My First Tridentine Mass

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1309385795' post='2260460']
Really, you're making it too difficult. the basic order of the Mass hasn't changed, between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass. The main difference is that the Traditional Latin Mass is more thorough in her treatment of the propers and ordinaries of the Mass; whereas the Novus Ordo is simplified. But any Catholic will be able to pick up on what is going on if they lift their eyes...they will know when the prayers at the foot end, they will know when the kyrie starts, the gloria, and the readings. Once the Mass of the catechumens is complete and we arrive at the Mass of the faithful, it gets even easier because of the bells. There is a bell to start the offertory, there is a bell for the sanctus, the hanc, depending on where you are you have a candle for the consecration to go with the bells...and bells at the domine....

Following, even for the first timer isn't a problem, unless they stick their heads in a book and try to go word for word....it just doesn't work...remember the priest has been saying this Mass for years, so his comfort level with it is infinitely more than the neophyte.

I agree that studying before hand is a good idea, but the [i]participatio actuosa[/i] isn't only in knowing the Mass, it is also in worshiping at Mass. That is the key to [i]participatio actuosa[/i].
[/quote]

Respectfully, I guess that's where we disagree. I've tried very hard to get people to be interested in the Extraordinary Form, and when the time comes, they end up just feeling so awkward because it's something new that they're unable to see the similarities.

Maybe you're right though - if they go exclusively there for a few weeks, maybe the newness of it would wear off and they'd be able to see those things.

Of course, I'm sure you would agree that participation at Mass is more full when the participant understands what is taking place.

[fides' Jack]

I'm sorry, faithcecilia, for helping to distract your thread away from its focus. I would encourage you to keep trying! God bless you for your openness.

[Cam42]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1309400475' post='2260596']

[...]

Of course, I'm sure you would agree that participation at Mass is more full when the participant understands what is taking place.
[/quote]

Actually, no.

The understanding of the Mass is secondary. What goes on at Mass in the sanctuary is an offering of our oblations. That is really all we NEED to know. If we know more, that is good, but it is not necessary. To "understand" is a new innovation which took hold with the liturgical movement of the 20th century. Many good things came from the liturgical movement, but this was not one of them.

What is of utmost importance when it comes to the Mass is that we understand that we are to lay our offering at the foot of the altar, then meditate upon the offering to God the Father in our worship as the priest offers those oblations on our behalf. To know exactly what is going on isn't necessary. It can be advantageous, but it can also be detrimental, if "understanding the Mass" supersedes the woshiping aspect of the Mass.

This was further muddled immediately after Vatican Council II, when the mindset became that of outward participation and communal aspects became the focus, rather than the full, concious and active interior particiaption.

So, no, I don't agree that that he who assists must understand the whole of the Mass. I'll end this with a question....

If it is of utmost importance that he who assists at Holy Mass understands what is happening, where is the Sacred Mystery?

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1309402021' post='2260607']
So, no, I don't agree that that he who assists must understand the whole of the Mass. I'll end this with a question....

If it is of utmost importance that he who assists at Holy Mass understands what is happening, where is the Sacred Mystery?
[/quote]

Please re-read my statement. I didn't say "must".

I'll say again, I'm sure you would agree that participation at Mass is more full when the participant understands what is taking place.

Doesn't mean it's necessary, but that the participation is "more full." Fuller is a word, isn't it? I'm sure it is. The participation is "fuller" when the participant understands what is taking place.

Edit: To answer your question, I'm not sure I've ever properly understood the word "mystery" in this context. Does it simply imply that we can't understand "fully" what is taking place? If so, then I would suggest (not declare) that perhaps the mystery lies more in "how" it can happen, rather than "what" exactly is happening.

Edit: Edit: I'm really not trying to argue with you, Cam. I respect you, and I think we more or less agree on just about every Catholic issue out there. I'm even saying that I think you may be on to something with how we might go about introducing more people to the EF.

Edited June 30, 2011 by fides' Jack

[Cam42]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1309402467' post='2260611']
Please re-read my statement. I didn't say "must".

I'll say again, I'm sure you would agree that participation at Mass is more full when the participant understands what is taking place.

Doesn't mean it's necessary, but that the participation is "more full." Fuller is a word, isn't it? I'm sure it is. The participation is "fuller" when the participant understands what is taking place.

[/quote]

No, we don't agree. You just asked the same question a second time. "Understanding" the Mass, in the way that you're phrasing it is not necessary.

Let me be clear...

In the fullest sense, one participates in the Mass when he worships God the Father, while receiving the gift of the Son, through the Holy Spirit. That is all that is necessary to know when it comes to understanding the Mass.

Monsignor Richard J. Schuler writes:
[quote]But the participation of those present becomes fuller ([i]plenior[/i]) if to internal attention is joined [i]external[/i] participation, expressed, that is to say, by external actions such as the position of the body (genuflecting, standing, sitting), ceremonial gestures, or, in particular, the responses, prayers and singing . . .It is this harmonious form of participation that is referred to in pontifical documents when they speak of active participation ([i]participatio actuosa[/i]), the principal example of which is found in the celebrating priest and his ministers who, with due interior devotion and exact observance of the rubrics and ceremonies, minister at the altar.[/quote]

He goes on to say:
[quote]The difference between participation in the liturgy that can be called [i]activa[/i] and participation that can be lablled [i]actuosa[/i] rests in the presence in the soul of the baptismal character, the seal that grants one the right to participate.[/quote]

It is not through the external understanding that we come to fully participate, but rather it is through sacramental grace. It is an innate knowledge. Certainly knowing can enhance the experience, that is to be sure, but it is not necessary to fully participate in the Mass.

He also says:
[quote]Important too for any participation in the liturgy is the elevation of the spirit of the worshipper. Ultimately, liturgy is prayer, the supreme prayer of adoration, thanksgiving, petition and reparation. Prayer is the raising of the heart and the mind to God as Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. The means to achieve such elevation of the spirit in prayer onvolve all the activities of the human person, both spirit and body. Such means produce true [i]actuosa participatio[/i].[/quote]

These are the keys as I see them. You may agree, you may not, but the Church has taught this and it is this idea which has been handed to us from Popes previous and I believe that it is where Benedict is trying to lead us now.

[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/65/SubIndex/120/ArticleIndex/35"]source[/url]

[fides' Jack]

Sorry, Cam, but I really don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

Again, sorry, faithcecilia, for hijacking this thread.

[faithcecelia]

Thanks Cam42 for the close ups of the cards, thats really useful.

As for the 'understanding' of the Mass, in my case, of course, I [b]do[/b] understand [b]what[/b] is happening, just not all the words used to do it! If I get the basic jist of what you are both saying, I can appreciate fides jack saying its useful to understand (maybe more important for a new Catholic??) as it does help to focus prayer and attention, but I also 100% accept that there is no need to understand what is happening either - it will still be Mass regardless of whether I or any other person understands or not.

I actually found it easier, strangely, once I stopped trying to follow on the sheet/in the booklet! I had no hope of being fast enough, yet by putting them to a side I could follow easily - both because I know what happens in Mass, and also because I regularly attend Mass in Latin, so am used to hearing the words even if they are said in a different order!

[FutureSister2009]

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309371358' post='2260334']
Did they have the prayers of the faithful? If so it was a Novus Ordo in Latin. Also, was the prologue to the gospel of St John read immediately after Mass? If so it was a Tridentine Mass.
[/quote]

No I don't believe we had the prayers of the faithful. And I definitely don't think there was the prologue to the Gospel of St. John either.

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='FutureSister2009' timestamp='1309458325' post='2260962']
No I don't believe we had the prayers of the faithful. And I definitely don't think there was the prologue to the Gospel of St. John either.
[/quote]


This one may or may not give you a definite answer. Which way did the priest celebrate? If he faced the congregation it was definately Novus Ordo, if not it could have been either....



Well, we will help you work it out somehow!

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1309458519' post='2260963']
This one may or may not give you a definite answer. Which way did the priest celebrate? If he faced the congregation it was definately Novus Ordo, if not it could have been either....



Well, we will help you work it out somehow!
[/quote]



I suspect it was Tridentine tbh, as you said it was refered to as [i]Traditional[/i]Latin Mass, even though as it is now its not that much older than NO.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1309416124' post='2260714']
... and also because I regularly attend Mass in Latin, so am used to hearing the words even if they are said in a different order!
[/quote]

I'm sure that helps! Sounds like you're more familiar than most.

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1309458720' post='2260968']
I'm sure that helps! Sounds like you're more familiar than most.
[/quote]


Yes, I think its been useful to me to 'break in gently' - I know NO in English, so I quickly got used to NO in Latin, and now I am used to hearing the Latin I could follow the Tridentine. I think I might have panicked at Tridentine had I not been used to Latin NO.