You will rapidly see, if you watch this video, that all is not quite right (or, right in the Catholic sense).
There is reverence, latin, solemnity but.......there are also some glaring elements that jar.
It begins with the cotta collars, round not square.
This is nit picking you may say and that is true but, when you are dealing with a truth it is vital that you keep it true in every possible aspect.
And then you may have noticed a female altar server....a rather bleak sort of sanctuary.....no altar cards.
And there's the singing....quite nice but not quite the round shilling as far as plainchant goes.
It is, of course, an Anglican Latin "Mass" - I have not watched the whole clip, I am sure there are many more profound liturgical distinctions between that and our own Traditional Latin Mass.
There are grave dangers in supposing that, just because there is a superficial resemblance, there is no distinction between that and the original.
This can be a cause of 'liturgical drift' when two faiths blur the edges in the fond belief that they are all members of the same club; they're not, sadly.
That is why the ecumenical movement is so potentially dangerous; if it does not lull Catholics into a false sense of security it will almost certainly do so for non Catholics who, after sharing a service, may believe that their faith is as good as their Catholic counterparts.
There is reverence, latin, solemnity but.......there are also some glaring elements that jar.
It begins with the cotta collars, round not square.
This is nit picking you may say and that is true but, when you are dealing with a truth it is vital that you keep it true in every possible aspect.
And then you may have noticed a female altar server....a rather bleak sort of sanctuary.....no altar cards.
And there's the singing....quite nice but not quite the round shilling as far as plainchant goes.
It is, of course, an Anglican Latin "Mass" - I have not watched the whole clip, I am sure there are many more profound liturgical distinctions between that and our own Traditional Latin Mass.
There are grave dangers in supposing that, just because there is a superficial resemblance, there is no distinction between that and the original.
This can be a cause of 'liturgical drift' when two faiths blur the edges in the fond belief that they are all members of the same club; they're not, sadly.
That is why the ecumenical movement is so potentially dangerous; if it does not lull Catholics into a false sense of security it will almost certainly do so for non Catholics who, after sharing a service, may believe that their faith is as good as their Catholic counterparts.
"I am sure there are many more profound liturgical distinctions between that and our own Traditional Latin Mass."
ReplyDeleteThe principal one being that one is valid, one is not.
Never mix live ammunition with blanks, as I told an area Bishop who tried, and failed, to get my agreement to a shared tabernacle in a new Chapel in a hospital where I was chaplain.
@EFpastor emeritus,
ReplyDeleteIndeed! The new consecration rite is certainly invalid; the ordination rite for presbyters highly doubtful.
I don't quite see the point in this. Apart from the fact that the chant is the worst I have ever heard (the cantor would appear to be tone-deaf, and they sound if they are sight-reading the Missa de Angelis, badly), the BCP in Latin is not in the Anglican tradition. It has been translated into Latin and Greek but could only have been licitly used if the congregation understood those languages, for example in a college chapel. It doesn't really resemble a Latin OF Mass, although they have had to borrow some OF chants such as 'Mortem tuam anuntiamus' and 'Quia tuum est regnum'.
ReplyDeleteAnglican cathedral choirs can and do sing Latin Mass settings and motets, and you will occasionally hear the odd Latin chant at evensong, but they are in the context of an English service. As for validity, it is a perfectly valid protestant communion service, no more and no less.