Latin returning to Mass

[Joe_Gloor]

tee_eff_em:

That seems quite a leap.
And what feeling ought I expect when I notice the poor fellow next to me not following the vernacular?
tee

Self-righteous indignation and scorn. :tsktsk:
Okay, I’m just getting silly.
You don’t think it happens?
I usually feel embarassed for someone who isn’t following the Mass, but if it’s in the vernacular, it’s probably because he doesn’t want to, not because he doesn’t know it.

 

[dljl]

I wonder what percentage of supporters of the Tridentine mass are younger (non baby boomers).

 

[palmas85]

Joe Gloor:

No you don’t - but alas you haven’t. I recall the Tridentine Mass myself and found it wanting. And you still haven’t explained why V2 would change something that didn’t need changing.

Well, I can only say this in response. The Holy Father granted the indult which allows the Traditional Mass to be celebrated. It is to be celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Changes are not allowed. If there was something wrong with it, why would he allow it to be celebrated as it was? And in particular, why would it be specified that it be done according to the 1962 Missal instead of in some new way?.

On the other hand, the Novus Ordo is currently undergoing changes and has since it’s inception. Having lived through 40 years of it I can attest to that. But then again it was designed to accomodate changes, new attitudes and to be more relevent to the people, so change is to be expected. I even recall the sisters back in the day saying that we should see the Mass not as a rigid ritual, but as a living breathing organism that reaches out to everyone differently and that everyone can relate to on his own and at his own level. A communal gathering, a fresh start a new way to experience God in our life. All very 60ish and everything.

I think the facts speak for themselves. The Traditional Mass was not changed by Vatican II, it was not abolished and was not relegated to the trash heap. No matter how much you put it down the fact remains that the Vatican saw a need to continue it and they did. Far from dying out on its own, as some thought it would, it grew, prospered and expanded. It continues to do just that. Those are the facts, no matter how much you try to deny them.

Sorry about that.

 

[MrS]

dljl:

I don’t think we should force latin on anyone, however the Holy Father created a mechanism for the offering of the indult Tridentine mass, but the reality is that the choice does not exist for most Catholics. Why is this?

Joe Gloom (and doom) gave an incorrect, or least minimal answer.

We do not see a more widespread offering of the TLM because:

[1] for decades, the seminaries taught little or no Latin
[2] for decades, we saw the elevation to bishop of too many priests poorly catechised in their own faith (it is shocking how many priests in their 50’s+ don’t even know what the word apologetics means)
[3] the lay litergists (no Latin scholars here) put emphasis on participation not understanding.
[4] too many Catholics were interested in the secular happenings on any given Sunday… Mass took last place.

but…

the times… they are a changing

 

[Joe_Gloor]

palmas85:

If there was something wrong with it, why would he allow it to be celebrated as it was? And in particular, why would it be specified that it be done according to the 1962 Missal instead of in some new way?..
Sorry about that.

No need to apologize. Especially if it’s not sincere.
I am not trying to say that there was anything wrong with the Mass (not being a “Traditional Mass hater”).
I am saying that the Church needed a new Mass for a reason.
What do you think that reason was?

 

[MrS]

Joe Gloor:

No need to apologize. Especially if it’s not sincere.
I am not trying to say that there was anything wrong with the Mass (not being a “Traditional Mass hater”).
I am saying that the Church needed a new Mass for a reason.
What do you think that reason was?

To get more people to church? Nope, that didn’t work

To get more kids up on Sunday? Nope, that didn’t work.

To get more parents to love the sacraments? Nope. same reason

To get help people understand what was going on? Nope, they understand now less than before (less believe in the Real Presence)

To save a tree? YEP… no missals, no hymnals, etc saves lots of paper

To appease Prots? YEP… now our “service” looks a lot more like theirs… oh happy day - we can all get along.

any other suggestions…

other than the Church did not NEED any new mass… those in it perhaps, WANTED it.

Come to think of it, didn’t Burger King come into existence around then??? Whose motto is "… have it your way…)

 

[Confiteor]

MrS:

Joe Gloom (and doom) gave an incorrect, or least minimal answer.

We do not see a more widespread offering of the TLM because:

[1] for decades, the seminaries taught little or no Latin
[2] for decades, we saw the elevation to bishop of too many priests poorly catechised in their own faith (it is shocking how many priests in their 50’s+ don’t even know what the word apologetics means)
[3] the lay litergists (no Latin scholars here) put emphasis on participation not understanding.
[4] too many Catholics were interested in the secular happenings on any given Sunday… Mass took last place.

but…

the times… they are a changing

Yep! First, the fundamentals: they have to be interested in going to Mass before they will care enough to discern which Mass. Second, believing in the Real Presence (which we’re told many don’t) encourages a love for the liturgy being done properly, be it in English or Latin. And third, those priests ordained in the 70’s do seem to like to flaunt their lack of education in the classical disciplines…I’ve never heard our priest include a Latin phrase, not even the Agnus Dei. He seems proud of the fact that he nearly flunked out of the seminary, a story he relates close on the heels of St. John Vianney…However, he doesn’t spend too much time in the confessional either, so I’m not sure about that comparison…And his sermons are mostly an ad libbed list of the weekly announcements with a few references to God’s love. The younger priests, though, seem more eager to include Latin, give serious researched and prepared homilies…So there is hope for us yet. There are exceptions to every rule, though, and the pastor of the church that generated this thread is one. He is known for good homilies (some are online) and wonderful liturgies, including the Novus Ordo Solemn Latin Mass at his previous parish.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

MrS:

Joe Gloom (and doom)

No reason to get personal, I’m really quite cheery!

MrS:

We do not see a more widespread offering of the TLM because:

[1] for decades, the seminaries taught little or no Latin

Since it wasn’t going to be used, it would have been pointless.

[2]
for decades, we saw the elevation to bishop of too many priests poorly catechised in their own faith (it is shocking how many priests in their 50’s+ don’t even know what the word apologetics means)

You’re gonna have to name names, here - all the Bishops I know are quite well catechised. Even the ones who are out on the ‘edge’ of Catholicism know the Faith, their understanding of it is just ‘different’.

[3]
the lay liturgists (no Latin scholars here) put emphasis on participation not understanding.

Versus understanding and not participating.

[4]
too many Catholics were interested in the secular happenings on any given Sunday… Mass took last place.

This never happened before Vatican II.

MrS:

but…

the times… they are a changing

Thanks, MrS Dylan.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

maklavan:

Dream on, my dears. This is yet another of these apocryphal stories propagated by the desperate elements in the Church who have never accepted the work of the Church since 1962. Let’s have a look at the facts, for a change. There are 1.1 billion Catholics in the world. 99.9% use the vernacular. The vast majority do not know or care about latin. Do you really think they are going to rush to embrace the dead language? Those who push for a return of latin belong to the Lefebvrist cult or other dissenting elements. They are a tiny group of no consequence except on some Catholic forums. Gregorian chant? excellent! The use of the great music written with latin words? why not? A return to latin as the universal language of the Mass? forget it.

Sorry. We’ve already determined on this board, after much debate, that Traditionalists comprise 10% of the worldwide Catholic population (which is actually 1.2 billion).

 

[Dr.Bombay]

MrS:

To get more people to church? Nope, that didn’t work

To get more kids up on Sunday? Nope, that didn’t work.

To get more parents to love the sacraments? Nope. same reason

To get help people understand what was going on? Nope, they understand now less than before (less believe in the Real Presence)

To save a tree? YEP… no missals, no hymnals, etc saves lots of paper

To appease Prots? YEP… now our “service” looks a lot more like theirs… oh happy day - we can all get along.

any other suggestions…

other than the Church did not NEED any new mass… those in it perhaps, WANTED it.

Come to think of it, didn’t Burger King come into existence around then??? Whose motto is "… have it your way…)

To increase priestly vocations?
To employ a bunch of vulgar-language translators?
To assist people who get a nervous twitch in their eye when they hear, “Et cum spiritu tuo.”?

Am I getting warmer?

 

[palmas85]

Joe Gloor:

No need to apologize. Especially if it’s not sincere.
I am not trying to say that there was anything wrong with the Mass (not being a “Traditional Mass hater”).
I am saying that the Church needed a new Mass for a reason.
What do you think that reason was?

I don’t think there was a valid reason other than wanting to downplay the sacrificial aspect to appease our separated brethren. What do you think the reason was?

.

 

[Ace86]

palmas85:

I don’t think there was a valid reason other than wanting to downplay the sacrificial aspect to appease our separated brethren. What do you think the reason was?

.

Who wants to downplay it? The Catechism says the Mass is the Most Holy Sacrifice.

 

[palmas85]

Ace86:

Who wants to downplay it? The Catechism says the Mass is the Most Holy Sacrifice.

Yes the catechism does correctly define it as such. However in practice most don’t see it in that light and I truly believe that is by design. For instance, the altar is normally called what these days? The table. An altar is for sacrifice, a table is for a meal. Just by that fact alone the entire sacrificial aspect is downplayed in favor of the communal aspect of the meal.

Protestants always hated and reviled the mass as continuing or re-enacting the sacrifice at Calvary thus denying the absolute salvation given by Christ to us. By obliquely emphasizing the meal aspect rather than the sacrificial aspect I suspect the designers of the Pauline Mass hoped to make the Mass more palatable to protestant tastes without really changing it’s focus too much… In all honesty, if you have been to a Lutheran communion service it is almost the same as a current mass.

 

[AJV]

palmas85:

In all honesty, if you have been to a Lutheran communion service it is almost the same as a current mass.

Oh? How so?

I have been to Anglican services for example. Many of the ‘higher’ and more liturgically minded of the separated brethren have started reintroducing liturgical worship and have started copying Latin Catholic and Eastern forms. Reintroduction of the Angus Dei, the Benedictus after the Sanctus and many other things that would have made a Protestant see red over 70 or so years back.

MrS:

To appease Prots? YEP… now our “service” looks a lot more like theirs… oh happy day - we can all get along.

Why is this turning into a NO bashing thread?

At the risk of hijacking the thread I would just like to know HOW the Mass is in any way “Protestant”?

 

[Confiteor]

palmas85:

Yes the catechism does correctly define it as such. However in practice most don’t see it in that light and I truly believe that is by design. For instance, the altar is normally called what these days? The table. An altar is for sacrifice, a table is for a meal. Just by that fact alone the entire sacrificial aspect is downplayed in favor of the communal aspect of the meal.

Also, if you look at the wording of the Eucharistic prayers, the shift from emphasis on sacrifice to communal meal/celebration is clear.

Protestants always hated and reviled the mass as continuing or re-enacting the sacrifice at Calvary thus denying the absolute salvation given by Christ to us. By obliquely emphasizing the meal aspect rather than the sacrificial aspect I suspect the designers of the Pauline Mass hoped to make the Mass more palatable to protestant tastes without really changing it’s focus too much… In all honesty, if you have been to a Lutheran communion service it is almost the same as a current mass.

Nowadays, except for fundamentalists, most Protestants are very comfortable coming to a Catholic Mass say for Christmas instead of their own denomination. They don’t seem to see much of a difference in the faith either.

 

[netmilsmom]

AJV:

I have been to Anglican services for example. Many of the ‘higher’ and more liturgically minded of the separated brethren have started reintroducing liturgical worship and have started copying Latin Catholic and Eastern forms. Reintroduction of the Angus Dei, the Benedictus after the Sanctus and many other things that would have made a Protestant see red over 70 or so years back.

Why is this turning into a NO bashing thread?

At the risk of hijacking the thread I would just like to know HOW the Mass is in any way “Protestant”?

I don’t think that this is turning into an NO bashing thread at all. It is may be a liturgical innovation bashing thread.

Come to my neighborhood, go to my former parish at 9:00 then to Trinity Lutheran at 11:00. To the non-Catholic eye or those Catholics who didn’t get proper CCD, if they do not believe in transubstantiation and therefore sees no significance to the consecration, the two “services” look the same.

Orans for the laity at different times
Hand holding and swaying
Piano playing
Preaching about “Jesus’ Love and Loving each other”
Hey, the Lutherans even say the Creed without the word “Apostolic”

Need I go on?

 

[Joe_Gloor]

palmas85:

I don’t think there was a valid reason other than wanting to downplay the sacrificial aspect to appease our separated brethren. What do you think the reason was?

I think the Holy Spirit moved through the Vatican Council.
I think the Cardinals determined that, even though the Traditional Mass was perfectly fine, the Catholic faithful needed a change to help them come closer to God. They felt that the people of the Church who (whom? - Anna, give me a hand here) they were serving needed a new form of the same Mass where the people could join more closely to the sacrifice.
The people needed to be told that, not just priests are called to Holiness, but all people of God have that calling.
The attribution of these problems:

MrS:

To get more people to church? Nope, that didn’t work
To get more kids up on Sunday? Nope, that didn’t work.
To get more parents to love the sacraments? Nope. same reason
To get help people understand what was going on? Nope, they understand now less than before (less believe in the Real Presence)
To save a tree? YEP… no missals, no hymnals, etc saves lots of paper
To appease Prots? YEP… now our “service” looks a lot more like theirs… oh happy day - we can all get along.

Dr. Bombay:

To increase priestly vocations?

to the new Mass or to Vatican II in general, is unfounded.
For example, there is no evidence that even fewer people would go to Mass had they not introduced the NO.
I believe God is taking care of His Church and always will.
I am not saying that God does or doesn’t want more Latin in the Liturgy, because I don’t have the direct line some of you apparently do.
The very existence of this forum shows that Catholics feel more involved in the matters of the Church than ever before - and this is one legacy of Vatican II to which I hope you cannot object.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Dr. Bombay:

Sorry. We’ve already determined on this board, after much debate, that Traditionalists comprise 10% of the worldwide Catholic population (which is actually 1.2 billion).

I missed that debate, but I question the scientific nature of this determination.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

palmas85:

Yes the catechism does correctly define it as such. However in practice most don’t see it in that light and I truly believe that is by design.

My friend, you need to get out of Kalifornia.
Our Masses here in ‘fly-over country’ are not at all like what you are describing.

 

[MrS]

AJV:

At the risk of hijacking the thread I would just like to know HOW the Mass is in any way “Protestant”?

Sorry… just getting back to this… after I watched my Pistons lose (2nd game in a row!!! :bigyikes: , went to bed,

Anyway: here’s a short list…

1]The Catholic Mass used to be in Latin
The Protestant service always in the vernacular.

2]Much of the Catholic Mass was priestly action… thus inaudible
The Protestant serice is people action… audible

3]Catholic Mass had two readings
Protestant service generally has three

4]Catholics employed the celebrant to read…never laity
Protestants have used laity (always if you question their ordination as valid )

5]The Mass was a solemn rite on a designated altar facing east (or liturgical east), leading the people, not facing the attendees.
A meal on a table facing the people.

6]The Catholic Mass had long periods of reverent kneeling, especially for the reception of the Real Presence.,
Protestant service - little or no kneeling, and the reception of communion by standing.

7]At the Catholic Mass, we received on the tongue.
At the Protestant Service, they received in the hand.

8]At the Catholic Mass, we received under one species (or intinction)
At the Protestant Service , communion under both kinds.

9]At the Catholic Mass, very frequent references to the Doctrines of the sacrifice of Christ, and the Real Presence.
At the Protestant service, no reference to the sacrifice (beyond what the congregation is offering), and only a mention of the Body and Blood of Christ.

*Since Vatican II, the Church Hierarchy has sought ways of getting more people to attend Mass… while innovative liturgists have choosen to make changes - perhaps only for the sake of change.

Back to this thread… a discussion of point #1*