J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Or not.
Reaction from Priests/Deacons/Parish officials about Latin Mass
- Status
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Quote with link to Council of Trent on this issue, please?
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t think so. I think that there is such a letter to the USCCB, because there are such letters sent to the major superiors of men who asked for the clarification. For example, in our community, we needed to clarify if we were expected to go back to the days after Vatican I when we segregated the friars in formation, those who were to be priest over here and the others over there. The letter that came back was to stick with the return to the origins and keep everyone together, even if it meant doing the minimum Latin.
That minimum was a few semesters of undergraduate Latin, just as you would take undergraduate Spanish to get a BA degree. With a good dictionary, you can plow your way through simple reading, but that’s not really proficient.
If there are such letters written to religious superiors, then it is very believable that such a letter was also written to the bishops.
MY GUESS is that it was the religious who spurred this on. Religious communities of men had problems. You could not ask them to return to their roots and at the same time ask them to segregate their men in formation. It was important to understand the intent of the law and how far they wanted it to go. It became clear that the Vatican did not want to loose the religious by turning them into secular clerics. The bishops did not want to lose the religious either. When the religious pulled out of the joint seminaries, this created a problem. The religious could not remain in seminaries where the goal was to form priests. They wanted houses of studies where the goal was to form consecrated men and scholars. If some or all of these consecrated men were called to Holy Orders, so be it. But they were not going to push Holy Orders. They were going to push their charism.
It’s not as easy on the inside as it may look from the outside. Today, if you tell certain religious orders that you want them to push the priesthood, you’ll be shot on the spot.
Not really, but you will be told that “We don’t enter to priests. We enter to be religious.” The monastic orders are even more vehement about this than anyone else. Between Vatican I and Vatican II, they were pushed into formation programs that decimated their non-clerical monks. Now they’re tyring to increase those numbers.Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
R
roadsend
Guest
“CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.” (my bolds)
Wow! I can’t tell you how much I have heard just that being said, even by some of my pastors, in the last forty plus years.
Wow! I can’t tell you how much I have heard just that being said, even by some of my pastors, in the last forty plus years.
P
ProVobis
Guest
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I really don’t get why Latin would not be taught in seminaries, whether or not the Mass was in Latin. If you want to read most of the theology of the Western Church, or the documents from the Vatican, some Latin is a help. Even rather bad Latin can be helpful in reading documents translated into English. And it isn’t like Latin is a difficult language, I have the worst study habits possible and managed to get through three years of it to complete my degree.
R
Riverrock1
Guest
Sorry if I offended anyone. I just call em as I see em. I understand that most parish priests are way overloaded. I get that. But, the outright hostility from people, not just the priests, is what I don’t understand. I’ve heard the “spirit of Vatican II” thing also many times. They drag out the old “priest has his back to you” and nobody ever could understand it. And, “Do you speak Latin?” No, I say, but I’m learning. And I can also read the english counterpart on the other page. They leave that out. That Mass converted entire civilizations for many many centuries and created most of the Saints. It must have done something right. And I also try in vain to explain that it’s not Latin. They could say it in Swahili or pig latin for that matter. It’s the reverence that the OF does not compare. Also, as I said before, I don’t have to hear protestant songs, see dancing girls or see people taking Jesus as it was just a snack, all the while dressed in their beach clothes. Thats all I’m saying. And, I still attend the OF from time to time.I don’t know why you call people EF haters and then turn around and slam them…that is not charitable.Did it occur to you that sometimes there are reasons you may not know about that. For example, at our parish…we have one priest…who is already overworked as it is. We would have to buy vestments, ectra…then we have to either add a Mass or replace one. Well…the priest is already saying 3 Masses on Sunday. We likely do not have enough altar servers for another Mass nor do we have a deacon. We have two completely full Masses on Sunday and the third one is most of the way full (incidently…it’s the more traditional one that is not completely full).
By the way…calling the OF a starter Mass is not nice either…just saying.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Which is not what you said:
JM: There is nothing about a Mass in Latin that is more Holy or Prayerful or in any way better than a Mass said in the vernacular. It is worse in that people for the most part, won’t understand it. It’s strikes me as a lot of selfish whining, actually.
PV: Isn’t this what the Church of England and Martin Luther taught over 400 years ago? I thought the Council of Trent put aside all that nonsense and made it clear that the Mass was supposed to be explained to the people, not to put it into a one-size-fits-all translation. Big difference.
At Trent, they said that in the occasion when the Mass was not in the vernacular, the priest should stop and translate. So, you ever seen a priest do that? And, in fact, what Trent said was, that all Masses didn’t have to be in the vernacular.
Which doesn’t respond to my point above point at all. Here it is again: There is nothing about a Mass in Latin that is more Holy or Prayerful or in any way better than a Mass said in the vernacular.
And there isn’t. So what’s your issue? Just why is it that priests and parishes should go to the time and expense to satisfy a few people who want a Latin Mass? What possible end can it serve?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
This is entirely subjective. There was plenty of well, maybe not irreverence, but going through the motions with the Latin Mass. The difference is, no one knew enough to catch it or couldn’t see when it happened.
These days that Mass in Latin isn’t a Mass as much as a special show for a few people enamored of old Bing Crosby movies. The priests are on display in front of those who seem to want to catch them in any error. Whatever it seems to you, in terms of reverence, is relative not absolute.
Now, I will admit you have apparently a whole generation of post Vat 2 priests who either don’t, or only sort of, believe in the Eucharist. I had one. He would not be suitably reverent in any language as he was basically a heretic. But he did everything correctly and displayed at least dignity.
Man, we have such bigger problems than what language the Mass is in.
J
JReducation
Guest
My friend, the form of the mass does not make the saints. Saints are carved out of virtue, particularly the perfection of charity, which is the product of discipline, prayer, penance and detachment. If sanctity were attributable to the mass, then it would not be sanctity, because there is no freedom to love. One receives sanctifying grace at the mass, regardless of the form or the rite. One carries that into one’s daily life. One brings back to the altar the struggles of life and presents them to the Father with the life of the Son, through the work of the Holy Spirit. That does not change with any rite or any form. That remains constant since the first mass in the upper room.
You have in this century and in this day and age people like Bl. Mother Teresa and Bl. John Paul II who lived and prayed in the Ordinary Form. Who among us can claim holiness like theirs? Whether you attend a mass in the OF or the EF, it will be hard to find another Bl. John Paul or Bl. Mother Teresa.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
choliks
Guest
I read something interesting from Sacramentum Caritatis:
E
EzraJacob
Guest
I herd, as well as read on the website, that a church not far from me, here in Philly has traditional Mass every Saturday at 1. Wether its true or not I do not know. I have yet been able to attend it. Or any Traditional mass for that matter.
God willing I can and do eventually. It would be a good experience I think.
God willing I can and do eventually. It would be a good experience I think.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Excuse me but you don’t see this as offensive? How do you know how people are receiving Jesus? Just because it’s the OF does not mean that people do not have reverence for the Eucharist.
As far as Latin…I can understand their hesitation. I never took Latin…and I don’t have time to learn right now…heck I’m still trying to catch up on the faith. They do our benediction in Latin and I’m still struggling with it. Sad to say it does not have any meaning for me because I’m too busy trying to figure out how to pronounce it as they are saying it. And it sure doesn’t allow me enough time to slide my eyes over to the English version. It bothers me because I’m not as reverent in my heart as I should/could be if I could just figure out what the HECK they are saying! I do want to know what they are saying…so I can echo it in my heart and in my prayers.
A
At_Trent
Guest
L
Leo_The_Great
Guest
THis is all based in a misunderstanding of the liturgy: The liturgy is NOT MEANT TO BE PASTORAL: It is not primarily Catechetical, or instructive. That is just the modernism of Jungmann, taught in the 1940’s. THe Liturgy is the Divine, Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ HImself, Offered to the father for the remission of sins.
As such, whether the congregation understands it or not is irrelevant: The mass is offered to GOD ALONE. It is not offered to the people, therefore the people need not have more than a general understanding of what is occuring at the altar. God understands Latin, and that is all that matters. Our own understanding does not invalidate the glorious sacrifice of the redeemer, nor does our lack of it impede our ability to receive him.
The Equating of active participation with noisy rambunctiousness is a heresy. Active participation is the union of the Will of the Parishoner who hears mass devoutly with the will of the priest offering the adorable sacrifice of the cross.
Read the History of the Liturgical Movement. Heretics overtook it.
POPE PIUS VI:
‘recalling it (the liturgy)** to greater simplicity of rites**, by expressing it in the vernacular language or by** uttering it in a loud voice**’ as if the present order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated” as “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church,** favourable to the charges of heretics**”. — Auctorem Fidei [33].
The Magisterium of the Church as expressed by POpe Pius VI is fundamentally opposed to the premises that form the creation virtually ex nihilo of the mass of Paul VI.
As such, whether the congregation understands it or not is irrelevant: The mass is offered to GOD ALONE. It is not offered to the people, therefore the people need not have more than a general understanding of what is occuring at the altar. God understands Latin, and that is all that matters. Our own understanding does not invalidate the glorious sacrifice of the redeemer, nor does our lack of it impede our ability to receive him.
The Equating of active participation with noisy rambunctiousness is a heresy. Active participation is the union of the Will of the Parishoner who hears mass devoutly with the will of the priest offering the adorable sacrifice of the cross.
Read the History of the Liturgical Movement. Heretics overtook it.
POPE PIUS VI:
‘recalling it (the liturgy)** to greater simplicity of rites**, by expressing it in the vernacular language or by** uttering it in a loud voice**’ as if the present order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated” as “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church,** favourable to the charges of heretics**”. — Auctorem Fidei [33].
The Magisterium of the Church as expressed by POpe Pius VI is fundamentally opposed to the premises that form the creation virtually ex nihilo of the mass of Paul VI.
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
MODERATOR WARNING
Calling heresy that which the Church does not call heresy is misleading.
Calling heretics those whom the Church does not call heretics is uncharitable.
Calling heresy that which the Church does not call heresy is misleading.
Calling heretics those whom the Church does not call heretics is uncharitable.
F
Fide_Roma
Guest
I completely agree. Though I would not say that the mass of Paul VI was created Ex NIHILO…
Wow, Pope Pius VI actually condemned the mass said aloud and in the Vernacular? He also condemned the notion of reducing the rituals in the mass to a greater simplicity based on a misguided archaeologism?
That DOES seem to undermine the reason the Paul VI mass exists, I mean, wasn’t it founded on these principles? Interesting…
What are you talking about Thomas? Pope Pius VI said that a mass said in a particular manner was favorable to heretics! That is part of the ordinary magisterium! If something doesn’t match , it should be what comes AFTER that statement that is condemned, right?
If you research the heresy of modernism and then study those who were involved in the liturgical movement, they are plainly heretics. Whenever a public deviation from faith occurs, it is presumed to be malicious and is dealt with as heretical until the author retracts his statements or explains them.
If we all read like Leo…
J
JReducation
Guest
I think that we have to take this in context here. What Pope Pius is saying is that the mass had to be celebrated according to the norms. He did not say that those norms could not be changed by his successors.
When one tinkers with the norms, one opens the doors for heresy to creep in, because one opens the door to error.
In the case of the Pauline mass, it is not some incompetent person tinkering. It was the pope himself asking a committee to present him with a revised missal that he then approved. This was not contrary to what Pope Pius was saying.
People tend to confuse these statements, believing them to be binding on future popes. They were not. It’s important for us to remember that our popes of the last 70 years or so have been scholars. They are in a very good position to know the difference between what binds a pope and what does not. If they change something or tweak it here and there, it’s because they know that they have the freedom to do so.
Whether the tweaking produces the desired effect or not, that’s a whole other story. Popes are not fortune tellers. Like everyone else before them, they work with what they have before them and place the outcome in the hands of God.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
Br Jr, I can’t argue what you say here from a legal point of view. You’re more expert in this area. However, in the overall scheme of things, since Pope Victor I, there has been very little support for the use of total vulgar/vernacular coming from Popes. In fact some, one as recently as Pope John XXIII, have written major encyclicals against it. And according to this point of view presented by ewtn:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=1
Just saying, of course.
- Status