Pope to Reintroduce Latin into the Novus Ordo and Move the "Sign of Peace"

[JReducation]

I hate to put a damper on this, but his is just a leak at this point. Let’s wait and see. The Church is full of surprises.

JR

 

[Julianna]

I hate to put a damper on this, but his is just a leak at this point. Let’s wait and see. The Church is full of surprises.

JR

true that JR! You know what they say…“if you don’t hear one…start one”

Joysong is right…as a “spirit of the law” type…I don’t follow the crowd.

 

[Joysong]

What baffles me is why the changes following Sacrosanctum Concilium appear to be generally detrimental to even a simpler and more accessible contemplative approach to prayer and communion with our Lord. For example: the sharp decrease in Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction, or the “hiding” of tabernacles, or the overemphasis of the meal (not even “feast”) dimension of Communion. How could one sit and worship Jesus in the form of a consecrated Host when they’ve been formed to think that – whatever they’ve been taught about the Real Presence notwithstanding – the Host is simply something for us to eat?

This is a rather presumptive negative statement that distorts reality. I’m starting to see the bad fruit that spoils the whole bushel when people read too many threads from skeptics and naysayers. If they consume enough of it, they start to believe the nonsense. I am really disheartened, for I always believed those who were strong defenders of the truth would never succomb to innuendo, and would always remain champions. What happened?

 

[japhy]

How do you see Sacro Sanctum Concilium detrimental to the faith?

I did not say Sacrosanctum Concilium was detrimental to the faith.

I said the changes that followed Sacrosanctum Concilium. I meant “came after”, not “according to”. It seems to me that there is a disconnect between some of the changes to the liturgy and devotional practices and what was mandated by the document.

 

[japhy]

This is a rather presumptive negative statement that distorts reality. I’m starting to see the bad fruit that spoils the whole bushel when people read too many threads from skeptics and naysayers. If they consume enough of it, they start to believe the nonsense.

Could you explain your displeasure with the substance of my quote, rather than simply its tone? I’m not getting spoiled by reading “threads from skeptics and naysayers”. I am speaking from experience. I have seen the faces of teenagers – not to mention also the majority of their skin, if you know what I mean – during Adoration, and many of them simply display bland indifference.

Believe it or not, there are parishes in the US that discourage Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. There are parishes that are offended by the thought of people treating the Eucharist like a “sacred object”. Am I to imagine that they are really “ahead of the curve”? That they “got it” while the rest of the world is still stuck in a medieval superstition being passed off as “contemplative devotion”?

I think the problem I have is that some people are calling any retrieval of a formerly discarded practice “going back” or “turning back”. They can’t see it as going forward in any way.

 

[japhy]

I have to ask where all this re-education is going to come from? Specifically, how many 30 something soccer moms are going to enroll in Latin classes so they can teach the kiddos during catechism class “one day a week” after school?

HOW MANY TIMES is this red herring going to be used? It derails the conversation EVERY single time.

NO ONE is saying that we have to “learn Latin”, and no one is saying that our children are going to be taught Latin (the way many adults here learned it when they were children).

The only Latin you would need to know is the Latin responses and chants that are “proper” to the congregation. Things like Et cum spiritu tuo and Gloria tibi, Domine. Once you figure out how to pronounce them, the battle is over, because you KNOW what they mean already because of WHEN in the Mass you’re saying them.

As for other possible Latin that you might hear (which is the topic of this thread), the Eucharistic Prayer, for example, you can prepare before or after Mass to know what will be prayed. (Although, to be honest, now that there’s around half a dozen in “regular rotation”, you might wonder which one was used.) And since you should know generally what the Eucharistic Prayer is for and does, you can pray along with it in your own mind, in your own words, uniting your prayer to the priest’s as you unite your self to the offering of Jesus Christ on the altar. And I would hope the priests make it easy for the faithful to know when the “Institution Narrative” begins, so that we can place devout attention during the consecration.

Sure the Pope has requested that new seminarians learn Latin…but that is like drilling for oil in the Anwar province…it will take years to see it to fruition.

Heh, nice comparison. The funny thing is, seminarians were never not supposed to learn Latin. But it’s another thing that fell by the wayside and wasn’t corrected. And I don’t expect the first few generations will be as adept as previous ones were. But I would also expect that a good percentage of the men who are going into the seminary at this time are prepared for the challenge of Latin and might even already be somewhat spiritually and mentally prepared for it.

What resources are going to be put in place (I am speaking specifically in the US) to ensure that every diocese implements this? At what age will catechists begin teaching their students Latin? Will this be a requirement before communion…confirmation?

More misunderstanding. Read above.

 

[ethelzguy]

We need to be careful of opinions that seem to make many presumptions of individuals, unfairly, who attend the OF mass.

We cannot see into the hearts of people in this way, or presume to know who is more predisposed to prayerful preparation and who is not. These are matters of the heart, not matters of the language of the mass.

Outward appearances can be very deceiving. Ask the Pharisees who ended up on the wrong end of those arguments with Christ himself. It was the man who went into his closet to pray that was seen by Christ as holy, not the one who used the proper form in the Temple for all to see.

I think what you have written here underscores the issue(s) with the tradtionalist crowd. They seem to be caught up in outward appearances, completely disregarding the inner soul.

 

[Joysong]

Could you explain your displeasure with the substance of my quote, rather than simply its tone? I’m not getting spoiled by reading “threads from skeptics and naysayers”. I am speaking from experience. I have seen the faces of teenagers – not to mention also the majority of their skin, if you know what I mean – during Adoration, and many of them simply display bland indifference.

I thought I did that, by using specific underlining.

• Overemphasis of the meal. This implies that priests and catechists are deliberately deceiving students in sacramental prep, and/or homiletics.
• they’ve been formed to think … See above response.
• the host is merely something to be eaten. Assumptions per your personal experience, which is not reflective of the universal Church or belief of most Catholics.

I am speaking from experience. I have seen the faces of teenagers …

Your perception from a handful of local teenagers does not encompass every typical Catholic. You might want to be an EMHC in other USA-wide parishes and see the devotion on people’s faces. [Or do you think serving as an EMHC is wrong for you?] Catholics at large do not believe the host is simply a piece of bread, as you imply, and expect that everyone else will believe your opinion is therefore a correct reality.

The problem you allege with adoration is primarily due to lack of safety where open churches are no longer a possibility, as it was in the olden days. Nevertheless, I belonged to a parish in Florida that was fortunate enough to have a separate chapel adjoined to the church which had a specific way of locking and only those who signed up for 24-hour adoration, 7 days/week, were able to enter. This would be an ideal, but is not always practical to implement. My parish has 24-hour Adoration every First Friday and it is critical that we can rely on people to attend their assigned times. This may not be a possibility as it was in Florida for every day of the week, but that was a huge parish with a lot of dedicated Catholics. You can imagine - that would need 168 people per week. Isn’t that proof enough for you that your statement is unfounded?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As I think about the re-introduction of Latin into the liturgy I can’t help but reflect on the fact that there is a difference in motivation between the Church and many people in the pew. This really distresses me.

The Church’s motivation is to preserve continuity. Additionally, the Church wants to meet the pastoral needs of those who legitimately yearn for this detail in the liturgy. I believe that we should reflect on this.

We are called to be one people. Nonetheless, we are also called to preserve our individuality, for God works through the individual parts of the Body, just as our mind works through each part of our body. Therefore, it is our duty to accept and appreciate everything that speaks about our unity with each other and with those who came before us, as well as those who will follow. At the same time, we must allow ourselves and each other the room to be the persons we are. Not everyone is going to like the use of Latin in the liturgy. We have to accept that. It is unfair to expect everyone to like it.

True love of the liturgy begins with true prayer. Interior prayer is a pre-requisite for liturgy. If we do not take time to spend quiet time with the Beloved on a daily basis, no matter how much Latin you put into the liturgy, you will not sense its fullness.

In addition, without a deeper life of prayer, we will always find it difficult to appreciate the differences in our brothers and sisters. When we fail to appreciate those differences, then we find it difficult to accept that they may have a different reaction to something, such as Latin in the Eucharist or a change in the order of the mass. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that true charity is found only through deep contemplation. Those who dedicate time to spend with the Beloved also grow in charity.

The deeper our growth in charity, the greater our awareness of the presence of Incarnate Charity, because they go hand-in-hand; Jesus is Charity Incarnate. He is truly found in the Eucharist. But he is not found through Latin or English. He is found through charity. The Church’s desire to re-instate more Latin into the Liturgy stems from the charity of her master.

The Church doesn’t want us to return to the past. The Church wants us to move into a deeper union with Christ. She organizes the liturgy in response to our need. She is always the most caring mother who looks at the needs of her children and prepares them to face the future.

We live in a world where there is an absence of God. We have created a microwave society where we receive instant gratification by pressing a button. Therefore, we have become deaf and blind to that which does not offer instant gratification or that which calls us to venture upon the most difficult penitential journey. To me that journey consists in waiting on the Lord. We don’t’ want to hear that. We don’t want to wait. We want instant gratification.

We have brought this same narcissistic attitude into our faith, whether one is an extreme conservative or extreme liberal. Both suffer from the same social contamination. Neither wants to wait on the Lord and remember that he is God. Both want results and change now and on their terms.

I believe that the re-introduction of Latin is not about making the liturgy holier. You cannot improve on perfection. The sacrifice of Christ on Calvary cannot be improved. The idea is to help us to slow down and to remember that God exists outside of time and space. By using a language that is not common to our time and space, we are brought face to face with an eternal reality that our world needs today.

Let’s not focus so much on recovering what was happening in the 19th century. Let’s focus on the call to transcend beyond ourselves, beyond our time and space, to meet Christ in prayer outside of liturgy so that we can experience him as Incarnate Charity in the Eucharist. This means that we put aide the debates on the merits of Latin vs. Modern Languages and spend more time discussing the true meaning of stepping outside of time to meet the Beloved through contemplation. He who does not make room for contemplation and eats of the table of the Lord will miss out on the experience of the great saints and the joy that transfixed them from the altar to Heaven, while still in this life.

JR

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

God Bless
Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When asked about the issue of the Motu Propio and the OF, this is what Msgr. Guido Marini, the Pope’s Master of Ceremonies, had to say:

As far back as his days as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict noted that problems did not lie with the OF, itself. Rather, what ha become problematic is the manner in which the OF is celebrated. There was too much experimentation going on to the point that people were being guided by the alleged “Spirit of Vatican II” than by what the documents actually said.

Well I was raised with the TLM, and I can tell you, that the abuses back then were far more damaging spiritually, than the abuses in the NO.

Myself and my family still remember the grumpy old priest, who would say the TLM in 15 minutes and his angry attitude, when distributing Holy Communion.

I remember the overly pious priest, who said the TLM, and how his mass took over and hour. As a result, his Mass was thinly attended over the grumpy 15 minute priest’s Mass. The overly pious priest left the priesthood, got married and became an Episcopal priest.

I also remember the horrible choirs and the mangling of Latin songs and prayers. I remember altar boys who mumbled the prayers, that people only could read along with.

People who think that all the Masses in those days were filled with reverence and abuse free, are fantasizing, for such wasn’t the case. There was reverent well celebrated Mass, and there were poorly celebrated Masses. What mattered, just as it does today, is the hearts of the people who attended.

Jim

 

[Joysong]

JimR-OCDS:

Well I was raised with the TLM, and I can tell you, that the abuses back then were far more damaging spiritually, than the abuses in the NO.

Myself and my family still remember the grumpy old priest, who would say the TLM in 15 minutes and his angry attitude, when distributing Holy Communion.

Fr. Groeschel in his timely program yesterday on EWTN said the same thing. He explained that he and Pope Benedict et al belonged to a reform movement called “Liturgical Movement” where the effort consisted of eliminating the abuses from the TLM. Father admitted in no unwavering terms that he observed exactly what you said above, Jim. It was not our imagination, but absolute mumbo-jumbo was the norm.

 

[ethelzguy]

Well I was raised with the TLM, and I can tell you, that the abuses back then were far more damaging spiritually, than the abuses in the NO.

Myself and my family still remember the grumpy old priest, who would say the TLM in 15 minutes and his angry attitude, when distributing Holy Communion.

I remember the overly pious priest, who said the TLM, and how his mass took over and hour. As a result, his Mass was thinly attended over the grumpy 15 minute priest’s Mass. The overly pious priest left the priesthood, got married and became an Episcopal priest.

I also remember the horrible choirs and the mangling of Latin songs and prayers. I remember altar boys who mumbled the prayers, that people only could read along with.

People who think that all the Masses in those days were filled with reverence and abuse free, are fantasizing, for such wasn’t the case. There was reverent well celebrated Mass, and there were poorly celebrated Masses. What mattered, just as it does today, is the hearts of the people who attended.

Jim

As I have stated before, I think many of those who crave the TLM today are attending a version of the TLM that is rather different than the ones we attended prior to Vatican II.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As I have stated before, I think many of those who crave the TLM today are attending a version of the TLM that is rather different than the ones we attended prior to Vatican II.

Without a doubt. The one parish in my area that has the TLM, attracts those who desire this form of Mass, from as far as 50 miles away.

So, this Mass is attended by a different mindset than the people who attend Sunday Masses at their home parish. It is more reverent.

Its like the Mass that was said at our OCDS meeting. Even though it was the NO, the people who attended, were all contemplatives. The reverence was far above any Sunday Mass that I’ve ever attended at a parish.

Same is true for Masses said at a Monastery. The Catholics that bother to get up and drive to a 6:40 AM Mass, 30 miles away, are a different type of Catholic than the one’s who attend Mass at their parishes.

Jim

 

[cspb56]

I totally agree with JimR-OCDS. LIke today either the mass was celebrated well or it wasn’t. A lot of people point to St. John Cantius in Chicago. They do a wonderful job of celebrating the latin mass. However, that experience was never that of the ordinary parish prior to the council. They do cathedral type masses. How many parish had or even had the luxury of professionsal choirs and orchestras? Either you had good music or bad, good presiding and homilies or bad, just like today. All was not perfect back then anymore than it is now.

 

[BSHoop96]

As far back as his days as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict noted that problems did not lie with the OF, itself. Rather, what ha become problematic is the manner in which the OF is celebrated. There was too much experimentation going on to the point that people were being guided by the alleged “Spirit of Vatican II” than by what the documents actually said./]QUOTE]

Excellent point. I have read this before and thank you for point it out here.

 

[japhy]

I thought I did that, by using specific underlining.

I meant that, instead of just calling it “negative”, respond to the allegations (as you have done below):

• Overemphasis of the meal. This implies that priests and catechists are deliberately deceiving students in sacramental prep, and/or homiletics.
• they’ve been formed to think … See above response.
• the host is merely something to be eaten. Assumptions per your personal experience, which is not reflective of the universal Church or belief of most Catholics.

I’m not sure they’re necessarily “deceiving” students; the people doing the formation might, themselves, be under-educated. Or, to use someone else’s phrasing, are the 40 soccer moms who catechize the parish’s children all squared away in their sacramental formation?

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the vast majority of Catholics know that the Eucharist is a sacrifice offered to God in atonement for our sins and for the souls of the living and the dead. Maybe they know it requires the ministerial hierarchical priesthood. Maybe they know that Christ is received whole and entire under either species. Maybe they know that even a crumb of the Host and a drop of the Blood contain Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Maybe they know not to receive if they are conscious of mortal sin on their souls. Maybe they know Holy Communion is only offered to those who actually hold the Catholic faith (save some truly exceptional cases!).

Your perception from a handful of local teenagers does not encompass every typical Catholic. You might want to be an EMHC in other USA-wide parishes and see the devotion on people’s faces.

They’re not all local. And I’ve been to parishes in other parts of the country. I don’t doubt many Catholics approach Holy Communion with devotion.

[Or do you think serving as an EMHC is wrong for you?]

I do not feel called to be an EMHC in the least bit.

Catholics at large do not believe the host is simply a piece of bread, as you imply, and expect that everyone else will believe your opinion is therefore a correct reality.

I don’t know how many Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence, but that wasn’t my point. I said, their belief in the Real Presence notwithstanding, they still primarily see the Eucharist as something for THEM to receive and eat, and not as something to be worshiped, nor a sacrifice offered to God the Father.

The problem you allege with adoration is primarily due to lack of safety where open churches are no longer a possibility, as it was in the olden days.

I’m not talking about perpetual Adoration or even 40 hours. I’m talking about regular Adoration and Benediction. Build up; start with the small stuff.

 

[BSHoop96]

Hi Julianna,

I feel comfortable responding to your post because I do not sense that you will analyze every word of mine in order to proselytize me and instruct me how to like the latin mass.

All I did was submit a simple post saying that I would have a problem with not being totally involved in all of my mental faculties, and for expressing my opinion, I had numerous analytical replies as though I am either inept or wrong in making a personal choice in opting for the vernacular.

Everyone else besides the author of this post is expected by now to KNOW the words so well that there is no ‘excuse’? No allowance for anyone else who might feel latin will not “enrich” their participation?

As if people are going to read the mass prayers at home or twenty minutes beforehand while everyone is praying the rosary? And as if that will make me “like” it better? As if I always go to mass unprepared?

This is good liturgy? Just sitting quitely with my own thoughts while the priest prays the canon? I am to “like” this better?

This is a rubric? That people who are visual pray-ers and prefer a Missal are wrong in doing so?

As if it is a must-read for for the pre-papal writings for every Catholic or they won’t experience good liturgy with the Lord? And if they did read these, they would then like latin or there’s something wrong with their mind?

Somehow I feel like I have been taken over the coals and not received a lawful right to my own mind and preference, as if I were breaking house rules and needed to be re-educated.

So Julianna, thanks for not following the crowd. It is refreshing.

Joysong…my feelings also. Well said.

 

[japhy]

It was not our imagination, but absolute mumbo-jumbo was the norm.

You now dare to say “absolute mumbo-jumbo was the norm” because of the experiences some Catholics had with some of their priests?

Perhaps we should stop making generalizations at all. We’re all due to be scolded for them.

 

[japhy]

Well I was raised with the TLM, and I can tell you, that the abuses back then were far more damaging spiritually, than the abuses in the NO. … People who think that all the Masses in those days were filled with reverence and abuse free, are fantasizing, for such wasn’t the case. There was reverent well celebrated Mass, and there were poorly celebrated Masses. What mattered, just as it does today, is the hearts of the people who attended.

Of course abuses occurred back then. I don’t know anyone on this board who has said that we lived in a “golden age” of liturgy before Vatican II.

We’re attempting to rehabilitate the Extraordinary Form, so that it is celebrated reverently and well and without the abuses you mentioned. We’re also attempting to rehabilitate the Ordinary Form, for the same purposes.

 

[japhy]

A lot of people point to St. John Cantius in Chicago. They do a wonderful job of celebrating the latin mass. However, that experience was never that of the ordinary parish prior to the council. … All was not perfect back then anymore than it is now.

Yes, can we move past this now? We know the Mass was not celebrated perfectly every time back then, nor is it now. That doesn’t mean we can’t improve. There are some Catholics who want the Mass from “back then” to be celebrated better today; is that so much to ask for? No, in fact, I think the Church is more than happen to accommodate them.