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

[benedictgal]

May I add a little insight into why someone might want to follow along in their missal?

I know that you are very well versed in the liturgy, it seems to be a particular passion for you, which is truly wonderful. I’m pretty certain that you have it memorized forward and backward, and that I admire.

I’m not sure if you are aware that not everyone is so disposed to this kind of attention to detail. Many people you see struggling are even very new to the faith and find the flow of the mass very difficult to follow and understand, even when it is done in the vernacular.

It is only charitable to allow people to move in the experience of the mass in a way that is beneficial to them, which may mean following along in the missal until such a time as they understand its flow and can participate without stress, with comfort and eventually real understanding, so they can be true participants in the offering and worship.

Just my thoughts! As a fairly new Catholic, I still like to follow the missal. It never occured to me that there may be people around me judging this as inappropriate, I sure hope their focus is not on me.

I am not judging you, nor am I wanting to hit the neophytes over the head with the Roman Missal .

However, those who have been Catholics all of their lives (or, at least for a few years, now) should be able to know what is happening at the altar. The big problem is that catechesis ends either at Confirmation or, in rare cases, at the high school level. Some RCIA programs may not even go into depth during the mystagogia period and just leave the neophytes on their own.

There was one instance when my PV decided to use the EP for Reconciliation. You should have heard the pages flutter as people were trying to find the EP in their missallettes and couldn’t because it wasn’t there. We’ve become so dependent on the Missallettes that we’ve forgotten where the true focus should lie.

During Christmas, my PV prayed the Roman Canon in Latin for the bilingual Mass (in keeping with Sacramentum Caritatis). Again, you could hear the flutter of the pages. When he chanted Mysterium Fidei, the choir got lost. The problem is, if you’ve been going to Mass most of your life, you should be able to know that the Mystery of Faith follows the consecration of the Precious Blood. He wound up chanting his own (which he had taught us beforehand).

 

[pnewton]

Really, the faithful have no need to ‘follow’ the Eucharistic Prayer. It’s a converstation between Christ and the Father.

All we really need to know are the Elevations, so we can Adore, and offer ourselves as a personal sacrifice to the Father, along with (but distinct from) the Sacrifice that Christ makes via the priest.

The faithful should not, as a rule, follow along in the missalette. I understand that as a crutch or a way of introduction they are useful for a time.

However, even though the prayer does not include the faithful, it is said out loud. If we switch over to Latin, the crutch will be needed all the more.

I enjoy the irony that the point is made about the Eucharistic Prayer does not involve the lay faithful in the conversation. I remember when the MP came out in 2007 everyone was abuzz about it, even though the cover letter addressed it from the Pope to the bishops. I guess the laity can’t help but want to eavesdrop in this day and age.

 

[japhy]

The faithful should not, as a rule, follow along in the missalette. I understand that as a crutch or a way of introduction they are useful for a time.

I don’t know what the “rule” is, but the Church (at least during the time of Pope Pius XII) encouraged use of a daily missal (cf. Mediator Dei, nn. 105-109). Ideally, the person shouldn’t end up failing to pay attention to the Mass because he’s spending his time waiting for his next “cue” (which I admit I was guilty of Friday morning at a Byzantine Liturgy), but a daily missal itself is not a barrier to participation nor a crutch.

However, even though the prayer does not include the faithful, it is said out loud. If we switch over to Latin, the crutch will be needed all the more.

How long do people often need to follow along with the Eucharistic Prayers? I did it as a kid, I know, but I don’t need to anymore (and I didn’t need to then, either… I could recite them). That’s part of the problem with having a dozen or more Eucharistic Prayers: people might not be familiar with all of them, and when they hear a new one they’re so caught up in the novelty that they’re simply not paying attention to what’s happening. They might pay superficial attention (to the new words) without paying attention to the very thing being prayed (i.e. can’t see the forest for the trees), and they might not pay attention to the actual Eucharist, nor offer their own prayers, etc.

I enjoy the irony that the point is made about the Eucharistic Prayer does not involve the lay faithful in the conversation. I remember when the MP came out in 2007 everyone was abuzz about it, even though the cover letter addressed it from the Pope to the bishops. I guess the laity can’t help but want to eavesdrop in this day and age.

That’s real nice.

 

[cspb56]

Latin for almost the first thousand years of the church was the VERNACULAR, spoken and understood by all. It was not nor is it a sacred language. Certainly papal liturgies using latin makes sense since, especially in Rome there are folks from all over the world. A little of use of latin elsewhere is fine as it is part of our tradition but then maybe we need to reintroduce greek since the mass was in greek long before it was in latin.

There is this feeling we will gain a greater reverence if things “go back”. We won’t. To achieve that we have to start at the beginning…catechesis…that reverence has to come from within and until it does we can change things again and again. We have a generation plus of poorly catechized folks…thats the problem. I have participated in many beuatiful NO liturgies. It really comes from within and if the folks particpating don’t have that things won’t change.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Latin for almost the first thousand years of the church was the VERNACULAR, spoken and understood by all. It was not nor is it a sacred language. Certainly papal liturgies using latin makes sense since, especially in Rome there are folks from all over the world. A little of use of latin elsewhere is fine as it is part of our tradition but then maybe we need to reintroduce greek since the mass was in greek long before it was in latin.

There is this feeling we will gain a greater reverence if things “go back”. We won’t. To achieve that we have to start at the beginning…catechesis…that reverence has to come from within and until it does we can change things again and again. We have a generation plus of poorly catechized folks…thats the problem. I have participated in many beuatiful NO liturgies. It really comes from within and if the folks particpating don’t have that things won’t change.

Right. Some will point out that such a change will be an opening to catechize, to teach people about why we use latin, but to me, thats no different than Conversion by the Sword, then telling people what the converted to.

okay, so its a little different, but you get the point

 

[japhy]

Latin for almost the first thousand years of the church was the VERNACULAR, spoken and understood by all. It was not nor is it a sacred language.

The Church disagrees with you.

The Latin used in the liturgy quickly became distinct from the vulgar (i.e. common) Latin used in daily life. Some other countries that use the vernacular in their liturgies use a version of the vernacular that is not identical to the current vernacular, but rather an “elevated” or “imperial” version.

As for the sacrality of Latin, read Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia to see the mind of the Church going into Vatican II.

Certainly papal liturgies using latin makes sense since, especially in Rome there are folks from all over the world.

How about other international gatherings? Why have a Spanish Mass, an English Mass, and a Portuguese Mass in the same parish when you could have a Latin Mass?

A little of use of latin elsewhere is fine as it is part of our tradition but then maybe we need to reintroduce greek since the mass was in greek long before it was in latin.

Just enough Latin, lip service really, to shut up the people who are lamenting its virtual extinction from the Latin Rite of the Church? That’s not what Vatican II called for. And as for Greek, maybe if the priests and choir would sing the Kyrie in Greek, that’d be a start. But the tradition of the Roman Rite, for the past 1700 years or so, has had very little Greek at all.

There is this feeling we will gain a greater reverence if things “go back”. We won’t.

Why is using Latin necessarily “going back”? Can’t it be a step forward?

To achieve that we have to start at the beginning…catechesis…that reverence has to come from within and until it does we can change things again and again. We have a generation plus of poorly catechized folks…thats the problem.

I agree completely that poor (or no) catechesis is the primary problem affecting the faithful today. Why more pastors haven’t figured that out, I don’t know. Until people know what their faith is, and what the liturgy is, and what the Mass is, and WHO the Eucharist IS, we’re making a bunch of empty gestures in just under 60 minutes (because we’re busy on Sundays).

 

[JReducation]

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

 

[japhy]

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.

I don’t entirely agree here, because I would question how much time the average Catholic spends preparing himself for the Mass. If it’s all going to be in the vernacular, he can take for granted that he’ll hear it and understand it all. But if some of it will be in Latin, if he actually has any interest in knowing what is being prayed/said/sung, he will prepare himself (or, less preferably, “post-pare” himself) so that he can unite himself to the prayer of the Mass.

Latin will perhaps do some sifting. At the very least, it will do some challenging.

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.

I disagree with your first half; I don’t think it has to be an either-or here. I think the goal is to restore a sense of the sacred that is missing in much of the Church today, to “[make] the liturgy holier” and thereby make the people holier. A banal, secularized liturgy cannot be expected to dispose its partakers to the graces it should offer. We should be called to holiness by the very air we breathe, words we say, things we see, and songs we hear. We shouldn’t be comfortable with a holiness that ignores immodesty, impatience, crassness, selfishness, and indifference.

To say that the liturgy is “perfect” is ridiculous. The Ordinary Form is not perfect, nor is the Extraordinary Form. The liturgical reform is meant to have two purposes: to better worship the Lord God, and to better serve the faithful in their growth in holiness. We can suppose that the liturgical reform that led to the Ordinary Form endeavored to meet both those goals. Therefore, we can assume that the Ordinary Form was intended to “perfect” the previous form of the liturgy in some way, whether it be clarity, accessibility, etc.

I agree with the second half of your statement. But I repeat, it’s both-and, not either-or.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I don’t entirely agree here, because I would question how much time the average Catholic spends preparing himself for the Mass. If it’s all going to be in the vernacular, he can take for granted that he’ll hear it and understand it all. But if some of it will be in Latin, if he actually has any interest in knowing what is being prayed/said/sung, he will prepare himself (or, less preferably, “post-pare” himself) so that he can unite himself to the prayer of the Mass.

Latin will perhaps do some sifting. At the very least, it will do some challenging.

.

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.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t entirely agree here, because I would question how much time the average Catholic spends preparing himself for the Mass. If it’s all going to be in the vernacular, he can take for granted that he’ll hear it and understand it all. But if some of it will be in Latin, if he actually has any interest in knowing what is being prayed/said/sung, he will prepare himself (or, less preferably, “post-pare” himself) so that he can unite himself to the prayer of the Mass.

Latin will perhaps do some sifting. At the very least, it will do some challenging.

I disagree with your first half; I don’t think it has to be an either-or here. I think the goal is to restore a sense of the sacred that is missing in much of the Church today, to “[make] the liturgy holier” and thereby make the people holier. A banal, secularized liturgy cannot be expected to dispose its partakers to the graces it should offer. We should be called to holiness by the very air we breathe, words we say, things we see, and songs we hear. We shouldn’t be comfortable with a holiness that ignores immodesty, impatience, crassness, selfishness, and indifference.

To say that the liturgy is “perfect” is ridiculous. The Ordinary Form is not perfect, nor is the Extraordinary Form. The liturgical reform is meant to have two purposes: to better worship the Lord God, and to better serve the faithful in their growth in holiness. We can suppose that the liturgical reform that led to the Ordinary Form endeavored to meet both those goals. Therefore, we can assume that the Ordinary Form was intended to “perfect” the previous form of the liturgy in some way, whether it be clarity, accessibility, etc.

I agree with the second half of your statement. But I repeat, it’s both-and, not either-or.

I was not thinking an immediate preparation for the liturgy. I am speaking of the importance of a contemplative life as we have seen in the lives of Teresa of Avila, Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Catherine Doherty, Dorathy Day, Mother Teresa, and Pascal Baylon.

These men and women were lifted up at the Eucharist, not by the environment of the celebration. When we examine their words they tell us that they found the Incarnation of their Beloved in the Eucharist, the same Beloved that they encountered every day in silence and prayer. This was possible only because they created a daily space in the schedule and lives for the Beloved.

John Neuman wrote of this in his journals. Even though he was a priest, he realized that he needed to a man of prayer. Thus he decided to leave the diocesan priesthood and enter the Redemptorists Religious, to find prayer. Because he said that without a daily and intense life of prayer, the Eucharist was ritualistic.

Elizabeth Ann Seton was a busy mother of five children. Yet she would take leave of her children every day to spend silent time with her Beloved. When she encountered him in the Eucharist, she was transfixed from here to eternity.

Catherine Doherty was the wife of a priest and a mother. She had many responsbilities. But she would lock herself away in a room to spend at least an hour with the Lord on a daily basis. When she received the Eucharist she found no one there except her and her beloved. She lived through both the old and the new liturgy. However, nothing ever changed for her. Because her love was rooted in an intimate relationship of daily dialogue and periods of silence with Christ.

Maria Ghoretti’s mother was able to forgive her child’s murderer and even visited him in prison to take him food. She loved him dearly and eventually, when he became a Capuchin Franciscan, she visited him at the friary. She always said that she found the holiness in this man through her intimate prayer life and when she went to communion, she would see his face on the face of Christ in the host. She began to pray for him. When he left prison, he became a religious.

This is the kind of contemplation that we need to get past the struggles that we have with the celebration of the Eucharist. We need to spend time with Christ in the desert, on a daily basis, in order to recognize him in the Eucharist, even when there are banal distractions or other things that we do not like. Because eventually, the intensity of the relationship between the soul and Christ overshadows all the rest. All we will see in the Eucharist will be him who is the Incarnation of Love.

JR

 

[SenorSalsa]

JR, im sure you probably bring up really good points, but theyre just so dang long

At least you do have the decency to use paragraphs. Walls of Text get obnoxious, really quickly.

 

[benedictgal]

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 for the motu proprio cited, considering this with serene attention and without ideological views, together with the letter presenting it addressed by the pope to the bishops of the whole world, a precise, twofold intention emerges. First of all, there is the intention of making it easier to reach “a reconciliation in the bosom of the Church”; and in this sense, as has been said, the motu proprio is a beautiful act of love for the unity of the Church. In the second place – and this fact must not be forgotten – ***its aim is that of fostering a mutual enrichment between the two forms of the Roman rite: in such a way, for example, that in the celebration according to the missal of Paul VI (the ordinary form of the Roman rite) "will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.» ***

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.

 

[Julianna]

I skipped quickly through this long thread to see if there were other reports to substantiate the OP’s … but there were none.

This was posted as a news item on another forum, and it urges caution that the report was not able to be substantiated with Panorama.

Thanks Joysong. I kind of wish there were a Catholic version of “snopes” or “urban lengend” .com it sure would clear things up.

It is sad to think that some folks who read the title will buy into this…and a plethora of questions among the paranoid will follow…i.e. “Is it ok to eat chocolate on the 3rd Sunday after Christmas while watching an infomercial?”

While the latin push is on…I find it ironic that some folks who are doing cartwheels over it are the same folks who want an “English” as the official language of the US and dislike Spanish Masses.

an eye opener for sure. Glad it’s just a study.

 

[estesbob]

Thanks Joysong. I kind of wish there were a Catholic version of “snopes” or “urban lengend” .com it sure would clear things up.

It is sad to think that some folks who read the title will buy into this…and a plethora of questions among the paranoid will follow…i.e. “Is it ok to eat chocolate on the 3rd Sunday after Christmas while watching an infomercial?”

While the latin push is on…I find it ironic that some folks who are doing cartwheels over it are the same folks who want an “English” as the official language of the US and dislike Spanish Masses.

an eye opener for sure. Glad it’s just a study.

Well I like Spanish Masses when I am in Mexico but I wish the Mass was still in Latin. In the old days you could to Mass in any country in the world and not understand what the Priest was saying-kinda unified us all.

 

[pnewton]

Well I like Spanish Masses when I am in Mexico but I wish the Mass was still in Latin. In the old days you could to Mass in any country in the world and not understand what the Priest was saying-kinda unified us all.

sauce for the goose?

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks Joysong. I kind of wish there were a Catholic version of “snopes” or “urban lengend” .com it sure would clear things up.

It is sad to think that some folks who read the title will buy into this…and a plethora of questions among the paranoid will follow…i.e. “Is it ok to eat chocolate on the 3rd Sunday after Christmas while watching an infomercial?”

While the latin push is on…I find it ironic that some folks who are doing cartwheels over it are the same folks who want an “English” as the official language of the US and dislike Spanish Masses.

an eye opener for sure. Glad it’s just a study.

Actually, I wouldn’t call it an “urban legend”, Julianana. If you read my earlier post, you will find that Pope Benedict has already begun laying the groundwork for both of these measures. In Sacramentum Caritatis, he made this statement regarding the use of Latin:

In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (184)

While he is specifically addressing the issue of huge, international Masses, the last part opens the door for what he is proposing to do. In fact, at his General Audiences, Pope Benedict is going so far as to printing the Pater Noster in Latin and personally leading the faithful in chanting this prayer.

The problem is that there are those who may not have read any of his pre-papal writings on the liturgy and have little to no clue as to where we are heading. A simple reading of The Spirit of the Liturgy, A New Song for the Lord and Feast of Faith will give you the blueprint of where the Church is heading with Pope Benedict at the helm.

Furthermore, regarding the issue of the placement of the Sign of Peace, that is the one issue where he and the Neocats have found agreement, to the point that this is the one concession he has granted them in their hybrid of the Mass. Everything else has to go by the norms. The issue of moving the Sign of Peace is something that the Holy Father has advocated even as Cardinal Ratzinger.

Therefore, I would be careful when categorizing something as an urban legend or dismissing it outright without further investigating.

 

[Joysong]

Hi Julianna,

While the latin push is on…

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.

No, actually, since we’ve been praying in the vernacular for so long, we can’t use the excuse that we don’t know what we’re praying (unless we admit that even the vernacular hasn’t helped us!). Therefore, to re-introduce Latin into the liturgy will enrich our participation, because it will be more manifestly universal and we’ll know what we’re saying (which is often the argument about the pre-V2 Mass: no one knew what they were saying… well, now you DO).

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?

Perhaps it would help those who have issues about Latin to actually prepare for the Mass by reading the prayers beforehand.

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?

Really, the faithful have no need to ‘follow’ the Eucharistic Prayer. It’s a conversation between Christ and the Father.

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

It is just as bad to have your face buried in your Missal, especially when the Eucharistic Prayer is proclaimed in your language.

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

The problem is that there are those who may not have read any of his pre-papal writings on the liturgy and have little to no clue as to where we are heading.

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.

 

[japhy]

I was not thinking an immediate preparation for the liturgy. I am speaking of the importance of a contemplative life as we have seen in the lives of Teresa of Avila, Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Catherine Doherty, Dorathy Day, Mother Teresa, and Pascal Baylon. … This is the kind of contemplation that we need to get past the struggles that we have with the celebration of the Eucharist. We need to spend time with Christ in the desert, on a daily basis, in order to recognize him in the Eucharist, even when there are banal distractions or other things that we do not like. Because eventually, the intensity of the relationship between the soul and Christ overshadows all the rest. All we will see in the Eucharist will be him who is the Incarnation of Love.

I don’t disagree about the importance of a contemplative prayer life. For many people, though, this contemplative lifestyle takes a very long time to cultivate, and we can’t all be expected to be Setons or Baylons.

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?

We run the risk of turning the corporal works of mercy into simply humanitarian efforts if we only see Communion as God’s gift to us as we go into the world and neglect that it is the Eucharist and the Most Blessed Sacrament (a sacrifice to God) before it is Communion.

And the people you’ve mentioned were able to cultivate this deep contemplative life with Christ “despite” a Latin and “medieval” liturgy.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t disagree about the importance of a contemplative prayer life. For many people, though, this contemplative lifestyle takes a very long time to cultivate, and we can’t all be expected to be Setons or Baylons.

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?

We run the risk of turning the corporal works of mercy into simply humanitarian efforts if we only see Communion as God’s gift to us as we go into the world and neglect that it is the Eucharist and the Most Blessed Sacrament (a sacrifice to God) before it is Communion.

And the people you’ve mentioned were able to cultivate this deep contemplative life with Christ “despite” a Latin and “medieval” liturgy.

Help us understand a little more. How do you see Sacro Sanctum Concilium detrimental to the faith? Maybe I’m missing something here.

JR

 

[Julianna]

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.

I guess maybe since we are being told what “is coming” down the pike…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? Catholic school is very expensive…now add a foreign language teacher in the mix…a LATIN foreign language teacher…tuition goes up big time. How so? Well back in the glory days, Br. Joe, Sr. Cecillia or Fr. Tom taught the Latin classes. Now they are few and far between. 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.

I am thinking through the initial “high” some are getting from this. After the buzz wears off…the crash begins. 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? I am asking the questions…those in total “knowledge” should be able to answer, right? I know the parents will play an important role, but they too will have to be educated. With a very slim volunteer force how is this going to happen? I see alot of noses in missals like I did when I was kid.

My mom was looking over my shoulder earlier and she said, “Latin…are they going back to that, why on earth for?”

Good question mom…good question…