Masses celebrated properly

[Timothy17]

Latin, on the other hand, is the language of the Latin Church. It offends them that the universal Church should do business in the language of one Church, why not in one of the other Catholic languages? This is a legitimate question.

Which was answered by Pope John XXIII in the document provided by ProVobis earlier in this thread.

It makes much better sense to go with the national language, than the language of any sui iuris Church. Once upon a time, when Latin was the language of the Empire, it was not offensive to the Byzantines to learn it. Today, that’s not the case. Latin is the language of the Roman Catholics. An Oriental Catholic would rather be shot a dawn than be confused with a Roman Catholic. (Just my way of stressing how important this is to our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters).

Which is not very brotherly or sisterly of them - if, in fact, that is the case ; after all, their Holy Father is, and must needs be, Roman Catholic.

Remember, they have much more afinity withe the Orthodox Christians than they do with the Roman Catholics. What unites us to each other is the Pontiff.

So shouldn’t the normal language of the Pontiff and Holy Mother Church, Latin, be also a cause for unity in their relationship ? Also, whoever is trying to forcibly coerce the other rites of the Catholic Church to translate their liturgies and use Latin exclusively should be stopped, I think. If you know who this person is, JR, please contact the Vatican at once. I am sure they would like to know who is harassing their beloved children in Christ in the Oriental Churches.

Latin still is, however, the normative language for communicating in the Church. Our best teachings and most edifying documents were dictated in that ancient tongue. Latin is, as His Holiness Pope John XXIIII said, a passport to the teachings of the Church, both modern and ancient.

as far as culture, language, liturgical rites, apostolic origins, history, and national heritage, they have much more in common with the Orthodox Christians. For example, there are 22 Oriental Catholic Churches and four rites. These same Churches have Orthodox counterparts, because they share the same rites withe Orthodox and not with the Roman Catholics.

Are not the Oriental Catholics honoured with the assurance of their catholicity by their communion with Rome ? That the liturgy and language of the Catholic Church is normatively Latin cannot be a cause for legitimate offense to them… unless you are saying that all Latin Rite Catholics are “offensive” to Oriental Catholics ? I would certainly hope that is not the case ; furthermore, is taking an irrational offense at the tongue of your brother Catholic tolerable in Christian love, unity, brotherhood, and within the sacred bonds of the peace of our Lord, Jesus Chist ? Though I esteem Latin, I do not take offense at the Greek or Aramaic liturgies, for example. We are, after all, the singular Mystical Body of Christ, so I am very curious why we Latin Rite Catholics should feel guilty, if it is in fact our own brothers and sisters in Christ in the Oriental Catholic Churches who are, for strange reasons, the ones taking offense at the tongue of our Holy Mother, the Church ?

It is not in the best interest of the Catholic Church to push the Latin on the Oriental Catholics.

Again, if you are aware of unscrupulous persons running around trying to force the other rites to use Latin and Latin alone, please contact the Vatican so that the appropriate authories may stop this wicked, tyrannous villain ! Otherwise, the boogey-man of the Latin-mad Catholic trying to get everyone to speak Latin, and Latin alone, is a straw-man.

Tim

 

[Padraig1972]

I get upset when some of the discussions in this forum between those who favor the EF and those who favor the OF lead to the type of question above from someone who is fairly new to the faith, or returning. It cannot be denied that some of the discussions here can lead to the impression that one might not be as “Catholic” as the other. There have been many complaints about this expressed on these forums. We need to pay attention to this, and not try to deny that it happens. It is very bad example. Many people do not realize the impression they may be giving and how it can affect other’s perceptions, esp. those new to the faith, or returning, or considering Catholicism–many of whom are not forum members and are just visitors.

To Padrig–you are not a “bad” Catholic if you stick to the prayers you have learned, prayers that are dear to you and in which you express your love of God. You are not a “bad” Catholic if you prefer the OF over the EF or the EF over the OF. One form is not more “Catholic” than the other, despite the impression you may be getting. The Church has given us the Liturgy and both forms are equally valid. What is expressed here is opinions, you are not bound by the opinions of people on a message board. You are bound by what the Church teaches. People have their reasons for preferring one form over the other, but that is their own personal decision, and there should be no attempt to try to impose it on others. They can express their opinions, but you are not obliged to agree with them. Listen to the Church and it’s Magesterium, and do the will of God in your life. God knows your heart, we don’t. How you pray is between you and Our Lord.

You know…i got carried away and i am sorry for that.

A TLM-ministrant had this long conversation with me, so well…yeah i got a bit excited and at the same time wondering. But you are right, it is not of me to judge or tell what is better.

There are a lot of things about the new versus the old mass i would wonder about, i suppose that would take years of reading. Where to begin, i am not sure.

What i am sure about is: i love being here, i love my faith and i love to pray, attend masses and just say: i`m a human being and sometimes does silly mistakes.

Those i need to and can learn from.

God bless, from Tommy

 

[JReducation]

Which was answered by Pope John XXIII in the document provided by ProVobis earlier in this thread.

Which is not very brotherly or sisterly of them - if, in fact, that is the case ; after all, their Holy Father is, and must needs be, Roman Catholic.

So shouldn’t the normal language of the Pontiff and Holy Mother Church, Latin, be also a cause for unity in their relationship ? Also, whoever is trying to forcibly coerce the other rites of the Catholic Church to translate their liturgies and use Latin exclusively should be stopped, I think. If you know who this person is, JR, please contact the Vatican at once. I am sure they would like to know who is harassing their beloved children in Christ in the Oriental Churches.

Latin still is, however, the normative language for communicating in the Church. Our best teachings and most edifying documents were dictated in that ancient tongue. Latin is, as His Holiness Pope John XXIIII said, a passport to the teachings of the Church, both modern and ancient.

Are not the Oriental Catholics honoured with the assurance of their catholicity by their communion with Rome ? That the liturgy and language of the Catholic Church is normatively Latin cannot be a cause for legitimate offense to them… unless you are saying that all Latin Rite Catholics are “offensive” to Oriental Catholics ? I would certainly hope that is not the case ; furthermore, is taking an irrational offense at the tongue of your brother Catholic tolerable in Christian love, unity, brotherhood, and within the sacred bonds of the peace of our Lord, Jesus Chist ? Though I esteem Latin, I do not take offense at the Greek or Aramaic liturgies, for example. We are, after all, the singular Mystical Body of Christ, so I am very curious why we Latin Rite Catholics should feel guilty, if it is in fact our own brothers and sisters in Christ in the Oriental Catholic Churches who are, for strange reasons, the ones taking offense at the tongue of our Holy Mother, the Church ?

Again, if you are aware of unscrupulous persons running around trying to force the other rites to use Latin and Latin alone, please contact the Vatican so that the appropriate authories may stop this wicked, tyrannous villain ! Otherwise, the boogey-man of the Latin-mad Catholic trying to get everyone to speak Latin, and Latin alone, is a straw-man.

Tim

You’re being cynical. You know exactly what I’m talking about. A Greek Catholic is not bothered if a document is issued in Latin for the Latin Church. But that’s not the same thing as sitting through a synod of bishops speaking Latin, simply because Latin is the language of the Latin Church. It is not the language of the Vatican. The official language of the Vatican is Italian. It does not affect you and me, who are over in the Americas, if they speak Italian at the Vatican.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

You’re being cynical. You know exactly what I’m talking about. A Greek Catholic is not bothered if a document is issued in Latin for the Latin Church. But that’s not the same thing as sitting through a synod of bishops speaking Latin, simply because Latin is the language of the Latin Church. It is not the language of the Vatican. The official language of the Vatican is Italian. It does not affect you and me, who are over in the Americas, if they speak Italian at the Vatican.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I would expect it is also much easier for people to gain experience speaking conversational Italian, and to discuss modern topics of present-day concern in it, since it is a living language. Because you’re talking about a language to conduct meetings in, right, not just for some committee to draw up documents in? I’m thinking from my own position about what it would take to work on my skills in (say) conversational Spanish versus (haha) conversational Latin, and it would certainly be essentially impossible to find anyone with native-level fluency in Latin to learn from or practice with, to say nothing of listening to the radio or watching futbol games in the language.

 

[ProVobis]

You’re being cynical. You know exactly what I’m talking about. A Greek Catholic is not bothered if a document is issued in Latin for the Latin Church. But that’s not the same thing as sitting through a synod of bishops speaking Latin, simply because Latin is the language of the Latin Church. It is not the language of the Vatican. The official language of the Vatican is Italian. It does not affect you and me, who are over in the Americas, if they speak Italian at the Vatican.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes but it says a lot if you’re saying someone of the Eastern Rite (or any other Catholic Rite for that matter) would rather accept a document written in Italian over one written in Latin. Why do I get the feeling the dislike of Latin prevails mostly amongst Catholics? Maybe I’m wrong (and I hope I am) but I wonder how many Catholics would take the time to run a website like this one.

flashcardmachine.com/language-latin.html

 

[CradleCath]

hartleymartin;7541005]I’ve read far and wide of the number of people who dismiss the Ordinary Form of the mass in favour of the Extra-Ordinary Form (Missal of 1962).
Now I just want to make a few opinions clear, and I believe to have obtained a reasonably balanced view.

As I feel that I have a balanced view, also, as I attended the TLM. Mass for 28 yrs. & the Novus Ordo for 40 yrs. I’d like to make the same sort of list that you have:

1

.) It isn’t the form of the mass which is problematic - it is the abuse of liturgy by poorly-trained priests or other clergy who decided that they would be “innovative” or “creative” with public worship.

1.) When the FORM of a Mass allows “creativity” & seems to foster a NEED for innovation, I’d say…with Pope Benedict…That a form of the Mass that appears to be a “banal on-the-spot product”, boring & mundane… INVITES innovation, almost demands it, in order to keep the attendance level somewhat stable. It evidently hasn’t worked since only 25% of Catholics attend Mass regularly.

2.) Latin isn’t a “sacramental” it is the official language of the Latin church. Don’t elevate it beyond it’s proper place in the liturgy. That said, I do like praying in Latin, but it isn’t a new level of holiness.

2.) No, Latin is not “a new level of holiness”, however, it’s the language of the Church & the language that is supposed to be primary in the Novus Ordo Mass. From Summorum Pontificum:

“Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, **the limits of its employment may be extended.” ** At the time Summorum Pontificum was issed, there was not one word of the vernacular used in the Mass. Therefore the words mentioned above “the limits of it’s emplyment may be extended” are very important.

The true Novus Ordo Mass begins with the following rubrics & text is as follows:

Then the priest, facing the people, extends his hands and greets all present with the following greeting:

A. Gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi, et caritas Dei, et communicatio Sancti Spiritus sit cum omnibus vobis.

3.) When the Ordinary Form of the Mass is celebrated correctly, it is just as reverent as any mass celebrated according to any other edition of the missal.

3.) I really have to disagree with this statement. I attended the Novus Ordo Mass, as it was intended to be prayed, for a grand total of 8 months. (That particular priest “disappeared”, quickly.) With the Tabernacle gone, the High Altars removed & replaced with tables, the Roman Canon, in which we were reminded VERY SUCCINCTLY that we belong to the Communion of Saints, taking a back seat to EP. 2, EP 3, ect. etc. ad infinitum…the collects changed, the holy gestures of the priest minimized …we have lost so much. I believe the most important loss was that of B]Sacred Silence as Christ is being crucified in an unbloody manner on the “table”, right in front of us.
It has been replaced with the noise & movement inherent in the Novus Ordo Mass & it’s “active participation”. With the lack of the sacred in our Mass, we have become a DEMOCRATIC church. This means that the Mass should be led not just by the priest, but by many lectors or readers taking turns, by many communion ministers, by many ushers or so-called ministers of hospitality, and above all by a parish liturgy committee that decides the style and structure of the various Masses. The cantor or leader of song is another player on the team of the democratic liturgy. This has terribly diminished the role & self-image of our ordained priesthood.

5.) Don’t rubbish an entire church because of a few poor clergy.

The fact that one can accuse another Catholic or group of Catholics of “rubbishing the Church” leaves me speechless. I can’t even formulate an answer to that one. It is a vile accusation.

6.) Be wary of committing a sin of spiritual pride, of believing yourself to be better or more holy than other people because you follow a particular form of the mass or piety.

I consider the above remark an insult to anyone who loves the TLM. I have never seen a Traditional Catholic act or say that he is holier than one who prefers the newer ways. Again I’m speechless. Why did you post this in the Traditional forum???

9.) Remember that we are all sinners in need of God’s grace and mercy.

While I can judge no other’s sin nor goodness, I know that I’m a sinner & but for the grace of God, I’d be lost. How about you? It does seem that you are doing a lot of preaching in this message?

Brothers and sisters, may the Grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ be with you all!

I would like to say “Et cum spiritu Tuo”, but I can’t because that refers to the spirit given only to a priest in the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
So, I’ll just end with a question. Your post seems to be one that baits, but perhaps you have another reason for posting it here in the Traditional forum. If so, I would love to read about that.

 

[CradleCath]

**If nobody is supposed to hear the Mass (in the EF), then what difference does it make what language it is in? **The Church could use Klingon and it wouldn’t make much difference, IMHO- I can’t hear it so what does it matter?

The language of the cross is also Hebrew & Greek, so how come I don’t see anyone advocating the singing of of the Psalms in Hebrew?

The difference is that you actually have to READ the prayers that the priest is saying, for a while anyway & that’s so much HARDER than standing there mindlessly making the rote responses that are part of the Novus Ordo. BTW., I consider the NO. a valid Mass, but am just anwering you question. The fact that it is harder means that it requires more “active interior participation”.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

This is a very interesting topic to me. I’ve only known what I have recently discovered is called the Ordinary Form, or the Novus Ordo. To me it was always just the Mass. Since the new translation was announced I started doing some private research. My initial question was why - why are we getting a new translation? Is there something wrong with the current one? Ok, so there were two initial questions. That set off what has become a thorough study of our liturgy, raised many subsequent questions, thus how I found this site - looking for answers. Since educating myself in the history of the liturgy and how the Novus Ordo came into being I’m considering attending one of the Latin Masses in my area just to compare. I must admit I’m a little nervous because from the videos I’ve seen of it it looks complicated. Oh well, more study is required.

May I play devil’s advocate with your essay?

I’ve read far and wide of the number of people who dismiss the Ordinary Form of the mass in favour of the Extra-Ordinary Form (Missal of 1962).

Now I just want to make a few opinions clear, and I believe to have obtained a reasonably balanced view.

1.) It isn’t the form of the mass which is problematic - it is the abuse of liturgy by poorly-trained priests or other clergy who decided that they would be “innovative” or “creative” with public worship.

[Could it be that a simplified liturgy encouraged clergy and laity to relax their obedience to the rubics? The Mass was standardized in the fifteenth century to prevent changes to worship and belief, then along came a new Mass in 1969. Perhaps some people misinterpreted that as an opportunity for ‘innovation’.]

2.) Latin isn’t a “sacramental” it is the official language of the Latin church. Don’t elevate it beyond it’s proper place in the liturgy. That said, I do like praying in Latin, but it isn’t a new level of holiness.

[Actually, it may be a higher level of holiness. In Jesus’ time, Hebrew was a sacred language reserved for worship in temple. From what I’ve read, Mass is supposed to be a worship of God, not a community gathering. Thus, it would seem proper to reserve a special language for it. Do you agree?]

3.) When the Ordinary Form of the Mass is celebrated correctly, it is just as reverent as any mass celebrated according to any other edition of the missal.

**

4.) You can pray the Ordinary Form in Latin - In fact, the ordinary language of the Latin church is still Latin (except that readings and homily are to be said in the vernacular), with an option to pray the mass in the vernacular using an official translation. TRY IT!

5.) Don’t rubbish an entire church because of a few poor clergy.
**

6.) Be wary of committing a sin of spiritual pride, of believing yourself to be better or more holy than other people because you follow a particular form of the mass or piety.
[The same could be said for your essay here.]

7.) Don’t make Vatican II the scape-goat of all the problems that have existed in the church since the 1970’s. Many things done “in the spirit of Vatican II” went directly against the Vatican documentation and many people never even read Vatican II documents, passing off their own innovations as official Vatican II stuff.
[This seems true from what I’ve read. The documents are tough sledding (I just love that expression) yet didn’t contain the changes that happened after it. I wasn’t in a position to notice at the time (being born in the late sixties) but didn’t anyone in the pews complain when all these changes happened out of the blue? Compare those changes with all the care and consideration regarding the new translation.]

8.) Many people today do things incorrect or rather badly because they were badly taught. A poor student is not to blame for having been taught by a poor teacher.
[Excellent point. Do you think that once we know better we then have an obligation to help others do things correctly?]

9.) Remember that we are all sinners in need of God’s grace and mercy.

10.) Remember that you will fail on your own strength, but with a devotion to God, relying on His strength, you can succeed.
[Amen]

Brothers and sisters, may the Grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ be with you all!

May we all be worthy of the promises of Christ.

 

[JReducation]

I would expect it is also much easier for people to gain experience speaking conversational Italian, and to discuss modern topics of present-day concern in it, since it is a living language. Because you’re talking about a language to conduct meetings in, right, not just for some committee to draw up documents in? I’m thinking from my own position about what it would take to work on my skills in (say) conversational Spanish versus (haha) conversational Latin, and it would certainly be essentially impossible to find anyone with native-level fluency in Latin to learn from or practice with, to say nothing of listening to the radio or watching futbol games in the language.

I believe this is the issue. The issue is not what language should documetns use. That’s as clear as glass. If the document is for the Latin Church, the official language is in Latin. If it’s for one of the other Churches, you use their respective language.

The discomfort, not only at synods, but also in general chapters of larger religious orders was that everyone has to speak in Latin during committee meetings, debates, conversations, presentations, etc. Many bishops who attend synods are not Latin Bishops. Many religious who belong to international religious orders are not Latin Catholics. The feeling was why hold these sessions in Latin, when you can’t converse in it? You often have to fabricate words, because there is no word in Latin for “microchip”. Just a silly example, but it works.

Yes but it says a lot if you’re saying someone of the Eastern Rite (or any other Catholic Rite for that matter) would rather accept a document written in Italian over one written in Latin. Why do I get the feeling the dislike of Latin prevails mostly amongst Catholics? Maybe I’m wrong (and I hope I am) but I wonder how many Catholics would take the time to run a website like this one.

flashcardmachine.com/language-latin.html

They are not other rites. This is what we have to get out of our minds. There is a difference between a rite and a Church. They are sui iuris Churches. There are 22 of them. They share five rites. Because they are Churches, they are in equal standing with the Latin Church.

They are not saying not to publish documents in Latin. What they are resisting is the move of some very traditional folks who want to hold synods, congresses, and general chapters and large scale meetings in Latin. That would only favor the Latin Catholic clergy and religious who speak Latin. It would not favor the Oriental Catholics who have never learned to speak Latin.

It is much easier for everyone, because the Vatican does all of its business in Italian. It only uses Latin to publish documents and when they are for the universal Church, they come out in all the ecclesial languages, not just Latin. But day to day business and gatherings are in Italian.

The same thing happens to the mass. When you have the mass in the Latin Rite, you use the Latin and the modern language that best fits. We see this in papal masses all the time. The Oriental Catholics accept this. That’s not a problem for them.

On another note, Tim said that the Pontiff had to be Latin and therefore, the Oriental Catholics would have to live with it. That’s not true. The Pontiff can be elected from among any baptized male Catholic, even a layman. Though the canons have tried to limit it to bishops. However, there is no rule that a Greek Catholic Patriarch cannot be elected pope.

The rule is that he becomes the Bishop of Rome. Since Rome is in the Latin Church, then it stand to reason that its bishop has to be either Latin or biritual, able to celebrate in the Latin rite, even if he’s not Latin. I believe that the Pontiff can celebrate the liturgy in any rite. I’ve never seen a rule that says that he is bound to the Latin Rite, only that he is the bishop of Rome. Obviously, he cannot turn the Roman Diocese into an Eastern diocese. He would use the Latin rite.

We have had popes from the Oriental Churches, especially during the first four or five hundred years. of the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

The difference is that you actually have to READ the prayers that the priest is saying, for a while anyway & that’s so much HARDER than standing there mindlessly making the rote responses that are part of the Novus Ordo. BTW., I consider the NO. a valid Mass, but am just anwering you question. The fact that it is harder means that it requires more “active interior participation”.

I would agree. Every rubric in the Mass (genuflecting, signing of cross, bowing, kissing of the altar, standing on the epistle and gospel side, etc.) is a prayer in itself. So is the time spending on working on understanding the Latin text. And prayer can also involve sitting still and attentive. Making noise isn’t the same thing as making responses.

 

[JReducation]

This is a very interesting topic to me. I’ve only known what I have recently discovered is called the Ordinary Form, or the Novus Ordo. To me it was always just the Mass. Since the new translation was announced I started doing some private research. My initial question was why - why are we getting a new translation? Is there something wrong with the current one? Ok, so there were two initial questions. That set off what has become a thorough study of our liturgy, raised many subsequent questions, thus how I found this site - looking for answers. Since educating myself in the history of the liturgy and how the Novus Ordo came into being I’m considering attending one of the Latin Masses in my area just to compare. I must admit I’m a little nervous because from the videos I’ve seen of it it looks complicated. Oh well, more study is required.

.

The Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form are both forms of the same Latin Rite mass. They are equally holy. They are equally valid. Neither promises extra graces and neither is magic. They are both very profound acts of worship.

That having been said, several things happened with the Ordinary Form.

1. Many people added and deleted things that they could not add or delete. That was wrong.
2. The translation of the missal from the Latin to the English was very good as far as making it fluid, but it was very poor as far as preserving the origina Latin words. In other words, the prayers were easy to say, but the words were changed in order to make them easy to say. Now we’re going back to the original wording. The Holy See wanted a translattion that is as literal as possible.

The Ordinary Form of the mass is celebrated with great reverence and solemnity an is very beautiful, if you follow the rules. Just watch Franciscans on EWTN or the masses celebrated by the Holy Father. They are done by the book. Also the masses at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception are usually done by the book.

Whether one form or the other meets your spiritual needs, that’s a very personal decision. The Church does not want us to proselytize. The Holy Father made that very clear. We are not to try to sell one form or the other. Individual Catholics have to choose whatever works for their spiritual life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

The Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form are both forms of the same Latin Rite mass. They are equally holy. They are equally valid. Neither promises extra graces and neither is magic. They are both very profound acts of worship.

That having been said, several things happened with the Ordinary Form.

1. Many people added and deleted things that they could not add or delete. That was wrong.
2. The translation of the missal from the Latin to the English was very good as far as making it fluid, but it was very poor as far as preserving the origina Latin words. In other words, the prayers were easy to say, but the words were changed in order to make them easy to say. Now we’re going back to the original wording. The Holy See wanted a translattion that is as literal as possible.

The Ordinary Form of the mass is celebrated with great reverence and solemnity an is very beautiful, if you follow the rules. Just watch Franciscans on EWTN or the masses celebrated by the Holy Father. They are done by the book. Also the masses at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception are usually done by the book.

Whether one form or the other meets your spiritual needs, that’s a very personal decision. The Church does not want us to proselytize. The Holy Father made that very clear. We are not to try to sell one form or the other. Individual Catholics have to choose whatever works for their spiritual life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’ve seen the highlighted section before, but don’t know what it means. If they are the same why are there two of them? If they are both as holy, confer the same graces, why did we get the new Mass in the first place?

 

[malphono]

The rule is that he becomes the Bishop of Rome. Since Rome is in the Latin Church, then it stand to reason that its bishop has to be either Latin or biritual, able to celebrate in the Latin rite, even if he’s not Latin. I believe that the Pontiff can celebrate the liturgy in any rite. I’ve never seen a rule that says that he is bound to the Latin Rite, only that he is the bishop of Rome. Obviously, he cannot turn the Roman Diocese into an Eastern diocese. He would use the Latin rite.

In theory, the Roman Pontiff is omniritual, meaning that in principle he can celebrate according to any rite of the Church. In practice, public use of any other than the Roman Rite is rare. I believe that the previous Pontiff celebrated (in Latin) according to the restored Mozarabic Missal when it was promulgated (mid-1990s I think), and at least once in the Ukrainian Rite (I’m not sure if that was in staroslavenski or in Ukrainian). If memory serves, Paul VI celebrated at least once as Pope according to the Ambrosian Rite. PP Pius XI celebrated at least once according to the Italo-Greek Rite (in Greek, as I recall). There are perhaps other examples, but those come to mind off-hand.

 

[ProVobis]

The feeling was why hold these sessions in Latin, when you can’t converse in it? You often have to fabricate words, because there is no word in Latin for “microchip”. Just a silly example, but it works.

Those who are brought up in bi-lingual families or conversations do what they call “code mixing” when they struggle with trying to find the right words. Or they simply repeat the same thought in two different languages. I don’t think the general society has any strict rules saying you must use one language exclusively. Except those who think English should be the official language of the U.S. And good luck with that.

 

[JReducation]

I’ve seen the highlighted section before, but don’t know what it means. If they are the same why are there two of them? If they are both as holy, confer the same graces, why did we get the new Mass in the first place?

Let’s break it down.

Same rite: this means that the two forms belong only to the Latin Church, not to any of the other Catholic Churches. They cannot celebrate the mass in either one of these forms.

Two forms: There were many forms of the mass. Over the centuries, the different forms either fell into disuse or were suppressed. What we call the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) was actually an old form that was preserved by the Franciscan Order. St. Francis saved the old mass . But there are still several forms in the Latin Church, not just the EF and OF.

The Council Fathers wanted a liturgical reform that would allow the people to more active participation in the liturgy, that would have more scripture readings, that would provide the opportunity to include the national language, not just Latin, that would allow several options of the Eucharistic prayer. These were changes in externals, not changes in the essential. The mass remains the mass.

When it was originally published, the Latin title was “Novus Ordo Missae”, which means the New Order of the Mass. It was not the intention of the Council Fathers to suppress the other forms of the mass. This was a misinterpretation of their intentions, which Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict tried to rectify.

Today, we have the Ordinary Form, which is the newest form. It is called Ordinary, because it is the form that should be prevalent. However, this does not mean that you cannot use the Tridentine Form that was approved in 1962. That has been called the Extraordinary, because it means that is should not replace the newer form, nor should it be the dominant form used. In Church law, when something is extraordinary, it means that it’s not the dialy bread and butter for everyone. It’s for some people. In this case, for those who feel that their spiritual lives are helped by it, by all means they should attend the EF.

There are other forms in the Latin Church, that are not well known, because they are used by very specific groups or in very specific dioceses. The Church does not tamper with them.

I hope I helped a little bit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

In theory, the Roman Pontiff is omniritual, meaning that in principle he can celebrate according to any rite of the Church. In practice, public use of any other than the Roman Rite is rare. I believe that the previous Pontiff celebrated (in Latin) according to the restored Mozarabic Missal when it was promulgated (mid-1990s I think), and at least once in the Ukrainian Rite (I’m not sure if that was in staroslavenski or in Ukrainian). If memory serves, Paul VI celebrated at least once as Pope according to the Ambrosian Rite. PP Pius XI celebrated at least once according to the Italo-Greek Rite (in Greek, as I recall). There are perhaps other examples, but those come to mind off-hand.

Very helpful. Thanks

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

I hope I helped a little bit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, thank you.

I"ve been doing quite a bit of Internet research on the Mass. I’ve seen studies that state prior to the new Mass 75-80% of Catholics went to Sunday Mass. Today that number is 10-20%. As one of the precepts of the Church is to make our weekly obligation then the vast majority of Catholics are in a state of mortal sin. Why would the Church make a change that would result in such a disasterous result?

 

[CradleCath]

Thank you:thumbsup:

Are you saying that you agree with this man’s use of such accusing language as “rubbishing the Church”?

His preaching to “others” (inferring Traditional Catholics) on the sins of pride?? & on & on.

Weren’t you on another thread accusing Michael Voris of being too blunt & tactless. I’m embarrassed for you.

 

[CradleCath]

This is a very interesting topic to me. I’ve only known what I have recently discovered is called the Ordinary Form, or the Novus Ordo. To me it was always just the Mass. one? Ok, so there were two initial questions. That set off what has becoSince the new translation was announced I started doing some private research. My initial question was why - why are we getting a new translation? Is there something wrong with the current me a thorough study of our liturgy, raised many subsequent questions, thus how I found this site - looking for answers. Since educating myself in the history of the liturgy and how the Novus Ordo came into being I’m considering attending one of the Latin Masses in my area just to compare. I must admit I’m a little nervous because from the videos I’ve seen of it it looks complicated. Oh well, more study is required.

May I play devil’s advocate with your essay?

May we all be worthy of the promises of Christ.

Your post brought tears to my eyes, I’m not used to hearing nice things about Traditional Catholics. However, the VERY BEST part of your message is the following:

I started doing some private research. My initial question was why - why are we getting a new translation? Is there something wrong with the current me a thorough study of our liturgy, raised many subsequent questions, thus how I found this site - looking for answers. Since educating myself in the history of the liturgy and how the Novus Ordo came into being I’m considering attending one of the Latin Masses in my area just to compare. I must admit I’m a little nervous because from the videos I’ve seen of it it looks complicated. Oh well, more study is required.

I’ve never known a person who was, as you said, “born into the Novus Ordo Mass” speak of studying in depth as you have. Whichever Mass you choose to pray, you are bound to be informed about what is offered. GOD BLESS YOU.

PS. Do not be nervous. I’d say, for the first time…just take it all in. The actions of the priest are important, too. The second time use one of the Latin/English misalettes that are provided by most Churches.
Good Luck.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree 100% with you Contra Mundum. And then this argument that you have to learn Italian. So why noy just learn LATIN. Good grief. This argument is just like a wheel; it just goes round and round and round.

There; thats my opinion.

There’s more people who would be required to learn latin than any one language in use today. So why not go with the language that the majority uses and the minority learn that language? If you were in China, would it make more sense to teach 1 billion people Latin, or for you and a small number of visitors to learn Chinese (putonghua)?

Makes too much sense. Especially when Latin is the basis for the ROMANce languages, such as Italian, French, Spanish, etc.

Not every language in the world evolved from Latin. What about us Asians?