Reaction from Priests/Deacons/Parish officials about Latin Mass

[YoungTradCath]

I understand all that. Just lay side by side several different translations of any “classic” document and the translational differences are stunning … I did this with St. John of the Cross … amazing differences between six reputable translations of “Dark Night of the Soul”…

Let me see if I can refind that previous posting … because one of the “issues” / “difficulties” with the Latin Mass is the “rubrics” such as vestments … but if a Latin Mass format can get beyond those … then maybe it would be easier.

When I was little, I had several Latin-English Missals. Eventually, I got a Latin-only Missal. So, back then …in the 1950’s, there WAS an acceptable English Translation … and people gave me their older missals as well. * So, I am struggling to reconstruct everything. My old pastor had tried to recruit me to get ordained, but by the time I returned to the “world”, he had moved to Heaven. I should pray to him.*
So then, what is your question? The missal of 1962, in Latin, is different from the missal of 1970, in Latin. The rubrics are different, the words in many cases are different, and the music is inevitably different also, not by mandate, but by allowances made for music allowed in the 1970 missal that have been liberally applied (not judging here, just stating fact). When the priest washes his hands, he used to use both water and wine (a disinfectant) to do it; now, only water is required, and wine is also allowed, but seldom used. The missal of 1970 also has changed the very architecture of churches, again, not by mandate, but because of the liberal application of some optional allowances in the missal. Even vestments have changed. The priest’s/bishop’s maniple is no longer obligatory, but may be used. The same goes for the bishop’s gloves, stockings, and slippers. Cappas magna used to be used much more often, but as they are no obligatory, they too have fallen out of popular use (although some bishops/cardinals like Cardinal Burke uses one very often). In the realm of papal vestments, a lot has changed (and I don’t mean the tiara, because that’s not even a liturgical vestment). Even the style of vestments has changed. The “Roman” chasuble used to be extremely common, but now priests have moved towards the “monastic” style. These cuts can be equally attractive, but it seems that Roman ones are usually designed with embroidery in mind, and monastic ones are usually not very ornate.

Many of these changes were due to direct proclamation from the Vatican. However, many of them were not.

I gave an all-encompassing answer here because I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Got it.

So we can’t say any kind of Mass in the Latin language unless the church building is redesigned and the priest has kosher socks.

 

[ProVobis]

Got it.

So we can’t say any kind of Mass in the Latin language unless the church building is redesigned and the priest has kosher socks.

Monte, you know that’s not true. The EF must be said in Latin and the OF may be said partially or wholly in Latin; no conditions AFAIK.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Monte, you know that’s not true. The EF must be said in Latin and the OF may be said partially or wholly in Latin; no conditions AFAIK.

You sure?

No sock inspector from Rome?

 

[otjm]

So then, what is your question? The missal of 1962, in Latin, is different from the missal of 1970, in Latin. The rubrics are different, the words in many cases are different, and the music is inevitably different also, not by mandate, but by allowances made for music allowed in the 1970 missal that have been liberally applied (not judging here, just stating fact). When the priest washes his hands, he used to use both water and wine (a disinfectant) to do it; now, only water is required, and wine is also allowed, but seldom used. The missal of 1970 also has changed the very architecture of churches, again, not by mandate, but because of the liberal application of some optional allowances in the missal. Even vestments have changed. The priest’s/bishop’s maniple is no longer obligatory, but may be used. The same goes for the bishop’s gloves, stockings, and slippers. Cappas magna used to be used much more often, but as they are no obligatory, they too have fallen out of popular use (although some bishops/cardinals like Cardinal Burke uses one very often). In the realm of papal vestments, a lot has changed (and I don’t mean the tiara, because that’s not even a liturgical vestment). Even the style of vestments has changed. The “Roman” chasuble used to be extremely common, but now priests have moved towards the “monastic” style. These cuts can be equally attractive, but it seems that Roman ones are usually designed with embroidery in mind, and monastic ones are usually not very ornate.

Many of these changes were due to direct proclamation from the Vatican. However, many of them were not.

I gave an all-encompassing answer here because I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking.

I am curious as to your source for the use of wine for the lavabo; having become an altar server in 1957 and continuing through 1965, I never saw that - and I served Mass in more than one parish so it was not simply a single parish issue.

 

[roadsend]

I am curious as to your source for the use of wine for the lavabo; having become an altar server in 1957 and continuing through 1965, I never saw that - and I served Mass in more than one parish so it was not simply a single parish issue.

I was wondering the same thing. Served Mass in many parishes from 1951 into the 60s. I never saw or heard of wine being used for the Lavabo.

 

[JReducation]

I am curious as to your source for the use of wine for the lavabo; having become an altar server in 1957 and continuing through 1965, I never saw that - and I served Mass in more than one parish so it was not simply a single parish issue.

That was not a rule. It may have been a custom in some places. It’s like the Franciscan form “rule” (observe quotes) where you use the chalice for the lavabo. The reason that the brothers used the chalice for the lavabo (not the purification) the lavabo, was because the friars were too poor to afford a dish. The ordained friars would usually carry a chalice, patten and missal. That was it. People concluded that this was the way it had to be. The actual rule was water and that was the common practice.

As to things like the cappa magna, the chasuable and maniple, none of these were ever essentials for the celebraton of the mass. They all have a historical origin. Something like the maniple fell into disuse because it has no particular purpose. The sign of the priesthood is the stole. Chasuables have come in many styles. The Fiddle-Back cut is one of many. If we go back through some old books we find that some of the styles in chasuable are really ugly by our standards today, but they thought were beautiful in their day. The cappa is a very expensive garment. Many clergyman cannot afford one. They’re usually made of water-silk. The Church does not purchase these garments for the clergy. They have to purchase them out of their pay checks.

We can’t just think about the things we like or don’t like. We also have to think about why things are or why they were.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Geremia]

Has anybody ever asked a Priest, Deacon, or a Parish Officer person with influence at a parish that does not have Latin Mass about having one?

Yes, I have, and on three occasions.

And if you have what did they say in response? I am wondering if it was negative, positive, or spin?

Only one was positive, the others negative. Here’s the positive response (edited for anonymity):

At this point it could not be  said that there is a Tridentine Mass community ...] [here], though there are the  makings of a small one.  One couple for example, gave me the rather  pointed [poignant?] Christmas gift of a 1962 missal.

I certainly have no theoretical objections to the Liturgy that nourished so many saints. That would be highly presumptuous on my part. I do think that the Second Vatican Council’s essential points about liturgical reform are valid, though, sadly, obscured by the incompetence with which the conciliar reforms were implemented. I remain convinced that the Novus Ordo can be celebrated well and beautifully, and that a purified form of the Novus Ordo will be the Roman liturgy of the future.

 That said, I am far too devoted  to the Church's tradition simply to refuse to celebrate the Tridentine  Mass.  I am starting, very tentatively, to think about how I might deal  with certain practical difficulties:
     1.  My  Latin is good, but the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass are considerably different  from those of the Novus Ordo, and considerably more complex.  If the  Extraordinary Form is to be celebrated, it must be celebrated correctly, as I am  sure you will agree.  This means that I must find time either for training  in the Tridentine rubrics or for diligent study.  
     2.  The  Tridentine Mass would require at least one competent server.  There is no  one here capable of serving it properly.  I must therefore find someone  willing to train a server, and someone to do the training.
     3.  For  every Sunday I celebrate Holy Mass at 5:30 p.m. on Saturday, at 8:00 and 10:30  on Sunday mornings, and at 5:30 on Sunday evenings.  On the fourth Sunday  of every month I celebrate Mass in Spanish at 12:30 p.m.   For  the other Sundays of the month I celebrate Mass for the small Neo-Catechumenal  community at 8:30 p.m. on Saturday.  It is not clear, frankly, where a  celebration of Tridentine Mass on Sunday would fit.

But I probably wouldn’t want to start with a Sunday or a High Mass anyway. It would be best to acquire some experience first with Low Mass on Weekdays.

 There is a small  choir that is hoping to help with a Tridentine High Mass late in  the fall, possibly for All Souls' Day.  In preparation for that I hope  to celebrate a Low Mass on some selected days in the fall.

 As you see, there is some hope  for a Tridentine Mass ...] [here].  There would be more if you  could help.  I don't suppose you're up to being a singer or an altar  server?

…]

Again, there is some interest here in the Tridentine Mass, and, if you have time and inclination to assist, maybe you could be the critical piece to make it happen.

Negative response #1 (again, edited for anonymity):

Uh, no.
We won’t be doing any Dominican Rite liturgies …] [here].

Negative response #2 (again, edited for anonymity); I asked this priest to please consider having a weekly EF mass for my grandmother who’s fallen away from the faith because of the post-Vatican II liturgical “deforms”:

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter sent by fax to …] [my associate priest] and myself concerning your desire that we offer a weekly “Extraordinary Form Mass” for your grandmother.

We are two priests in a very large parish with a very small church. Currently we are offering seven Masses two or three weekends per month and eight times on the second and forth weekends of the month. As such, already we are acting contrary to the Code of Canon Law for the Roman Catholic Church concerning the number of Masses a priest may celebrate. We do this with the permission of our Archbishop because there is a need to serve the people of this parish. As well, because of the large numbers of Spanish-speaking persons coming for Mass, we are desperately in need of adding another Spanish Mass. This is my first priority.

With that in mind, and in addition to the fact that we have not had the training to celebrate the Mass in its Extraordinary form, we will not be adding such a Mass.

I am sad that your grandmother has chosen not to participate in our sacraments, especially the Eucharist, because of liturgical changes that have done so much to bring more and more people into the Catholic faith. Growth and change are both very difficult for most people, yet they must occur. As our physical bodies must grow and change with the passing of years, so to our life of faith and our Church, for it too, is a living being.

Be assured of my prayers for your grandmother and you and your family that your hearts will be open to receiving the grace that our God so freely chooses to bestow upon us.

In Christ Jesus,

 

[Geremia]

Yes, I have, and on three occasions.Only one was positive, the others negative. Here’s the positive response (edited for anonymity):Negative response #1 (again, edited for anonymity):Negative response #2 (again, edited for anonymity); I asked this priest to please consider having a weekly EF mass for my grandmother who’s fallen away from the faith because of the post-Vatican II liturgical “deforms”:

My friend’s response when I asked him for advice as how to respond to the last priest:

The problem with the priest is the need to just provide quick masses. Instead of having so many masses what they need to do is reduce them, and actually have people travel. Or have the Church full. Going against the Canon law of the Church and celebrating 8 masses is not wise. It leads to using the short form of the Novus Ordo, which leads to empty liturgy. Tell him how long is one of his masses, when he celebrates 8 masses on Sunday. I am pretty sure that at most people are left with a short canon of the mass and a 5 minute sermon. How is this going to produce vocations? I just dont see it. This whole idea of numbers is baffling. The amount of people that attend the traditional mass, as compared to the Novus Ordo, the proportions of who accepts their vocation is just undisputable.What does he want for the future of the Church… A church where laity have to give the Eucharist to the sick, say prayers for the dead. And priest that offer 25 minute masses with 5 minute sermons? I just dont see how that is helpful. If he sticks with a few people, and builds them ground up he will vocations to replace him and this render the greatest possible to the Church rather than just offer nothing but sacriliegious masses.

In my humble opinion, make him realize just how ridiculous the fact that he celebrates 8 masses going against the norms of the Church is not wise in the first place. How many people in those 8 masses have actually had vocations. Tell him that quality over quantity is best, he has to draw from the spiritual waters too and just cant let everyone drink from them. Show him the example in El Paso, how many vocations in a diocese that has had only 2 priest in 15 years. And now how many are not entering vocations, but have already become Religious, and are in the seminary. The amount is incredible, and there are many that cant enter because of age that are waiting to enter. The same goes for other places, what is his goal as a priest if it is not to build up the Church of God with replacements. Rather than just merely providing fast food sacraments. Just imagine him celebrating 8 traditional Latin masses a day, he wouldnt be able. but because the Novus Ordo has options that make it 1/4 as long then yeah I can see how he can do so many. Is he offering 8 masses in the same Church’s or traveling? What about during the weekday? How many masses does he do. Probably one or two. And probably few people attend it, the problem also is the fact that you have to offer 4 masses in english and 4 masses in spanish or 1 mass in korean or whatever other language there is. It simply shows how flawed it is. Or like in some masses I have seen they do it bilingual, spanish and English. It really goes to absurdity…

How do you suggest I respond to the priest? Thanks

 

[Geremia]

I have never understood why the Latin Mass was not continued along with the changes of Vatican II. What was so difficult about alternating the Masses back then?

Many people wanted the destruction of the “Latin Mass” more than the promotion of the Novus Ordo. Look at those priests who thought the world ended when Summorum Pontificum came out. Only 0.7% of Catholic parishes do the Extraordinary Form, and that’s too many for many priests! Deus, adjuva nos!