Latin returning to Mass

[Joe_Gloor]

MrS:

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.

Other than #9 you could be describing the “Last Supper”.

 

[BillyT92679]

MrS:

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

Well, Pius XII brought forth the Dialogue Mass where the congregation did audibly reply along with the servers, so active participation has a tradition pre Vatican II.

 

[MrS]

Joe Gloor:

Other than #9 you could be describing the “Last Supper”.

Why do you suppose it is referred to as the Last Supper… and not the First Supper. Yes, just a play on words, but think about the High Priest and the concelebrants at this First Mass. They were not facing the people (there were none). Further, they were incorporating strong Jewish Tradition of the Passover which is the precursor to the Mass.

The Mass is not the Last Supper… it is the fulfillment of the Passover… where we HAVE TO eat the Lamb.

Once the Mass came to be universally “standard” it had the 9+ items I mentioned… until the dawn of the lay-liturgists.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

MrS:

Why do you suppose it is referred to as the Last Supper… and not the First Supper. Yes, just a play on words, but think about the High Priest and the concelebrants at this First Mass. They were not facing the people (there were none). Further, they were incorporating strong Jewish Tradition of the Passover which is the precursor to the Mass.

The Mass is not the Last Supper… it is the fulfillment of the Passover… where we HAVE TO eat the Lamb.

Once the Mass came to be universally “standard” it had the 9+ items I mentioned… until the dawn of the lay-liturgists.

I believe the “Last Supper” is considered the institution of the Eucharist.

 

[MrS]

BillyT92679:

Well, Pius XII brought forth the Dialogue Mass where the congregation did audibly reply along with the servers, so active participation has a tradition pre Vatican II.

yes and no

the change was made, yes

active participation does not require the physical… it is referring to the spiritual and mental participation in what is happening

 

[MrS]

Joe Gloor:

I believe the “Last Supper” is considered the institution of the Eucharist.

and the ministerial priesthood

 

[BillyT92679]

MrS:

yes and no

the change was made, yes

active participation does not require the physical… it is referring to the spiritual and mental participation in what is happening

That’s self-evident. But we’re not incorporeal beings either.

I attend the Indult Mass on a pretty regular basis. It’s beautiful but there is absolutely no reason why the people cannot reply et cum spiritu tuo, Deo gracias, the Confiteor, etc. Like it or not, for those who aren’t completely aware of the necessity of Praying the Mass, it does generate (for these people) the idea that subjective, paraliturgical worship, is equally acceptable. Praying the Rosary at Mass is not intended, but it’s not a surprise at the Tridentine Mass either. That is the raison d’etre of Sancrosanctum Concilium. It becomes, unintentionally, a platitude to refer to spiritual and mental participation for everyone as satisfactorily active.

Going back to St. Pius X himself, there was a push to encourage the laity to not idly be in the pews but to be involved in some way. The 1965 Roman Missal (and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostum) are the best examples of retaining the sacred, the distinct, in traditional worship while encouraging a universal call to holiness. Orthopraxis

 

[Nicholas_Larkin]

This is really exciting! Latin is the official Language of the Church and as Pope Benedict has said, it was never meant to be totally taken out of the Mass. This is exciting, to see the Church go back to traditionalisim and orthdoxy!

 

[palmas85]

Joe Gloor:

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:

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.

I don’t really think that the views of the people on this forum and the passion with which they take their religion is indicative of the average catholic. No, most peopel on this forum are highly motivated in the faith.

Since we have pretty much exhausted our options so to speak, I will ask you a question. Do you see the Church as a whole better now than pre Vatican II?
.
Is it’s condition better, are the Masses better and has the church as a whole done what was expected and gone the direction that it was intended too? Do the people have a “closer relationship” with God and are things running smoothly? Is moopre reverence shown in Mass thna in the woe be gotten Pre Vatican II days when apparently no one knew what was going on? And finally are more people going to mass these days?

 

[palmas85]

Joe Gloor:

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.

I have been to masses all over the country Joe. It is not just California. California doesn’t even compare with what I endured, is that too strong a word, in south Texas in the 80’s and 90’s. No, it’s nationwide. And I’ll tell you this too, it;s not the Church so much as it’s us.

 

[palmas85]

Joe Gloor:

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

Yeah but you should have been here for it. It was a classic

 

[Nicholas_Larkin]

Yes there are fewer Catholics attending Mass than in 1962, but we have no proof to say that it would not be like this if there had not been a Vatican II Novus Ordus Mass! The Holy Spirit is the guider of the Church, and if he tells the Pope to call a council and revise we follow. We do not pick and choose. Maybe there is a lot of liberlisim in the Church, especially in the US, but that does not mean you cannot be orthdox. You don’t like liberlisim, do something about it. We can change the Church together through Prayer, and through talking to our Pastors and local Ordinaries. God Bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

I don’t really think that the views of the people on this forum and the passion with which they take their religion is indicative of the average catholic. No, most peopel on this forum are highly motivated in the faith.

Since we have pretty much exhausted our options so to speak, I will ask you a question. Do you see the Church as a whole better now than pre Vatican II? **And this is where we have the whole “correlation doesn’t prove causation” discussion. **
.
Is it’s condition better, are the Masses better and has the church as a whole done what was expected and gone the direction that it was intended too? Do the people have a “closer relationship” with God and are things running smoothly? Is moopre reverence shown in Mass thna in the woe be gotten Pre Vatican II days when apparently no one knew what was going on? And finally are more people going to mass these days?

**The Church is always in an uproar after a council. It takes decades for the dust to settle and for everyone to get on the same page. You sound (and I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong) as if you don’t think a council should have been called, that we should have just carried on as is. Blessed John XXIII thought differently. He was the Pope. **

BTW, I wish to publicly apologize to you, Palmas, if you felt I jumped you in a "hateful " way. I don’t think I have a hateful attitude to Latin in the Mass, as you asserted, however. I don’t have time right now to address this, but I will in the near future.

 

[AJV]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

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?

Sorry netmil(name removed by moderator), I guess I don’t use the right words very often. Perhaps “bashing” was too strong a word, but I was not too pleased with the comparison of the Mass with a Protestant service. Perhaps I’ve just been exposed to a more conservative enviroment but I believe that the Mass is anything but Protestant- if it was why haven’t many Protestants converted to the Faith? And some of the reasons given are just frankly silly. Sorry again if I seem to be insulting anyone- that was never my intention.

The Anglicans say the Creed with the word “Apostolic” in it- what are we to conclude from that? In fact, with the newest CofE supplemental worship- the Common Worship- it is possible to mimic the NO to a certain extent without compromising on their “official” doctrine (which isa matter of debate)

 

[palmas85]

**The Church is always in an uproar after a council. It takes decades for the dust to settle and for everyone to get on the same page. You sound (and I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong) as if you don’t think a council should have been called, that we should have just carried on as is. Blessed John XXIII thought differently. He was the Pope. **

BTW, I wish to publicly apologize to you, Palmas, if you felt I jumped you in a "hateful " way. I don’t think I have a hateful attitude to Latin in the Mass, as you asserted, however. I don’t have time right now to address this, but I will in the near future.

You know Kirk, I really don’t have a problem with what Vatican II proposed. I’ve read a lot of the documents, not all, but a whole lot that came out of that council. Quite frankly in theory, everything shouild be great or at least moving in the right direction.

No, I just think it unfortunate that Vatican II occured in the 60’s, which was a very tumultuous time anyway, and quite frankly probably not the bwst time to give people a lot of freedom to change things, experiment and look for something better.

What I think happened is this. With the drafts hot off the press, and inm many cases not even off the press yet, certain elements within the church saw the opportunity to push their agendas, and they did. They saw the freedom to experiment as being fully in line with the Spirit of the Documents. Most Catholics, being used to strict obedience, did not stand up and resist, believing as many do today that the church, the institutuional church that is, can never be wrong or in errror. Therefore the reformers had virtually a free pass Anything went and nobody knew how or where to begin to stop it… As many said once the toothpaste was out of the tube, you couldn’t put it back.

The Vatican apparently was not pleased at everytjing that happened, and in true beaurocratic fashion has tried repeatedly over the years to reign things in a bit. As we both know they have had some success but relatively little.

Now was it all bad, no. was it all good, no. The effects on the Church are obvious. What lies in the future, who knows. Interesting times to be alive though, I’ll tell you that.

 

[MrS]

palmas85:

Since we have pretty much exhausted our options so to speak, I will ask you a question. Do you see the Church as a whole better now than pre Vatican II?
.
Is it’s condition better, are the Masses better and has the church as a whole done what was expected and gone the direction that it was intended too? Do the people have a “closer relationship” with God and are things running smoothly? Is moopre reverence shown in Mass thna in the woe be gotten Pre Vatican II days when apparently no one knew what was going on? And finally are more people going to mass these days?

I saw a comment about you perhaps not even wanting those “troublesome” councils. I don’t see that in you at all.

I feel your thinking is that the abuses we perceive as abuses today came after VatII, and not as a direct result of VatII.

They are a direct result of
1- over active laity and litergical/worship committees acting without oversight… and
2- under active clergy and magisterium non acting with their oversight

And if that is close to your position… I can agree

 

[AJV]

Haven’t we been through this before?

MrS:

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.

The Orthodox hold their liturgical services such as the Divine Liturgy in the vernacular, sometimes to an extent sometimes wholly.

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

Come on. The Mass was said audibly for the first few centuries and the belief in the ministerial priesthood was just as strong then as in the centuries where it was said silently.

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

Inidently, the Anglican prayer book still has two readings. Are they Catholic?

The Orthodox have three readings. Some have 4 or 5. And what is so particularly wrong about reading Scripture anyway.

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

What is so offensive here? It has only recently become the practise of the more liturgical of the Protestants to allow the laity to read. Readings were usually performed by a parish clerk.

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.

The Mass is both a Sacrifice and a meal. As for facing the people, I’m not in agreement but again facing the people was not always Protestant. In fact (and excuse my familiarity with mainly the Anglicans) but the Protestant explanation of a rubric in their (Anglican) prayer book held that the priest/presbyter/mister was to face North never the people. They copied the Catholics! Additionally behold the Divine Litugy of St. James as celebrated in an Orthodox Church
Westward facing.

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.

Don’t know about everyone else but the practis ehere is to kneel for the most sacred parts of the Mass. Again, also don’t know which Protestants you’re referring to but the custom in the Anglican/Lutheran churches (the most liturgical) was and is to kneel for Communion. The others anyway don’t stand- they sit. Standing was I suppose a reinstatement of the Eastern practice- and I know that His Beatitude Maximos argued in favour of that practice.

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

Some of the Assyrians receive on the hand. They definitely aren’t Protestant and have quite a strong belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament

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

Indeed? What about the Orthodox. Those of the Byzantine tradition commune via a form of intiction but the Copts and the Assyrians and others commune separately 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.

I disagree with that. Added to the fact that the people actually here the word “sacrifice” more than when the Mass was said silently.

Back to this thread… a discussion of point #1

That’s the one point in your post where I find myself in agreement

 

[AJV]

Nicholas Larkin:

This is really exciting! Latin is the official Language of the Church and as Pope Benedict has said, it was never meant to be totally taken out of the Mass. This is exciting, to see the Church go back to traditionalisim and orthdoxy!

I disagree that orthodoxy means a return to Latin. One can be perfectly orthodox without the Latin.

P.S. I actually like Latin

 

[palmas85]

AJV:

Sorry netmil(name removed by moderator), I guess I don’t use the right words very often. Perhaps “bashing” was too strong a word, but I was not too pleased with the comparison of the Mass with a Protestant service. Perhaps I’ve just been exposed to a more conservative enviroment but I believe that the Mass is anything but Protestant- if it was why haven’t many Protestants converted to the Faith? And some of the reasons given are just frankly silly. Sorry again if I seem to be insulting anyone- that was never my intention.

The Anglicans say the Creed with the word “Apostolic” in it- what are we to conclude from that? In fact, with the newest CofE supplemental worship- the Common Worship- it is possible to mimic the NO to a certain extent without compromising on their “official” doctrine (which isa matter of debate)

I think the answer as to why more Protestants have not converted to the faith can be traced back to one incident. The assasination attempt on Pope John Paul II, of Blessed memory, I can’t use the little abbreviation JPII, sorry, it seems disrespectful. Prior to that incident, ecumenism was moving right on along as the differences between Catholicism and mainstrean protestants were downplayed, ignored and swept under the rug so to speak.

The huge areas of contention between Catholics and protestants were and still are the sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation Marian devotion and Purgatory There are of course others, but those are the big ones along with papal infallibility. I have already said what I think about the reasons for the changing of the mass. In addition in those days as well as now there were a sizeable number of Catholics who either did not believe in the theory of transubstantiation or felt that it applied to all, not only baptized Catholics.

Those who were alive know that after Vatican II Marian devotion was not as pronounced as it was before, and it was in fact downplayed significantly. In fact it was not unusual in those days to hear priests and theologians speaking of Marian devotions such as the rosary as being un-biblical old time catholic beliefs and not in line with the spirit of Vatican II, whatever that means. Devotion to Mary plummeted, in many places it was like she didn’t exist. When Purgatory was talked about at all it was explained that well, it really isn’t a place but a state of purification, and no Catholic has to go there, in fact many don’t. But sometimes, rarely the purification extends after death.

So you had the Mass constantly referred to as the meal, communion basically given to anyone who wanted to receive, little public devotion to the Blessed Mother and the doctrine of purgatory downplayed and explained away in somewhat convincing terms. Papal infallibility was still a hot issue, but being worked on. The stage was set, full re-unification was possible.

Then came the assasination attempt. Now in that incident Pope John Paull II, believed and told people that his life was saved by the Blessed Virgin…He said he saw her, and turned slightly just before he was shot, saving his life. The Holy Father encouraged more devotion to Mary, publically… Based on that, Marian devotion started to increase… Many of his advisors were said to be aghast that he did that, because that proved to everyone that Mary still held a prominent place in the Catholic faith. Protestants generally found that to be abhorrent and thus really began the decline of I believe, the ecumenical spirit that Vatican II trumpeted.

They, protestants, said the Catholic Church really hadn’t changed at all and still clung to un biblical and cultish beliefs. Protestant apologists like Dave Hunt and Hank Hannegraff siezed this opportunity and began trashing the Church as often as they could. That is why, I think, more protestants have not converted.

Which in reality is probably a good thing… If what they were converting to wasn’t really what Catholicism is, were they really converting? To be a Catholic in name only, isn’t really being Catholic at all.

 

[BillyT92679]

palmas85:

You know Kirk, I really don’t have a problem with what Vatican II proposed. I’ve read a lot of the documents, not all, but a whole lot that came out of that council. Quite frankly in theory, everything shouild be great or at least moving in the right direction.

No, I just think it unfortunate that Vatican II occured in the 60’s, which was a very tumultuous time anyway, and quite frankly probably not the bwst time to give people a lot of freedom to change things, experiment and look for something better.

What I think happened is this. With the drafts hot off the press, and inm many cases not even off the press yet, certain elements within the church saw the opportunity to push their agendas, and they did. They saw the freedom to experiment as being fully in line with the Spirit of the Documents. Most Catholics, being used to strict obedience, did not stand up and resist, believing as many do today that the church, the institutuional church that is, can never be wrong or in errror. Therefore the reformers had virtually a free pass Anything went and nobody knew how or where to begin to stop it… As many said once the toothpaste was out of the tube, you couldn’t put it back.

The Vatican apparently was not pleased at everytjing that happened, and in true beaurocratic fashion has tried repeatedly over the years to reign things in a bit. As we both know they have had some success but relatively little.

Now was it all bad, no. was it all good, no. The effects on the Church are obvious. What lies in the future, who knows. Interesting times to be alive though, I’ll tell you that.

The thing is, the Church, the Institutional Visible Society Hierarchically Structured Bride of Christ, CANNOT be in error or wrong. It is spotless. It is our Holy Mother and we are to submit to her and to the Vicar of Christ with full assent of will.
Individuals within the Church can be, and sometimes are, wrong or in error.
Papal Infallability is limited of course, but we are still to give assents of the will to all Papal pronouncements and documents.