People go on about how silence enriches the liturgy, whether that be moments of reflection after a bad sermon that we might understand and inwardly digest the words of wisdom, the silent Canon, or the riches of low Mass. I can't personally see that silence has any liturgical quality whatever. That might be one reason I despise low Mass; it is utterly tedious. In real liturgy, silence is minimal because there's always something going on; a cantor chanting, a choir singing, or a liturgical procession.
I do not doubt that silence has great benefits for personal, interior prayer, and I try to keep silence myself at whiles, but I have serious doubts that it has any worth for the common prayer of the Church.
I agree. I was a server at low Masses and it wasn't "boring" because i had something to do. But when i attended a low Mass as a pewsitter (i hate pews btw.)...thank God for my knowledge of latin. I could understand, but only because i knew latin. If i didn't i would've been a numb spectator. It would indeed be "boring" as far as externals go. (this is also the topic of the active participation from your other post but i will not comment there as to not create two threads).
ReplyDeleteI was a sedevacantist also and thus i attended a Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic church. i sang with the pojec and made the responses. it was during that time that i attended that low Mass that i mentioned. how i missed the responses, the signs of the Cross, the actual participation. i was a staunch traditionalist. i still am a traditionalist, but during my sedevacantism, curiously, i purified my views on the objections against the Mass of Pope Paul VI. i've realized that many of the Ottaviani's objecions are simply ignorant and don't hold the water against history. last week i reverted from sedevacantism back to "novusordoism". yes the Holy Week ceremonies are impoverished...but hey...at least i get to actively participate.
silence on Good Friday is striking. and it's meant to be for it is a departure from the usual nonsilence.
many silent prayers that we had oh-so-unfortunately lost by the liturgical reform, were audible only to the celebrant. the low Mass has the impact only on the celebrant, and those prayers who's loss is lamented, have impact only on the celebrant too even in the high Mass setting, which is the norm even according to the traddies.
traditionalists lament the blending of the confiteor which supposedly eradicates the difference between ministerial and common priesthood. well in the sung Mass you don't even hear the sign of the Cross let alone the confiteor. the offertory prayers which are certainly beautiful are inaudible. their loss is only the priest's loss. for the people it is as if they've never existed.
yes, i've played Mass. and thus i know what i'm talking about from personal experience.
people will not know it's about a sacrifice? well they won't know it in the tridentine rite because they won't hear that word not even once. at least in the novus ordo you hear the orate fratres until the end, and the faithful make the response which is so theologically dense that it suffices for the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
so yeah. i could write much more....