Priests' opposing views on Latin Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caveman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Caveman

Guest
This priest has it wrtong at so many different levels. I just hope his theology is better than his history. My take on this bizarre story can be found here.
renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/071017

Priests’ opposing views on Latin Mass

In recent parish bulletins, Father J. Patrick Wissman, pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church and St. Catherine of Siena Mission in Bolivar, Mo., lashed out at Pope Benedict’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

Father Wissman wrote, in part:

'The Pope seems to be out of touch with the ordinary church. He seems to be acting in good will, but giving into the ‘letter writers’ who have been complaining for years, he will create a shadow church and cause great divisions in every diocese. Such will be that when churches are built, they would have to accommodate both rites and seminarians would have to take courses in Latin. During many centuries seminarians have fallen through the cracks and not been able to reach the goal of the priesthood because Latin was too difficult for them. This was a scandal! To return to such a course would be lunacy!

'The nature of the language we worship in is crucial. Worship language must be immediate…namely, not translated in the head - Latin would speak to the intellect at best and that is not good enough. The language of worship must speak to the heart as well as the head.
 
Notice also that he puts the blame of the rise of Hitler on the shoulders of Christians, not the philosophical movements of the post-enlightenment period–which the Holy See loudly warned Europe about. I’m tempted to say something uncharitable about this priest. He is in some serious denial.

Its not as though the Church all of the sudden became renewed and Catholics all of the sudden heard the Gospel for the first time when the mass changed to the vernacular.

Talk to nearly any Catholic youth out there and you will see how little the Gospel is being preached–even with the mass in the vernacular. When our youth grow old and accept every destructive philosophy of the culture of death, can we go ahead and blame it on the vernacular mass?

The Latin mass or the vernacular mass have nothing to do with it. Its called good orthodox catechesis. All of the heterodoxy of the last 30 years has assured that the Gospel is well hidden from Catholics.
 
From renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/071017

“I fault the use of Latin as partly responsible for the rise and success of Hitler and his neo-pagan mythology which was obviously the religion he was supporting and that actually managed to capture the German imagination.”

Is that right? Tell that to Pius XI and Pius XII! Hitler was as much a practicing Catholic as Stalin was a practicing Orthodox.
 
Wow, Latin caused the rise of Hitler?

I don’t know anything about this priest, but it sure seems odd to have a parish priest writing columns against the pope in the parish bulletin. Perhaps he is an older priest who considers himself a son of Vatican II, and is bitter about what he now sees as the swing back to normalcy from the initial excesses which occured in parish practice in the decades following the council.
 
Pax vobiscum!

Sorry to be uncharitable, but this priest sounds like a complete idiot that should never have been ordained in the first place.

In Christ,
Rand
 
I fault the use of Latin as partly responsible for the rise and success of Hitler and his neo-pagan mythology …
Click to expand...
That is quite a claim - that the use of Latin was responsible for the rise of Nazism and Adolf Hitler.
 
It tends to be a trait of fundamentalist to stop short on the words people speak and not pay attention to details. Read all of what this priest said, well all that was posted by the blog which obviously has its own agenda.
I fault the use of Latin as partly responsible for the rise and success of Hitler and his neo-pagan mythology which was obviously the religion he was supporting and that actually managed to capture the German imagination. I say the people, because of Latin never were confronted by the gospel. The Mass and the sacraments never really reached down deep into the soul. There are some notable exceptions of priests and laity and some very heroic ones as well as Protestant theologians who confronted the lies of Hitler — of course, they were gotten rid of…"
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily agree with this, but its something to consider.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
It tends to be a trait of fundamentalist to stop short on the words people speak and not pay attention to details. Read all of what this priest said, well all that was posted by the blog which obviously has its own agenda.

I don’t necessarily agree with this, but its something to consider.

Jim
Click to expand...
Why do you assume that the posters did not carefully read or understand his post? Don’t you think you may be guilty of same thing you are accusing others of?

I read his post in its entirety, I understood it, and I think its entirely ridiculous. There is not a speck of credibility in his argument. I feel sorry for him.
 
Caveman said:
'The nature of the language we worship in is crucial. Worship language must be immediate…namely, not translated in the head - Latin would speak to the intellect at best and that is not good enough. The language of worship must speak to the heart as well as the head.
Click to expand...
Bravo, Fr Weissman has it right on. It was one reason the vernacular was used after VII. The people were left out of the mass as it was before then.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Bravo, Fr Weissman has it right on. It was one reason the vernacular was used after VII. The people were left out of the mass as it was before then.
Click to expand...
You know I am terrible at Spanish, but I have been to enough Spanish masses to be able to be able to pray in Spanish and it doesn’t just speak only to the intellect.

I’m sure the same would go for Latin, if I ever saw a Latin mass.

I think his whole head/heart argument is pretty silly. If you learn what the words mean and you do it enough times, it becomes second nature and it speaks to the heart.

There is also the added bonus of having a connection with the rich history of the Church and participating in a form of worship that is ancient. A feeling that seems to be lacking among many of today’s Catholics, especially the youth.

But, it is one thing to say that each has its own benefits to say that we should be worshiping, exclusively, in either one or the other. To say that either the vernacular or the ancient language of the Church should be banned is just extremism.

This priest sounds like he wants Latin banned outright. He seems to think that it already was. I guess no one ever told him that you can also say the new mass in Latin as well (Vatican II never banned Latin). The Motu Proprio wasn’t even about Latin vs the vernacular. It was about the different form of the liturgy itself. This priest is saying that, if the old mass speaks to your heart more than the new mass, then you are part of some “shadow church”. I find this just plain insulting.

No, Father, I’m sorry, but if you think that every one must pray the way you think they should, then, maybe you are a part of the “shadow church”–not the universal church.

Also, it is one thing to argue the case for the expediency of the vernacular to claiming that it was somehow a secondary cause of the rise of nazism. I mean…come on. Seriously. Its ironic: he is trying to demonize Latin in an analogous way to the Germans demonizing the Jews prior to the holocaust.
 
My daughter attends a pre-school at Charismatic Catholic Church. The program is great and she does very well there. However I don’t attend Mass at this Church. I prefer to go to either the a formal NO Mass or a Tridentine Mass. It’s a choice I can make. I would think that this Priest has the choice of saying the Mass in Latin or English. So what is it to him?
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Bravo, Fr Weissman has it right on. It was one reason the vernacular was used after VII. The people were left out of the mass as it was before then.
Click to expand...
My family was never very religious. My mother sent me to Mass and did not attend herself. She gave me a missal and showed me how to follow along with the English on one side of the page and Latin on the other. I was confirmed at 12. By the time I was 10 or 11 I was able to follow the Mass in this way and figure out what the propers were for the Sunday. The statement that the people were left out of the Mass is absurd. Maybe you are as old as I am and remember feeling left out and had a different experience from mine. Remember that no one is being forced by this pope to go to a traditional Latin Mass, ever. If they do not like it don’t go. If they think they are left out, or do not know what is going on, don’t go. If they do prefer it they can go. Nothing is being imposed on anyone. So what is Weissman’s problem, or yours? What the bigger issue is, with far greater implications for the Church, is that priests like this think they should openly defy the pope. Making the statement that the worship in Latin is responsible for the rise of Hitler or atheist ideology is so irresponsible and bizarre that the mental competency of this man should be evaluated. He is responsible for the eternal well being of souls and is clearly a nut. By the way, how old are you? Were you there during the time that you claim the people were left out of the Mass? Just curious.
 
Its true today, that no one is forced to go to the TLM.

However, it has been expressed repeatedly in this web site by fundamentalist, that they’re desire is to see the elimination of the Novus Ordo, in fact many have stated that they would love to see Vatican II renounced.

So, when you say, no one is forced to attend the TLM, don’t be so sure that this isn’t an agenda of fundamentalist.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Its true today, that no one is forced to go to the TLM.

However, it has been expressed repeatedly in this web site by fundamentalist, that they’re desire is to see the elimination of the Novus Ordo, in fact many have stated that they would love to see Vatican II renounced.

So, when you say, no one is forced to attend the TLM, don’t be so sure that this isn’t an agenda of fundamentalist.

Jim
Click to expand...
That very well may be the agenda of TLM fundamentalist just as having only the NO Mass may be the agenda of ( I run into a problem here because I don’t know if the side opposing the TLM fundamentalist has a name so I will call them NO fundamentalist)
NO fundamentalist is to completely get rid of the TLM. I love both forms and believe both forms can be done with great beauty. I also believe both forms can be trashed.

What we seem to be running into here is the reverse argument against Vatican II. We seem to be like Cardinal fans arguing which pitcher is better. Aren’t we all on the side? Why not worry about winning some games?
 
I have to agree with the following -
He seems to be acting in good will, but giving into the ‘letter writers’ who have been complaining for years, he will create a shadow church and cause great divisions in every diocese. Such will be that when churches are built, they would have to accommodate both rites and seminarians would have to take courses in Latin.
Click to expand...
I love my parish and want to support it in any way possible, but I would also like to go to a TLM, but we don’t offer one, which means going to another parish that does. So yes, I am torn, do I leave my parish and go to another one near me that does offer the TLM, which means my parish losing my support, or stay?

So yes, I’m abit torn here…
 
jimcav said:
I have to agree with the following -

Quote:
He seems to be acting in good will, but giving into the ‘letter writers’ who have been complaining for years, he will create a shadow church and cause great divisions in every diocese. Such will be that when churches are built, they would have to accommodate both rites and seminarians would have to take courses in Latin.

I love my parish and want to support it in any way possible, but I would also like to go to a TLM, but we don’t offer one, which means going to another parish that does. So yes, I am torn, do I leave my parish and go to another one near me that does offer the TLM, which means my parish losing my support, or stay?

So yes, I’m abit torn here…
Click to expand...
You have a right to worship in a way that speaks to you. If the Tridentine mass speaks to you more then that is your choice to make.

So many of the priests claim diversity until you disagree with them . Then you are forced to conform to their views. Otherwise, you are labeled as being a member of a “shadow church” and the way you worship is written off as being unauthentic.

This priest is doing a some fear mongering, warning that seminarians will be excluded because they can’t learn Latin. Heres a news flash: seminarians are already supposed to learn Latin. Canon law says they are supposed to be proficient in it.

So far all of the divisions regarding the motu proprio are coming from priests who are refusing meet the spiritual needs of those Catholics who have a great love of the Tridentine mass.

As far as a Church gaining or losing support, you ought to be able to worship in a way that speaks to you. If your parish hurts because it loses too many parishioners because it doesn’t offer a tridentine mass (I doubt that will happen), then perhaps that is a sign that the pastor is not meeting the needs of his congregation.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Its true today, that no one is forced to go to the TLM.

However, it has been expressed repeatedly in this web site by fundamentalist, that they’re desire is to see the elimination of the Novus Ordo, in fact many have stated that they would love to see Vatican II renounced.

So, when you say, no one is forced to attend the TLM, don’t be so sure that this isn’t an agenda of fundamentalist.

Jim
Click to expand...
It can just as easly be said that people like the NO Mass becasue they have an agenda of modernism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top