Mass Update

After weeks of learning about the New Translation and the changes in the Mass I was able to experience it for the first time on Monday night and I liked it. Our parish youth choir has been practicing (as we all have) and it really sounded great. After months of learning about the new English translation and going over the changes, it was nice to finally see it in action. Matthew Warner at Fallible Blogma has put together a post Why is there a new translation of the Mass? with many resources.

On Friday night a Solemn High Requiem Mass took place for what we think was the first time in over 45 years at our parish. Right after the priest, deacon, and subdeacon took off their birettas my oldest daughter asked a very important question, "How do they know whose hat is whose?"

And then on Sunday a Solemn High Mass, which I always love attending. Thanks be to God for the Mass!

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    Subdeacons? Please read Paul VI's MINISTERIA QUAEDAM: "In officiis peculiaribus servandis et ad hodiernas necessitates accommodandis, continentur ea, quae praesertim cum ministeriis Verbi et Altaris arctius conectuntur et in Ecclesia Latina Lectoratus, Acolythatus et Subdiaconatus vocantur; quos ita servari et accommodari convenit, ut duplex ex hoc tempore habeatur munus: Lectoris nempe et Acolythi, quod et Subdiaconi partes complectatur."

    In other words, the ministry of Lector replaced that of Subdeacons. I have been given that ministry by Bishop Mengeling.

    Do you see where these dual liturgies are leading to? It will take a canon lawyer to sort out what the Extraordinary form allows, etc. Birettas are so in.

  • In the Ordinary Form, yes, the ministry of Lector replaced the Subdeacon, but in the Extraordinary Form (The Mass of 1962) the Subdeacon is still used. A couple of years ago we had a priest from the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius visit our parish to go over the Solemn High Mass and help us learn it. I helped walk through the parts of the Deacon and Subdeacon to help Father Libby learn the mass. http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/faq/concelebration.html#R1

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    The role of subdeacon in the EF can be taken by a priest who received the minor order prior to its abolition. It can also be taken by a deacon, and, I would think, one like myself who has received the Rite of Candidacy and the ministry of Reader. There are no bishops who commission subdeacons in the Latin rite. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops. I know of no such practice in the U.S.

    As I said, it would take a canonical lawyer to sort all of this out. I cannot see any logical reason for this display of retrograde Catholicism, except to satisfy those who might have left the Church and followed Archbishop Lefebvre and his traditionalist rebellion.

    A relative of mine did so and he is in his nineties now, but the argument then was that no valid pope could contravene another, i.e. Pius V and his statement in Quo Primum "that Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and FOREVER, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world..."

    The early traditionalists never accepted Paul VI's decision to change Pius V's proclamation and some, to this day, consider him an antipope.

    This revisiting of Pius V's Tridentine Mass is too late for those who have died not in communion with Rome. Well-intentioned by JPII and Benedict...yes. The visionary in liturgy in my lifetime was Paul VI, not his successors.

    If there is another reason for a return to the EF, it has been rooted in past disobedience to Paul VI's introduction of the OF by groups such as the Society of St. Pius X founded by Lefebvre.

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    For all those who are gung-ho about the new translation...one glaring flaw in returning to the Latin that I now see is in the words of consecration. "Chalice" is now used instead of "cup." In Luke's gospel, which was originally written in Greek, the word is "????????" or drinking cup. We get the word "potable water," or drinkable water from it...In the Latin of Jerome's time, "calix" had several meanings...cup| goblet| a vessel for drinking..., not the ornate, bejeweled chalices seen today. Even Indiana Jones figured that one out.

    Maybe after a few years we can apply to Rome for an indult to go back to the '73 ICEL translation like those who petitioned for the EF.

    • Ed Hahnenberg

      For all those who have embraced the revised form of the Roman Missal, here's a great cookie recipe....be sure to enlarge to the original version.