Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Do You Agree With Dom Alcuin Reid's Assessment?


Nihil Obstat

Recommended Posts

PhuturePriest

This is just my humble opinion, so please do not think that I am trying to start another pointless debate between Liberal and Conservative Catholics.  Please don't yell at me...I just want to see everyone get along.

 

There are parts of the assessment I agree with and other parts I do not.  I do feel that the VII reforms went way beyond the intent of the Council.  I also believe that the EF should never have been relegated to the "back seat" in favor of the OF.

 

That being said, however, I believe that liturgy using the vernacular is extremely important to realizing a greater evangelism in the world at large.  Let's face it...part of what puts many non-Catholics off when it comes to Catholicism is the use of Latin for the liturgy.  When the liturgy was developed, Latin was appropriate; much of the world spoke Latin as it was the language of the Roman Empire.  But it is not a "holy" language...it is just a language.  And if we really want to reach people, we need to speak "their" language as it were.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the OF needs to be reviewed and reformed.  Much was lost in the aftermath of VII which should be restored.  I believe that there is a place in the Church for both the EF and the OF and that they both, when celebrated authentically, bring honor and glory to God and equip His Church to carry out His mission on earth.

 

Yes, Latin does put off some protestants. But have you considered that the Mass is for worshiping God, not for appealing to protestants? Many Protestants I know are very put-off by my crucifix, by my statues of Saints, by my praying to Saints, and by my strict adherence to Church Doctrine. The beautiful thing about the Church is that we do what we do for God; not for us, and not for Protestants.

Edited by PhuturePriest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that for all intents and purposes Latin is finished as a liturgical language in the Roman Rite. It didn't have to be this way, but the culture of Latin cannot be restored. It's unreasonable to expect the faithful to learn an alien language now. It wasn't so a couple of generation s ago. But it is easier to destroy than build up.

But at the same time the Second Vatican Council tells us that we have to preserve the Latin of the liturgy. The current practise of the Ordinary Form disobeys the Counciliar legislation on this point. I think that the only reasonable expectation is to restoee the silent canon, suppress all the Eucharistic Prayers a part from the Roman Canon, and remove the permission to use it in the vernacular. Simple chants of the Mass can also be preserved. That will be about all.

Contrary to the above assertion, Latin was never a barrier for conversiom. First off, because Protestants converted all the time amd fell in love with the Latin liturgy, amd after 50 years of a vernacular liturgy, conversions have plummeted and there are no mass droves of Protestants converting to the Church.

I think we need to have some faith in the laity though. It is really not difficult, if you attend Mass every week, to come to recognize the major prayers of the Ordinary in Latin. The Pater, the Credo, the Gloria, the Sanctus, those are all easy. A year or two and nobody would think twice about it.

I think if we have faith in the laity they are certainly able to rise to the challenge of greater authenticity. Especially these days where, at least in the west, literacy is nearly 100% and everyone has access to hand missals or missalettes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheLeastofThese

Yes, Latin does put off some protestants. But have you considered that the Mass is for worshiping God, not for appealing to protestants? Many Protestants I know are very put-off by my crucifix, by my statues of Saints, by my praying to Saints, and by my strict adherence to Church Doctrine. The beautiful thing about the Church is that we do what we do for God; not for us, and not for Protestants.

 

I have considered this and I understand that it is not just Latin that is "off-putting" for many Protestants.  Having been raised in a Protestant denomination, I could cite chapter and verse of what Protestants find offensive about Catholic practices.  But, who says that we can only worship God in Latin?

 

Anyway, I stated in my original post that I didn't want to start yet another debate between us but that seems to be exactly what I've done.  I am sorry!  I want us all to get along and see that neither Latin nor vernacular are wrong...both forms worship God.

 

P.S.  I never would have returned to the Catholic faith if it hadn't been for Mass celebrated in the vernacular.  It was the beauty of the prayers, etc. (which I understood because they were spoken in a language I could understand,) that drew me back to the Church of my baptism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I don't understand the objections to the new lectionary, and to the changed calendar. I've read large sections of Reid's book Organic Development of the Liturgy, but I'm afraid I don't understand that objection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some prayers in Latin sound easy enough to learn, but having the readings in a foreign language doesn't make sense to me. They change every week and unless you have a translation handy, or speak a dead language, it's game over as far as understanding. I'd be okay with learning Latin prayers tho. Just my $.02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I don't understand the objections to the new lectionary, and to the changed calendar. I've read large sections of Reid's book Organic Development of the Liturgy, but I'm afraid I don't understand that objection.

Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite is, IMO, more direct as to pointing out exactly what the issues are, whereas Reid's Organic Development was intended primarily to be descriptive, i.e. "these are the changes and this is the context in which they arose."

For Dobszay, his primary issue with the revised calendar is its tinkering in aspects that did not need changes. Referring back to S.C.'s principle of all changes being truly necessary. He believes that, whereas some of the changes were good, such as the reviving of vigil Masses. In his opinion some of the changes destroy valuable symbolism, such as the moving of the feast of the Kingship of Christ. Also, in terms of the authenticity of the rite as a whole, Dobszay argues that some of the changes essentially do violence to the integrity of the liturgy. The renovation of the propers is the primary example of that, where many of them were altered beyond recognition. The propers are a treasure of the Roman rite, and their near-abandonment is painful.

I am trying to paraphrase some of Dobszay's main points, but as always I have to recommend reading his book for yourself. It is amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some prayers in Latin sound easy enough to learn, but having the readings in a foreign language doesn't make sense to me. They change every week and unless you have a translation handy, or speak a dead language, it's game over as far as understanding. I'd be okay with learning Latin prayers tho. Just my $.02

How do you feel about the usual practice in traditional parishes these days where, during the Mass itself the readings are in Latin, but at the start of the homily the priest will read them in English?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite is, IMO, more direct as to pointing out exactly what the issues are, whereas Reid's Organic Development was intended primarily to be descriptive, i.e. "these are the changes and this is the context in which they arose."

For Dobszay, his primary issue with the revised calendar is its tinkering in aspects that did not need changes. Referring back to S.C.'s principle of all changes being truly necessary. He believes that, whereas some of the changes were good, such as the reviving of vigil Masses. In his opinion some of the changes destroy valuable symbolism, such as the moving of the feast of the Kingship of Christ. Also, in terms of the authenticity of the rite as a whole, Dobszay argues that some of the changes essentially do violence to the integrity of the liturgy. The renovation of the propers is the primary example of that, where many of them were altered beyond recognition. The propers are a treasure of the Roman rite, and their near-abandonment is painful.

I am trying to paraphrase some of Dobszay's main points, but as always I have to recommend reading his book for yourself. It is amazing.

 

I'll have to see if I can get my hands on a copy. I suppose the lectionary and calendar go together, which is why I lumped them in like that. But the reason I tend to see the new lectionary as such a good thing is the fact that it greatly increases the amount of Scripture we're exposed to in the liturgy. And when I say this, I'm thinking about the work of theologians such as Danielou, Congar, and de Lubac, where they talk about the connection between interpretation of Scripture and the liturgy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to see if I can get my hands on a copy. I suppose the lectionary and calendar go together, which is why I lumped them in like that. But the reason I tend to see the new lectionary as such a good thing is the fact that it greatly increases the amount of Scripture we're exposed to in the liturgy. And when I say this, I'm thinking about the work of theologians such as Danielou, Congar, and de Lubac, where they talk about the connection between interpretation of Scripture and the liturgy. 

Dobszay does devote a large section of his book to his issues with a three year cycle, and then other possibilities for expanding the amount of Scripture in the Mass while still maintaining something closer to the original one year cycle.

However, I would not feel comfortable trying to relate that chapter. :P It is one of the trickier ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you feel about the usual practice in traditional parishes these days where, during the Mass itself the readings are in Latin, but at the start of the homily the priest will read them in English?

 

Although not addressed to me, I'll respond. Honestly? Meh. I mean, don't get me wrong, I appreciate it when I go to the EF, but at the same time, it's somewhat frustrating. I think the readings should be in the vernacular, period. My understanding is that the readings are for the benefit of the faithful, and so to read them first in Latin, then in the vernacular, is unnecessary. 

Edited by Amppax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although not addressed to me, I'll respond. Honestly? Meh. I mean, don't get me wrong, I appreciate it when I go to the EF, but at the same time, it's somewhat frustrating. I think the readings should be in the vernacular, period. My understanding is that the readings are for the benefit of the faithful, and so to read them first in Latin, then in the vernacular, is unnecessary. 

I think it is a mistake to say that the readings are exclusively for the instruction of the faithful. I think there has always been a clear sense, perhaps at least until versus populum came into vogue, that the readings are also, perhaps even primarily, a proclamation and a moment of praise directed to God.

Certainly they are also for the faithful, but I think we are in dangerous territory if we try to think of it being exclusively so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The readings are not in and of themselves didactic. (I can't remember where, but I have once read a caution that it is heretical to see the Mass as a didactic occasion.  Liturgy and religion on the whole are first and foremost about the worship of God - and can be argued even further, the right worship of God.)

 

The more I've attended the EF, the more I've come to appreciate the one calendar system.  I'm of the opinion that in this case, more is not better (and don't use that against me for nice things in the liturgy - there has to be a balance within the traditions, and some vestments, etc are just downright excessive or in poor taste).  I currently attend an EF that does not read the readings in the vernacular.  In some ways, this is actually a blessing because I am then forced to due diligence and read them before hand - thus better preparing me for the Mass.  

 

I also find that preaching on the whole is better when you are restricted to the same readings year after year - priests start drawing on more scripture in their sermons.  So, we still get all the scripture, its just in a different way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having come from Judaism, I cannot understand why people want to pray in their native language. The word "kadosh" in Hebrew, which means "holy", literally means "set apart". The Jews were holy to God because they were set apart from other nations. Jerusalem was holy because she was set apart from other cities. The Holy of Holies was holy because only God entered there (and the high priest, one single time in the whole year).

 

Holiness in the Old Testament very clearly goes hand in hand with "separation". Separation from profane and even mundane things. Jews acknowledge this by maintaining Hebrew in their synagogue services (at least, the Orthodox ones do). Their reasoning is: English is the language I talk about work and problems and boring everyday things in. By NOT using that language for worship, my worship is clearly marked as different from the things I do and talk about every day. It is "automatically holy" because I do not do it in the same language I do everything else in. And that's good, because worshipping God is not, and should not be, like anything else.

 

One of the reasons I was first drawn to the Traditional Latin Mass was because I wanted this linguistic separation of the mundane from the holy back in my life. So, far from Latin putting people off of Catholicism, I think that people with a deep spiritual sense (that they don't necessarily need to be conscious of) who attend a Traditional Latin Mass are often intrigued by the mystery and symbolism and beauty of it all—and part of the intrigue is the recognition that something really meaningful is going on, but I do not understand it. THAT can actually draw people in, because it makes them WANT to understand.

Edited by Gabriela
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Dad taught me to say the rosary in Gaelic because that's how he'd learned from his Grandmother. There is something about praying in a different language that sets it apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you feel about the usual practice in traditional parishes these days where, during the Mass itself the readings are in Latin, but at the start of the homily the priest will read them in English?

 

I actually attended an EF Mass a few weeks ago and the priest read the gospel passage prior to the homily, but not the other readings. I did grab a translation at the door, so I was OK, but would have been more woefully lost if I hadn't. How do I feel about that practice? Well, I guess it's helpful as far as understanding goes. It does take an extra minute or too, but that's no biggie, just a little redundant if you've already read along.

 

There's still a lot I don't understand about the liturgy in general but learning as I go along. I'm kind of a quasi-trad or at least just a regular Catholic with trad sympathies. I can't really comment on the more technical aspects as I am very much uneducated (esp with all these latin terms like usus recentior being thrown about), but all I know is that Dan Shutte & co and holding hands during the Our Father makes me experience all sorts of terrible thoughts and feelings that I'd rather not have when trying to worship God.

 

I guess the hardest part of attending an EF Mass is knowing how I should pray/think/participate and all of the distractions that come along with that. At least in the vernacular it's easier to consciously access the meaning of what's going on (when done well). I've been poorly educated and perhaps I need to take it upon myself to learn more about liturgical practices but that's my view as an average and mediocre Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...