Great way to explain the Latin Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curtie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crusader13 said:
Those who are fans of the Latin Mass aren’t fans simply because of the use of Latin. You may not see the reverence of it, but I assure you that many do. And it’s not through “rose tinted” glasses that they are looking.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Plus when people describe the ways in which Mass was irreverent in those past decades, such Masses would still be in like the 80th percentile of reverent Masses nowadays…
 
Last edited:
Pope John XXIII, who was to convene Vatican II, explained it best in Veterum Sapientia.
 
In the words of my mother in law who was talking about the good old days of the latin mass … “It was so much better when we didn’t understand anything” … To each their own I guess …
 
An important thing to remember is that there are 23 rites within the universal Catholic church. Although the Roman Rite is the largest and most well known, it is the only one of the 23 that ever used the Tridentine Latin Mass. In the Maronite Church, which always has been in communion with Rome, the words of the Consecration are always sung in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) regardless of the language in which the rest of their liturgy is sung. The Maronite church’s traditional language is Arabic, although, in the United States, they use English, except for the Consecration. In case anyone is wondering, I am Ukrainian Catholic.
 
Latin used to be the vernacular, but soon became the standard language for the Liturgy. I think that was when the Latin Liturgy was at it’s best, but hey everyone’s entitled to their opinion. There’s a sort of “mystical” quality to latin. To put it simply, it’s a “romantic” language.
 
steph03 said:
In the words of my mother in law who was talking about the good old days of the latin mass … “It was so much better when we didn’t understand anything” … To each their own I guess …
Click to expand...
LOL. Can’t help but appreciate that statement for some reason.
 
With the right intention and disposition, any language can convey reverence and respect, or not. Latin is not immune from profanation. The magician’s incantation, “hocus pocus” was derive from Hoc est enim corpus meum.
 
I agree with you completely. God judges us by our intentions and disposition, not by the language we speak. Unfortunately, many Roman Rite Catholics live in a bubble, and they think they are the only Catholics in the world. They are wrong. There are 23 rites within the universal Catholic church. Although the Roman Rite is the largest and most well known, it is the only one of the 23 rites that ever has used the Tridentine Latin Mass. The Tridentine Latin Mass is not particularly ancient. It was adopted in 1570. The Lutheran Divine Service, which Martin Luther based on what the Catholic church was using at the time of his excommunication, is older.
 
Shirtless said:
With the right intention and disposition, any language can convey reverence and respect, or not. Latin is not immune from profanation. The magician’s incantation, “hocus pocus” was derive from Hoc est enim corpus meum.
Click to expand...
This is the point of tradition. Yes, neither Latin, nor the vestments and vessels, etc. have any innate value–but they acquired it in a certain context through tradition. We can’t ignore this value or just artificially replace it with something else and expect that new thing to naturally carry with it the same significance as what had been consecrated as such by tradition.

I’m not saying a vernacular new Mass can’t be reverent–it just lacks many of the traditional aids which help to engender reverence. It takes more of an effort–but we sinful people need all the helps we can get (I know I do.)

As for your last point, the fact that a reverent thing is mocked by those who would mock what it reverences, only furthers my point that tradition makes these things recognizable as reverent even to the intentionally irreverent.
 
Last edited:
It’s nice that many at least have the option of attending the EF these days. Its demotion from being the holiest expression of our faith, as well as arguably the pinnacle of Western art, to being de facto outlawed is surely one of the worst examples of cultural vandalism in history. Even non-Catholics saw this: Agatha Christie, Yehudi Menuhin, Joseph Campbell, even Fidel Castro (!!!) all said as much.

Then there are the saints, and not only of the past. Padre Pio’s take has already been mentioned; I would add Jose Maria Escriva as well.

It’s also worth noting, in a sort of reverse compliment, that Satanists model their blasphemous rites on the old mass. One went so far as to say the new has “no power”.

Finally there is the witness of many exorcists who say the devils seem to especially fear Latin. One (I think it was Fr Amorth) also mentioned the efficacy of Greek and Aramaic. Which makes sense.

All of this isn’t to say one can’t perfectly well worship Almighty God in one’s own language. The VAST bulk of my prayers are said in English and I have no question that God hears them. Also, many of my modern Catholic heroes are centred in the new rite: Mother Teresa, Frs Groeschel, Fessio, Rutler…So please don’t misunderstand me. It’s just a very, very good thing that the historic mass is being given a little more breathing room. Which isn’t to say the battle has been won by a long shot.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I also heard a priest say a couple weeks back that when he went to Lourdes, everybody from every country who was in a procession praying the Rosary in their native language could all say the Hail Mary and Our Father and Glory Be in Latin when the whole group said those in unison. Except for the US group, and he thought people in the US should learn at least those basic prayers so they could keep up with the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
Yes, we should be able to do so, and Pope Paul VI said just as much

We should all be able to pray (in community) the Rosary, Gloria, Santos, Agnus Dei, and Tantum ergo in Latin.

And when I say “in community” I mean that while we might not be able to say the prayers in Latin by ourselves with reading it, we should be able to pray it as a group.

In other words, the same how some people are with the two Creeds at Mass.
 
Genesis315 said:
Just as we set aside certain special vessels made of special materials for sacred purposes, so was Latin set aside for sacred purposes.
Click to expand...
Actually, Latin was used in all academic fields until the 18-19th centuries. By then it was the language of the elites. It was not so much “set aside” for liturgy as discarded by everyone else.
Genesis315 said:
Likewise, Latin came to signify sacredness and a kind of timelessness. It symbolized that something special, sacred, worthy of reverence, and out of the ordinary was being done.
Click to expand...
This argument was used by an occult writer, Eliphas Levi or Aleister Crowley maybe, to explain why Latin was used in magic spells. Not that your argument here is wrong, but it is the kind of argument made in that kind of situation, trying to justify the continued use of something obsolete.
Genesis315 said:
Abruptly taking it away and replacing it with something more mundane that had no such significance at all will naturally reduce the sense of sacredness and reverence.
Click to expand...
The intent was the opposite, both when Latin was introduced 1500 years ago and when it was dropped 50 years ago. The sacredness of ordinary “mundane” life was taught by St Therese and was widely embraced throughout the 20th century.
Genesis315 said:
Has reverence at Mass and belief in what Mass really is increased or decreased since Latin was swept away? The answer is sadly obvious.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the reverence you remember was like the attraction of shiny objects. Sweep that away and you sometimes wipe out the real reverence for God that we should learn from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top