Bilingual ‘Tower of Babel’ Worship

The United States was built by immigrants who often spoke different languages. Incorporation into our English speaking and Judaeo Christian society was difficult but worth the effort; as many will attest. My own stock was German-protestant by birth but they soon assimilated and became rather zealous and patriotic Americans.

Catholic immigrants had an advantage over the protestant churches in as much that the Mass was no different than what they heard in their native lands. They could comfortably go into any Catholic Church and recognize the Mass as the same one they heard in the land of their birth. They need only carry with them their Missals which had the Latin on the left and their vernacular on the right hand side of the page. It aided their assimilation as they were able to rub shoulder-to-shoulder with other Catholics which helped them in their effort to become English speaking patriotic Americans.

The protestant denominations did not, by contrast, have a service in English, one in German, one in Dutch, one in Irish etc.  Instead they allowed those who could not yet speak English to establish their own churches and therefore most of these immigrants tended to live in the same neighborhoods and attend the same churches with others that spoke their native tongue. In time, however, they wished to assimilate and their children often moved further and futher away from their ethnic neighborhoods. The problems seem, in time, to rectify themselves.

That brings me to ponder the wisdom of the Catholic Church in our present day. The bilingual Mass is perhaps the most ill-thought solution that has ever been conceived.

In this modern globalist age that worships at the table of multiculturalism we have ‘only’ the Catholic Church that thinks it is proper to have Mass in every language known to man one after the other. Seminarians no longer learn Latin anymore but are more likely to study Spanish and other modern languages so that they can say Mass in more than one language. We now have the absurdity of a parish that may have 4 or 5 Masses said on Sunday in various languages.

Now if that is not bad enough, we now have a new hybrid Mass that mixes the languages in the same Liturgy. I am in a parish presently where this happens on every Suday; the dreaded bilingual Mass which jumps back and forth between English and Spanish. Nobody except those fluent in both languages knows what is going on at these Masses. They are not only banal but also, confusing, unintelligible and more about presenting an outward sign of ‘welcoming’ to the non-English parishioners than about worshipping God.

Yesterday, I left after the bilingual Mass thinking that such a liturgy was not only unsavory to everyone in attendance but that I doubt God recognized this ligurgy as worship. Sadly, it will be a long time before this ‘politically correct’ hierarchy wakes up to the fact that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is about worshipping God and not about back-slapping, shaking hands, hugging and fulfilling our obligation to be ‘welcoming.’ What about our obligation to worship God? Where is that in all of this?

The Remnant Newspaper – On the “Rite of Saint Peter”–The Glorious Roman Rite (most beautiful thing this side of heaven)

Written by  Robert Higdon

INTRODUCTION

There were 54 Rites of Mass composed by the apostles according to the language and custom of the countries they evangelized. In this essay all comments are centered on the Roman Rite.

Why select the Roman Rite to comment on, if it is just one among many? Is it because it is said in Latin? No, in fact, the original language that it was written in was Syro-Chaldaic, composed by St. Peter in Antioch. It was the language used by the people of Judea at the time of Christ. It is divine providence that chose Latin, soon to be ‘non-vernacular’, as the language of the Church. This ‘dead language’ for the Church was to be a sign of Her unity in ‘Her Liturgy’ and to protect the meaning of ‘Her dogmas’ (for the meanings of words in any vernacular language tend to change over time – in a dead language the meanings of words never change).

The importance of the Latin Roman Rite is that it is the Rite of some 95 percent of all Catholics. It is the Latin Roman Rite that St. Paul spread throughout his missionary expeditions.

 It is the Latin Roman Rite St. Francis Xavier spread Throughout Asia. It is the Latin Roman Rite the Conquistadors spread throughout South America with Our Lady of Guadalupe’s help. It is the Latin Roman Rite that was first said on the shores of America at that location, which is now called St. Augustine in Florida, long before the Pilgrims landed. Obviously, Our Blessed Lord got in the Liturgical boat of St. Peter; it is the Latin Roman Rite God chose to evangelize world-wide!

Before proceeding, permit me to define the words Tradition and Custom which are used frequently in this document:

Webster defines Tradition: “The handing down of beliefs or customs; an instituted pattern of action (as a religious practice).”

Webster defines Custom: “Long established practice considered as unwritten law. Usage or practice common to many.”

Also Cannon Law 27 (new version) explains that custom is the best interpreter of laws.

So when we look at liturgical law according to canonical tradition, in order to understand the law correctly, it must be understood according to the tradition that has established the liturgical custom. As the ancient Father, St. John Chrysostom says: “Is it tradition? Ask no more.”

TRADITION OF THE FIRST MASS

The comments in this section are based on the book: “How Christ Said the First Mass” by Father James L Meagher, D.D. Pope Leo XIII declared him a Doctor of Divinity. He was President of the Christian Press Association Publishing Company in New York which published the book in 1906. The book (440 pages – complete with references and a detailed index) is currently available from Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.

The author goes into great detail to show how the Roman Rite of Mass, in particular, is patterned after the Liturgy of the traditional Jewish Passover Feast. Nearly every detail of the Mass has its counterpart in the Passover Liturgy. From the procession, prayers at the foot of the altar (the same psalms quoted), the Confiteor, and even the Canon are strikingly similar. He points out that God himself gave detailed instructions to Moses and Aaron how the Passover feast was to be conducted.

God also detailed the Liturgical garments in a “striking minuteness, he laid down material, color, shape and ornament of vestments worn in public worship, and forbade them at any other time”. The Church today uses the same type liturgical vestments made of linen, and the same liturgical colors, red, white, green and violet. The Church only added the color black to express sorrow. To illustrate the Divine concern about vestments he points out that they are mentioned 167 times in the Old Testament, and 59 times in the New Testament.

Now let us review some pertinent quotes to illustrate the similarity of the Passover and the Roman Rite Liturgy as sung by Christ at the first Mass:

·         “The synagogue services were not only sung by the Rabbi and his ministers, but the people also took part in the congregational singing. There was a night foretold by Israel’s great prophet, Isaiah, when the Lord Messiah would come and sing the Passover service. Numberless proofs force us to believe that the Last Supper was a pontifical High Mass sung by the Lord, his apostles and the people taking part in the congregational singing.”

·         “Christ was therefore a priest according to the order of Melchisedech when he offered bread and wine at the Last Supper, and a priest according to the order of Aaron when he brought the lamb of Passover to the Temple to be sacrificed.”

·         “The liturgy of the Passover, formed of Prayers, Psalms, chants, anthems, directions, rubrics, etc.. were the foundations on which the apostles, apostolic men and great saints formed the fifty-four different Liturgies of the Mass. The most famous, the Roman Rite, established by Peter in the Eternal City, and with little change comes down to us under the name of the Latin or Roman Mass.” . . .

Read more here: The Remnant Newspaper – On the “Rite of Saint Peter”–The Glorious Roman Rite (most beautiful thing this side of heaven)

ad orientem – Catholic Education Resource Center

ad orientem

FATHER GEORGE W. RUTLER

Le-cardinal-Sarah-encourage-la-Manif-pour-tous_article_popin

In 2014, Pope Francis appointed Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea to be Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, with instructions to continue a “reform of the reform.”

After the Second Vatican Council, many changes in the liturgy were done virtually overnight, with no mandate from the Council, but motivated by what Pope Pius XII would have called a romantic “historicism” based on a mistaken understanding of the early Church’s liturgy.  Even some well-intentioned but misinformed Catholics have thought that inferior contemporary music and completely vernacular texts were the aim of Vatican II.  A growing number of young Catholics understand better what the popes want for the liturgy than some aging people who have not outgrown the confusion of the 1960s and 1970s.

One change, never mentioned by Vatican II, was having the priest as a “presider” face the people all through the Mass.  It came at a time when people were increasingly preoccupied with themselves, and it encouraged a psychology of self-absorption.  The venerable “ad orientem” posture of the priest, always kept in the Eastern rites, is not a matter of turning his back to the people.  Rather, the priest faces East to direct the faithful’s attention away from himself and toward the horizon symbolizing the Resurrection.

The readings and preaching (the “synaxis” or synagogue part) are done facing the people for they are instructive, but the Holy Sacrifice (the “anaphora” or temple part) is offered with everyone facing in the same direction, rather than in what Pope Benedict XVI called an “enclosed circle.” Pope Francis celebrates ad orientem in the Sistine Chapel.  It has nothing to do with the placement of the altar, for the venerable manner — as in ancient basilicas — is a free-standing altar.  In our own parish church, the ad orientem use is suitable for the altar in the nave as easily as at the older altar.

As Cardinal Sarah points out, liturgical innovations were supposed to invigorate Mass attendance, but they had the opposite effect, not to mention the countless millions of dollars spent on church renovations which in too many cases ruined fine art.  His Eminence has asked that parishes institute the ad orientem in the Ordinary Form by Advent, as a thing “good for the Church, good for our people.” Actually, no permission is needed for that, since the original General Instruction of the Roman Missal left the position as a legitimate option, so it may be instituted at any time.  The ad orientem use will be a modest change, different from the way innovations were made in the 1960s with tactless abruptness.

Cardinal Sarah said, “The liturgy is not about you and me.  It is not where we celebrate our own identity or achievements or exalt or promote our own culture and local religious customs.  The liturgy is first and foremost about God and what he has done for us.”

Source: ad orientem

Advice to new priests in first assignments who suffer under liberal pastors. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

Posted on 20 July 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In June and into July, many newly ordained priests have reported to their first assignment as associate or assistant (as my old pastor used to say, “The first three letters are the same”).   These days we hear often the fancy term “parochial vicar”.

After the excitement of ordination, the grace-filled bliss of Masses of Thanksgiving, hearing confessions for the first time, visiting classmates for their ordinations, things settle down to the quotidian life of being a priest.

For some the transition is easy. For many there are difficulties.

I’ve been getting a number of emails and messages this week from men who were ordained this year, complaining, and/or asking questions about how to handle their pastor.

  • One pastor refuses to let the newly ordained priest make use of the “fiddleback” vestments his family gave him as an ordination gift.
  • Another new priest must do a “commissioning” ceremony for EMHCs that seems odd to him (and to me).
  • Another one must figure out what to do with the Children’s Liturgy of the Word.
  • Yet another pastor is telling the new priest that he’s no longer “allowed” to hang out with seminarians, and that he should only befriend priests and certain select laypeople that the pastor has picked out!

I’ve also been in contact with a couple older priests who are concerned that, in this time when liberals (read “fascists”) have the Big Mo, the younger guys who grew up in the time of John Paul II and who tried their vocations during the pontificate of Benedict XVI, are worried about the younger men, who’ve had a relatively easy time of it.   As a matter of fact, with one of my priest friends I have spoken about this often.

In the bad old days, when seminaries were rife with heretical teaching, banal preaching, and bizarre liturgical experimentation, newly ordained priests developed a pretty thick hide for craziness. For many, their first assignment seemed like a breath of fresh air, since they were no longer under the close scrutiny of a staff rabidly seeking out any semblance of orthodoxy or tradition. Even if the pastor was liberal and the parish music program was stuck in a jingle jangle morning of adulterated folk music, the freedom of being out of the seminary made the zaniness tolerable by comparison.

Read more here: Fr. Z’s Blog | Formerly entitled: “What Does The Prayer Really Say?” – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf    o{]:¬)

The Church as communio: Revisiting Joseph Ratzinger’s ecclesiology

By Veronica A. Arntz

In Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis from 1943, we are given a beautiful description of the Church as Christ’s Mystical Body here on earth, born out of love from his sufferings on the Cross. Toward the end of the encyclical, the Pope offers a heartfelt exhortation to love the Church:

Let this be the supreme law of our love: to love the Spouse of Christ as Christ wished her to be and as He purchased her with His blood. Hence not only should we cherish the sacraments with which Holy Mother Church sustains our life, the solemn ceremonies she offers for our solace and our joy, the sacred chant and liturgy by which she lifts our souls up to heaven, but the sacramentals too and all those exercises of piety which she uses to console the hearts of the faithful and gently to imbue them with the Spirit of Christ (art. 102).

For Pius XII, the Church is deeply sacramental and liturgical, for, by her very being, she is turned toward the Lord, anticipating with hope Christ’s second coming. In loving the Church, we love her liturgies and her sacramental life, for these things are part of her very being and essence. How much these words are needed for the Church in our own time! In a time when the sacraments are frequented less and less, piety is disregarded as being “individualistic,” and, most especially, the liturgy is viewed as a theatrical act by the priest rather than the eternal sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, we are in desperate need of a reminder of the true nature of the Church. In our time, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has helped us to understand the true nature of the Church as Eucharistic and liturgical, oriented toward communion with God. To understand Ratzinger’s ecclesiological vision, let us first understand what the Church is not.

Read more here: RORATE CÆLI: The Church as communio: Revisiting Joseph Ratzinger’s ecclesiology