Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
The Mass and how it is celebrated -Rites & rites. ; The differing, traditions Rites and Uses."
Topic Started: Sunday, 5. November 2006, 16:43 (2,335 Views)
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Here's a Greek Catholic Mass in Ukraine, in two parts:

PART ONE

PART TWO


Clare.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
I am posting the the then Cardinal Ratziner's words again, in the hope that people coming on this evening might notice, and discuss the document. There are words of wisdom there that could help.

Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Members may find this interesting. For a Vatican document, it is written in simple, easily understood language, by our dear Holy Father, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger

Link

Association for Latin Liturgy
 

Under the patronage of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.
Founded in 1969 to encourage and extend the use of Latin in the liturgy of the Catholic Church.
The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin . . . and she must manifest them whenever the opportunity presents itself.
 
This is a complete translation of the French text of a speech given by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, whilst Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given in Rome on October 24 1998.

Cardinal Ratzinger on the Liturgy

Cardinal Ratzinger
 
Ten years after the publication of the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, what kind of balance sheet of its successes and failures can we draw up? I think it is above all an occasion to show our gratitude and to give thanks. The diverse communities born thanks to this pontifical text have given to the Church a great number of vocations to the priesthood and to religious life. These men and women, filled with zeal and joy and profoundly loyal to the Pope, are rendering their service to the Gospel during this present historical epoch – our own. By means of them, many of the faithful have been confirmed in the joy of being able to live the liturgy and in their love of the Church, or perhaps through them they have rediscovered both of these things. In many dioceses – and the number is not that small! – they serve the Church in collaboration with the bishops and in a fraternal relation with those faithful who feel themselves at home in the renewed form of the new liturgy. All of this causes us today to express our profound gratitude!

Nevertheless, it would not be very realistic to pass over in silence some less pleasant facts. In many places, there have been and still are difficulties. Why? Because many bishops, priests and lay-people see this attachment to the old liturgy as a divisive factor. They think the attachment does nothing but trouble the ecclesial community. They see the attachment as evidence that the Council is being accepted "only with certain reservations" and suspect that it means the obedience due to the Church’s legitimate pastors is less than it should be.
We must, therefore, pose the following question: How can these difficulties be overcome? How can the necessary trust be built up so that these communities which love the old liturgy can be fully integrated into the life of the Church? But there is another question underlying the first.. What is the profound reason for this distrust or even this refusal to accept a continuation of the old liturgical forms?
It is of course possible that in this area there are reasons which are anterior to any theology and which have their origin in the individual characters of people or in the conflict between different characters, or even in other entirely exterior circumstances. But it is certain that there are also deeper reasons which explain these problems. The two reasons one most often hears are:

the lack of obedience to the Council, which is said to have reformed the liturgical books; and
the disruption of Church unity, which is said to follow necessarily if one allows the use of different liturgical forms.
It is in theory relatively easy to refute these two arguments. First, the Council did not itself reform the liturgical books; it ordered their revision and, to that end, set forth certain fundamental rules. Above all, the Council gave a definition of what the liturgy is, and this definition gives a criterion which holds for every liturgical celebration. If one wished to hold these essential rules in disdain and if one wished to set to one side the normae generales found in paragraphs 34-36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia – then yes, one would be violating the obedience due to the Council!

It is therefore in accordance with these criteria that one must judge liturgical celebrations, whether they be according to the old books or according to the new. It is good to recall in this regard what Cardinal Newman said when he observed that the Church, in her entire history, never once abolished or prohibited orthodox liturgical forms, something which would be entirely foreign to the Spirit of the Church. An orthodox liturgy, that is to say, a liturgy which expresses the true faith, is never a compilation made according to the pragmatic criteria of various ceremonies which one may put together in a positivist and arbitrary way – today like this and tomorrow like that. The orthodox forms of a rite are living realities, born out of a dialogue of love between the Church and her Lord. They are the expressions of the life of the Church in which are condensed the faith, the prayer and the very life of generations, and in which are incarnated in a concrete form at once the action of God and the response of man.

Such rites can die, if the subject which bore them historically disappears, or if the subject is inserted into another order of life. The authority of the Church can define and limit the usage of rites in different historical circumstances. But the Church never purely and simply prohibits them.

And so the Council did ordain a reform of the liturgical books, but it did not forbid the previous books. The criterion the Council expressed is at once more vast and more strict: it invited everyone to make a self-critique! We will return to this point.

Now for the second argument, that the existence of the two rites can harm Church unity. Here one must make a distinction between the theological and the practical aspects of the question. On the theoretical and fundamental side of the question, it must be stated that many forms of the Latin rite have always existed, and that these rites declined only slowly as a consequence of the unification of human living space in Europe. Up until the Council there existed, alongside the Roman rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite of Toledo, the rite of Braga, the rite of the Chartreux and of the Carmelites, and the best known of all: the rite of the Dominicans. And perhaps there were still other rites with which I am not familiar.

No one was ever scandalised that the Dominicans, often present in our parishes, did not celebrate Mass like our parish priests, but had their own rite. We had no doubt that their rite was as Catholic as the Roman rite, and we were proud of this richness in having many different traditions.

Moreover, this must be said... the freedom that the new Ordo Missae allows to be creative, has often gone too far; there is often a greater difference between liturgies celebrated in different places according to the new books, than there is between an old liturgy and a new liturgy when both are celebrated as they ought to be, in accordance with the prescribed liturgical texts.

An average Christian without special liturgical training finds it hard to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a Mass sung in Latin according to the new Missal. In contrast, the difference between a liturgy celebrated faithfully according to the Missal of Paul V1 and the concrete vernacular forms and celebrations with all the possible liberties and creativities – the difference can be enormous!

With these considerations, we have already crossed the threshold between theory and practice, where things are naturally more complicated, because they involve relations between living persons.

It seems to me that the aversions of which we have spoken are so great because the two forms of celebration are thought to reflect two different spiritual attitudes, two different ways of perceiving the Church and the whole of Christian life. There are many reasons for this. The first is that the two liturgical forms are judged on the basis of exterior elements and so the following conclusion is reached: there are two fundamentally different attitudes.

The average Christian considers it essential that the re-formed liturgy be celebrated in the vernacular and facing the people, that there be large areas for creativity and that lay-people exercise active roles. On the other hand, it is thought essential to the old liturgy that it be celebrated in the Latin language, that the priest face the altar, that the ritual be rigidly prescribed and that the faithful follow the Mass by praying in private, without having an active role. In this way of viewing things, certain outward phenomena are essential for a liturgy, not the liturgy in and of itself. In this view, the faithful understand and express the liturgy by means of concrete, visible forms and are spiritually quickened by these very forms, and do not penetrate easily to the profound levels of the liturgy.

But the oppositions we have just enumerated do not come from either the spirit or the letter of the conciliar texts.

The Constitution on the Liturgy itself does not say a word about celebrating Mass facing the altar or facing the people. And on the subject of language, it says Latin ought to be preserved while giving greater space to the vernacular "especially in the readings and directives, and in some of the prayers and chants" (36, 2). As for the participation of lay-people, the Council insists first in general that the liturgy concerns the entire Body of Christ, Head and members, and that for this reason, it belongs to the entire Body of the Church "and consequently the liturgy is to be celebrated in community with the active participation of the faithful," And the text specifies: In the liturgical celebrations, each person, whether as a minister or as one of the faithful, should perform his role by doing solely and totally what the nature of things and liturgical norms require of him." (28) "By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamation, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes. And the proper time all should observe a reverent silence." (30)

These are the directives of the Council: they can provide matter for reflection to all. A number of modern liturgists, however, have unfortunately shown a tendency to develop the ideas of the Council in only one direction. If one does this, one ends up reversing the intentions of the Council.

The role of the priest is reduced by some to one of pure functionality. The fact that the entire Body of Christ is the subject of the liturgy is often deformed to the point that the local community becomes the self-sufficient subject of the liturgy distributes the different roles in it. There is also a dangerous tendency to minimise the sacrificial character of the Mass to cause mystery and the sacred to disappear, under the proclaimed imperative of making the liturgy more easily understood. Finally, one notes the tendency to fragment the liturgy and to emphasise only its communal character by giving the assembly the power to decide the celebration.

Happily, there is also a certain distaste for the rationalism banality and the pragmatism of certain liturgists, be they theoreticians or practitioners. One can see evidence of a return to mystery, to adoration, to the sacred and to the cosmic and eschatological character of the liturgy, as is witnessed by the "Oxford Declaration on Liturgy" of 1996.

Moreover, it must be admitted that the celebration of the old liturgy had slipped too much into the domain of the individual and the private, and that the communion between priests and faithful was insufficient. I have a great respect for our ancestors, who recited during low Masses the "Prayers During the Mass" contained in their book of prayers. But certainly one cannot regard that as the ideal for the liturgical celebration! Perhaps these reduced forms of celebration are the profound reason why the disappearance of the old liturgical books had no importance whatsoever in many countries and caused no sorrow. People had never been in contact with the liturgy itself.

On the other hand, in those places where the liturgical Movement had created a certain love for the liturgy – in those places where this movement anticipated the essential ideas of the Council, as for example the praying participation of all in the liturgical action – in those places there was greater suffering in the face of a liturgical reform undertaken in too much haste and limiting itself often to the exterior aspect. Where the liturgical Movement never existed, the reform did not at first pose any problem, The problems arose only in a sporadic way in those places where a wild creativity caused the disappearance of the sacred mystery.

This is why it is so important that the essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which I cited above, be observed, even if one is celebrating according to the old Missal!

When this liturgy truly moves the faithful with its beauty and profundity, then it will be loved, and then it will not be in irreconcilable opposition to the new Liturgy – provided that these criteria are truly applied as the Council wished. Different spiritual and theological accents will continue, certainly to exist. But they will no longer be two opposing ways of being a Christian, but rather two riches which belong to the same Catholic faith.

When, several years ago, someone proposed "a new liturgical movement" to ensure that the two forms of liturgy did not diverge too much and to show their inner convergence, several friends of the old liturgy expressed the fear that this was nothing other than a stratagem or ruse to eliminate the old liturgy entirely.

Such anxieties and fears must cease! If in the two forms of celebration the unity of the faith and the unicity of the mystery should appear clearly, that could only be a reason to rejoice and thank the Good Lord. In the measure to which all of us believers live and act according to these motivations, we can also persuade the bishops that the presence of the old liturgy does not trouble or harm the unity of their diocese, but is rather a gift destined to build up the Body of Christ, of which we are all the servants.

So, dear friends, I would like to encourage you not to lose patience – to keep trusting – and to find in the liturgy the force needed to give our witness to the Lord for our time.

Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD

Thanks for that text Rose - useful to have on file.

PJD
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
James
James
Wherever I go and no matter what form the mass takes, it is still recognised that a true consecration is enacted and a real communion takes place. When I go to confession I know my sins are sacramentally forgiven. No pope that I know of in my lifetime has ever said otherwise.
Also the belief in the resurrection of the body and the apostles creed is still un-watered down if you are in the right place. And no Pope in my lifetime has ever said otherwise.
And I hope for the last sacraments when my time comes and they will not be watered down and no Pope in my lifetime has ever said they would
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
I have just moved James' post of Mar 30 2007, 10:12 PM from another place where it did not quite "fit".

James you are absolutely right, we do have valid Masses and sacraments in different rites, A likes one and B likes the other. If I were seriously ill, and a priest offered to say Mass for me, it would not matter a jot what Rite was used. I look forward to the day when "everybody" can be "catered for".

Members, please continue discussing preferences, just keep it friendly, this forum is loyal to the hierarchy.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
We lovers of the New Rite are too busy praying at Mass to use our webcams.

So there.

Patrick will you please find one of a really prayerfully, reverently offered, Novus Ordo Mass, preferably on a special occasion in a Cathedral? I don't know how to copy u-tube stuff to the forum.

Rose
:angel:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Rose of York
Mar 31 2007, 03:29 PM
We lovers of the New Rite are too busy praying at Mass to use our webcams.

So there.

:rofl:

Quote:
 
Patrick will you please find one of a really prayerfully, reverently offered, Novus Ordo Mass, preferably on a special occasion in a Cathedral?  I don't know how to copy u-tube stuff to the forum.


I'll try. :P
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

I could see only Part I of Clare's two excerpts from the Holy Mass in a Ukrainian village Church. As a comment stated, I also wondered where the men in the congregation were. The lighting was poor but the expressions on faces I could see were either very devotional or sad. It seemed to me to show the Gospel Reading and the sermon. I was not misled by the personal Sign of the Cross being the opposite way of ours because I know some Eastern Rite Catholics do so.

Part II was always "Loading...". I would like to have seen more action.

The Ambrosian Rite excerpt seemed to me to be a psalm as part of the Office of Day but then in fairness I am familiar with the Rite.
Derekap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Patrick

www.vocationoffice.org
You Tube

I appreciate the opportunity to to watch snatches of the Holy Mass you placed in your contribution.

www.vocationoffice.org
You Tube

The celebrant was quite expressive. The music and singing was not my choice but I appreciate that can be a matter of personal taste. Sadly though it didn't seem to have the support of the congreation.

www.vocationoffice.org
You Tube

(I suppose the overprints were to prevent us copying and selling the video)
Derekap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Here's a Tridentine Rite Good Friday Mass of the Pre-sanctified, FSSP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWQtfF-QGOY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg5YPGd6LNo

It's silent at the start.

Clare.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

The Good Friday Liturgy is not a Holy Mass because no gifts are offered and Transubstantiation does not take place. The Holy Communion, in those far off days was consecrated during the Holy Thursday Holy Mass and consumed only by the Celebrant. The Holy Week ceremonies were revised during the 1950's and again after V2. It was in the 1950's that the congregation were also able to receive Holy Communion (Consecrated the day before). Therefore I don't think there is anything Tridentine about it. Perhaps a question of Latin being replaced by the vernacular maybe but I am sure a Latin version is available.
Derekap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Derekap
Apr 7 2007, 10:58 AM
The Good Friday Liturgy is not a Holy Mass because no gifts are offered and Transubstantiation does not take place. The Holy Communion, in those far off days was consecrated during the Holy Thursday Holy Mass and consumed only by the Celebrant.

Yes, Derekap, but it is known as the Mass of the Pre-sanctified. :rolleyes:

Quote:
 
Therefore I don't think there is anything Tridentine about it.


Why? Just because people receive Communion? That makes it not Tridentine?

Quote:
 
Perhaps a question of Latin being replaced by the vernacular maybe but I am sure a Latin version is available.


Derek, do you really believe that the new Good Friday liturgy is just a vernacular translation of what's happening in the above video?

Give me strength!

Clare.

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Catholic Encyclopedia

Quote:
 
Mass of the Presanctified

To return to the Roman Rite, when the ceremony of adoring and kissing the Cross is concluded, the Cross is placed aloft on the altar between lighted candles, a procession is formed which proceeds to the chapel of repose, where the second sacred host consecrated in yesterday's Mass has since lain entombed in a gorgeously decorated urn and surrounded by lights and flowers. This urn represents the sepulchre of Christ (decree of S.C.R., n. 3933, ad I). The Most Holy Sacrament is now carried back to the altar in solemn procession, during which is sung the hymn "Vexilla Regis prodeunt" (The standards of the King advance). Arrived in the sanctuary the clergy go to their places retaining lighted candles, while the celebrant and his ministers ascend the altar and celebrate what is called the Mass of the Presanctified. This is not a Mass in the strict sense of the word, as there is no consecration of the sacred species. The host which was consecrated in yesterday's Mass (hence the word presanctified) is placed on the altar, incensed, elevated ("that it may be seen by the people"), and consumed by the celebrant. It is substantially the Communion part of the Mass, beginning with the "Pater noster" which marks the end of the Canon. From the very earliest times it was the custom not to celebrate the Mass proper on Good Friday. Speaking about this ceremony Duchesne (249) says,

It is merely the Communion separated from the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist properly so called. The details of the ceremony are not found earlier than in books of the eighth or ninth century, but the service must belong to a much earlier period. At the time when synaxes without liturgy were frequent, the 'Mass of the Presanctified' must have been frequent also. In the Greek Church it was celebrated every day in Lent except on Saturdays and Sundays, but in the Latin Church it was confined to Good Friday.

At present [1909] the celebrant alone communicates, but it appears from the old Roman Ordines that formerly all present communicated (Martene, III, 367). The omission of the Mass proper marks in the mind of the Church the deep sorrow with which she keeps the anniversary of the Sacrifice of Calvary. Good Friday is a feast of grief. A black fast, black vestments, a denuded altar, the slow and solemn chanting of the sufferings of Christ, prayers for all those for whom He died, the unveiling and reverencing of the Crucifix, these take the place of the usual festal liturgy; while the lights in the chapel of repose and the Mass of the Presanctified is followed by the recital of vespers, and the removal of the linen cloth from the altar ("Vespers are recited without chant and the altar is denuded").


S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

No Clare, but I don't think it was Tridentine. Surely only a Holy Mass can be Tridentine?
Derekap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Locked Topic