Any truth on Latin Mass 'error(s)?'

  • Thread starter Thread starter thestudentAD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thestudentAD

Guest
Hey, a few months ago, before I started my third job, I met a third order dominican sister at a cafe. We talked for a bit, I told her the news that I had heard about sedevecantism, she actually didn’t know anything about it, told me she would rather not pay attention to it. I also asked her about the Tridentine Mass and asked if they gave her pew cards like one of the articles on this site said. She said that the church never had any when she was a little kid. In fact, she didn’t understand the latin, nobody told her, nobody translated it, and I think nobody even taught latin in the school (Don’t know how long that school near our church was around). She said she was ‘happy’ when Vatican II came around and the mass became more vernacular. Of course, I understand the feelings of some traditionalists: You had something that you were raised up taken from you. I’ve had that done to me several times. So, just to ask the questions:
  1. Did you know latin in the Tridentine Mass?
  2. Did the priest repeat the readings and the gospel in vernacular?
  3. Did anyone give you pew cards for the Mass?
  4. Did anyone say when the Church started doing the Tridentine Mass? (Heard it started around 1600s, possibly. But, I know for certain, there are other rites in union with the Holy See) Would love to hear all your answers!
 
Well from my experience and to answer your questions most people had a missal that had both a Latin and English side by side. The sermon always included english reading of the epistle and gospel followed by teaching. If you attended Catholic school Latin was encouraged if not required as a foreign language credit. Secondly most new attendees had the vestibule filled with information on the Latin mass and why it is said that way rather than with the vernacular. The pamphlets vary by group some having information regarding doctrinal issues in V2, ordination rites, Transubstantiation form issues, the modern popes, etc. Others have none of that. Most new attendees are brought by someone who attends and they will provide a missal. As for when it was introduced it was in Quo Primum 1570.
 
The Tridentine Mass was not “introduced” in 1570. Quo primum was an affirmation that the Mass in the form it had taken for hundreds of years in Rome was to be used worldwide. At the time there were many, many local Missals being used and there was very little standardization. The effect of Quo primum was to abolish newer forms of the Mass which had not yet gained the force of tradition or custom. However, the essential form and structure of the Tridentine Mass well predates that period, and it was somewhat an accident of geography and primacy that the Roman form of the Mass won out over the British and French and Spanish forms.
 
Elizium23 said:
The Tridentine Mass was not “introduced” in 1570. Quo primum was an affirmation that the Mass in the form it had taken for hundreds of years in Rome was to be used worldwide. At the time there were many, many local Missals being used and there was very little standardization. The effect of Quo primum was to abolish newer forms of the Mass which had not yet gained the force of tradition or custom. However, the essential form and structure of the Tridentine Mass well predates that period, and it was somewhat an accident of geography and primacy that the Roman form of the Mass won out over the British and French and Spanish forms.
Click to expand...
True and excellent exposition on the history of the tridentine; but as for a googleable term I thought Qou primum was a good start in terms of when it was officially recognized as the standard rite. And that it was backed with the authority of the Pope rather than custom.
 
I was never raised with the old Mass, on the contrary; the first time I went to one I never looked back. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass I attend is offered at a diocesan parish generally by the pastor. According to HH Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass should be celebrated in every Catholic parish.

My grandparents took Latin in school just as I had to take French, though I guess it never interested them because both of them only remember a single phrase. I was never interested in French and once even failed it. :o Only later did I realize had it interested me I probably would have excelled. The fact that I can read, sing, and pronounce Latin well after only a year and a half of going to the old Mass really surprises me. I guess it’s only because it interests me. It’s even helped with my French. 😃

As for your questions, I can’t really answer them since I wasn’t around before VII but I’m sure my family understood just enough Latin to sing and get through any responses necessary in the Mass. They had several old Missals, one of which I was given which is very special because it’s an actual altar Missal (a priest could say Mass from it). I’m sure the priest has always repeated the Epistle and Gospel in English, as is still the case today. There are also small Missals for guests who may not have their own. As someone else touched on, parts of the Mass go much further back than the 1500s; some of it to the earliest days of Christianity.

So, what supposed “error(s)” are you referring to?
 
I was never raised with the old Mass, on the contrary; the first time I went to one I never looked back. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass I attend is offered at a diocesan parish generally by the pastor. According to HH Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass should be offered in every Catholic parish.

As for your questions, I can’t really answer them since I wasn’t around before VII but I’m sure my family understood just enough Latin to sing and get through any responses necessary in the Mass. My grandparents had several old Missals, one of which I was given that is very special because it’s an actual altar Missal (a priest could say Mass from it). I know they had to take Latin in school just as I had to take French, though I guess it never interested them because both of them only remember a single phrase. I was never interested in French and once even failed it. :o Only later did I realize had it interested me I probably would have excelled. I can read, sing, and pronounce Latin about as well as could be hoped for after only a year and a half of going to the EF Mass. I guess it’s only because it interests me. It’s even helped with my French. 😃

Anyways, I’m sure the priest has always repeated the Epistle and Gospel in English as is still the case today, though there may have been cases years ago where this sadly may not have happened. There are also small Missals for guests who may not have their own. As someone else touched on, parts of the Mass go much further back than the 1500s; some of it to the earliest days of Christianity.

So, what supposed “error(s)” are you referring to?
 
thestudentAD said:
Hey, a few months ago, before I started my third job, I met a third order dominican sister at a cafe. We talked for a bit, I told her the news that I had heard about sedevecantism, she actually didn’t know anything about it, told me she would rather not pay attention to it. I also asked her about the Tridentine Mass and asked if they gave her pew cards like one of the articles on this site said. She said that the church never had any when she was a little kid. In fact, she didn’t understand the latin, nobody told her, nobody translated it, and I think nobody even taught latin in the school (Don’t know how long that school near our church was around). She said she was ‘happy’ when Vatican II came around and the mass became more vernacular. Of course, I understand the feelings of some traditionalists: You had something that you were raised up taken from you. I’ve had that done to me several times. So, just to ask the questions:
  1. Did you know latin in the Tridentine Mass?
  2. Did the priest repeat the readings and the gospel in vernacular?
  3. Did anyone give you pew cards for the Mass?
  4. Did anyone say when the Church started doing the Tridentine Mass? (Heard it started around 1600s, possibly. But, I know for certain, there are other rites in union with the Holy See) Would love to hear all your answers!
Click to expand...
Just to preface this, I am only 23.
  1. It seems many people before Vatican II, and now probably even more people today, when they think of the Latin Mass, are extremely hung up on “understanding” the Latin. This is probably a little uncharitable of me to say this, but I think it is true: that one big reason people refuse to give the Latin Mass a chance is because they are too lazy - too lazy to “understand” the Latin and too lazy to “understand” what is going on. It’s different now, because we have the vernacular in the Novus Ordo, but in a way, that’s made it worse for going to the Latin Mass - people are so used to “knowing” what is going on and what is said that the Latin Mass is just utterly foreign. And that is too bad. I would think that before Vatican II, when the TLM was the norm, people would “understand” it perfectly fine after going to it at least weekly for so long, and that if they didn’t, they would make an effort to do so since, for goodness’ sake, it’s the MASS, and I don’t know why one wouldn’t make an effort to understand it, unless they were poorly catechized and don’t understand even its importance. Heck, even though we have for the most part fully vernacular Masses today, I think we have the same problem of people not fully understanding the Mass and what it is, so I have trouble believing it was the Latin that was the problem before VII.
  2. Don’t know about before the change but now I believe at least for Sunday Masses, the FSSP priests and other priests who celebrate the TLM do repeat the readings in the vernacular, after they are read/sung in Latin and before the homily. Many/most won’t do so for a weekday Latin Mass, though, and if one desires to attend Latin Mass during the week, it is highly recommended they either go through the readings themselves at some other time in English (vernacular, that is) or get a Missal which has the readings in both languages.
  3. Before VII, it is my impression there were no “pew cards” needed because nearly everyone brought their own missal. I guess somewhere along the line after VII that custom changed, so now, where Latin Masses are offered, I believe there are booklets for one to follow along. However, the Propers are not included in these booklets, and again, if one desires to follow along with these, a missal must be purchased.
  4. It was first widely used after the Council of Trent, but as Elizium mentioned, it had been in use in Rome for hundreds of years, so it was not just “invented” at the time of the Council. So in other words, it has been around for most (all/nearly all? I don’t know the exact history of it) of the Church’s history.
Also, you probably already know this, especially since you used the qualifier “some” before you mentioned traditionalists - but there are many, many young traditionalists too, who love the Latin Mass not for nostalgic/sentimental reasons, as they were not alive before Vatican II. I don’t know the exact numbers, but there are probably just as many, if not more, young traditionalists than older ones who lived through the changes. Those young people, while recognizing the validity of the Novus Ordo, “prefer” or are very sympathetic to the Latin Mass, because they realize the importance of tradition, and it is hard to deny that some valuable tradition was lost and is not present or at least is just not the same in the Novus Ordo.
 
ServusHumilis said:
According to HH Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass should be offered in every Catholic parish.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid this is not true. Previously the bishops could regulate which parishes offered it. Pope Benedict wanted a wider availability, so that if a significant group of parishioners in a parish desired it, they could petition their priest to offer it there. But as Benedict noted in the accompanying letter,
The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often… it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite… because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.
Click to expand...
 
Digitonomy said:
I’m afraid this is not true. Previously the bishops could regulate which parishes offered it. Pope Benedict wanted a wider availability, so that if a significant group of parishioners in a parish desired it, they could petition their priest to offer it there.
Click to expand...
Pope JPII had asked for wider and more generous application of the 62 missal from the bishops. Pope Benedict made it easier for the priests to say it, not having to seek approval from their bishops to say it.
 
thestudentAD said:
Hey, a few months ago, before I started my [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]third job, I met a third order dominican sister at a cafe. We talked for a bit, I told her the news that I had heard about sedevecantism, she actually didn’t know anything about it, told me she would rather not pay attention to it. I also asked her about the Tridentine Mass and asked if they gave her pew cards like one of the articles on this site said. She said that the church never had any when she was a little kid. In fact, she didn’t understand the latin, nobody told her, nobody translated it, and I think nobody even taught latin in the school (Don’t know how long that school near our church was around). She said she was ‘happy’ when Vatican II came around and the mass became more vernacular. Of course, I understand the feelings of some traditionalists: You had something that you were raised up taken from you. I’ve had th
at done to me several times. So, just to ask the questions:
  1. Did you know latin in the Tridentine Mass?
  2. Did the priest repeat the readings and the gospel in vernacular?
  3. Did anyone give you pew cards for the Mass?
  4. Did anyone say when the Church started doing the Tridentine Mass? (Heard it started around 1600s, possibly. But, I know for certain, there are other rites in union with the Holy See) Would love to hear all your answers!
Click to expand...
  1. Yes but not until high school. As an altar boy beginning in the sixth grade, we had not yet studied Latin. But we knew the English translation. Some words and short phrases in Latin we did know. This was in the late 50’s.
  2. The priest always said the readings (Epistles they were called in those days) and the Gospel in English. There was no Latin reading of either.
  3. No, or I never saw one if there were or even had heard any mention of them. Your comment is the first time I’ve heard of them.
  4. The Tridentine Mass began around 1540, I’m thinking, and resulted from the Counsel of Trent. “Tridentine” is a reference to the city of Trent. But the Latin Mass, in varying versions, had existed for some time. I don’t know specific dates. The Tridentine Mass was meant to provide one uniform and also mandatory form of the Latin Mass. From memory I’m thinking this was initiated by Pope Leo V.
I haven’t yet read earlier comments and sorry if this repeats much.
 
Thomas_White said:
  1. Yes but not until high school. As an altar boy beginning in the sixth grade, we had not yet studied Latin. But we knew the English translation. Some words and short phrases in Latin we did know. This was in the late 50’s.
  2. The priest always said the readings (Epistles they were called in those days) and the Gospel in English. There was no Latin reading of either.
  3. No, or I never saw one if there were or even had heard any mention of them. Your comment is the first time I’ve ever heard of pew cards. But I do know for a fact that around 1900 there were pews with names plates of particular families. There is a very old Church I know of,that still has those nameplates on the pews. Whether these pews were reserved for a particular family only I don’t know.
  4. The Tridentine Mass began around 1540, I’m thinking, and resulted from the Counsel of Trent. “Tridentine” is a reference to the city of Trent. But the Latin Mass, in varying versions, had existed for some time. I don’t know specific dates. The Tridentine Mass was meant to provide one uniform and also mandatory form of the Latin Mass.
I haven’t yet read earlier comments and sorry if this repeats much.
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
Pope JPII had asked for wider and more generous application of the 62 missal from the bishops. Pope Benedict made it easier for the priests to say it, not having to seek approval from their bishops to say it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Thomas_White said:
  1. But the Latin Mass, in varying versions, had existed for some time. I don’t know specific dates.
Click to expand...
Throughout all its ups and downs, Latin had been the main language of the Mass in the West since the 4th century. And was so until 50 some years ago.
 
ServusHumilis said:
According to HH Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass should be offered in every Catholic parish.
Click to expand...
Actually, he called it the extraordinary form, noting that it would most likely continue to fairly rare. That was in his letter accompanying Sumorum Pontificum.
 
Digitonomy said:
I’m afraid this is not true. Previously the bishops could regulate which parishes offered it. Pope Benedict wanted a wider availability, so that if a significant group of parishioners in a parish desired it, they could petition their priest to offer it there. But as Benedict noted in the accompanying letter,
Click to expand...
Actually it is true but let me correct my statment and say that it was Cardinal Hoyos who said the Holy Father wished it to be so. Also when asked by a journalist if HH wanted to see it in “many parishes,” he has been quoted as saying “All the parishes. Not many, all the parishes, because this is a gift of God.”
 
Sorry, I just wanted to see if anybody else had any of the problems that this woman had during the pre v2 years… sorry for any trouble… please don’t flame me.
 
thestudentAD said:
Of course, I understand the feelings of some traditionalists: You had something that you were raised up taken from you.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I also think much more was involved. Prior to Vatican II, the Catholic Church resisted what was called Modernism. (Modernism is a philosophical term.) Centuries before Modernism began in the late 19th century, developments in science began to raise questions about religious belief. Major beliefs, including the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Christ and His resurrection were not easily explainable by science. Religious beliefs that could not be explained by science were often rejected. In time, this resulted in a dichotomy of Science and Religion, with faith and belief increasingly questioned, including the existence of God. In the secular world that resulted, this trend continues.

The Second Vatican Council, officially the Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum, addressed issues between the Church and the modern world. It was also an ecumenical council, and ecumenism concerns an attempt to improve interdenominational relations. Protestantism had arguably been more open to the modern world of industry and technology than had the Catholic Church that had resisted Modernism.

Vatican II should be understood in this context, I think. During the Council, in December of 1963, the document ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’ was issued, and it provided that revisions to the Liturgy of the Mass should occur and the task was given to a group of bishops. Meeting concerning the issue only began some time after the closing of the Council, and the meetings were by invitation attended by Protestant bishops. They were there to offer their advice in the prevailing ecumenical spirit. The eventual outcome (despite the strong objections of key members of the group) was the proulgation of the Mass in the vernacular by Pope Paul VI in late 1969. The Tridentine Rite Mass, though many centuries in use, vanished overnight. The ‘Mass in the vernacular’ involved much more that the use of the vernacular. The Mass became more like a Protestant service, and opinion among the Catholic faithful varied as to whether this was good or not so good.

But I think it is fair to say that many of those who would in time become known as Traditional Catholics saw this attempt to reconcile the Catholic Church with the modern world as taking a step onto a very slippery slope. We see various denominations as well as the Catholic Church itself continuing to struggle with issues that subsequently developed and sometimes became devisive.

Having grown up Catholic prior to Vatican II, and having become very familiar with the Tridentine Mass, what occurred on the first Sunday of Avent in 1969 was stunning. And I know this was so for many Catholics. I also think more than a few Catholcs have come to believe Vatican II was at least in part a mistake. While I believe the Council was well intentioned and in good faith, I also think it was a first step onto that very slippery slope. And at the bottom of that slope is a secular world.
 
otjm said:
Actually, he called it the extraordinary form, noting that it would most likely continue to fairly rare. That was in his letter accompanying Sumorum Pontificum.
Click to expand...
Well, considering that there are very few priests who know Latin well enough to say it, and there are no such restrictions on saying the OF in any language…
 
ProVobis said:
Well, considering that there are very few priests who know Latin well enough to say it, and there are no such restrictions on saying the OF in any language…
Click to expand...
Which, of course, is probably of violation of canon law:
Can. 249 The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well and have a suitable understanding of those foreign languages which seem necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of pastoral ministry.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top