Comments on: “Lefebvrists” say Vatican caved on Good Friday prayer

By: David Landin

David Landin — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:24:59 +0000

I agree with Chris, posted on February 26, 2008, that “you have to fall backwards when forward fails”, and the reason why I feel this way is because it is my opinon that the American Bishops seem to lead the way in which the Roman Catholic Church must follow and not the Vatican, I can remeber when the Vatican called the American Bishops to task. It seems to me that the American Church is leaning toward the Charismatic way of mass. I for one feel that there is nothing wrong with tradition and the Vatican II order of mass, if the music is not more important than the celebration of the Eucharist. I for one, again, feel that we have lost touch with the soleminty of the mass, it seems more important to show physical actions than to show respect that the celebration of the mass requires, it is very distracting. There are us that are going from parish to parish to find spirtual meaning in the mass.
In speaking with a good friend of mine that is a priest from Europe, stated that only in America does he find such a break from the soleminty of the mass.
Dave

By: Collin Michael Nunis

Collin Michael Nunis — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:44:50 +0000

It has been, but I feel that for Latin to be used 90% in the celebration of the Mass is not a smart move in bringing ancient worship back into the new world.

More importantly, a return to the Old Mass should not reflect a return to the mentality that is associated with pre-Vatican II Catholicism. Vatican II benefited the Church as a whole, and “opened the doors and windows” of the Church and gave the fresh air that it needed. However, that wasn’t really necessary for the Mass. It should have been sanctioned for vernacular use with official translations. The Eastern Christians (both the Greek Orthodox and Eastern Catholics)have never changed one bit of their liturgy, but ideally, they’ve had the running idea of using the vernacular long before Vatican II ever came to mind.

That issue aside, there is more. With the new Mass, the creativity of the faithful in making the liturgy an expression to worship God is with right intention, but not exactly done the right way. Obviously, with the new Mass, came liberty to express the Mass in ways and means possible, but it came to the extent that it deviated from templates of ancient Christian worship patterns and if I may, Christianity itself. That is the danger.

Nevertheless, the issue of the creativity of the faithful being stifled by a return to the old Mass doesn’t really arise either. This is simply because, the gifts accorded to the faithful are to be used to witness Christ wherever we are, not just the 4 walls of the Church. For example, if you can’t play your guitar for Mass, don’t fret… You can play for the Lord in your own special way, outside the liturgy. At the Liturgy, you matter to God… Not your guitar.

Therefore, I hope that more will be done to release the ancient Mass will be released for vernacular use, in keeping with the Chrysostomian principle that the Liturgy should be celebrated in the vernacular. It’s about time that we become traditional, not traditionalists!

By: Tom Heneghan

Tom Heneghan — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:13:04 +0000

This is fascinating. Collin’s comment is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say the Tridentine Mass should be said in the vernacular! I thought the Latin was part (only part, but a significant part) of the argument for that rite.

By: Collin Michael Nunis

Collin Michael Nunis — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:09:23 +0000

The Motu Proprio is pointless if the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass is not celebrated in the vernacular. It is hoped that someone will change the rubrics and “release” the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular. The normative language of the Mass should remain as Latin, but for a start, releasing it for vernacular use would be a great pastoral move. Indeed, with all that is going on this world, it is a “minor interest” at best and should only be promoted if it places the life-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ above everything else; as the message of every Mass should.

By: chris

chris — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:09:22 +0000

so sorry, there is a typing error in the first paragraph of the above comment. I of course meant ‘would have rejected the new mass’

By: chris

chris — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:05:53 +0000

‘…who can tell us how much interest there is in the Latin Mass…..?

For over forty years the great majority of Catholics have been told firmly by their bishops that there could be ‘no going back’ and that they ‘had to accept’ the new mass. The Tridentine Mass was (illegally) suppressed because given a free choice most Catholics, laity and priests, would have rejected it. Priests who continued to say the Tridentine Mass were thrown out of their parashes. Catholics who expressed a preference for the Tridentine Mass were generally treated with ridicule or contempt by those in authority and if they dared to go to ‘Lefebvrist’ Masses were told (falsely) ‘you’ve been excomunicated’

Catholics under 50 have no memory of the Tridentine Mass and those over 60 have been browbeaten for so long that it will take time before they have the courage to stand up and say, ‘Yes the Mass was better then.’ Nevertheless it will happen.

In the words of the song Everything old is new again, ‘You have to go backwards when forward fails.’

By: sam

sam — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:50:55 +0000

I would simply opine that out in the pew each and every week this issue(i.e., interest in a latin mass in the prish, and the Good Friday prayer change) have been of only MINOR interest AT BEST. When the world is falling apart over global warming, genocides, and war this issues is hardly something that can take up a great deal of the average lay person’s time. Vatican II put the liturgy in the local venacular for all to appreciate and participate! Benedict XVI does us all a disservice with the moto poprio and the giant leap back inot the dead language of latin.

PTG
30