Responding to: I get nothing out of the Latin Mass

[ProVobis]

Good enough, I prefer my sung music and my Masses in my native tongue.

So what are you saying, you would walk (or flip) out because you have to have things your way? If the Mass is the Mass as you say, then it shouldn’t matter what language it’s said in, right? I’m sure you wouldn’t drive 30 miles to an EF, but what if the priest at your parish decided to throw in some Latin at your regular Mass? Or Vietnamese, for that matter? I’ve been to one and it’s the same Mass, trust me.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s hard to worship when you don’t understand the words being used to worship. The mass is NOT the sacrafice of the priest alone, it’s the sacrafice and celebration of the congregation as well, that’s why now days they require a priest, in most circumstances, to have a congregation when offering the mass.

That’s the difference between the Latin Mass and the English Mass. The Latin Mass distinguishes between the sacrifice of the priest and that of the congregation. The English Mass uses the words “our sacrifice,” not quite the same.

 

[mercygate]

That’s the difference between the Latin Mass and the English Mass. The Latin Mass distinguishes between the sacrifice of the priest and that of the congregation. The English Mass uses the words “our sacrifice,” not quite the same.

But it is “quite the same” because nothing can eradicate the “priesthood of the people,” which is scriptural. “My sacrifice” applies to the Mass because the ministerial priesthood is uniquely empowered. “Our sacrifice” applies because of our incorporation as members of the Body of Christ. The Body and the Head are one. The Sacrifice is One. There is only One Priest.

 

[stmaria]

Those of us that love that Latin Mass do not go because it is in Latin. We go because we love the symbolism and the structure of the Mass compared to the Novus Ordo.
From the prayers at the foot of the altar to the reading of the Last Gospel of John and the Leonine prayers at the Low mass. The symbolism of all of the signs of the cross and genuflections made by the priest, the beautiful traditional music, communion on the tongue, kneeling to receive Christ. It is the reverence of the sacrifice not the Latin.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Of course, it is a given, that we didn’t know how to read back in the Dark Ages. We just brought along our Missals to look at the lovely drawings showing us what was going on on the altar. I remember getting my “little” Missal in 1958 - did I tell you we had some pretty spiffy colored prints spaced throughout to occupy us kids? Of course we didn’t get the whole collection of spiffy colored prints until we were confirmed and got our 'big missals". Of course there was always that other option of saying one’s rosary during Mass too.

Then too we altar boys had those nice laminated placards and no I did not know that Introibo ad altare Dei meant I will go to the altar of God and I certainly didn’t know that Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam didn’t mean To God who is the joy of my youth". Had absolutely no meaning to me in my youth.

And then voila! In 1968 we had the Word of God in ENGLISH! And, yea, we understood! And, yea, we were able to sing along to “Sons of God hear His Holy Word” and “They’ll Know We are Christians by Our Love”. All became clear then and the people rejoiced singing “Alle lu, Alle lu, Alle lu E aaaaaaaa” while a’strumin’ and a’grinnin’. God in His heaven and all was right in the world!

 

[Yerusalyim]

STMARIA,

Great, and I’m TRULLY happy for you in that spirituality you find in TLM. However, my angst is directed at those who find the NO mass deficient and want to impose upon those of us comfortable with it the TLM. I find beauty in being able to assent fully to the prayers offered by the priest. Both masses are fine, one is no less the Eucharist because of the form of the mass.

 

[stmaria]

STMARIA,

Great, and I’m TRULLY happy for you in that spirituality you find in TLM. ** However, my angst is directed at those who find the NO mass deficient and want to impose upon those of us comfortable with it the TLM. ** I find beauty in being able to assent fully to the prayers offered by the priest. Both masses are fine, one is no less the Eucharist because of the form of the mass.

Did you see the Papal Mass at St Patricks? Plenty of Latin and Traditional Music Also did you notice that while the Pope faced the congregation he was also facing a cross that was on the Altar.?

Did you notice that at the Yankee Stadium mass the Creed was in Latin?
Was the Pope “imposing” elements of the TLM? When prayers are said in Latin, the universal language of the Church, there is a unity created between all cultures and languages. The Holy Father know this. The TLM will not be influenced by the Novus Ordo but the Novus Ordo will be influenced by the TLM.

 

[mercygate]

Those of us that love that Latin Mass do not go because it is in Latin. We go because we love the symbolism and the structure of the Mass compared to the Novus Ordo.
From the prayers at the foot of the altar to the reading of the Last Gospel of John and the Leonine prayers at the Low mass. The symbolism of all of the signs of the cross and genuflections made by the priest, the beautiful traditional music, communion on the tongue, kneeling to receive Christ. It is the reverence of the sacrifice not the Latin.

The structure of the Mass is the same in both forms. But ah, those embellishments! The prayers at the foot of the altar and the prayers after Mass! Beautiful.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Did you see the Papal Mass at St Patricks? Plenty of Latin and Traditional Music Also did you notice that while the Pope faced the congregation he was also facing a cross that was on the Altar.?

Did you notice that at the Yankee Stadium mass the Creed was in Latin?
Was the Pope “imposing” elements of the TLM? When prayers are said in Latin, the universal language of the Church, there is a unity created between all cultures and languages. The Holy Father know this. The TLM will not be influenced by the Novus Ordo but the Novus Ordo will be influenced by the TLM.

THE NO can be said in Latin…it’s first form was Latin…he was not imposing elements of TLM but rather doing was is quite allowable in the NO, saying parts of it in Latin, which has a particularly symbolic message when people of many languages are in a common location. However, for a local mass at a local parish the Vernacular is Spectacular.

 

[East_and_West]

It’s called a missal. And it used to be quite common for Catholics to have them.

There’s no excuse not to know what is being said.

The missal is very distracting. Its really hard for me to offer myself totally in the Latin Mass because A. I don’t understand the paryers, and B. The missal is distracting. I find I assist at mass much better at a reverant NO Mass.

 

[brotherhrolf]

The missal is very distracting. Its really hard for me to offer myself totally in the Latin Mass because A. I don’t understand the paryers, and B. The missal is distracting. I find I assist at mass much better at a reverant NO Mass.

Had you grown up from second grade on with a missal, it wouldn’t seem distracting. Everyone seems to forget that there is still a large number of us alive in HMC who grew up with the Latin Mass, understood the Latin Mass, and were content with the Latin Mass. We’re not dead yet! We’re feeling better!

 

[mercygate]

Had you grown up from second grade on with a missal, it wouldn’t seem distracting. Everyone seems to forget that there is still a large number of us alive in HMC who grew up with the Latin Mass, understood the Latin Mass, and were content with the Latin Mass. We’re not dead yet! We’re feeling better!

I wasn’t even Cathoilc, and I could do this! As a high school student, I used to go to Catholic daily Mass in the summer just to keep some Latin in the gourd.

 

[brockmac]

The original liturgies were probably in Aramaic, as this was the common, vernacular language that the Apostles spoke. It is likely that some of them spoke only Aramaic, with a little Hebrew, and even less Greek.

As the Church expanded throughout southwest Asia, I suspect Greek was implemented because it was accessible to more people than Aramaic.

Later, the Churches in the west adopted Latin for the Liturgy because, you guessed it, it was more accessible to the people than Greek. However, the Eastern Churches preserved the Greek Liturgy, because that was the common language of the people there.

Then at the Second Vatican Council, the bishops of the world collectively agreed that the people of the west should be able to assist in the Liturgy in their native tongue, just as the people in the East do, in their own language. Perhaps it would have been less traumatic for some people had they decided to simply authorize translations of the 1962 Missal, but I doubt it. Most of the people who are attached to the TLM site the use of Latin as a key reason for their preference. In fact some may have been more upset than they are now, that this sacred Liturgy would be profaned by common tongues.

Too many people view the use of Latin and the Silent Canon as a kind of temple veil to keep the unwashed masses from getting to close to the Sacred Mystries. The thought seems to be that if they could understand, or even hear the words of consecration, the people would be less in awe of the Divine Mystery of the Eucharist.

I contend that there is so much cathecesis in the Liturgy (EF or OF), especially in the Canon, that it is vital for the people to understand. I am drawn much more into the Mystery of the Sacrafice of the Mass listening to the words of concecration.

Now don’t get me wrong, I whole heartedly agree that as part of our heritage, the TLM should be preserved and made much more available than it is for the benefit of those who are drawn to this form of worship, and perhaps even for those who have yet to discover it.

 

[brotherhrolf]

But what is being forgotten on a whole bunch of threads by you folks who grew up after Vatican II or converted is that there are a whole bunch of us for whom Latin was the norm and that we liked it. The plain truth is that Vatican II was not received in the pews with enthusiam. We submitted to the Magesterium of HMC and when they pulled the communion rails out, there were a lot of people who left HMC - simply quit attending. My parents and most of my neighbors became exiles in their own parish shunted off the Vigil Mass on Saturday because it was the only Mass without music and where the priest did not give into “innovations”.

Forty years have gone by. The HF has issued the MP and what you are seeing and reading are the responses of us who submitted to the Magesterium in 1968. Do I want to go back to the TLM? No. Would I like to see some standards of behavior implemented (like no more “wave” at the end of the Lord’s Prayer)? You betcha. Would I like to see an expansion of our wonderful musical heritage? Yes, indeed.

But most of all I would like to see an end to the “myths” and outright fabrications posted about life before Vatican II. People have listened to these myths for so long that they have become facts. We did understand the Mass and quite frankly the consecration was far more obvious than it is today. Furthermore, the sanctity of the moment was not disturbed by a jarring Memorial Acclamation. And, yes, I do know precisely what “Hoc est enim Corpus meam” means. So let’s drop this fiction that Latin was used to keep the laity from understanding.

I was able to go to Mass in Spain and participate. I can’t say the same for the French tourists whom come to my cathedral each summer because the Mass is in English.

 

[East_and_West]

Had you grown up from second grade on with a missal, it wouldn’t seem distracting. Everyone seems to forget that there is still a large number of us alive in HMC who grew up with the Latin Mass, understood the Latin Mass, and were content with the Latin Mass. We’re not dead yet! We’re feeling better!

I am sure that growing up with the Latin Mass would make a huge different. But because I did not grow up with it, its more of a distraction for me. I am glad that both are available to the faithful.

 

[Hesychios]

I am sure that growing up with the Latin Mass would make a huge different. But because I did not grow up with it, its more of a distraction for me.

I grew up with it, and as an adult when the SSPX became active I found it distracting in a sense as well. The indult Masses came later and had the same effect on me.

I firmly believe the Missa Normativa can be done well, I have witnessed it.

That said, if the chant were seriously restored (as it was called to be) I think it would make a big difference in the “performance level” (sorry, I don’t know how else to put it at the moment) of the ordinary form.

Michael

 

[mercygate]

But what is being forgotten on a whole bunch of threads by you folks who grew up after Vatican II or converted is that there are a whole bunch of us for whom Latin was the norm and that we liked it. The plain truth is that Vatican II was not received in the pews with enthusiam. We submitted to the Magesterium of HMC and when they pulled the communion rails out, there were a lot of people who left HMC - simply quit attending. My parents and most of my neighbors became exiles in their own parish shunted off the Vigil Mass on Saturday because it was the only Mass without music and where the priest did not give into “innovations”.

Forty years have gone by. The HF has issued the MP and what you are seeing and reading are the responses of us who submitted to the Magesterium in 1968. Do I want to go back to the TLM? No. Would I like to see some standards of behavior implemented (like no more “wave” at the end of the Lord’s Prayer)? You betcha. Would I like to see an expansion of our wonderful musical heritage? Yes, indeed.

But most of all I would like to see an end to the “myths” and outright fabrications posted about life before Vatican II. People have listened to these myths for so long that they have become facts. We did understand the Mass and quite frankly the consecration was far more obvious than it is today. Furthermore, the sanctity of the moment was not disturbed by a jarring Memorial Acclamation. And, yes, I do know precisely what “Hoc est enim Corpus meam” means. So let’s drop this fiction that Latin was used to keep the laity from understanding.

I was able to go to Mass in Spain and participate. I can’t say the same for the French tourists whom come to my cathedral each summer because the Mass is in English.

While I normally resonate to your observations 100% on the same frequency, I have heard all too often from many, many people that they never understood a syllable of Latin. Considering that I have conversations with church-folk today in plain English that require explication, I believe them. The other day, discussing glass chalices (used in my parish) I noted that they were explicitly reprobated by Redemptionis Sacramentum and the person asked me, “What’s that?” and "What does reprobated mean?

I am constantly grousing about the “dumbing down” of catechesis and liturgy, but I am also constantly coming upon examples that demonstrate to my WHY things have been “dumbed down.”

 

[dadude]

Hello Again,
This thread has been interesting to watch, I would like to comment on several points.

I prefer my sung music and my Masses in my native tongue.

This is perfectly fine, many people are drawn to the reverence and respect in the TLM and this is something that you can be assured you will encounter in the TLM however about the Novus Ordo the same cannot be said.

It’s hard to worship when you don’t understand the words being used to worship. The mass is NOT the sacrifice of the priest alone, it’s the sacrifice and celebration of the congregation as well, that’s why now days they require a priest, in most circumstances, to have a congregation when offering the mass.

Can. 906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.

Okay lets make sure not to overlook the first half of this reference, Except for a just and reasonable cause. Just and reasonable are not any further defined there could be a very many number of reasonable causes.

On a humorous side note, someone once got me a subscription to “Latin Mass” magazine; I found it hilarious that the publication was in English.
Seriously folks, there is a place for the Latin Mass and I’m glad the TLM is making a comeback, but I don’t think it should be the norm.

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. And have at any point I suggested that the TLM should be the norm?

There is an ENORMOUS difference in reading something and praying it…not all people CAN read…not all people can read quickly enough to keep up with the spoken word…so no, a missal with a translation is not sufficient for devotion. When people UNDERSTAND the spoken word of the priest it adds to their worship. Our unity is in Christ, not in a language.

With a missal you pray the mass if you put effort into it, I do not think that people put anywhere near the amount of attention into the N.O. mass as the TLM. Considering “it adds to their worship” there are plenty of people who pay no attention in N.O. masses therefore the fact that the mass is in the vernacular adds nothing to their worship.

I took HS Latin, I still can’t make heads or tails of most of the mass in Latin. But I understand and APPRECIATE mass in English.

You can’t expect to learn from a High School language class, I’m in my second year of Spanish and still don’t understand it one bit.

The CHURCH set itself straight in allowing the vernacular in Vatican II.

Are you suggesting that the church was crooked before Vatican II?

This has prompted much more that what I was originally asking but it has been good.

 

[m134e5]

Hello,
So tonight I just happened to be wearing my better in Latin tee shirt and I had a friend of mine start to kind of question the whole Latin mass and what it is all about and why it is so great compared to mass in the vernacular. He brought up the whole idea that getting something out of the mass is important and too pointed out that he gets nothing out of the Latin mass. I continued on by asking what the purpose of mass is and he responded with well to hear the readings and receive Jesus in the Eucharist. I responded with no, the purpose of the mass is to worship God. And it went on from there but I wish not to get into the full discussion.

How do you respond to this argument I am sure you have all heard it before.

Along with this the argument of well I don’t understand it came up I responded with, “It’s a mystery – if you know everything that’s going on, something is wrong.”

I don’t like the “it’s not about what you get out of it” response- although I use it a lot. We shouldn’t base our faith on our feelings, but every good Catholic I know has had moments where they “get something out of” the Faith. God knows what a person needs. If they need a reminder, He’ll give it to them. Sometimes I struggle with my faith, but God presents opportunities now and then to keep me on track. They could be especially powerful liturgies, homilies, retreats, or spiritual books/movies. They could be good conversations with friends or family members, or a good confession. It’s not all about how we feel, but that doesn’t mean our feelings are meaningless- they too are part of God’s wonderful creation that is mankind.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The sacrament is not dependent upon laity being present. We assist. We are not necessary to confect the sacrament.

Laymen are not necessary to confect the sacrament, and their offering of the sacrifice is qualitatively different from that of the priest, but they nevertheless truly offer Christ to the Father by participating in the sacrifice of the priest. Read *Mediator Dei *by Pius XII.

A missal had been sufficient for how many centuries? And now just because you say it isn’t, it’s not? Yeah, ok.

To elaborate on the poster who thankfully pointed out that missals are very modern phenomena, I wanted to note that full translations of the Mass into the vernacular were actually forbidden for many centuries. The laity often used devotional books at Mass that had paraphrases of all the parts, but it was a different beast from following along with the priest word for word.

It stands to mention, though, that in forbidding the exact translations, I think we would be hard pressed to understand that Holy Mother Church understood herself to be hindering people’s participation in the liturgy. Rather, we see that the West in the 10-15 centuries prior to the reforms of the 1960s-70s simply worked off of a different conception of participation than most of it does now.

Too many people view the use of Latin and the Silent Canon as a kind of temple veil to keep the unwashed masses from getting to close to the Sacred Mystries. The thought seems to be that if they could understand, or even hear the words of consecration, the people would be less in awe of the Divine Mystery of the Eucharist.

I contend that there is so much cathecesis in the Liturgy (EF or OF), especially in the Canon, that it is vital for the people to understand. I am drawn much more into the Mystery of the Sacrafice of the Mass listening to the words of concecration.

I think the different conception to which I’m referring comes through here. I can’t think of much more literal a temple veil than having the sacrifice take place behind an iconostasis, so I don’t see why the concept is so odd. The East and the West have “veiled” the mystery in different ways, but they’ve both done it for quite some time until the West removed its last vestige of veiling in its hieratic language and “silent” canon.

We also see a different form of “catechesis” during the liturgy than we used to. The traditional liturgy, in a way perhaps more akin to Eastern liturgy (though I’m not saying they’re the same approach, just that it’s more similar in this aspect than the NO is to the East), took more advantage of all the senses for its catechesis than does the ordinary form. What we’ve seen is that the Mass has finally caught up to the 16th century Reformers’ notion that everything done has to teach or edify in a very literal, cerebral sense. You see this especially in the rationale supporting all-vernacular liturgy, where people won’t get taught as much if they can’t hear every word of what is going on in their native tongue. It’s kind of interesting that during a period of history when educators were ga-ga over teaching methods that engaged all different learning styles and all different senses, the Catholic Church altered Her liturgy to a “lecture only” format. Not very progressive of Her.

Does the fact that the liturgical mindset is demonstrably different from the historical model automatically make it bad, as if any change can’t possibly be worthwhile? No. But we all need to be aware that when we start arguing about Latin vs. vernacular we often do it on terms that are thoroughly modern, not necessarily grounded in the bimillenial tradition of our particular church.

I am constantly grousing about the “dumbing down” of catechesis and liturgy, but I am also constantly coming upon examples that demonstrate to my WHY things have been “dumbed down.”

That could, of course, be the case. But you also might just be running across evidence THAT things have been dumbed down for too long. It’s like not teaching your child to read and then explaining to people that you have to make everything easier for him since he’s illiterate. His illiteracy doesn’t prove that he’s stupid, just that you’ve been remiss as a parent.