Latin Mass

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='RemnantRules' post='1794593' date='Mar 1 2009, 09:04 PM']Jesus didn't have the Last Supper extraordinary style.[/quote]



[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1801335' date='Mar 9 2009, 12:01 PM']Thats because the priests who are saying now WANT to say it. Its no longer the norm. You seem to forget that the Mass was changed because the Church decided[i] before [/i]Vatican II that there were serious problems that needed correction.

The Trid Mass is not the end all and be all of Masses, or it would not have been reformed, and that the liturgical process and restatement is an ongoing process.[/quote]



[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1804423' date='Mar 11 2009, 11:35 PM']Would anyone like to do me the great service of going over the main points that the liturgy was reformed in the 60s?[/quote]

I'd also be interested in learning more about this. I think both sides tend to over/under-emphasize certain issues, so i'd like to know more.

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1804874' date='Mar 12 2009, 01:10 PM']duly noted and respected. my wish would be for every parish to have at least 1 available Latin Mass. it's so rare, and in many cases, shunned, at the disservice of those who would benefit greatly from it. most of us don't even have a clue about it since we're so young, but some are blessed enough to discover such a glorious gem in it and realize it must not be lost or hidden away. our Holy Father, B16, knows this very well..[/quote]

Okay - time for my two cents. Granted, i've only been to five Latin Masses (4 EF & 1 OF) in the 6-7 years i've been Catholic, so i recognize my bias. That said, there is something i really just don't understand. I completely agree that more parishes, as long is there is a group within that parish interested in it, should offer an EF or OF Mass in Latin. Sounds simple to me. What i don't understand is parishes without parochial boundaries that form specifically for liturgical reasons, i.e. those set up specifically to offer EF Masses in Latin or Charismatic Masses.

I realize that the local bishops have approved these EF and Charismatic parishes, and i respect their decisions. I just don't understand the reasoning yet, because to me, it speaks of disunity. If any of you have met members of EF or Charismatic parishes who tend to look down on Catholics who attend normal parishes, you might know what i'm getting at. Part of the reason i went with Catholicism was its universality. I really haven't seen a well-presented argument for the necessity of establishing EF Mass or Charismatic Mass parishes that, in effect, end up separating Latin Rite Catholics into different groups. That's just me. By all means, please fire away if you think you can help me understand this.

Edited March 17, 2009 by fides quarens intellectum

[Aloysius]

the reason is the liturgical crisis in the Church which is recognized by Rome. it is not a few isolated novus ordo parishes that are in crisis, it is all of them; and Rome recognizes that the preference for the Extraordinary Form is a legitimate aspiration. Rome cannot, or at least will not, deny to Catholics the perpetual right granted to them by Quo Primum. Summorum Pontificum confirmed that Rome never did that since it never abrogated the old mass, and so every Catholic has the full right to worship according to the traditional form of the Roman Rite; moreover, every Catholic has the right to a liturgy free of abuses, which in many [b]whole[/b] dioceses can only be found in the Extraordinary Form parish of the diocese.

Rome and the bishops are not separating us into different factions now, Rome is now recognizing that different factions were created in the aftermath of the liturgical reform. Extraordinary Form parishes are necessary because the older form MUST have a place in the Church, without it the Church's liturgical tradition is at best on life support and at worst dying. this is not to say that the liturgies are without the true sacrament, just that they are without most of the prayers surrounding the true sacrament that they ought to have.

Benedict's ultimate mission is to reunite these factions by making the ordinary form more like the extraordinary form... it may be interpreted that he wants the extraordinary form to be enriched by the ordinary form as well but aside from the insertion of some feast days and new prefaces, I don't think that's the priority; the priority is what Fr. Z calls the "gravitational pull" wherein the novus ordo gets sucked more and more back into the continuous liturgical tradition of the Church and out of the discontinuous limbo it's been residing in for the past 40-50 years. that involves big centers in dioceses that can be looked to AND latin masses popping up in most every parish. this is NOT on par with the Charismatic stuff, this is not analogous at all. Charismatics are permitted their specific devotions, Extraordinary Formers are given their rights back to them; Charismaticism is allowed as a movement for specific people in the Church who desire it; but Benedict intends the Extraordinary Form as something which MUST necessarily affect everyone in the Church if the liturgy of the Roman Rite is to survive. the Extraordinary Form must have both these extra-ordinary canonical structures and the freedom to operate within the regular canonical structures because Benedict wants it to impact every single Catholic; Benedict does not want it relegated to a personal preference, he wants it as a shining example of things to be emulated in the ordinary form... and for that purpose there must be the extraordinary parishes as part of the renewal plan he has.

and I am saying nothing more dramatic than ways it has been described by Rome itself: a widespread liturgical crisis of drastic proportions exists in the novus ordo today.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1794768' date='Mar 1 2009, 10:35 PM']Pictures of [url="http://www.atonementonline.com/tour.php"][u]Our Lady of the Atonement Church[/u][/url][/quote]

Me and my family attended this same parish for about a year or two, 12ish years ago. Had some problems with the pastor (won't go into that here) and then left for the Marionite Rite parish which was probably my favorite church that I attended before becoming sede.

Edited March 18, 2009 by goldenchild17

[elizabeth09]

SOme people will leave because they dislike the pastor or priest that did the mass.

















Nothen here.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1810028' date='Mar 17 2009, 04:06 PM']it is not a few isolated novus ordo parishes that are in crisis, it is all of them;[/quote]

i didn't know that was the case.

[Veridicus]

I wish the priest would turn around in the NO mass. I think this would re-emphasize the centrality of the Eucharist as the high point of the Mass rather than so elevating the community-orientation of many NO Masses. When I was in Rome last summer, went to Mass at Santa Maria Maggiore for a NO Mass in Italian; there was no central altar in that side chapel so the Eucharistic Liturgy HAD to be ad orientum...it was beautiful.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Veridicus

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817432' date='Mar 27 2009, 02:26 AM']I wish the priest would turn around in the NO mass. I think this would re-emphasize the centrality of the Eucharist as the high point of the Mass rather than so elevating the community-orientation of many NO Masses.[/quote]

[elizabeth09]

?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='elizabeth09' post='1818831' date='Mar 28 2009, 05:05 PM']?[/quote]
?

[KnightofChrist]

¿

[Socrates]

There is [i]nothing[/i] in any Vatican II document calling for the priest to face the people.
And (I'd have to find the document - perhaps Al or someone could help me), Latin was specifically given the pride of place in the liturgy.

At our parish, even the NO mass is now said [i]ad orientum[/i], and all of the unchanging parts said in Latin (as our priest says "in accord with Vatican II").

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1819879' date='Mar 29 2009, 07:42 PM']There is [i]nothing[/i] in any Vatican II document calling for the priest to face the people.
And (I'd have to find the document - perhaps Al or someone could help me), Latin was specifically given the pride of place in the liturgy.

At our parish, even the NO mass is now said [i]ad orientum[/i], and all of the unchanging parts said in Latin (as our priest says "in accord with Vatican II").[/quote]
That's really interesting. I would have assumed it was in the GIRM or something like that.
How come priests always face the congregation if it doesn't specifically say to do so anywhere?

[Aloysius]

Actually, the GIRM presumes an ad orientum position with a freestanding altar (ie an altar not connected to the wall)... and, in fact, the priest is told to face the people MORE times in the Extraordinary Form than in the Ordinary Form. In the ordinary form, the priest is told to face the people at Orate Fratres (Pray, brethren) (GIRM 146), the sign of peace (GIRM 154), the Ecce Agnus Dei (Behold the Lamb of God) (GIRM 157), the post-communion prayer (GIRM 165), and the deacon or priest is told to face the people for the Ite Missa Est (The Mass has ended) (GIRM 185)

this is not to say that the versus populum position is not approved (It is, by GIRM 299), it certainly is, but it is still not presumed in the General Instruction. now, often GIRM 299 is used to say that the versus populum position is preferred... not so! Fr. Z went on the case in the Latin, for an explanation of what GIRM # 299 really says: [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/04/what-does-girm-299-really-say/"]http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/04/what-does-g...299-really-say/[/url]
[quote]GIRM 299: The main altar should be built separated from the wall, which is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people [b]can[/b] be carried out.[/quote]

there are many reasons a freestanding altar may be preferred, especially relating to going around the altar when it is initially being consecrated and in the incensing of the altar; one reason is that it allows for the versus populum OR ad orientem position, another reason is that that's the way altars are in Rome, in the center of the cross-shaped church (which is what would be envisioned when freestanding altars are suggested, because the Altar should be in the center of the cross-shaped church building, but with fan-shaped churches popping up everywhere, the freestanding altar becomes much more pointless)

Soc, that would be the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:

[quote][b]36[/b]. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

[b]54[/b]. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.[/quote]

your priest is following exactly what the Council intended. masses that are all in the vernacular, while they have been permitted by the competent authorities, are against what Vatican II said and intended.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1819879' date='Mar 30 2009, 01:42 AM']At our parish, even the NO mass is now said [i]ad orientum[/i], and all of the unchanging parts said in Latin (as our priest says "in accord with Vatican II").[/quote]
I must admit that I'm a bit jealous.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1819879' date='Mar 29 2009, 07:42 PM']There is [i]nothing[/i] in any Vatican II document calling for the priest to face the people.
And (I'd have to find the document - perhaps Al or someone could help me), Latin was specifically given the pride of place in the liturgy.

At our parish, even the NO mass is now said [i]ad orientum[/i], and all of the unchanging parts said in Latin (as our priest says "in accord with Vatican II").[/quote]

Oh my Lord...where do you live? I'm moving there...