Are Some People Afraid Of The Latin Mass?

[DavidPalm]

The truth is the prayers are different.

It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that the OF is watered down.

As one of my friends always says, “It’s not the language, it’s the theology.”

Let me be on record once again as affirming that the NOM, at least in its Latin typical edition, does not contain any theological error. But in the realm of theological emphases, inclusions, and exclusions, the differences between the TLM and NOM are profound.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

because people who go to the tlm are treated as outcasts. when i attend the novus ordo, i get weird looks because i believe the way i dress. i thought about removing my veil or hat, and i almost did until a priest told me that he would appreciate it if i would take off my head covering because it is making his parishioners feel uncomfortable. i just smiled politely and told him that the way his parishioners dress makes me feel uncomfortable also.
you also have the luxury of having your mass that you love 10-15min from your door. when if we want to attend a tlm we have to drive over an hr.
your bishop doesnt snub you and shake your childrens hand like its a chore.
when i went to the tlm i was welcomed with open arms. now that i prefer the tlm i am now snubbed in the novus ordo community.

Have you been downtown to Sacred Heart? The priests there offer a very good OF. On Sunday the choir sings in Latin. And the Church is gorgeous!!!

sacredheartpeoria.com/PHOTOGALLERY5.html

 

[palmas85]

It could be that or, as in my case, I don’t want to learn latin.

Peace

Tim

Why would you have to unless you were the Priest or the server?

The translations are right there in front of you.

 

[Timothysis]

The TLM brings out the mystery of the Eucharist in a way the Pauline Mass never can. That’s its principal attribute. It’s a sacrifice offered to the Father for the remission of sins, not a celebration and glorification of the community in an attempt to be “relevant”.

I am so very tired of hearing this. Have you ever read Eucharistic Prayer III, which is the prayer that is used at my church at least 95% of the time?

"Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name…

And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist…

Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and* see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself.** Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ…*
*
Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world…"*

I count the word “sacrifice” at least 3 times and the implied notion of a sacrifice several other times, not including the following use:

"Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts" and “Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father,” followed by “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church.”

Explain to me how this prayer isn’t so much a sacrifice and more of "a celebration and glorification of the community in an attempt to be “relevant”.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Why would you have to unless you were the Priest or the server?

The translations are right there in front of you.

Just as they were in 1958 when I made my First Communion in second grade. We didn’t have an option in 1958 either. And, yes, Palmas is right. The translations are right there in front of you and the amazing thing is that the more you look at the translations the more you recognize that English has a lot of roots in Latin. Spanish even more so.

Can I speak Latin? No. Can I respond in Latin? Yes.

 

[DavidPalm]

I am so very tired of hearing this. Have you ever read Eucharistic Prayer III, which is the prayer that is used at my church at least 95% of the time?

I’m sure someone else is formulating the same response I am, but here goes…EP III may be used at your church a lot, but it’s EP II that is used 90% of the time everywhere else (my highly scientific observation ) precisely because 1) it’s the shortest and 2) it’s the most ambiguous.

Here goes:

Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks, He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.

When the supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:

In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love, together with John Paul our Pope, {name} our bishop,a nd all the clergy. Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory through your Son, Jesus Christ.

Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever. Amen.

Just one very vague, ambiguous reference to offering (not sacrifice) in the whole thing. And a great deal of sacrificial language was abandoned with the replacement of the Offertory with what is essentially a Jewish bidding prayer. There are plenty of Protestants who could say EP II with a good conscience. There’s not one on the planet who could say the Roman Canon.

Yes, the Novus Ordo can be said with distinctively Catholic content, including explicit references to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. But it can also, because of all the options allowed, be said with a minimum of distinctively Catholic content and almost no reference to the notion of sacrifice whatsoever. And that is a problem.

 

[ProVobis]

There is nothing to fear by going to the EF. You know what you’re going to get. It’s the OF that’s full of options and surprises.

 

[DavidPalm]

There’s not one on the planet who could say the Roman Canon.

OK, there might be a few ultra-high Church Anglicans around who could, but you get my meaning.

There is nothing to fear by going to the EF. You know what you’re going to get. It’s the OF that’s full of options and surprises.

LOL!

 

[Dauphin]

Explain to me how this prayer isn’t so much a sacrifice and more of "a celebration and glorification of the community in an attempt to be “relevant”.

I’m referring principally to the way the Pauline Mass is celebrated, the innovations which have been introduced over time, and the general inward-looking and irreverent culture which surrounds the Mass.

If we’re speaking of a “theoretical” Pauline Mass, in which the texts are used exactly as published, and the liturgy is conformed to traditional norms, the problems are far less acute. However, the missal itself still has problems.

Many of the traditional Roman prayers have been excised from the Mass because of their unambiguous reference to the Mass as a sacrifice offered for the remission of the sins of the living and the dead (a doctrine entirely absent from the Pauline Mass). Compare the offertory in the Traditional Latin Mass to that in the Pauline Mass. Also, although it is possible to have a Mass with many references to the sacrifice, it is equally possible (Through the use of Eucharistic Prayer II, which is the most frequently used one around here) to have one without any unambiguous references to the Mass itself as a true sacrifice, distinguished from merely a “sacrifice of praise” (which is why the NeoCats, who deny that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, agree to say the Orate Fratres).

It couldn’t be more clear that the missal itself was deliberately watered down in order to make it more palatable for those who deny the faith. I understand the motivation behind this, but it has been a complete failure.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I probably hear Eucharistic Prayer I used with far greater frequency than most of you…but then I attend a cathedral parish. Eucharistic Prayer III is our norm for Ordinary Time.

I should also point out that Eucharistic Prayer I was the normative Mass used up until, oh, 1975 or so. But, we are hijacking the thread.

 

[Lainey63]

I like both forms of the Mass-they are both Catholic Masses. I don’t think that anyone is necessarily afraid of the Latin Mass…it has been my experience that most of the people who tend to be more liberal and are not interested in the Latin Mass are the older people…but then again I live in FL and it is not uncommon to see elderly people driving a nice sports car like a new mustang convertable going real slow on the road I might add and running around dressed in their shorts like their teenagers

 

[Timothysis]

I’m sure someone else is formulating the same response I am, but here goes…EP III may be used at your church a lot, but it’s EP II that is used 90% of the time everywhere else (my highly scientific observation ) precisely because 1) it’s the shortest and 2) it’s the most ambiguous.

Here goes:

Just one very vague, ambiguous reference to offering (not sacrifice) in the whole thing. And a great deal of sacrificial language was abandoned with the replacement of the Offertory with what is essentially a Jewish bidding prayer. There are plenty of Protestants who could say EP II with a good conscience. There’s not one on the planet who could say the Roman Canon.

Remember that at the presentation of the gifts the following is said, no matter which Eucharistic Prayer is used:

“Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts”

“Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father” and the people respond, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church.”

So, while the language may not be as explicit as we would maybe like, we must keep in mind that Eucharistic Prayer II is based on the ancient Eucharistic Prayer of Saint Hippolytus, a prayer which pre-dates the Roman Rite. It is, by its own virtue, a totally Catholic prayer or would you try to deny that?

Yes, the Novus Ordo can be said with distinctively Catholic content, including explicit references to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. But it can also, because of all the options allowed, be said with a minimum of distinctively Catholic content and almost no reference to the notion of sacrifice whatsoever. And that is a problem.

I will let the following speak for me: "“Recently a Protestant commission was given the task of revising the prayers of the Last Supper. It was proposed that they adopt the second Catholic Eucharistic Prayer (inspired by St. Hippolytus). That proposition was rejected, because the commission considered that the doctrine implied in that prayer did not correspond to the actual common faith of Protestants… the invocation of the Spirit on the bread and wine presupposed Transubstantiation.” (Max Thurian, Quoted in La Croix (Paris), June 15, 1977.)

As for the remaining Eucharistic Prayers, number 1 is simply a translation of the Roman Canon and number 3 and 4 are very overt in the notion of the Mass as a sacrifice. From what I have read, the new translations of the Eucharistic Prayers are even more distinctly “Catholic.”

I will leave the following for comment:

"Some argue that one of the big deficiencies of the Pauline Rite Mass, is that it is only termed a communal meal, a memorial meal, and has done away or at least drastically reduced the emphasis on the Sacrifice of the Mass. This was supposedly done to appeal to Protestant observers, who supposedly helped to write the Mass.

Indeed the Mass is a memorial, but that is not a lessening of tradition or scripture. Jesus told his apostles “Do this as a memorial of Me”. The term memorial (or “anamnesis” in the Greek) means that when the priest utters the words of consecration, he brings about or represents the same mystery which Christ brought about at the Last Supper on “the night before He suffered.” The one sacrifice of the Cross is thus rendered present, though in an unbloody manner, and the divine Victim of the Cross is both offerer and offered in the Church’s liturgical rite .(Whitehead, p. 78).
*
There were no doubt Protestant observers of the working sessions of the Commission. Protestants do not generally believe Christ can be made present; thus there can be no sacrifice. They only believe in the “priesthood of all believers,” not a ministerial priesthood. Let us see whether Catholic doctrine was watered down in these areas. What did the Vatican II Church officially declare about the Mass in reference to Pauline Rite Mass?"

“Hence, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at the same time and inseparably:*
*1) A sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated
2) a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said “do this in memory of me” (Lk. 22:19).
3) a sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ. (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Eucharisticum Mysterium, #C1.”

In the foreword to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal states:
The Sacrificial character of the Mass was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent in accordance with the universal tradition of **the Church (Session 22, Sep. 17, 1562). The Second Vatican Council has enunciated this same teaching once again, and made this highly significant comment: ‘ At the Last Supper our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross until he should come again; (Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy #47).

This foreword describes the New Order of the Mass as a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation and satisfaction, thus affirming doctrines that Protestants specifically deny. The Pauline Mass affirms these things; it was not designed to please Protestants by compromising Catholic doctrine whatsoever (Whitehead, p. 80). "*

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

 

[samcarter14]

I’m not “afraid” of the Latin mass; I just don’t understand Latin. I like to be able to take part in the liturgy; the word 'liturgy" can be translated as “work”. How can I work to pray to the Lord if I don’t know the language being used?

 

[DavidPalm]

I’m not “afraid” of the Latin mass; I just don’t understand Latin. I like to be able to take part in the liturgy; the word 'liturgy" can be translated as “work”. How can I work to pray to the Lord if I don’t know the language being used?

Praying is hard work in itself. Most of the prayers in the Mass are said by the priest to God on our behalf. God understands Latin just fine. Certainly we are encouraged to unite ourselves with these prayers. This can be done exclusively interiorly, since we know what the priest is praying for. Or it can be done with an English translation of the Missal which is easily obtainable.

 

[DavidPalm]

So, while the language may not be as explicit as we would maybe like,

Yes, just so. Generally the liturgy and theological formulations in the Catholic Church have moved to make things more clear, more explicit, less ambiguous. Is there another time in history that the Catholic Church took a step back by making things less clear, less explicit, more ambiguous? I’m not aware of any examples prior to the 1960s. Perhaps that’s a clue to something.

That proposition was rejected, because the commission considered that the doctrine implied in that prayer did not correspond to the actual common faith of Protestants… the invocation of the Spirit on the bread and wine presupposed Transubstantiation.”

(Max Thurian, Quoted in La Croix (Paris), June 15, 1977.)

Some interesting counter-documentation here:

verbum1.blogspot.com/2006/11/protestant-reaction-to-new-mass.html

I will leave the following for comment: etc.

That the Holy Spirit intervened to prevent certain liturgical revolutionaries from doing their worst to the Mass is undeniable. That they accomplished quite a lot of what they set out to do is, to me, equally undeniable. Again, just look at the massive reduction in distinctively Catholic content, not just in the “Eucharistic Prayers” but in the gutted Offertory and the propers. Shall I begin to post these side by side so we can compare them? Do you really believe there would be any doubt that the distinctively Catholic content had been drastically reduced…on purpose?

Sometimes the only way it really sinks in is to see example after example side by side, but it gets pretty tedious here on a forum.

 

[ProVobis]

"Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father" and the people respond, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church.”

When one hears this right after the presentation of the bread and wine “of human hands” he may not quite get the connection to the types of sacrifices of the Old Testament that were supposed to be most pleasing to God.

Matt1618 does try awfully hard, I’ll give him that much.

 

[Timothysis]

Is there another time in history that the Catholic Church took a step back by making things less clear, less explicit, more ambiguous? I’m not aware of any examples prior to the 1960s. Perhaps that’s a clue to something.

Off the top of my head I recall that the placement of the Mystery of Faith in the latin missal holds a confused understanding. While there are copious commentaries trying to “explain” exactly what it means they all lack any specific, particular definition. What exactly does “Mystery of Faith” mean and why is it particular only to the consecration of the wine?

Also, the “spotless oblation” as offered is confused, as most would consider it “spotless” after the consecration, not before.

Lastly, I have read many times how the latin Roman Canon seems to be a hodge-podge of prayers and petitions, lacking a certain cohesiveness.

Again, just look at the massive reduction in distinctively Catholic content, not just in the “Eucharistic Prayers” but in the gutted Offertory and the propers. Shall I begin to post these side by side so we can compare them?

And what do you compare them to, the text of the latin missal? Since when is the latin missal the measurement of all liturgies? There are many, many other liturgies that don’t conform to the 1570 latin missal; does that make them any less worthy? “For many” and “the Mystery of Faith” does not exist in several Church-approved liturgies; does that make them lacking in “distinctly Catholic content?” Just because the missal of Pope Paul VI doesn’t compare side by side to the latin missal doesn’t “prove” that Pope Paul’s missal is deficient. The beliefs of the Church are there for those who know where to find them.

.

Do you really believe there would be any doubt that the distinctively Catholic content had been drastically reduced…on purpose?

Conspiracy theories do not interest me.

 

[Dauphin]

I will let the following speak for me: "“Recently a Protestant commission was given the task of revising the prayers of the Last Supper. It was proposed that they adopt the second Catholic Eucharistic Prayer (inspired by St. Hippolytus). That proposition was rejected, because the commission considered that the doctrine implied in that prayer did not correspond to the actual common faith of Protestants… the invocation of the Spirit on the bread and wine presupposed Transubstantiation.” (Max Thurian, Quoted in La Croix (Paris), June 15, 1977.)

What a fascinating comment. According to this, the ancient Anaphora of St. Hippolytus (indeed, any Anaphora with an Epiclesis), which is actually derived from an earlier Eastern prayer, implies the doctrine of transubstantiation. That is, some of the earliest Christians believed a doctrine which the Catholic Church would only formally define centuries later.

You’d think Protestants would have a hard time admitting that!

 

[Halos1n2Horns]

I feel as alot of us that are converts really don’t understand the latin mass. I am a 11 year old catholic and a convert, The priest that commissioned me for extraordinary minster, only does latin masses across the usa. I have learned that some do like it and want it brought back, but it’s there choice as to feeling closer to Christ.
While others like myself who maybe only been to a few of them, have no knowledge of them and don’t really understand what is being said or done. I would love to learn them just to see which one I would like better.

As a convert I am always willing to learn different ways to bring me closer to christ.

Pope bendict said If some people in your churches would like a Latin mass then it’s up to the priest to give them one. But not all priest are going to do this , I am in a old Church actually there are two in my town and we have merged into one. One was built in 1882, and 1893. These churches remind me of a Latin mass. The 1893 Church still has the communion rail in front of the altar.

So I would say not all are afraid of a Latin Mass . I feel that everyone should have a choice some maybe scared as in not being allowed one more so then afraid of one.

Thanks for letting me put in my opinion.

peace i leave with you my friend Halos

 

[Timothysis]

What a fascinating comment. According to this, the ancient Anaphora of St. Hippolytus (indeed, any Anaphora with an Epiclesis), which is actually derived from an earlier Eastern prayer, implies the doctrine of transubstantiation. That is, some of the earliest Christians believed a doctrine which the Catholic Church would only formally define centuries later.

You’d think Protestants would have a hard time admitting that!

Good point!