The 16th-century Tridentine Mass & the Pope

[jamespowers]

PS> I don't play guitar, but I still don't understand how you make it sound so BAD.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap --one word Hippies.

Regards,

J

 

[carebear]

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap --one word Hippies.

Regards,

J

That's "damn dirty hippies", James.

Three words.

 

[Lincsong]

Ground Zero for the Father Flapdoodles and Sister Fluffs with the guitars and the band was the Diocese of Oakland. Domini a Gloria

 

[jamespowers]

That's "damn dirty hippies", James.

Three words.

I can agree with that but I might put stinky in there some place if we want to get all the adjectives right.

Regards,

J

 

[carebear]

I can agree with that but I might put stinky in there some place if we want to get all the adjectives right.

Regards,

J

"Stinky" is implicit in "dirty".

 

[jamespowers]

"Stinky" is implicit in "dirty".

True but it is still not quantifiable enough.
Dirty and stinky tend to get at the core of it.

Regards,

J

 

[carebear]

True but it is still not quantifiable enough.
Dirty and stinky tend to get at the core of it.

Regards,

J

Throwing in "stinky" ruins the beauty of the phrase.

 

[jamespowers]

Throwing in "stinky" ruins the beauty of the phrase.

Ok, ok. I give. Damn dirty hippies.

Regards,

J

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Latin masses are ... better. Much better.

Why do you think so, Miss Crisplock? [huh]

.

 

[Miss Crisplock]

Several reasons, most of which I had forgotten:

Latin: Sure you've got the translation in English in your missal, and while some parts of the mass are easy to commit to memory, one is compelled to pay attention during most of the mass. Also, in a short time I picked up a lot of latin that has been very helpful in understanding and clarity not only of the mass and religion but the world in general.

Priest facing forward: For the bulk of the mass the Priest and people are facing the same way, twards the alter. The idea that where one's body is influences the mind comes into play here. We are together, doing the same thing, praying to the same God, as a body. There is more than a man speaking to us in the form of the Priest today during mass.

Kneeling: Concept of body and spirit as expoused by Lewis Carrol, that we are attached to our bodies and that what we do with them matters spiritually. To do this in concert with an entire Church is for want of a better word focusing.

Visuals: The idea, and effort put into a traditional alter reinforces that this is a place that is special, apart and elevated from daily life.

Music: The best that can be found, or made with human voices and participation in mind for the elevation of the spirit.

Good Grief, I almost forgot

Dress: As Loungers are well aware, there is something that can be invoked with clothing. Traditional Masses I have been to have had a dress code. Skirts below the knee, no pants on women, no sleaveless, strapless or sholder bearing tops, wearing a head covering for ladies, and removing a hat for men, no shorts on men change the amount of respect for oneself and others. It isn't an entertainment that encourages you to come as you are. It is a service that encourages you to be your best, and most people tend to dress that way.
In those more obvious ways, and in many other deeper and spiritual ways I have found it not only different, but much, much better.

Quiet: When we can't go to the bathroom without someone on a cell phone, it is a respite to be in a place to pray that is quiet... No talking to others, really. You can hear yourself think. Sometimes you might hear other things.

 

[clevispin]

Another positive aspect of the traditional missal as it is celebrated today is the discipline of the rite. The rubrics are dense and precise and are directly associated with ideas. The new missal is less rubrically inclined and therefore more broad and open to interpretation. Not only does this tend to be boring but it also gives rise to liturgical abuses and confusion.

There is also a very big experiential differential between a high mass and a low. The high has 3 clerics and numerous other folk in the sanctuary while the low has just one priest and an alterboy or two. The high is sung and the music can be awesome - especially if the place has good accoustics. The low mass is predominantly silent while the high has a very grand tone. Each has its benefits.

The traditional missal is half a millenium in developement and over a thousand years in practice. The newer missal was completely reformed in a matter of a few years - during the 1960s at that. Fedora vs foam-front ball cap.

m

 

[jamespowers]

Another positive aspect of the traditional missal as it is celebrated today is the discipline of the rite. The rubrics are dense and precise and are directly associated with ideas. The new missal is less rubrically inclined and therefore more broad and open to interpretation. Not only does this tend to be boring but it also gives rise to liturgical abuses and confusion.

There is also a very big experiential differential between a high mass and a low. The high has 3 clerics and numerous other folk in the sanctuary while the low has just one priest and an alterboy or two. The high is sung and the music can be awesome - especially if the place has good accoustics. The low mass is predominantly silent while the high has a very grand tone. Each has its benefits.

The traditional missal is half a millenium in developement and over a thousand years in practice. The newer missal was completely reformed in a matter of a few years - during the 1960s at that. Fedora vs foam-front ball cap.

m

You are both really thinking this out. Very good. :eusa_clap
I hadn't remembered quite all of the points you both made but I do agree. There is a difference.
However, many churches were also changed in structure after Vatican II. There is one in town that now has the altar halfway into the church while the original is at the north end of the building still. Wierd bead like things hang from the ceiling and the baptismal font is a jacuzzi near the altar! [huh]
Lightly put, it is not the same church my grandparents were married in in 1916. I am sure other can thing of other things that were removed or changed.
We won't even get into Liberation Theology.

Regards,

J

 

[clevispin]

The architecture is certainly important and one can argue for years as to what arrangement is most fitting. Churches were being designed into the early sixties tho with the traditional rites in mind. There are quite "modern" churches that have designed since the 30s and accomodated the ancient rite arguably just as well as a neo-gothic space built in the 1920s. Corbusier himself built churches before Vatican II. I don't think style tho is so critical. What makes a good town - Rome, Paris etc. is not so much the styles of individual elements but rather the overall arrangement of streets, squares, etc. If you have the basics then everything alse can be accomodated.

I've seen several examples of vertically oriented churches converted to the more horizontal model. What most of us consider typologically sacred space was changed into "auditoreum" type space. This may be more fitting for some protestant services but it is very un-Catholic in my opinion. There is the same culture war blazing in the church today that is occuring in society overall. I think it is more widespread today than it has been for hundreds of years prior and the aspects of liturgy and architecture are just part of the arguement. Liturgy however is a public expression of belief and so much hinges upon it.

m

 

[jamespowers]

The architecture is certainly important and one can argue for years as to what arrangement is most fitting. Churches were being designed into the early sixties tho with the traditional rites in mind. There are quite "modern" churches that have designed since the 30s and accomodated the ancient rite arguably just as well as a neo-gothic space built in the 1920s. Corbusier himself built churches before Vatican II. I don't think style tho is so critical. What makes a good town - Rome, Paris etc. is not so much the styles of individual elements but rather the overall arrangement of streets, squares, etc. If you have the basics then everything alse can be accomodated.

I've seen several examples of vertically oriented churches converted to the more horizontal model. What most of us consider typologically sacred space was changed into "auditoreum" type space. This may be more fitting for some protestant services but it is very un-Catholic in my opinion. There is the same culture war blazing in the church today that is occuring in society overall. I think it is more widespread today than it has been for hundreds of years prior and the aspects of liturgy and architecture are just part of the arguement. Liturgy however is a public expression of belief and so much hinges upon it.

m

Ah yes, the auditoreum. That is my pet peeve. No saints, no art, no stations of the cross---just bare walls. It could well serve as a gymnasium after the mass. Clearly a case of not even getting the basics right. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[carebear]

Ah yes, the auditoreum. That is my pet peeve. No saints, no art, no stations of the cross---just bare walls. It could well serve as a gymnasium after the mass. Clearly a case of not even getting the basics right. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

My church has met in an actual gymnasium for most of its existence. First in the multi-purpose room of our original, built to spec, campus and then in a local high school's gym after we outgrew our own. Now for the first time we have a new building and a real sanctuary.

I grew up in the Presbyterian Church, in one of the older chuches in town. We had actual bells and a big stained glass window. We had an (electrical) pipe organ. Wood pews and cranberry carpet. Stand to sing, sit to listen, stand to sing again. Sung a recessional as the pastors walked out.

I thus grew up appreciating solemnity and ceremony in a service. You are surrounded by the history and depth of the faith.

Going to Mass with friends was not quite so odd (except for the weird break in the Lord's Prayer ) as it might be for a modern evangelical.

 

[jamespowers]

My church has met in an actual gymnasium for most of its existence. First in the multi-purpose room of our original, built to spec, campus and then in a local high school's gym after we outgrew our own. Now for the first time we have a new building and a real sanctuary.

I grew up in the Presbyterian Church, in one of the older chuches in town. We had actual bells and a big stained glass window. We had an (electrical) pipe organ. Wood pews and cranberry carpet. Stand to sing, sit to listen, stand to sing again. Sung a recessional as the pastors walked out.

I thus grew up appreciating solemnity and ceremony in a service. You are surrounded by the history and depth of the faith.

I know what you mean. The church I go to (and have all of my life) once met in a local theatre until they got enough money together to build a church. No bells but it has all the other accoutrements you mentioned. Fortunately it was built in the early 50s before Vatican II so it is more traditional.

Regards,

J

 

[Miss Crisplock]

The last novus ordo mass I went to had an oval seating pattern with a dinning room table and a cheneal (sp?) throw. There was a very large cucifix above the entrance door of Christ dead. It is one of the new "Christ Defeated" crucifixes. No kneeling was allowed. Or praying, presumably.

 

[jamespowers]

The last novus ordo mass I went to had an oval seating pattern with a dinning room table and a cheneal (sp?) throw. There was a very large cucifix above the entrance door of Christ dead. It is one of the new "Christ Defeated" crucifixes. No kneeling was allowed. Or praying, presumably.

Gee, aside from the crucifix, that about describes what they did to the old church my grandparents got married in. The crucifix is still above the original altar at the "real" front of the church. [huh]
My church had one of those christ on the cross crucifixes until the 1980s when it was chucked and replaced with the Christ risen crucifix. Much better. I didn't realize until the old one was gone.

Regards,

J

 

[Miss Crisplock]

Er, I'm no theologan, but I thought all crucifixes had Christ on them. If they didn't they were crosses. Not to put too fine a point on it, but after he had risen, wouldn't he be gone?

 

[jamespowers]

Er, I'm no theologian, but I thought all crucifixes had Christ on them. If they didn't they were crosses. Not to put too fine a point on it, but after he had risen, wouldn't he be gone?

Heheheheheh! You have a good point about the crucifix and Websters agrees with you:
"a representation of Christ on the cross"
However the Christ with his arms open in front of the cross is still a crucifix since he is still on it but not nailed to it. [huh]
This is what I was referring to:

Regards,

J