. With deacon and sub-deacon), except that both masses have this after the consecration, with Justin's church had before. In our own time I've known only the NeoCatecumenal Way to do this. With regards to differentiating between Christ in the Eucharist and Christ in the form he took during his life-for me, common sense tells me: of course we're meant to treat them in a different way. I doubt whether Mary or Joseph genuflected or went around on their knees all day, John the Baptist chose not to physically spent his life in Our Lord's presence-which wasn't the same as missing Mass. And yet these people understood you a greater extent than the apostles did at first.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 12:54:11 GMT
By special pleading I mean introducing a new criterion to answer every objection. For instance, Stephen's argument was that gestures which are considered reverent in ordinary life are more plentiful at the Traditionalist Mass; when kj brought up the matter of Orthdox Mass, which he said was even more profuse in them, you introduced the matter of the Eucharist vs. prayer to saints. There seems something ad hoc about Traditionalist arguments in this way.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 11, 2017 12:55:11 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". To be more definite then:I think I can say quite fairly that, compared to the 62 missal, less attention IS shown to the transubstantiation in the Eastern rites that I've been to, especially with the Ukrainian method of distributing Holy Communion (but it's really not nice to come out with it like that.) Granted a lot of individuals are quite wrapped in what's happening- some Melchites prostrate through the liturgy. Plenty of Roman rite Catholics in Australia take refuge in the Eastern Masses, but a lot would prefer the traditional Roman rite in their areas instead.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 14:19:54 GMT
Perhaps a way to simplify this whole debate is just to say: the Mass has obviously changed substantially over the centuries. How is it tenable to say that one rite is "right" (so to speak), especially on the grounds of tradition...when there is no single tradition?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 14:25:53 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". kj, this is exactly how I feel. I wish I'd said this. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Traditionalists when they are praising the Latin Mass. When they start beating up on the Ordinary Form, I get irritated.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 11, 2017 15:21:06 GMT
One of the regulars (or former regulars) on the Irish Catholic Forum (AKA the Other Place), Ranger, posted something excellent on this topic a couple of years back, with which I heartily agree: I find that many of the changes to the Mass make sense to me, or at least the theory behind them. I think the problem is that they were all taken too far, and that dodgy theology got mixed in with sound developments. I speak as somebody who attended the EF for many years, and somebody who has studied Latin formally for many years and has a great love for the language of the Church (It saddens me to see that Laudato Si' has only just been translated into Latin, a sign that the Church is losing this important part of her 'flavour' if you will).
But I find it so much easier to focus on the mystery at hand during an OF form Mass that is both reverent and follows the rubrics (those caveats are of the utmost importance). This is particularly so when it comes to daily Mass, which here in Dublin in the EF is almost always a silent low Mass. There are a few keys things here; the use of the vernacular at certain points in the Mass, particularly the readings, and the fact that the laity make many of the responses and not just the servers. Otherwise I find myself quite 'at sea' so to speak. At a Low Mass the whole Mass is silent; it's not enough just to read the missal and watch, I need something more to 'grab onto' so to speak so that I can participate in the liturgy (this has a lot to do probably with the fact that I get very easily distracted and daydream a lot). I have been at Masses too where the readings are read in the Latin only. Again, one can follow in a Missal with facing translation, but much is lost here I think.
The use of Latin comes from a time in the Church's history when it could be understood by the vast majority of European Catholics, even if the language was one step removed, almost like Shakespearean English is to us today. There could be understanding of it. I know that I'm simplifying here, Latin could be understood by most Europeans until about 900-1000AD (Not so much in Ireland/England/Scandinavia though) and most North Africans until Arabic became dominant there; Eastern Churches more or less did their own thing with Liturgy in Greek or Old Slavonic, the local vernacular of the time in those areas.
I think that Alaisdir has often spoken about certain developments in the EF such as the Dialogue Mass which have had difficulty taking root here in Ireland for various reasons and I think that this would have been the best route to take. Even now Pope Benedict has recommended a 'cross-pollination' of the Rites and this is what I would hope for; an OF that would take the good from the 20th centruy developments but learn from what has been lost from the EF and reinstitute it. We see this already in some places; OF being celebrated ad orientem, with Latin hymns and key parts of the Mass being said in Latin. This would be the approach I would favour, which would hopefully marry the best of both worlds, a rite which would retain the ancient beauty of the Church whilst still addressing a new and changed world and generation.Read more: irishcatholics.proboards.com/thread/39/new-old-liturgies-compared?page=3#ixzz50xxZBi73
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 11, 2017 23:14:54 GMT
Perhaps a way to simplify this whole debate is just to say: the Mass has obviously changed substantially over the centuries. How is it tenable to say that one rite is "right" (so to speak), especially on the grounds of tradition...when there is no single tradition? Well,I think, #1 in the current changes there is that element of total reconstruction, not just an organic change. #2 I'm we're intelligent enough to decide the difference between a play or a ballet performed on the sanctuary and age-old rituals. #3 if we start using the ' it's always changed' mentality we've already opened to anything
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 11, 2017 23:29:01 GMT
By special pleading I mean introducing a new criterion to answer every objection. For instance, Stephen's argument was that gestures which are considered reverent in ordinary life are more plentiful at the Traditionalist Mass; when kj brought up the matter of Orthdox Mass, which he said was even more profuse in them, you introduced the matter of the Eucharist vs. prayer to saints. There seems something ad hoc about Traditionalist arguments in this way. It wasn't about Eucharist vs Saints. I like icons,I like images,I like Saints. But the argument had been that the Eastern rites are overwhelmingly more reverent than the 62 missal Mass. My answer was- not by a long shot. The liturgical tradition they've preserved is laudable, but if diversity is being used as a weapon against our own tradition, one could easily find points in their Mass that show the superiority of our own tradition. I've only attended one Ukrainian church but ,going by photos, it would seem that their iconostasis always has the same six images. Only three depict Saints, in the usual usage of the word. Christ and the BVM are central, St Michael the Archangel is there. The other three are Stephen,Vladimir and (if I remember) Olga.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Dec 12, 2017 7:32:47 GMT
If you're just going to assume that your tradition and your preferred Mass is automatically superior then why even have the debate?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 12, 2017 8:07:09 GMT
What do people think of the reform of the reform?
I'm very open to it? but sceptical. 😀
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 12, 2017 8:58:46 GMT
Well, I think I've made my views clear in my last post...I think the "reform of the reform" is the way to go. The liturgical changes of Vatican II are not going to be reversed and I think we are all agreed the Novus Ordo has flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 12, 2017 10:57:24 GMT
Well, I think I've made my views clear in my last post...I think the "reform of the reform" is the way to go. The liturgical changes of Vatican II are not going to be reversed and I think we are all agreed the Novus Ordo has flaws. I suppose I was looking for discussion about how this can be achieved or should it be. Leaving out the varies problems with the New Mass. Finding a Reverent New Mass can be difficult and is very changeable (The New Mass can change from week to week. My father's months mind in 2012 is a perfect example). Also the liturgical changes came after.but I suppose 1965 Missal is more the Mass of the council.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 12, 2017 11:44:03 GMT
What do people think of the reform of the reform? I'm very open to it? but sceptical. 😀 In my experience, people who get the "reform of the reform" mentality tend to get themselves involved everywhere and end up neglecting the actual traditional Mass WHILE ACHIEVING VERY LITTLE IF ANYTHING where they are. Besides that, personally, as much as I dislike what goes on in parishes I'd feel extremely arrogant in thinking that I could sit there through the Mass with this thought going my mind constantly, how this should be changed and what I can do about it. Even if, hypothetically,a young conservative priest comes on the scene, which is happening...I really don't wish to feel like I'm one of this upstart's cabal. Certainly, OUR faithful daily Mass goers will attend the NovusOrdo if they can't make ours, I've done it myself. But I really don't attend expecting them to be anything different from what they are. And it won't go far during this Papacy. If anything ,Francis had boosted our Latin Mass numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 12, 2017 12:23:48 GMT
What do people think of the reform of the reform? I'm very open to it? but sceptical. 😀 In my experience, people who get the "reform of the reform" mentality tend to get themselves involved everywhere and end up neglecting the actual traditional Mass WHILE ACHIEVING VERY LITTLE IF ANYTHING where they are. Besides that, personally, as much as I dislike what goes on in parishes I'd feel extremely arrogant in thinking that I could sit there through the Mass with this thought going my mind constantly, how this should be changed and what I can do about it. Even if, hypothetically,a young conservative priest comes on the scene, which is happening...I really don't wish to feel like I'm one of this upstart's cabal. Certainly, OUR faithful daily Mass goers will attend the NovusOrdo if they can't make ours, I've done it myself. But I really don't attend expecting them to be anything different from what they are. And it won't go far during this Papacy. If anything ,Francis had boosted our Latin Mass numbers. I would have to agree with you. Just interesting how others see it.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 14, 2017 8:14:54 GMT
There has never been any reason why the Novus Ordo rite could not be : Sung or said in Latin ( with readings and homily in the vernacular) using Gregorian Chant ideally but also any of the great Classical Masses Facing East ad orientam With as much incense etc as you like.
This is what the Reform of the Reform could look like simply by doing what is permitted on paper since circa 1970. There is no need for permission. It is there in black and white. If this had happened there would be little demand for the old Rite in my opinion which does have certain drawbacks amidst its' many positive features.
So why does no priest use this option? A priest friend told me it would be seen as so traditionally provocative that you would be branded as an anti Vatican ii bigot anyway. You might as well go all the way and actually use the old rite and take the abuse that comes from the usual tolerant liberal circles.
|
|