Latin Mass: Why?

[Warrenton]

Interesting question.

Christ warned that we “do not know what time it is.” In the OF mass this past Sunday, Christ continues the theme of time in the parable of the laborers in the field - regardless of whether the worker arrives at sunrise, noon, or even, all receive the same pay.

This strikes the “earlier” worker as unfair.

And in human justice, it is unfair. But, as Christ repeatedly reminds us, the ways of the Father are not our ways. Thus Christ warns us, we do not know what time it is. But we need to know.

Regardless how early we think we arrive, in God’s time, we are the hindmost worker. In other words, we are perptually running late.

The fate of the one who fails to heed the king’s invitation, however, is worse still. That one shall be cast into outermost darkness: hell.

There is one place where one can get a sense of the right time. That is at the old mass.

Within the changeless precinct of the mass, one can know what time it is, because time there stands still, or at least as still as mortals can make it. Fixed, it serves as the true point for reckoning: the beginning and the end.

Catholics for at least 1700 years have reckoned from that point, and in substantial substance, probably for longer. It is the method by which saints and sinners reckoned their relationship to God. Each generation, ours included, passes away like the grass. The mass remains as the perpetual reference to the faithful: the kingdom of God is at hand.

To me, the old mass is the absolute expression of unchanging Truth: time is passing, and I must repent, be saved or be forever lost. Only one name saves, and none come to the Father but through the Son.

What change is excessive, like how much wine makes one drunk, is perhaps not carved in stone. As the desert Father remarked, if there were no Satan, three cups of wine would not be overmuch.

Because I am such a sinner, I need the message repeated the same way - just like the call of St. John the Baptist. Perhaps, with our Lady’s intercession, I will learn before leaving this world. To learn it, however, it must be repeated the same way, because I am so late in coming to the vineyard.

Once a week, if I can get to the right church, I am reminded what time it really is.

 

[OraLabora]

To me, the old mass is the absolute expression of unchanging Truth:

Except that the “old” Mass is itself the product of change, and eliminated many rites that were as ancient then as the EF Mass seems to us now. Among the lost rites are Gallican (before 8th century) and Sarum (11th century). For that matter the Ambrosian rite, which does survive in Milan albeit with post-Vatican II reforms, dates to around the 8th century. The Tridentine rite, on the other hand, is positively modern, dating to 1570!

For the Divine Office, the 1962 Breviary is even more recent than the 1962 Mass: it dates to only 1910 with Pius X’s reforms. The current Benedictine version of the Divine Office is much older, dating to the time of St. Benedict in the 6th century.

The Church’s rites do change.

Just not very often! I agree with your comment that what is unchanging is the Truth, but there are many ways to express that as can be seen by examining the history of various rites in the Church, and the fact that Eastern Churches, including those in communion with Rome, do express them differently and always have.

 

[Will_S]

Except that the “old” Mass is itself the product of change, and eliminated many rites that were as ancient then as the EF Mass seems to us now. Among the lost rites are Gallican (before 8th century) and Sarum (11th century). For that matter the Ambrosian rite, which does survive in Milan albeit with post-Vatican II reforms, dates to around the 8th century. The Tridentine rite, on the other hand, is positively modern, dating to 1570!

This is all very misleading. The decree on the promulgation of the Tridentine Mass did not abrogate any rite that was already 200 years old or more. Therefore, it was meaningless for the rites you mention (Gallican, Sarum, Ambrosian) as well as others you don’t mention (Mozarabic, Domincan, etc.)

And, unlike, the Novus Ordo Missal, the Tridentine Missal wasn’t a new composition. It was a standardization of one of the forms of the Mass as it already existed at that time with some minor alterations.

 

[Farmville]

Latin Mass: Why?

Why not?

 

[Windmill]

Why go to a Latin Mass? Because Vatican II said that “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” - SC, art 54.; and that the Latin Language is to be preserved in the Latin rites, art. 36.1.

As far as the difficulty, it is very easy to follow along with a bilingual missal. This is not a big deal. It hasn’t been a big deal for centuries of saints who didn’t speak Latin either. Something to think about. Are we so much more enlightened than generations past? If not, then I think it is beneficial for us to truly seek out the treasures of our faith before casting them aside. We owe it to the saints before us, and the martyrs who died for the faith and the Mass.

I think we also miss the value of having a universal language with global travel. If every parish in the world had a Latin Mass, you could fully participate wherever you were in the world, regardless of what country you were visiting. You’d have your Latin-English Missal while the person next to you may have a Latin-German missal, everyone would make the same Latin responses, and the priest says his parts of the Mass in Latin, then the homily in Dutch.

Another aspect: the musical heritage of the Church is all in Latin. We have completely cut ourselves off from Catholic music of centuries past and have settled for Protestant hymns or cheesy “Catholic” hymns that are no older than 40 years. What a way to turn your back on your patrimony! Much of what is called “catholic” nowadays will never be heard in parishes 100 years from now. It has very little redeeming value. Beyond that, most of the music is regional: Americans have their music, Germans have theirs, etc… The only body of “Catholic” music is Latin. Gregorian chant will still be sung in 500 years from now because it is timeless and has nourished souls for centuries.

Finally, the Jews and the Muslims already know the value of having a sacred language when addressing the Almighty in corporate worship. Somehow, we Catholics have readily abandoned this idea.

 

[WAYOFTHEDODO]

First off, I realize that this question might offend some – all I can say is that I am not seeking do make anyone angry, but rather to better understand the way my fellow Catholics think.

I am trying to figure out why some Catholics are drawn to Latin mass. I realize Latin was the language of culture in the Roman Empire, hence the reason it was adopted for use in the Catholic church and continues to be used in the Church’s hierarchy out of tradition (small ‘t’). But in modern times, very few people know fluent Latin (presumably including laypersons which attend Latin mass), since Latin is essentially a dead language outside of the Church (except occasional use in law and science, but I wouldn’t classify these as using Latin as a full-fledged language). At best, people know a few key phrases here and there, but IMO not enough to actually understand the mass in its entirety. Consequently, it seems to me that unless a person has memorized the entire mass (including readings) before hand, a person is listening to a lot of ‘pleasing sounds’ that make no sense, similar to how a non-Italian speaking person would be if they were watching an Italian opera.

So, my questions for readers of this post… Do you attend Latin mass? And if so, do you understand everything being said, and what do you feel you get from Latin mass that you couldn’t get from ordinary mass?

Best wishes,
Dean

Yes I attend the Tridentine Mass.
I do not understand Latin as a native tongue but I can follow along in the missal and understand the English well.
I will answer your third question in this way. When I left the church I felt it was irrelevant . The liturgy was feel good watered down. I was not much of a Catholic then, may be I am not now. But I go to the Latin Tridentine mass and It is beautiful. It is the most beautiful liturgy I can be at and I cannot even begin to say that it is similar to the Novus Ordo. I also have been to the Novus Ordo in Latin and that is better than in English. I dont understand why the Tridentine was erased in the Post VII era. From everything I have seen it is much needed. We have been exposed to a lot of abuses in the church and I believe that the Liturgy was derailed in VII. I don’t understand how others do not love it but I will say this and withdraw from this conversation. I was at a NO mass last week for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. It is in both Calendars. The priest came out and began mass in the usual manner. (Sign of the Cross). He then launched into a 5 minute speech about how this Feast was replacing pagan feasts and how it was supposed to be the great feast of Fall, and a whole lot of other blather that had nothing to do with Catholicism or Our Lord and the Cross. I would like to go to a mass where this kind of abuse is not possible as it has nothing to do with the liturgy and also , the Cross was hardly mentioned in any significant way. The two do not compare , but I know some struggle with it. As a 1965 VII baby who has come back to the faith, I will not shed one tear for this liturgy disappearing. I have watched most of my generation leave the church (in my neck of the woods) and can honestly say I am sure that our NO mass did not encourage me to stay. I am not trying to sound disrespectful to anyone but I come from a parish in Detroit with a strong tradition and a PRIEST WHO is loyal to The Holy Father. There is not an abundance of this and it shows in our country. My two cents. I love the Mass I go to whenever I can, And it is Gods Grace it is back after so long…Thanks…I hope this helps answer your curiousity…But have you given it a fair hearing yet by attending a Tridentine?

 

[Warrenton]

Except that the “old” Mass is itself the product of change, and eliminated many rites that were as ancient then as the EF Mass seems to us now. Among the lost rites are Gallican (before 8th century) and Sarum (11th century). For that matter the Ambrosian rite, which does survive in Milan albeit with post-Vatican II reforms, dates to around the 8th century. The Tridentine rite, on the other hand, is positively modern, dating to 1570!

This is oft repeated, but it still false. If for no other reason than the math does not work. Even if the precursor to the Tridentine mass replaced something that antedated it, it was in place by the 3rd or 4th century. That is 1 to 2 centuries less than the time between Trent and now.

Plus: the Roman rite did not “replace” the other rites you refer to. The Gallican rite never said in Rome. Said in Gaul. But said in Latin.

Sarum rite not said in Rome. Said at Sarum. But said in Latin, too.

Tridentine rite was slightly modified Roman rite, said since at least 350/400. Not surprisingly, it too, was said in Latin. How do we know? Because the cycle of readings are almost the same as the Sarum rite, which as you wrote, dates to the 800s. Either the Saxons developed their rite from Roman precedent, or by some astonishing quirk of history, Spanish and Italian counter-reformers adopted a bunch of Saxon readings in 1570, without telling anyone.

And the Gallican, Sarum, Mozarabic and others were all a lot more like the Tridentine than the tridentine is like the novus ordo.

The tridentine is a streamlined version of the Greek liturgy, and both bear close resemblance to the Maronite and Coptic which are arguably the oldest.

In comparison, the Novus is sui generis. It’s not like anything else.

So no, the old mass is not new. To say that it is is virtually the same thing as saying nothing is old, because everything human undergoes some change over time. Under that logic, we could just re-write the bible, since things about it have changed since 2000 BC.

But even if the idea were correct, I’ll take 1570 over 1969, which has not even stayed the same for 40 years.

I am sorry, but “changing mass” is a difficult concept for me.

 

[annaevers]

REVERENCE

• Reverence of the laity before, during and after Holy Mass;
• Reverence of the priest saying meaningful sermon and not talking about last week parish dinner;
• Reverence of the priest giving the Most Holy Eucharist, not throwing It into the hands;
• Reverence of the altar servers – no altar-women in high-heel sleepers running around the Tabernacle

And much more.

 

[Planty_Pall]

First off, I realize that this question might offend some – all I can say is that I am not seeking do make anyone angry, but rather to better understand the way my fellow Catholics think.

I am trying to figure out why some Catholics are drawn to Latin mass. I realize Latin was the language of culture in the Roman Empire, hence the reason it was adopted for use in the Catholic church and continues to be used in the Church’s hierarchy out of tradition (small ‘t’). But in modern times, very few people know fluent Latin (presumably including laypersons which attend Latin mass), since Latin is essentially a dead language outside of the Church (except occasional use in law and science, but I wouldn’t classify these as using Latin as a full-fledged language). At best, people know a few key phrases here and there, but IMO not enough to actually understand the mass in its entirety. Consequently, it seems to me that unless a person has memorized the entire mass (including readings) before hand, a person is listening to a lot of ‘pleasing sounds’ that make no sense, similar to how a non-Italian speaking person would be if they were watching an Italian opera.

So, my questions for readers of this post… Do you attend Latin mass? And if so, do you understand everything being said, and what do you feel you get from Latin mass that you couldn’t get from ordinary mass?

Best wishes,
Dean

I am not drawn to any Latin Mass. I am drawn to the Traditional Latin Mass. It seems like your question assumes that the main difference between the two Roman rites is language. I don’t think this is necessarily the main issue with some of us.

I approve of Latin in the liturgy so that all priests and bishops of every country will be able to speak the same language. Pentecost was in part about everyone being able to understand each other, undoing the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel. It is natural that the Church needs one language that, if one wants to take the effort to learn, is the universal language of the Church, at least in the West. As for what I understand, I always have an English translation anyway. Its easy to follow the words if I want. I do most of the time. Once in a while, I just watch the actions of the priest. I have thought that I prayed a good Mass that way several times. Once in a great while, I might even pray a Rosary because for one reason or other I am distracted and want to do my part to assist at Mass.

I don’t think its healthy to think that God is only pleased at one way of praying and assisting at Mass. Listening attentively to words is one good way. Sure. I think there tends to be a little too much emphasis on the audio side of worship in our day. That isn’t the only right way and I think the crowd that insists on the vernacular is a little too narrow about various ways we can worship God during the liturgy.

 

[Planty_Pall]

Here is another reason for sticking with Latin in the Mass. Over forty years after the Ordinary Form was completed, we still haven’t implemented a satiusfactory English translation! Advent of 2011. I am glad that the vernacular is going to finally be translated more satisfactorily, but translation is very obviously a huge problem if it takes this long to get it right. Translation work is extremely difficult. Do you want literalism or poetry? Do you want colloquialisms or elevated language? Is there going to be agreement by all the translators of every language regarding the same principles of translation? Who in Rome is qualified to oversee the whole huge undertaking?

Clearly the English translators in the 60’s and 70’s went for familiar, colloquial speech instead of elevated, poetic sounds. Et cum spiritu tuo means “and also with you”? I don’t know how that ever passed under any translation committee, but we have had it for a long time and it is finally going to be gone. Hurrah for that. Think about Bible translations and all the arguments you get from partisans of this or that translation. Translations are never pleasing to everybody. Words are more than ideas anyway. The sounds of the original will never be duplicated in a translation.

How about this? I just thought of this. I don’t know about you. But I would be delighted…thrilled to hear Dostoevsky read in the original Russian while I read along silently. The same with Tolstoy, Cervantes, and many others. Think about our own great masters. How could anyone get everything they should from a literal translation of G.K. Chesterton when it can never reproduce all the sounds? What about Shakespeare? A literal translation of his sonnets could NEVER capture the tone of the verse. A poetic translation would fail too. As Robert Frost says, “Poetry is what is lost in translation.” There is meaning in the soft and the hard tones as well as ideas carried by the words. The tones and sounds carry weight too! I am confident that a non-English speaker would get more delight from reading the sense of Shakespeare silently, while hearing an English reader (who he didn’t understand) audibly.

The Latin liturgy works similarly. I do not suggest that it is a similar work of art. But I do hold that there is subtle beauty and that the Church has taken care to make the ideas true while making the sounds of the words more pleasant to the ear than we get in translation. Any poetic beauty inevitably suffers. Even though I don’t know every word of it, I want to hear the sounds of the Church’s original and universal tongue for the same reasons that I would want to hear any good literature in its original tongue.

 

[ProVobis]

Here is another reason for sticking with Latin in the Mass. Over forty years after the Ordinary Form was completed, we still haven’t implemented a satiusfactory English translation!

Indeed. It’s almost an admission that they can’t do it. Actually, if you count the Church of England, attempted English translations of the Mass have been tried for about 500 years. Of course, once they started with the Common Prayer, it wasn’t too long before they started changing the theology as well, removing sacrificial aspects inter alia.

It’s often reported that those attending the Latin Mass, or better called, Usus Antiquior, use Latin-English missals but, these translations differ slightly from handmissal to handmissal while using language like "thy, “thee” “vouchsafe” and “countenance” inter alia. As long as the translation wasn’t used for the liturgy, it wasn’t an issue. But once they started with actually substituting Latin with the English did it then become an issue and now they still can’t unanimously agree on the proper English translation. Unnecessary distraction if you ask me. So all the more reason to retain Latin in the liturgy, even if you’re forced to do a little work in following it.

I do not suggest that it is a similar work of art.

But it’s the greatest art in the world, and, according to the current Pope, one of the greatest treasures of the Church. The Latin is an integral part of the art and the treasure.

 

[dean24us]

Thanks to everybody that responded! I have been busy the past couple days and haven’t had the opportunity to check CAF, but I was surprised by the number of thoughtful responses I have seen. I will respond to individual posts over the next few hours, but I wanted to express my appreciation to the group in its entirety.

Best wishes,
Dean

 

[Warrenton]

But I do hold that there is subtle beauty and that the Church has taken care to make the ideas true while making the sounds of the words more pleasant to the ear than we get in translation.

 

[MissRose73]

I much like the reverence and respect showing by both the laity and clergy. It needs to trickle down on the part of the laity to the OF Mass. If only the EF Mass was much closer to my home, or I would go more to it much more (or exclusively).