Posted on 10/04/2012 4:23:16 PM PDT by Salvation
I too would be ever so grateful for one Tridentine Mass available at the cathedral church, per week. Fly-over country must drive for hours to find such a beautiful Holy Sacrifice anywhere, with few dioceses offering one at all and none proficient.
I was received in 2001 and never seen one.
In my opinion, the perfect liturgical blend looks like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q251EywW__M
Old Rite with New Rite’s 3 year cycle of readings. I can live (happily) with that. I first heard that recommended by a former SSPX priest in 1996!
“mikes worn and perhaps a rolling display of the prayers both in Latin in English projected roughly where the hymn numbers are. Is it silly? I think the author has a valid point that unlike in better times, the congregation does not know the Latin.”
Then they should learn and we should teach them. I teach Latin to my Grade 8’s so that they do understand what is being said at mass.
Except we’re not handling it. Catholics are 100 times less biblically literate than they were under the old rite.
The congregation did not know the Latin in the old days. The idea that you have to hear everything and follow it word-for-word is a Protestant idea.
Those who cared knew exactly what was happening because they had studied and learned. Those who didn’t care didn’t know nuthin. That part is still true. The difference is that even those who “care” don’t know much.
The idea that the goal is to be able to hear and follow along with the Latin when attending the Traditional Mass is a fallacy that will only lead to misunderstanding it.
It was (and is) the Sacrifice of Christ. It takes place. We are present at it and drawn into it at a much deeper level than knowing every single word. In the Novus Ordo people, presumably hear and understand every single word and they don’t bother to come—from 75% to 25% Mass attendance. Now just how is that a gain?????????
Those who wanted to could follow the Latin by using Latin-English hand missals. They could not hear every word (none or inadequate sound systems) but they could know exactly what was being said by means of the priest’s and servers’ gestures (not just the bells) and, if they wanted to, follow the English in their missals. But they could also participate in, devoutly and fully, without knowing Latin.
A variety of levels of “following along” were possible and all could be full of devotion.
Today, we can hear every word in a language we supposedly know inside and out and most people sit there letting it wash over them.
So how is that different from the old days when most people could not follow the Latin? There always was a percentage of people who just didn’t much care. That percentage is the same today as it was.
But the difference is that 50% of those who came back then (but didn’t much care) don’t even come today.
So how is that a gain?
The 3 years practice is best.
Is not the “psalm of the day” what is now the “response psalm” ?
Better use an intro psalm to said first, then the opening hymm right away.
Yes; the question is, what should be the teaching aids?
No question, there is a contingent that goes to Mass without care; then there is a contingent that wants to be at the Sacrifice of the Mass, understands it with or without the knowledge of Latin and does not need word-by-word supplements of any kind; finally there is a contingent of learners who want to transition from the first group to the second group. For them, not a compromise is needed but learning aids; again, it is no different than the display with the hymnal numbers. To tell them: "learn some Latin then come back" is not the best approach. Neither is "don't attempt to understand the words".
[From your second post to me:] the difference is that 50% of those who came back then (but didn’t much care) don’t even come today
So how is that a gain?
Again, the topic of the article is: what transitional forms of the Mass could be offered for those who wish to attend the Traditional Mass but find the transition too steep, given the realities of today, whether we like these realities or not? I think that the bilingual missals are not sufficient: it is easy to loose your place and then one loses the mental space he is supposed to be in and instead frantically races up and down the missal to re-synchronize. The modern electronic means exist to offer synchronized display for those who need it; operating them should be the job of the altar boys, no different than holding up the Gospel and bringing the vessels.
On the other hand, I disagree with the idea of a compromise in the way the author proposes it: a yet third form of the Mass that is neither Traditional nor Novus Ordo.
I think that the Novus Ordo itself should be evolving toward the Old Mass, not in the spirit of compromise but in the spirit of improvement. It is, after all, an experimental form of liturgy and the experiment should continue since we are apparently not ready to cancel it outright. Hence my second suggestion, to reintroduce elements that were simply cut in the Novus Ordo for no clear reason.
Some “ministers of music” substitute whatever they want for the psalm. It ain’t right.
That is why, if there was any changes, start off with a psalm chanting which go right away into an intro hymm which would match it as best as possible. It would be a balance.
Rather, combine the very best of both rites. This Pope gets it right. Remember, even though I am past 50, I hardly remember the old mass, I am very much a child of the new mass.
Didn’t Fr. Fessio already try this, and did not receive huge support from Pope John Paul II or Cardinal Ratzinger?
I was given a latin missal which was very helpful to me.
Our Mass is currently a blend of the two and is quite lovely. We use the Adoremus Hymnals. Lots of beautiful old songs in there! The Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Lord’s Prayer are all in Latin. The church is in an older part of downtown KC and homeschool families come from all over the metro to attend Mass there. The choir is magnificent! I don’t ever want to move from this area strictly because of the amazing Mass. I don’t ever want to go back to the hand clapping, back slapping, humorous Masses we’ve attended before. I only want holy and reverent for the rest of my life. I had no idea how incredible it could be.
Well, how are you going to “combine” them? The priest can be facing God or he can be facing you, — not both. People either kneel at the barrier and receive on the tongue or receive in the hand without kneeling. The consecration is either in Latin or it is in English. Prayer to St. Michael is either said or not said. The Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews is either said or not said. Etc.
A missal is helpful but it is not the only aid feasible without disrupting the Mass. In fact, the reliance on the Missal is itself disruptive because it keeps you nose in the book and your mind anxious no to go out of synch, when you should be looking at the altar.
Seeing as I’m deaf, I found the missal quite helpful. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.