Latin Rite Mass experiences? questions?

[Charlemagne_II]

sw85

**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. **

Not at all. It is relevant that Christ chose the vernacular. That is my point. Whatever sublime attributes anyone wants to give to Latin, fine, enjoy them. But I think you should only enjoy them if you understand Latin as a second language. Otherwise, what is the point? Does anyone actually want to sit through a Mass not understanding a word of what is spoken?

Understand that when Christ used the vernacular to institute the Eucharist, that was the most sublime moment in liturgical history.

 

[sw85]

**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. **

Not at all. It is relevant that Christ chose the vernacular. That is my point.

No, it’s the opposite of relevant, because, again, no one ever justified the use of Latin in the liturgy by reference to the language Jesus spoke. So objecting “But Jesus didn’t speak Latin!” is, uh, irrelevant. And an objection that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand is a red herring. So it seems your point was, what, to barge in on a thread in which a person was asking questions about the experience of the EF Mass and to berate him for his legitimate curiosity?

Forgive my impatience, but this is such a frustrating canard, one that needs so badly to die, yet so stubbornly refuses to. How many times must I hear it parroted word-for-word, as if so many hundreds or thousands of people are all just speakers hooked up to the same microphone. Do you think it’s some kind of brilliant insight that Jesus didn’t speak Latin at the last supper? That you’re the first in 2000 years to notice? That generations and generations of Popes, bishops, priests, holy men and women, martyrs, saints, theologians, doctors of the Church, etc., all burning with an ardent love of the Mass the way their rite had always celebrated it, were all just ignorant? That they had no better reason for celebrating it in Latin than going with the flow? Don’t you think the consensus of generations of better men than you commands a little more deference?

Do you realize how radically at odds with the Church’s your position is? It tells us that Latin should retain pride of place in the liturgy, it bemoans constantly its total removal almost everywhere, it goes to great strides to restore it where possible. And of course it tells us that Latin is the normative language of our rite, that the use of the vernacular is a temporary, prudential concession to the circumstances of the present age. Never once has its been position been “Latin – pfah!”

That is my point. Whatever sublime attributes anyone wants to give to Latin, fine, enjoy them.

Not without hectoring from you first, apparently!

to sit through a Mass not understanding a word of what is spoken?

The Mass isn’t a macroeconomics lecture! You don’t take notes! It’s not even about you!

 

[snarflemike]

Does anyone actually want to sit through a Mass not understanding a word of what is spoken?

That’s neither accurate nor fair. Latin/English Missals were available everywhere. I got one for my 1st communion. One could just as well argue that the act of reading the translations made for greater participation in the liturgy than simply listening to them in the vernacular. I won’t make that argument, but I think it’s as much or more defensible as yours is.

Even when vernacular languages are used, they are quite often archaic versions (the English of the Church of England, the liturgical languages of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches). I’m curious, would you be opposed to the liturgy in a formalized English that you could understand, but that was not modern 2013 English? If you would be opposed, why?

 

[snarflemike]

The Mass isn’t a macroeconomics lecture! You don’t take notes! It’s not even about you!

This touches on an important point. Participating in the liturgy involves more than just listening to and understanding the words. That seems to be a very shallow and limited notion of participation - maybe a rather modern Protestant notion as well. I know that I can hear beautiful sacred music in Latin or Greek or Church Slavonic where I don’t understand a word, and yet I find myself engulfed by God. And I can point to countless comments by others saying essentially the same thing. There are many ways to participate in the liturgy, as John Paul II pointed out. Let’s not just see this as a black and white issue.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

sw

Now you are on a hateful rant!

Why don’t you answer some questions for a change, instead of flinging hateful charges?

Answer me this. How much Latin do you know? When the priest recites the Latin Mass, you understand every word? Yes or no? Don’t go on another hateful rant about better men than me.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

snarf

Even when vernacular languages are used, they are quite often archaic versions (the English of the Church of England, the liturgical languages of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches). I’m curious, would you be opposed to the liturgy in a formalized English that you could understand, but that was not modern 2013 English? If you would be opposed, why?

Irrelevant to this discussion. Red Herring.

That’s neither accurate nor fair. Latin/English Missals were available everywhere. I got one for my 1st communion.

Exactly my point. The priest reads in Latin. You read along in English … the vernacular. How can you say you have been uplifted by the Latin Mass when you are reading along in the vernacular?

 

[snarflemike]

I just think it’s unfortunate that you seem to have no interest in trying to understand why the Church used and still uses Latin. You seem to think that the case against it is a slam dunk, when in fact for every negative regarding Latin there is a positive.

 

[Fairwinds]

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

not for me. I don’t know the language and I mentally substitute latin meanings for english as I hear them if I have a translation. I don’t find it particularly beautiful.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

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’ll give some of my thoughts and impressions. I need to preface this by saying I have attended the Traditional Mass exclusively since entering the Church 15 years ago. While still investigating the Church, I did attend a daily Novus Ordo, and I have been a few other times over the years for funerals, etc. but the Traditional Mass is really all I attend. That being said, I did grow up as an Episcopalian, and the Episcopal service is virtually identical with the Novus Ordo Mass. The Novus Ordo is basically exactly what I attended growing up as a child.

When I first attended the Traditional Mass, I was not sure what to think. It seemed a little “different”. I prayed that God would let me know if I should keep attending that Church (which was the Church where I was taking my catechism classes). After leaving Mass that day, I received a special grace that gave me great interior peace combined with a gentle but powerful consolation, which I took as a confirmation from God in answer to my prayer.

I think the one of the effects of the Old Mass is a greater interior awareness of what is taking place on the altar. Of course, this does take some effort on our part to learn what the Mass is; but the lack of focus on the Priest-celebrant leads to a greater awareness of what is taking place on the altar. I have sometimes described it as a person saying the Rosary while looking eye to eye with the one leading. That would be a distraction. It would tend to prevent the person from entering into the mysteries, through meditation. At the traditional Mass, you are not looking at the priest face to face, but at the actions taking place on the altar. Eventually, you come to know what each movement and each action signifies, and this helps to raise your thoughts above this world, which enables one to "see”, with eyes of Faith, the sacrifice that is being renewed on the altar. This internal awareness helps me to engage in the actions of the priest. I only use the missal for the various readings. I have the canon memorized and follow along with each action the priest is performing, while saying certain prayers of my own that correspond to the acts.

For example, at the offeratory I fist imagine Jesus being offered in the Temple. I imagine him, while still a baby, offering His future sacrifice to God the Father in reparation for the sins of the world. Then, I spiritually place my sins upon the patton as the Priest raises it to God, as he says the words” receive this spotless host” etc. I also ask God to perfect my cardinal and theological virtues as the Priest raises the patton. Then, as the priest mingles the water (which represents human nature) and wine (which represents Jesus’ divine nature), I place all of the actions of my “water” (human nature) – that is, my prayers, works, joys and sufferings, inside of the chalice, in order to offer them to God in union with the merits of Christ and His Sacrifice that will take place at the double consecration (everything at this point of the Mass is leading up to the Sacrifice, which is made present at the double-consecration). Next, as the Priest offers the chalice to the Father, I offer to God the Father my death, and all the pains that accompany it, in union with the death of Christ in reparation for my sins. Pope Pius X attached a plenary indulgence, which is applied at the hour of our death, to anyone who offers that prayer to God. By being faithful in praying that prayer at every Mass, I hope to gain that indulgence at the hour of my death.

After the offeratory, I just follow along with what the Priest is saying, reciting to God (silently, of course) the same words that he is praying, thereby joining my prayers to his. Sometimes I will say these prayers in English, and sometimes in Latin (I only know some of them in Latin) At the priests communion I have certain prayers that I pray for him, and then certain prayers I pray for myself after my own communion.

The few times I have attended the Novus Ordo (funerals, etc.0 I tried to follow the Mass in my usual way, but it was very difficult. I found there to be too much noise and too many distractions. The priest looking my way was a huge distraction.

My experience with others who have started attending the Traditional Mass is that some are blown away from the start, while others find it “different” (like I did). For them, it usually takes six months or so to begin to appreciate it.

Those are some of my personal thoughts.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

snarf
**
I just think it’s unfortunate that you seem to have no interest in trying to understand why the Church used and still uses Latin.**

I understand why the Church used Latin. It was out of a historical development when Latin was the vernacular language of the Empire. It obviously no longer is the vernacular language anywhere. I have no objection to others who love the Latin Mass. It doesn’t work for me, and I fail to see its relevance if you can’t read and speak the language itself.

You seem to think that the case against it is a slam dunk

Since I don’t speak or read Latin, the case against it for me is a slam dunk. When praying I want to know what the words mean that I am praying.

 

[vames]

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.

Well, I doubt one can form a correct opinion about the Traditional Mass by watching only festive liturgies that last over 2 hours.

Here’s a weekday Mass (June 22):
livemass.net/LiveMass/daily.html

And a Sunday Mass (June 16):
livemass.net/LiveMass/sunday.html

 

[snarflemike]

snarf
**
I just think it’s unfortunate that you seem to have no interest in trying to understand why the Church used and still uses Latin.**

I understand why the Church used Latin. It was out of a historical development when Latin was the vernacular language of the Empire.

Vatican II:
“Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

That’s the Holy Spirit speaking in the 1960s. (And being ignored)

 

[Fairwinds]

why isn’t the sermon in Latin?

 

[snarflemike]

why isn’t the sermon in Latin?

You’re trying to make some point - what is it?

 

[Fairwinds]

You’re trying to make some point - what is it?

I’m asking a question. do you have an answer? if not, let someone else speak.

 

[snarflemike]

I’m asking a question. do you have an answer? if not, let someone else speak.

Luckily for all involved, I have no power to prevent anybody from “speaking” here.

 

[The_Serpent]

I like being able to understand the readings in the vernacular and participate in the Novus Ordo Mass; singing, psalms etc. But I think the Ancient Rite should be preserved and available as it currently is. Having gone to some traditional Masses, approved by the Church. It does give a better sense of awe and heavenly orientation. The singing especially is nice, but you have to constantly follow the English translation to understand it. The parts the Priest performs are harder to follow since its in Latin, and he has his back to the congregation. It leaves you wondering whats going on up there. But, I observed an interesting display at a traditional Mass. The Priest turned to present the Host for veneration after consecration. The Host glowed a light blue light and made a audible ring tone!

 

[Kevin12]

The Mass isn’t a macroeconomics lecture! You don’t take notes! It’s not even about you!

I’m probaly nowhere near as steeped in Church Tradition as you seem to be, but I have a pretty strong suspicion that there is a sense in which the Mass is “about” us. Something about God so loving the World (where we’re from) that He came and dwelt within it - which is what the Eucharist is about. Or at least I why anyone would go to Mass at all if they thought it had nothing to do with them, which is what what are saying seems to amount to.

Also,if the mishmash of Vulgar and neo Latin makes anyone feel little on a linguistic level they should read Virgil orsome other work of classical Latin that actually intended that,unlike the Mass whichwas meant to do the opposite.

 

[clem456]

why isn’t the sermon in Latin?

Because hardly anyone speaks, writes, or understands Latin.
Just to snip a little from the Catechism:
(please see my disclaimer below before pointing out the shortcomings)

CHAPTER THREE
MAN’S RESPONSE TO GOD …

I. THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH

144 **To obey **(from the Latin ob-audire, to “hear or listen to”) in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment

I like this not because I am an expert in theology or liturgy or canon law, and not because the passage has some definitive statement about the use of Latin… but because the Church says something about participating in faith through obedience above. The obedience of faith does necessitate a “hearing” on the part of an individual, so that they might “respond to God”. A Latin sermon would have a hard time participating in that dialogue.

It’s good to keep in mind that the factors that necessitated a universal written and spoken language over the centuries are long gone.

 

[Verbum]

Hi All,

I have read all through this thread, and of the conclusions is that this is a highly emotional issue.

Originally, the 1962 Mass was brought back to attract lefebvrists back to the Church. To what extent is has worked, I don’t know, but the fact is that it attracted the attention of many Catholics who were uncomfortable with the 1969 mass because of certain abuses it gave rise to.

I was brought up, not on the 1962 mass, but on the Old Old Mass that existed before that. And I can tell you that it was far from being universally reverent. Many, many priest rushed through it, while the faithful, occupied themselves with their secular thoughts or their rosary. Gregorian Chant was mostly massacred.

I bring this up to show that the “Latin” mass is not of itself more “reverent” that any other form, but it is those who atttend who are more reverent. If ever it became universal, its degree of “reverence” would necessarilyl plunge.

Verbum