Are Some People Afraid Of The Latin Mass?

[Timothysis]

I think you need to study your Bible a little bit. Reread the Cain and Abel passage again.

I know the story of Cain and Abel very well, thank you. I don’t see the point you are trying to make, however. Are you trying to say that Old Testament offerings are equivalent to the perpetuation of the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass?

Also, it is not my criticism of phrase “spotless oblation” but others who are much more knowledgeable about such matters.

 

[DavidPalm]

Dauphin, I disagree with you. I grew up with the Latin Mass, with the Priest facing away from the congregation.

I used my missal at Mass and followed with the English side of the missal.

With the Latin Mass there was no participation with the Priest. It was a Priest’s Mass. He did his thing, we sat in the pew and followed with the missal.

Now, the Priest faces us; we see what he is doing; we participate.:yup:

I don’t object to the Latin, in fact, I love it but I want to see the Priest.

I realize that I’ve left a number of challenges to my statements on hold…sorry, I’ll try to clear away things here on the home-work front. But the statement above really caught my eye. To me this is the real downside of introducing liturgical novelties. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that in 1960 there wasn’t a single rite in the Catholic Church, Eastern or Western, in which the priest faced the people. In the West he faced the altar and in the East, at least for the Consecration, he was behind the iconostasis. It had been this way for at least…what?..1400-1500 years, maybe more? But with the introduction of the novelty of the priest facing the people, suddenly it becomes a sort of sine qua non in certain circles. Then, if you “take it away” in order to conform to the Church’s perennial tradition, you look like the bad guy.

I heard a priest say something similar to Communion in the hand–again, in no rite of the Church was it permitted and it had been that way for well over 1000 years. Now, he noticed, it was especially the old ladies who wanted to receive in the hand. Something sort of forbidden about being able to “touch Jesus” after being “denied” all these years. This sort of novelty, with the attendant shift in peoples’ thinking about the Mass, doesn’t strike me as very helpful.

 

[Timothysis]

You are blessed indeed. E.P. III is lovely. However, I have heard neither that nor EP. I in years. In my medium sized city, our Churches use EPII & that’s it. The message has become clear through the last 40+ year…do not ask for anything else.

 

[Appleby]

I think some people fear what we represent to them, and that is the Catholic Church as it was 50 yrs ago. They prefer their ultra-liberal parishes where Hell and Purgatory are never mentioned, most people never go to confession, altar girls and female eucharistic ministers are the norm, and no one want’s to go back to the “Bad Old Days” because they’ve already spent alot of time apologizing for that.

I think that is part of it. I also think, though, that people don’t want to learn anything new and nowadays Latin is considered something you have to learn rather than something that flows naturally from the [romance] language you speak. I have sung Latin masses since high school although I only converted to Catholicism in 2007, and I find the music to be far more beautiful than the watered-down, emasculated ‘tunes’ that are used today. [Do you know there are Catholics who don’t know that *Salve Regina is “Hail Holy Queen”?]

In 1993 I went to music camp specifically to sing the Haydn Harmoniemesse (it was so popular that the attendees were chosen by lottery) and there was a substantial number of younger people who not only had never sung a Latin mass, but who had no idea why the Harmoniemesse is funny, because they had no idea what a Mass was supposed to sound like!

I love the Latin Mass and think it is much holier than the English Mass.

 

[CradleCath]

When I asked about a Latin Mass in the area amongst a group of women one of them said why don’t you just go to the Spanish Mass. I am assuming she meant you can’t understand that any more then Latin. It was strange, I didn’t respond and just kind of gave her a look like ‘What’???’ she just smiled at me. I guess it was a joke.

I am always surprised at the number of people that think that the Tridentine Mass of '62 is about the language. It’s not, of course, it’s about the prayers, the solemnity, the fact that each move of the priest makes, each gesture…from the Orans position to the frequent genuflection…mean something & are part of our Mass & our Tradition (capital T)

**It’s about the “setting apart” of the ordained priesthood.
It’s about penitence & humility.
It’s about the ultimate Sacrifice required ** by God in order to give us salvation. So many of today’s Catholics don’t want to believe that God required **the death of His only Son…FOR US. They prefer to believe in the God who seems to be a Grandfatherly old man, who just pats us on the head & says, "Don’t worry about what you do…I “UNDERSTAND”.)
**It’s so much about humility. One kneels before their Savior, one doesn’t touch Him…but leaves that to the consecrated hands of the Priest. Remember the sick woman who simply wanted to touch the hem of His garment…not actually touch Him, just something He wore. Today’s Novus Ordo is about the “dignity of man”…not the Lamb on the altar because of us.

While I value the Latin language because it is part of our Tradition & culture…it’s the language of the Church, it can’t be changed…I’d love it just as much if were said in Russian, or the language spoken in Timbuctu.

 

[MARKOS08]

My opinion. I’m not afraid of latin mass, I would be more afraid that I won’t understand what is being said. In my parish, we have the exposition of the most blessed sacrament is done in Latin. It’s really cool because when the Latin phrases are said, it sounds very ancient and authentic(like that’s how its supposed to be).

 

[Dauphin]

With the Latin Mass there was no participation with the Priest. It was a Priest’s Mass. He did his thing, we sat in the pew and followed with the missal.

Now, the Priest faces us; we see what he is doing; we participate.:yup:

Full and active participation can be completely internal. If you pray the Mass, and follow the actions of the priest on the altar (you don’t need to see everything he does for this to be true), then you participate fully in the Mass.

Versus populum is an inferior posture because it makes the Mass inward-looking. It creates a “closed circle” of priest and people, thereby disrupting the sense of the Mass as a prayer and sacrifice offered to God. It makes the priest a sort of entertainer or presider. With the ad orientem posture, the priest leads the people in prayer and confects the sacrifice to God for them. His own personality diminishes and allows us to see him more clearly as the alter Christus.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

Full and active participation can be completely internal.

Agreed! And as an actively participating Mass-goer, it’s terribly disconcerting to be unable to focus on the Eucharist when we’re gladhanding around for the sign of peace, dancing the hand motions of “peace is flowing like a river” in the communion line and getting conscripted to play Red-Rover during the Our Father.

Attention Catholic Church: “full and active pariticipation” doesn’t mean that we all have to be dancing in the aisles just because the band is playing “Lord of the Dance”-- it means that we’re supposed to be praying along with the Mass. In other words, it means that we are not supposed to be mere spectators! Praying is full and active participation.

 

[iona_scribe]

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

The translations are right there in front of you.

It’s difficult and distracting for a beginner to scan the Latin side trying to figure out where the priest is (hearing unfamiliar words and then trying to figure out what they look like as written words), and then trying to follow along on the English side reading and concentrating on prayer while hearing Latin spoken simultaneously.

That said, it does get a little easier to follow every time (at least in my limited experience). With a little extra studying and persistence. I’m sure I’ll learn enough over time (I don’t expect the vocabulary to change at all because the Mass doesn’t change much apart from the readings )

However, I currently get more from the OF Mass by being well catechized (being able to follow and pray along with the Mass easily and being very conscious of the theology behind the Mass whether it’s as well emphasized as in the EF or not).

When I talk to friends about the EF, some express dislike of the idea that the priest should face “away” from us or the lack of modern music, many more express that the EF is very beautiful, but nearly everyone sees Latin as a hurdle. It’s not an insurmountable hurdle, but personally, I’m not sure why we can’t just have the EF but in the vernacular. It seems like it would be the best of both worlds.

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.

I don’t want us to get off topic, but if you happen to know of a link to a webpage with a side-by-side comparison I’d be very interested to take a look.

 

[LilyM]

I think that is part of it. I also think, though, that people don’t want to learn anything new and nowadays Latin is considered something you have to learn rather than something that flows naturally from the [romance] language you speak. I have sung Latin masses since high school although I only converted to Catholicism in 2007, and I find the music to be far more beautiful than the watered-down, emasculated ‘tunes’ that are used today. [Do you know there are Catholics who don’t know that *Salve Regina

is “Hail Holy Queen”?]

'Taint nothing natural about Latin for English speakers. English is a primarily Germanic or Teutonic language, not Romance at all.

Most of the Latin-derived terms in English are neologisms from about the 16th or 17th centuries when there was a revival in classical learning, including Latin. Even the spelling of the River Thames in London was changed around this time to look more classical (Greek in this instance). It was more like ‘Teems’ before then.

As for Latin being holier - says who? Jesus, as far as we know, never spoke Latin for starters. Are you suggesting that His prayers were less holy, less acceptable, because they weren’t in Latin?

And the holiest language for each of us is the one in which we best understand the prayers of the Mass and God’s word (scriptures) and in which we can best communicate with Him, which for most of us is NOT Latin.

I understand and wholeheartedly accept that Latin has a pride of place in the Church, and endorse its wider use in liturgy. For one thing it is a great link to Church history and provides a certain unity of thought and belief. This does NOT equate to it being holier!

There’s nothing wrong with simply saying the ‘Hail Holy Queen’ in whichever language, even if you don’t know the Latin version.

 

[PJM]

Opinions ?

                           My own observance has been that alot of people believe we can never fully return to it.

I sadly suspect that is a correct assumption.

What Rome desires is a return to a “Vertical” Divine Worship, that places God at the center of the Liturgy, and once again becomes a “Sacred Liturgy,” rather than the sunday-brunch it more closely resembles, in many of it’s “we are the church” manifesitations.

It is a daily prayer that we again descover the reality of Christ, our Blessed Lord in our midst.

 

[malphono]

'Taint nothing natural about Latin for English speakers. English is a primarily Germanic or Teutonic language, not Romance at all.

Most of the Latin-derived terms in English are neologisms from about the 16th or 17th centuries when there was a revival in classical learning, including Latin. Even the spelling of the River Thames in London was changed around this time to look more classical (Greek in this instance). It was more like ‘Teems’ before then.

As for Latin being holier - says who? Jesus, as far as we know, never spoke Latin for starters. Are you suggesting that His prayers were less holy, less acceptable, because they weren’t in Latin?

Not to argue, but while English is basically considered a Germanic tongue, it was very deeply and profoundly influenced and enriched by Norman (French) after 1066 AD. For example, the word “cow” derives from the German kuh whereas the word “beef” is from the French boeuf. Nothing there to do with 16-th-17th century “classical revivals.” Another example is the royal arms of the UK: it still bears the words Dieu et Mon Droit which are pure Norman French.

LilyM:

There’s nothing wrong with simply saying the ‘Hail Holy Queen’ in whichever language, even if you don’t know the Latin version.

No, there’s nothing wrong with it. Say it in whatever language you wish, but to me none (and I’ve heard it in several) conveys the same tenderness that jumps out from the Latin. And anyway, is it really so hard to learn it in Latin? Among more important things, it’s a helpful way to become more familiar with Latin in general.

 

[Timothysis]

Versus populum is an inferior posture because it makes the Mass inward-looking. It creates a “closed circle” of priest and people, thereby disrupting the sense of the Mass as a prayer and sacrifice offered to God. It makes the priest a sort of entertainer or presider. With the ad orientem posture, the priest leads the people in prayer and confects the sacrifice to God for them. His own personality diminishes and allows us to see him more clearly as the alter Christus.

So when a family prays grace at the table before a meal, it is actually an inferior way of praying, since it creates a “closed circle” of dad and family, disrupting the sense of the prayer as a prayer of thanks offered to God???

 

[malphono]

So when a family prays grace at the table before a meal, it is actually an inferior way of praying, since it creates a “closed circle” of dad and family, disrupting the sense of the prayer as a prayer of thanks offered to God???

Can you tell me please what a family does at the dinner table has to do with Holy Mass?

 

[Timothysis]

Can you tell me please what a family does at the dinner table has to do with Holy Mass?

Dauphin stated that "Versus populum is an inferior posture because it makes the Mass inward-looking. It creates a “closed circle” of priest and people, thereby disrupting the sense of the Mass as a prayer and sacrifice offered to God. It makes the priest a sort of entertainer or presider."

For myself, I have never witnessed a priest leading Mass as a “entertainer” or even “presider.” My question is, is it the same for all prayer? Since the conception here seems to be that the latin Mass is the only “true” way of worship and prayer, does it extend to every form of prayer, regardless of when and where? Remember, that people here on this forum say their personal prayers in latin, claiming latin to be a “sacred” language. How far should we take it???

 

[Dauphin]

So when a family prays grace at the table before a meal, it is actually an inferior way of praying, since it creates a “closed circle” of dad and family, disrupting the sense of the prayer as a prayer of thanks offered to God???

I’ve never before heard such a ridiculous objection. Grace before meals is not comparable to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The “dad” does not have a sacerdotal function. He confects no sacrifice. He does not mediate between God and man in the person of Christ.

 

[Insomniac]

So then, how would people feel if there was such a thing as an English-Language ER?

That seems to eliminate the fear of understanding, while at the same time maintaining it’s theological integrity.

 

[Dauphin]

So then, how would people feel if there was such a thing as an English-Language ER?

That seems to eliminate the fear of understanding, while at the same time maintaining it’s theological integrity.

Let’s wait a couple hundred years before we starting tinkering with the Mass yet again.

Why is it so difficult just to stay still for a while?

 

[Timothysis]

I’ve never before heard such a ridiculous objection. Grace before meals is not comparable to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The “dad” does not have a sacerdotal function. He confects no sacrifice. He does not mediate between God and man in the person of Christ.

I happen to think that this, "Versus populum is an inferior posture because it makes the Mass inward-looking. It creates a “closed circle” of priest and people, thereby disrupting the sense of the Mass as a prayer and sacrifice offered to God. It makes the priest a sort of entertainer or presider" is an equally ridiculous obejection. To suggest that a priest who consecrates the Holy Eucharist facing the congregation disrupts the prayer and sacrifice offered to God and that the same priest is an “entertainer” is an insult to the Mass and those holy men who celebrate it.

Would you say the same to Pope Benedict XVI when he offers Mass at St. Peter’s “versus populum?”

 

[Dauphin]

I happen to think that this, "Versus populum is an inferior posture because it makes the Mass inward-looking. It creates a “closed circle” of priest and people, thereby disrupting the sense of the Mass as a prayer and sacrifice offered to God. It makes the priest a sort of entertainer or presider" is an equally ridiculous obejection. To suggest that a priest who consecrates the Holy Eucharist facing the congregation disrupts the prayer and sacrifice offered to God and that the same priest is an “entertainer” is an insult to the Mass and those holy men who celebrate it.

Would you say the same to Pope Benedict XVI when he offers Mass at St. Peter’s “versus populum?”

Actually, Pope Benedict is the one who convinced me of the superiority of Ad Orientem in the first place. Here are a couple excerpts from his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy”:

“The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is locked into itself. The common turning toward the East was not a “celebration toward the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord”. As one of the fathers of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, J.A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession toward the Lord. They did not lock themselves into a circle, they did not gaze at one another, but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us.”

“A common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a common direction for prayer”

You can read the full chapter here:
http://www.adoremus.org/0500-Ratzinger.html

I’m of the view that Ad Orientem is a superior posture because it more clearly communicates the reality of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, in which the priest mediates (in Christ’s person) between us and God, and that our prayers and petitions are delivered to God by being united to that priestly sacrifice.