Latin Mass

[elizabeth09]

I agree!

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]I go to a latin mass quite often at my parish!
Im a fan! Much much!
[/size]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1797222' date='Mar 4 2009, 10:44 AM']I'm starting to tend to think that at this point in time, if all else fails for translation, go Latin.[/quote]

Personally, I certainly would prefer Latin in both forms of the Roman Rite, but practically speaking, it's just not going to happen. I just hope that we can get the new translations soon, which, though they may not be perfect, are certainly better than the current ones.

[mortify]

Now if only we could adopt a Roman Catholic mentality over our modern one!

[AccountDeleted]

I love the Latin Mass, both the Tridentine and the NO in Latin. I don't know the difference between ordinary and extraordinary - can someone explain this to me please?

That isn't to say that I don't like the NO in English - but it is all about the Consecration and the Eucharist for me, and sometimes the NO in English feels a little bit like a social event at some churches and this is a bit off-putting for me. I have attended Mass all over the world, but I find the hardest ones to attend are the NO in English in Southern California, where some of the congregation show up in shorts and even the readers dress inappropriately (in my opinion). I particularly dislike holding hands for the Our Father and giving the sign of peace right after the consecration, especially here. In England and Singapore we didn't hold hands or shake hands, we just bowed to each other - I guess I am more reserved than most So Californians.

It is amazing that there are so many variations on the Mass, but that way everyone can feel satisfied I guess.

Edited March 8, 2009 by nunsense

[Aloysius]

ehh, I wouldn't so much sing the praises of 'so many variations' to that 'everyone can feel satisfied'... there are 'variations' that 'satisfy' some which are absolutely contrary to what the liturgy is meant to be and ought to be stopped.

I went to a novus ordo today, and I must say that though there were no discernable liturgical abuses, I often find that it is the tone of the priest which is not appropriate for mass, and this is created in large part by the fact that he is speaking in his vernacular language and thus has more of a capacity for improvisation. he pretty much said and did everything correctly according to the rubrics (Deo gratias for at least that much), but it was the WAY he said and did everything that was problematic for me. He spoke with many pauses that were clearly intended for dramatic effect, louder and softer intonations as he saw fit to make it more dramatic; every word of it seemed to be a part of a show he was putting on... I think that has a lot to do with the way he faced versus populum, of course. I've had this experience in many places, with some priests more pronoouncedly annoying than others... it's that too much of the priest's own individual personality comes through in the proscribed words, i think.

now I know that back when the Latin Mass was universal, there were many priests who rushed and/or slurred some of the words, but those things being wrong and all things being equal, I would rather see that type of thing that such individualistic personalities being expressed in what is supposed to be the universal prayer of the Church. it's the difference between a record player that spins the record too fast and a record player that leaves its own imprints on the record.

the new translations (which it seems are now coming at the end of 2010) and an abolishment of the versus populum position would go a long way towards restoring the proper atmosphere for mass, IMHO. incidently, the current GIRM calls for LESS points where the priest is supposed to turn and face the people (it presumes an ad orientum position on a free standing altar) than the Traditional Latin Mass does.

[Mr.Cat]

[b]The Ordinary Form ([i]Missal of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI"]Pope Paul VI[/url][/i])[/b]
Called the Ordinary Form since it is the one most commonly used and with modern instruction concerning its rituals. [i]Know[/i] by some for the Celebrant ([i]Priest[/i]) facing the people and vernacular in the Mass, though technically, neither is necessary for it to be the Ordinary Form. Sometimes called the “[i]Novo Ordo[/i]”, roughly translated, “[i]New Order[/i]”. From the 1970’s to the present day remains a [b][i]massive[/i][/b] issue to some Catholics, reasons and rationalizations vary, though the Church affirms the validity and legality of the Ordinary Form.

[b]The Extraordinary Form ([i]Missal of [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/pope-blessed-john-xxiii/"]Blessed Pope John XXIII[/url][/i])[/b]
Called the Extraordinary Form since it is no longer commonly used, [i]despite objections to this by some[/i], [i]possibly[/i] traces its roots back to [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-peter-the-apostle/"][b]Pope Saint Peter the Apostle[/b][/url] in Rome. Known by [i]some[/i] for the Celebrant ([i]Priest[/i]) facing the altar and almost completely in Latin, some parts of the Mass being silent to the people such as the Canon and Consecration. Sometimes called the "[i]Tridentine[/i]" or "[i]Traditional Latin Mass[/i]", sometimes just “[i]Latin Mass[/i]”; [i]though technically either form can be said in Latin[/i].

Edited March 8, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[elizabeth09]

Called there and let the Latin Mass Rule!

[HisChildForever]

I think we shouldn't criticize the variations of the Mass that do not sit well with us. I'm not talking about liturgical abuses (which certainly don't sit well with [b]anyone[/b]) but fussing over the priest's use of the vernacular/changing tone of voice? We shouldn't focus on the priest as a person but as [i]in persona christi[/i]. These little things will really distract us from the true purpose of the Mass and our true calling as Catholics. We would do well to remember that some people cannot get to Mass and we should be so grateful that we can attend Mass, whether it be in Latin or English or French or German.

In my personal opinion, nitpicking or scrutinizing over non-Latin Masses is just an unhealthy practice. If something bothers you [i]that[/i] much, say a quick prayer and move on. God doesn't want you to dwell on it. I'm guilty of this, I've complained about how the person next to me couldn't control their kid or how the person in front of me started texting on their cell phone. But God wants me there for [i]Him[/i] and I'm sure that He doesn't appreciate it when I am fuming over that annoying parishioner instead of focusing completely on Him.

[Aloysius]

it is that the entire mass was colored by the priest's personality that bothered me. believe me, I try to ignore such things and simply pray, but the only way to really succeed at ignoring them would be to ignore everything he's saying. it is a way of saying prayers that is not Catholic in mindset.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1800643' date='Mar 8 2009, 05:57 PM']it is that the entire mass was colored by the priest's personality that bothered me. believe me, I try to ignore such things and simply pray, but the only way to really succeed at ignoring them would be to ignore everything he's saying. it is a way of saying prayers that is not Catholic in mindset.[/quote]

Why should his personality matter? Who cares if he's arrogant, or monotonous, or too happy?

[Aloysius]

because he shouldn't be putting his personality into the mass at all!!!

have you been to a Latin Mass? I think most who have been to both forms know what I'm talking about... the priest's personality is completely eclipsed by the old mass. I would like to see the New Mass eclipse his personality as well. an ad orientum position and less common language would go a long way towards eradicating the mindset by which priests insert their personalities into the mass.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1800651' date='Mar 8 2009, 04:16 PM']Why should his personality matter? Who cares if he's arrogant, or monotonous, or too happy?[/quote]
I'm with Aloysius here but only because I had occasion to witness a priest whose behavior and personality totally distracted from the focus of the Mass being on the sacrifice. He "performed" his homily like the game show "Let's Make a Deal" and called up someone from the "audience" to help him with his antics. It lasted for quite a long time and got lots of laughs and "good feelings" from the congregation and at the end, he used the whole skit to make one observation about the choices we make in life. To me, it was an example of total self-aggrandizement and lacking in the "in persona Christi" that the priest is there for (in my opinion). I felt he was saying "love me, love me".

His congregation do love him, of course, because he is the "star of his own show" and because he gives them what they want - entertainment -- they even think he is full of the Holy Spirit, but I never wanted to go back to that church again. The consecration and Holy Communion seemed to be something that was added as an afterthought! He did it correctly and it was valid, but oh so upsetting for me because of what had just happened. I didn't WANT to think about him - I wanted to think about Our Lord, but it was hard for me.

I was also told by others who attend there that they love him because he doesn't offer Reconciliation except at Easter - according to them, he says that God knows our sins, and he (the priest) isn't interested in them. They think this is wonderful!

So, yes, a priest can be a problem at the Mass. But if he were the only priest available, then I would attend because as a validly ordained priest, he can still consecrate the host, which is what it is all about for me anyway. I pray for this priest and for his Bishop to give him more guidance.

Edited March 8, 2009 by nunsense

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1800601' date='Mar 8 2009, 03:25 PM']ehh, I wouldn't so much sing the praises of 'so many variations' to that 'everyone can feel satisfied'... there are 'variations' that 'satisfy' some which are absolutely contrary to what the liturgy is meant to be and ought to be stopped.

I went to a novus ordo today, and I must say that though there were no discernable liturgical
the new translations (which it seems are now coming at the end of 2010) and an abolishment of the versus populum position would go a long way towards restoring the proper atmosphere for mass, IMHO. incidently, the current GIRM calls for LESS points where the priest is supposed to turn and face the people (it presumes an ad orientum position on a free standing altar) than the Traditional Latin Mass does. [/quote]

You are right of course - I try to err on the side of not making too many judgments, but things sometimes get out of hand with all the variations.

I am looking forward to the new translations if they also include moving the sign of peace to sometime during the Mass that is more appropriate than right after the consecration!

[Aloysius]

that's the rumor, that they'll anticipate it the way it is anticipated in the Ambrosian rite. we've gotten enough from the Ambrosian rite anyway, might as well put the Pax where it is in that rite