Pope set to bring back Latin Mass that divided the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter b_justb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it will divide the Catholic Church.

I like the Latin Mass, I think it’s beautiful.

However, I think the Church needs to say Mass where the people have full participation, and that is the venacular.

What we’ll get is parishes across the country doing two different Masses and one will feel and even suggest, that their’s is better than the other. Heck, it happens now, but with this move by the Pope, it will only further the divide.
 
I disagree. I’ve been to parishes that offer both already. There are also Eastern Rite churches today.

I think it is time for me to learn Latin and attend my first Latin Mass. 🙂
I think it will divide the Catholic Church.

I like the Latin Mass, I think it’s beautiful.

However, I think the Church needs to say Mass where the people have full participation, and that is the venacular.

What we’ll get is parishes across the country doing two different Masses and one will feel and even suggest, that their’s is better than the other. Heck, it happens now, but with this move by the Pope, it will only further the divide.
 
JimR,

Just compare the practice of the faith when the Mass was said in Latin to the Mass said in the venacular. Then see if you would make the same conclusions.
 
I think it will divide the Catholic Church.

I like the Latin Mass, I think it’s beautiful.

However, I think the Church needs to say Mass where the people have full participation, and that is the venacular.

What we’ll get is parishes across the country doing two different Masses and one will feel and even suggest, that their’s is better than the other. Heck, it happens now, but with this move by the Pope, it will only further the divide.
See, this is what I don’t understand. The Novus Ordo can be celebrated in Latin with the same level of participation by the congregation as in English. I have never participated in a Novus Ordo in Latin here in the US - not once in the 40+ years after V II. See it all the time on EWTN but never once here in Baton Rouge or in my birthplace, New Orleans. I have been to indult Masses in both NO and BR, however.

In my youth, I was in the Navy and spent a month in Spain. I was able to attend Mass just outside the naval base in Rota and one Sunday when I traveled up to the great cathedral in Sevilla. Neither Mass was in Spanish but Latin. I don’t see Latin as a devisive force but as a unifying force. How devisive across the US is it to have Mass in English and in Spanish - as does the cathedral in San Antonio? Two languages, two liturgies in the vernacular, two communities - one cathedral?
 
if they bring the latin mass back… wont there be a higher need for actually learning the Latin and also Catholics are going to have to be reinformed of the differences and what is going on.
 
Only if we revert to the Tridentine Mass that I grew up with. A parish would also have the option of saying the NO in Latin. EWTN does this already. I think it is a matter of heritage not division.
 
See, this is what I don’t understand. The Novus Ordo can be celebrated in Latin with the same level of participation by the congregation as in English. I have never participated in a Novus Ordo in Latin here in the US - not once in the 40+ years after V II. See it all the time on EWTN but never once here in Baton Rouge or in my birthplace, New Orleans. I have been to indult Masses in both NO and BR, however.
This is still what ***I ***don’t understand, Brotherhrolf: if by “participation” you mean “making the responses” (and, if we had instituted lectors, I don’t actually think we ought to be doing much more), why, why, WHY would we want to switch to a language for the responses that we don’t speak or understand? Yes, the Pauline Mass can be celebrated in Latin, but why would anyone want to do so, unless it was in the context of an international gathering (you mention a visit by a French Cardinal to celebrate the 200th aniversary of a cathedral, not something that’s going to happen too frequently in the parishes I’ve been a member of or frequented) such as papal Masses, etc? Why print out the translations for people to follow, when you could just have Mass in the language that they’re already thinking in anyway? Why give them a translation when the priest at the altar, more often than not, your example aside, actually speaks the same language that they do? I’m not being a wise guy, I find this genuinely perplexing. I can see wanting faithful translations, I can see not wanting people fiddling with the Mass, I can see wanting chant, etc., but I don’t get see the argument for regularly having the Mass in Latin.

As for division, honestly, look at these forums. Traditionalists who post here, by and large (not everyone, mind you), LOATHE the Pauline Rite, they heap scorn on it, they cop a totally superior, elitist attitude. We’re already divided philosophically/aesthetically. Will there be pragmatic division? Truthfully, I doubt it. I won’t be any more divided from the people who attend my parish’s potential TLM Mass any more than I am from those people who attend the 6:00 AM Mass or the 5:00 PM Mass.
 
JKirk, I do understand what you are saying and I am perfectly comfortable with a reverent NO and I certainly don’t want to go back to an exclusive Tridentine Rite setting. But consider my age. I grew up with the Tridentine Mass. I was an altar boy from 1958 - 1968. I went through the transition from the Tridentine to the NO. The entire atmosphere of Mass was different then. One did not speak to others in Church back then - ever. We were in the presence of God - period. And then we went to the NO and threw traditions that went back hundreds of years out. How happy do you think I was having to sing Bridge over Troubled Waters and Sounds of Silence at my high school graduation Mass from a Catholic school in 1969? Two years earlier I was in the school choir and we certainly weren’t singing the Beatles. This was not the church I had grown up in. There was a two year transition in which the NO was gradually introduced. And then almost everything I had known before went out the window…

To allow: cell phones going off in the middle of Mass and people answering them! People my age and older talking about medical problems in the back of church before Mass (yeah, I don’t use Preparation H…*). Protestant innovations like “Introduce yourself to your neighbors around you” at the beginning of Mass, “the wave” at the end of the Lord’s Prayer and so on. Not to mention the horrid, ghastly music of the last 40 years.

I see Latin as a unifying force. As a member of our cathedral choir, we have sung for ordinations. OK, we have a Vietnamese parish here and we’ve ordained some Vietnamese priests. We had to learn to sing the responsorial psalm in Vietnamese. To this day I have no earthly idea what I was singing. Yet, had this same ordination taken place in 1964 wouldn’t we all have been singing in Latin? Same thing goes for the Cathedral in San Antonio. I am in San Antonio every other year or so on Sunday. But I speak Spanish so either liturgy is no problem for me. And, you do have a divided cathedral parish, Anglo and Hispanic. Latin in this case is a unifying force as it was for centuries long after the Roman Empire.

It is astounding to me that so many on these forums have never participated in a Latin Mass. I’m only 55. How can the Church of my childhood be so radically different from now? We did throw the baby out with the bathwater in the late 60s and I would like my children and any future grandchildren I may have to be aware of the universal church.*
 
I see Latin as a unifying force. As a member of our cathedral choir, we have sung for ordinations. OK, we have a Vietnamese parish here and we’ve ordained some Vietnamese priests. We had to learn to sing the responsorial psalm in Vietnamese. To this day I have no earthly idea what I was singing. Yet, had this same ordination taken place in 1964 wouldn’t we all have been singing in Latin? Same thing goes for the Cathedral in San Antonio. I am in San Antonio every other year or so on Sunday. But I speak Spanish so either liturgy is no problem for me. And, you do have a divided cathedral parish, Anglo and Hispanic. Latin in this case is a unifying force as it was for centuries long after the Roman Empire.

It is astounding to me that so many on these forums have never participated in a Latin Mass. I’m only 55. How can the Church of my childhood be so radically different from now? We did throw the baby out with the bathwater in the late 60s and I would like my children and any future grandchildren I may have to be aware of the universal church.
I deleted the upper part of your response to my question, Brotherhrolf, not out of a dismissive attitude, but because, in legal terminology, I would stipulate to the truth of that. You’re right, all of that stuff was ghastly, an effort to be “relevant.” We’re on the same page as far a “Bridge Over Troubled Waters” goes, as well as back slapping, the disruption of a rowdy Sign of Peace (really, I think it ought to be moved to after the Confietor or let be as is with the priest saying,“TPOTLBAYA” and we respond with “AWYS” and that’s it), and the other efforts at jocularity.

My questions about this go to the nature of prayer and worship. There’s always going to be examples of times when we as Catholics aren’t going to be able to understand each other (the Cardinal, the Vietnamese ordinands and congregation), but by and large, that’s not the case day in and day out. I just cannot understand the argument that these occasions justify a full scale return to Latin, since no one speaks or understands that language (practically, not absolutely) for the worship we offer either daily or weekly, esp. if you’re going to offer a printed translation anyway. It seems a little illogical to me to have an English speaking priest (for example) offering prayer and sacrifice on behalf, and leading in prayer, an English speaking congregation who are following along with a printed translation, because the English speaking priest is speaking in a langauge in which the English speaking congregation neither speaks or thinks (that’s why I only half-jokingly ask if GOD needs the Mass to be in Latin). On balance, I don’t see unity as being something that we should pursue by doing away with the vernacular if by doing so we loose what we gain by having the Mass in the vernacular. Ordinations for non-English speakers in English speaking cities, cardinals coming for a visit, papal funerals, WYD, all of these things are rare compared in the balance with the number of Masses that happen throughout the world every day. Also, you and I travel to one degree or another, and it might be nice for us if we understood the Mass everywhere we went, but that isn’t the case for the ovewhelming majority of people in the world. Why shouldn’t they have the Mass in their language?
 
Some of us who like the vernacular Mass are hardly liberal. And I rather imagine that instead of us all attending the Latin mass where “we would both understand,” we’d all just be standing/kneeling/sitting there NOT understanding much of it.
Don’t misunderstand, please. I am comfortable with the Novus Ordo. But I am also comfortable with the Tridentine Mass. A big part of the problem I have with the U.S. Church now is the intolerance of so many bishops for a Mass that is, after all, universal in its intent and form; has a long history and has deep cultural roots. I take it you are not old enough to have regularly attended a Tridentine Mass, or you would not fall back on that “nobody understood the Latin” thing. People absolutely, positively did understand it. Even as a little kid, I understood it. We all did. Even if one didn’t, at times, the missal had both languages right next to each other. You do realize that only the prayers were in Latin, don’t you? (Well, except the Kyrie, which was in Greek) Virtually all responses are formulary, are they not? If they are formulary, it really doesn’t make much difference, given time, what language they are in, once one learns them. Do you really think people parroted Latin responses by memory without bothering to look to the right of the page to find out what they were saying for years and years and years? The epistle, the gospel and the homily were all in the vernacular. People use missals NOW, even for their own language. Some know responses and prayers like the Credo by heart. Many don’t seem to.
I’m sorry, and I am not trying to offend you personally, but do you not realize there are a lot of people who would want to make the effort to learn the Latin; that their wish is motivated by a piety engendered by it, but that their bishops won’t tolerate it and, notwithstanding repeated papal requests to honor those wishes, still won’t tolerate it? Why is it so important to some people to make dead certain the liturgy cannot be in more than one language? The bishops are ok with Slavonic, with Attic Greek, with Syriac, with Aramaic and all kinds of languages the people don’t actually use as their daily vernacular. Why is only Latin poisonous? Why is it the only one forbidden because “no one can understand”? Perhaps because they simply don’t like western culture, and like the idea of a universal Christendom least of all.
 
JKirk, I do see your point and I am no way advocating going back to Latin Masses all the time. But I don’t think that celebrating a Latin Mass one Sunday a month is a bad idea for any parish. It took our choir director years to get our cathedral rector to allow us to sing Pange Lingua on Holy Thursday (even using alternating Latin/English verses). From sheer aesthetics, Pange lingua gloriosi, is a whole lot better than Sing my tongue the Savior’s glory - which is not anywhere close to a literal translation of the Latin. I couldn’t tell you how many years we sang the Easter Sequence in English using the Episcopalian 1942 translation because it was a better translation.

For me, as an anthropology and history major, for me as a kid who was an altar boy before V II and who did learn Latin, for my very real Irish descended self who values tradition, I see it as a way of passing on the heritage of our ancestors - the deposit of faith.

I recognize my own bias. I admit that I am conciously trying to preserve something of the past and I fervently believe that we would not be having the excesses we are experiencing today in HMC if we hadn’t thrown the baby out with the bathwater in the late 60s.

This is far delayed damage control on the Holy Father’s part not a revolution.
 
Ridgerunner, thank you! This is not elitism. This is an effort to return us to our roots. Fine, have Mass in the vernacular. I have no problem with that but at least expose everyone to the Mass in Latin so that they can participate in the Mass with people who don’t speak English. If Mass in the vernacular is the sine qua non, why then aren’t all of the Papal Masses in Italian? Shouldn’t any baptized Catholic from any place upon God’s green earth be able to participate in a papal Mass at the Vatican? Yes, which is why the papal Masses are in Latin. Wherein lies this fear of Latin Masses? I just don’t get it.
 
I think a lot of resistance to the use of Latin (whether NO or Tridentine) comes from a misunderstanding and “protestantization” of the nature of sacred worship.

The congregation DOESNT NEED to “understand”. The mass is primarily the act of the priest.

Heck, in Eastern churches…the whole thing takes place behind an iconostasis seperate from the people…and even Western churches used to have “choir screens” or “rood screens” seperating the people in the Nave from the clergy in the choir and sanctuary.

People not being able to understand the mass is not my concern. In fact, it is part of the seperation of “sacred” and “profane”…

Psychologically, the use of a set (potentially non-vernacular) language in liturgy is a powerful threshold.

Sacred and Profane MUST be seperated.

That is why we have seperate consecrated buildings in which to worship…you know you cross that threshold and enter sacred space…there is a psychological change regardless of the simplicity or beauty of the space.

That is why within the Church there is a sanctuary that only clergy were supposed to enter in the past. Having a forbidden “Holy of Holies” is a powerful psychological veil of mystery…regardless of how spectacular or empty that secret place is.

That is why there is a special class of people, the clergy, set apart and consecrated for sacred duties…who have certain obligations and certain priviledges. Having ministers “set apart” with true authority is very powerful in the seperation of Sacred from Profane.

That is why we used to have Sacred music (plainchant especially) that was ONLY used in worship. The idea of “CD’s” of Gregorian Chant would have been unthinkable in the past…because the chant of the various rites (gregorian, slavonic, etc) was meant to be RESERVED for worship.

And that is why the various rites, up until a few decades ago, had a set language for worship. It may have started out as the vernacular millenia ago…but it became elevated, and was used for lofty liturgical and academic things away from the common, profane language. That is why the Jews worshipped in Hebrew long after aramaic became the common tongue, that is why Muslims believe that true reading of the Koran can only be in Arabic, regardless of your native tongue, that is why devout Hindus believe the holiest reading of the Vedas can only be in Sanskrit. These languages have been consecrated as Sacred.

Now…we go into a church that is often like a profane meeting hall, with a priest whose only special powers are a few ceremonies (all other duties being often co-opted by lay people), with music that is not reserved for worship, in the language we speak everyday…

The seperation of sacred and profane is a psychological one, but a powerful one. The sacred is consecrated to God for use in worship, and the profane is the world of the every day. It’s what makes worship “special” and not just another meeting at the office, or class in school, or meal with family, or conversation with friends. The Mass obviously maintains some sacredness in this regard by the mere fact that it is still RITUAL (something very powerful)…but as the N.O. descends more and more into just being a “meal with friends”…it will become more and more profane, and thus be more and more psychologically impotent.
 
So the 100 years are over, thanks be to God.
Are you sure about that?

When did they start? 🙂

Anyway, I’m not counting my chickens before they hatch. I got a feeling I’m going to be eating scrambled eggs.

Rumors have floated around before about a universal indult, and it didn’t happen.
 
Bravo, Struggling, bravo! Remarkable insight! With some exceptions at individual parishes, we have lost the sense of the sacred in today’s Church.
 
The congregation DOESNT NEED to “understand”. The mass is primarily the act of the priest.
The congregation does not need to understand for the sacrament to be effected, true. That is not to say that there is no benefit derived from the congregation understanding what is happening during Mass. Not a few post prior, some TLM proponent lamented that Catholics are “uninformed.”
Having a forbidden “Holy of Holies” is a powerful psychological veil of mystery…regardless of how spectacular or empty that secret place is.
[Mt 27:51](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=27&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=51) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent."
The idea of “CD’s” of Gregorian Chant would have been unthinkable in the past…
I do not think an historical case exist, since the idea of recorded music also did not exist.
And that is why the various rites, up until a few decades ago, had a set language for worship. It may have started out as the vernacular millenia ago…
Exactly. Mass in the vernacular is the reason we use Latin today. Other rites may use Aramaic, for example, because it is their common tongue. I think you are absolutely right about the need to separate the profane from the vernacular, just not as severely as you suggest. I believe the language arguement is the weakest, historically speaking.
 
I think a lot of resistance to the use of Latin (whether NO or Tridentine) comes from a misunderstanding and “protestantization” of the nature of sacred worship.

The congregation DOESNT NEED to “understand”. The mass is primarily the act of the priest.

Heck, in Eastern churches…the whole thing takes place behind an iconostasis seperate from the people…and even Western churches used to have “choir screens” or “rood screens” seperating the people in the Nave from the clergy in the choir and sanctuary.

People not being able to understand the mass is not my concern. In fact, it is part of the seperation of “sacred” and “profane”…

Psychologically, the use of a set (potentially non-vernacular) language in liturgy is a powerful threshold.

Sacred and Profane MUST be seperated.

That is why we have seperate consecrated buildings in which to worship…you know you cross that threshold and enter sacred space…there is a psychological change regardless of the simplicity or beauty of the space.

That is why within the Church there is a sanctuary that only clergy were supposed to enter in the past. Having a forbidden “Holy of Holies” is a powerful psychological veil of mystery…regardless of how spectacular or empty that secret place is.

That is why there is a special class of people, the clergy, set apart and consecrated for sacred duties…who have certain obligations and certain priviledges. Having ministers “set apart” with true authority is very powerful in the seperation of Sacred from Profane.

That is why we used to have Sacred music (plainchant especially) that was ONLY used in worship. The idea of “CD’s” of Gregorian Chant would have been unthinkable in the past…because the chant of the various rites (gregorian, slavonic, etc) was meant to be RESERVED for worship.

And that is why the various rites, up until a few decades ago, had a set language for worship. It may have started out as the vernacular millenia ago…but it became elevated, and was used for lofty liturgical and academic things away from the common, profane language. That is why the Jews worshipped in Hebrew long after aramaic became the common tongue, that is why Muslims believe that true reading of the Koran can only be in Arabic, regardless of your native tongue, that is why devout Hindus believe the holiest reading of the Vedas can only be in Sanskrit. These languages have been consecrated as Sacred.

Now…we go into a church that is often like a profane meeting hall, with a priest whose only special powers are a few ceremonies (all other duties being often co-opted by lay people), with music that is not reserved for worship, in the language we speak everyday…

The seperation of sacred and profane is a psychological one, but a powerful one. The sacred is consecrated to God for use in worship, and the profane is the world of the every day. It’s what makes worship “special” and not just another meeting at the office, or class in school, or meal with family, or conversation with friends. The Mass obviously maintains some sacredness in this regard by the mere fact that it is still RITUAL (something very powerful)…but as the N.O. descends more and more into just being a “meal with friends”…it will become more and more profane, and thus be more and more psychologically impotent.
Great post.
 
Reading the various posts here, I see many questions about the traditional mass, its origin, and the differences between it and the new mass or Novus Ordo instated officially in 1968.
Allow me to briefly supply some explanation.
  • The traditional mass
  • Its origin
  • Its contrast to the Novus Ordo
The traditional Mass is also known as the Tridentine Mass due to its standardization or summation at the Council of Trent in reply to the attacks of the Protestant Reformation.
The origin of the Mass as may be found in the words of the council and of the fathers is from “apostolic origin,” i.e., we know by their testimony that the arrangement of the Mass and even the words of the canon were passed down even from the beginning. It is true that at periods in the Church there were slight amendations, but in every case they were additions, in regard at least to the canon itself.
It is sometimes referred to as the Mass of Gregory the Great because of the work he did in preserving and standardizing the texts.
Lastly, it is known as the Tridentine Mass because of the effort then to standardize the customs and prayers within the mass to a close knit group of rites. All rites more than 200 years old were preserved, but all irregular abberrations were abolished in favour of a Roman rite unified not only in essentials, but also in rubrics and customs.
During the whole history of the Church, however, this Mass remained the same until certain men in the Church, despite the warnings of Pope Pius X, allowed the ideologies of Modernism to affect even the Mass itself.
The traditional Mass, passed down for nineteen hundred and sixty years, guided in its formation by the Holy Spirit working in His saints and other instruments, the Popes and Councils, remained the ancient rite of the Church, standing in parallel to the other traditional developments in the Eastern and minor Western Liturgies. This was our Mass.
Within five years, the Mass was not only edited, but, in fact, rewritten. Between 1963 and 1968, Monsigneur Bugnini, who had immense influence with Popes John XXIII and Pius VI, worked tirelessly to abolish all the ancient rites and to instate a Mass fitted to the new ideologies, one “opening its windows to the world,” a Mass fitted to the approval of the board of protestant advisors who sat as commentators within the council.
In 1968, despite the learned warning of such as Cardinal Ottaviani, who wrote a scholarly and devout reply to the Council, which haunted the fathers of the council, and to which there was no complete answer but an attempt in the General Instruction which did not at all affect or abolish the changes, the Novus Ordo was made universal practice according to the desire of the local bishops, and the traditional Mass was, for the most part, relegated to the private altar. Monsigneur Bugnini, a Mason who later was punished by being sent to Iran, triumphantly declares in his autobiography that his work was a triumph, that his Mass, some of the canons of which he wrote over coffee at a local cafe, had triumphed and replaced the old with the new. Within this timeframe the substantial references within the Mass to sacrifice and propitiation were gone, the prayers were rewritten, the emphasis was placed on a communal meal, the offertory was almost entirely taken away, and all references to the sacrifical offering for sin were reduced to a thanksgiving for the fruits of the earth, in reality, a simple blessing.
The claim that he meant to revive the archaic rites is obsolete, since it has since been proved that not the archaic rites of the Church, but those of the Jewish meal have been included.
A note to those who attend the Novus Ordo: I did as well at one time; those who attend the Tridentine Mass must understand that most raised in the New Mass not only have no malintent, but are the majority of Catholics many of whom strive to be as faithful to Our Lord as possible. It is only arrogance and a presumption of personal superiority which gives them impetus to label all others as liberals or worse.
I know this was long, but I hope that it will do. God bless.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top