Latin mass questions

[philv]

Hi there,

Being a one-year Catholic convert I felt the calling to visit a traditional Latin mass, and I found one about ten minutes from where I live which is closer than my regular church. I really enjoyed it. I’m sure it’s obvious, but I found some differences with the ordinary mass and the traditional latin mass. I’m wondering if anyone can comment on these differences. I just don’t know the history behind it all with the transition to the ordinary mass.

1. Women wearing veils over their hair - I understand this was practiced since the early church?
2. Kneeling at the front for the host with a group of people and receiving it by mouth. I wonder why it changed over time to the hand?
3. No blood? I’ve been used to having both the body and blood. At the supper, Christ mentioned both. I was a little confused there. I thought the priest was holding up the cup unless it was with the body inside.
4. Music - no instruments, but with 5 people doing the Gregorian chant. I really enjoyed that. Is no instruments common for the latin mass? I’m a fan of the Gregorian chant now too. Reminds me when I was in Rome, and my father’s side came from Italy.
5. Just a comment, but I thought it was really powerful and emotional when we all knelt before the alter and the cross, including the priest. That image just stuck with me.

Anyway, lot of differences, but it seemed more symbolic to me. I wouldn’t mind visiting there every so often. The archdioceses approves the latin mass there, so I suppose it’s fully legal for a good-standing Catholic to go to? Although I enjoy both forms of mass equally, I’m surprised some of these things didn’t make their way to the ordinary mass. Would enjoy learning what you all can say on these things. Thanks!

 

[Mike30]

Hi there,

Being a one-year Catholic convert I felt the calling to visit a traditional Latin mass, and I found one about ten minutes from where I live which is closer than my regular church. I really enjoyed it. I’m sure it’s obvious, but I found some differences with the ordinary mass and the traditional latin mass. I’m wondering if anyone can comment on these differences. I just don’t know the history behind it all with the transition to the ordinary mass.

1. Women wearing veils over their hair - I understand this was practiced since the early church?
2. Kneeling at the front for the host with a group of people and receiving it by mouth. I wonder why it changed over time to the hand?
3. No blood? I’ve been used to having both the body and blood. At the supper, Christ mentioned both. I was a little confused there. I thought the priest was holding up the cup unless it was with the body inside.
4. Music - no instruments, but with 5 people doing the Gregorian chant. I really enjoyed that. Is no instruments common for the latin mass? I’m a fan of the Gregorian chant now too. Reminds me when I was in Rome, and my father’s side came from Italy.
5. Just a comment, but I thought it was really powerful and emotional when we all knelt before the alter and the cross, including the priest. That image just stuck with me.

Anyway, lot of differences, but it seemed more symbolic to me. I wouldn’t mind visiting there every so often. The archdioceses approves the latin mass there, so I suppose it’s fully legal for a good-standing Catholic to go to? Although I enjoy both forms of mass equally, I’m surprised some of these things didn’t make their way to the ordinary mass. Would enjoy learning what you all can say on these things. Thanks!

In answer to your questions in order.

1. Yes it was practiced since the early Church and was mandated for years. The practice pretty much stopped after Vatican II.
2. Originally Holy Communion was given in the hand due primarily to the fact that what was consecrated was a loaf of bread and not a wafer as is usually the case these days. After Church the loaf would be brought home for consumption during the week. This led to abuses and a loss of respect for and a belief in the Real Presence and the custom was changed to receining only on the tongue. Kneeling was also enforced to further impress upon the faithful the fact that Jesus is present in the Eucharist and deserves respect and worship. The Eastern and Orthodox Churches do not kneel to receive
3. There was a heresy many years ago that believed that unless you received Holy Communion under both species you were not receiving the completeness of Jesus in the Eucharist. Since Church doctrine is that Jesus is fully present under both or either species, the Church went to the laity receiving only the Precious Body to re-enforce that belief. It is interesting to note that today many people apparently believe that you must receive under both species or the communion is incomplete. The Eastern and Orthodox Churches receive both species through the practice of intinction.
4. The only instruments I have heard in a normal Extraordinary Form Mass have been the organ or piano, usually organ. In Pontifical High Masses or some other such Mass there may be orchaestration of some sort but not always. Gregorian Chant and Plain Chant are both common in Extraordinary Form Masses.

Hope these have answered your questions at least to a degree.

 

[dshix]

Hi there,

Being a one-year Catholic convert I felt the calling to visit a traditional Latin mass, and I found one about ten minutes from where I live which is closer than my regular church. I really enjoyed it. I’m sure it’s obvious, but I found some differences with the ordinary mass and the traditional latin mass. I’m wondering if anyone can comment on these differences. I just don’t know the history behind it all with the transition to the ordinary mass.

Awesome! I’m glad you had a chance to experience the Latin Mass.

1. Women wearing veils over their hair - I understand this was practiced since the early church?

Yes, this is a common practice, and some people still do it in OF masses. I know that when women from my parish visit an OF parish, those veils stay right on!

There is no obligation to wear a veil in an EF parish, but it is an expression of devotion which is common in EF parishes.

1. Kneeling at the front for the host with a group of people and receiving it by mouth. I wonder why it changed over time to the hand?

Receiving in the hand was permitted by Vatican II and certain other documents, and it was picked up by many parishes and the vast of majority of communicants use it now. There is nothing that has CHANGED, per se, but rather that’s just how most people do it in OF parishes. When I visit an OF parish, I receive on the tongue just like usual.

1. No blood? I’ve been used to having both the body and blood. At the supper, Christ mentioned both. I was a little confused there. I thought the priest was holding up the cup unless it was with the body inside.

Haha, there is a VERY, VERY long theological discussion to be had about that, and I don’t have time to explain it at the moment. Maybe another time.

1. Music - no instruments, but with 5 people doing the Gregorian chant. I really enjoyed that. Is no instruments common for the latin mass? I’m a fan of the Gregorian chant now too. Reminds me when I was in Rome, and my father’s side came from Italy.

The proper instrument for the mass is the organ, and in my parish there is organ and voices. The singers sing Gregorian Chant and polyphony, and the organ plays a prelude, postlude, hymns (processional, recessional) and “filler” during some parts of the mass.

Mediator Dei states that the proper instrument for the mass is the organ, not the piano, not the guitar, nothing. However, a lot of OF parishes don’t observe that…

1. Just a comment, but I thought it was really powerful and emotional when we all knelt before the alter and the cross, including the priest. That image just stuck with me.

Indeed! There are a number of particularly beautiful and spine-shivering parts of the mass. That’s just part of the beauty of the Latin Mass.

Anyway, lot of differences, but it seemed more symbolic to me. I wouldn’t mind visiting there every so often. The archdioceses approves the latin mass there, so I suppose it’s fully legal for a good-standing Catholic to go to? Although I enjoy both forms of mass equally, I’m surprised some of these things didn’t make their way to the ordinary mass. Would enjoy learning what you all can say on these things. Thanks!

Yes. Both masses are absolutely valid, and you are free to attend either. (I would check just to make sure the parish you attended is not SSPX.) The OF form of the mass truly misses a lot of the beautiful parts of the EF, but oh well. If you want a beautiful mass, just go to the EF.

 

[Rich_C]

Hi there,

Being a one-year Catholic convert I felt the calling to visit a traditional Latin mass, and I found one about ten minutes from where I live which is closer than my regular church. I really enjoyed it. I’m sure it’s obvious, but I found some differences with the ordinary mass and the traditional latin mass. I’m wondering if anyone can comment on these differences. I just don’t know the history behind it all with the transition to the ordinary mass.

1. Women wearing veils over their hair - I understand this was practiced since the early church?

Yes, Catholic women covered their heads in church from St. Paul’s time until the 1980s in most places. Prior to the 20th century, scarfs or hats predominated, I belief.

1. Kneeling at the front for the host with a group of people and receiving it by mouth. I wonder why it changed over time to the hand?

I believe the big change to Communion in the hand in the 1970s came from a desire on the part of some people to make the Mass resemble what people imagined took place in Apostolic times, although I’ve never seen conclusive evidence that Communion on the hand was the Apostolic practice. Pope Paul VI then granted their request.

1. No blood? I’ve been used to having both the body and blood. At the supper, Christ mentioned both. I was a little confused there. I thought the priest was holding up the cup unless it was with the body inside.

The only different is that no one receives the Precious Blood except the priest. It is consecrated right after the Precious Body just like you’re used to. Historically, the Church stopped giving both kinds of Holy Communion to people to combat heresies among people. Some people believed that they didn’t get “the whole sacrament” unless they received under both forms. Actually, I’ve seen this attitude coming back today.

1. Music - no instruments, but with 5 people doing the Gregorian chant. I really enjoyed that. Is no instruments common for the latin mass? I’m a fan of the Gregorian chant now too. Reminds me when I was in Rome, and my father’s side came from Italy.

Traditionally, Christians haven’t been big on instruments in church. A lot of the Eastern folks still don’t use them. Then the Church allowed instruments that resemble the human voice (like an organ). Chant has historically been the main “language” of worship, East and West, since ancient times.

1. Just a comment, but I thought it was really powerful and emotional when we all knelt before the alter and the cross, including the priest. That image just stuck with me.

I agree! Everything points to the Holy Sacrifice in very simple, concrete ways.

Anyway, lot of differences, but it seemed more symbolic to me. I wouldn’t mind visiting there every so often. The archdioceses approves the latin mass there, so I suppose it’s fully legal for a good-standing Catholic to go to? Although I enjoy both forms of mass equally, I’m surprised some of these things didn’t make their way to the ordinary mass. Would enjoy learning what you all can say on these things. Thanks!

Yes, if its said by a priest in good standing, you can certainly go. I go to a Latin Mass that’s part of a normal parish in a neighboring diocese.

Although in many way the Latin Mass is simpler than the new Mass, every little action is precise and there for a reason and is there to teach us something. I suggest getting a Latin-English 1962 missal to follow along. The footnotes will likely explain a lot of these actions and symbols you’re talking about.

God bless!

 

[dshix]

1. There was a heresy many years ago that believed that unless you received Holy Communion under both species you were not receiving the completeness of Jesus in the Eucharist. Since Church doctrine is that Jesus is fully present under both or either species, the Church went to the laity receiving only the Precious Body to re-enforce that belief. It is interesting to note that today many people apparently believe that you must receive under both species or the communion is incomplete. The Eastern and Orthodox Churches receive both species through the practice of intinction.

The only different is that no one receives the Precious Blood except the priest. It is consecrated right after the Precious Body just like you’re used to. Historically, the Church stopped giving both kinds of Holy Communion to people to combat heresies among people. Some people believes that they didn’t get “the whole sacrament” unless they received under both forms. Actually, I’ve seen this attitude coming back today.

To summarize on the third question (since neither of you seemed to know why the Blood is not given in the EF) the reason is related to the traditional symbolism of how the mass is offered, what parts pertain to which parts of the Last Supper and Passion, and the order of events. The symbolism is that in Christ’s death, His Body and Blood were separated (thus why the priest receives the Body and Blood separately) and the reunion of the Body and Blood (which occurs when the priest has received both of them, as the presence of both is within him) represents the Resurrection.

To have the faithful permitted to receive both, separately, AFTER they have already been rejoined within the priest, is somewhat of a confusing of the symbolism, thus, why EF parishes do not give both.

[Now, that was a VERY sketchy, “scratching the surface” explanation, so if there seems to be missing pieces it’s just because I didn’t have time to explain the whole darn thing. ]

 

[R_C]

1. Yes.
2. It is in fact not accurate to say that the Eucharist used to be given on the hand in the Early Church. As far as we know, the Gospel describe the Lord giving the Eucharist directly in the mouth, and it is a safe assumption that the Apostles followed that way and taught their disciples, the Church Fathers, to do the same. Certainly there were exceptions, but the great, extraordinary care that the Early Church had of the Eucharist (some Church Fathers compare the least crumb to golden particles, and losing one as losing a member of one’s body) moved the Church to not just discourage but even prohibit the faithful to receive communion in the hand. The posture described by some of the hands as a throne does not describe (as some mistakenly presume) that the Eucharist was placed on the hands, but, rather, describes how the hands were supposed to be placed over one’s heart. The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship in 1969 refers to reception on the hand as “the new manner of giving communion” and to reception in the tongue as “the traditional practice”. In Memoriale Domini, Pope Pius VI advices the practice of communion in the tongue to be retained and discourages communion in the hand (though it is allowed to certain countries, like the US, under request of the Episcopal Conference).

Kneeling was necessary when we had altar rails. When they were removed (for whatever reason) and the priest walks down to distribute communion, the practice of standing was allowed (and in some places even enforced under pain of obedience by the local bishop). However the faithful are free to kneel and I personally am unable to receive the living God in any posture other than kneeling.

1. The Blessed Sacrament, though the species is bread, contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church has always given the Eucharist in the species of bread to the faithful, the only other consistently ancient tradition being that of the Eastern Rites to dip the consecrated bread in the consecrated wine (intinction) and giving the Communion by means of a golden spoon. The practice of giving the Chalice to the lay faithful would have been a scandal before 1969 given that only those who had at least received Minor Orders could touch the Sacred Vessels.
2. Usually the organ was the main instrument. The people you describe are the Schola.
3. I wonder if you were also impressed - as I was - by the humble prayers at the foot of the altar, when the priest bows deeply in an act of contrition and asks the Lord permission to approach the altar with pure mind.

There are currently two forms in the Roman Rite - the most extensive Rite of the Catholic Church: the Ordinary Form (also known as Novus Ordo Missae, developed by a commission following to some degree the recommendations of the II Vatican Council and approved after some changes by Pope Pius VI) and the Extraordinary Form (which is the traditional form of the Roman Rite).

The development of the Ordinary Form has always been reason for division within the faithful, especially among those who actually understand the significance of the liturgy and know that it is not the work of human hands. If we read the writings of Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, we come to realize that the commission that developed the Novus Ordo went a bit too far, urging some reputable theologians (including Pope Benedict XVI, before his election) to speak of the need of a “reform of the reform”, for the impression has been - as then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote - that “instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced – as if in a technical production – by a fabrication”.

I consider that I have met both extremes of supporters - from the hardened traditionalists who find themselves in too much pain to be able to participate in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite and are forced to receive Communion only on Sunday or to participate in Eastern Catholic liturgies using other rites such as the Byzantine, to those who would like to see all tradition vanish in favor of something that is as appealing to the current generation as possible. Thus I consider myself a moderate, even though I am necessarily a traditionalist, and the current vision amidst moderates is that the Extraordinary Form will become more and more common through the years (beginning in 2007 we have seen a great rise of diocesan Latin Mass communities, a special interest being amidst the youth, and the seminaries of societies dedicated to the traditional liturgy such as FSSP and Christ the King have seen a consistent increase of vocations that has not gone unnoticed in the Holy See). It is possibly a matter of time before the Ordinary Form is further reformed or at least subject to stricter norms to prevent innovations and reduce liturgical abuse (which is quite widespread).

 

[floresco]

1. 
   

   1. Yes it was practiced since the early Church and was mandated for years. The practice pretty much stopped after Vatican II.

   While it is true that head-covering became less practiced after V2, this was nothing taught by the Council to suggest that it stop. In fact, it was part of Canon Law until 1983.

 

[floresco]

Receiving in the hand was permitted by Vatican II and certain other documents, and it was picked up by many parishes and the vast of majority of communicants use it now.

Receiving in the hand was not permitted by Vatican II. There were documents forbidding it issued even after V2, but people were doing it without permission. It was eventually allowed because it became impractical to stop the disobedience.

 

[10thCrusader]

To add to what others have said:

Women wearing veils: The covering of a woman’s head in Church goes back to the directions of St. Paul in I Corinthians 11:5. The old requirement is for their head to be covered. This can mean a veil, a hat, a scarf, or a shawl (even a hanky pinned to the top of the head in an emergency). The main thing is a woman’s head should be covered - not required, but should.

In our FSSP parish, the priest makes a point of mentioning this at Mass from time to time. Also, one of the priests makes a point of telling the young men to remove their hats when entering the church. He like to sneak up behind them, and ask them, “Is your head cold?” The young man will remove his hat with a blush, while everyone chuckles.

Besides Gregorian chant, there is also polyphony, and Baroque choir arrangements with or without the organ or other instruments.

One thing also to understand is that there are many levels to the EF Mass, so there maybe many prayers going on at once. It takes a few times to get the hang of it. Our pastor says at least 16 times.

 

[Sirach2]

 

[Mike30]

1. 
   
   While it is true that head-covering became less practiced after V2, this was nothing taught by the Council to suggest that it stop. In fact, it was part of Canon Law until 1983.

1. 
   I never said or even indicated that the Secpnd Vatican Council said anything about it. I just said that the practice died out afetr Vatican II which is correct.

 

[floresco]

I never said or even indicated that the Secpnd Vatican Council said anything about it. I just said that the practice died out afetr Vatican II which is correct.

Yes, you were correct. I am sorry if I came across as contradicting you. I just wanted to add extra information.

 

[Rich_C]

To summarize on the third question (since neither of you seemed to know why the Blood is not given in the EF) the reason is related to the traditional symbolism of how the mass is offered, what parts pertain to which parts of the Last Supper and Passion, and the order of events. The symbolism is that in Christ’s death, His Body and Blood were separated (thus why the priest receives the Body and Blood separately) and the reunion of the Body and Blood (which occurs when the priest has received both of them, as the presence of both is within him) represents the Resurrection.

To have the faithful permitted to receive both, separately, AFTER they have already been rejoined within the priest, is somewhat of a confusing of the symbolism, thus, why EF parishes do not give both.

[Now, that was a VERY sketchy, “scratching the surface” explanation, so if there seems to be missing pieces it’s just because I didn’t have time to explain the whole darn thing. ]

All my hand missals have in the footnotes a point about how the two **consecrations **(not receptions) signify the death of the Lord by the symbolic separation of His Body and Blood. However, I’ve never heard anything about Holy Communion being a symbol of the ressurection or any of the rest.

Can you provide a source for this theory? I admit, I’m a bit skeptical.

 

[dshix]

All my hand missals have in the footnotes a point about how the two **consecrations **(not receptions) signify the death of the Lord by the symbolic separation of His Body and Blood. However, I’ve never heard anything about Holy Communion being a symbol of the ressurection or any of the rest.

Can you provide a source for this theory? I admit, I’m a bit skeptical.

I actually do not have an internet source (though I’m sure it could be found somewhere) but know of it based on a lengthy talk by my FSSP priest on the traditional symbolism (who, by the way, happens to be quite experienced in this area and is likely to be a teacher in seminary soon.)

He provided sources for the knowledge in his talk, but I don’t know of them.

 

[Rich_C]

I actually do not have an internet source (though I’m sure it could be found somewhere) but know of it based on a lengthy talk by my FSSP priest on the traditional symbolism (who, by the way, happens to be quite experienced in this area and is likely to be a teacher in seminary soon.)

He provided sources for the knowledge in his talk, but I don’t know of them.

Well, even though I still think the reason I stated is a historical fact (I’ll double check this weekend, could both be true?) I would hardly gainsay a fraternity priest on the old Mass.

I’ll take his word for it. That’s enough for me.

 

[dshix]

Well, even though I still think the reason I stated is a historical fact (I’ll double check this weekend, could both be true?) I would hardly gainsay a fraternity priest on the old Mass.

I’ll take his word for it. That’s enough for me.

Right.

Besides, I mean, this isn’t a doctrinal matter, or a moral matter, so different traditional symbolisms are just that… different. Different people can interpret the same thing different ways.

Thus, it isn’t a sin for EF parishes to not give the wine, and not a sin for the OP parishes to do so.

 

[Megan7]

In answer to your questions in order.

1. Yes it was practiced since the early Church and was mandated for years. The practice pretty much stopped after Vatican II.
2. Originally Holy Communion was given in the hand due primarily to the fact that what was consecrated was a loaf of bread and not a wafer as is usually the case these days. After Church the loaf would be brought home for consumption during the week. This led to abuses and a loss of respect for and a belief in the Real Presence and the custom was changed to receining only on the tongue. Kneeling was also enforced to further impress upon the faithful the fact that Jesus is present in the Eucharist and deserves respect and worship. The Eastern and Orthodox Churches do not kneel to receive
3. There was a heresy many years ago that believed that unless you received Holy Communion under both species you were not receiving the completeness of Jesus in the Eucharist. Since Church doctrine is that Jesus is fully present under both or either species, the Church went to the laity receiving only the Precious Body to re-enforce that belief. It is interesting to note that today many people apparently believe that you must receive under both species or the communion is incomplete. The Eastern and Orthodox Churches receive both species through the practice of intinction.
4. The only instruments I have heard in a normal Extraordinary Form Mass have been the organ or piano, usually organ. In Pontifical High Masses or some other such Mass there may be orchaestration of some sort but not always. Gregorian Chant and Plain Chant are both common in Extraordinary Form Masses.

Hope these have answered your questions at least to a degree.

Thank you.

 

[R_C]

[Communion in the hand] Pope Paul VI then granted their request.

Actually, he did not do so.

In Memoriale Domini, after a wonderful overview on the significance of reception in the mouth and going over the opinion of the bishops, he states:

Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist.

…] When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite.

…] From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches, in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward,** the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful**.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

However, since he was also a very wise man, and he knew he was dealing with some exceedingly stubborn people, he added:

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there …]

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons.

What happened, then? Some episcopal conferences requested permission to the Holy See to allow the practice of communion in the hand and the appropriate Dicastery of the Holy See (not the Pope) granted them permission supposedly under strict measures. Clearly the US is one such case, resulting in a majority of parishes teaching faulty cathechesis and RCIA in which lay faithful of good will only teach the “new” way to receive Holy Communion, perhaps ignoring themselves the traditional practice and what the Holy Father wrote about it vs. communion in the mouth.

It is to be hoped that this practice will eventually diminish as soon as the issues which catechesis and RCIA are facing begin to be tackled with more decision.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Receiving in the hand was permitted by Vatican II and certain other documents,

Simply not true dshix.

 

[Sirach2]

Here we go again - same posters persisting after the CITH thread was just closed - and spreading the same erroneous arguments, that Pope Paul did not give permission. When does it stop?

Pope Paul VI gave permission for CITH to bishops in 1969 when he gave** further counsel** at the same time in 1969 with regard to his document Memoriale Domini.

The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion.

Please watch the masses celebrated by Pope Francis, wherein the communicants receive “standing” and “in the hand” as well as on the tongue.

JReducation:

Why do people feel the need to campaign against CITH? The Church has allowed it. End of story. We have not been asked for our opinions. No one at the Vatican cares about our opinions. We have the choice to use either CITH or COTT.