Latin Rite Mass experiences? questions?

[RCIAGraduate]

Love and Peace through Him

Hello,may some here please describe their experiences with a Latin Mass as well as/and or answer my questions. Does the different language create a special kind of beauty that isn’t found in a conventional 21st century mass(in common tongues). And isn’t a Latin Rite Mass more difficult to proselytize towards non-Catholics who may convert via a mass due to the usage of a dead language? And did Catholics have to learn basic Latin back in those days-and finally do you believe Latin helps one become more “Catholic” in a sense?

 

[CompSciGuy]

Love and Peace through Him

Hello,may some here please describe their experiences with a Latin Mass as well as/and or answer my questions. Does the different language create a special kind of beauty that isn’t found in a conventional 21st century mass(in common tongues). And isn’t a Latin Rite Mass more difficult to proselytize towards non-Catholics who may convert via a mass due to the usage of a dead language? And did Catholics have to learn basic Latin back in those days-and finally do you believe Latin helps one become more “Catholic” in a sense?

I have been three times. It is not my preferred form. There are some who say they benefit spiritually from it, so it is good for them. I think the language makes it harder to follow but it is good for contemplation as some priests have told me before. Back in the old days people didn’t really follow along with the mass, it was said by the priest and not for the people to be heard, they sort of stayed in their pews and said their rosaries while the priest went through the motions. The gospel readings and homilies were still in the vernacular at the time.
Some people insist that the Latin mass is more reverent, I have to disagree. When I was converting I was very much drawn by the ordinary form of the mass and its distinct reverence. The use of Latin is ultimately a little-t tradition anyways, the apostles didn’t use it in Jerusalem, the Eastern Catholics don’t use it, it just happens to be the language of the Latin Rite (obviously) which came from Rome, hence Latin. Latin mass is good for those who love and benefit from it. It isn’t for everyone and shouldn’t be pushed on everyone nor should the ordinary form be demeaned or labeled as less reverent. They are both the mass.

 

[Ion]

Does anyone have a link to one posted on the internet?

 

[MaryT777]

I have been three times. It is not my preferred form. There are some who say they benefit spiritually from it, so it is good for them. I think the language makes it harder to follow but it is good for contemplation as some priests have told me before. Back in the old days people didn’t really follow along with the mass, it was said by the priest and not for the people to be heard, they sort of stayed in their pews and said their rosaries while the priest went through the motions. The gospel readings and homilies were still in the vernacular at the time.
Some people insist that the Latin mass is more reverent, I have to disagree. When I was converting I was very much drawn by the ordinary form of the mass and its distinct reverence. The use of Latin is ultimately a little-t tradition anyways, the apostles didn’t use it in Jerusalem, the Eastern Catholics don’t use it, it just happens to be the language of the Latin Rite (obviously) which came from Rome, hence Latin. Latin mass is good for those who love and benefit from it. It isn’t for everyone and shouldn’t be pushed on everyone nor should the ordinary form be demeaned or labeled as less reverent. They are both the mass.

Well said.

The interest in our Latin Mass dwindled quite a bit after many people attended
for the experience. I myself noted it was difficult to follow in the Latin and grew to appreciate the ordinary form of the Mass much more.

I did like how quiet and reverent it was. Much quieter for prayer.

 

[Ion]

Does anyone have a link to one posted on the internet?

I did find some links but they are short kind of 1 hour…Should be a little more than 2 hours…
All of them are filmed recently so I might not find any traditional mass posted.

 

[theyoungmonk]

I attend the Old Rite Mass pretty much exclusively and have done so since relatively soon after being received into the Church. I find that the Old Mass better expresses the truths of the Faith the extra genuflections of the Mass show our belief in and reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament.

Now onto what I feel is your main point of interest, the Latin language. I find that the Latin adds a certain something to the celebration it highlights the mystery. If one wants to follow along with every single prayer they are welcome to use a missal which contains a translation of the Mass into their native language. Speaking of native language the Mass when celebrated in Latin whether Old or New Rite is far more inclusive as whoever is at the Mass and whether you go you can participate in the same way you did at home. It also means their is no division in the community with the Hispanic population at one Mass and the English speaking population at another, instead everyone can come and join together in worship. Now if that does not build the “People of God” then I don’t know what can.

On the matter of converts there have been a number of notable converts who were converted first of all by the Old Liturgy, the first example to pop into my head was Oscar Wilde.

Well those of us who attend a Mass said in Latin normally “pick up” the language so to speak, we certainly know the meaning of the Common of the Mass (that which is said at every Mass) and a lot of other common or famous prayers, but beyond that it varies between people in the congregation as to how much each person knows.

Below I furnish two links to position papers published by the FIUV (an international group promoting the Old Rite) which may answer some of your questions in more detail.

Latin

On Active Participation

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Does anyone have a link to one posted on the internet?

youtube.com/watch?v=aqIl7IB3n4g

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Does the different language create a special kind of beauty . . .

Yes; it communicates mystery and sacredness, and contributes to a reverent atmosphere.

And isn’t a Latin Rite Mass more difficult to proselytize towards non-Catholics . . .

It has worked pretty well for over 1,500 years. Since the modern changes in the liturgy, Mass attendance has not increased, but in fact dramatically the opposite. I do not say the changes to the liturgy were the cause of the decrease in attendance, but neither has it been the ecumenical miracle that many thought it would be.

God is transcendent and mysterious and makes demands. I think most people realize this at some level and expect it. What keeps people away from the Church is not an “inaccessible” liturgy, but hard hearts, ignorance, cowardice, prejudice, bad examples, and the like.

And did Catholics have to learn basic Latin back in those days

Have to? No, but in “those days” even public schools included it as part of their curriculum. Nevertheless, a knowledge of Latin is not necessary fully to participate in the Mass.

and finally do you believe Latin helps one become more “Catholic” in a sense?

I wouldn’t say that, but praying with the official language of the Holy See is most certainly a bond of unity across centuries and cultures.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Botom line: Christ instituted the Mass in the vernacular, not Latin. The apostles and all in the early Church celebrated the Eucharist in their vernaculars. Latin did not become the universal language of the Mass until the Church members in the Roman Empire acquired their own mastery of Latin, which had become for them the vernacular.

Latin is now a dead language. Those who understand the Latin Mass are precious few. They are welcome to it. I don’t know how on earth Protestants can be inspired by attending a Latin Mass. The great converts who came into the Church came I think for reasons other than the Latin Mass.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

The great converts who came into the Church came I think for reasons other than the Latin Mass.

Which ones?

Bl. John Henry Newman said he could not get enough of it. Fr. Faber, who famously called it “the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven,” wrote:

It came forth out of the grand mind of the Church, and lifted us out of earth and out of self, and wrapped us round in a cloud of mystical sweetness and the sublimities of a more than angelic liturgy, and purified us almost without ourselves, and charmed us with the celestial charming, so that our very senses seemed to find vision, hearing, fragrance, taste, and touch beyond what earth can give. (Gihr, Nikolaus. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. St. Louis: Herder, 1902. – Part II, Sect. 33; p. 337)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ad Orientam
**
Which ones?**

All of them! The Latin Mass, no matter how much you like it, cannot possibly by itself be the cause of conversion.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

The Latin Mass, no matter how much you like it, cannot possibly by itself be the cause of conversion.

Who said it was? You wrote, “for reasons other than,” which excludes the old liturgy of Mass as a reason (attraction, influence, or cause), even among others, for converting. I gave two examples of great converts for whom it was clearly, at least, an attraction.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

You wrote, “for reasons other than,” which excludes the old liturgy of Mass as a reason (attraction, influence, or cause), even among others, for converting.

No one converts to the Catholic faith because of the Latin Mass. They convert because they realize the faith is true, not because the Mass was celebrated in a dead language that at last is dead and gone.

I’m sticking with Jesus, who no doubt instituted the Eucharist in the vernacular, certainly not in Latin!

Latin did not become the official language of the Mass until Christianity became the official language of the Empire. I daresay the Christians who lived and died during the four centuries before that loved their vernacular Mass as much as we love ours.

You are welcome to your Latin Mass if it makes you a better Catholic. I just don’t see why it should.

 

[Evan]

Does the different language create a special kind of beauty . . .

Yes; it communicates mystery and sacredness, and contributes to a reverent atmosphere.

Of course this may occur with any mass offered in a language that the congregation does not speak.

I have found masses in Korean and Bangla are just as comprehensible as those in Latin, when offered reverently. Of course, the Korean and Bangla masses were very reverent.

I have also been to some masses in English that were very reverent and they can add to the mystery.

Try going to a Latin mass, with a bunch of screaming kids in the back, some people reading their paper (cause only their spouse is Catholic), a lot of people coughing (if it’s flu season) and the beauty of the mass remains ONLY if you are present to the sacrament. I don’t think it’s necessarily that particular language.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

a dead language that at last is dead and gone

Your triumphalism is not only unfounded (Latin is here to stay), but repugnant to the mind of the Church.

“If any one saith . . . that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only . . . let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Sess. 22, Ch. 9, Can. 9.

“The use of the Latin language … is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” – Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, para. 36.

“The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety… We must not hold in low esteem these traditions of your fathers, which were your glory for centuries.” – Pope Paul VI, Sacrificium Laudis, August 15, 1966

It’s not about Latin finally, but that’s a topic for another thread.

 

[snarflemike]

You wrote, “for reasons other than,” which excludes the old liturgy of Mass as a reason (attraction, influence, or cause), even among others, for converting.

No one converts to the Catholic faith because of the Latin Mass. They convert because they realize the faith is true, not because the Mass was celebrated in a dead language that at last is dead and gone.

A great many have converted in part because of the beauty and sublimity of the liturgy. Conversion is as often a thing of the heart as a thing of the head, and the Church recognizes this, and recognizes that beauty and sublimity is very often lacking in liturgy today.

And a “dead” language can offer benefits in liturgy, in that word meanings don’t keep changing. It also helps keep diverse communities from self-segregating into the Spanish Mass and the English Mass and the Vietnamese Mass etc, etc. Anybody who lives in such a parish knows that this is a real problem.

And I go to Mass in English, so don’t assume what you may have been assuming.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ad
**
“If any one saith . . . that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only . . . let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Sess. 22, Ch. 9, Can. 9.**

I never said this! Read my posts instead of reading into them! I wished you well with your Latin Mass. It isn’t for me! Don’t tell me there is no spirituality to be found in the English Mass that compares with the Latin Mass.

By the way, when and where did you learn all that Latin that changes from day to day in the Latin Mass? Do you believe all Catholics would benefit by learning Latin to the extent that a priest would learn it?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Snarf
**
Conversion is as often a thing of the heart as a thing of the head, and the Church recognizes this, and recognizes that beauty and sublimity is very often lacking in liturgy today.**

I agree with this. But I don’t believe Latin by itself the reason we have lost the love of liturgy.

We lost the love of liturgy because shallow minded liberals got in and decided the guitar was the instrument of choice rather than the organ. And yes, many other reasons too many to list here.

 

[djames99]

Love and Peace through Him

Hello,may some here please describe their experiences with a Latin Mass as well as/and or answer my questions. Does the different language create a special kind of beauty that isn’t found in a conventional 21st century mass(in common tongues). And isn’t a Latin Rite Mass more difficult to proselytize towards non-Catholics who may convert via a mass due to the usage of a dead language? And did Catholics have to learn basic Latin back in those days-and finally do you believe Latin helps one become more “Catholic” in a sense?

I know my sisters also had a latin class as well as religious instruction in Catholic High schools back in 56. It’s too bad all these traditions are lost. I think the sung Extraordinary High Mass is the most beautiful liturgy a Catholic has going for him, a real grace.

 

[sw85]

Does the different language create a special kind of beauty that isn’t found in a conventional 21st century mass(in common tongues).

It certainly emphasizes the transcendent and divine character of the mysteries you’re there to contemplate. It’s absolutely unlike anything you’ll experience in the world. Many people are alienated by that. Then again, many people feel at home in the world.

That reminds me of a qualm someone had about the corrected translation of the Mass in English. They complained that people understand “one in being” but not “consubstantial.” Really? You get what “one in being” means? English enables you to perfectly comprehend the mystery of the Trinity? On the contrary, it risks lulling you into a sense of familiarity and complacency, and we all know what familiarity breeds. The Mass being in Latin presents you forcefully with your own littleness, your own ignorance, your own darkness; far from lowering itself to meet you, it forces you to elevate yourself, to rise up to it.

And isn’t a Latin Rite Mass more difficult to proselytize towards non-Catholics who may convert via a mass due to the usage of a dead language?

That’s certainly the claim made today, and I suppose it might’ve been plausible years and years ago. Yet adult conversions were higher when the Latin Mass was still in widespread use so obviously it isn’t/wasn’t an impediment, except maybe for the proud, who demand conversion on their own terms.

And did Catholics have to learn basic Latin back in those days-and finally do you believe Latin helps one become more “Catholic” in a sense?

Yes, they did. They had a generally more solid Catholic structure available to help them learn these things, though, too. If you want to learn it today you’re more or less on your own. Thankfully it’s a very, very easy language to learn to pronounce.

Botom line: Christ instituted the Mass in the vernacular, not Latin.

I don’t think anyone ever justified the use of Latin in the liturgy on the grounds that Christ used it, so this is kind of a red herring.