07 August 2014

The King of France is Coming to St. Louis? That's Pretty Cool.

The St. Louis Review notes a number of celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis occurring around the Feast of Saint Louis in late August. Mentioned among them is a Mass celebrated by Archbishop Carlson on Sunday, August 24, 2014 (vigil of the feast) at 5 pm at the Old Cathedral.

The article mentions that among those expected to attend is "Prince Louis de Bourbon", by whom it actually means His Royal Majesty, Louis XX of France (the rightful King of France); or if you will, His Royal Highness, Prince Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou; or, if you must, Alfonso Jaime Marcelino Manuel Víctor María de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú, Head of the Bourbon line, senior male heir of Hugh Capet, of Henry IV, and of Louis XIV.

P.S. He also has a colorable claim to the Spanish throne. And throw in several other hereditary titles.

That guy.

Pretty cool.

Too bad the Mass will be in the ordinary form for this most extraordinary event. The only Mass being celebrated by priests in St. Louis at its founding in 1764 will not be in attendance, alas.


Anonymous said...

Very neat stuff! As a Catholic Francophile household, we are thrilled.

I urge readers also to go to SVdP parish if you can. It is beautiful inside. It looks like heaven. Yes I mean that. They do a great deal of feeding of the poor etc as well. A great parish.

Anonymous said...

I guess I should clarify that the STL Review article mentioned a 250th mass at SVdP parish. Hence, I urge readers to attend if they can...or visit some other time. These old city parishes put our modern suburban warehouse churches to shame.

Clothilde said...

Where does "Louis" end up among the string of names in the third name you list? Is His Royal Highness a Louis only on the French side and Alfonso on the Spanish?

jim.carroll said...

Certainly, M'sieur, you cannot POSSIBLY be entertaining the notion that this fine young gentleman could turn out to be the fulfillment of the alleged "Great Catholic Monarch" end-times prophecy?

Mon Dieu!

Anonymous said...

"To bad the Mass will be in the ordinary form?" Yes, such a shame that people in the congregation might actually understand the words to the prayers being said. 99% of the people in attendance wouldn't know any of the Latin, nor would they know the ancient Greek in which most of the New Testament was written, nor the Aramaic in which Jesus Himself spoke. While these are incredibly rich languages, there are reasons why these are known as 'dead languages.'

I totally respect those that love the Latin Mass, and the spirituality that focuses primarily on God's transcendence. Vatican II may have over-stretched to bring out the other side, God's immanence in the Mass and in our lives. Somewhere in the middle where there is an emphasis on both God's immanence and transcendence is right. I just don't get why you have such a need to make this a borderline personality issue here of black/white, good/bad. Then again, that same thinking can be found in the article right above this, where some young Muslim followed up on the vacuum left by Bush's war and execution of their secular leader, Saddam Hussein, and slaughtered Christians. He too thinks that his religious practices are right, and all others are wrong.

thetimman said...

TIYS, I thought it would also be cool to have the Mass used in 1764 (and which still exists) for an event celebrating the founding in 1764. Also, I bet you would understand the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Kyrie, Gloria, etc. you pray them often in those languages I guess. And, fittingly, at an event with native English, Spanish, French, and perhaps other language speakers, Latin is the great unifying language of Catholics, is it not?

That language binds together 1 billion polyglot Catholics. Beautiful, if you ask me.

And, of course, the aesthetics are a completely different issue.

But, as you say, anybody can have their doctrinaire streak., n'est-ce pas? If it is any consolation, I plan to go, despite the form of Mass. Hope that doesn't keep you away!;-)

JBazChicago said...

My dear "Anonymous"
I agree that as a Church we have become polemical regarding which Mass one prefers, unfortunately both sides are to blame.

HOWEVER you make some FALSE and inaccurate conclusions. I have found that my parents and grandparents (who barely graduated grammar school and was a barkeep) know the theology of "The Mass" better than any and I mean ANYone who grew up with Mass in the Vernacular.

Even though Mass was in Latin, they were forced to read along (not always, but often enough) in their missal, which forced them to really digest the words and rubrics of the Mass. The danger of Mass in the Vernacular is that it can lead to one being a passive participant, that words are so familiar they neither listen or at least read along in a missal. I don't mind Mass in the Vernacular, I'm for it! But I also am a proponent of Latin in the Liturgy (and I happen to know it too).

Lastly, you must separate the issues. Your complaint is that Mass is in Latin, "St Louis Catholic" is saddened (rightly so, I believe) that Mass is not in the Ancient Form. They are two different issues, since it is quite possible to have the Old Mass in the Vernacular (possible, but not permitted). Latin is not intrinsic to the "Mass of the Ages".