THERE IS AN UPDATE TO THE TEXT OF THE HYMN HERE.
A friend sent me this and it just wouldn’t be fair not to share, with my translation:
Hymnus proelii pro Missa Tridentina
1.
Resurrecta ex ruina
Versus tabernaculum
Spiret Missa Tridentina
Ad firmandum populum.REFRAIN:
Lupos ovium in pelle
Vincimus Rosario.
Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix,
Virgo Dei Genitrix,
Tu adjuva nos!
Tu adjuva nos!2.
Sancte Pater, pastor Sancti,
Sacrum duc Imperium!
Gregi da desideranti
Sacrum ritum veterum!REFRAIN
3.
Re divina celebrata
Ori nostro sacerdos
Corpus ex Immaculata
Det cum eo jungens nos!REFRAIN
Battle Hymn for the Tridentine Mass
1.
Risen from the ruin
toward the tabernacle
let the Tridentine Mass breathe
in order to strengthen the people.REFRAIN:
We will with the Rosary defeat
the wolves in sheep’s clothing
Mediatrix, Coredemptrix,
Virgin Mother of God.
Help us!
Help us!2.
Holy Father, shepherd of the Holy One
Lead the Sacred Empire!
Give to the flock desiring it
the sacred rite of the ancients!REFRAIN
3.
Once the divine matter has been celebrated
let the priest put the Body from the Immaculate One into our mouth
joining us with Him.REFRAIN
Just a bit of fun, no? I should add a little disclaimer about Mary as Co-redemptrix, however. So far this is not an official teaching of the Church. But it fits the meter.
I’ll give extra credit to those who can talk about the meter and any other verses similar to this.
Loading ...
Nice!
Here is the music that goes with it. It is the old DDR national anthem:
http://ingeb.org/Lieder/aufersta.html
Interesting, I always heard that “co-redemptrix” was a doctrine, but not a dogma.
I know the catechism says she is the mediatrix, but I guess that is different from co-redemptrix.
Although how do we interpret the Catechism #968 which quotes Lumen Gentium #61:
“In a wholly singular way she [Mary] cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning chairty in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls.”
That sounds like co-redeeming to me. However, I am not a Mariologist, so I would like to understand it better. Seems Marian speculation can be a big divide within the Church.
Roman Sacristan: And, since it doesn’t really have much to do with this entry, it need not distract us here. o{]:¬)
Oops, sorry, I figured since you had mentioned it …
I don’t wish to further any distraction in the comments-discussion section for this entry, but thought that readers here might like to know about a freely accessible on-line essay which explores the “coredemptrix doctrine” in light of Sacred Scripture, Patristics, later Latin theology, and the Ordinary Magisterium: Cooperation in Redemption by the late Fr. William Most.
See also: Ordinary Magisterium on Mary’s Immediate Cooperation in the Objective Redemption.
A fine composition in iambic dimeter (also called iambic quaternarius). One small point, though: since “vetus” is a third declension adjective, “sacrum ritum veterum” is more literally translated “sacred rite of the ancients.” The “sacred old rite” would be literally “sacrum ritum veterem,” which, by the way, doesn’t change the meter.
Parochus: Good catch! You get the gold star for the day!
To give credit, here’s the source, the most famous/infamous German Catholic website.
http://www.kreuz.net/article.4556.html
Maybe if we pay one of the visiting choirs who sing one piece at the Wednesday audience to sing it ,it may remind the Pontiff of the motu proprio which last December a prominent cardianl in the know said would be issued “subito” as well of the Exhortation which last november was “imminent”.
Excellent hymn, Pater!!! Hopefully we can get someone to sing it. It’ll be beautiful!
Fr. McAfee,
Good idea. I’ve been one waiting patiently for the motu proprio, but now I’m beginning to feel like a donkey being led by the proverbial carrot. Surely the Holy Father must realize the agony of his traditional priests and faithful. Why don’t “pastoral considerations” that Vatican II so euphamistically ushered in apply to traditionalists, too?
And Father McAfee, you should know that you were the priest that brought me to Catholic Tradition, just before you left your last assignment, with your reverent High Masses and hard-hitting sermons. I now attend an FSSP Parish in Colorado, but never have forgotten you. I pray that your own agony may soon cease and be able to offer the Mass of the Ages. That is of course if we haven’t all been had =-]
God Bless.
If you tack the first two lines of the refrain onto each verse and drop the rest of the refrain you could sing it to the common melody of “Tantum Ergo” too. (Although that doesn’t keep the original song as the author intended it.)
Surely the Holy Father must realize the agony of his traditional priests and faithful.
Over the last 40 years, I’ve often seriously questioned how so many of the most faithful Catholics (lay and clerical) in the Church could have been subjected to this relentless dry martyrdom if those responsible really knew and cared that much about what we were going through. Patient explanations of the unquestioned bare-bones validity of the Novus Ordo don’t help much (even if we continue to attend it more faithfully than many who don’t care about liturgy enough to feel any deprivation).
In my case, I entered the Church as a young adult just a few years before Vatican II, solely (at least originally) because of the beauty and reverence of the traditional liturgy. Since it was so abruptly and callously jerked, I like many others have hardly passed a single day without conscious feeling of deep anguish and loss.
Now, our good Pope Benedict seems so gentle and kind-hearted that I can’t help wondering whether – if this pain inflicted were at the forefront of his awareness – he could continue to inflict it solely (if this is the reason) to spend time mollifying dissidents whose loyalty to Pope and Church is not comparable to ours. Is there some other explanation some one can point out?
I can’t do much with the verses, but the refrain can be easily fit into the chorus melody of the song Come Sail Away, by the group Styx, ca. 1980.
Hope the reference doesn’t offend anyone…
Just a minor quibble: in the third stanza, “O-ri NO-stro SA-cer-dos” (tonic accents in capitals) doesn’t work. It’s sa-CER-dos, not SA-cerdos…
To those in painful anxiety waiting for the Motu Proprio:
Doing it correctly is more important than doing it quickly. Remember that when MacBeth says,
“If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well
It were done quickly”,
he is speaking about doing evil (assassination).
The last thing we need is a quick and dirty Motu Proprio.
“Patience is a virtue.”
…which I pray for daily! :-)
Doing it correctly is more important than doing it quickly.
The last thing we need is a quick and dirty Motu Proprio.
Piffle! A perfectly adequate motu proprio could have been ready months or years ago, and probably was. Indeed, I don’t for a moment doubt that Cardinal Ratzinger had tried his fine hand at one long before he assumed the papacy. This oft-repeated prattle is an evasion rather than an explication.
Does any have a conjectured explanation for the delay that’s actually informative, or at least thought-provoking?
Father,
About those spies…
Henry Edwards writes:
Indeed, I don’t for a moment doubt that Cardinal Ratzinger had tried his fine hand at one long before he assumed the papacy.
Indeed, he could just turn the clock back to 1986 and see what he recommended to then-Pope John Paul II then.
Fr. Z:
… and any other verses similar …
Ne sermo in ecclesiis
regnet ultra barbarus
ne nostris in sollemniis
admittatur dedecus
Cunctis in sanctuariis
piis canat vocibus
cordibusque semper castis
Christi laudes populus.
How’s that?
I seem to recall the holy father’s first encyclical was delayed . . . and there was no great controversy about that. Maybe it’s just a Roman thing?
If there’s one thing I learned in Italy, it’s when Italians say “subito” it rarely gets done “subito.”
So it’s not sung to “Battle Hymn of the Republic”?
mmmm could you tell us a litle bit more about those spies Father?
One of my friends from Cambridge sent me this ode he made. I couldn’t help laughing (and feeling guilty too):
Mine eyes have seen the glory of liturgical reform,
It is to the modern era that we now must all conform,
It is with inclusive liturgy the Church we will transform.
Paul the Sixth is marching on.
Glory, glory to the Council,
Glory, glory to the Council,
Glory, glory to the Council,
Paul the Sixth is marching on.
We have stripped out every altar and we’ve taken down the rail,
For now all elaborate ritual we must try to curtail,
And then ‘noble simplicity’ will finally prevail.
Paul the Sixth is marching on.
Glory, glory…
All errors of the Old Church, with our changes, we have solved,
For now at the new communion we are all to be involved,
And by general absolution, we will have our sins absolved.
Paul the Sixth is marching on.
Glory, glory…
Now some illiberals claim that we are emptying the pews,
But the only ones to leave us are the ones we want to lose,
We will fill all empty places with Mohammedans and Jews,
Paul the Sixth is marching on.
Glory, glory…
We have entered into dialogue with every kind of sect,
Since for all of their beliefs we have the greatest of respect,
It’s this inter-faith discussion that the new Mass should reflect.
Paul the Sixth is marching on.
Glory, glory…
Henry Edwards:
Piffle! A perfectly adequate motu proprio could have been ready months or years ago, and probably was.
Then why did the Ecclesia Dei Commission recommend changes?
Indeed, I don’t for a moment doubt that Cardinal Ratzinger had tried his fine hand at one long before he assumed the papacy. This oft-repeated prattle is an evasion rather than an explication.
So you think he sat around practicing writing a Motu Proprio like a 16 year old boy practices his signature?
This is not merely a matter of writing a document, but of making sure of its implementation. Any papal document that is not implemented tends to isolate the papacy rather than promote papal authority.
Personally, I have always thought that the first move should be toward restoring ad orientem, which, among other things, will make the reception of the Motu Proprio better.
Does any have a conjectured explanation for the delay that’s actually informative, or at least thought-provoking?
Why do you assume that there’s been a delay?
During my Roman years much of the criticism I heard toward JPII tended to be that there were too many documents and not enough implementation–and that there was too much hurry in everything.
RBrown,
This is not merely a matter of writing a document, but of making sure of its implementation. Any papal document that is not implemented tends to isolate the papacy rather than promote papal authority.
Precisely. This is more sensible. Very possibly, the motu proprio has long since assumed its final written form. Now, I hope and assume, Benedict (knowing full well why so little along these lines actually got done under his predecessor) is laying the groundwork for the motu proprio to have concrete results after its promulgation. We can also assume that he’s planning for a continuing follow-through afterwards, like we didn’t usually see during the past papacy.
Personally, I have always thought that the first move should be toward restoring ad orientem, which, among other things, will make the reception of the Motu Proprio better.
I personally will think an important opportunity missed if the post-synodal exhortation does not feature some meaningful step toward restoration of ad orientem celebration in the Novus Ordo, as I believe is a prerequiste to getting the new Mass back on the right track. Not necessarily all ad orientem semper et ubique, but much more commonly.
But you have, as I requested, contributed an informative and thought-provoking idea here. Namely, that a prior step encouraging ad orientem celebration of the Novus Ordo could bolster the implementation of his motu propro regarding the TLM. Worth not just us, but Benedict, thinking about. Thanks.
I hate to interrupt this very interesting discussion – please regard it as an intercession rather…
Please, everybody, be VERY careful regarding information coming from kreuz.net. Most of the articles published there are at the very edge of right-winged conservatism, often already lefebvristic or even sedevacantistic. As for the user comments, be grateful if you don’t understand them. I check kreuz.net only very scarcely, for reading it always leaves me depressed.
RBrown, Henry:
Interesting comments.
May I add these observations:
1. Our late holy father, right or wrong, was — in my judgment — not simply inattentive, but was attentive to other things. He was a busy man, and history and eternity will judge whether they were needful things. Assuming they were, then they helped make it possible for his successor to do other things.
2. Whatever the case may be about the issues of #1, above, we do know this: our present holy father is not only intensely interested in liturgical matters, he is also a very thoughtful person. I.e., that tends to bolster the explanation offered by you, RBrown, that he is working on implementation.
3. Rome always takes too long. I don’t know for sure, but I believe most of us discussing this are Americans, and we tend to be hurry, hurry, for good or ill.
For example: when I ordered a gold vestment, some time back, from a European company, it was some weeks prior to Easter. Enough time–just enough–for them to get it to me.
An American attitude is: rush it, so we have it for Easter. A European attitude is: Easter is coming, this has to wait!
Victor,
I have given up a number of sites – Rorate Caeli and AngelQueen – for the same reason: I always come away feeling rather grubby after reading the uncharitable venom in some of the comments.
“If there’s one thing I learned in Italy, it’s when Italians say “subito†it rarely gets done “subito.†”
Luckily, Cardinal Castrillon isn’t Italian!
AC:
That may be true, it is by no means certainly true.
In addition, even it true, that is merely consistent with the truth that God brings good out of evil; so that good came from Archbishop Lefevbre’s actions does not answer the question of the rightness or wrongness of his actions, either way. This is a corollary of the Catholic moral insight that it is never permissible to do evil that good may come from it.
I believe that regardless of all other aspects of that episode, he should never have done anything apart from the Successor of Peter.
Granting your premise of the good flowing from that act; and adding mine, that it was disobedient and wrong, then it should also be remembered that it had bad consequences as well. A full consideration of the impact of his choices must include that, even if we must, I think, leave that evaluation for history and eternity for now.
Finally, none of us can know what would have happened had the Archbishop chosen a different course. However probable your assertion — that the first indult “would never have come about” otherwise, it is definitely not certainly true.
AC,
What does your premise have to do with the uncharitable and outrageous comments towards the Pope that can be found on the websites mentioned?
Fr Fox,
I think this is one of the most difficult areas of a Catholic. I am not trying to liken Archbishop Lefebvre to Athanasius in any way, but, certainly, your statement raises the question in my mind in what way the disobedience of St Athanasius to the Pope at the time of the Arian heresy was justified or not. And, of course, we – as orthodox Catholics – would say that it was justified.
Also, it has been said to me that the Novus Ordo is “better” than the Traditional Roman Rite because Pope Paul VI accepted and promulgated it. However, my own feelings struggle with the truth of this statement (I think both are valid and also attend both, but I can’t help feeling more able to participate in the Traditional Mass) and looking back at the history of the Church I don’t think it is morally wrong to be allowed to question – and in certain cases like the Arian heresy – to disobey the decisions of the pontiff.
Or am I way off bat here?
Fr. Fox:
Good point on the fact that we’ll never know if the indult would have come — i just thought that was a redundant
point so i didn’t make it. What I intended to convey was the fact that the archbishop certainly spurred it and the 88 indult
was indeed a direct result of his actions.
What’s troubling though is your decription of his actions as evil. While they were certainly a last resort, many theologians believe his actions came about from a real crisis and were valid, even conforming to the new Code of
Cannon Law (1983). And if not, then how could the head of Ecclesia Dei say we can assist at SSPX Masses and fulfill our
Sunday obligation at their Masses as long as our intention isn’t to separate ourselves from other Catholics? ANd he said this in an interview with 30 Days as well — not just in a letter to one person. So if his actions, and the chapels
he set up because of those actions were evil, then the Vatican would be leading its flock to evil by saying its Masses
fulfill the Sunday obligation.
I know this isn’t the topic so I won’t post anything else on this. Just didn’t want the original comment to stand
that people shouldn’t visit SSPX websites if they choose too. The anglequeen.org site is probably the best site
in the world for Catholic news — pretty much the Drudge Report for news of the faith. They don’t even takes stands
on issues, just post stories.
And, again, I am not a member of the SSPX. I assist at an indult Mass each Sunday. I just don’t ignore fellow traditionalists who I know i owe a debt of gratitude.
Jeffrey:
By outrageous, I’d have to see them to judge that for myself. Criticism is not always outrageous. I’ve seen
criticism of the Holy Father on this site by religious men, it’s just done politely. If someone is being outright
disrespectful, as some traditional sites are, then that is wrong. But I have never seen any disrespect on the
anglequeen.org new section of the site. On the forum page maybe, but not on the news page which is what i read.
Garrett writes:
Luckily, Cardinal Castrillon isn’t Italian!
Yes, but he does work with lots of Italians. I’m sure His Eminence is not free from the effects of Romanitas.
Didn’t the Holy Father recently refer to Abp. Lefebvre as a “true man of the universal Church”? (I think I read this in The Latin Mass but I’m not sure.)
AC,
That is fair. I will admit that the comment I speak of come from posters vice the moderator which certainly is a distinction. It’s more of a case of certain types flock to certain places.
AC:
I think if you read my comments again, very closely, I did not characterize Archbishop Lefevbre’s actions as evil; I spoke about good and evil, without saying whether the “good from evil” idea actually applied to his actions:”…so that good came from Archbishop Lefevbre’s actions does not answer the question of the rightness or wrongness of his actions, either way.”
I did, I grant, describe his actions as “disobedient and wrong.”
I’m not trying to split hairs; my purpose in that post was to provoke the discussion not of the rightness or wrongness of Archbishop Lefevbre’s actions, per se, but rather to look at the broader philosophical question. There’s nothing wrong with the “Lefevbre: right or wrong?” question, but it’s a well-worn road.
You might say, well then, why did I offer my own stance? I was hoping it would be okay — and in the interests of full disclosure, fair — if I simply let it be known what I believe.
Fr. Fox:
Of course it’s ok! Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean you’re points aren’t valid. That’s what people
do to me and other traditionals and you’ll never get that from me.
AC: I have been deleting most of your comments. The reason is this. You posted some things about the Pope, and others, were offensive enough to Catholic ears and eyes that I could not let them stand. I will let this last comment of yours stand, because it is civil. So, consider this a second chance. Think about where you are writing your comments before hitting that “Submit” button, please.
I wonder if someone had any thoughts on under which circumstances disobedience to the pontiff would be justified – if, of course, at all?
I like it but my problem is that there aren’t enough lines in the verses to fit the music! Very sad…
I mean try singing a verse of the Battle Hymn:
“In the beauty of the lilies
Christ was born across the sea
With a glory in his bosom
That transfigures you and me…”
Now at this point the verses as composed simply quit!
But you still need more lines:
“…As He died to make men holy
Let us die to make men free
While God is marching oooooon!”
Then the refrain…
“Glory, glory Hallelujah”, etc.
A lovely bit of work that is deeply marred. Back to the drawing board and it will benefit enormously. Funny enough to be done right.
As I say, if you still don’t see it, try singing a verse in the Latin spoof to the tune and you will end up up the creek without a paddle about 2/3 of the way through.
It’s perfectly licit to call Mary “Co-redemptorix”, by the way. One doesn’t need to wait for Church approval. Many great Catholic doctors have used this title as if it were a Catholic truth.
Just because it’s not overtly heretical to deny it doesn’t mean that one can’t accept and use it. Nor does it mean that one can’t assert it as Catholic doctrine just because it is not yet defined. Most dogmas of the Church were FIRST asserted as Catholic doctrine by Catholics and then defined as such. But the assertions did not wait upon the definitions. I doubt that definitions such as the Immaculate Conception would have occurred if that were the case. Nor would the ordinary Magisterium of the Church be able to function.
I THINK–I BELIEVE–for all my enormous admiration for the Artist Formerly Known as Cardinal Ratzinger–that Mary as Co-Redemptorix is Catholic doctrine.
BTW, is the lifelong virginity of Jesus Catholic doctrine in the defined sense?
On Fr. Fox and the Lefebvre issue:
I agree with Fr. Fox about the distinction between good coming from an action and the action itself being good.
One of the great mistakes we make in our lives is acting as if we are responsible for outcomes. We are not. This is one of the great lessons of the Lord of the Rings (book, not wretched film).
Boromir is right of course. The wise choose a foolish strategy that any normal analysis shows as absurd. By any normal measure, it cannot possibly succeed. One has to trust and follow the right road without being able to see the end or how things will work out.
This is what God expects of us. And this is where I believe Archbishop Lefebvre failed. This excessive trust in rational analysis of outcomes rather than faith in the Church is where Traditionalists most often come to grief. And sadly it often leads them into schismatic habits of mind if not into outright schism. And sometimes into total loss of faith.
I remember ol’ Ratzi before he got all dolled up in white once saying something related to the liturgical questions of the the day to the effect of: “It seems impossible to trust the Church after all she has done in the past few decades. But that is precisely what we must do even if it seems impossible: Trust the Church. We must trust.”
Because that’s HOW we trust God. And is it really any harder than trusting in God between the Good Friday and Easter when defeat was unarguable and the proof of the utter banality and pointlessness of the Apostle’s faith had been demonstrated to any reasonable mind? Yet that’s what the Apostles were expected to do: Trust.
To all who have seen a Tridentine mass:
As a convert, the only Catholic Mass I’ve ever known is the Novus Ordo, as you call it. To me, it is beautiful, and as a former Protestant I can tell you just how awe-inspiring and holy the Catholic Mass is! Even the N.O. mass which so many of you look down on.
Granted, I may change my mind once I ever see the old style latin Mass, and will think as all of you think. But for me, right now, the thought of suddenly having to sit and look at the back of a priest’s head as he’s rattling off prayers in a language I don’t know…. well that thought leaves me unsettled and sad.
I can’t disagree with any of the good things you say about the old Latin Mass, because I’ve never experienced it. Perhaps it is truly so much more sacred and beautiful than the N.O. that I’d come to agree with all of you. But for now, since all I have ever known is the N.O., I just can’t understand why so many of you consider it so bad. It’s in English. I understand English. Granted, the prayers could be better translated than they are, and I also don’t like the New American Bible at all. But WHY does having the Mass said in English make it wrong? What is so special about Latin? Can’t the older traditions of the former mass be brought into our present-day Mass but still be done in a language I can understand?
Sorry to be complaining, and mostly I love this blog and am fairly ‘orthodox’ in my Catholicism. (I live in same town as EWTN, and attend their masses occasionally, so what I see of N.O. Mass isn’t liberal at all) But when the only form of Mass I’ve ever known is considered to be so anemic and paltry, it just bothers me alot. The N.O. Mass isn’t that bad. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, please.
Janet,
I believe you and I may have discussed some of these questions previously in another forum, so partly for the possible benefit of others here who may share these questions, I’d like to comment briefly again. Mostly to the point that the several different things you say are not only true, but by no means inconsistent.
[The Novus Ordo] is beautiful, and as a former Protestant I can tell you just how awe-inspiring and holy the Catholic Mass is!
Indeed it is. What could be more awe-inspiring than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (in whatever rite)?
Granted, I may change my mind once I ever see the old style latin Mass, and will think as all of you think.
It’s possible, but not necessary.
But for me, right now, the thought of suddenly having to sit and look at the back of a priest’s head as he’s rattling off prayers in a language I don’t know…. well that thought leaves me unsettled and sad.
There must be something right about it, because almost 2000 years the Mass was celebrated exclusively this way, and sustained the faith of almost every saint you’ve heard of. And I suspect that you’ll be seeing the Novus Ordo this way there at EWTN soon after a new local ordinary is appointed.
Perhaps [the TLM] is truly so much more sacred and beautiful than the N.O.
Both are sacred, though not all Masses are equally reverent and beautiful. Many of those who are most devoted to the Novus Ordo (including our Holy Father, I think) feel strongly that the beauty and reverence that has been lost from the Novus Ordo in so many places must be restored.
But WHY does having the Mass said in English make it wrong?
It doesn’t. For a brief moment in time, some of us experienced the old Mass in English, and it wasn’t bad at all.
What is so special about Latin?
For one thing, it’s been the language of the Western Church for over 1500 years. Some of the mind of the Church you just can’t follow except in its own language. Even so, it’s obviously not for everyone. What would take more to explain, than possible here, is that a knowledge of Latin is unnecessary to experience what’s so special about the Latin Mass!
Can’t the older traditions of the former mass be brought into our present-day Mass but still be done in a language I can understand?
Surely, and I for one think this is exactly what our Holy Father is about. That whereas he’s serious in wanting to restore the Church’s patrimony in the old Mass for its own sake, he cannot help seeing it as even more important as a model and foundation of the necessary revitalization of the new Mass.
The N.O. Mass isn’t that bad. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, please.
I don’t think that anyone who’s serious is thinking seriously about “throwing out” the Novus Ordo. Just about making it “be all it can be”.
Just to clarify who was whom right at the beginning (you being in italics):
[The Novus Ordo] is beautiful, and as a former Protestant I can tell you just how awe-inspiring and holy the Catholic Mass is!
Indeed it is. What could be more awe-inspiring than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (in whatever rite)?
Granted, I may change my mind once I ever see the old style latin Mass, and will think as all of you think.
It’s possible, but not necessary.
Ouch…
Pride can hurt sometimes.
Henry,
Thanks for the explanation, and yes I think I once aired a similar frustration about this a while back. I think my main point of concern is the opinion that the Mass celebrated in vernacular languages isnt as good as the latin. At age 52, I’ll likely never know latin well enough to make any headway into appreciating the TLM.
I don’t so much mind the ‘ad orientum’, and agree with you that EWTN will switch to it in a heartbeat if we ever get a new bishop to allow it. (wishing the Holy Father would send us a new bishop sometime in my remaining lifetime, please!)
Thanks for the reassurances, again. I have faith that our pope will do what is best for all of us, and will try to leave no one out in the cold where the Mass is concerned.
Ad omnes:
And here I was thinking that this thread had something to do with Latin poetry – foolish me.
Mea culpa, Mea culpa
Ego . . . *gulp!* uh . . .
(Dang! What rhymes with “culpa”?)
Andrew,
And here I was thinking that this thread had something to do with Latin poetry.
Aren’t you glad “we” rescued it from a quick death. So you can interject something about Latin poetry every now and then, confident that someone will promptly resuscitate the thread with something actually interesting, thus keep it alive so you can …..
Fr. Martin Fox:
Can’t think of too many matches to “culpa” except for “fulta” (propped up, taken from “fulcire”) or “pulpa” (flesh) or “pulta” (imperative of “pultare” – to strike, as in “catapulta” – perhaps there are other possibilities.
Then again, word order is very free in Latin, we can say “culpa mea” and then we look for what goes with “mea”. Thus we can use “mea, sententia, linea, propterea, sanguinea, aulea, balnea, idonea – now we struck it rich! What a language this Latin! Truly a “Thesaurus incomparandae praestantiae!”
Janet writes, …But for me, right now, the thought of suddenly having to sit and look at the back of a priest’s head as he’s rattling off prayers in a language I don’t know…. well that thought leaves me unsettled and sad.
I hear this comment from time to time. My comment is not directed towards you, Janet, but you have given me the opportunity to respond.
Do not think of the priest having his back to you — he is, along with the congregation, facing the Lord. The US Army infantry have the motto “Follow Me!” … I think of the Father as being my battalion commander, and I am glad he leads from the front.
Interesting, too, is that we have no problem “looking at the conductor’s back” when we go to a symphony, right?
What is so special about Latin? The words! Did you ever watch a Chinese movie dubbed into English? Didn’t it sound artificial? Better is to watch the film in Chinese and read the subtitles; though, you may not get the entire content because of brevity, at least you can hear the original voice inflections, score, etc. come through giving the viewer a better appreciation of the movie’s overall impact.
Can’t the older traditions of the former mass be brought into our present-day Mass but still be done in a language I can understand?
I have a 1942 edition of a “My Military Missal” issued to US military Catholics — it is all in English, but has much truer translations. Though, I suspect English is better spoken than chanted. Our Latin NO Reader used to chant the readings in English and it just
sounds terrible and contrived! The Latin lends itself to chant. Errr…. in my humble newcomer’s opinion.
–Guy Power
Regards,
–Guy Power
Janet:
I’m very sympathetic to you.
I attend a Tridentine Mass every Sunday with my family and I love it. But I also attend Novus Ordo Masses in English at my local cathedral and at the National Shrine and I love those too in a different way.
Mostly what I would like to see is freedom for the old Mass. I don’t think persecution of the Novus Ordo or a sudden order to “about face” for ever priest is in the offing.
I think that freedom for the Old will allow the New to be enriched and allow us to draw for the Novus Ordo on liturgical principles and actions that have their source in a still living Tradition.
But that is necessary in the end as part of a long process of discernment under the guidance of the Church in fidelity and trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What is good in the changes of the last few decades will be kept in some form and incorporated into that Tradition. Whether the Mass of two hundred years hence looks more like the Tridentine Mass of today or more like the Novus Ordo as it is presently celebrated is in the end up to God, not to us. But it’s precisely the entrenched and enforced “oppositional” norms of liturgical celebration today that prevent all of us–liturgical reformers and traditionalists–from having the freedom of discernment that can lead us where God wants us to go.
Henry, Guy, and Jeff:
I took two largish steps into traditionalism Sunday. First, I decided after prayer and thought that the time has come to stop receiving Communion ‘in the hand’, and to receive on the tongue from now on. For my first attempt at this I wanted to guarantee that I received Jesus from the hands of a priest. So I attended EWTN’s Sunday morning Mass. (Only priests distribute Communion there). And I found that receiving ‘on the tongue’ is truly beautiful and a humble and childlike manner of receiving our Lord. I’m hooked! :-)
I was also just awestruck by the beauty of this Mass! I’ve attended daily Mass at EWTN’s Chapel on occasion, since I live about 15 min. from it. But this… oh man, it was just wonderful! I guess I’ve seen EWTN’s Sunday mass on occasion on TV, but it’s no comparison to actually experiencing it! So much more chant, more latin, incense, and NO silly handshaking distractions right before the Agnus Dei!
I will still use my local parish for daily masses, but from now on I have decided that the Sunday Mass out at EWTN is where I’ll be every Sunday! That’s not to denigrate my own parish, however. It is truly a holy and very good parish, and we have 3 excellent full-time priests who are caring and devout pastors to us. But once a week, I want to immerse myself in something more traditional. Thank God for EWTN, and thank God for placing me so nearby that wonderful place!
Janet,
Sounds wonderful. I envy your opportunity to be so close to the EWTN Mass. But I occasionally watch the Sunday Mass on TV. If you wanted us to know who you are, you could make a tiny wave when you see the red camera light blinking at you. But of course you won’t. Would just be toooo Novus Ordish.
If some Sunday you could get up early enough to get up to the Shrine in Hanceville by 7 am, you’d find the (Novus Ordo) Mass there another big step (even beyone EWTN) in the traditional direction. Ad orientem, still more Latin, everybody kneeling at the altar rail for communion, hands under the houseling cloth. (Once, there, I wasn’t watching too closely, but out of the corner of my eye I thought I saw some one passed by who’d tried to receive on the hands.) As Tridentine as it gets without actually being Tridentine.
Henry,
Oh that does sound nice, to get to kneel at the prayer rail for Communion instead of standing! Does Hanceville use the rails daily or just on Sundays? This sounds worth waking up really early for!
Btw, my apologies to Fr. Z for hijacking his thread for semi-personal messages, but perhaps he will quietly pass my email address along to you, so we could continue a bit more discussion in a more appropriate venue.
Janet,
I believe every Mass in the main (upper) church at the Shrine is the same — ad orientem, communion kneeling at the altar rail, etc. When you’ve been there, I think you’ll see that the very idea of reception while standing would seem quite incongruous in such a setting and at such a profoundly reverent Mass. (I suspect this is another reason certain personages are allegedly adverse to Mass from the Shrine televised on EWTN. How long, O Benedict, how long … until that particular new bishop?)
Janet, you can find my e-mail address by going to the web site linked to my name below, then looking around at one of the “Personal” pages. If you’ll then e-mail me, then I’ll like to ask something about your parish that would definitely be thread drift here.
Thanks Henry,
I found your email address and have emailed you. And your wishes for a new bishop for the long empty post are also my wishes. But it is a very important position due to EWTN and the Shrine in Hanceville, so the RIGHT bishop is more important that a speedy bishop. (no chance of it being speedy at this point, after 1.5 yrs waiting!)