Ship of Fools: Latin

Thread: Latin Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030369

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

I was speaking to a friend this morning who remembered, as a child, attending Catholic mass in which some of the liturgy was in Latin. Not a current churchgoer he was wondering why, in a service to English speaking people, Latin would be used.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Are there still rites (in churches of various traditions) in which Latin still plays a part. How would you answer my puzzled friend?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

FSSP or SSPX. Both priestly societies celebrate the liturgy in Latin according to the 1962 books.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I assume this was before Vatican 2?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Sometimes English speaking people are able to learn other languages.Latin was considered) and is still considered) to be the universal language
of the Latin rites of the Catholic church,linking together in the same language approximately 50% of all Christians.

While it is clear that most people would not understand each and every word of the liturgy,most
people would understand what was going on.The constant repetition of the same words,day by day or week by week or even Christmas by Christmas would come to mean something.It was a special language used for talking to Almighty God.

It removed one from ordinary,humdrum everyday life and could make one feel to be 'in communion' with so many others around the globe.

Of course really important things like taking collections of money would always be indicated in English,and in plain everyday English at that.

Not only Catholics,not only Christians will still
use a special sort of language in their services.The language of the King James version of the Bible is not accessible to everyone.

Since the mid 1960s the Catholic church,in its various Latin rites, has introduced more and more
of the vernacular,so much so that anyone born after 1965 is unlikely to remember the everyday use of Latin,unless they go and seek it out.

Anglicans often use bits of Latin in their services as do indeed even some Presbyterians.
In some ways it gives a sense of timelessness to a religious rite.

One should also not forget that even in one's own native language a number of churchgoers will neither be understanding nor even listening.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I was speaking to a friend this morning who remembered, as a child, attending Catholic mass in which some of the liturgy was in Latin. Not a current churchgoer he was wondering why, in a service to English speaking people, Latin would be used.

It's a lingua franca. There was a time when you could go into any Catholic church in any country and attend the service and it would be familiar to you, even if you didn't speak Latin, you'd know where you were with it. Now if you go to one in Warsaw chances are you won't understand a word of it because it will be in Polish, in China it will be in Chinese, and in parts of the Middle East it will probably be either in French or Arabic. And so on.

In English-speaking countries where Latin is still used it has a nostalgia value for the over-50s who grew up with this, a novelty value for the younger generation who didn't, and a value of its own. The deliberate evocation of the past can remind you that you are part of a very ancient tradition, stretching back centuries, with a long, colourful history. Because many people don't speak Latin these days it also imbues the service with a bit of an air of mystery. Church Latin is a bit different to classical Latin, but Latin is still what was spoken in Jesus' day. In a way, it almost seems to pull back the intervening centuries.

When Latin is used, services also tend to involve plainchant. Latin plainchant goes back centuries, and joining in, you are participating in something that your ancestors were familiar with, and it can give that sense of enduring solidarity, of congregation, of people all over the world, of different times, all together, not split off and isolated by their own separate languages.

I can't really put it any better than that but the Latin Mass with incense and plainchant is something with a lot of emotional appeal that means a lot more to me personally than the modern, cut-down, simple English-language service that's mostly on offer today. I'd probably resume going to church if I could get a decent Latin service locally.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Excerpts concerning the use of Latin from the pronouncements of Vatican II can be found here.

There is something very special about hearing the beautiful hymns and chants of the Church sung in their original language. As mentioned, old folks who remember the pre-Vatican II Latin mass will already be familiar with most of them. Anyone who knows Spanish, French or Italian well should be able to get at least the general gist of the meaning. Good English translations (and I mean good -- there are certainly enough bad ones around) are also helpful, but they can't substitute for the beauty of the Latin.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I was speaking to a friend this morning who remembered, as a child, attending Catholic mass in which some of the liturgy was in Latin. Not a current churchgoer he was wondering why, in a service to English speaking people, Latin would be used.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Are there still rites (in churches of various traditions) in which Latin still plays a part. How would you answer my puzzled friend?

Below please find an answer from the (copyright free) book "The Catechism explained: an exhaustive exposition of the Christian religion" by Francis Spirago and Richard F. Clarke, 1899:

quote:
15. THE LANGUAGE OF THE MASS

In celebrating the holy sacrifice of the Mass the Church makes use of the Latin language.

1. The Latin language is well adapted for the services of the Church, because it is both venerable and mysterious.

The Latin language is venerable on account of its origin and its antiquity; it is the language in which the praises of God resounded from the lips of Christians during the first centuries. It is a sublime and solemn thought that the holy sacrifice is now offered in the same language, nay, with the very same words as it was offered in times long past in the obscurity of the Catacombs.

There is also an element of mystery about the Latin tongue; it is a dead language, not understood by the people. The use of an unknown tongue conveys to the mind of the vulgar that something is going on upon the altar which is past their comprehension, that a mystery is being enacted. In the first centuries of Christianity a curtain used to be drawn during the time from the Sanctus to the communion, to conceal the altar from the sight of the worshippers. This is now no longer done, but the use of an unknown tongue has something of the same effect, by inspiring awe into the minds of the common people.

It is a striking fact that Jews and pagans made use, in the worship of the Deity, of a language with which the multitude were not conversant. The Jews made use of the ancient Hebrew, the language of the patriarchs; we do not find Our Lord or the apostles censuring this practice. The Greek Church, both orthodox and schismatical, employs the old form of the Greek language for divine service, not that spoken at present. The same language is in use in the Russian (so-called orthodox) Church, not the vernacular, which is a Slavonic dialect.

2. The use of the Latin language in her services is most advantageous for the Church; it serves to maintain her unity and preserve her from many evils.

The use of Latin is a means of maintaining unity in the Church, as well as uniformity in her services, for the use of one and the same language in Catholic churches all over the surface of the globe, is a connecting link binding them to Rome, and making one nations which are separated by diversity of tongues. Latin, as the language of the Church, unites all nations, making them members of God's family, of Christ's kingdom. The altar on earth is a type of the heavenly Jerusalem where a great multitude of all peoples and tongues stand around the throne, praising God.

If Latin were not the official language of the Church, deliberations and discussions among bishops assembled at the councils, the mutual exchange of opinions between theologians would be impossible. Moreover, the use of Latin, the language of ancient Rome, is a constant reminder of our dependence on the Holy Roman Church ; it recalls to our minds involuntarily the fact that thence, from the Mother Church, the first missionaries came who brought the faith to our shores.

The use of a dead language is a safeguard against many evils; it is not subject to change, but remains the same to all time. Languages in daily use undergo a continual process of change ; words drop out, or their meaning is altered as years go on. If a living language were employed in divine worship heresies and errors would inevitably creep into the Church, and sacred words would be employed in an irreverent or mocking manner by the unbeliever. This is prevented by the use of Latin, at any rate as far as the unlearned are concerned.

Yet the Church is far from desiring to keep the people in ignorance of the meaning of her religious services; the decrees of the Council of Trent (22, 8), strictly enjoin upon priests to explain frequently the mysteries and ceremonies of the Mass to the children in schools, and to adults from the pulpit. But as a matter of fact, it is by no means necessary for the people to understand every detail of the ceremonial of the Mass. " If," says St. Augustine, " there are some present who do not understand what is being said or sung, they know at least that all is said and sung to the glory of God, and that is sufficient for them to join in it devoutly."

Moreover, experience teaches that the fact of the prayers being in Latin does not at all hamper or interfere with the devotion of the faithful, or lead them to absent themselves from the services of the Church. Besides, the sermons are always delivered in the vernacular; it is often used at the opening services and to some extent in administering the sacraments. The reason why the whole of the Mass is in Latin is because it is a sacrifice, not an instruction for the people. The greater part of the prayers are said by the priest secretly, so that were they in the mother tongue, they would be inaudible to the people. Furthermore, the celebration of Mass consists more in action than in words. The actions of the priest, the whole ceremonial, speaks a language intelligible to all.

And if, as some would wish, all the services were conducted in the language of the country, persons of another nationality, not conversant with other languages, might be led to drop their religion on leaving their own land. Another evil consequent upon such a change would be a lessening of the respect felt for the holy sacrifice, as was proved at the time of the reformation, when the prayers of the Mass were, to a great extent, translated into German and English.

You can find a comprehensive list of "Latin (Roman Catholic) Masses" here. For the USA, look here. Key priestly organisations are the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, and (though in an irregular relationship to Rome for the time being) the Society of St Pius X.

At least in modern times, many of the faithful attending a Latin mass would use a bilingual missal, which would allow them to follow along with the mass. To give you an idea, here is the Ordo and here are the Propers. A nice (though large) version is the St. Edmund Campion Missal. A more compact format is more traditional, see for example the Baronius Press Missal.

If you want to get some idea what the Latin mass is like, you can watch this one.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I was speaking to a friend this morning who remembered, as a child, attending Catholic mass in which some of the liturgy was in Latin. Not a current churchgoer he was wondering why, in a service to English speaking people, Latin would be used.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Are there still rites (in churches of various traditions) in which Latin still plays a part. How would you answer my puzzled friend?

I seem to recall reading that during the 1960s, the vernacular was introduced incrementally between 1965 and 1970. Thus there would have been a period when both English and Latin were in common usage across the RC church, unlike today where it is something of a rarity in mass in the Ordinary Form - except perhaps for occasional use for the Eucharistic Prayer and Our Father.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

This is very helpful. The idea of Latin as a lingua franca, providing a common basis for services whatever the nationality of participants is a good point. Since Latin is a dead language it has both a timeless quality, reminds us we are participating not only with fellow Christians today but also sharing with the church historical, and also avoids any sense that the language of a particular current culture is in anyway superior to any other. I'm sure it also creates a air of mystery in worship something which (despite my default low churchmanship) is something I nonetheless value.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

What infuriates me is that in any article in the secular press on Vatican II there's one consistent, almost stock phrase that invariably goes something like: "Vatican II introduced radical changes to the liturgy, such as replacing Latin with the vernacular and requiring the priest to face the people" (I'm rattling this off the top of my head because I've seen variants of this sentence so many times).

Of course, the New Rite:

1) is still officially in Latin, even though the newly permitted use of translations became the effective norm,

2) certainly "requires" no such thing, and

3) was promulgated a few years after the closure of the Council.

From a lot of the coverage you see, the uninformed reader would never guess that the Novus Ordo is actually a different text from its predecessor.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I'm generally in favour of vernacular liturgy. Unfortunately a lot of translations have tended to be naff. As for the Roman Rite, I'll never understand why they just didn't allow the old rite to be served in the vernacular. I don't know why they had to slash and burn.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

Extensive use of Latin in an Episcopal Church (USA) weekly service can be found here.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Briefly for now, St. Silas' Kentish Town in North London, is a nose-bleed high ultra-montane anglo-catholic church and like a second Brompton Oratory. Thus, the use of Latin at that church is plentiful and lavish. I go to that church a few times a year.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

No Latin here in Kenya!
However our home church in the UK is a Cathedral and sometimes we have anthems in Latin.
As someone who grew up in the Roman Catholic church in the 50s and 60s I can still affectionately recall the Latin Mass where I struggled to understand yet still found something of beauty.
I'm also a classicist and so for me now it is a lovely thing but I can see how meaningless it might be for others.
When all is said and done the important thing is that people find a style of worship that enables them to do just that and Latin won't suit us all.

Posted by Divine Praises (# 11955) on :

I think the use of Latin at Mass here in England might be more extensive than people think. My own parish church makes regular use of Latin Mass settings, along with a fair amount of Gregorian chant, and has a weekly Low Mass in the 1962 use.

The church my mother went to in Staffordshire until her recent death uses the Greek/Latin texts for the Ordinary (Kyrie, etc) for pretty well all of its sung Masses and has a monthly 1962 use Low Mass. At my mother's funeral, the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei were sung from the Gregorian Missa pro Defunctis, along with the In Paradisum.

I recently did a MW report on the cathedral in Leeds which regularly uses Latin settings of the Mass, along with some of the Propers being sung from the Graduale Romanum. The 11am Mass on the first Sunday of the month is sung entirely in Latin apart, obviously from the readings and prayer of the faithful. And I understand from a friend who goes to the cathedral that it has recently introduced a monthly Low Mass in the 1962 use.

Then, of course, there is London but that would take too long to write about and I need my dinner.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I've been to a Latin Mass at Pluscarden Abbey.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Most C of E cathedrals use Latin mass settings regularly. The rest of the liturgy is normally of course in the English of Common Worship or occasionally the BCP, but Latin (or for that matter incense) doesn't seem to frighten the horses like it used to do.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

At my high Anglo-Catholic parish, we generally use Latin for the Kyrie Eleison, Gloria in excelsis Deo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Psalm, and Propers. Translations are provided for non-Ordinary parts.

The Extraordinary Form Masses I have attended provide a booklet with translations and explanations of each action, which is very helpful given that large portions are said silently by the priest. That is the only part of the Latin Mass I find disquieting.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm generally in favour of vernacular liturgy. Unfortunately a lot of translations have tended to be naff. As for the Roman Rite, I'll never understand why they just didn't allow the old rite to be served in the vernacular. I don't know why they had to slash and burn.

Agreed.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

it's pedantic,I know ,but Kyrie eleison is Greek.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
it's pedantic,I know ,but Kyrie eleison is Greek.

My apologies, you are correct. That slipped my mind somehow.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
The Extraordinary Form Masses I have attended provide a booklet with translations and explanations of each action, which is very helpful given that large portions are said silently by the priest. That is the only part of the Latin Mass I find disquieting.

Curious, I find that rather quieting.

Bad puns aside, almost every commentator on the Extraordinary Form remarks how silence is so much more dominant there. In combination with the Gregorian chant, and the highly ritualised performance of priest and deacon up front, this leads to different, more contemplative experience. And from that point of view the language used really does not matter much. Or indeed, that one does not understand it other than in memorised bits even can be a help (try contemplative prayer while somebody is chatting near you in a language you understand, it's near impossible).

I would add that most people I know who attend these masses end up using their bilingual missals very sparingly after a while. In particular, there's not much tracking of the priest's prayers (silent or not) going on. What is important one has soon enough learned by heart, given that it repeats over and over. And it really is not about the words spoken, they are more part of a performance that impacts mostly on a non-verbal level. Most people just briefly browse through the variable parts to see what's on, so to speak. Or do not open their missal at all...

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I was speaking to a friend this morning who remembered, as a child, attending Catholic mass in which some of the liturgy was in Latin. Not a current churchgoer he was wondering why, in a service to English speaking people, Latin would be used.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Are there still rites (in churches of various traditions) in which Latin still plays a part. How would you answer my puzzled friend?

I have been to Anglican masses which are sung in Latin. I quite enjoy a good choir and good organ. These have been in many places and countries. Latin was switched to from Greek at some point I remember reading about in years past. It has no claim to anything, except inasmuch as it is experienced positively by people.

On another note, Latin words are routinely used to describe human anatomy and various medical conditions. It means that everyone knows exactly what's being discussed and it crosses usual languages we work in.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I agree with IngoB but find it mildly amusing that it is the quiet bits of the Mass that the poster finds 'disquieting'.

Were one to attend a Latin Mass under today's rubrics there is no obligation to recite the Eucharistic prayer/Canon silently.

That holds for the Novus Ordo Eucharistic prayers as well as for the Tridentine Roman Canon of the
Mass.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GCabot:
[qb]
Bad puns aside, almost every commentator on the Extraordinary Form remarks how silence is so much more dominant there. In combination with the Gregorian chant, and the highly ritualised performance of priest and deacon up front, this leads to different, more contemplative experience.

From the point of view of the laity this is probably true. But the priest presumably has got to keep saying words (even if silently) so it is hardly a contemplative experience for him. I agree that a vernacular liturgy, if it is recited non-stop, can appear very verbose and un-contemplative; there is no reason why that should happen though and there are many points in the liturgy where silence is called for. Before the collect, after the readings, after communion, are three obvious ones. And these are corporate silences in which priest and people are at one.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But the priest presumably has got to keep saying words (even if silently) so it is hardly a contemplative experience for him.

Well, I have experienced "speed train" EF masses that were performed with all the decorum of brushing one's teeth. There is no magic in any of this, other than if we go looking for it. But it is there to be found for those that do - and one can viably ask where it is easier to be found. Now, EF masses are a bit like a tea ceremony. There is an exacting ritual to be remembered and followed. I am no priest, so I cannot claim of having done so with Christian liturgy. But in my time in traditional Soto Zen Buddhism, I learned quite a bit about ritual, and about how it feels when you are executing it. And so I would say that you are wrong, quite wrong indeed. There is a lot of contemplative potential in working through a complicated ritual. In some sense, all contemplation requires forgetting yourself. Silence is one way of getting there, focused attention on a precise ritual is another.

And just to make this clear, I am no liturgy freak. In fact, I'm attending a "novus ordo" mass in vernacular English nowadays, and it has been about eight years since I last regularly attended an EF mass. Still, the main problem for me with the EF mass is in fact that it is not "ordinary" nowadays. I quite like being among normal people when attending mass, if I may put it like that. But as far as the mass itself goes, I'm also quite sure which form opens the door to heaven more...

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I am no priest, so I cannot claim of having done so with Christian liturgy. But in my time in traditional Soto Zen Buddhism, I learned quite a bit about ritual, and about how it feels when you are executing it. And so I would say that you are wrong, quite wrong indeed. There is a lot of contemplative potential in working through a complicated ritual. In some sense, all contemplation requires forgetting yourself. Silence is one way of getting there, focused attention on a precise ritual is another.

I am sure you are right about the latter, for some personality types. As an Anglican, of course, I have no experience of celebrating the EF, but there are parallels. And to my mind, its major fault is that it is essentially clericalist. The president of the liturgy is not (or should not be) engaged in a private devotion or even putting on a presentation for an audience, he or she should be enabling the people to worship. I accept that one way of worship is the silent participation in something like the EF mass; a radically different way is a liturgy with many actions and words in which people are invited/expected to join: the ideal for me is one in which priest and people are drawn into the same contemplative silence.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As an Anglican, of course, I have no experience of celebrating the EF, but there are parallels. And to my mind, its major fault is that it is essentially clericalist.

Well, it certainly has clearly distinct roles in the celebration for clergy and laity. But other than for the sermon, there is basically no space for the priest as an individual. He is there to execute a precise ritual, nothing else. And without wanting to get into the entire "ad orientem" discussion, it is certainly true that the priest facing in the same direction as the congregation (but for occasional calls to prayer, for which he turns to them briefly) makes the priest a lot more "faceless". Literally. To put it simply, I think an advanced robot would work quite well as a performer of the EF mass (obviously not in a theological / spiritual sense, I just mean the practical execution). Thus while the priest is certainly a focus of attention, this attention is not directed at him personally. The priest is the key performer, but not in the sense of a Hollywood actor. He performs well if he (as a person) disappears beneath the performance.

So yes, the EF mass certainly emphasis the priest as the "mediator" and focuses attention on his "performance". But it also in my opinion very much de-emphasises the priest as an individual. If this is clericalist, then concerning the role of clerics, not concerning the individual cleric. And I personally am OK with that.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

When the EF Mass was the norm in the Latin rites of the Catholic church,most Catholics would have attended what was called Low Mass,celebrated without music - no plainchant,no incense.

On Sundays the Epistle and Gospel might be read informally from tne pulpit,otherwise everything was in Latin.

At the time it was however not seen as a private devotion of the priest,but rather the opportunity
for the faithful to raise together their minds and hearts to Almighty God.Yes they were in one sense spectators,but they were spectators at an event where God spoke to them by means of His Word
and fed them by means of His Holy Sacrament.

They listened (hopefully) and received God's grace.

The use of Latin throughout the Latin church encouraged a sense of togetherness.

There were many positives in the traditional Latin Mass.However like IngoB I much prefer to be where the majority of the faithful congregate.

50 years on (more or less) I like the 'new' liturgy,though am happy to attend occasionally
a traditional Tridentine Mass.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I agree with IngoB but find it mildly amusing that it is the quiet bits of the Mass that the poster finds 'disquieting'.

Were one to attend a Latin Mass under today's rubrics there is no obligation to recite the Eucharistic prayer/Canon silently.

That holds for the Novus Ordo Eucharistic prayers as well as for the Tridentine Roman Canon of the
Mass.

No, sorry, but the latter statement is not correct. Tridentine Masses celebrated today in the RCC (the number of which has very gradually continued to increase for 25 years now) must adhere to the rubrics of the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal. Said rubrics mandate a silent Canon of the Mass. Were a priest to do otherwise, you can be sure that he would be met with many complaints from EF devotees--and in this case, deservedly so.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Obviously priests may celebrate where necessary or desired Mass in the Latin language,using the Novus Ordo.This may use as the Eucharistic prayer the Roman Canon,which would normally be spoken aloud,as at a number of the papal Masses.

Since the Council I have often heard the Roman Canon in Latin spoken aloud or even sung.

Of course when I say 'often' that would refer to over the years.

Yes,EF devotees might object but are they the only ones who are allowed to use the Tridentine
form of the Mass ?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Just to be clear the Tridentine form of the Roman Canon of the Mass is always one of the options in the celebration of the Novus Ordo.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Just to be clear the Tridentine form of the Roman Canon of the Mass is always one of the options in the celebration of the Novus Ordo.

I think they ditched one or two of the prayers in the Roman Canon though.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

In over a decade of attending "novus ordo" masses, in many places (worldwide!), I have never managed to attend one done in Latin. That the "ordinary form" can and perhaps should be performed Latin is just as relevant in my experience as that communion can and should be received onto the tongue (not into the hand). Nice theory, but not what happens in practice.

As for the Eucharistic Prayer 1 (the "Roman Canon", which used to be the only option), I have to admit that I don't pay particular attention to what is being used in the "novus ordo" masses I go to. Looking at the different EPs here, I'm pretty sure though that EP1 has been a rarity in all the "novus ordo" masses I have attended. I am not confident that I have never heard it used, but that's because I know that I'm not paying sufficient attention, not because I actually remember EP 1 being used. I don't. At all. I think I have mostly heard EP 2, and occasionally EP 3. FWIW, I also cannot recall any EP 4 usage.

To hear from Forthview that he has often heard the "Roman Canon" in Latin, presumably as EP 1 in a "novus ordo" mass, is to me rather mind-blowing - in a "I met Elvis and he really likes it on Mars" kind of way...

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But other than for the sermon, there is basically no space for the priest as an individual. He is there to execute a precise ritual, nothing else. And without wanting to get into the entire "ad orientem" discussion, it is certainly true that the priest facing in the same direction as the congregation (but for occasional calls to prayer, for which he turns to them briefly) makes the priest a lot more "faceless". Literally. To put it simply, I think an advanced robot would work quite well as a performer of the EF mass (obviously not in a theological / spiritual sense, I just mean the practical execution). Thus while the priest is certainly a focus of attention, this attention is not directed at him personally. The priest is the key performer, but not in the sense of a Hollywood actor. He performs well if he (as a person) disappears beneath the performance.

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes to this! This is precisely what I tell priests that I have trained in the liturgy (which for us is the BCP rite with Tridentine ceremonial).

There will unavoidably be differences between priests. Their voices are not the same, the way they hold their bodies will be different, the emphasis they place on certain words will differ from person to person and even from Mass to Mass. All that's fine. But the goal, vanishing point though it may be, is for Bob Davis or Jim Clark to disappear and for the Priest to take his place (for the duration of the service, at least).

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

EP1 tends not to be used so frequently used by some priests in the US, because of its length. Some tradition-minded priests use it more than others, but probably more limit it to the feast days that have their own proper Communicantes (Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost). The five smaller doxologies (Through Christ Our Lord. Amen., at the end of the various Canon prayers) seem to be omitted by most priests here. This EP, as with all the others of the Ordinary Form, may be sung or recited in part or in full, if desired.

However, the Tridentine Mass--the so-called Extraordinary Form--has rubrics that have been in place for many, many centuries. In that Order of Mass, the Canon is said silently by the priest; there is no option involved. Indeed, the EF generally has no options about anything.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Pope Francis often celebrates Mass in Latin and uses the Roman Canon from time to time.

I was at fortunate enough to be present in person
at the Mass of canonisation of John Paul II and John XXIII.I can't remember which Eucharistic prayer was used but there is a good chance it was the Roman Canon /EP1.

The first time I heard the Roman Canon spoken out loud was in 1962 in St Germain des Pres in Paris.
Of course there wasn't any OF or EF in these days.

It wasn't said silently because it was a private devotion of the priest,but rather because the words were considered so sacred that they were not spoken aloud.

Like IngoB I don't particularly pay attention to which Eucharistic Prayer is being used,but I do usually notice if it is the Roman Canon. Given that it is a little longer than most of the
other prayers it is not often used on Sundays.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As an Anglican, of course, I have no experience of celebrating the EF, but there are parallels. And to my mind, its major fault is that it is essentially clericalist.
Well, it certainly has clearly distinct roles in the celebration for clergy and laity. But other than for the sermon, there is basically no space for the priest as an individual. He is there to execute a precise ritual, nothing else. And without wanting to get into the entire "ad orientem" discussion, it is certainly true that the priest facing in the same direction as the congregation (but for occasional calls to prayer, for which he turns to them briefly) makes the priest a lot more "faceless". Literally. To put it simply, I think an advanced robot would work quite well as a performer of the EF mass (obviously not in a theological / spiritual sense, I just mean the practical execution). Thus while the priest is certainly a focus of attention, this attention is not directed at him personally. The priest is the key performer, but not in the sense of a Hollywood actor. He performs well if he (as a person) disappears beneath the performance.

So yes, the EF mass certainly emphasis the priest as the "mediator" and focuses attention on his "performance". But it also in my opinion very much de-emphasises the priest as an individual. If this is clericalist, then concerning the role of clerics, not concerning the individual cleric. And I personally am OK with that.

My issue has never been with liturgy ad orientem; that is how the liturgy is always done at my parish, albeit in the vernacular (although I would have no qualms if it was said in Latin). I guess my discomfort is in that saying so much of the Mass silently does seem to create more focus on the priest as mediator and "performer." Instead of focusing on God, I find myself distracted in keeping up with where the priest is in the Mass (and I am quite familiar with that Mass structure). And frankly, I do not see the point in making such portions inaudible. It seems to create a feeling of separation and inaccessibility regarding God that I do not find when such parts are vocalized.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Instead of focusing on God, I find myself distracted in keeping up with where the priest is in the Mass (and I am quite familiar with that Mass structure). And frankly, I do not see the point in making such portions inaudible. It seems to create a feeling of separation and inaccessibility regarding God that I do not find when such parts are vocalized.

Frankly, I think your personal focus there is simply at odds with the one intended in the EF mass. Sufficient "landmarks" are certainly provided by the priest either acting or speaking to know roughly where in the mass one currently is, and in particular, to cue expected actions from the laity (like getting up or kneeling down). But I don't think that the focus is on the "precise tracking" of the priestly action. To me the focus is instead on establishing a continuity of prayerful attention. And watching the priest "flow" through the ritual, often in silence, in combination with Gregorian chant, does that very effectively for me. Whereas following prayers word by word, at least all the time, would disrupt that.

There is a kind of "hard" attention, as when one is trying to solve a maths problem under time pressure, and a kind of "soft" attention, as when one is sitting at a lake with a fishing rod and waiting for the fish to bite. In neither case is one asleep, bored or inattentive, but the mind is in a quite different place. I think the EF mass aims much more for the "soft" kind of attention.

Not that I want to judge this, or your own preferences, in terms of "right" or "wrong". I'm just saying that this ritual is designed for something specific, and one cannot really blame it if it does not deliver something else...

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Instead of focusing on God, I find myself distracted in keeping up with where the priest is in the Mass (and I am quite familiar with that Mass structure). And frankly, I do not see the point in making such portions inaudible. It seems to create a feeling of separation and inaccessibility regarding God that I do not find when such parts are vocalized.
Frankly, I think your personal focus there is simply at odds with the one intended in the EF mass. Sufficient "landmarks" are certainly provided by the priest either acting or speaking to know roughly where in the mass one currently is, and in particular, to cue expected actions from the laity (like getting up or kneeling down). But I don't think that the focus is on the "precise tracking" of the priestly action. To me the focus is instead on establishing a continuity of prayerful attention. And watching the priest "flow" through the ritual, often in silence, in combination with Gregorian chant, does that very effectively for me. Whereas following prayers word by word, at least all the time, would disrupt that.

There is a kind of "hard" attention, as when one is trying to solve a maths problem under time pressure, and a kind of "soft" attention, as when one is sitting at a lake with a fishing rod and waiting for the fish to bite. In neither case is one asleep, bored or inattentive, but the mind is in a quite different place. I think the EF mass aims much more for the "soft" kind of attention.

Not that I want to judge this, or your own preferences, in terms of "right" or "wrong". I'm just saying that this ritual is designed for something specific, and one cannot really blame it if it does not deliver something else...

Yes, I understand that the EF Mass is designed around a different mindset than I, growing up as a Protestant, am use to. I was merely putting forth the personal disagreement that I, and many others I know of similar mind, have regarding the spiritual effectiveness of such "soft focus." I appreciate the EF Mass for what it is; I simply feel that a slightly altered version thereof would speak to many potential Roman Catholics in a way the current EF Mass (and undoubtedly, the Novus Ordo Missae), does not.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

The issue I have with Latin being seen as a preferable language for sacred things, is that God in Scripture seems to not want a special language used to talk about him. He speaks to His prophets and people in the vernacular. Indeed, plain speaking seems more valued by God. When Latin was first being used by the Church, it was when it was a true lingua franca and was an ordinary language. I appreciate wanting to preserve the history of the Church, and the appeal of one universal Mass. But the idea of a Special Church Language seems to be in opposition to how God speaks to His people and how He wants them to worship, going by Scripture.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
But the idea of a Special Church Language seems to be in opposition to how God speaks to His people and how He wants them to worship, going by Scripture.

One cannot simply equate all interactions of God with mankind with formal times of worship. As mentioned above, the Jews in Christ's time worshipped in ancient / classical Hebrew, but spoke among themselves in Aramaic. Neither Christ nor the apostle critiqued this, they participated in it. Indeed, likely Christ Himself read the scroll of Isaiah in ancient Hebrew to the assembly and then delivered a Targum in Aramaic, his native language (Lk 4:16-22). There is hence no reason to believe that God has any issue with the use of a sacred language in formal worship.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sufficient "landmarks" are certainly provided by the priest either acting or speaking to know roughly where in the mass one currently is, and in particular, to cue expected actions from the laity (like getting up or kneeling down).

Yes, but presumably you are fairly familiar with it. How would it appear to a seeker after God who has never been to church before but wants to know about Him? I'm with Pomona etc. on this.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sufficient "landmarks" are certainly provided by the priest either acting or speaking to know roughly where in the mass one currently is, and in particular, to cue expected actions from the laity (like getting up or kneeling down).
Yes, but presumably you are fairly familiar with it. How would it appear to a seeker after God who has never been to church before but wants to know about Him? I'm with Pomona etc. on this.

In my view (and certainly in the view of RCs who favor the EF) that's not what the Eucharist is for.

We don't make converts with church services. Those are (even when pitched toward "seekers") for those who are already in the club. We make converts by loving others as Christ commanded.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, but presumably you are fairly familiar with it. How would it appear to a seeker after God who has never been to church before but wants to know about Him? I'm with Pomona etc. on this.

Well, I for one was a decidedly non-Christian convert who had essentially zero clue about anything liturgical. When I was "inquiring", I literally went from church to church in Melbourne to find some service that I found attractive. I ended up sticking to the EF mass at a FSSP place - and that's where I was baptised, eventually. That was beautiful, solemn and ... different. The other "ordinary form" masses, not so much.

The FSSP church offered bilingual orders of the mass brochures IIRC, and I very soon bought a bilingual missal. But to be honest, I used those more because I felt the need as inquirer to become super-informed about everything, including about "what was going on at mass". Practically speaking, I learned how to "do mass" simply by copying what other people were doing. That didn't take long either, perhaps a handful of masses. It's not exactly action-packed, and most of it is ever-repeating. The one thing I spent most time learning and getting right was participating in the Gregorian chant (what setting to use, what parts to sing, ...).

However, in one respect I actually agree that the vernacular was very important: sermons. The sermons I heard (in English) at the FSSP place were 1. consciously on the topic of the readings, 2. well thought through, informative and concise, and 3. full of doctrinal and moral content. Whereas the sermons I heard elsewhere were almost always 1. only remotely related to the readings, 2. usually waffle with little interesting content, and 3. full with experiences of the priest that mostly told me about his person. If I ever leave the Church, then likely because I rage-quit over the latter kind of sermons.

Anyway, for me personally it was probably true that the quality of sermons was at least as important as the whole rest of the liturgy when I was an inquirer. I probably would have gone to the place with better sermons but worse liturgy. It just so happened that I liked best both liturgy and sermons offered in one place. I don't think that this was accidental. But I also don't think that it was automatic, i.e., I don't think that good liturgy somehow guarantees good sermons.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
We don't make converts with church services. Those are (even when pitched toward "seekers") for those who are already in the club. We make converts by loving others as Christ commanded.

Hear, hear.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sufficient "landmarks" are certainly provided by the priest either acting or speaking to know roughly where in the mass one currently is, and in particular, to cue expected actions from the laity (like getting up or kneeling down).
Yes, but presumably you are fairly familiar with it. How would it appear to a seeker after God who has never been to church before but wants to know about Him? I'm with Pomona etc. on this.

As a good Anglican I'm solidly for use of the vernacular. But actually I would imagine that there might be some people who, wandering into a trad Latin Mass, would find it intriguing and want to know more, perhaps just because it is so unlike anything else they may have encountered before. I suspect that many people, exposed to organised worship without being familiar with it, respond with gut and sense rather than brain: the atmosphere is what really counts. You just can't tell.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Yes, my argument is definitely not that Latin would put off seekers, I know that it can indeed have the opposite effect.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Latin masses are good for travellers. We can both understand and follow the ordinary of the Mass in Latin, but would never be able to in Hungarian, for example. In larger cities, and with the help of a concierge or tourist bureau, we can usually find a church and time where Latin is being used. In the process we've also found some very interesting and attractive churches we would never have come across.

Our parish choir and organist have several settings in Latin, which are sung on very special occasions. For those days, the service sheet has the Latin in one column and the English next to it making it easy for those who can't follow just Latin.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

Surely English is the world's lingua franca not Latin? So any practical argument for using Latin would be bettered by one for using English. People also want to learn English so they might start coming to church to hear it used.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It is certainly true that one will find Masses in English in most cities of continental Europe.
English is often used as a lingua franca for tourists who might not understand the local language.

However we had someone on these boards who complained about the standard of English which was not acceptable to native speakers of English.
The poster did not understand that it might have been easier for an Italian to understand some sort of English rather than perfect Czech.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

My Latin is now too rusty to follow a service easily (it once was!!) but if I may used the entirely unscientific approach of reviewing my FB friends list, I ind two fluent Latin-speakers among my friends (one a Jew and the other Hakka Latin RC), and possibly another three who could struggle their way through (one RC, one Anglican, and one nothing at all).

While this is fine for concert and occasional-service attending, I fear that it doesn't much extend beyond it. As a frequent traveller, I am accustomed to sitting through French- and Spanish-language masses and have stood through Slavonic, Greek and Arabic liturgies, so I have no visceral objection to other-language worship and often find that even a partial knowledge of a language can be enough to get benefit from it.

But it just doesn't really work for a wider public, and wider public is what needs to be reached. As others have noted, English (sadly IMHO) has become the lingua franca of the modern world.

I found the variation in Latin usage in the RCC in different countries to be interesting. In France, it seems to have a strong political edge, and in Spain, it's (almost) nowhere to be found. In my part of Canada, I find that it has a lot to do with church musicians.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

In parts of remoter Italy and Spain, it is my experience that French rather than English, is the lingua franca. Consequently, if the locals find my Italian and Spanish is a bit lacking, then they may change over to speaking to me in French rather than English.

I retain a comprehensive knowledge of Latin and it stands me in good stead if and when I attend a Mass in that language. Otherwise, on my foreign travels, I can hold my own in French, German, Italian and Spanish Masses.

Whilst on the subject, traditionalists using the extraordinary form, may hear the readings in Latin and a vernacular translation will then be read out next.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

Actually you don't need to know any language other than your own to know what is going on during a catholic mass. You can tell from the actions and the rhythm of the language being used.

You'd have to know Latin - or any other lingua franca - pretty well to understand was being said word for word.

I am an Anglican but have had little difficulty following the Roman mass in Croatian and other languages I don't know.

Some clue from a name for instance will usually tell you what the Gospel reading is.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

In Poland I can answer confidently to' Pan z wami '(Lord be with you)' I z duchem twoim '(and with your spirit).

Other words don't bother me too much as I know what they are without knowing the words.

However I try to find a missal in another language for the scripture readings.

I'm always intrigued by the word which sounds like
'tschechmagonzy' written,well of course in lots of different ways in the different grammatical cases. 'wszechmogacy' means, I found out, 'almighty'
after hearing the word several times in different cases during a Solemn Pontifical Mass in the cathedral in Stettin (Sorry,but I can't remember the spelling of the name of the town in Polish.)

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

Some clue from a name for instance will usually tell you what the Gospel reading is.

Plus our use of the Common Lectionary (provided it's not one of those weeks when the C of E or whoever has messed around with it) means that we can look up the readings beforehand and be reasonably familiar with their content.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And just to make this clear, I am no liturgy freak. In fact, I'm attending a "novus ordo" mass in vernacular English nowadays, and it has been about eight years since I last regularly attended an EF mass.

And you are in Reading where Fr Armand De Mallery of the FSSP celebrates a beautiful EF Mass every Sunday! Must be your preference.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
And you are in Reading where Fr Armand De Mallery of the FSSP celebrates a beautiful EF Mass every Sunday! Must be your preference.

Obviously, but it's not really about my personal liturgical preference. I don't go to mass on my own, but with family (wife and son). So it's what works best for all of us, rather than just me. Personally, I also like the "normal" and much bigger OF crowds, because I really like being anonymous at mass. And it's also a matter of general convenience, frankly. The EF mass is "across town" and has one time slot. Wheres we can walk to the OF, and there are several mass times (and I get up late on Sundays...).

None of which would matter if I had the usual trad attitude that the EF mass is the real deal and that good liturgy will save Catholicism and the world. But I don't, particularly.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

Personally, I have always found it one of the great ironies of liturgical history that the Catholic Church largely abandoned its common language at precisely the point it was becoming more and more useful, due to globalisation and mass migration.

When travelling abroad (in places where I may struggle to find an Anglican mass, I hasted to add!), I do tend to seek out Latin services. I have nothing more than a poor schoolboy grasp of latin, but am sufficiently familiar with the texts to know what is going on far better than (say) in Czech/Swedish/insert other obscure European language.

A universal language for a universal church, as I once heard it put.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Obviously, but it's not really about my personal liturgical preference. I don't go to mass on my own, but with family (wife and son). So it's what works best for all of us, rather than just me.

I made two visits to Fr Armand a year ago, and by coincidence I met a Spanish mam living in Surrey who attended once a month because, on the other weeks, he went to Mass with his wife and children. Family considerations are paramount, but for those to whom it matters, compromise is the order of the day.

I believe most strongly that the Church has made a mistake to sideline Latin to the extent it has. Even the Novus Ordo was meant to be celebrated in Latin, with Mass in the vernacular as an option. The advantages of Latin have already been well presented on this thread. I have a personal preference for Mass in the EF. While I understand how many not attuned to the theology might find it "remote" to have the priests and servers mumbling away in the sanctuary in a foreign language while they have nothing to do, but that is to miss the point of the contemplative element of the sacrifice and the silent canon.

Although I'm not presently in communion with the Holy Church, since my recent retirement to East Kent, I regularly attend Mass in the EF at the awesomely beautiful St Augustine's Church in Ramsgate. The indomitable Fr Tim Finegan has now made the EF his main Sunday Mass in Margate. Thank God for the Latin Mass Society.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The indomitable Fr Tim Finegan has now made the EF his main Sunday Mass in Margate.

A number of years back we managed to get him to come over to Finland once to celebrate the old rite for us. I used to read his blog all the time.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
..., but for those to whom it matters, compromise is the order of the day.

As I have just mentioned, and said often before, liturgy just doesn't matter all that much to me.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Although I'm not presently in communion with the Holy Church, ... I regularly attend Mass in the EF at the awesomely beautiful St Augustine's Church in Ramsgate. (italics added)

And this shows one reason why I don't care all that much about the liturgy.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And this shows one reason why I don't care all that much about the liturgy.

I also attend Orthodox Divine Liturgies from time to time. I used to attend Fr Finegan's Masses in the EF as far back as 2007, when I lived in Welling. He knew I wasn't Catholic but was quite happy for me to be there and talk to me. What's wrong with being there?

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I attended a mass in Latin in St John's co cathedral in Valletta Malta, when I was on holiday in January. I am fairly confident that it was the ordinary Novus Ordo mass. Although my Latin is not much good, what I could understand seemed to follow the order of service I have experienced on occasion when visiting an Anglican church that used the Roman rite.

Like PaulTH I am not Catholic, but I hope I did not do anything wrong by attending. As long as I did not receive the communion, I did not think anyone would mind.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Unlike PaulTH and moonlitdoor I am a Catholic
and would like to emphasize that all are most welcome to attend Mass and other liturgies celebrated publicly in a Catholic church.

Did anyone suggest that you would not be welcome ?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I also attend Orthodox Divine Liturgies from time to time. I used to attend Fr Finegan's Masses in the EF as far back as 2007, when I lived in Welling. He knew I wasn't Catholic but was quite happy for me to be there and talk to me. What's wrong with being there?

First, I didn't comment on whether it is licit for you to go to these masses, or not. I quoted this as one reason why I am not buying into the liturgy hype of most trads. Going to the EF did not have the power to keep either you or Ad Orientem in communion with the Church. The EF mass isn't "magic": if it were reintroduced as the only mass of the Church, the Church wouldn't be cured of all its contemporary failings and the masses wouldn't start streaming back into her masses again. These are delusions of mono-causality maintained as a rallying point for a hopeless fight. It is also a convenient excuse for trads to hide behind.

Second, concerning what is wrong with you being at these various masses: what is wrong is that you attend an event as spectator which is intended as an event for participation. The Holy Mass is held for Holy Communion. Of course, if you are an inquirer the situation is a bit different: you are spectating because you are thinking about participating in future. That's fair enough (within limits to be set by those already in communion). It is also fine to participate when explicitly invited as a guest, e.g., for a wedding. It may even be fine to go once or twice just to see what is going on (a step that could lead to being an inquirer, after all). But ultimately a communal activity is proper to its community, not to strangers.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Did anyone suggest that you would not be welcome ?

"The Doors! The Doors! In wisdom, let us attend!"

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

Second, concerning what is wrong with you being at these various masses: what is wrong is that you attend an event as spectator which is intended as an event for participation.

But if they are baptized, they are in communion (real, but imperfect) and they can participate (not by receiving communion, but by exercising their baptismal priesthood and offering their sacrifice of praise).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
But if they are baptized, they are in communion (real, but imperfect) and they can participate (not by receiving communion, but by exercising their baptismal priesthood and offering their sacrifice of praise).

I think that point of view is modern. The ancients would not have accorded schismatics and heretics the right to participate in the mysteries, just because they were baptised. The practical difference to the unbaptised would have been the procedure of (re)admittance. Schismatics and heretics would have had to repent of their ways first, and then after their (substantial!) penance would have been welcomed once more.

[ 21. May 2015, 14:15: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

AIUI, for much of (comparatively modern) history, it was the norm for communicant RC laity nonetheless not to receive the sacrament every week.
(i) Am I right in this?
(ii) If I am, would you say, Ingo, that there was a difference between a communicant attending to worship but not communicate, and a non-communicant (and non-inquirer) attending to worship?
I have no dog in this fight, BTW.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Church history is not my strength, but IIRC the lack of physical (but not spiritual) communion among RCs was due to a growing popular scrupulosity about one's state of grace, which was officially critiqued early but seriously combatted only late (e.g., by Pope Piux X).

I would say that there is a significant difference between a RC who considers himself to be in a state of sin, and attends mass but does not partake in physical communion, and a heretic or schismatic, who does the same. The difference is that the RC considers himself to be in sin, whereas the heretic or schismatic - while respectful to the strictures of the RCC concerning communion - considers the RCC to be in sin (or at least to be de facto unnecessary and/or dysfunctional as a spiritual home for himself).

The RC by attending the mass but not partaking in holy communion signals: I belong here with you, and ought to share communion with you, but due to my personal failings I currently cannot stand before God with you in good conscience. The heretic or schismatic cannot signal the same by the same actions, unless he is in fact seriously considering a reconciliation with the RCC (and hence is a kind of inquirer).

(I don't know if such distinctions have been historically made, or are official somehow somewhere. This is just my own opinion.)

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

The norm in the late Middle Ages was once per year (usually at Easter). The vast majority of Masses celebrated were non-communicating, except for the celebrant himself.

This, of course, was one of the issues that spurred the Reformation.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The norm in the late Middle Ages was once per year (usually at Easter). The vast majority of Masses celebrated were non-communicating, except for the celebrant himself. This, of course, was one of the issues that spurred the Reformation.

Maybe so, but it would have been unjust of the Reformers to blame the official institutions of the Church for the practice. The only official legislation was that one had to receive at least once a year (4th Lateran), or be excommunicated, and the scholastics and popular saints were clearly favouring frequent communion. I don't really know how this habit of infrequent communion became so dominant in the middle ages.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I think you were right about the perception of unworthiness. I think that's probably why the BCP Eucharist leans so heavily on assuring the people that their sins have been forgiven (see, for example, the Comfortable Words); they really wanted to encourage weekly Communion.

Of course, that didn't become very deeply rooted, either--witness the ubiquity of Solemn High Mattins until fairly recently.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The difference is that the RC considers himself to be in sin, whereas the heretic or schismatic - while respectful to the strictures of the RCC concerning communion - considers the RCC to be in sin (or at least to be de facto unnecessary and/or dysfunctional as a spiritual home for himself).

While it's very "cafeteria" Catholic, it's perfectly possible to value the Mass as a sacrifice, pray for the dead, seek the intercessions of the BVM and the saints,all ideas missing from Protestantism, yet have a problem which prevents full participation in the life of the Church.

The "problem" could be anything from an inability to accept papal infallibility, to an irregular relationship which can't be accepted by the Church. Or it could be a rejection of certain aspects of Church teaching. That doesn't make the Mass valueless. To kneel in awe before the very presence of God is a salutary experience for any mortal creature.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Did anyone suggest that you would not be welcome ?

Nobody I've spoken to, but IngoB has given a reason why he sees it as wrong.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I can certainly understand IngoB's point of view, and it was a feeling that Catholics may want to share participation in the mass with fellow Catholics rather than religious tourists that made me wonder if I might have done something wrong in going.

I have to admit that as well as wanting to participate in an act of worship, there was an element of curiosity in my motives, to see the mass in Latin in a cathedral which had seen so much dramatic history during the era of the knights of St John. Hopefully there was enough of the more worthy motive to justify my presence.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
While it's very "cafeteria" Catholic, it's perfectly possible to value the Mass as a sacrifice, pray for the dead, seek the intercessions of the BVM and the saints,all ideas missing from Protestantism, yet have a problem which prevents full participation in the life of the Church.

One is not "cafeteria" Catholic if one has a problem that forces one's hand. The word "cafeteria" is intended to convey a basically free choice from the "buffet" of doctrine and orthopraxis.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The "problem" could be anything from an inability to accept papal infallibility, to an irregular relationship which can't be accepted by the Church. Or it could be a rejection of certain aspects of Church teaching.

I think my proposed distinction between heresy / schism on one side, and personal sin on the other, works quite well for evaluating your "problems".

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
That doesn't make the Mass valueless. To kneel in awe before the very presence of God is a salutary experience for any mortal creature.

We know of only one kind of mortal creature that can actually kneel in awe, of course. Now, Catholicism crucially believe that God has Divinely instituted a human intermediary, the hierarchical Church, till Christ returns. We call those people in the West who think that they can ignore or sidestep this intermediary - if they then only kneel in individual awe before God - Protestants. This is however not Catholic (nor Orthodox). If you join Catholic masses regularly in the attitude that this is just fine because you believe in the real presence and kneel when the priest has consecrated the host, then that simply is an exercise of Protestantism in the midst of the very community Protestants protested against.

Not that anybody these days particularly cares about this kind of (presumably unintentional) spiritual guerrilla warfare. In particular not our shepherds, who waddle in the drunken stupor of modernity towards the sunset of the Church in the West. But just because nobody cares does not make it right.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

IngoB must realize that for various reasons a good number of sometimes very devout Christians are not in full communion with the Holy See.

Those who are in full communion with the Holy See should regret this undoubted fact,sometimes caused by the Catholics themselves, and seek to repair the breaches .

Yes,it is true that it was unusual for medieval Catholics actually to receive Communion except at Easter and at the time of impending death (Viaticum).

Yes, it is true that some of the Western Reformers wished to restore to the Christian community regular reception of Holy Communion.
It is also true that for various reasons this did not happen very widely,again due to various reasons,one of them,but not the only one,being a feeling of unworthiness.Indeed most of the new Protestant communities only celebrated the Lord's Supper on a very occasional basis,including Anglicans (Protestant or not) in this.

It's only in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries that Communion has been received regularly (What does regular mean?) by many Western Christians.

If you go to a typical Eastern Orthodox liturgy today(where there are not a lot of converts) you will find that not all that many people present will actually receive the Sacrament.

In seeking to repair the breaches in Christ's seamless garment we must absolutely be welcoming to all.Only if we make people welcome in God's house might they want to stay and enter into full communion.

IngoB has used on a number of occasions the technical terms 'schismatic'(not in full communion) and 'heretic' (diverging in teaching) but these technical terms belong to the past and are perceived by many (myself included) as unnecessarily hurtful and not normally helpful .

To me it is like calling a homosexual a 'deviant'
Whilst a homosexual does deviate in some ways from what it considered to be the norm in sexual attraction,the word 'deviant' or even worse 'pervert' are simply words from the past which are not acceptable today.

Like IngoB I am happy to participate as fully as possible in all the diverse rites used in the Catholic Church,including the Tridentine rite in Latin,or the Novus Ordo in any language,as well as the Byzantine rite to name but a few.

I consider it an honour if any non-Catholic accompanies me.

As a local Catholic community we are as welcoming as possible to those non Catholics who regularly accompany spouses or children to Mass or to others who attend regularly or occasionally.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I can certainly understand IngoB's point of view, and it was a feeling that Catholics may want to share participation in the mass with fellow Catholics rather than religious tourists that made me wonder if I might have done something wrong in going.

I have to admit that as well as wanting to participate in an act of worship, there was an element of curiosity in my motives, to see the mass in Latin in a cathedral which had seen so much dramatic history during the era of the knights of St John. Hopefully there was enough of the more worthy motive to justify my presence.

Religious tourists would perhaps be those who go to Saint X' as they worship in the Mozarabic manner, or the canons have leopard-skin tippets, or to see and hear them use Latin, but who at least participate in the services. I am presuming by this that this is is not a reference to groups of people wandering about during services, taking videos (and selfies)-- which I have seen on some occasions in European churches. As an Anglican, I have never been made to feel unwelcome in RC churches, just Anglican ones!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Forthview, thank you for that very generous post.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
IngoB has used on a number of occasions the technical terms 'schismatic'(not in full communion) and 'heretic' (diverging in teaching) but these technical terms belong to the past and are perceived by many (myself included) as unnecessarily hurtful and not normally helpful.

Those terms do not "belong to the past". They're just as today as they were in the past, though of course we might all disagree as to who exactly are the schismatics and/or heretics. Anyway, the point IngoB is making is a valid one.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Of course I agree that as technical terms they still have a use and meaning today.

However as Christians today we wish to stress more what unites us rather than what divides us.

I'm happy to call you,Ad Orientem my schismatic friend,if you so wish.

If I may say so you are very broadminded,using a Latin term,when you sometimes disparage the ongoing changes in the Latin church.

But,however,'heretic' is a loaded word which conjures up in many people's minds auto-da-fe,burnings at the stake and other things which definitely belong to the past.

Although it may not always seem so the Catholic Church is an inclusive body and as far as possible we wish to have a positive outlook on all human beings who are children of God.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I'm happy to call you,Ad Orientem my schismatic friend,if you so wish.

LOL! If you want to. Really, I have no problem with any Roman Catholic who might think that. At least is shows that they have some sort of a coherent ecclesiology (which is a good thing because it's a starting point). I happen to think exactly the same about the Roman Church.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
If I may say so you are very broadminded,using a Latin term,when you sometimes disparage the ongoing changes in the Latin church.

Indeed I do. It's quite deliberate. I remember learning about the reform, especially to the liturgy, which began long before Vatican II. Pius X was the instigator. I was shocked.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
IngoB has used on a number of occasions the technical terms 'schismatic'(not in full communion) and 'heretic' (diverging in teaching) but these technical terms belong to the past and are perceived by many (myself included) as unnecessarily hurtful and not normally helpful.

As tends to happen in discussions I'm involved in, I think we are veering from Ecclesiantics to Purgatory here. Suffice to say that these terms remain current in canon law, and that I have never heard of a more acceptable alternative. The alternative invariably seems to be to simply not mention these matters at all, and I find that unacceptable. If people decide that we shall speak of the "doctrinally challenged" and the "ecclesiastically challenged" instead of "heretics" and "schismatics", respectively, then I will happily do that. But I do not think that Christ intended the unity of politely looking the other way.

(And FWIW, just as I like to be anonymous at mass, I generally do not give a damn whether the guy next to me in the pews is a gay Anglican serial polygamist, or what have you. But if I am asked what is right, then I discuss that - and I use the terms appropriate to the task.)

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
IngoB must realize that for various reasons a good number of sometimes very devout Christians are not in full communion with the Holy See.

On any given Sunday, many people at many Masses are likely to be users of artificial contraceptives. Some of them may see themselves as Catholics in a state of sin. Many more of them will see themselves as Catholics who believe that the Church's teaching on contraception is wrong, outdated or irrelevant to their own lives. Others may conclude that they differ so much from Catholic teaching that there's no point in belonging to the Catholic Church. Which road an individual takes is dependent on their own conscience and personal sense of ethics.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

This discussion is generating much more heat than light, and has furthermore deviated far from the discussion of the use of Latin in worship and liturgy.

Please return to the topic at hand and restrict yourselves to the kind of respectful discourse expected in Ecclesiantics.

Your co-operation is, as ever, appreciated.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Ship Latinists can keep up with current events and the ablative at the same time, by tuning into Finnish state radio's daily Latin broadcast.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0