The Mass: primary catechism of the people
#1
Hello all. :P

So, since the Mass is supposed to be the primary catechism of the people, does that get taken into account by today's liturgists and Church architects at all?  All that beautiful art in the more well known, older Churches of Christendom was there for a reason.  Since some people were unable to read, it just made sense to have "visual aids" of sorts.

Times have changed, but the Mass is still supposed to be the primary catechism of the people.  Is anything being done to carry this objective of the Mass out?
Reply
#2
(07-22-2014, 03:35 AM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: Hello all. :P

So, since the Mass is supposed to be the primary catechism of the people, does that get taken into account by today's liturgists and Church architects at all?  All that beautiful art in the more well known, older Churches of Christendom was there for a reason.  Since some people were unable to read, it just made sense to have "visual aids" of sorts.

Times have changed, but the Mass is still supposed to be the primary catechism of the people.  [size=10pt]Is anything being done to carry this objective of the Mass out?[/size]

You're kidding, right?  :Hmm:  I haven't been to a TLM so cannot comment.  My own experience of the N.O. Mess, and as a sponsor in RCIA leads me to say a big, fat NO!  Maybe others have a different experience.
Reply
#3
(07-22-2014, 11:21 AM)J Michael Wrote:
(07-22-2014, 03:35 AM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: Hello all. :P

So, since the Mass is supposed to be the primary catechism of the people, does that get taken into account by today's liturgists and Church architects at all?  All that beautiful art in the more well known, older Churches of Christendom was there for a reason.  Since some people were unable to read, it just made sense to have "visual aids" of sorts.

Times have changed, but the Mass is still supposed to be the primary catechism of the people.  [size=10pt]Is anything being done to carry this objective of the Mass out?[/size]

You're kidding, right?  :Hmm:  I haven't been to a TLM so cannot comment.  My own experience of the N.O. Mess, and as a sponsor in RCIA leads me to say a big, fat NO!   Maybe others have a different experience.

Ok.  De facto, no.  That's obvious.

But de jure?  You know, de jure, all seminarians need to have a basic understanding of Latin according to the new code of canon law.  De facto, no one enforces this particular canon.

But it's there, de jure.

Do most clergy in the new way of thinking even bother with a de jure rule, even if ignored?
Reply
#4
(07-22-2014, 11:59 AM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote:
(07-22-2014, 11:21 AM)J Michael Wrote:
(07-22-2014, 03:35 AM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: Hello all. :P

So, since the Mass is supposed to be the primary catechism of the people, does that get taken into account by today's liturgists and Church architects at all?  All that beautiful art in the more well known, older Churches of Christendom was there for a reason.  Since some people were unable to read, it just made sense to have "visual aids" of sorts.

Times have changed, but the Mass is still supposed to be the primary catechism of the people.  [size=10pt]Is anything being done to carry this objective of the Mass out?[/size]

You're kidding, right?  :Hmm:  I haven't been to a TLM so cannot comment.  My own experience of the N.O. Mess, and as a sponsor in RCIA leads me to say a big, fat NO!   Maybe others have a different experience.

Ok.  De facto, no.  That's obvious.

But de jure?  You know, de jure, all seminarians need to have a basic understanding of Latin according to the new code of canon law.  De facto, no one enforces this particular canon.

But it's there, de jure.

Do most clergy in the new way of thinking even bother with a de jure rule, even if ignored?

You're losing me here.... ???  What "rule(s)"  are you referring to?  And according to what "law"?  "De jure" means based on or according to law.  So.... ??? ??? ???
Reply
#5
(07-22-2014, 03:35 AM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: Hello all. :P

So, since the Mass is supposed to be the primary catechism of the people, does that get taken into account by today's liturgists and Church architects at all?  All that beautiful art in the more well known, older Churches of Christendom was there for a reason.  Since some people were unable to read, it just made sense to have "visual aids" of sorts.

Times have changed, but the Mass is still supposed to be the primary catechism of the people.  Is anything being done to carry this objective of the Mass out?

It's the primary argument used against Latin and the introduction of the vernacular: "people can't be catechized in a language they don't understand." Though I reject the "poor dears can't understand" approach to dumbing down liturgy, we shouldn't imagine that "the Mass is the primary catechism of the people" was always realized in practice in the past. The liturgy was in a language they didn't understand (and hand missals as we know them are a creation of the 19th century); homilies were at best sporadically preached at Mass before Trent; the Bible wasn't available in their language even if they could read (and afford it), etc. Sure, the solemnity with which Mass was celebrated reinforced some doctrines, but also, absent other instruction, people were led to curious behavior (going years without communing) and superstitious beliefs (a Host would bleed if scratched).

Obviously, modern liturgies are deficient in their own way. The move to the vernacular has not produced a surge in understanding of the faith - but we really never got a chance to know if it would - they changed the rite itself AND the language. And the fact that the ever-present homily can't be trusted for orthodox Catholicism obviously exacerbates the problem. Architecture and art will not improve until the quality of belief among the Catholic people improves. A large portion of the Church doesn't believe in the Real Presence and believes "Jesus present in the community" is of the same order as the Eucharistic Presence, if not more important. There's a reason so many modern churches were built "in the round" - we can worship each other rather than raising our eyes to heaven.
Reply
#6
How else did the faithful in the early church learn the faith outside the liturgy? There were no churches with stained glass windows and stations of the cross; there were no books, bibles or missals available. They heard the scriptures and the sermon in their own language. The first part of the Mass was called The Mass of the Catechumens, not just because they had to be dismissed before the Mass of the Faithful. The catechumens were being instructed.
Reply
#7
(07-22-2014, 04:07 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(07-22-2014, 03:35 AM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: Hello all. :P

So, since the Mass is supposed to be the primary catechism of the people, does that get taken into account by today's liturgists and Church architects at all?  All that beautiful art in the more well known, older Churches of Christendom was there for a reason.  Since some people were unable to read, it just made sense to have "visual aids" of sorts.

Times have changed, but the Mass is still supposed to be the primary catechism of the people.  Is anything being done to carry this objective of the Mass out?

It's the primary argument used against Latin and the introduction of the vernacular: "people can't be catechized in a language they don't understand." Though I reject the "poor dears can't understand" approach to dumbing down liturgy, we shouldn't imagine that "the Mass is the primary catechism of the people" was always realized in practice in the past. The liturgy was in a language they didn't understand (and hand missals as we know them are a creation of the 19th century); homilies were at best sporadically preached at Mass before Trent; the Bible wasn't available in their language even if they could read (and afford it), etc. Sure, the solemnity with which Mass was celebrated reinforced some doctrines, but also, absent other instruction, people were led to curious behavior (going years without communing) and superstitious beliefs (a Host would bleed if scratched).

Obviously, modern liturgies are deficient in their own way. The move to the vernacular has not produced a surge in understanding of the faith - but we really never got a chance to know if it would - they changed the rite itself AND the language. And the fact that the ever-present homily can't be trusted for orthodox Catholicism obviously exacerbates the problem. Architecture and art will not improve until the quality of belief among the Catholic people improves. A large portion of the Church doesn't believe in the Real Presence and believes "Jesus present in the community" is of the same order as the Eucharistic Presence, if not more important. There's a reason so many modern churches were built "in the round" - we can worship each other rather than raising our eyes to heaven.

And yet... people knew their Mass and their Catechesis much better back then.  They know neither now.
Reply
#8
I wouldn't presume that the knowledge past generations had of Christianity was acquired mainly by Sunday Mass. The culture itself was different, life itself was a liturgy, there wasn't this gap some (indeed most) of us experience between the sacred and the profane, between life and cult to the living God.

I think the best question would be, how can we go back to live a full life in Christ? And I believe the sensible answer is to make an exodus from this world (imagine it how you will, but still some sort of separation, of opposition must exist). Thus, going back to a discussion I had with loggats the other day, the only real thing done to integrate life and liturgy was the Summorum Pontificum, because in precisely in a Liturgy where the world cannot find itself, that cannot be reconciled to the world, is where we can regain our lives.
Reply
#9
(07-22-2014, 06:49 PM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: And yet... people knew their Mass and their Catechesis much better back then.  They know neither now.

Absolutely, no argument. I'm always amused by people who criticize the Baltimore Catechism and traditional instruction, saying that people just parroted the scripted answers, but didn't understand the answers. The immediate answer is, of course, at least they had that - and that's if I accept the premise. People today know nothing, and worse, don't care. Maybe in the past people showed excessive deference to priests, assuming some things were beyond their state in life, but they cared to know what they were supposed to know. The problem really boils down to a secularized, anti-Catholic culture that provides enough material comfort that people ignore religion, and a catechetical and liturgical approach that stands very little chance in a fight against secularity. The pussy-foot approach to Catholicism we've been saddled with for 50 years is a loser, guaranteed. The evidence is easy to see, but amazingly, people, and the hierarchy in particular, don't see what's in front of their face. We definitely need the Church Militant to wake up!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)