A REAL EF MASS FOR A REAL PARISH BY A NON-ROBOTIC PRIEST IN FRANCE! MISSA CANTATA
Please note there is a lector for the Epistle as the celebrant proclaims it to God!
21 comments:
Victor
said...
Of course, this is the FSSPX. Their history in being in that church is interesting (Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet). The people revolted against the bishop trying to impose an inferior experience of God on them, the Novus Ordo Mass. They occupied the church and drove out the Novus Ordo vandals who wanted to destroy the sanctuary. Because in France the state owns the churches, they were eventually given permission by the state to keep the church.
Of course, French Catholics (like German Catholics) have a long history pre-dating Vatican II of deviations from traditional liturgical practice, some of which survive today among traditional Catholics in France, including especially in the SSPX, whose parishes like Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris are otherwise exemplary models of participation in the Mass.
Short of meticulous checking of the rubrics and Ritus Servandus, I believe this practice--of a lector reading the Epistle in the vernacular while the priest reads it silently in Latin--violates the intent of immemorial custom (which some authorities argue can supersede even rubrics). The specification of chant tones for the Epistle in a sung Mass might be taken as requiring its being chanted aloud for proper public worship of God.
Historically, in any event, the beginning of this practice in French and German-speaking countries was a first step down the slippery slope toward vernacular-only readings and the change from latreutic to dogmatic views of liturgy, which were pushed in and after Vatican II by those very countries.
In plain language, it ought not be done, anywhere, however beautiful and meticulous the liturgy is otherwise.
CCC 1382 "The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us."
NOTE: "... wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion."
That French church may have all of those beautifully behaved altar boys but my parish has some old lady who waddles out with a barbecue lighter 5 minutes before Mass and lights the plastic candles.
That French church may have beautiful music but at my parish we sing Gather Us In and Table of Plenty at EVERY single Mass regardless of the season, yeas even Christmas Day.
That French church may have that beautifully vested priest conducting himself in a serious pious manner but nothing compares to our priest who come into church wearing his tee shirt, shorts and flip flops, puts on some cheap old yellowed alb for Mass.
Yes that French Church may be full of people of all ages who show reverence but nothing can compare to my less than half filled church of year plus people in their best shorts and sneakers who sometimes bow their head instead of all that genuflecting to the Blessed Sacrament.
I feel sorry for those French Catholic who are so deprived of the great liturgical renewal that I experience every Sunday. It sad that they can’t enjoy the springtime of the Church like I do.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a useful guide but has no authority per se. CCC 1382 has 'Sed Sacrificii eucharistici celebratio prorsus dirigatur ad intimam unionem fidelium cum Christo per Communionem' If one takes 'prorsus' to mean 'wholly' (which is reasonable) then it is clearly wrong since it contradicts the definitive teaching of the Council of Trent. It's not a matter of opinion, whether that opinion be Henry's or mine.
Actually, the whole section on the Eucharist is diffuse and reeks of Bugninian Novus Ordo-ism. They would have done better to quote, verbatim, Session 22 of Trent.
The CCC was originally published in French, and the English version was a translation. It was then translated into Latin, which version was then deemed to be 'official', which meant changes to the English translation.
There were other changes (we don't know by whose hand) which are questionable, eg in 2483.
By all means use the CCC but exercise due caution.
"Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council?"
"By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined. Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms. This does not mean that such teaching can be disregarded or ignored. Quite to the contrary, the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine as an organic whole and as it is related to Christ who is the center. A major catechism, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings."
"Does this mean that the Catechism can be disregarded?"
"The Catechism is part of the Church's ordinary teaching authority. Pope John Paul II placed his apostolic authority behind it. Its doctrinal authority is proper to the papal Magisterium. In Fidei Depositum John Paul II termed the Catechism a "sure norm for teaching the faith" and "a sure and authentic reference text." He asked "the Church's pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life."
- USCCB, Frequently Asked Questions about the Catechism of the Catholic Church
The CCC does contain and transmit the Church's doctrine. It is not necessary to know Latin or French to know the teaching of the Church as expressed in the Catechism any more than it is necessary to know Hebrew and Greek to know God's revelation as expressed in Sacred Scripture.
Henry and John Nolan do not - can not - speak authoritatively about the accuracy of the Catechism's doctrine. That is the role of the pope and the bishops. The pope and the bishops have stated that the Catechism is authoritative.
As catholic we are obliged to defer to the Magisterium and not to make quibbles about translation the source of our doubt and, if it comes to it, dismissal of the Church's teaching as contained in the Catechism.
As Henry has stated, the CCC contains "false" teaching. He is dead wrong.
Bean, it is you who are wrong. Anyone with a critical faculty can compare texts, and a simple comparison of 1382 with Trent 22 would indicate a discrepancy. JP II did not write the CCC.
Trent is authoritative, not I or Henry. It is of course possible to read the whole article on the Eucharist and conclude that it conforms with Trent, and that the 'prorsus' in 1382 needs to be interpreted in this regard. In which case why insert a misleading clause in the first place? Ambiguity has plagued the Church's pronouncements since the first document of Vatican II.
It is possible, is it not, to read some portion of Trent and conclude that it is not in conformity with Tradition?
Of course it is. It has been done, it will be done.
When you or Henry, who has here claimed without presenting a shred of evidence, that some portions of the CCC are "false," that the CCC cannot be trusted, you are taking to yourselves the authority that rightly belongs to the pope and Bishops.
Simply comparing texts is not, by any stretch of the theological or critical imagination, sufficient to reach a conclusion that the CCC teaches "false" doctrine. What is being left out of that simplistic equation is the analogy of faith. ANALOGY OF FAITH The Catholic doctrine that every individual statement of belief must be understood in the light of the Church's whole objective body of faith.
As the passages I cite above indicate, the pope and bishops affirm that the CCC is in conformity with Tradition. As a Catholic, I am gratified and relieved to know that those who are given the charism to teach have done so.
If you and Henry or anyone else knows better, have at it.
Henry makes a good point. On the Cross, Christ said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit". Christ offers Himself to us, but for the purpose of uniting us--through His Sacrifice--to His Father.
"the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings." "The Catechism is part of the Church's ordinary teaching authority." "The CCC does contain and transmit the Church's doctrine."
All the above is true. Still, not every sentence in the CCC is doctrinal. It does contain commentary which in some instances can be(or seem to some to be) ambiguous. Just keep in mind that It must always be construed in light of the magisterial teaching of the Church.
Too many servers? Not really. THere was a custom in many US parishes before Vatican Disaster II, of having what we would refer to as "bench" boys in the sanctuary. Boys 6-8 who vested and were in the sanctuary but did not provide any services. It was to get them used to the sanctuary and observe the older boys who were the actual services. With the new and dumbed down Liturgy, they were no longer part of the scene.
A Solemn Mass requires the following: priest, deacon, subdeacon, MC, 2 acolytes and a thurifer. Seven in total. Torchbearers are a nice touch but for most occasions two should suffice.
I don't care for the French custom of putting boys into red cassocks.
In the video I see only 2 acolytes, an MC and a thurifer, plus the 6 torch bearers. Pretty much the minimum for the solemn form of a Missa Cantata as per Fortescue, though as John points out, 2 (or 4) torch bearers would suffice.
The other men and boys seen in surplice and cassock in the sanctuary are only worshiping in choir, not serving at the altar. So there are no superfluous servers there.
Is the man who posts above (20 Oct. 2:19 pm) as Viscount Drumlanrig indeed Sholto Douglas, heir to the 12th Marquess of Queensberry?
If not, he should realize that it is in questionable taste, if not positively fraudulent, to take as a nom de plume the identity of a person who is still living.
21 comments:
Of course, this is the FSSPX. Their history in being in that church is interesting (Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet). The people revolted against the bishop trying to impose an inferior experience of God on them, the Novus Ordo Mass. They occupied the church and drove out the Novus Ordo vandals who wanted to destroy the sanctuary. Because in France the state owns the churches, they were eventually given permission by the state to keep the church.
So, the French Government was more merciful and generous than the Novus Ordo Church. Quelle Surprise!
Of course, French Catholics (like German Catholics) have a long history pre-dating Vatican II of deviations from traditional liturgical practice, some of which survive today among traditional Catholics in France, including especially in the SSPX, whose parishes like Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris are otherwise exemplary models of participation in the Mass.
Short of meticulous checking of the rubrics and Ritus Servandus, I believe this practice--of a lector reading the Epistle in the vernacular while the priest reads it silently in Latin--violates the intent of immemorial custom (which some authorities argue can supersede even rubrics). The specification of chant tones for the Epistle in a sung Mass might be taken as requiring its being chanted aloud for proper public worship of God.
Historically, in any event, the beginning of this practice in French and German-speaking countries was a first step down the slippery slope toward vernacular-only readings and the change from latreutic to dogmatic views of liturgy, which were pushed in and after Vatican II by those very countries.
In plain language, it ought not be done, anywhere, however beautiful and meticulous the liturgy is otherwise.
CCC 1382 "The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us."
NOTE: "... wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion."
"But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion."
Would that this were the only false, ambiguous, or misleading statement in the CCC.
Nice but it can’t compare with my parish.
That French church may have all of those beautifully behaved altar boys but my parish has some old lady who waddles out with a barbecue lighter 5 minutes before Mass and lights the plastic candles.
That French church may have beautiful music but at my parish we sing Gather Us In and Table of Plenty at EVERY single Mass regardless of the season, yeas even Christmas Day.
That French church may have that beautifully vested priest conducting himself in a serious pious manner but nothing compares to our priest who come into church wearing his tee shirt, shorts and flip flops, puts on some cheap old yellowed alb for Mass.
Yes that French Church may be full of people of all ages who show reverence but nothing can compare to my less than half filled church of year plus people in their best shorts and sneakers who sometimes bow their head instead of all that genuflecting to the Blessed Sacrament.
I feel sorry for those French Catholic who are so deprived of the great liturgical renewal that I experience every Sunday. It sad that they can’t enjoy the springtime of the Church like I do.
HA HA HA. Do you go to Father Kavanaugh's parish?
Henry - SO How is it that Saint Pope John Paul II and ALL the bishops who supported this Catechism got it SO wrong and you got it SO right...?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a useful guide but has no authority per se. CCC 1382 has 'Sed Sacrificii eucharistici celebratio prorsus dirigatur ad intimam unionem fidelium cum Christo per Communionem' If one takes 'prorsus' to mean 'wholly' (which is reasonable) then it is clearly wrong since it contradicts the definitive teaching of the Council of Trent. It's not a matter of opinion, whether that opinion be Henry's or mine.
Actually, the whole section on the Eucharist is diffuse and reeks of Bugninian Novus Ordo-ism. They would have done better to quote, verbatim, Session 22 of Trent.
The CCC was originally published in French, and the English version was a translation. It was then translated into Latin, which version was then deemed to be 'official', which meant changes to the English translation.
There were other changes (we don't know by whose hand) which are questionable, eg in 2483.
By all means use the CCC but exercise due caution.
"Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council?"
"By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined. Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms. This does not mean that such teaching can be disregarded or ignored. Quite to the contrary, the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine as an organic whole and as it is related to Christ who is the center. A major catechism, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings."
"Does this mean that the Catechism can be disregarded?"
"The Catechism is part of the Church's ordinary teaching authority. Pope John Paul II placed his apostolic authority behind it. Its doctrinal authority is proper to the papal Magisterium. In Fidei Depositum John Paul II termed the Catechism a "sure norm for teaching the faith" and "a sure and authentic reference text." He asked "the Church's pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life."
- USCCB, Frequently Asked Questions about the Catechism of the Catholic Church
The CCC does contain and transmit the Church's doctrine. It is not necessary to know Latin or French to know the teaching of the Church as expressed in the Catechism any more than it is necessary to know Hebrew and Greek to know God's revelation as expressed in Sacred Scripture.
Henry and John Nolan do not - can not - speak authoritatively about the accuracy of the Catechism's doctrine. That is the role of the pope and the bishops. The pope and the bishops have stated that the Catechism is authoritative.
As catholic we are obliged to defer to the Magisterium and not to make quibbles about translation the source of our doubt and, if it comes to it, dismissal of the Church's teaching as contained in the Catechism.
As Henry has stated, the CCC contains "false" teaching. He is dead wrong.
Bean, it is you who are wrong. Anyone with a critical faculty can compare texts, and a simple comparison of 1382 with Trent 22 would indicate a discrepancy. JP II did not write the CCC.
Trent is authoritative, not I or Henry. It is of course possible to read the whole article on the Eucharist and conclude that it conforms with Trent, and that the 'prorsus' in 1382 needs to be interpreted in this regard. In which case why insert a misleading clause in the first place? Ambiguity has plagued the Church's pronouncements since the first document of Vatican II.
It is possible, is it not, to read some portion of Trent and conclude that it is not in conformity with Tradition?
Of course it is. It has been done, it will be done.
When you or Henry, who has here claimed without presenting a shred of evidence, that some portions of the CCC are "false," that the CCC cannot be trusted, you are taking to yourselves the authority that rightly belongs to the pope and Bishops.
Simply comparing texts is not, by any stretch of the theological or critical imagination, sufficient to reach a conclusion that the CCC teaches "false" doctrine. What is being left out of that simplistic equation is the analogy of faith. ANALOGY OF FAITH The Catholic doctrine that every individual statement of belief must be understood in the light of the Church's whole objective body of faith.
As the passages I cite above indicate, the pope and bishops affirm that the CCC is in conformity with Tradition. As a Catholic, I am gratified and relieved to know that those who are given the charism to teach have done so.
If you and Henry or anyone else knows better, have at it.
Bean you sound like kavanaugh
A beautiful sanctuary, but do you really need that many altar boys behind the priest? Looks a bit excessive. Wouldn't two or three do?
The traddies' favorite liturgist is Oscar Wilde.
"Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess."
Henry makes a good point. On the Cross, Christ said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit". Christ offers Himself to us, but for the purpose of uniting us--through His Sacrifice--to His Father.
"the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings."
"The Catechism is part of the Church's ordinary teaching authority."
"The CCC does contain and transmit the Church's doctrine."
All the above is true. Still, not every sentence in the CCC is doctrinal. It does contain commentary which in some instances can be(or seem to some to be) ambiguous. Just keep in mind that It must always be construed in light of the magisterial teaching of the Church.
Anonymous at 1:15,
Too many servers? Not really. THere was a custom in many US parishes before Vatican Disaster II, of having what we would refer to as "bench" boys in the sanctuary. Boys 6-8 who vested and were in the sanctuary but did not provide any services. It was to get them used to the sanctuary and observe the older boys who were the actual services. With the new and dumbed down Liturgy, they were no longer part of the scene.
A Solemn Mass requires the following: priest, deacon, subdeacon, MC, 2 acolytes and a thurifer. Seven in total. Torchbearers are a nice touch but for most occasions two should suffice.
I don't care for the French custom of putting boys into red cassocks.
In the video I see only 2 acolytes, an MC and a thurifer, plus the 6 torch bearers. Pretty much the minimum for the solemn form of a Missa Cantata as per Fortescue, though as John points out, 2 (or 4) torch bearers would suffice.
The other men and boys seen in surplice and cassock in the sanctuary are only worshiping in choir, not serving at the altar. So there are no superfluous servers there.
Is the man who posts above (20 Oct. 2:19 pm) as Viscount Drumlanrig indeed Sholto Douglas, heir to the 12th Marquess of Queensberry?
If not, he should realize that it is in questionable taste, if not positively fraudulent, to take as a nom de plume the identity of a person who is still living.
Post a Comment