Impressions first TLM, oops EF

[Cat]

When the Holy Spirit came to fill His people on Pentecost Sunday, the very first gift that He gave was the ability of the apostles to speak the Gospel in the languages of the people (or the people understood the apostles in their own language).

 

[scylla]

Going back to the main subject, which was the Mass itself. I am not so sure it is profitable to go back and forth about Latin.

The Church recommends Latin be retained in the Liturgy, yet also recommend that it be translated and everyone understand the meaning. Of course the Gospel was in English, the Homily was fantastic one of the best I have heard in my life as a Catholic.

That being said at that Mass I found myself reading, praying the English at the same time when the Priest was praying the Latin. So a back and forth discussion of the two is pretty much useless, as each person has their choice. I chose to use English when I did not understand and I pointed that out to my kids, and we prayed in Latin for the short easy prayers.

I went again to a Latin Mass yesterday, the second time around is easier than the first. I went to a regular Mass then a few hours later went to a EF Mass. I will not compare the two, this thread is not about bashing or talking about negative things. Please don’t do that in this thread.

I will say that I love how the EF Mass is so Eucharist focused that it will make those who don’t believe in Christ and His Presence in the Eucharist uncomfortable. It is designed to acknowledge explicitly the power, majesty and centrality of God.
Not only that it respects the beauty of the Priesthood of Christ which certainly makes people uncomfortable these days as it is fashionable to attack the Priesthood of Christ even in the Catholic Church.

I am not sure there are 100 Catholics who hate the EF Mass, but there are thousands who dislike what they think it is.

I still have some misgivings and some uncomfortable feelings but those are from the deep prejudice and hatred of tradition taught to me growing up in a very progressive parish. As I fall more in love with the Catholic Church and seek to follow Christ more profoundly these feelings are going away.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Famule]

I have to make one comment. I believe that Latin is a sacred language for one thing, because the Church has deemed it to be a sacred language. It is the official language of the Church and that in itself makes it sacred. Chalices and ciboriums are sacred because they touch God. Latin, being the language of the Church is made sacred due to that. One another note, if you study the subject of exorsicms, you will find that satan seems to have a particular problem with Latin that he doesn’t seem to have with other languages. Coincidence?

I do think we need to find a way to better educate people about the Old Mass. People will have to put forth a great deal of effort as people did in yesteryear, to learn about this liturgy. Unfortunately, this is something that people today are not used to doing. Maybe it is about instilling in people an attitude of patience and an eagerness to dig deep for knowledge. To understand the Tridentine Mass intimately, is to understand your faith on a much deeper level.

Luke

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Now the complaints…
There needs to be a reaching out for those who go to the OF Mass. It is quite a transition and uncomfortable for those who have grown up and absorbed so much or so little. I can compare it to me coming back to the Catholic Church after spending time wandering through non-catholic faiths, statues of Mary were a shock to me. In the same way the centrality of Christ and the explicit seriousness is a shock. It can scare you.

We are dealing with two different Masses. One that is, as you said, Christ centered and serious, and another which is anything but. The shock is understandable, but it will wear off very quickly and you will grow to love the Old Mass. I can tell that by what you wrote in your post - you will grow to like it pretty quickly.

There needs to be handy guides to help follow along, I brought my family and had to help them use 4 different missals and spent some of the time trying to keep them understanding where we were. It was easier for me and very tough on them. If you attend a parish with the EF Mass seek to have booklets available in the front for newcomers.

The “handy guide” is a good idea. Angelus Press is reprinting an old explanation of the Mass from before the council. It was written for Protestants who were attending the Catholic Mass, so that they could know what is taking place. I haven’t read it, but I’ve heard it is very good. A Priest I know who will begin saying the Old Mass later this month is planning to purchase these and leave them in the back of the Church for his parishioners.

It is also a good idea to get a missal. The missals have the Latin on one side and the English on the other. They also have pictures to help you follow along.

Traditional Catholics who are used to being criticized, looked down upon, and rejected need to come out of their protective shells. It will be difficult but the seige mentality is strong. Learn to invite and open up.

Notice that you are still blaming the Traditionalist. You are the one who is uncomfortable at a Mass that you descbribe as being a little too Catholic (too Christ centered), and you are, in a sense, blaming the Traditoinalists for this. It seems like you are saying “if they would just be more open, I wouldn’t feel this way”.

I understand why you would want the people to be more welcoming to you, but you have to keep in mind that those who attend the Old Mass are used to being quiet in Church. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone will talk to you in Church, or on the way to the car. If you stay after for coffee, I’m sure you will make some friends.

Regarding your kids having a difficult time understanding what is happening: You can turn this into a real positive. What you can do is purchase some good books on the old Mass, learn about it yourself, and teach your kids. This will enable all of you, as a family, to get a good education on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of which absolutely nothing on earth is greater.

Another suggestion is to listen to the sermons at www.audiosancto.com They are some of the best sermons you will hear. The sermons are recorded each Sunday at the FSSP Church in Kansas and put online. If you log onto the website, you can probably find sermons on the Old Mass, which are very educational.

 

[Milliardo]

Latin was used on the CROSS of Our Blessed Lord together with Hebrew and Greek.
Latin is a sacred language.

I think up until 150 A.D., if I am correct, Greek was used in the Liturgy in Rome.

 

[Robster7]

I occasionally go to TLM, usually when there is a high mass.
I do get tired of some of the goofball things you encounter with the vernacular mass. However, this is not the fault of the Mass itself, rather the abuse of those who celebrate it.

My complaints re TLM is that I would probably like it more if it were more participitory with congregation (not just the server) loudly answering the priest. I also think the priest should say all prayers out loud generally. I just dont understand why so much of it is said quietly.

Also in my experience, in the TLM, it seems the priest and server race thru the prayers as if they were on a tight schedule. There is no need for this and I hardly thing this manner of reciting prayers is reverent. It sounds just as bad when people do that with the rosary. As if it were some irksome duty to get done and over with.

Among progressives and traditionalists, you will find fundamentalists, those who insist that certain things must be this way. This is esp. a prob when one does have an legit option among choices a, b, or c. The fundamentalist will insist A is the only one ordained by God Himself, or “the spirit of Vatican II.”

Robster

 

[scylla]

Notice that you are still blaming the Traditionalist. You are the one who is uncomfortable at a Mass that you descbribe as being a little too Catholic (too Christ centered), and you are, in a sense, blaming the Traditoinalists for this. It seems like you are saying “if they would just be more open, I wouldn’t feel this way”.

I understand why you would want the people to be more welcoming to you, but you have to keep in mind that those who attend the Old Mass are used to being quiet in Church. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone will talk to you in Church, or on the way to the car. If you stay after for coffee, I’m sure you will make some friends.

I am not talking about the Traditionalist at Mass, I really don’t seek conversation at Mass.

I am talking about the general attitude, becoming more evangelistic. There is so much treasure and it seems to be almost the best kept secret in the Church. It is not just the progressives bent on destroying Catholic heritage and beauty but also a seige mentality of Traditionalists so used to defending that they have become maybe war-weary. There is a division in the Church, we need unity.

I know things are getting better and it will take time.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I am not talking about the Traditionalist at Mass, I really don’t seek conversation at Mass.

I am talking about the general attitude, becoming more evangelistic. There is so much treasure and it seems to be almost the best kept secret in the Church. It is not just the progressives bent on destroying Catholic heritage and beauty but also a seige mentality of Traditionalists so used to defending that they have become maybe war-weary. There is a division in the Church, we need unity.

I know things are getting better and it will take time.

God Bless
Scylla

OK, I see what you mean. There is probably some truth to what you are saying, but there is another cause as well.

It is true that it gets a little tiresome attempting to defend the old Mass when you are constantly attacked and ridiculed… actually, that is not really the case any more. Many of the fervent Novus Ordo Catholics are beginning to discover the Old Mass. Some are still against it, but their number is decreasing. The more “anti-Traditional” people have been in the past, the more difficult it is for them to completely reverse themselves. Some people were probably so anti-Traditional (following the lead of the self described 'apologists" who constantly ridiculed Traditionalist and the Old Mass), that their pride will keep them away from the old Mass, and thus prevent them from discovering its beauty. But the majority of the fervent Novus Ordo Catholics are coming around. They are tired of the abuses and heresies at their local Church and have found what their soul desires in the Traditional Mass.

But there has been another reason for what you perceive as a lack of defense of the Old Mass. It was not really a lack of defense, but what could be called a conspiracy to silence those who defended it. Bishop Graber of Regensburg described it this way:

Bishop Graber: “What happened over 1600 years ago [at the time of the Arian heresy] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria [the patriarchal see of St. Athanasius] is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment
into silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.”

For example, in order to prevent people from reading the works of Michael Davies, he was discredited by people such as the self professed “apologists” mentioned earlier, so that no one would read his materials. There were plently of good materials on the old Mass, but you will not find them at the local Catholic book stores. You would find books promoting the New Age movement, or easter spirituality, but not any on the Old Mass. After all, those who wrote such books were said to be “schismatics”.

So, while it is true that many Traditionalists probably got tired of defending the old Mass to those who responded by ridiculing them, it is also true that those who defended the old Mass often endured the “silence of being ignored… by assassination of character”.

But I think you are becoming a Traditionalist yourself. Maybe you will become a heroic defender of the old Mass

 

[Timothysis]

We are dealing with two different Masses. One that is, as you said, Christ centered and serious, and another which is anything but.

Now, that’s not inflammatory, is it? Apparently some only find Christ when they look for him.

 

[LilyM]

Now, that’s not inflammatory, is it? Apparently some only find Christ when they look for him.

On the other hand - some, sadly, seem to have Christ right in front of their noses and let minor irritants distract them so that they don’t see Him.

 

[Timothysis]

Iesus Nasarensis Rex Iudaeorum, was written on the holy cross of Our Lord. That a language could be given a more glorious praise I cannot see how.

It certainly was not written in English.

God intended it there and God does not make mistakes.

So, because Jesus drank water when He was hot and thirsty or ate fish when He was hungry, does that make water and fish sacred???

 

[dove51]

Thank you for sharing your experience! I’ve never been to one yet, but I am hoping to. I did not know about the emphasis placed on the Real Presence, though. That sounds very cool. It seems like that gets overlooked in my NO parish often.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

You are entitled to your view but I recommend that you read Veterum Sapientiae.

The English is a translation and not the inspired written word of God.

I think in most cases the Latin was a translation too, of Greek and Hebrew, And those were translations of the spoken Aramaic.

Pax et Caritas wrote:
We are dealing with two different Masses. One that is, as you said, Christ centered and serious, and another which is anything but. The shock is understandable,

To me, any mass is Christ centered and serious. To say that one form of the mass is not, is disrespectful. Shock??? **Not!

**One can dislike how one approved form of the mass is celebrated, if not according to the rubrics or not reverently done. One can prefer one form. But why be nasty about it?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

For one, how about the Aramaic (and Hebrew) that came from His blessed mouth? He never spoke any Latin or Greek, or none that was recorded, and that absolutely makes those two incredibly second-rate languages, well behind the Aramaic (which was never even used on the sign) and Hebrew.

That’s if you genuinely know anything about such things.

Besides which of course those words were written in English - check in any Douay-Rheims Bible

God intended that English translation of the words to happen too, every bit as much as He intended the writing of the original. He intended it so that I and other English speakers might understand His word in our own tongue which He gave to us, and He certainly didn’t make a mistake when He did so either.

This talk about Latin being sacred is hogwash.

The Council Fathers didn’t intend the entire liturgy to be in the vernacular (they actually laughed at such a notion) so I seriously doubt we can say it was the positive will of God that the entire Mass be put in the vernacular so that people who are perfectly capable of learning enough Latin to assist at a Latin Mass don’t have to.

No one has said that because Jesus spoke in a certain language that makes it sacred (it does make it quite important though). You seem to be supplying your own definition of what might make a language sacred when it is pretty well known what constitutes a sacred language. It has to do with being continually (and eventually, mainly) used for sacred (religious) purposes over a lengthy time.

Thus Hebrew, as you mentioned, is an obvious example as it is used even up to this day in Jewish religious services even though it is no longer a vernacular language. Why anyone would argue that Hebrew does not fit the definition of a sacred language or why no language can ever be considered sacred is beyond me.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

For one, how about the Aramaic (and Hebrew) that came from His blessed mouth? He never spoke any Latin or Greek, or none that was recorded, and that absolutely makes those two incredibly second-rate languages, well behind the Aramaic (which was never even used on the sign) and Hebrew.

That’s if you genuinely know anything about such things.

Besides which of course those words were written in English - check in any Douay-Rheims Bible

God intended that English translation of the words to happen too, every bit as much as He intended the writing of the original. He intended it so that I and other English speakers might understand His word in our own tongue which He gave to us, and He certainly didn’t make a mistake when He did so either.

This talk about Latin being sacred is hogwash.

The Council Fathers didn’t intend the entire liturgy to be in the vernacular (they actually laughed at such a notion) so I seriously doubt we can say it was the positive will of God that the entire Mass be put in the vernacular so that people who are perfectly capable of learning enough Latin (or using a missal) to assist at a Latin Mass don’t have to.

No one has said that because Jesus spoke in a certain language that makes it sacred (it does make it quite important though). You seem to be supplying your own definition of what might make a language sacred when it is pretty well known what constitutes a sacred language. It has to do with being continually (and eventually, mainly) used for sacred (religious) purposes over a lengthy time.

Thus Hebrew, as you mentioned, is an obvious example as it is used even up to this day in Jewish religious services even though it is no longer a vernacular language. Why anyone would argue that Hebrew does not fit the definition of a sacred language or why no language can ever be considered sacred is beyond me.

Or does anyone think, after reading Veterum Sapientia, that Pope John XXIIIrd, if asked if he thought Latin was a sacred language, would have said, “Oh what hogwash! That’s got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard!!!”

But then again, Pope John XXIIIrd never had access to Catholic Answers Forums and the luminescent brilliance which so often emanates from these pages, and which could have enlightened his dull tepid mind.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

For one, how about the Aramaic (and Hebrew) that came from His blessed mouth? He never spoke any Latin or Greek, or none that was recorded, and that absolutely makes those two incredibly second-rate languages, well behind the Aramaic (which was never even used on the sign) and Hebrew.

That’s if you genuinely know anything about such things.

Besides which of course those words were written in English - check in any Douay-Rheims Bible

God intended that English translation of the words to happen too, every bit as much as He intended the writing of the original. He intended it so that I and other English speakers might understand His word in our own tongue which He gave to us, and He certainly didn’t make a mistake when He did so either.

This talk about Latin being sacred is hogwash.

The Council Fathers didn’t intend the entire liturgy to be in the vernacular (they actually laughed at such a notion) so I seriously doubt we can say it was the positive will of God that the entire Mass be put in the vernacular so that people who are perfectly capable of learning enough Latin (or using a missal) to assist at a Latin Mass don’t have to.

No one has said that because Jesus spoke in a certain language that makes it sacred (it does make it quite important though). You seem to be supplying your own definition of what might make a language sacred when it is pretty well known what constitutes a sacred language. It has to do with being continually (and eventually, mainly) used for sacred (religious) purposes over a lengthy time.

Thus Hebrew, as you mentioned, is an obvious example as it is used even up to this day in Jewish religious services even though it is no longer a vernacular language. Why anyone would argue that Hebrew does not fit the definition of a sacred language or why no language can ever be considered sacred is beyond me.

Or does anyone think, after reading Veterum Sapientia, that Pope John XXIIIrd, if asked if he thought Latin was a sacred language, would have said, “Oh what hogwash! That’s got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard!!!”

But then again, Pope John XXIIIrd never had access to Catholic Answers Forums and the luminescent brilliance which so often emanates from these pages, and which could have enlightened his dull tepid mind.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

For one, how about the Aramaic (and Hebrew) that came from His blessed mouth? He never spoke any Latin or Greek, or none that was recorded, and that absolutely makes those two incredibly second-rate languages, well behind the Aramaic (which was never even used on the sign) and Hebrew.

That’s if you genuinely know anything about such things.

Besides which of course those words were written in English - check in any Douay-Rheims Bible

God intended that English translation of the words to happen too, every bit as much as He intended the writing of the original. He intended it so that I and other English speakers might understand His word in our own tongue which He gave to us, and He certainly didn’t make a mistake when He did so either.

This talk about Latin being sacred is hogwash.

The Council Fathers didn’t intend the entire liturgy to be in the vernacular (they actually laughed at such a notion) so I seriously doubt we can say it was the positive will of God that the entire Mass be put in the vernacular so that people who are perfectly capable of learning enough Latin (or using a missal) to assist at a Latin Mass don’t have to.

No one has said that because Jesus spoke in a certain language that makes it sacred (it does make it quite important though). You seem to be supplying your own definition of what might make a language sacred when it is pretty well known what constitutes a sacred language. It has to do with being continually (and eventually, mainly) used for sacred (religious) purposes over a lengthy time.

Thus Hebrew, as you mentioned, is an obvious example as it is used even up to this day in Jewish religious services even though it is no longer a vernacular language. Why anyone would argue that Hebrew does not fit the definition of a sacred language or why no language can ever be considered sacred is beyond me.

Or does anyone think, after reading Veterum Sapientia, that Pope John XXIIIrd, if asked if he thought Latin was a sacred language, would have said, “Oh what hogwash! That’s got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard!!!”

But then again, Pope John XXIIIrd never had access to Catholic Answers Forums and the luminescent brilliance which so often emanates from these pages, and which could have enlightened his dull tepid mind.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

For one, how about the Aramaic (and Hebrew) that came from His blessed mouth? He never spoke any Latin or Greek, or none that was recorded, and that absolutely makes those two incredibly second-rate languages, well behind the Aramaic (which was never even used on the sign) and Hebrew.

That’s if you genuinely know anything about such things.

Besides which of course those words were written in English - check in any Douay-Rheims Bible

God intended that English translation of the words to happen too, every bit as much as He intended the writing of the original. He intended it so that I and other English speakers might understand His word in our own tongue which He gave to us, and He certainly didn’t make a mistake when He did so either.

This talk about Latin being sacred is hogwash.

The Council Fathers didn’t intend the entire liturgy to be in the vernacular (they actually laughed at such a notion) so I seriously doubt we can say it was the positive will of God that the entire Mass be put in the vernacular so that people who are perfectly capable of learning enough Latin (or using a missal) to assist at a Latin Mass don’t have to.

No one has said that because Jesus spoke in a certain language that makes it sacred (it does make it quite important though). You seem to be supplying your own definition of what might make a language sacred when it is pretty well known what constitutes a sacred language. It has to do with being continually (and eventually, mainly) used for sacred (religious) purposes over a lengthy time.

Thus Hebrew, as you mentioned, is an obvious example as it is used even up to this day in Jewish religious services even though it is no longer a vernacular language. Why anyone would argue that Hebrew does not fit the definition of a sacred language or why no language can ever be considered sacred is beyond me.

Or does anyone think after reading Veterum Sapientia that Pope John XXIIIrd, if asked if he thought Latin was a sacred language, would have said, “Oh what hogwash! That’s got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard!!!”

But then again, Pope John XXIIIrd never had access to Catholic Answers Forums and the luminescent brilliance which so often emanates from these pages, and which could have enlightened his dull tepid mind.

 

[scylla]

Thank you for sharing your experience! I’ve never been to one yet, but I am hoping to. I did not know about the emphasis placed on the Real Presence, though. That sounds very cool. It seems like that gets overlooked in my NO parish often.

Yes it is quite evident, and very encouraging. For example, in the Missal we are directed to recognize and respond to the Real Presence of Christ at the words of institution. So everyone says “My Lord and My God” the Bells ring and Christ is held up for Adoration. This is printed in the Missal.

We kneel to our God to receive Him, (those who can) and are Blessed by Christ right before we recieve Him.

Our actions are stated, yes, our actions should be specified, as we are constantly seeking to diminish Christ since it is a common sinful desire to diminish Christ, this Mass upholds Him.
It promotes the Kingship of Christ in such a profound way that it can make many people who are not used to seeing God that way uncomfortable.

It was like a slap in the face to me to go to Mass and realize there is more. I have been seeking it and even though it is tough it is something I will work on. My own sinfulness makes me not want to go to the Latin Mass as it is more difficult, it is a re-orientation but it is what we are made to do.
To know, love and serve God to be happy with Him forever in Heaven.

(this is in no way a comparison to the OF Mass I am not comparing them, I will still go to the OF Mass, but as a changed man. I will serve as an MC and support my parish so that someday we will embrace our heritage as Catholics)

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Yes it is quite evident, and very encouraging. For example, in the Missal we are directed to recognize and respond to the Real Presence of Christ at the words of institution. So everyone says “My Lord and My God” the Bells ring and Christ is held up for Adoration. This is printed in the Missal.

We kneel to our God to receive Him, (those who can) and are Blessed by Christ right before we recieve Him.

Our actions are stated, yes, our actions should be specified, as we are constantly seeking to diminish Christ since it is a common sinful desire to diminish Christ, this Mass upholds Him.
It promotes the Kingship of Christ in such a profound way that it can make many people who are not used to seeing God that way uncomfortable.

It was like a slap in the face to me to go to Mass and realize there is more. I have been seeking it and even though it is tough it is something I will work on. My own sinfulness makes me not want to go to the Latin Mass as it is more difficult, it is a re-orientation but it is what we are made to do.
To know, love and serve God to be happy with Him forever in Heaven.

Wow, you are really receiving a lot of grace at the Traditional Mass. What you described above is similar to a passive purification. In a passive purification God draws us closer to Himself. As a result, the Divine light illuminates our souls, with the consequent effect of our becoming very aware of our sinfulness - the divine lights shows us the reality we were previously unable to seem and enables us to see our faults as God does. It is a great grace and very humbling. It sounds as if the Traditional Mass is having the same effect on you as a passive purification. That is great to hear. Be sure to thanks God for that special grace…