|
Post by irishconfederate on Feb 25, 2018 0:57:41 GMT
I like periods of silence at mass but it is a very rare feature at mass nowadays. Congregations often get an outburst of coughing if there is any silence more than 30 seconds. I wonder what it says about the Irish attitude to mass if it is preferable without music? Afterall music is such a rich part of Irish life and culture. The idea that this is "traditional" may be applicable to the penal persecution but surely the Irish saints used chant in the celebration of the divine office and mass? By and large Irish clergy and laity are liturgical philistines unfortunately. As a church we do have a pretty minimalistic approach to formal worship. Similarly when we shave ten minutes off mass what exactly is so important about those ten minutes. What use do we put them to? Don't get me wrong I don't like masses with 3 or 4 speeches and which drag on for ever... but our liturgical tradition tended to stress the minimum necessary for validity or how much of mass could I legitimately be late for before it became sinful. Mass perhaps unconciously was seen as a burden and largely as a obligatory duty on the part of many. This legacy produced a pretty shallow loyalty to the Mass in our own time rather than the love and devotion it deserves. I love the subdued, quietness of low Mass but I am also a member of the schola at my Latin Mass. I actually like as a Catholic to state the minimum necessary for validity -both towards keeping the commandments of God and His Church and, it would be more pertinent if I was a priest, regarding the liturgy. And I would like to know as a Catholic how much of Mass I could legitimately be late before it became sinful because if you happen to be late that needs to be known. I think these are questions Catholics come to ask in every era and I'm not sure how such things could ever be stressed. They are simply the 'rubrics' of our Catholic lives. I don't think this produced a shallow loyalty to the Mass in our own time, we have the mistakes made around Vatican II and the cultural revolution post-1945 that are the main contenders. And even as a faithful Catholic who tries to love God and love the Mass the fact that Sunday Mass is an obligatory duty has always been a large part of my reason for going. It gets me out the door even if I end up going and appreciating I went. And I think this has and will play a great part in the lives of many. And I'm not sure how 10 mins could be shaved off the liturgy. Most priests only ever shave off when there are pressing constraints. To rush or to shave something off without good reason just seems rude and I don't think our clergy were that. The fastest Mass in my Latin Mass in England is said by a thoroughly English, Anglican convert who became a priest. It's not rushed but it's quick, he's a pious man and it's just the way he does it. I'm not adverse to music at Mass. It's just the arrangements I have heard don't do it for me. I have heard monks at a monastery singing/chanting the Divine Office, both Latin and English, and the arrangements were soothing, serene and contemplative and I would love to have something like that at Mass over and above a low Mass. Perhaps I find the High Mass arrangements I have heard too ornate? Or maybe, as Eastern Rite Catholics do, if we used an all male schola it might help? Or perhaps the power and beauty of monastic chant is simply not only in the sounds but in the knowing, dedicated, prayer of religious which has a spiritual force and which a lay schola could never convey. Our laity and clergy maybe philistines with the liturgy and maybe we never excelled as the local Church at producing liturgical scholars. Maybe? But where it is possible the best possible Mass, the highest, is meant to be offered and I heard that that has been for a long time the Church's traditional practice. I imagine then in 1920s Ireland high Masses were a very common Mass so there would have been a certain adeptness there with the liturgy even if it didn't reach the heights of the scholar.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 25, 2018 18:55:30 GMT
If someone is constantly arriving late for mass perhaps they need to leave home a little earlier? If we are genuinely late through no fault of our own it is not sinful. We can't fool God.
I have regularly witnessed masses were Glorias Sermons and Creeds were all abandoned to shave those 10 minutes off the Mass. Maybe not every day but it happens on occasion.
At mass this morning our pp gave around a dozen personal little explainations at various points in the mass. We had 2 sermons, one by a lady talking about the World meeting of families. We used Eucharistic prayer ii . The shortest.
Mass ended with clapping and everyone stayed around chatting loudly for ten minutes. Is this a widespread practice?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 25, 2018 19:38:11 GMT
Mass ended with clapping and everyone stayed around chatting loudly for ten minutes. Is this a widespread practice? I have never been to a Mass that ended in clapping. The "messages" read in place of sermons, or along with them, are increasingly irritating. Whenever a priest reads out one of Diarmuid Martin's latest SJW missives, I pointedly read my misalette.
|
|
|
Latin Mass
Feb 26, 2018 6:34:43 GMT
via mobile
kj likes this
Post by Séamus on Feb 26, 2018 6:34:43 GMT
I had a horrendous moment yesterday that I feel honour-bound to confess. I popped into a church yesterday evening which turned out to be completely empty. I then noticed a priest up at the altar and realised there was a Mass due to start in five minutes. The thought of being the only person in the congregation terrified me, so I quietly fled, leaving the poor priest to his empty church. I felt and feel horribly ashamed. I can't remember people's habits in Dublin, but if they are anything like Perth you can rest assured that someone would have walked in five minutes after Mass started, even if no one did up to then... Actually, it wouldn't happen in Perth city area, largely because only three regular masses take place Mon-Fri in the main town area, two in the cathedral and one in the former Blessed Sacrament Fathers chapel. The real point I was going to make though is: Although a layman, by my own involvement in churches, especially those surrounded by business districts, it's ALWAYS uplifting when you're there to see someone come in, even if it's for a few seconds. (some of them, you're actually glad they only stay for a few seconds) I'm sure a priest would feel the same.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Feb 26, 2018 12:08:23 GMT
Thanks for that. I'm going to try and go back at the same time this week and make amends for my flight.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Feb 26, 2018 13:39:31 GMT
...... largely because only three regular masses take place Mon-Fri in the main town area, two in the cathedral.....[/quote]
As this can sound misleading,I should emphasize: 3 Masses DAILY, not three for the whole week. Another bit of trivia: St Anne's traditional Mass parish has a nice Stations of the Cross set which belonged to another inner city church named St Patrick's West Perth, on a street adjacent to the current WA Parliament House. It was demolished in the late 70s apparently. The adjacent streets are now mostly government offices... One can't help wondering hypothetically if it would have been used nowadays for prayer vigils, etc whenever something objectionable is debated by the state government... It's not something Catholics did much of at the time of St Patrick's demolition, but is something groups organise these days, more so. Question mark.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Apr 8, 2019 10:36:39 GMT
I have been attending the Latin Mass on Sunday most weeks for over a year now. I like praying a rite that would be familiar to Catholics for centuries. I am trying to research Medieval piety and the Latin Mass does give an insight into the theocentric liturgy and spirituality of that time. I also like polyphony and the classical masses which are highly rare in a standard "Latin" rite parish alas nowadays.
I have also become increasing liturgically intolerant. I am tired of a chorus of mainly elderly people who should know better , talking loudly before mass, terribly insipid homilies, self important lay ministers and clapping the musicians after mass , who are usually soloists( an abuse condemned by the council of Trent!)
I am not proclaiming my spiritual superiority. On the contrary I am so weak that these details distract and annoy me so much I end up a quietly fuming wreck. I suspect I would have ended up attending an orthodox rite or lapsing if the traditional rite was not available. I feel great affinity with the troubled Evelyn Waugh of the post conciliar period.
Anyway the New Mass of Pope Paul VI is 50 years old this year. It came into force I Advent 1969. This 50 year old thanks heaven for Agatha Christie, Archbishop Lebvevre, Michael Davies and Benedict XVI th for keeping him catholic.
Yesterday the priest preached on chastity and lust. The last time I heard a similar sermon I was a child. I had never until yesterday heard a sermon on sexual matters in over 40 years! It is great to live in such a period of universal adherence to chaste behaviour , so much so we have no need to hear about it in church.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 10, 2019 11:39:48 GMT
I have been attending the Latin Mass on Sunday most weeks for over a year now. I like praying a rite that would be familiar to Catholics for centuries. I am trying to research Medieval piety and the Latin Mass does give an insight into the theocentric liturgy and spirituality of that time. I also like polyphony and the classical masses which are highly rare in a standard "Latin" rite parish alas nowadays. I have also become increasing liturgically intolerant. I am tired of a chorus of mainly elderly people who should know better , talking loudly before mass, terribly insipid homilies, self important lay ministers and clapping the musicians after mass , who are usually soloists( an abuse condemned by the council of Trent!) I am not proclaiming my spiritual superiority. On the contrary I am so weak that these details distract and annoy me so much I end up a quietly fuming wreck. I suspect I would have ended up attending an orthodox rite or lapsing if the traditional rite was not available. I feel great affinity with the troubled Evelyn Waugh of the post conciliar period. Anyway the New Mass of Pope Paul VI is 50 years old this year. It came into force I Advent 1969. This 50 year old thanks heaven for Agatha Christie, Archbishop Lebvevre, Michael Davies and Benedict XVI th for keeping him catholic. Yesterday the priest preached on chastity and lust. The last time I heard a similar sermon I was a child. I had never until yesterday heard a sermon on sexual matters in over 40 years! It is great to live in such a period of universal adherence to chaste behaviour , so much so we have no need to hear about it in church. I think I've gone to about five Latin Masses all told. One low weekday Mass and the others all Sunday Mass. I suppose it just never really spoke to me the way it does to so many others. I do dislike people talking before Mass, dull homilies (although I've also heard many very good ones in the Ordinary Form), unnecessary extraordinary ministers of Communion (I always go to the priest where possible), and applause for performers (I only join in if it's a child, as it would feel boorish not to applaud a child, or if it's some very personal thing like a poem at a funeral Mass). But they don't bother me that much. On the other hand, I do like the liturgy in English and going to my local parish church. The thing I find most challenging about the Ordinary Form are the often banal hymns-- this is what drove me to try the Latin Mass, in fact. Numbers like "Light up the Fire" and "How Great Thou Art" really grate on me. My preference would be for NO hymns rather than better hymns-- so a simple weekday Mass is pretty much my ideal. However, that is doubtless a killjoy attitude and the gospels tell us the disciples sang hymns at the Last Supper. If the Latin Mass was restored as the norm, I would be happy to attend that. I would also be happy with a "reform of the reform". Pope Francis has said there will be no such thing, but I think it's a mistake to subject Francis's words to too much analysis, or put too much weight on them.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Apr 10, 2019 12:39:56 GMT
I do agree a mass without music can be moving and effective. I attended a funeral recently without the trimmings or any music, the various silences and simplicity was very moving . The priest also had a sense of dignity and a quiet sensitivity which is important.
The pope's rather pompous remarks about liturgical change being irreversible prompt one to ask how does he know that? A future pope Pius xiii might not agree. It reminds me of the anecdote that Winston Churchill would write on the side of his speeches a note to himself - "argument weak here. Shout loudly".
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 10, 2019 13:31:31 GMT
I do agree a mass without music can be moving and effective. I attended a funeral recently without the trimmings or any music, the various silences and simplicity was very moving . The priest also had a sense of dignity and a quiet sensitivity which is important. The pope's rather pompous remarks about liturgical change being irreversible prompt one to ask how does he know that? A future pope Pius xiii might not agree. It reminds me of the anecdote that Winston Churchill would write on the side of his speeches a note to himself - "argument weak here. Shout loudly". Pope Francis doesn't seem to see that contradicting previous Popes, as he does all too frequently, rather undermines his own credibility (and, more seriously, the credibility of the Papacy and the Church itself). If Pope Pius XII was wrong about capital punishment and Pope John Paul II was wrong about receiving Communion after divorce, who is to say Pope Francis might not be wrong in the various statements he makes?
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Apr 12, 2019 21:57:15 GMT
I have been attending the Latin Mass on Sunday most weeks for over a year now. I like praying a rite that would be familiar to Catholics for centuries. I am trying to research Medieval piety and the Latin Mass does give an insight into the theocentric liturgy and spirituality of that time. I also like polyphony and the classical masses which are highly rare in a standard "Latin" rite parish alas nowadays. I have also become increasing liturgically intolerant. I am tired of a chorus of mainly elderly people who should know better , talking loudly before mass, terribly insipid homilies, self important lay ministers and clapping the musicians after mass , who are usually soloists( an abuse condemned by the council of Trent!) I am not proclaiming my spiritual superiority. On the contrary I am so weak that these details distract and annoy me so much I end up a quietly fuming wreck. I suspect I would have ended up attending an orthodox rite or lapsing if the traditional rite was not available. I feel great affinity with the troubled Evelyn Waugh of the post conciliar period. Anyway the New Mass of Pope Paul VI is 50 years old this year. It came into force I Advent 1969. This 50 year old thanks heaven for Agatha Christie, Archbishop Lebvevre, Michael Davies and Benedict XVI th for keeping him catholic. Yesterday the priest preached on chastity and lust. The last time I heard a similar sermon I was a child. I had never until yesterday heard a sermon on sexual matters in over 40 years! It is great to live in such a period of universal adherence to chaste behaviour , so much so we have no need to hear about it in church. I think I've gone to about five Latin Masses all told. One low weekday Mass and the others all Sunday Mass. I suppose it just never really spoke to me the way it does to so many others. I do dislike people talking before Mass, dull homilies (although I've also heard many very good ones in the Ordinary Form), unnecessary extraordinary ministers of Communion (I always go to the priest where possible), and applause for performers (I only join in if it's a child, as it would feel boorish not to applaud a child, or if it's some very personal thing like a poem at a funeral Mass). But they don't bother me that much. On the other hand, I do like the liturgy in English and going to my local parish church. The thing I find most challenging about the Ordinary Form are the often banal hymns-- this is what drove me to try the Latin Mass, in fact. Numbers like "Light up the Fire" and "How Great Thou Art" really grate on me. My preference would be for NO hymns rather than better hymns-- so a simple weekday Mass is pretty much my ideal. However, that is doubtless a killjoy attitude and the gospels tell us the disciples sang hymns at the Last Supper. If the Latin Mass was restored as the norm, I would be happy to attend that. I would also be happy with a "reform of the reform". Pope Francis has said there will be no such thing, but I think it's a mistake to subject Francis's words to too much analysis, or put too much weight on them. Both forms being valid, the better arguments (on both sides) sometimes neglect the fact that the sheer volume of solid tradition that is as it were incorporated more or less MAKES Catholicism. Whatever one makes of our realities today it gets hard to dismiss the "extraordinary" form in comparison. I heartily agree with you Maolsheachlann about the many good aspects of priests celebrating the new rite, yet when reading and thinking tend to be inclined to look back for a brighter future. Here is a rather long article where a traditional writer argues well in relation to a famous US priest on the subject: onepeterfive.com/twelve-reasons-longenecker/
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 15, 2019 10:35:15 GMT
I think I've gone to about five Latin Masses all told. One low weekday Mass and the others all Sunday Mass. I suppose it just never really spoke to me the way it does to so many others. I do dislike people talking before Mass, dull homilies (although I've also heard many very good ones in the Ordinary Form), unnecessary extraordinary ministers of Communion (I always go to the priest where possible), and applause for performers (I only join in if it's a child, as it would feel boorish not to applaud a child, or if it's some very personal thing like a poem at a funeral Mass). But they don't bother me that much. On the other hand, I do like the liturgy in English and going to my local parish church. The thing I find most challenging about the Ordinary Form are the often banal hymns-- this is what drove me to try the Latin Mass, in fact. Numbers like "Light up the Fire" and "How Great Thou Art" really grate on me. My preference would be for NO hymns rather than better hymns-- so a simple weekday Mass is pretty much my ideal. However, that is doubtless a killjoy attitude and the gospels tell us the disciples sang hymns at the Last Supper. If the Latin Mass was restored as the norm, I would be happy to attend that. I would also be happy with a "reform of the reform". Pope Francis has said there will be no such thing, but I think it's a mistake to subject Francis's words to too much analysis, or put too much weight on them. Both forms being valid, the better arguments (on both sides) sometimes neglect the fact that the sheer volume of solid tradition that is as it were incorporated more or less MAKES Catholicism. Whatever one makes of our realities today it gets hard to dismiss the "extraordinary" form in comparison. I heartily agree with you Maolsheachlann about the many good aspects of priests celebrating the new rite, yet when reading and thinking tend to be inclined to look back for a brighter future. Here is a rather long article where a traditional writer argues well in relation to a famous US priest on the subject: onepeterfive.com/twelve-reasons-longenecker/I've only glanced at that article so far, but here is an example of why I'm not drawn to Traditionalism, and find it often soaked in negativity and hyperbole, and a determination to interpret any disagreement in the worst possible way. The words of Fr. Longenecker are in plain italics and the response of the Traditionalist are in bold. It’s simple. The plain words and actions of the Novus Ordo provide for a celebration with noble simplicity. Just saying the black and doing the red has a down-to-earth dignity – not overly ornate and fancy nor banal and vulgar.
Should the mystical representation of the supreme sacrifice of Christ, which collapses the 2,000 years that separate us from Calvary and brings us right to His Cross, into His holy wounds, His precious Blood, His pierced Heart; the awesome crossing of the abyss that separates man from God and Earth from Heaven; the revival in our midst of the mysteries of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord; the commingling of His acts of love, adoration, sorrow, supplication, thanksgiving, with our own, so that we, the members of His Mystical Body, may glorify God in union with our Head – should this be “simple”? Could it ever be? Only at the price of falsifying it utterly.Sigh. Yes, it can be simple, and no, it doesn't falsify it. There.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Apr 15, 2019 17:24:39 GMT
Ironically Fr Longenecker is probably theologically and liturgically much more traditional than the vast bulk of parish clergy. I gather he is broadly sympathetic to traditionalists . Launching a broadside against him from the right is counter productive in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Apr 16, 2019 7:45:11 GMT
Both forms being valid, the better arguments (on both sides) sometimes neglect the fact that the sheer volume of solid tradition that is as it were incorporated more or less MAKES Catholicism. Whatever one makes of our realities today it gets hard to dismiss the "extraordinary" form in comparison. I heartily agree with you Maolsheachlann about the many good aspects of priests celebrating the new rite, yet when reading and thinking tend to be inclined to look back for a brighter future. Here is a rather long article where a traditional writer argues well in relation to a famous US priest on the subject: onepeterfive.com/twelve-reasons-longenecker/I've only glanced at that article so far, but here is an example of why I'm not drawn to Traditionalism, and find it often soaked in negativity and hyperbole, and a determination to interpret any disagreement in the worst possible way. The words of Fr. Longenecker are in plain italics and the response of the Traditionalist are in bold. It’s simple. The plain words and actions of the Novus Ordo provide for a celebration with noble simplicity. Just saying the black and doing the red has a down-to-earth dignity – not overly ornate and fancy nor banal and vulgar.
Should the mystical representation of the supreme sacrifice of Christ, which collapses the 2,000 years that separate us from Calvary and brings us right to His Cross, into His holy wounds, His precious Blood, His pierced Heart; the awesome crossing of the abyss that separates man from God and Earth from Heaven; the revival in our midst of the mysteries of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord; the commingling of His acts of love, adoration, sorrow, supplication, thanksgiving, with our own, so that we, the members of His Mystical Body, may glorify God in union with our Head – should this be “simple”? Could it ever be? Only at the price of falsifying it utterly.Sigh. Yes, it can be simple, and no, it doesn't falsify it. There. Good point. But even the good points in favour of Novus Ordo may have their shadows. (Just as Traditionalism may have theirs.) Is "Simple" something really worth to place on a piedestal when it comes to the liturgy? I don´t know and leave all in personal confusion, matters like this by necessity going over a layman head.
A small counterpoint to state the very nature of pros and cons are another quote here:
No 9: It’s adaptable. The adaptability means the abuses have come in, but it also means all sorts of traditional customs can be retained. Pope Benedict wished for the Extraordinary Form to inform the celebration of the Ordinary Form. So it can be celebrated ad orientem, with altar rails, communion administered to the faithful kneeling and on the tongue, well-trained altar servers, good music, vestments, architecture and art. Yes, bland and banal is possible, but so is grand and glorious.
This is a bit like saying, “The great thing about our political system is that it allows the March for Life to flourish alongside funding for Planned Parenthood.” No, this shows the catastrophic failure of our political system to adhere to the natural law and promote the common good.
In like manner, the fact that the Novus Ordo is a matrix of possibilities that can be realized by each community according to its own ideas of what is right and fitting is not a perfection of it, but a sign of its internal incoherence, anarchy, and relativism. The traditional rites of the Church follow time-honored rules that require (even if they do not always guarantee) serious, reverent, orderly, and theocentric worship. The result is that anywhere I go in the world, I can walk into a traditional Latin Mass and know what I am going to see and hear. The same texts, the same gestures, the same ethos, the same Catholic religion. As long as the priest follows the rubrics, the Mass will be prayerful, focused, and edifying. Tragically, this cannot be said for the Novus Ordo.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 9, 2019 11:58:20 GMT
Yesterday in the traditional rite the Immaculate Conception of Mary was celebrated as opposed to the 2nd Sunday of Advent.
I was very struck by the first reading from Proverbs which the Church has always interpreted in an ecclesiastical and/or Marian way; "When he prepared the heavens, I was there; when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths;when he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters; when he compasses the sea with its bounds and set a law to the waters they should not pass their limits; when he balanced the foundations of earth ; I was with him , forming all things and was delighted every day playing before him at all times, playing in the world:and my delight is to be with the children of men".
Its a beautiful profound piece of delight in God's grace and intimacy. The childlike imagery touched my stubborn hard heart.
|
|