How Many Here Would Attend The Traditional Latin Mass If It Were Available ?

[JMJ_coder]

I sometimes sense on this board that some Catholics would prefer that all the “non-committed” Catholics leave the Church and allow all the traditional, committed Catholics to have the Church to themselves. But I don’t think this is what the Lord prefers.

“And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, ‘This man receives sinners and eats with them.’” (Luke 15:2)

“And Jesus answered them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’” (Luke 5:31-32)

Jesus’ followers all tried to get Jesus to avoid the sinners like the plague (after all they’ll defile you!), but He rather met the sinners in their own homes.

 

[mickeycz]

I posted several pages back but wanted to respond to the person who said “how many would understand the Latin being said in the Mass” – you didn’t have to know or understand Latin – we all had Missals that we always used during Mass so we knew what the priest was saying.

EXACTLY CORRECT. I could attend Mass in any nation and understand every part because it was all universally the same when it was in Latin. The readings, Gospel and homily would be in the native tongue, but that is not a terrible problem or much of an issue.

 

[JMJ_coder]

EXACTLY CORRECT. I could attend Mass in any nation and understand every part because it was all universally the same when it was in Latin. The readings, Gospel and homily would be in the native tongue, but that is not a terrible problem or much of an issue.

Does anyone have number of the percentage of Catholics who go to Mass in a foreign land where they don’t know the native language compared to Catholics who go to Mass understanding the native language?

 

[choy]

What is the use of external signs of irreverence if internally you are reverent?

For the sake of discussion, let’s agree that a Catholic is internally reverent. Can you explain why genuine reverence should be concealed behind a veneer of irreverence? Why the disconnect between the internal and external? It’s as though some a need to “prove” that reverence is unnecessary. Why participate in this sort of race to the bottom? Is some kind of stressful peer group pressure being brought to bear?

Or what?

and how can you judge that someone in an OF mass is irreverent? how can you judge one’s reverence?

i never suggested a disconnect between internal and external. but many people here do. for them, just doing the actions makes you reverent. which is the exact opposite of what reverence is. reverence comes from the inside, then is expressed in action. the same with any emotion. it like giving flowers. did you give flowers because its a sign of love? or is it because you love, thats why you give flowers? people here argue that because they see the TLM as reverent, merely going to a TLM would be reverent. and that is just wrong. reverence comes from the inside. no amount of TLM masses will make one reverent if, for example, they do not believe in the Real Presence. attending TLM won’t change that. or if one chooses to receive while in a state of mortal sin. does it matter if its EF or OF mass you attend?

 

[choy]

Indeed. God forbid someone goes deaf and there is no one signing the Mass, or a foreign traveler goes to Mass who does not understand enough of the vernacular to follow along.

If you know what is going on, you can follow along just fine. That’s why even though the vernacular is very handy, it is not necessary, and rejecting Latin on the basis of “no one understands it” is simply not a viable argument.

for one thing, stop thinking of yourselves and see that others do not think and feel the same way as you

the TLM is here, its not going anywhere. if that works for you, then go. no one is asking for the TLM to be removed

but there are people out there who appreciate mass in the vernacular. why deny it from them? the argument, “hey, TLM works for me, it should work for you” is also not a viable argument

 

[roadsend]

for one thing, stop thinking of yourselves and see that others do not think and feel the same way as you

the TLM is here, its not going anywhere. if that works for you, then go. no one is asking for the TLM to be removed

but there are people out there who appreciate mass in the vernacular. **why deny it from them? ** the argument, “hey, TLM works for me, it should work for you” is also not a viable argument

(my bolds above)
First of all the TLM is not here for many, if not most, Catholics. Not everyone is able to drive a several hour round trip every Sunday to attend Masses.
and
Very few folks are advocating the denial of the OF Mass to anybody.
I can’t name a single place where the TLM is available that there is not an OF Mass nearby.
Can you?

 

[choy]

(my bolds above)
First of all the TLM is not here for many, if not most, Catholics. Not everyone is able to drive a several hour round trip every Sunday to attend Masses.
and
Very few folks are advocating the denial of the OF Mass to anybody.
I can’t name a single place where the TLM is available that there is not an OF Mass nearby.
Can you?

and the reason TLM is not widely available? because fact is, the OF works for most people

i don’t think a parish priest and a bishop would deny TLM in a particular parish if it was feasible. but if a parish has 5000 people come to mass on any given Sunday, how many of that 5000 would actually want an EF mass?

no, there are people here who want the OF mass abolished. the same people who keep bashing the OF as irreverent and disrespectful, and those who think that its either TLM or NO mass at all (pun intended)

 

[ProVobis]

Indeed. God forbid someone goes deaf and there is no one signing the Mass, or a foreign traveler goes to Mass who does not understand enough of the vernacular to follow along.

If you know what is going on, you can follow along just fine. That’s why even though the vernacular is very handy, it is not necessary, and rejecting Latin on the basis of “no one understands it” is simply not a viable argument.

I agree. If Cardinal Arinze had its his way, there’d probably be many more OF Masses in Latin as well. The translations seem to be getting tougher and tougher as the vernacular and meanings in vernacular seem to be changing a lot. What worked 40 years ago just doesn’t work any more today. But the Latin is still fine.

 

[CDNowak]

and the reason TLM is not widely available? because fact is, the OF works for most people

Funny, I thought it had to do with it being practically suppressed for forty years.

 

[Ed_Sullivan]

I would attend if it were convenient or if it were for a special occaision. I grew up with the Latin Mass and think it can be beautiful and meaningful if celebrated properly. The same goes for Mass celebrated in the venacular or if several languages are used during the Mass.

I have one question. Did Jesus institute the Eucharist using Latin? Did all of the apostles use Latin when they celebrated Mass?

 

[roadsend]

…
I have one question. Did Jesus institute the Eucharist using Latin? Did all of the apostles use Latin when they celebrated Mass?

We can only guess at what language Jesus used at the last supper, but the Latin language has been used in the Latin Rite for more than 1500 years.

 

[roadsend]

and the reason TLM is not widely available? because fact is, the OF works for most people

i don’t think a parish priest and a bishop would deny TLM in a particular parish …

Actually there are numerous bishops and priests who have made no secret of their hostility to any Latin Mass including the OF.
Some have even gone so far in the '70s as to say that it was “outlawed” or “frowned upon by the Church” and lacking the internet or other readily available info to the contrary, most of us believed them.

 

[Ockham]

sorry, but i can’t see how any of your statements makes sense in the context of the discussion. can you please explain them to me?

Please give me more detail. What exactly isn’t making sense to you?

 

[Ockham]

the same can be said to traditionalist who look down on those who prefer the OF

This is a common misconception. I am not looking down on anyone, merely pointing out the difference in degrees of reverence between the two forms. Also, the history of the changes to our liturgy these past forty years.

 

[Ockham]

I think you completely misinterpreted her post. I read it as: “having all the external bells and whistles doesn’t automatically make one a Saint”.

I agree that externals do not automatically make one a saint.

 

[Ockham]

You still can, if you’re fluent in another language (as always, since no one has spoken Latin natively in over a millenium). Do you actually think that even a quarter of the Catholics in the early 20th century leading up to Vatican II knew enough Latin to be able to know each and every word being said and what it meant?

Ha! Good one. So by your logic if someone is fluent in every known language they can confidently travel the globe and be able to follow along in the OF. Is that realistic?

I don’t speak Latin, but understand enough to follow the EF. Therefore, if I attend an EF in a country whose language is foreign to me I’ll be able to follow along.

Latin is the official language of the Church and makes our liturgy universal and accessible to all.

 

[Ockham]

But, how hard would it be to follow along in your Missal and pray the Rosary at the same time?

That’s not a charitable comment. Is there anything wrong with saying the Rosary? Our Lady asked us to say it daily. Isn’t it better for people to pray the Rosary during Mass then sit docile automatically going through the motions?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Ha! Good one. So by your logic if someone is fluent in every known language they can confidently travel the globe and be able to follow along in the OF. Is that realistic?

It stands to reason that if one travels to a foreign land that they be able to converse in the native language of said land (whether they are Catholic or not, whether they go to a Mass or not).

 

[Ockham]

No, that is not what I said.
I actually made no mention of OF or EF.
Externals in either form are not the most important thing.

I agree they are not the most important thing but they are indeed important. How you worship is directly correlated to how you believe. The surveys pre and post V2 prove a simplified liturgy has resulted in a simplified faith among those who actually bother to attend Mass anymore.

 

[JMJ_coder]

That’s not a charitable comment. Is there anything wrong with saying the Rosary? Our Lady asked us to say it daily. Isn’t it better for people to pray the Rosary during Mass then sit docile automatically going through the motions?

How is it not charitable? It is a fact that a good many persons prayed the Rosary during the Mass and doing so makes it hard to read a Missal. Therefore, putting two and two together, the historical fact negates the claim that everyone was following along in their Missals all the time.

There is nothing wrong with praying the Rosary, it is a superb devotion and I recommend everyone to pray the Rosary everyday. But, when we go to Mass we are there to participate in the Liturgy and not to pray the Rosary (though doing so before or after Mass would be laudable).