Latin NO

[PatienceAndLove]

So, I was recalling a post from Father Z’s blog about why still offer the Latin NO when you can offer the TLM, and I thought on it.
Well, my soon to be new parish (Our Lady of Atonement) offers a Latin NO mass every Sunday.

But I am still confused- why offer the Latin NO over the TLM? Is it because the Latin NO is truly the Mass of V2?

I would appreciate some opinions on this matter.

 

[LilyM]

So, I was recalling a post from Father Z’s blog about why still offer the Latin NO when you can offer the TLM, and I thought on it.
Well, my soon to be new parish (Our Lady of Atonement) offers a Latin NO mass every Sunday.

But I am still confused- why offer the Latin NO over the TLM? Is it because the Latin NO is truly the Mass of V2?

I would appreciate some opinions on this matter.

Because, be they in Latin or in vernacular languages, lots of people still prefer the prayers of the NO to those of the TLM.

The NO, whatever language it may be in, is definitely the Mass of V2, but V2 didn’t call for entirely doing away with Latin, so it makes sense to continue to offer the NO in Latin.

As with the TLM, ideally it should be offered everywhere it is desired.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Because, be they in Latin or in vernacular languages, some people still prefer the prayers of the NO over those of the TLM.

The NO, whatever language it may be in, is definitely the Mass of V2, but V2 didn’t call for entirely doing away with Latin, so it makes sense to continue to offer the NO in Latin.

As with the TLM, ideally it should be offered everywhere it is desired.

That is what I was thinking, but I wasn’t sure if I was “right” or not.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I’ve seen the NO celebarted in Latin, except for the readings.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Go to the parish website, read Fr. Phillips’ blog, he explains the whole thing as it played out in this particular parish. I wondered the same thing until I read it. Makes perfect sense now.

BTW, welcome to the parish. It’s awesome.

 

[James0235]

So, I was recalling a post from Father Z’s blog about why still offer the Latin NO when you can offer the TLM, and I thought on it.
Well, my soon to be new parish (Our Lady of Atonement) offers a Latin NO mass every Sunday.

But I am still confused- why offer the Latin NO over the TLM? Is it because the Latin NO is truly the Mass of V2?

I would appreciate some opinions on this matter.

A Latin NO will most likely be much closer to what the Fathers fo the 2nd Vatican Council called for than what you tend to see in most parishes.

From what I can gather (I don’t believe there is a Latin NO in the entire diocese so I don’t have first hand experience) parishes that offer a Latin NO tend to do things like celebrate ad orientem, use incense, use an altar rail, etc.

I doubt that very many people would prefer a Latin NO over a TLM because they like the prayers of the NO better. Most of the prayers of the NO seem to be in the TLM as well. It is just that the TLM has many more prayers that were tossed out when creating the NO - I think I remember reading once that 70% of the prayers were cut out but I can’t seem to recall where I read that.

I do think that a good number of people may prefer a Latin NO over a TLM because of the Readings used. The NO uses a much, much, much (add much a few dozen more times ) greater variety of scripture than the TLM (although I don’t believe it uses as much scripture).

And interestingly enough, your soon to be new pastor replaced the TLM he was offering with a Latin NO - the exact opposite of what tends to happen. Fr. Phillips tells the story here.

At the parish I attend the experience is much different than Fr. Phillips’ experience. The people who attend the TLM are a full part of the parish including serving on parish council and teaching CCD.

James

 

[countertenor]

I attended a Latin NO missa cantata this weekend. It was quite nice. I still prefer the TLM. But the chant and the mass setting was quite beautiful and the choir performed the music very well.

 

[Our_Refuge]

I don’t understand the need or the attraction of a Latin Novus Ordo. I believe most folks go to the TLM not just because of the Latin but because of the rubrics.
If the TLM were in the vernacular I would still prefer it because of the prayers at the foot of the altar, Priest facing the tabernacle on the altar, communion received kneeling and on the tongue, altar boys, the Last Gospel of John, the Leonine prayers and the traditional music.
The Latin Novus Ordo has none of those.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t understand the need or the attraction of a Latin Novus Ordo. I believe most folks go to the TLM not just because of the Latin but because of the rubrics.
If the TLM were in the vernacular I would still prefer it because of the prayers at the foot of the altar, Priest facing the tabernacle on the altar, communion received kneeling and on the tongue, altar boys, the Last Gospel of John, the Leonine prayers and the traditional music.
The Latin Novus Ordo has none of those.

And it has never occurred to you that some people PREFER the shorter and more comprehensible prayers of the NO? As opposed to the possibly more beautiful but definitely longer and more ornate prayers of the TLM? Some people don’t like Shakespeare, some don’t like the language of the King James or Douay bibles, why should they like the language of the TLM?

Maybe some prefer the priest to face the people with whom and on whose behalf he is praying because they otherwise feel entirely shut out of the Mass, as if it’s a private exchange between the priest and God and nothing to do with the rest of us? Prefer an audible Canon so that they can hear WHAT he is praying, especially the most blessed words of consecration, the summit of the Mass?

And it’s never occurred to you I suppose, even though so much agitation for change went on prior to the introduction of the NO, and so much resistance to the TLM (or some of the other things you’ve mentioned anyway, which to be fair can be and are at times also incorporated into the NO as well) afterwards, that some people just don’t see any real advantage to all the things you’re rattled off as if their advantages were self-evident?

 

[PrayforMallory]

And it has never occurred to you that some people PREFER the shorter and more comprehensible prayers of the NO? As opposed to the possibly more beautiful but definitely longer and more ornate prayers of the TLM? Some people don’t like Shakespeare, some don’t like the language of the King James or Douay bibles, why should they like the language of the TLM?

Maybe some prefer the priest to face the people with whom and on whose behalf he is praying because they otherwise feel entirely shut out of the Mass, as if it’s a private exchange between the priest and God and nothing to do with the rest of us? Prefer an audible Canon so that they can hear WHAT he is praying, especially the most blessed words of consecration, the summit of the Mass?

And it’s never occurred to you I suppose, even though so much agitation for change went on prior to the introduction of the NO, and so much resistance to the TLM (or some of the other things you’ve mentioned anyway, which to be fair can be and are at times also incorporated into the NO as well) afterwards, that some people just don’t see any real advantage to all the things you’re rattled off as if their advantages were self-evident?

Just out of curiosity, why would people feel shut out of the Mass? I’ve never felt that way, in either form. It just takes some getting use to. Hearing the consecration, it doesn’t really matter if folks hear it or not in the end, does it? I mean, there are other things to meditate on during that time.

 

[LilyM]

Just out of curiosity, why would people feel shut out of the Mass? I’ve never felt that way, in either form. It just takes some getting use to. Hearing the consecration, it doesn’t really matter if folks hear it or not in the end, does it? I mean, there are other things to meditate on during that time.

I’m glad you’ve never felt that way, but for some folks it’s a bit difficult to feel ‘included’ by someone who spends virtually the whole time facing away from you. Let me make clear this isn’t my own opinion, but I can see that some folks do find it a real problem.

And please tell me you’re not saying that there’s anything more important - anything else - we should be thinking about at the consecration than the precious words of Our Lord, repeated by the priest, by which ordinary bread and wine is miraculously transformed into His body and blood.

The speaking of those words at that moment are only the central point of the Mass, which is itself the central point of our faith, and are thus of infinite importance. Of course we should hear them and think about them!

Imagine getting married and not hearing the words ‘I pronounce you husband and wife’, or going to confession and not hearing the words ‘I absolve you’ or something! It’s unthinkable.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I’m glad you’ve never felt that way, but for some folks it’s a bit difficult to feel ‘included’ by someone who spends virtually the whole time facing away from you. Let me make clear this isn’t my own opinion, but I can see that some folks do find it a real problem.

And please tell me you’re not saying that there’s anything more important - anything else - we should be thinking about at the consecration than the precious words of Our Lord, repeated by the priest, by which ordinary bread and wine is miraculously transformed into His body and blood.

The speaking of those words at that moment are only the central point of the Mass, which is itself the central point of our faith, and are thus of infinite importance. Of course we should hear them and think about them!

Imagine getting married and not hearing the words ‘I pronounce you husband and wife’, or going to confession and not hearing the words ‘I absolve you’ or something! It’s unthinkable.

I’m sure people feel alienated by the Mass in general, not only the EF, but the OF, when they are not used to it.

The consecration. You can still focus on the consectration without hearing the words. The movements, the vestments, the whole look, smell, feel and atmosphere of the EF provide you with a focus on the mystery of what is happening. I really don’t get why needing to hear it could add to it necessarily. The other things that go on add just as much a sense of faith in transubstantiation. The priest facing the altar adds to that mystery, in my opinion.

Besides, somebody could just memorize the words and hear it in their heads if they wanted to? The priest is the primary agent in the consecration. We’re just there to assist, either way right?

 

[LilyM]

I’m sure people feel alienated by the Mass in general, not only the EF, but the OF, when they are not used to it.

The consecration. You can still focus on the consectration without hearing the words. The movements, the vestments, the whole look, smell, feel and atmosphere of the EF provide you with a focus on the mystery of what is happening. I really don’t get why needing to hear it could add to it necessarily. The other things that go on add just as much a sense of faith in transubstantiation. The priest facing the altar adds to that mystery, in my opinion.

Besides, somebody could just memorize the words and hear it in their heads if they wanted to? The priest is the primary agent in the consecration. We’re just there to assist, either way right?

Like I said, you try imagining a wedding where the words ‘I pronounce you husband and wife’ aren’t said aloud and see if it’s the same thing at all, or next time you go to Confession try telling the priest not to say the words ‘I absolve you’ out loud and see how it feels.

We’re not just there at Mass to assist - we’re an integral part of the Mass which can’t even happen (at least in the NO) unless at least one other person than the priest is present.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Like I said, you try imagining a wedding where the words ‘I pronounce you husband and wife’ aren’t said aloud and see if it’s the same thing at all, or next time you go to Confession try telling the priest not to say the words ‘I absolve you’ out loud and see how it feels.

We’re not just there at Mass to assist - we’re an integral part of the Mass which can’t even happen (at least in the NO) unless at least one other person than the priest is present.

That part of a wedding is about the couple, though. Same with the confession. Those statements are directed to the people getting married or the penitent’s absolution.

Is the Eucharist supposed to be like that?

 

[LilyM]

That part of a wedding is about the couple, though. Same with the confession. Those statements are directed to the people getting married or the penitent’s absolution.

Is the Eucharist supposed to be like that?

The Eucharist is the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. It is actually supposed to be about ‘the couple’ as well - the couple being we, the Church, as bride and Christ, in the person of the priest as alter Christus, who is the bridegroom.

The consecration and communion are the consummation of that marriage, where bride and groom become one flesh. So yes, it is certainly supposed to be ‘like that’.

 

[James0235]

And it has never occurred to you that some people PREFER the shorter and more comprehensible prayers of the NO?

Why all of the hostility here?

I don’t understand the need or the attraction of a Latin Novus Ordo.

He says “I don’t understand”. Well, why not help him to understand rather than going on the attack here?

And it’s never occurred to you I suppose… that some people just don’t see any real advantage to all the things you’re rattled off as if their advantages were self-evident?

More hostility here. Anything of any substance that you might have to add to the discussion is lost in all the hostility.

Rattled off as if their advantages were self-evident? He did no such thing. He merely stated his preferences:

If the TLM were in the vernacular I would still prefer it because of the prayers at the foot of the altar, Priest facing the tabernacle on the altar, communion received kneeling and on the tongue, altar boys, the Last Gospel of John, the Leonine prayers and the traditional music.

emphasis mine

The speaking of those words at that moment are only the central point of the Mass, which is itself the central point of our faith, and are thus of infinite importance. Of course we should hear them and think about them!

Imagine getting married and not hearing the words ‘I pronounce you husband and wife’, or going to confession and not hearing the words ‘I absolve you’ or something! It’s unthinkable.

Unthinkable not to hear the consecration?

Why do you come into the Traditional Catholicism Forum, a place where a good many people love and cherish the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and say this? Given that the Canon is prayed silently by the priest in the EF it is all too easy to believe you are denigrating the EF here.

Like I said, you try imagining a wedding where the words ‘I pronounce you husband and wife’ aren’t said aloud and see if it’s the same thing at all, or next time you go to Confession try telling the priest not to say the words ‘I absolve you’ out loud and see how it feels.

We’re not just there at Mass to assist - we’re an integral part of the Mass which can’t even happen (at least in the NO) unless at least one other person than the priest is present.

So, one cannot fully participate in the Mass without hearing the consecration?

The Holy Father would disagree with that:
**
It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer our loud and without interruptions is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy p.215

Anyone who has experienced a church united in the silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry.

**Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy p.215

Again, if you have anything or any substance to add to the discussion why not just do that? You seem to only be in this thread to start an argument.

James

 

[LilyM]

Why all of the hostility here?

He says “I don’t understand”. Well, why not help him to understand rather than going on the attack here?

I did help him to understand - I listed some of the things that people perceive as advantages or as preferable about the NO.

More hostility here. Anything of any substance that you might have to add to the discussion is lost in all the hostility.

Rattled off as if their advantages were self-evident? He did no such thing. He merely stated his preferences:

He did not merely state his preferences. For starters his whole statement was wrong - he didn’t acknowledge that there are NOs, as I pointed out, that have most if not all of those things that he likes, so that they are not unique to the TLM. Which ignorance in itself made me upset (and I apologise because I was harsh because of it) because it showed that he hadn’t really made the effort to learn what the NO actually is or actually consists of.

Unthinkable not to hear the consecration?

Why do you come into the Traditional Catholicism Forum, a place where a good many people love and cherish the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and say this? Given that the Canon is prayed silently by the priest in the EF it is all too easy to believe you are denigrating the EF here.

Saying there’s one aspect of the TLM that I don’t understand, or don’t like, isn’t denigrating it, any more than his saying he prefers the TLM is denigrating the NO.

If the situation were reversed and someone said to me ‘the sign of Peace in the NO shouldn’t be directly before Communion - it’s unthinkable that people would’ve gladhanded each other at Calvary’ I would in fact take it as it was intended - simply a disagrement with that particular part of the Mass. For that matter it’s a valid criticism that I would make too. And I would not presume that the word ‘unthinkable’ applied to the Mass, but instead to the statement which followed.

In any event I wouldn’t EVER take a criticism of one detail of the Mass as a denigration of it in the slightest. No liturgy is immune to crticism in its form, if any were they’d never have been changed at all, and all of 'em (even the TLM) have certainly had changes made.

So, one cannot fully participate in the Mass without hearing the consecration?

I never said one can’t fully participate in the Mass without it, nothing like. I said it’s much preferable to hear it, the reason being that it’s the most important part of the Mass.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=LilyM;3790234]And it has never occurred to you that some people PREFER the shorter and more comprehensible prayers of the NO?

Is it really that important to them that the prayers be in Latin? I just don’t get going only to hear the Mass in Latin with the same rubrics. If the music is traditional and in Latin that is a great reason to prefer it. But that can be done in the vernacular OF.

As opposed to the possibly more beautiful but definitely longer and more ornate prayers of the TLM? Some people don’t like Shakespeare, some don’t like the language of the King James or Douay bibles, why should they like the language of the TLM?

I don’t go to the TLM just because it is in Latin. I go becasue I prefer the structure of the TLM. It is a more reverent form of the Mass in my opinion
.

Maybe some prefer the priest to face the people with whom and on whose behalf he is praying because they otherwise feel entirely shut out of the Mass, as if it’s a private exchange between the priest and God and nothing to do with the rest of us?

That is a self-centered reason. The Mass is not about you. The Mass is a sacrifice to God. How could you feel shut out?

Prefer an audible Canon so that they can hear WHAT he is praying, especially the most blessed words of consecration, the summit of the Mass?

Here I agree. I would like to hear the priest say “pro multis”

And it’s never occurred to you I suppose, even though so much agitation for change went on prior to the introduction of the NO,

Agitation for change? I was an altar boy in the 1960’s. The laity weren’t calling for a change.
In my opinion the OF in Latin is just like going to the OF in Spanish. WIthout a change in rubrics I just don’t see the point. I prefer the TLM because of the structure and the traditional music. Although I must say singing the Credo in Latin is beautiful. It has a great flow to it.

 

[sidonius]

The Oblates of the Virgin Mary here in Boston have a Latin NO at 7:00 a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The Oblates are very orthodox, reverent and down to earth. The Latin NO gives people the chance to be reintroduced to Latin in the liturgy and then have breakfast and get to work on time.

 

[LilyM]

Is it really that important to them that the prayers be in Latin? I just don’t get going only to hear the Mass in Latin with the same rubrics. If the music is traditional and in Latin that is a great reason to prefer it. But that can be done in the vernacular OF.

The Church, during and after Vatican 2, has seen the preservation of Latin in the Mass (yes, even in the NO) as being extremely important, for lots of very good reasons. It’s been the lingua franca of our liturgy for over 1,500 years, it is an unchanging languge, it makes the Mass the same and equally understandable in every country and every ethnic group without the possible complications of bad translation, for example. Some of the clergy and laity take the opinion of the Council Fathers on this matter to heart.

I don’t go to the TLM just because it is in Latin. I go becasue I prefer the structure of the TLM. It is a more reverent form of the Mass in my opinion

That is a self-centered reason. The Mass is not about you. The Mass is a sacrifice to God. How could you feel shut out?

It is a sacrifice to God, but it is done on our behalf, for starters. And it’s more, as I’ve said earlier, it’s also the wedding feast of the Lamb. I, we, are there as the Church, the bride of the marriage, with Christ being the bridegroom - it’s our mystical union with Him that is being celebrated.

To that extent it certainly is about, among other things, us laity gathered there. We as laity are so important to the Mass that there cannot even BE a Mass without at least one lay person present. So when the priest, representing our bridegroom, doesn’t even acknowledge us by facing towards us, then yes it can lead to feeling ‘shut out’, and it’s quite legitimate to prefer a form of Mass that doesn’t do that.

Agitation for change? I was an altar boy in the 1960’s. The laity weren’t calling for a change.

But a heck of a lot of them certainly enjoyed it (even excessively) when it came, didn’t they - to the point where many don’t want even now with all the problems to return to how it was. Just because they weren’t storming the aisles in the 1960s doesn’t mean they didn’t want, and weren’t working behind the scenes, for change.

In my opinion the OF in Latin is just like going to the OF in Spanish. WIthout a change in rubrics I just don’t see the point. I prefer the TLM because of the structure and the traditional music. Although I must say singing the Credo in Latin is beautiful. It has a great flow to it.

You get traditional music with Latin NOs as well - and, as I’ve already said there are good reasons to have the NO in Latin along with every other language it is in. Some people prefer the prayers and rubrics as they are in the NO, and at the same time also prefer, as Vatican 2 requested, the retention of Latin as well.