Impressions on attending my first Traditional Latin Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter RaphaelJ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RaphaelJ said:
Before the Mass, I was extremely excited to participate in it. However, I came away from the experience a bit confused.

The fact that it was in Latin was not an issue especially since I know many prayers such as the Gloria or Sanctus in Latin. The issue is that the priest simply is inaudible for 3/4 of the Mass. I know that participation does not necessarily mean responding or saying or singing aloud. I anticipated that. But the fact that the priest cannot be heard means that the people cannot even just mentally give assent to the prayer. I also noticed that many responses were only made by the servers which was odd for me.

I wonder if I went to the Mass with the wrong expectations or with the wrong state of mind. If so, I would be happy if the others could enlighten me.

But overall, my impressions were that Vatican II’s changes made sense in certain ways such as the people making more responses and most of all, for the priest and the people to say the prayers together. That was very disconcerting especially since the congregation sat in the middle of the Gloria as the priest did.

I do not wish to insult or to ‘diss’ the TLM in any way. Pope Benedict did say that what was once holy and great for previous generations is still so today and I agree with him. I just want to freely accept that perhaps an Ordinary Form done with solemnity would be a liturgy that would raise my mind higher to heaven.
Click to expand...
I had the same reaction to my first Latin Mass… and my second, and third. I expected to love the Mass. I love good liturgy, and though my own Byzantine tradition is quite different, I was looking forward to attending Mass at a local FSSP parish. My first Mass was a high Mass - Christmas Midnight Mass. It was ok, but I didn’t feel like I “got” anything out of it on an emotional level. (Of course, I received the graces of having attended Mass.) Several years later, I attended a low Mass. I didn’t connect with the Mass in any way. I was constantly lost. I was attending with my young children and could not really focus. “Give it more time,” people said. “It takes at least 20 times before you truly come to understand its beauty.” I kept going occasionally, for homeschooling events, First Communions and a wedding. I figure I’ve been about 25 times now. I’ve been to low Masses, sung Masses and High Masses. I’ve been to FSSP, SSPX and a diocesean Mass. I’ve experienced one of the most beautiful choirs I’ve ever had the privelege to hear and felt I was in the presence of the angels. Still, I haven’t fallen in love with the traditional Mass. It is fine, and I will gladly attend for special occasions. I would prefer the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, followed by a beautifully celebrated Ordinary Form, followed by a Chaldean liturgy. The traditional Mass comes in a distant 4th.
 
The Mass is NOT about us. It is our duty to worship God. It is for HIM.
 
Same experience here. I went expecting to love the EF Mass, and just was confused by all the quiet. I have been back about 5 or 6 times. I do love a lot of the parts of EF Mass, but mostly I enjoy not having to listen to the music that is characteristic of my usual parish, and not having to look at the clothing of the people who wear halter tops / shorts, ripped jeans, etc. People who attend the EF Mass just seem like they care more, and behave more reverently. Same applies to the pastor - - the EF priest gives a relevant homily with more substance to it.
 
Bonnie said:
We can be thankful the anathemas of Trent are no longer in force. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, yes, but that’s because the penalty of anathema is gone.

But the dogmatic components are always in force; the Church can never change that.

The canon condemns the notion that the Mass MUST be audible and MUST be in the vernacular. It does not prohibit audible or vernacular Masses, or even the Church from instructing that the Mass be audible or in the vernacular.
 
porthos11 said:
The canon condemns the notion that the Mass MUST be audible and MUST be in the vernacular. It does not prohibit audible or vernacular Masses, or even the Church from instructing that the Mass be audible or in the vernacular.
Click to expand...
Right. I think most people just read the discplinary anathema and ignore the underlying doctrinal reasons for it.

To repeat:
And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Also
Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top