Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: andy on November 21, 2020, 01:53:31 PM
-
So I came across this video of a beautiful Mass offered back in 1941:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ
But further I went watching it, a weird feeling started to assist my thoughts: Why did they spend so much time commenting what is taking place? I actually would prefer to listen to it in the original form. I do not need the commentary?
Perhaps somewhat selfish - there might be people who want to truly understand all detail. Maybe. Still, when I look at it more, it seems to be quite apparent they were conditioning faithful for use of vernacular in 1941.
Please prove me wrong!
-Andy
-
Andy, you're wrong.
You have to know some church history to understand the reason for this recording of Mass.
For 2000 years people attended Mass as spectators, for a lack of a better word.
They understood fully that the priest was offering Sacrifice on their behalf but they didn't really participate.
The common practice up to the 1950's was:
ADORE till the gospel
Give THANKS till the bell,
At Communion as PARDON
Then all your WANTS tell
Old prayer books prior to 1900 (if you even had one and could read) often didn't even have the Mass in them, only MANY prayers that could be said during the Mass. Or you prayed the Eucharistic Rosary. Check out the 1904 Prayerbook for Religious which lists over 26 different methods/ways of attending at Mass. https://archive.org/details/prayerbookreligi00lasauof\ (https://archive.org/details/prayerbookreligi00lasauoft)
And as this book was for religious, it included at the back, Epistles and Gospels only for Sundays.
That is why the altar server rang the bells when something important was to happen, so people would pause their prayers and pay attention.
Then Pius X declared he wanted the faithful to participate and follow what was happening during the Mass.
So in the 1920's (my book is dated 1927) came the first daily missal called "The Missal". It was later renamed the St. Andrew's Missal and more prayer books started including the actual Mass. But the general population still really couldn't follow very well so they continued their old way of attending Mass. (daily missals didn't really make an appearance until the 1950's)
In the 1940's each parish in North America was handing out newsprint type booklets explaining the Mass which included charts etc.
This beautiful Mass, narrated by +Fulton Sheen, was recorded and copies were sent to each diocese in the U.S. and Canada, and each parish church, on a rotating basis, would show it in the church basement on a projector. This guaranteed all people were being taught how to participate. This was the ONLY way to reach all the people and was quite an undertaking, after all there were no VCR's or DVD players or even TV back then. It was a massive undertaking.
I'm just glad it's still available for viewing. I haven't seen a church packed like that since I was a kid.
This had nothing to do with conditioning for the vernacular!
-
Andy, you're wrong.
You have to know some church history to understand the reason for this recording of Mass.
For 2000 years people attended Mass as spectators, for a lack of a better word.
They understood fully that the priest was offering Sacrifice on their behalf but they didn't really participate.
The common practice up to the 1950's was:
ADORE till the gospel
Give THANKS till the bell,
At Communion as PARDON
Then all your WANTS tell
Old prayer books prior to 1900 (if you even had one and could read) often didn't even have the Mass in them, only MANY prayers that could be said during the Mass. Or you prayed the Eucharistic Rosary. Check out the 1904 Prayerbook for Religious which lists over 26 different methods/ways of attending at Mass. https://archive.org/details/prayerbookreligi00lasauof\ (https://archive.org/details/prayerbookreligi00lasauoft)
And as this book was for religious, it included at the back, Epistles and Gospels only for Sundays.
That is why the altar server rang the bells when something important was to happen, so people would pause their prayers and pay attention.
Then Pius X declared he wanted the faithful to participate and follow what was happening during the Mass.
So in the 1920's (my book is dated 1927) came the first daily missal called "The Missal". It was later renamed the St. Andrew's Missal and more prayer books started including the actual Mass. But the general population still really couldn't follow very well so they continued their old way of attending Mass. (daily missals didn't really make an appearance until the 1950's)
In the 1940's each parish in North America was handing out newsprint type booklets explaining the Mass which included charts etc.
This beautiful Mass, narrated by +Fulton Sheen, was recorded and copies were sent to each diocese in the U.S. and Canada, and each parish church, on a rotating basis, would show it in the church basement on a projector. This guaranteed all people were being taught how to participate. This was the ONLY way to reach all the people and was quite an undertaking, after all there were no VCR's or DVD players or even TV back then. It was a massive undertaking.
I'm just glad it's still available for viewing. I haven't seen a church packed like that since I was a kid.
This had nothing to do with conditioning for the vernacular!
Is your real name Bugnini?
-
Sean I don't understand the name calling.
If I imparted some error please tell me what it was.
I still had the booklet which I gave to Fr. Scott from that endeavor.
-
I kind of distrust any organization wide, standardized (nomen omen) religious roll outs like that, in spite of a massive undertaking and ppl effort. This is the job for the priest in the parish to teach all the details and work with individual faithful. IMHO.
-
I understand what you're saying but you have to realize what it was like living back then.
Getting people to use a missal was "an organization wide, standardized religious roll out", right from Rome!
Parishes then had thousands of people. The priest couldn't possibly teach all the parishoners, much less individually. And to add to that most parishes had multiple ethnic groups.
The schools taught the Mass during religion class which was a big help.
And some priests (quite a few I think) were not teachers. They could preach but not teach. Besides much of this program was teaching the proper names and describing things that are now in the front of most missals, for example priests vestments, articles used at Mass, the Sanctuary etc..... very time consuming if all priests had to teach that. Then there was the problem of getting everyone together to learn.....good luck. Much easier to have the instruction booklet prepared to be kept in the home.
Of course ( as discussed in other older threads here on CI) once Pius X expressed his desire for people to participate at Mass with missals, the Masons jumped at the chance to highjack the idea and push for the vernacular participation.
Yes stuff happened but not everything started out as a diabolical plan. And how much better/easier to narrate a Mass and have people watch it. You certainly didn't want every parish narrating a Mass.
-
I do not buy the scale argument. First, more faithful means more priests (assuming a healthy church teaching). Also, did number of catholics explode after WWI? What about a family as a MAIN venue of passing the Faith? Was it defunct too?
We obviously cannot judge peoples intentions and thoughts, so nobody will know for sure but we still can analyze the exact commentary to find some clues. I did watch a few segments of this video and it struck me like very strong, how emphasis is put on understanding. Also, the commentary completely overshadowed the Consecration. In fact, I plan to watch it in its entitreity - not only to find out details like that, but also out of curiosity and my interest how the liturgy looked back then, which I have no doubts that it is very pious.
-
I do not get the argument, is there something in that detailed video description of the mass that is in error? If so, let us know the the errors in detail. I just watched like one minute and all I see is what I read in this book that taught me the mass 25 years ago, when I came back to the Church:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51yYA6VgtnL._SX359_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51yYA6VgtnL._SX359_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
-
I understand what you're saying but you have to realize what it was like living back then.
Getting people to use a missal was "an organization wide, standardized religious roll out", right from Rome!
Parishes then had thousands of people. The priest couldn't possibly teach all the parishoners, much less individually. And to add to that most parishes had multiple ethnic groups.
The schools taught the Mass during religion class which was a big help.
And some priests (quite a few I think) were not teachers. They could preach but not teach. Besides much of this program was teaching the proper names and describing things that are now in the front of most missals, for example priests vestments, articles used at Mass, the Sanctuary etc..... very time consuming if all priests had to teach that. Then there was the problem of getting everyone together to learn.....good luck. Much easier to have the instruction booklet prepared to be kept in the home.
Of course ( as discussed in other older threads here on CI) once Pius X expressed his desire for people to participate at Mass with missals, the Masons jumped at the chance to highjack the idea and push for the vernacular participation.
Yes stuff happened but not everything started out as a diabolical plan. And how much better/easier to narrate a Mass and have people watch it. You certainly didn't want every parish narrating a Mass.
The first hand missals were an innovation by the arch-heretic/proto-modernist, Dom Lambert Beauduin.
Here’s a little about him:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f075_Dialogue_3.htm (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f075_Dialogue_3.htm)
And this passage from another article exposes his heretical views on the Mass, and his motive for creating hand missals which sprung from it:
“If the first purpose of the liturgy is to form and inform Christians [Beauduin’s heretical notion], it would be advisable for these latter to be able to follow it more easily. The obvious first step would be the translation of the texts along with explanatory notes: Dom Gaspar Lefebvre’s St. Andrew Missal perfectly represents this step, but it is only a prerequisite for Dom Beauduin’s great design.
Then, logically, it would be even better if the liturgy were put directly into the vernacular, so it could be understood immediately. Also, contemporary people no longer have time to assist at long ceremonies, therefore, it would be useful to simplify and shorten the liturgy. Finally, a certain number of the rites coming from the Middle Ages seem difficult for modern minds to understand, so, it would be suitable to reconstruct the liturgy, at least in part, to make it more “transparent,” easier to understand.”
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/50-years-new-mass-dom-lambert-beauduin-and-liturgical-movement-11-55628 (https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/50-years-new-mass-dom-lambert-beauduin-and-liturgical-movement-11-55628)
-
The first hand missals were an innovation by the arch-heretic/proto-modernist, Dom Lambert Beauduin.
Here’s a little about him:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f075_Dialogue_3.htm (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f075_Dialogue_3.htm)
And this passage from another article exposes his heretical views on the Mass, and his motive for creating hand missals which sprung from it:
“If the first purpose of the liturgy is to form and inform Christians [Beauduin’s heretical notion], it would be advisable for these latter to be able to follow it more easily. The obvious first step would be the translation of the texts along with explanatory notes: Dom Gaspar Lefebvre’s St. Andrew Missal perfectly represents this step, but it is only a prerequisite for Dom Beauduin’s great design.
Then, logically, it would be even better if the liturgy were put directly into the vernacular, so it could be understood immediately. Also, contemporary people no longer have time to assist at long ceremonies, therefore, it would be useful to simplify and shorten the liturgy. Finally, a certain number of the rites coming from the Middle Ages seem difficult for modern minds to understand, so, it would be suitable to reconstruct the liturgy, at least in part, to make it more “transparent,” easier to understand.”
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/50-years-new-mass-dom-lambert-beauduin-and-liturgical-movement-11-55628 (https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/50-years-new-mass-dom-lambert-beauduin-and-liturgical-movement-11-55628)
I know the Traditioninaction article you posted and the whole series by Dr. Carol Byrne, but what does it have to do with the video of this thread? Where specifically is there something wrong with the video?
(P.S. - notice that the modernist liturgical movement all came from France and Frenchmen. Beware of French priests. Today, less than 4% of French go to mass, they are not anyone to emulate. If it was not for the American faithful that built all the trad mass chapels, there would be scarcely any trads in the world today. )
-
I know the Traditioninaction article you posted and the whole series by Dr. Carol Byrne, but what does it have to do with the video of this thread. Where specifically is there something wrong with the video?
(P.S. - notice that the modernist liturgical movement all came from France and Frenchmen. Beware of French priests. Today less than 4% of French go to mass, they are not anyone to emulate. If it was not for the American faithful that built all the trad mass chapels, there would be scarcely any trads in the world today. )
My responses are not directed toward the video per se, but to the notion explicit in Miserimini’s response to the OP, that prior to the modernist liturgical movement’s hijacking of that movement in the 1910’s, there was something defective in the worship of Catholics which needed to be corrected.
Ps: And it is debatable (not certain) whether St. Pius X ever even called for “active participation,” since those words do not appear in his Italian original.
-
Ps: And it is debatable (not certain) whether St. Pius X ever even called for “active participation,” since those words do not appear in his Italian original.
It is not debatable, since the original docuмent from Pius X was written by him in Italian, and the call for active participation appears nowhere.
-
My responses are not directed toward the video per se, but to the notion explicit in Miserimini’s response to the OP, that prior to the modernist liturgical movement’s hijacking of that movement in the 1910’s, there was something defective in the worship of Catholics which needed to be corrected.
I missed that "explicit" where do you see it?
-
Andy, you're wrong.
You have to know some church history to understand the reason for this recording of Mass.
For 2000 years people attended Mass as spectators, for a lack of a better word. (The educated understood Latin)
They understood fully that the priest was offering Sacrifice on their behalf but they didn't really participate. (Didn't really participate? What were they doing at the mass, picking their fleas?)
The common practice up to the 1950's was:( (and what is wrong with that?)
ADORE till the gospel
Give THANKS till the bell,
At Communion as PARDON
Then all your WANTS tell
To be continued
Old prayer books prior to 1900 (if you even had one and could read) often didn't even have the Mass in them, only MANY prayers that could be said during the Mass. Or you prayed the Eucharistic Rosary. Check out the 1904 Prayerbook for Religious which lists over 26 different methods/ways of attending at Mass. https://archive.org/details/prayerbookreligi00lasauof\ (https://archive.org/details/prayerbookreligi00lasauoft)
And as this book was for religious, it included at the back, Epistles and Gospels only for Sundays.
That is why the altar server rang the bells when something important was to happen, so people would pause their prayers and pay attention.
Then Pius X declared he wanted the faithful to participate and follow what was happening during the Mass.
So in the 1920's (my book is dated 1927) came the first daily missal called "The Missal". It was later renamed the St. Andrew's Missal and more prayer books started including the actual Mass. But the general population still really couldn't follow very well so they continued their old way of attending Mass. (daily missals didn't really make an appearance until the 1950's)
In the 1940's each parish in North America was handing out newsprint type booklets explaining the Mass which included charts etc.
This beautiful Mass, narrated by +Fulton Sheen, was recorded and copies were sent to each diocese in the U.S. and Canada, and each parish church, on a rotating basis, would show it in the church basement on a projector. This guaranteed all people were being taught how to participate. This was the ONLY way to reach all the people and was quite an undertaking, after all there were no VCR's or DVD players or even TV back then. It was a massive undertaking.
I'm just glad it's still available for viewing. I haven't seen a church packed like that since I was a kid.
This had nothing to do with conditioning for the vernacular!
My comments in red
-
It is not debatable, since the original docuмent from Pius X was written by him in Italian, and the call for active participation appears nowhere.
Some suggest he added it in the later Latin version (but I have seen no proof of that).
-
I do not get the argument, is there something in that detailed video description of the mass that is in error?
Voice over the Mass is the main ERROR here. The Mass is not like YT DIY content.
-
Voice over the Mass is the main ERROR here.
That was no error! It would have been very deliberate, possibly in editing.
My brother got married in the early 60's and he knew someone at the local TV station who offered to video record his wedding. The priest was adamant that he was NOT permitted to record the consecration nor the elevation. This was too sacred for recording.
The recording in question was AN EDUCATIONAL endeavor! It was never meant to be viewed 60 years later for any other purpose.
You can't judge objectively 60 years after the fact.
-
I have a Catholic Laity Manual of Prayers, complete with Mass english on one side and latin on the other dated 1889. Cardinal Gibbons.
I can see maybe those who can not read. And we did have in the US, in 1940, a book with picture of the new mass, in which the priest faced the people. That shocked me when I saw it. It was either in Minnesota, or Missouri. My first guess would have been Minnesota.
-
They spend time on the Mass for the Powers of the Precious Blood are immense. There was also a movement from Europe to educate on the beauty and magnificence of the Mass. Liturgical movement. It was a good movement and then someone got a hold of it and a slow destruction followed. So, it was like for example: ecuмenicalism. There is the True and the False. So, there was the true liturgical movement. What I see in this video, IMO, is the True liturgical movement to stir the hearts of the faithful.
There was a Bishop, who saw this movement to be important. Maybe he thought the people needed a stirring of the soul. I wish I could remember this Bishop and the years the movement covered. The False liturgical movement followed. The enemy is Satan. His strategies just keep, never ending.
Also remember, that Fulton Sheen, was known to be not only present at Vatican II, he was for it, and he was known as a secret communist. Sad.
-
They spend time on the Mass for the Powers of the Precious Blood are immense. There was also a movement from Europe to educate on the beauty and magnificence of the Mass. Liturgical movement. It was a good movement and then someone got a hold of it and a slow destruction followed......
There was a Bishop, who saw this movement to be important. Maybe he thought the people needed a stirring of the soul.
I have never heard of a saint that converted people by his beautiful mass. All the great priests who brought the people back to live the faith did it by their example and their words, (the way they lived and preached). All of this "beauty" of the mass was non-existent for 95% of Catholics, for the high mass only existed on Sundays at the cathedral, and the rest of the world had a silent low mass. The peoples of the Americas, Africa, Asia, the Philippines, and Europe, were converted by the example of their priests and their word, while attending a silent Low Mass which has no pomp, no smells and bells. The modernists thinks all that is needed is a beautiful mass to convert people. I think it is an effeminate mind set, that thinks that way. I do not know if all of the SSPX chapels are like mine, but my chapel has a "beautiful" mass and zero teaching about how to live the faith. It is like perfect honey on top of a rock, instead of on top of nutritious bread. The way the priests live you'd thing they had a vow of luxury. The mass, no matter how ornate and perfectly performed it is, does not by itself teach the faith or convert anyone to change their lives.
-
I have a Catholic Laity Manual of Prayers, complete with Mass english on one side and latin on the other dated 1889. Cardinal Gibbons.
I can see maybe those who can not read. And we did have in the US, in 1940, a book with picture of the new mass, in which the priest faced the people. That shocked me when I saw it. It was either in Minnesota, or Missouri. My first guess would have been Minnesota.
You are probably right. One of the early adopters of the Liturgical Movement was Saint John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota.
-
Andy, you're wrong.
You have to know some church history to understand the reason for this recording of Mass.
For 2000 years people attended Mass as spectators, for a lack of a better word.
They understood fully that the priest was offering Sacrifice on their behalf but they didn't really participate.
The common practice up to the 1950's was:
ADORE till the gospel
Give THANKS till the bell,
At Communion as PARDON
Then all your WANTS tell
Old prayer books prior to 1900 (if you even had one and could read) often didn't even have the Mass in them, only MANY prayers that could be said during the Mass. Or you prayed the Eucharistic Rosary. Check out the 1904 Prayerbook for Religious which lists over 26 different methods/ways of attending at Mass. https://archive.org/details/prayerbookreligi00lasauof\ (https://archive.org/details/prayerbookreligi00lasauoft)
And as this book was for religious, it included at the back, Epistles and Gospels only for Sundays.
That is why the altar server rang the bells when something important was to happen, so people would pause their prayers and pay attention.
Then Pius X declared he wanted the faithful to participate and follow what was happening during the Mass.
So in the 1920's (my book is dated 1927) came the first daily missal called "The Missal". It was later renamed the St. Andrew's Missal and more prayer books started including the actual Mass. But the general population still really couldn't follow very well so they continued their old way of attending Mass. (daily missals didn't really make an appearance until the 1950's)
In the 1940's each parish in North America was handing out newsprint type booklets explaining the Mass which included charts etc.
This beautiful Mass, narrated by +Fulton Sheen, was recorded and copies were sent to each diocese in the U.S. and Canada, and each parish church, on a rotating basis, would show it in the church basement on a projector. This guaranteed all people were being taught how to participate. This was the ONLY way to reach all the people and was quite an undertaking, after all there were no VCR's or DVD players or even TV back then. It was a massive undertaking.
I'm just glad it's still available for viewing. I haven't seen a church packed like that since I was a kid.
This had nothing to do with conditioning for the vernacular!
There were missals. I've a Regency missal (1806, inscription 1811). Incidentally it has a full Canon. A missal from 1920 claims missals used not to have the full translated Canon. Yet, most prayer books emphasise prayers for saying at various stages of the Mass. Prayer books seem not to have had the Ordinary, except perhaps an abbreviated form with directions for serving Mass.
It should be noted that a versus populum priest and other liturgical experimentation was something by then. There was a strong, and false, belief that this was after the habit of the primitive Church. Some basilicas will have the priest face the people in a certain way, but they are of a monumental scale and the priest is not really facing the people, as facing towards them, at a height.
-
I am actually in the process of listening to the entire production. At 42:44 https://youtu.be/jqkqc2-iteQ?t=2564 , there is a short summary "The actual Sacrifice is about to begin. From this point forward, there are only two dominant themes in the action of the Mass. Giving to God and receiving from God. The gifts we give are ourselves and the crucified Christ. The gifts we receive, the Body and Blood of Christ" . Is an accurate descriptions. Sounds NOish, especially that "ourselves".
TBC
-
At 59:20 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=3560) we learn that "consubstantiation" (sic!) takes place at the alter. I also totally do not understand, the most important of the Mass is commented with such a passion and overshadows the Transubstantiation, where the explanation could take place a few minutes before.
-
At 1:02:50 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=3770) "new movement to the Mass begins ... after giving to God is complete" I am not sure about that. Does not the Mass complete at the moment when a priest consumes the Victim? Where in the Tradition there is distinction between giving and receiving?
-
At 1:06:40 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4000).
"Before the food we eat and becomes a Sacrament which nourishes us" - a notion of a meal?
-
At 1:12:00 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4320)
They link the image of faithful receiving the Blessed Sacrament and Last Supper, it is when Christ instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Are not those completely separate?
-
At 1:13:20 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4400)
"Thru the Holly Communion, the Celebrant and the People have consumed the Divine Victim". Is not a communion of a priest and people completely separate act?
-
At 1:15:20 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4520)
"The celebrant returns to the center theme of the Mass, the joyful resurrection of the Christ". Is not the center theme the Sacrifice?
-
At 1:18:00 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4670)
The commentator does not mention a single word about Last Gospel which is gone in NO.
-
This is all what I found. I am sure that there are more interesting details.