There is a very interesting exchange
over at the Catholic Herald about this. Make sure to read Fr Aidan Nichols's reply to the questions.
Did Vatican II mess up the Mass?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Stratford |
Did Vatican II mess up the Mass? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 727 (11/05/09 05:58:23) Second Spring Director |
|
||
|
Mall |
Why the fuss? | ||
|
Posts: 6 (11/05/09 08:25:04) |
The debate is interesting and to resolve it why not do what Jesus did at the Last Supper.
When are Lord held the first Mass ( the Last Supper ) there is no indication in the Gospels or Paul's letters that he turned his back on the disciples. As the priest is representing Christ why should he turn his back on the congregation? God bless Mall |
||
|
Mall |
The vernacular | ||
|
Posts: 9 (11/21/09 07:24:07) |
It is also worth pointing out that when Jesus said the first Mass, the Last Supper, He did so using the local dialect. He did not use either Latin or Greek
which would have been internationally recognised; He used the vernacular. Why should Mass, in todays church, not be said in the vernacular wherever it is being
said?
God bless Mall |
||
|
Stratford |
A couple of answers | ||
|
Posts: 734 (11/22/09 10:26:40) Second Spring Director |
In a way I don't much care what language is used and where the priest is facing - I think people get too obsessed about these relatively trivial matters.
Jesus probably did use the local vernacular, Aramaic, at the Last Supper. If we knew what he said in Aramaic maybe we would use that, but we don't. As it is, the earliest records of what he said are in Greek and then Latin, both of which were languages in common use at the time, so using Latin is a way of getting close to the original. As long as we use the authorized translations of the Missal, in Latin, Greek or English (or French or Japanese) the essential points are preserved. The priest might face East, because of the symbolism of sunrise, or he might face the same direction as (and therefore with his back to) the congregation, intending thereby to be leading them towards the Father. The symbolism could work either way. In any case the Last Supper involved the Apostles that Jesus was commissioning as priests and bishops of his Church, not all and sundry disciples, so you could say the congregation in Church represents the wider group who were not actually sitting at table. Then the argument about not 'turning his back on the disciples' would apply only to the priests (if any) who happen to be concelebrating at a given Mass. But as I say, surely this is not so very important compared to what is going on in the consecration and communion? The Church is free to express and represent that in different ways, and does so in many different rites and uses, Eastern and Western. |
||
|
Mall |
Vatican II did not mess up the Mass | ||
|
Posts: 10 (11/24/09 14:40:20) |
I agree it is not good to get obsessed with these matters, although I would not call
them trivial, as Mass is normally said in the vernacular and the priest usually faces the congregation. I can also see how the matter of
language could be trivial when dealing with catholics well educated in the faith and the language being used (or with the intelligence, time and inclination to
work around a foreign language.) However, I believe that for the majority of people the language used in Mass does matter. To participate fully in the service
people need to know what is happening and the use of the vernacular is a great aid. I think that the use of the vernacular together with the priest facing the
congregation helps to bring out the "communion" aspect of Holy Communion; we are in communion together with Christ; we are one body.
Stratford points out that:
"Jesus probably did use the local vernacular" and this seems to be the
important point, not that the local vernacular was Aramaic. Jesus wanted his message understood by everyone listening, not just the elite, hence the use of the
local vernacular then and, logically, now. When the New Testament was being written it was sensible to use Latin and Greek the two most widespread spoken
languages in the Roman Empire at that time, I believe. That is no longer the case. In the present day English or Spanish would make more sense for spreading
the Good News than Latin or Greek, however, the local vernacular is still the best way to reach most people with the Good News. I do agree that authorised
translations in the vernacular are the most appropriate.
The Last Supper did involve the Apostles, including Judas who betrayed Jesus,
the other Apostles who all ran away and Peter who disowned Jesus three times. If Jesus was ever going to turn his back on a congregation this was it! This is
one of the lessons of the Gospels which gives us all great hope, that Jesus forgave them and loved them. Peter wrote: " you are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" ( 1 Peter 2:9 ) and Lumen Gentium calls us all the People of God so it is hard to believe that Jesus did
not turn his back on "the Apostles that Jesus was commissioning as priests and bishops of his Church" but would turn his back on the rest of his
"royal priesthood" the People of God. In fact this is the opposite of the Gospel presentation of Jesus.
It is agreed that consecration and
communion are the most important parts of the Mass, which reinforces the point that people should understand what is happening and feel that they are part of
it, part of the communion of the People of God.
God bless
Mall
Last Edited By: Stratford
11/28/09 09:47:06.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Roger Buck |
|
||
|
Posts: 2 (12/14/09 14:09:20) |
Re Stratford saying:
"In a way I don't much care what language is used and where the priest is facing - I think people get too obsessed about these relatively trivial matters. " Personally these issues were ones I had to struggle with for years before reaching a verdict. One thing missing above has pointed me to a wisdom in the tradition ad orientam. It is this - the priest facing away can pray and focus in a way that is far more difficult when facing the people. The quality of the prayer in the Mass, while secondary to the Real Presence, is it seems to me, far more important than generally realised ... In my case providence led me to much travel through seven countries over a decade, literally visiting many dozens of locales for very often daily Mass, both rural and urban. I saw repeatedly how powerfully the priest faced the temptation to become entertainer or even comedian or even dance star ... And not devote himself to prayer. After years of wrestling between different positions, the verdict is now in for me. Those seeking the position ad orientam are not obsessed with trivialities. They are onto something very important, something which I wonder was part of an original wisdom ... This matter aside, I am very grateful for the very fine, very good work being done here ...
Roger Buck
Weblog and site: http://corjesusacratissimum.org
Last Edited By: Roger Buck
12/14/09 14:14:05.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Stratford |
Catholic trivia |
||
|
Posts: 746 (12/15/09 00:51:44) Second Spring Director |
Just to point out - I said 'relatively trivial', not 'trivialities'... by which I meant that
the presence of Christ and our own disposition to receive Him, and the action of the Mass, are more important
than how exactly the priest is standing or what he is looking at. In fact I agree that orientation and many other symbolic matters in the liturgy are
important, and we need to re-educate people to see and appreciate that. A good place to start is Ratzinger's 'The Spirit of the Liturgy' (and
Guardini, of course). See also this article I wrote about mystagogy. In my work with CTS I have tried to develop a series along these lines called Deeper Christianity. Hope that helps.
|
||
|
Roger Buck |
|
||
|
Posts: 3 (12/15/09 01:43:21) |
Thank you, Stratford.
I am sorry to have reduced your "relatively trivial" into "trivialities". Though I wonder if invoking the word trivial merits reflection, given your evident sincere concern for these issues. I was already aware of your fine article on Mystagogy, though not the Deeper Truth series. Your book on Sacraments as Mystery forever evades my (breaking) shoestring budget. Euphemism. I want to investigate when it is possible for me. I share your concerns with Catholicism as a continuing Path of Mystery. And believe among other things that these pressing issues help to explain the enormous success of the New Age movement and the de-Christianisation it entails. (I write this as a former member of the Findhorn community who gave 20 good years of my life to New Age-ism completely unaware of the Catholic Mystery. My life - like that of countless New Agers - might have been very different if this Mystery were more evident.) You write: "the presence of Christ and our own disposition to receive Him, and the action of the Mass, are more important than how exactly the priest is standing or what he is looking at." Yes the presence of Jesus Christ is the most important thing of all of course and exists in all valid Masses, NO, Tridentine, Eastern, etc But my point was to do with exactly this: "our disposition to receive Him". The point I was trying to make is that this seems to me directly relevant to the orientation of the Priest. The two go hand-in-hand. The new orientation of the Priest has led to an atmosphere far, far, far less reverential and supportive of "one´s disposition to receive". Or such is my experience and conviction after years with this question.
Roger Buck
Weblog and site: http://corjesusacratissimum.org |
||
