Question(s) About the Latin Mass from a Protestant

[SemperReformada]

I recently attended a Tridentine Latin Mass w/ my cousin (he is Catholic). I was very impressed.

I have attended the mass that is normally celebrated, I think many refer to it as the Novus Ordo) and to be honest I was less than impressed.

Why did the Catholic church change from the Latin Mass and why are the changes so wide sweeping? Couldn’t they have just gone from Latin to English?

I am an outsider (i.e. not a Catholic) but it seems to me that the Latin Mass more fully expresses the Catholic churches theology. Certainly there is no doubt that something special is about to happen at the consecration and that the worship is directed to God (i.e. vertically).

The other thing that impressed me is the conduct of the people at the Latin Mass. Much more reverent at the Latin Mass.

I could ramble on and on but I am curious as to why the Catholic church saw fit to change the mass and why did it make the changes so severe?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

 

[ProVobis]

Why did the Catholic church change from the Latin Mass and why are the changes so wide sweeping? Couldn’t they have just gone from Latin to English?

They tried to go from Latin to English with the Latin Mass in the 60’s but it failed.

My own thoughts were that they had to go to a more translatable and easier to understand Mass in 1969 but, as you’ve probably heard, 40 years later they are going with still another translation with the newer Mass.

I am glad you found the Latin Mass understandable as it stands, if not the language then at least the rubrics (genuflections, signs of cross, kissing of altar, etc.) of the Mass.

 

[Vico]

I recently attended a Tridentine Latin Mass w/ my cousin (he is Catholic). I was very impressed.

I have attended the mass that is normally celebrated, I think many refer to it as the Novus Ordo) and to be honest I was less than impressed.

Why did the Catholic church change from the Latin Mass and why are the changes so wide sweeping? Couldn’t they have just gone from Latin to English?

I am an outsider (i.e. not a Catholic) but it seems to me that the Latin Mass more fully expresses the Catholic churches theology. Certainly there is no doubt that something special is about to happen at the consecration and that the worship is directed to God (i.e. vertically).

The other thing that impressed me is the conduct of the people at the Latin Mass. Much more reverent at the Latin Mass.

I could ramble on and on but I am curious as to why the Catholic church saw fit to change the mass and why did it make the changes so severe?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

As a Catholic, predating Vatican II, I experienced the transiton from the Tridentine to the Novus Ordo, with it many steps. I was an altar boy during that transition.

Thre is a document from Pope Paul VI from 1969:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

He states:

“This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.”
…
“A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.”
…
“The other reason for the reform is this renewal of prayer. It is aimed at associating the assembly of the faithful more closely and more effectively with the official rite, that of the Word and that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that constitutes the Mass. For the faithful are also invested with the “royal priesthood”; that is, they are qualified to have supernatural conversation with God.”
…
“The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin.”
…
“We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.”
…
“We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values? The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.”
…
“Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.”
…
“Finally, if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness. The greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of scriptural texts, the joint acts of the ministers, the silences which will mark various deeper moments in the rite, will all help to bring this out.”

 

[SemperReformada]

They tried to go from Latin to English with the Latin Mass in the 60’s but it failed.

My own thoughts were that they had to go to a more translatable and easier to understand Mass in 1969 but, as you’ve probably heard, 40 years later they are going with still another translation with the newer Mass.

I am glad you found the Latin Mass understandable as it stands, if not the language then at least the rubrics (genuflections, signs of cross, kissing of altar, etc.) of the Mass.

My cousin, who used to be a poster here at CAF, attends the Latin mass most of the time so he is familiar enough with it to have provided some information prior to the mass. He also loaned me a missal which was crucial or I would have been completely lost.

 

[SemperReformada]

As a Catholic, predating Vatican II, I experienced the transiton from the Tridentine to the Novus Ordo, with it many steps. I was an altar boy during that transition.

Thre is a document from Pope Paul VI from 1969:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

He states:

“This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.”
…
“A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.”
…
“The other reason for the reform is this renewal of prayer. It is aimed at associating the assembly of the faithful more closely and more effectively with the official rite, that of the Word and that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that constitutes the Mass. For the faithful are also invested with the “royal priesthood”; that is, they are qualified to have supernatural conversation with God.”
…
“The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin.”
…
“We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.”
…
“We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values? The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.”
…
“Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.”
…
“Finally, if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness. The greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of scriptural texts, the joint acts of the ministers, the silences which will mark various deeper moments in the rite, will all help to bring this out.”

Thanks

 

[po18guy]

“This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.”

My defective perceptions: With its re-introduction, the TLM has now become the novelty, just as the NO was in those days. When things change, more attention is paid to the different and/or new, and apparent reverence may increase. In the late 50s, there clearly was strong impetus to alter the form of the mass, while keeping the substance the same - since it cannot change. The NO was not introduced on a whim - it had a reason and a desire behind it. I do not see average unwashed Catholics represented at the TLM, but rather devotees of the TLM. It naturally follows that their deportment is respectable, since they are aficionados of the form. But, make the TLM the norm, and all of the problems sen in the 1950s will follow, but bringing with them all of today’s decreases in reverence. It’s human nature. Just watch.

The priest who married DW and I is very conservative and maintains strong discipline. We attended his mass of Saints Peter and Paul a couple of years ago, and it was also most impressive. Bright red vestments all round. Incense. Pipe organ music, Gregorian chant. Patins at communion. Beautiful and awe inspiring. Only the hard-hearted would condemn such a mass.

Step back and look at the big picture: Priests have always, to a greater or lesser extent, exhibited traits representative of the public from which they came. The Saints often wrote of combatting this secular nature which still resided within them - Saints Paul and Augustine being salient examples. As the public changed, so did the underlying nature of many priests. The decade of the 50s followed the trauma of the world war of the 40s, and was a natural overreaction, to it. The 50s brought increasing liberalism in all aspects of life, and numerous other problems. Reverence at all levels suffered to some degree. Look at when the scandal began.

To blame V2 for all of this is misplacing the blame. V2 was reaction, not action.

 

[ProVobis]

Thre is a document from Pope Paul VI from 1969:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

There appears to be some contradictions in this document. He also states:

But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful “should be able to sing together,** in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary **of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

1. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See’s official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.

In any case, he certainly doesn’t seem to be encouraging all-vernacular all-the-time here. If he were, who would be studying Latin at all?

 

[ProVobis]

The decade of the 50s followed the trauma of the world war of the 40s, and was a natural overreaction, to it. The 50s brought increasing liberalism in all aspects of life, and numerous other problems. Reverence at all levels suffered to some degree. Look at when the scandal began.

To blame V2 for all of this is misplacing the blame. V2 was reaction, not action.

I wouldn’t blame V2 per se for the problems. However, there seemed to be a perception of a “more welcoming” Church during the time. Some were confused as to why the council was called in the first place. Others saw an opportunity to change things they didn’t like and found ways to justify them.

Certainly a lot of disciplines (meat abstinence, fasting, etc) were relaxed, very few tightened. But overall there was a lot of confusion. Things were mistranslated and misinterpreted. The biggest one in my opinion was the use of “conscience” clause in Progressio Populorum to act as one’s guide. Unfortunately, it was extended to more than just determining the size of one’s family, it appeared.

 

[ProVobis]

My cousin, who used to be a poster here at CAF, attends the Latin mass most of the time so he is familiar enough with it to have provided some information prior to the mass. He also loaned me a missal which was crucial or I would have been completely lost.

You’ll also be happy to know that it actually took some non-Catholics to keep the Latin Mass alive back in the early 70’s.

latin-mass-society.org/themil.htm

forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=121602&start=0

Apparently they saw better than most Catholics.

 

[Vico]

There appears to be some contradictions in this document. He also states:

In any case, he certainly doesn’t seem to be encouraging all-vernacular all-the-time here. If he were, who would be studying Latin at all?

An interesting reaction, I think the document has no contradictions at all. Regarding the language, the vernacular is introduced into the Mass, not entirely replacing Latin in the Mass, but per Sacrosanctum Concilum, the extent is territorial and on approval of the Holy See.

Good to read Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1963, item 36:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

 

[jewells17]

I recently attended a Tridentine Latin Mass w/ my cousin (he is Catholic). I was very impressed.

I have attended the mass that is normally celebrated, I think many refer to it as the Novus Ordo) and to be honest I was less than impressed.

Why did the Catholic church change from the Latin Mass and why are the changes so wide sweeping? Couldn’t they have just gone from Latin to English?

I am an outsider (i.e. not a Catholic) but it seems to me that the Latin Mass more fully expresses the Catholic churches theology. Certainly there is no doubt that something special is about to happen at the consecration and that the worship is directed to God (i.e. vertically).

The other thing that impressed me is the conduct of the people at the Latin Mass. Much more reverent at the Latin Mass.

I could ramble on and on but I am curious as to why the Catholic church saw fit to change the mass and why did it make the changes so severe?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

I found a wonderful source for info about the Latin Mass. Just google…“Father Donald Kloster Latin Mass Youtube”…and watch his few short talks on this topic. I got so much out of his talks and they don’t last long…but are awesome. I can’t say enough good things about these talks and I’m glad I found them.

 

[ProVobis]

… Regarding the language, the vernacular is introduced into the Mass, not entirely replacing Latin in the Mass, but per Sacrosanctum Concilum, the extent is territorial and on approval of the Holy See.

Thank you.

As for 36 2-4, this could also mean the bishop is to decide WHICH vernaculars to allow into the liturgy including a combination of several within his diocese. For example, the Archdiocese of Chicago allows over 20 vernaculars of the several hundred (WHEW!) that are approved by the Vatican.

parishdirectory.archchicago.org/Masslang.aspx

 

[Vico]

Thank you.

As for 36 2-4, this could also mean the bishop is to decide WHICH vernaculars to allow into the liturgy including a combination of several within his diocese. For example, the Archdiocese of Chicago allows over 20 vernaculars of the several hundred (WHEW!) that are approved by the Vatican.

parishdirectory.archchicago.org/Masslang.aspx

I had no idea there were some many languages in use there.

Personally I have only been to celebrations of Mass in Latin, English, and Spanish (with a little Greek Kyrie Eleison…). Tantum Ergo, or Ave Maria have been sung as a hymn at the Novus Ordo.

 

[ProVobis]

(with a little Greek Kyrie Eleison…).

It’s little but it’s very signficant. As are the Hebrew Hosanna, Sabaoth, and Alleluia. Latin, Hebrew, and Greek were PERHAPS chosen for the Mass because the inscriptions above Christ head were in those languages.

 

[Deo_Duce]

I could ramble on and on but I am curious as to why the Catholic church saw fit to change the mass and why did it make the changes so severe?

Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s in order to let some “fresh air” into the Church.

Following his lead, Pope Paul VI continued with Pope John XXIII’s ideals and, with the help of six Protestant ministers, created the Novus Ordo Mass.

So you know, the Mass is being changed in 2011, as we have a new Missal. If you Google “Catholic New Missal”, you can take a look at this. The music, among other things, is becoming much more reverent.

I hope that your interest in the Church leads you to a conversion someday.

 

[ProVobis]

Following his lead, Pope Paul VI continued with Pope John XXIII’s ideals and, with the help of six Protestant ministers, created the Novus Ordo Mass.

There’s very little to support this. Pope John XXIII effectively banned the vernacular in Veterum Sapientia just shortly before Vatican II convened.

papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23veterum.htm

Pope John XXIII was further reported to warn “Stop the council. Stop the council.” on his deathbed. Supposedly the agenda he had worked on for several years before the council was hijacked almost immediately and some other agendas were being set and followed. Furthermore, Pope John XXIII had not signed a single document of Vatican II.

 

[SemperReformada]

Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s in order to let some “fresh air” into the Church.

Following his lead, Pope Paul VI continued with Pope John XXIII’s ideals and, with the help of six Protestant ministers, created the Novus Ordo Mass.

So you know, the Mass is being changed in 2011, as we have a new Missal. If you Google “Catholic New Missal”, you can take a look at this. The music, among other things, is becoming much more reverent.

I hope that your interest in the Church leads you to a conversion someday.

Thanks for your post.

I will googe the new Missal and see what it’s like. As far as conversion…who knows? I guess God knows

My cousin, pwrlftr, converted and he used to post here and I would have never, ever, in a million years thought he would become Catholic.

 

[Timothysis]

Following his lead, Pope Paul VI continued with Pope John XXIII’s ideals and, with the help of six Protestant ministers, created the Novus Ordo Mass.

This is a patently untrue accusation and one that is hurled freely by those who wish to denigrate the Pauline Missal.

"On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.”( Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).

 

[laszlo]

You must distinguish between

• the Traditional Latin Mass, which (with small changes) was the only Roman Catholic Mass between 1570 and 1970
• the New Mass in Latin as it is defined, what is very-similar to the Traditional Mass (90% the same) and differs only in eliminating some duplications , expanding the Scriptural readings and eliminating the controversial Offertory prayers in the TLM
• the New Mass in vernacular but still as it is defined which in the new translation will be the faithful representative of the above; the recent usage has several mistranslations by the ICEL
• the New Mass as it is executed in a liberal Parish, which is self made liturgy either by the priest or by the lay liturgical committees.

The changes for the second and third version were advised by then XXI Ecumenical council (Vatican II) and intended organic development related to the previous version, providing better active participation by the faithful. The concept behing the changes is the theology of the mass. The Mass is gathering, learning, offering in our part, and sacrificing himself, feed us and sending us to the world in the part of Jesus Christ. This goals are better represented by the New Mass, that in the Old Mass, which required mere presence of the interaction between God and the priest.

The liberal mass is the result of the human pride and disobedience. The Church provided the previously unprecedented freedom to the lower clergy and laity and give power to the people they will abuse it. Hopefully soon it will be corrected.

 

[wisdomseeker]

and here is a Mass where people celebrates themselves.

youtube.com/watch?v=34cYiyp87ts&feature=related