|
Post by santiago on Apr 11, 2008 17:32:28 GMT
I wonder if anyone knows where and when the Holy Mass is celebrated in Ireland in the Ordinary Form in latin? I have found that where celebrants have taken the oppurtunity to pray the Mass in latin then it invariably means an overall higher standard of liturgy (music, vestments, rubrics, etc).
I think it would be a very, very positive step if more parish churches and/or religious houses in towns or cities would introduce a) some Masses in Latin and/or b) praying particular parts of the Mass in latin e.g. parts of the Canon.
It would help to dispell the myth amongst congregations that latin is "not allowed anymore" and open up people's minds to the beauty of the language of our Church.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 11, 2008 21:30:56 GMT
Most obviously in St Mary's Pro-Cathedral in Dublin every Sunday at 11am. Also every Sunday in Belfast - I will find out which church. I think that is about it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Apr 11, 2008 22:25:37 GMT
I agree with Santiago who started this thread. Many people that I know, good orthodox Catholics, imagine that a Mass in the Extraordinary Form would be a grand occasion with incense, an organ and Gregorian chant where they would feel out of place and distanced from the Mass itself as they have come to know it. For them, Low Masses would be a better reintroduction to the old rite but perhaps the celebrant should as far as possible (even in the Canon) try to be audible. And of course everyone there should be given those wonderful little red books with the Liturgy in them.
|
|
|
Post by santiago on Apr 12, 2008 23:26:58 GMT
Michael. I feel that for people new to the use of Latin in the Mass I'd actually recommend a Solemn Mass in the OF over a Low Mass in the EF. In my experience the grandeur and beauty of the former can be more impressive than the quiteness of the latter. And of course the structure of the Mass is identical to the OF in English (or should be).
Although in saying all of this we must remember that the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. The Holy Father made this very, very clear in stressing there are not two different Roman rites - just two forms of the same rite. We are unbelievably blessed to have the Holy Mass.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 14, 2008 9:06:04 GMT
Actually, I don't think the OF works in Latin at all. If you attend an EF Low Mass, even a dialogue Mass, it doesn't matter if even the bulk of the congregation don't respond (sometimes it can be grating on the ear if they do). But at a Latin Novus Ordo, it is absolutely crucial that the congregation respond.
The OF and EF run on different premises. It is theoretically possible to have the EF in the vernacular too, but there is no demand for it (though the tradition that the Roman EF should be celebrated in liturgical Greek in parts of southern Italy and in Old Church Slavonic in some Croatian dioceses is also a matter for restoration). The OF in Latin presumes Latin to be understood by the people (very much as northern German aristocrats and academics retained the Lutheran service in Latin as they regarded the service in German as good enough for the masses, but they knew better - not a lot of people know that Bach's Masses were originally written for the Lutheran service in Latin); the EF doesn't make such assumptions.
I wonder how much influence radio had over the Council Fathers. Think about. In the 1960s, the bulk of bishops, abbots, magisterial professors and peritii attending the Council were men whose formative years were spent when radio was a form of media that was becoming dominant. Try doing the EF on radio. It doesn't work - it is much more a visual thing than a vocal thing, whereas the OF is very much a vocal thing even in Latin. I think if the council was held about ten to twenty years later with the power of television being more apparent, the Council Fathers probably would have acted differently.
Actually the EF, being dominant before the Council was paradoxically more macro-ecumenical than the vernacular OF. Until 1960, the only major religious group in the world using vernacular in worship were Protestant Christians (exceptions there being high brow Lutherans with their Latin and Old Order Amish, who though they speak English, worship in German as their fore-fathers did - that list may not be exhaustive and Protestants often took older forms of language over modern - such as the 'thees' and 'thous' of the Book of Common Prayers and the King James Bible). But anyhow, Protestants were the exception - Orthodox (and for that matter eastern Catholics) use liturgical Greek, Old Church Slavonic, liturgical Arabic, liturgical Armenian, Aramaic and other 'dead' sacral languages; Jews (apart from Reformed/Progressive/Liberal Jews) use biblical Hebrew; Moslems use the same Arabic as in the Koran, which is not vernacular Arabic - it is similar to the Arabic used by Melchites and Maronites; Hindus use Sanskrit; Shinto use an ancient form of Japanese; Zoroastrians use an ancient form of Farsi (Persian) and most eastern religions use long dead tongues for worship.
Why? Maybe they realise the deity stands outside time and space or maybe they realise something anybody in PR/Marketing/Advertising will tell you: 93% of communication is non-verbal. This is the nub of why both the Protestant reformers and the Council Fathers made the wrong call and why sports stadia have replaced houses of worship for men throughout the world.
To return to the original point, I think that the OF in Latin is something that will only get limited attention. It is true that Dublin's Pro-Cathedral is packed at 11 am on Sundays (it has twice or three times the congregation in St Kevin's at least - there are usually over 1,000 people in St Mary's), but that is principally because of the Palestrina boys are singing and secondly because the Pro-Cathedral is the most prominent Catholic Church in the city. But Latin alone will not bring people in.
|
|
|
Post by cornelstown on Sept 19, 2008 19:10:09 GMT
The original intention of allowing the old mass was so that it would lead to a more authentic celebration of the current mass. Latin does not have to be understood by the people in order for it to be celebrated. Booklets will suffice. To the best of my knowledge it is not theoretically possible at all to have the extraordinary form in English. Having more novus ordo latin masses would be an excellent idea and I think we should all do our best to encourage our priests to do them.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Sept 20, 2008 11:42:07 GMT
The NOM in latin remains the NOM. Said in chinese, german, french, irish or english, it is the same. While the use of latin is of course better, because of the "purity" of this language, and would improve the NOM sightly, the main core of the new mass will remain. Of course we can have a priest celebrating in front of God, of the altar. Oblige people to receive (WHEN NOT IN MORTAL SIN ! SHOULD WE REMIND THAT AS WELL) communion on the tongue - only - and keeling. Should we keep the First Roman Canon only. Avoid the use of guitars but only gregorians and traditional chants. Ask people not to were Jersey-football shirt, and other improper dress, not to speak before and after mass. not to leave mass straight away after mass, but stay a moment after mass. not to arrive 1 minute before mass. not to have girls serving but only boys. should we practice again the saint practice of vespers on Sunday and salute of the saint sacrament. confession in a confessional. spiritual and gospel orientated homilies. did I forget something ? The NOM will remain the NOM. But if all this will be put in practice, it will already be a slight improvement.........
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 20, 2008 13:34:16 GMT
The original intention of allowing the old mass was so that it would To the best of my knowledge it is not theoretically possible at all to have the extraordinary form in English. Then inform yourself better, Cornelstown. A number of former Episcopal communities were received into the Church in the United States in the early 20th century and were allowed use their former liturgical books under indult. This was, to use the current term, the extraordinary form in English and it is still used in certain American parishes under the name 'Anglican Use', but which are in fact Catholic parishes with priests in valid orders. Approval for this goes back at least to the time of Pius XI.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 20, 2008 22:50:21 GMT
The Belfast Mass is in St. Brigid's on the Malone Road every Sunday at 8.30 a.m.
|
|
|
Post by cornelstown on Jun 23, 2009 18:26:33 GMT
Sacrosanctum Concilium, states very clearly ‘Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites’
VII therefore makes it clear that Mass in the vernacular, while permitted, was never intended to be the norm. Even for the Novus Ordo
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 24, 2009 9:11:27 GMT
The original intention of allowing the old mass was so that it would lead to a more authentic celebration of the current mass. I don't believe this is correct. After robust representation from Cardinal Heenan, Paul VI had the sensibilities of convert Anglicans when he promulgated the indult for England and Wales in 1971. John Paul II had the Society of St Pius X and other disaffected groups principally in mind with Quattuour Abhinc Annos in 1984. No dispute there, but the OF Latin presumes everyone will respond. This is more difficult. I have a criticism of the EF Latin movement all over Ireland that they are not good at involving the congregation in the Mass - for example, most EF Latin Masses regularly celebrated in Ireland show that the lay faithful don't know the correct postures (I regard St Kevin's in Dublin as having been an exceptionally bad influence on every where else; St Patrick's Islandeady did everything to disencourage the congregation from responding in addition; the only place where something was tried in relation to postures with in St Patrick's Limerick - but that's another day's discussion). With the OF Latin Mass, the responses are a sine qua non. Then allow me fill in a gap. Not only is it theoretically possible, EF Masses actually take place in English - and have done so for years. This is mentioned in John Casey's article in the newly released Brandsma Review, but Dr Casey assumes they are unique to Anglicans. That is not the case. Following the reconciliation of the Graymoor Friars (the Franciscans of the Atonement - a High Anglican religious community in the US) in the pontificate of Pius XI, convert Episcopalians have been permitted to use the English Missal, which is a rendering of the Roman Missal of 1570 (the Missal of St Pius V) in Jacobean English - in other words the EF Mass in English. There are several 'Anglican Use' parishes in the US who use this - and not all worshippers there are former Anglicans. This permission has never been extended to England. Well, the list of OF Latin Masses in Ireland (1 each in Dublin and Belfast) pales in comparison to the list of EF Latin Masses. In England, the LMS of England and Wales is parralleled by the Latin Liturgy Association which promotes the use of the OF Latin. There are similar groups in the US and on the continent. But there is no Latin Liturgy Association of Ireland to shadow what the LMSI are doing in relation to the EF Latin Mass, though the two OF Latin Masses are older by far than any of the many EF Latin Masses in Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 24, 2009 9:17:26 GMT
Sacrosanctum Concilium, states very clearly ‘Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites’ VII therefore makes it clear that Mass in the vernacular, while permitted, was never intended to be the norm. Even for the Novus Ordo Correct, but absolutely irrelevant. Vernacular celebration of the liturgy became near universal in the wake of the Council and has been established in practice to a degree that it cannot be undone. Pointing at the document now is as useless as proverbially bolting the stable door when the thoroughbred stallion has gone.
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Jun 24, 2009 15:10:32 GMT
This is off topic insofar as it concerns the Anglican Use in the USA rather than the Latin Novus Ordo in Ireland, but my attention was caught by Alaisdir's remark that A number of former Episcopal communities were received into the Church in the United States in the early 20th century and were allowed use their former liturgical books under indult. This was, to use the current term, the extraordinary form in English and it is still used in certain American parishes under the name 'Anglican Use', but which are in fact Catholic parishes with priests in valid orders. Approval for this goes back at least to the time of Pius XI. This is really interesting. I was under the impression that the only 'Anglican Use' communities in the US were those established by John Paul II's Pastoral Provision of 1980 and who use the Book of Divine Worship. I would like to know more about these older Episcopalian converts, the liturgical books they used, and if any of their communities has survived to the present day - which last is doubtful, insofar as trawling the internet looking for them has not yielded any results.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 9, 2009 15:36:00 GMT
This is off topic insofar as it concerns the Anglican Use in the USA rather than the Latin Novus Ordo in Ireland, but my attention was caught by Alaisdir's remark that A number of former Episcopal communities were received into the Church in the United States in the early 20th century and were allowed use their former liturgical books under indult. This was, to use the current term, the extraordinary form in English and it is still used in certain American parishes under the name 'Anglican Use', but which are in fact Catholic parishes with priests in valid orders. Approval for this goes back at least to the time of Pius XI. This is really interesting. I was under the impression that the only 'Anglican Use' communities in the US were those established by John Paul II's Pastoral Provision of 1980 and who use the Book of Divine Worship. I would like to know more about these older Episcopalian converts, the liturgical books they used, and if any of their communities has survived to the present day - which last is doubtful, insofar as trawling the internet looking for them has not yielded any results. Melancholicus, I have been trying to dredge up evidence, but it appears nothing survived unbroken since then due to influxes of ordinary Catholics and embracing of the Novus Ordo. The communities established by John Paul II are lasting. But the book they used was The English Missal, still used by Anglo-Papists, which is nothing more than a rendering of the Roman missal in Jacobean English.
|
|
|
Post by cornelstown on Jul 10, 2009 15:12:32 GMT
Sacrosanctum Concilium, states very clearly ‘Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites’ VII therefore makes it clear that Mass in the vernacular, while permitted, was never intended to be the norm. Even for the Novus Ordo Correct, but absolutely irrelevant. Vernacular celebration of the liturgy became near universal in the wake of the Council and has been established in practice to a degree that it cannot be undone. Pointing at the document now is as useless as proverbially bolting the stable door when the thoroughbred stallion has gone. That's your opinion. Even a superficial reading of Church history will show that after periods of decadence and disobedience come reforms in line with what the church desires. this has been the pattern after many councils. We are coming out of a reactionary phase now but over the next 50-80 years we will gradually see a return to the language of the church. You cannot show me that complete vernacularisation is what the church desires, no matter how strongly you state it. Will we see a complete return to latin ? probably not, but a balancing out at least. As the pope explains, in his letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum " In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress but no rupture" He continues "what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considere harmful. It behoves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place"
|
|