As I have made abundantly clear, I think the Traditional Latin Mass and its ancillary liturgies should be allowed as Pope Benedict made clear in Pontificum Summorum. I also believe that bishops and pastors should be involved in these communities to keep them orthodox, meaning, they fully understand the significance of Vatican II, its authority and the authority of the Church. That isn’t too difficult.
In the two parishes that I celebrated the TLM and the other liturgies associated with it, no one ever asked that it be every Sunday or every day, but they loved it as an option for them and when it was offered for special occasions, never replacing a Modern Roman Mass but in addition to it.
When I was at St. Joseph Church in Macon, when there were three Sunday morning Masses (there are only two now) over the course of time from about 2007 to 2010 I think, I made the last Sunday morning Mass at 12:10 PM ad orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It was celebrated in the same way and with the same chants as the other Masses, the only difference the Liturgy of the Eucharist was ad orientem.
Around 2014, I think, I moved the 2 pm monthly Sunday TLM to the 12:10 PM Mass time but once a month. We always had worship aids to help with active/actual participation and the English translation of the entire Mass to include the propers of the day. I really think that most who attended this Mass, already accustomed to ad orientem, thought the only difference was that the Mass was in Latin, not that it was a TLM. I kid you not.
But read this article, because it is what I believe too:
6 comments:
I read this article and I believe ad orientem would go a long way to restoring a sense of the sacred. Versus populum was sold as part of a pack of lies like much of the “reform.” There was a lot of shoddy scholarship used go justify this and other changes.
The reforms were unnecessary and compared to the Novus Ordo the TLM is the very soul of noble simplicity. Certainly a priest familiar with both missals should see this. I was the product of a Catholic school and was trained by the sisters to use the daily missal and the Kyriale. As I have mentioned here many times I could chant 5 Latin ordinaries by heart at age 10. If Vatican II had not occurred this educational process would have addressed the “participation” issue.
Just like the present day “synods”, Vatican II was a response to the failure of the continental European Catholic Church’s failures, because in the English speaking world the Catholic Church was at its height of success and influence on the eve of the Council. The Vatican should have been looking to the English speaking Catholic world for advice, including people like Bishop Sheen, rather than notable failures like the leaders in Catholic Germany. I wonder if the Vatican even considered the effect that two devastating world wars in Europe in 25 years might have had something to do with the falling off of religious practice in Europe rather than the Church herself?
TJM, we cannot repeal Vatican II, but we can go back to it and read the documents and do what they say. Some of the other documents of Vatican II, not all, are time constrained by what was happening in the modern world in the late 1950's early 60's and these can and must be updated or a recognition one does not have to accept these things as a matter of faith.
As it concerns the document on the liturgy, it is very good and it has to be taken together with the ecclesiology that Vatican II promoted, which doesn't change the ordained priesthood, but develops the role of the laity both in the world and in the Church. This is very important and it does have ramifications for the Mass, already taking place prior to Vatican II.
Active/actual participation, meaning doing what the altar servers and choir did, as representative of the laity, is important and additional lay ministries for the Mass like lector and acolyte.
What needs to be expunged are editorial comments that could go in any variety of directions in that document. What does noble simplicity mean? What does "useless" repetition mean. If we apply useless repetition to the Holy rosary, we'd be saying one Our Father, on Hail Mary and one Glory be and then just meditation on the various mysteries and be done with it. That would be an impoverishment of prayer and contemplation to say the least. What was done to the Mass in the name of noble simplicity and useless repetition has done the same thing.
As well, the private devotional prayers of the priest at the PATFOTA and other places needs to be restore for the sanctity and piety of the priest as well as the saints names eliminated in the name of noble simplicity and useless repetition.
As well as the emphasis on the role of the ordained priest codified in many prayers eliminated in the reform, such as at the offertory, Communion rite and the dismissal need to be restored.
In the sung Mass, there needs to be a unity between the priest, choir and laity and the priest need not repeat what the laity and priest are doing together in the sung Mass! And the vernacular I love, but maybe restore the Roman Canon to Latin and restore all the rubrics taken away from the Mass.
By its nature the rosary is as a personal, meditative form of prayer. The use of beads to aid in meditation pre-dates Christianity. The mass, on the other hand, is an active, participatory form of prayer. Therefore, while repitition may be appropriate for one, it is not necessarily the best practice in another.
The repitition of the prayers of the rosary assists the one praying to enter into a meditative or contemplative state. Achieving that is not the goal of the mass, which, by its nature, calls for full, conscious, and active participation.
While there is corporate praying of the rosary, such as at Vigil services, and while there are "private" masses, these are not the norm for each type of prayer.
As an Eastern Catholic I realize my words do not carry much weight. However, we have maintained ad orientem posture and I find it to be organic, natural, inspirational, ordered, orderly and probably a number of other descriptors that have not yet come to mind.
Our priest intercessor LEADS us in prayer. Our prayer feels so very full, conscious and active. Our participation is expected, not optional. No one ever questions whether or not they participate. The elderly and infirm might sit more quietly while the graces of the liturgy wash over them. We bow, cross ourselves, sometimes prostrate - it is a full and complete experience, mind, body and soul. How jarring it would be for the priest to face us other then when addressing the people, or providing a blessing. Where would the tabernacle go? Why would moving it ever need to be considered? To what end? What, possibly, would be gained? I neither need nor want the priest to face me when addressing God and facing the New Jerusalem. We do not have the elevations the way the Roman Church does (the "Thine own of thine own we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all.") is the closest equivalent and then, it is not possible to raise chalice and diskos together as high. As I know they are there, what, exactly, must I see as though I were watching a camera hovering above the 20 Yard line? After communion, the priest blesses the people with the chalice, our benediction. I see and "see" all that is necessary in my lay mortal state. The liturgy is perfect and organically so. I never hear anyone question it, or, try to "improve" it. We simply submit ourselves to it and allow it to lead us on the intended journey. As a result, we are not distracted during our prayer and we have never been distracted by how the prayer itself is executed. Without distraction, graces flow. Without distraction, we are open to learning. Our liturgy teaches us non stop. Our liturgy is always revealing something to us regarding our faith. Our liturgy stays with us from one to the next. We unconsciously find ourselves reciting it in our heads (it's poetry is just sublime)and humming parts of it to ourselves as we go about our day-to-day activities. Our liturgy is life and all that we need is provided.
I hope the Roman Church regains this spirit and focus in the places where it has been lost. Ad orientem would allow that chasm to be narrowed, if not eliminated, where it exists. It eliminates "me", creates "we" and focuses our attention solely on "him".
Father McDonald,
All well and good, but the Novus Ordo is NOT what Vatican II called for, at all. It is a hydra-headed hot mess and promotes disunity. Depending on the parish you attend on a particular Sunday, you might see a very different type of "Mass." I was already actually participating before the Council because of the thoughtful training I received at the hands of the good sisters. If use of the Missal and Kyriale, thus saying or singing all of the prayers proper to the people is not actual participation, I don't know what is. I dare say I was participating more then, than most adults do today. Hardly anyone sings the drivil that is poured out in most parishes. I was a cantor and choir member for over 40 years, and I observed that only a small minority of those in the pews bothered to pick up the hymnal and very few sang. An exception to this is that congregations do tend to sing the responses when responding to the priest singing the prayers. Hymns should be dropped altogether and the Mass should be sung. Of course the choir could sing motets at the Offertory and Communion, provided the propers are sung.
In fact, there were very few changes that made sense or were for the good of the faithful. The cynic in me says Vatican II was a clergy liberation event, seminarians/priests no longer needed to learn Latin, dress like a cleric or even live like a cleric. Very little came out of the Council that made the lives of the laity better.
I would like YOUR views of what improved the Mass for the better following the Council. About the only change that made sense to me was the re-ordering of the Dismissal Rites and the elimination of the Last Gospel. Chopping down the Kyrie from 6 to 9 or eliminating the 3 fold Domine Non Sum Dignes? Please, give me a break.
ByzRus,
Very nicely said.
Post a Comment