|
Post by shane on Mar 3, 2012 20:18:31 GMT
I like having readings in Latin, because it allows me to choose what English version I want to read and meditate on. The Jerusalem Bible is horrible, I would be appalled to hear readings from it at TLM. The readings are prayers, they are not didactic, which is why they are said facing the altar, not read to the congregation. There was an interesting case a year ago in Greece where a bishop who used modern Greek for the readings was shouted down by his congregation. While few traditionalist Catholics would do such a thing, I imagine most would be opposed to vernacular readings. You can see a video of it here: www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/01/video-metropolitan-ignatios-of.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 3, 2012 20:59:23 GMT
But the readings are done in both Latin AND English at Sunday Mass (don't know which version). Why can't this be done on weekdays too? The readings are prayers, yes, but that doesn't mean they are the priest's private prayers. The concept of congregational participation as something which should be encouraged goes back to St Pius X at least, and the readings are an obvious focus for this (not least because they are directly related to the day's observance; when I attended the NO regularly I used to enjoy seeing how the antiphon and readings for a saint's feast were chosen to relate the saint's life to Scripture). It is difficult to get hold of missals which give the whole yearly cycle in translation (which might be another solution). I tend to use the little red booklet. I have certainly heard complaints about the Jerusalem Bible (e.g. that it de-poeticises even where the original is clearly poetic.) Which version of Scripture do you favour, Shane? Douay-Challoner? Knox? NIV?
|
|
|
Post by shane on Mar 4, 2012 16:35:42 GMT
hibernicus, the Douay would be my one of choice. The readings are prayers, not didactic, but they are not the priest's private prayers. They are offered by him on behalf of the whole worshipping community, which is why the priest faces the altar when saying them. On Sundays the readings in English are re-read just before the Sermon. It is not part of the liturgy at all. Participation is important but I don't think vernacular readings enhances it. I suspect for the vast majority of NO Mass attendees the readings go in one ear and out the other. I like being able to meditate on the readings. Consider this letter by Joseph Foyle to The Furrow in February 1973: When things were in Latin, we followed the words in the vernacular in our missals, often pausing to reflect even if that meant not being in line with the priest’s words, though we made sure to be in line for the three peaks — offertory, consecration and holy communion. Sometimes we filled in, in between the peaks, with Rosary-reciting, favourite prayers (often from prayer-books or leaflets).
Reading, informal praying and reflecting, in between the peaks, played dominant parts in our Mass participation. We had tremendous scope for using our own individual initiative to fill the in-between spaces. The vernacular changed all that and what was designed to increase our participation in the Mass has, in fact, made it awkward for us to participate to our satisfaction.
We were suddenly left without missals and expected to attend to the priests’ words all the time. This ruled out reflecting, as we were kept going keeping up with the words the whole way through Mass. Also, we had little to reflect on — we are far from expert in catching a series of sentences while they are flying. We were virtually forbidden to switch off the words (to reflect or pray via reading or thinking parallel to the priest). It was uncomfortable deliberately switching off, anyway, since the words, being in English, kept obtruding in snatches, something that didn’t happen with the Latin (except with some students of the language, and then only when words were said specially loudly). We felt obliged to attend to English words, whereas it was optional with the Latin. We felt inferior at being unable to attend, whereas we felt superior when we succeeded with the Latin.
This was, and is, a far from pleasant Mass experience. It also resulted in the three peaks ceasing to be peaks in the Mass — they are just parts of the series of words, almost, often (especially the middle one) passing unnoticed, as our minds wander.
What this suggests is that the liturgists equated the scope for being aware of what was being said with scope for participation. Apart from the Latin allowing for similar awareness (even for illiterates), the equating erred in wrongly estimating the strain going with non-stop listening. It did not allow gaps for reflecting, nor for having another look at the words for that purpose. Nor did it recognize that participation is very much an individual matter, made-up around the priest’s Mass words but not rigidly tied to them. The Latin facilitated such individual participation. The vernacular hinders it.
Liturgists ought to have been aware of such effects of the change-over, since they were predictable from awareness of how those in the pews participated in the Mass. [...] Those in the pew automatically, now, mind-wander most of the time when subjected to amplified voices in churches or halls. Their recall of things said in the liturgy of the word, for example, is nearly nil most of the time, just as their recall of newscasts and radio-television discussions is very fuzzy.
Further, Mass is now attended with very little forethought about the theme of the liturgy and even less afterthought about it. There is little time for thinking about religion, anyway, and seldom is a special attempt made in advance of Mass. Getting there quickly by car lessens the scope for forethought, too. Watch the aftermath — as everybody rushes for cars and papers to provide food for some other kind of thought. The Mass words are part of the pattern of information flow which envelops us daily. They get even less attention than the other words, since so few have them in print for fore and after thought. This has contributed in no small away, I find, to very, very little reading about things spiritual. The taking-away of the missals (or their too slow replacement, which amounts to the same thing, in effect) broke the habit. And it is well and truly broken, now.
[...] Those of my generation who believe in the power of the Mass, and in it being a mortal sin not to participate in Sunday Mass, keep going on that account. It is in spite of the vernacular, not with its aid.
[...] The Rosary beads and the devotional prayers could have a place, again, for individual participation between the peaks. [...] All the amplified talking of the introductory rite, liturgy of the word and the homily is a nuisance, when we could be reading and reflecting quietly. Let the Bible readings be relayed to us, maybe, and let the rest be read silently or, at least, with the amplifiers turned off. That way the homily (unamplified) will have a chance of getting attention, too. Let the rest of the Mass be silent mainly, apart from the three peaks and ‘Our Father’, say, relying on us in the pew to participate in our individual ways, reading and reflecting.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 9, 2012 20:06:49 GMT
Shane, with all due respect, doesn't it occur to you that not all the congregation will have breviaries and that some of them might also wish to meditate on the readings and find it easier to do so if they were in English? It may be the case that many/most NO congregations just let it flow over them, but even so with English there is always the possibility that their attention may be caught by a word or a phrase. You cited approvingly Cardinal Conway's proposal that congregations should learn the Latin Canon of the Mass by heart, but hasn't it occurred to you that this correspondingly implies that the Liturgy of the Word would be said in the vernacular? (This was a fairly popular proposal in the early 60s and at least some of the fathers of Vatican II apparently assumed this would be the end-product of liturgical reform.) Some of your arguments come close to saying that it is not particularly desirable that the congregation should understand the words of the Mass at all. This certainly does not seem to have been what St Pius X had in mind. I don't think it is a good idea to abandon the whole liturgical revival/movement (even allowing for its shortcomings) to the liberals as their exclusive property.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Mar 10, 2012 2:01:23 GMT
"some of them might also wish to meditate on the readings and find it easier to do so if they were in English?"
Hibernicus, vernacular readings occur at almost every NO. How many people at the average NO do you think meditate on the readings being announced? Let me suggest that it is a single figure number.
Try this experiment: after Mass at a NO some day ask departing congregants what they can remember of the readings. I guarantee you that you will find barely anybody who can remember much at all. For the vast majority it just goes over their head. This is not helped by the fact that the lections are interminably long and inconsonant with the average man's memory span (which is why Benedict's proposal that the TLM lectionary be expanded gives me the chills).
In any parish where a TLM exists on a regular basis, the vast majority of the congregation will have hand missals, with the readings translated therein. Reading facilitates meditation more easily than listening.
"You cited approvingly Cardinal Conway's proposal that congregations should learn the Latin Canon of the Mass by heart, but hasn't it occurred to you that this correspondingly implies that the Liturgy of the Word would be said in the vernacular?"
Why would it?
"I don't think it is a good idea to abandon the whole liturgical revival/movement (even allowing for its shortcomings) to the liberals as their exclusive property."
'Participatio actuosa' is a good thing, but only so long as it's liturgical. The readings are prayers (not didactic) and are said facing the altar: this is because the priest is offering them on behalf of (not to) the worshipping community. Therefore it is liturgical nonsense for them to be said specially in the vernacular.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 10, 2012 22:12:17 GMT
Are you saying that because most people do not meditate on the readings in English, that those who do should be deprived of the opportunity? (My own attention span is as variable as any, but I often find a word or phrase catches my attention and starts an useful train of thought.) The line that most people will have bilingual missals assumes that the primary focus should be on the highly-committed core and no effort should be made to reach out to the curious or casual visitor. I have heard complaints in the past that trad congregations in Ireland (including indult ones) have been suspicious of or actively hostile to outsiders who turn up at their Masses; this is not a good approach if we want to encourage interest in the TLM. Cardinal Conway's proposal that the congregation learn the Canon by heart to follow it more closely implies that the Liturgy of the Word should be in the vernacular because it implies that the congregation should be focussing on the words of the Mass, rather than engaging in private prayers. (I might add that I say the SALVE REGINA and REGINA CAELI in Latin even though I know very little Latin precisely because this forces me to pay closer attention to the meaning: I imagine this is the rationale here.) If this is the attitude for the Canon it implies that the same is true for the earlier sections, and since these change from week to week and the Canon does not such close attention is best secured by vernacularisation. Furthermore, given that proposals to have the Canon said in Latin and the rest in the vernacular were widespread at the time, it is logical to deduce that this is what Cardinal Conway had in mind. I am not sure that reading facilitates meditation more than listening; you can listen while watching what is going on at the altar, but you can't read and watch at the same time. (This I suspect is why there was considerable resistance to bilingual missals until they were finally approved at the end of the C19). If it is desirable that the congregation participate, surely it is desirable that they should understand the prayer that is being offered on their behalf so that they can join in it more thoroughly?
|
|
|
Post by shane on Mar 11, 2012 0:08:24 GMT
"Are you saying that because most people do not meditate on the readings in English, that those who do should be deprived of the opportunity? "
The problem with this question is that when lections are announced audibly in the vernacular, they are vocally impository to the extent that people are effectively incapacitated from engaging in anything else, such as private devotions. It is effectively forcing congregants to at least hear (though not necessarily listen to) the lections, even if they do not wish to do so. I can easily invert your question to ask: "are you saying that since most people do not meditate on the readings in English that they should be forced to do so on the whims of a minority?"
An isolated phrase or sentence easily commends itself to the mind's attention, and may prompt further reflection. That is not the case with the announcing of several passages (which is what the lections really are) since anyone attending the words with attention will be concentrating on and awaiting their succession. The succeeding sentences, being announced audibly, will impede and distract anyone from meditating deeply on preceeding sentences. Meditation is most effectively performed in silence.
No one would seek to prevent people from meditating on the readings. The Missal gives congregants that option, and facilitates it to a far greater extent than having them announced audibly in the vernacular. Indeed the great advantage with Latin readings is that it gives people the option of doing whatever they feel suits them best. One is at liberty to meditate on the readings or pursue some particular devotion. Vernacular readings effectively impose themselves on everyone.
I agree that traditionalists are often very inhospitable to strangers. This stems from a culture of individualism. Vernacular readings will not change this one iota. There needs to be a programme in place for newcomers to the TLM, to familiarize them with the Missal, etc. As for those who are without Missals, provision could be made for them. The little red booklets could simply be supplemented with a leaflet containing the propers in Latin and English. This happens in some parishes in America.
"because it implies that the congregation should be focussing on the words of the Mass, rather than engaging in private prayers."
Cardinal Conway actually said it would be wrong to discourage people from engaging in private devotions. His main emphasis in that paper was on promoting Sung Liturgy and getting people to make the responses.
If a priest really wants his congregation to 'participate' in the readings (which are prayers offered to God, not to themselves) then the liturgically sensible thing would be to simply have Sung Liturgy and get them to chant the lections. Sung Liturgy is traditional and liturgical, vernacular readings facing the people is untraditional and aliturgical. The latter simply makes no sense and is contrary to the very concept of liturgy.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 11, 2012 22:32:13 GMT
Your argument seems to be that the only legitimate way for the congregation to participate in the Mass is through private devotions, and that it should be specifically ordered with this in mind. I would maintain that the thrust of liturgical revival since St Pius X, if not earlier, has been that the congregation should be actively encouraged to join in the prayers of the Mass, and that while engaging in private devotions during Mass may be a legitimate form of participation, those who pursue this approach should be obliged to accommodate themselves to those participating more directly and not the other way around. How are vernacular readings "contrary to the very concept of liturgy"? If that was the case, the readings should NEVER be given in the vernacular and there should be no sermon either. The purpose of vernacular readings is the same as the sermon - to rouse up the faithful.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Mar 12, 2012 0:45:06 GMT
"How are vernacular readings "contrary to the very concept of liturgy"? If that was the case, the readings should NEVER be given in the vernacular and there should be no sermon either."
hibernicus, in St. Kevin's in Sundays the readings are read in an English translation before the sermon. In the TLM (unlike the NO) the sermon is not part of the liturgy (which is why the priest takes off his birreta), so that's not a valid analogue.
"The purpose of vernacular readings is the same as the sermon - to rouse up the faithful. "
If the readings are there to rouse up the faithful, why does the priest say them facing the altar, whereas the sermon is said facing the people?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 18, 2012 21:17:22 GMT
I was at a Dominican OF Mass today and I noticed that the words of dismissal were "Go forth and proclaim the Gospel". I was at another for the Feast of St Dominic (OF calendar) recently and noticed the same formula, but assumed it was specific to that particular feast. Is this formula used at all Dominican Masses? Is it a relic of the old Dominican Rite?
|
|
uriah
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by uriah on Aug 19, 2012 17:11:15 GMT
My parents tell me that one of the priests in Mullingar has started wearing a biretta during mass since the new translation came in. Outside of the church he is to be seen wearing a cassock and biretta. Is this reversion to traditional dress evident elsewhere in the country?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 20, 2012 8:04:57 GMT
That's Father Michael Cahill, who is temporarily assigned to Mullingar Cathedral.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 20, 2012 8:16:38 GMT
I was at a Dominican OF Mass today and I noticed that the words of dismissal were "Go forth and proclaim the Gospel". I was at another for the Feast of St Dominic (OF calendar) recently and noticed the same formula, but assumed it was specific to that particular feast. Is this formula used at all Dominican Masses? Is it a relic of the old Dominican Rite? Could be. I remember the late Fr Desmond Flanagan OCarm said Mass in the Roman Rite (EF) in Arran Quay and High St, though his experience was in the Carmelite Rite which had a similar status to the Dominican rite. Fr Flanagan used to give the blessing in this form: Pater, Filius et Spiritus Sanctus descendit super vos et maneat in aeternum (forgive Latin errors - I have never seen this is writing and I am trying to recall what the man said). I know observers questioned this, but from time to time, one hears Carmelite priests giving the final blessing 'May the Father, Son and Holy Spirit descend upon you and remain eternally' or words to that effect. It is a relic of the old Carmelite rite. Just another observation - if someone says they've been going to Clarendon St for years and have never heard this, the reason is simple. Only the OCarm used the Carmelite rite - the ODC used the Roman Rite, so Whitefriars Church is the place you're likely to hear it. So I imagine what Hibernicus notes is a relic of the Dominican rite.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 20, 2012 19:50:52 GMT
As noticed on the ACPI thread, one of the posters in their comboxes recently complained "I despair for the future when I see a young priest proud of his biretta". I wonder had she run into Fr Cahill?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 29, 2012 19:09:16 GMT
|
|