Latin Mass coming soon?

Michael G

There are so many promises that it must be coming soon. Some of us may have to stand up to our bishops if they still have an emotional attachment to the Spirit of Woodstock that gave us the present compulsory liturgy: see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/june2007/blessed.htm.

However here is a different view: http://www.brandsmareview.net/brans83.html#1

Are there any readers who would like to organise requests to their own bishops for the Tridentine Mass to be said where they live? Please post here, or email me.

Or just come to Wexford and attend the old Mass at http://www.faithapostolate.ie

Mrs. MacGyver

I went to a Latin Mass (out of curiosity as i'm C of I) a number of years ago when i was doing research for my thesis. It was on a saturday evening in the PRO Catherderal in Dublin (I don't know if this is still the case though). It sounded very calming and relaxing. It was like being back in medieval times (but in a good way). It made me appreciate the theology i was studying.

Michael G

I'm glad you enjoyed it, but if it was at the Pro-Cathedral then it was the new (Vatican II) rite celebrated in Latin. That is not the same as the pre-Vatican II Tridentine rite which the Pope seems likely to make more widely available.

PDN

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Sapien

Rident stolidi verba latina.

robindch

Odio panem et circenses. Et arceo.

PDN

Sapien wrote:

Rident stolidi verba latina.

Insultasne tu mihi?

Michael G

Defaecatne ursus in silvis?

Sapien

PDN wrote:

Insultasne tu mihi?

Not quite. Glass houses, old bean. There are many people on this site in a position to take the p1ss out of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. You, not so much. Latin is hardly the most laughable aspect of the whole christianity gig.

Michael G

Sapien wrote:

Latin is hardly the most laughable aspect of the whole christianity gig.

Sorry if I am intruding on something private; but if you are not a believer (and sorry a second time if I have drawn the wrong inference from your post as I have quoted it) — don't we Traditionalists at least have better taste? I have to confess (sorry — Catholic language again) to taking some guilty pleasure from the 11850 radio adverts. They do get the happy-clappy music exactly right.

Sapien

Michael G wrote:

Sorry if I am intruding on something private; but if you are not a believer (and sorry a second time if I have drawn the wrong inference from your post as I have quoted it) — don't we Traditionalists at least have better taste? I have to confess (sorry — Catholic language again) to taking some guilty pleasure from the 11850 radio adverts. They do get the happy-clappy music exactly right.

You have Art on your side - or had. Some of the reformed churches have a deal more reason and tolerance, which - when it comes to the basis for a moral code - gets preference. And then there are the evangelicals, who are pretty much at the bottom of the pile in terms of both taste and philosophy.

PDN

Sapien wrote:

And then there are the evangelicals, who are pretty much at the bottom of the pile in terms of both taste and philosophy.

"Perhaps sapientia derives its name from sapor, for when it is sprinkled upon virtue like some spice, it renders savory what was before tasteless and harsh. Nor would I think it reprehensible were one to define sapientia as sapor boni, that is, a taste for what is good... Happy is the mind that the taste for the good has vindicated totally for itself, and hatred for evil. This is what it means to be reformed according to wisdom." (Bernard of Clairvaux)

Michael G

Your signature from Carmina Burana (a load of boll***s but the Moderators won't let me say the word, though not bad music) is good but I won't let the Protestants have the last word on reason and tolerance. As regards tolerance we stopped burning them ages ago and now we even let them vote. But their reasoning is defective, because their premises are not sound.

Sapien

Michael G wrote:

Your signature from Carmina Burana (a load of boll***s but the Moderators won't let me say the word, though not bad music) is good but I won't let the Protestants have the last word on reason and tolerance. As regards tolerance we stopped burning them ages ago and now we even let them vote. But their reasoning is defective, because their premises are not sound.

Sure.

It's not from Carmina Burana.

Mrs. MacGyver

Michael G wrote:

Your signature from Carmina Burana (a load of boll***s but the Moderators won't let me say the word, though not bad music) is good but I won't let the Protestants have the last word on reason and tolerance. As regards tolerance we stopped burning them ages ago and now we even let them vote. But their reasoning is defective, because their premises are not sound.

As a protestant who has studied Catholic Theology and was reared in a family influenced by both traditions I don't understand your reference to Protestants and tolerance. If anything we are a quite openminded branch of Christianity. Why is protestant reasoning 'defective' after all it is found in scripture?

There were atrocities on both sides of the religious wars a couple of hundred yearsso we will leave it at that. There is no room for religious war here. whay can't people do more to foster ecumenism rather than deepening the religious divide? I do not mean to sound sarcastic and if i do i apologise. Since you mentioned democracy in your post, we have quite a democratice church, we chose our clergy and have a say as regards the general upkeep, finance and facilities of churches. I myself am on our local select vestry.

What is the difference essentially between the post vatican II latin rite as celebrated in the pro-cathederal and the Tridentine rite? Does the Tridentine rite involve the priest facing his back to the congregation? If so then then i would prefer the post vatican II latin rite as it seems more 'inclusive'. By that i simlpy mean the congregation would feel they would have an active role to play in the mass and feel the priest was speaking to them personally. If a priest has his back to the people then this goes agains the concept of 'catholic' (note the small c, catholic as in universal) in that it wouldn't seem to me to foster a closeness within the congregsation, since we are all supposed to be parts of the body of the church (especially if you look at Marian Theology andthe writings of Hans Urs Von Balthazaar).

Cordially,
Mrs. M.

Michael G

Sapien wrote:

It's not from Carmina Burana.

OK, I accept that. Apologies. I know it's in some of the older liturgies as a formula to banish evil spirits. But it is used in Carmina Burana as well.

Sapien

Michael G wrote:

OK, I accept that. Apologies. I know it's in some of the older liturgies as a formula to banish evil spirits. But it is used in Carmina Burana as well.

I don't think so. Can you show me where?

Michael G

Mrs. MacGyver wrote:

What is the difference essentially between the post vatican II latin rite as celebrated in the pro-cathederal and the Tridentine rite? Does the Tridentine rite involve the priest facing his back to the congregation? If so then then i would prefer the post vatican II latin rite as it seems more 'inclusive'.

First of all, I have to acknowledge that part of my post was worded facetiously; sorry if that struck you as inappropriate. However I am not a supporter of the kind of ecumenism that tries to homogenise our teaching and liturgies (which is probably more prevalent in the Roman Catholich Church than in yours). I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church and that other Christian denominations are incomplete; I expect that you believe that the Roman Church has accumulated a number of aspects that do not have a sound basis in Scripture or Revelation. Ecumenism, as I see it, means each of believing that the other is partly mistaken, but treating one another with respect nevertheless and acknowledging what we have in common as well as what keeps us apart.

As regards the old Mass, yes it is celebrated by the priest ad orientem, i.e., with his back to the Congregation. What this symbolises is that God is the focus of the Sacrament and Sacrifice: whereas the celebration versus populo can often in practice sideline God, and make the assembly the centre of everything. It also makes the priest potentially too prominent, which can be a bad thing in two quite different ways. If the priest is charismatic then he overshadows everything; if he is unattractive he spoils everything. Only a handful of priests have the ability to celebrate the New Mass without making their personalities obtrusive in one way or another. There are of course saintly people who are not distracted by these things, but I am definitely not one of those.

There is not in fact any rule which says that the new Mass has to be celebrated facing the people, or entirely in the Vernacular. Both of those things are practices that have become prevalent, but nothing more than that. Within the Roman Church there is a faction that has until recently been dominant, which claimed the authority of a "Spirit of Vatican II" that over-rode the actual decisions of the Council; those they see as a political compromise to keep the conservatives on side at the time, and not binding. This faction thought that it was correct to make the Mass as similar as possible to the Lutheran Eucharist; the idea being that the unity of all Christians was more important than any other consideration. Their generation is passing, and I believe that is a good thing.

Michael G

Sapien wrote:

I don't think so. Can you show me where?

You have me there. Is it possible I could be wrong? I was very sure.