Return to Latin Mass vs. English

[IrishRush]

Here we go.
Iam sure there will be many who will give you their opinions. One thing I can tell you is that the ad orientum (facing towards east or in your case "back towards the people) is a very ancient practice. The priest faces God hence we together as a community face the same direction. Also, the priest takes our prayers and petitions to God. I prefer this position also because it eliminates the priest having to put up a “show” or entertainer type persona. You mention you have to see everything the priest does, do you know that your attentions should be towards the altar? Other than during the readings and homily? Our focus should be on Jesus not on what the priest does or does not do.

I do not expect the priest to put on a “show” for me, I think that is a rather harsh assumption to jump to. I watch everything the priest does very closely, and because he is standing behind the altar, my attention is towards the altar. Thank you for the explanation about the priest facing God though - as I said, I was away from the church for most of my adult life, and didn’t understand that was the reason.

What would you say if a group of tourist go to non-English speaking country, should the parish they visit to fulfill their Sunday obligation accommodate to them so they may feel inclusive with the mass?
I would not expect any thing of the kind. If I choose to travel in a foreign country - and I have, in fact I grew up in SE Asia as an Army brat - I do not expect accomodation to my language.

Your ramble I wonder if it’s just to get a reaction out of members, or are you truly asking sincere questions. Sorry if I sound uncharitable, but we get many new members on here who tend to ask or post rambles to get reactions, or just don’t like to use the search functioned on topics that have been beaten to death.

Again, I think your response here is harsh, and to use your word, uncharitable. You make an assumption based on experiences you have not had with me or my posts and frankly, I’m offended by it. I do not post to “get reactions,” I post to learn, mainly. Even though I have been back to my faith for the last 7 years or so, I have a lot to relearn and I’m anxious to do that. This post probably expressed my frustration more than I intended. But it never was meant to just “get a reaction” as you say. And I’m sorry if you feel that this topic has been beaten to death, but for those of us who don’t understand it, it helps to re-visit it. If you are so frustrated by a repeat of this topic, why not just ignore it instead of posting such a harsh and uncharitable reply?

 

[IrishRush]

How inclusive is it that my local church regularly celebrates Spanish and Vietnamese language Masses (and perhaps others I am unaware), as well as frequent Masses in Italian, Polish and other languages?

tee

I actually consider that to be very inclusive. I think if people can pray in their native tongue, there is more gained from it. They understand the what AND why of it all. Our church has a Spanish Mass every Sunday as well as Masses in English.
And to others posting in favor of the Latin Mass with continuity in all churches as the main theme, I get that too. It makes a lot of sense. And it would make the Catholic Church that much more catholic. All I wanted to say is that I don’t understand why there is so much of a push to return to that form. It wouldn’t make me want to leave the Church, but it would make it harder for me to feel a part of the celebration until I really felt “fluent” (for lack of a better word) in Latin.
One thing I don’t understand is the anger that seems to be part of some of the responses here. I’m inferring anger from some of the more sarcastic and caustic responses I’ve seen, granted, but I don’t know how else to take it.

 

[wsxyz]

One thing I don’t understand is the anger that seems to be part of some of the responses here.

Forty years of abuse from people who hate the traditional Mass and tried to destroy it.
That doesn’t excuse bad behavior, but explains it, at least in part.

 

[IrishRush]

I assume that is directed towards me? Since no one else mentioned about the topic being beaten to death. I mentioned it because I questions the OP’s intentions. Does he want a letigimate discussion? If he does why not ask questions instead of ranting his opinions? No need to be uncharitable. He is a SHE, and what right do you have to question my intentions? Don’t you find that to be terribly judgmental? I would like legitimate discussion, but do I necessarily have to frame everything as a question? Can my opinion not be the beginning of a discussion? Why are my opinions not welcome but you certainly feel free to put yours out there, not the least of which is your opinion, uninformed as it may be, about my intentions. And as far as accusing someone else of being uncharitable, you should see to the plank in your own eye first.

 

[thebigbang]

Well, before you know it, the Pope will ask us to return to the Old Mass. Will that mean celebrating the Mass in the morning of the Triduum days? I hope not.

 

[Te_Deum]

Well, before you know it, the Pope will ask us to return to the Old Mass. Will that mean celebrating the Mass in the morning of the Triduum days? I hope not.

We don’t celebrate Mass on the Triduum days except for Maundy Thursday .

 

[IrishRush]

I just started attending the Latin Mass about a month ago, and I’ve already changed parishes because I enjoy it so much. The first time I heard the Agnus Dei sung in Latin at the Mass, I felt as if there was a real sense of reverence and mystery to the order of the Mass, which I thought was beautiful.
Also, as far as facing toward the congregation vs. toward the Crucifix and tabernacle, I think it makes more sense for the priest to face toward who we are offering our prayers to (Jesus, Truly Present in the Eucharist) than toward the people. I mean, if you were standing before a judge and talking to him, would you face toward the gallery or toward the judge?
I’m sure others will have different opinions, but that’s just my two cents!

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the Agnus Dei, surprisingly enough! lol Once I found out what it was that I heard that day at mass, I looked into it, listened to it many, many times before the next Sunday, and was totally prepared for it. And when I heard it that next Sunday I too found it quite beautiful. I was very pleasantly surprised when my church sang that during Lent this year as well. In fact, I told our priest that I would love it if it could be permanent. What bothered me before that was that I had no clue what it was and no warning that it might be something I should learn. I felt very left out.
And about facing the congregation or not, I don’t think God is present only at the front of the church, I believe He is all around us as well as within us. Why is it OK to pray with our eyes closed if that’s not the case? If you and I were having a conversation, our eyes would be open because you and I are not omnipresent. We would have to be facing each other to be able to really converse (taking facial expressions, body language, etc. into account). Thank God that’s not the case with God or we would not be able to speak with Him at all.
Thank you for sharing your opinion with me.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi Irish Rush:

I also am a ‘she’ (not readily apparent by my user name, I know).

I would like to ask you whether you are talking about the Latin Mass (what is known as the EF, as opposed to the OF), or whether you are talking about the regular OF, the vernacular Mass, ‘adding in’ certain Latin prayers.

It seemed from the first post that you were talking about the latter; that is, that you were talking about an OF vernacular Mass in which you were stunned by the addition of a few Latin prayers which made you think that the whole Mass was going to be taken over.

Now, the EF and the OF are both valid Masses.

If a person prefers one to the other, that’s personal preference. In fact, one can even strongly prefer one to the other, provided one agrees that both forms are perfectly valid.

But as for the OF, itself, it was never intended that all Latin should be ‘removed’ from the Mass. The documents of Vatican II never called for that. It was always intended that certain parts of the Mass should as a general rule be always still in Latin. That’s why you’ll see, for example on EWTN, and also in various parishes across the U.S., Masses gradually starting to ‘include’ things like chant, saying the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus, and the Gloria in Latin, saying the Kyrie in Greek, etc. You won’t find this happening everywhere (yet), and you won’t even find this happening at every single solitary Mass in the parish, but the fact is, the intention for Latin to be part of the vernacular Mass as a general rule was specifically laid out in the documents of Vatican II.

Unfortunately, in the last 40 years, along with many good and faithful liturgies (I’m sure you’ve experienced many, and since most of us were ONLY able to attend OF Masses in the last 40 years, most of us pretty much can only speak about the OF to this day), there have been some which were not so faithful. And not even, sometimes, because they weren’t ‘meant’ to be. People (even clergy) were confused. And now we’re reaping some of the fruits of that confusion. Like a gardener who laid out a beautiful garden and in the height of summer is enjoying a host of blooms. . . but also having to deal with the weeds that crop up as well. . .we are seeing that in order to get the most beautiful and authentic liturgy there are a few ‘weeds’ we need to deal with.

I remember my kids bringing me dandelion bouquets. Many think of dandelions as weeds, but they can look charming in the fist of a toddler. Likewise, many liturgical practices, gestures, concepts etc. might have ‘looked’ appealing or roused positive emotions, but still, when it comes down to it, not been appropriate. They looked (or felt) ‘good’, but they were not what was intended.

To sum: The ‘norm’ for the OF (English, vernacular) Mass is that it will include on a fairly regular basis certain prayers in Latin. This is not a ‘change’ to the OF per se or a ‘reversal’ back to the EF. Rather, it is the original intention of the OF as per Vatican II which is, at long last, FINALLY being done properly.

So if you’re attending your ‘regular’ OF Mass and it has some Latin in it, relax. You aren’t being forced ‘back to the all Latin Mass’, you’re finally getting what was supposed to be done in the VERNACULAR Mass for the last 40 years.

 

[IrishRush]

IrishRush:

When I attend Mass, I normally sit well towards the front. This means that my back is to most of the congregation–does this bother you? If you sit in the last row, just about everyone will have their backs to you. Is it really all that bad? Since you are not the celebrant, the direction you face does not concern me at all. Not does the position of the rest of the congregation.

The one-person-facing-a-group position is common in our culture when we are being entertained, and when we are attending a lecture. And, regardless of the language used at a given Mass, the priest always turned to face the congregation during the readings and the homily (and at other points when he was to address the people). But the Mass is not entertainment, and when he turns back to the altar, he is addressing God. The image is that we are all one, and he is leading us in prayer towards God. I do not consider the Mass to be entertainment, nor do I consider the priest to be an entertainer. I also believe that God is not present ONLY in the front of the church.

After all, if you were on a bus, heading to an important destination, would you want the driver to be turned around chatting with the passengers? Of course not! You would want him looking ahead at the road and focused on bringing us all to our destination. And what destination is more important than Heaven?

How do you know that English is understood by all the congregation? Here in Canada we have large areas where French is spoken; if you were to visit Quebec, for example, you might have to attend Mass in French. In the US, many parishes have a large Spanish community, or Vietnamese, and some masses will be in those languages. I’m in the U.S. and I’m very aware of the variety of languages spoken here. My point was not that I want the Mass said in English, but rather in a language easily understood by the majority of the congregation. If that happens to be Spanish, French or whatever, so be it. It has just been so long since the Latin Mass was the norm here that I think a lot of people would have trouble with it. If not a lot, then enough to make a difference.

When the Mass was in Latin, everyone attended the same Mass. You might have your prayerbook with the Latin on one side and English on the other, and your neighbour might be using a missal with Latin on one side and Spanish on the other. You might not be able to have much of a conversation with that neighbour, but you could recognize each other as members of the same faith community and smile at each other. Now most people worship in their own ethnic enclave and we are much more divided. How is that inclusive? I don’t consider that divisive at all. No one is kept out of the Mass based on their language skills, it is a choice made by the worshiper based on preference and comfort. At our church, there is an Hispanic mass at 12:30 every Sunday. That doesn’t mean that Hispanic people or people of Hispanic descent cannot attend the English Mass if they so choose. They are just given the option of praying in their native tongue, which I find to be very inclusive.

Now we have English Masses, and French Masses, and Spanish Masses, and Polish Masses, and Vietnamese Masses, and many, many more. Why should we not also have a Latin Mass for those who prefer it? I agree with this 100%! If a parish / congregation wants to have a Latin Mass, then by all means, have it.

I have no desire whatever to take the Novus Ordo Mass away from those who prefer it. But the Extraordinary Form has a somewhat different spirituality, which some of us find more condusive to growing in holiness. Why should we be denied it? I never said that I thought there should be no Latin Mass. In fact, all I said was “I’ve been wondering why there is so much enthusiasm for a return to the Latin mass and the pre Vatican II ways.” And honestly, I do not understand why there is such a heated response by the people favoring a return to the Latin Mass. The phrase wasn’t stated with a negative connotation, nor was anything negative implied.

 

[IrishRush]

Hi Irish Rush:

I also am a ‘she’ (not readily apparent by my user name, I know).

I would like to ask you whether you are talking about the Latin Mass (what is known as the EF, as opposed to the OF), or whether you are talking about the regular OF, the vernacular Mass, ‘adding in’ certain Latin prayers.

It seemed from the first post that you were talking about the latter; that is, that you were talking about an OF vernacular Mass in which you were stunned by the addition of a few Latin prayers which made you think that the whole Mass was going to be taken over.

Now, the EF and the OF are both valid Masses.

If a person prefers one to the other, that’s personal preference. In fact, one can even strongly prefer one to the other, provided one agrees that both forms are perfectly valid.

But as for the OF, itself, it was never intended that all Latin should be ‘removed’ from the Mass. The documents of Vatican II never called for that. It was always intended that certain parts of the Mass should as a general rule be always still in Latin. That’s why you’ll see, for example on EWTN, and also in various parishes across the U.S., Masses gradually starting to ‘include’ things like chant, saying the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus, and the Gloria in Latin, saying the Kyrie in Greek, etc. You won’t find this happening everywhere (yet), and you won’t even find this happening at every single solitary Mass in the parish, but the fact is, the intention for Latin to be part of the vernacular Mass as a general rule was specifically laid out in the documents of Vatican II.

Unfortunately, in the last 40 years, along with many good and faithful liturgies (I’m sure you’ve experienced many, and since most of us were ONLY able to attend OF Masses in the last 40 years, most of us pretty much can only speak about the OF to this day), there have been some which were not so faithful. And not even, sometimes, because they weren’t ‘meant’ to be. People (even clergy) were confused. And now we’re reaping some of the fruits of that confusion. Like a gardener who laid out a beautiful garden and in the height of summer is enjoying a host of blooms. . . but also having to deal with the weeds that crop up as well. . .we are seeing that in order to get the most beautiful and authentic liturgy there are a few ‘weeds’ we need to deal with.

I remember my kids bringing me dandelion bouquets. Many think of dandelions as weeds, but they can look charming in the fist of a toddler. Likewise, many liturgical practices, gestures, concepts etc. might have ‘looked’ appealing or roused positive emotions, but still, when it comes down to it, not been appropriate. They looked (or felt) ‘good’, but they were not what was intended.

To sum: The ‘norm’ for the OF (English, vernacular) Mass is that it will include on a fairly regular basis certain prayers in Latin. This is not a ‘change’ to the OF per se or a ‘reversal’ back to the EF. Rather, it is the original intention of the OF as per Vatican II which is, at long last, FINALLY being done properly.

So if you’re attending your ‘regular’ OF Mass and it has some Latin in it, relax. You aren’t being forced ‘back to the all Latin Mass’, you’re finally getting what was supposed to be done in the VERNACULAR Mass for the last 40 years.

Thank you Tantum Ergo!! This is exactly what I was looking for! I stopped attending church in the early 70’s and only returned about 7 years ago. As you can see, I’m still stumbling in the dark, with my hands out in front of me, trying to feel my way. You just lit a candle for me! Even the terms OF and EF were confusing to me until I read your response. You aren’t, by any chance, a teacher are you?

 

[wsxyz]

Well, before you know it, the Pope will ask us to return to the Old Mass. Will that mean celebrating the Mass in the morning of the Triduum days? I hope not.

No, because the Missal to be used is the Missal of 1962, which incorporates the changes in the Holy Week from 1955.

 

[IrishRush]

It was a different time. Even people who didn’t finish school valued education, and specifically a classical education that included Greek and Latin as part of school curricula. People admired ancient history and culture, and sought to keep them as part of their everyday life.

Nowadays, there is a lack of respect and even derision for education, and especially for classical education and ancient history and culture. Subjects like history and ancient studies are done with very little intellectual integrity. Much of the time, the history seems to be twisted so that it will fit in with current politically-correct thinking. And very few public schools teach history, literature, politics, and philosophy and include the influence of religion, specifically Christianity, on these subjects. Religion is left out of everything, and so the entire curricula is warped and incomplete. And since the children and teenagers don’t know what they are missing out on, they don’t know to ask for it.

Most schools emphasize New Age concepts like “Be the best you can be” and “You can be anything you want to be.” They don’t necessarily teach people how to accomplish these esoteric goals, but they do try to convince children and teenagers that “everyone is special.”

The point is, it was a different time and people had a different mindset. I think that people were more respectful of things that they didn’t understand. Nowadays, people want knowledge and comprehension. We even seek to factualize and explain our various mysticisms. We don’t just accept things anymore.

I understand your point here - in high school, I was planning to go pre-med in college and wanted to take Latin. It was not offered in my school and I was counseled to take German instead. But regarding your point about not just accepting things anymore, that’s not my motivation (at least I don’t think it is) about wanting to be able to better understand the language of the Mass. I feel more connected, I guess, when my understanding of it all is there. More a part of it.
One thing I know is this - since returning to the Church, I have discovered a faith that I never believed I could have; something I heard about or read about in other people but I really didn’t get it or have it myself. I have now a deep and abiding faith and the changes it has brought to my life are profound. And I want to feed it, and keep it growing. It feels to me like I can’t do that if I don’t understand the language of the worship as much as I possibly can. I hope that explains my feeling on this a little better.

 

[IrishRush]

Forty years of abuse from people who hate the traditional Mass and tried to destroy it.
That doesn’t excuse bad behavior, but explains it, at least in part.

Thanks for that thought wsxyz, I understand what you’re saying. I don’t hate the traditional Mass at all, I’m just lost in it. Still too new of a revert I guess and still finding my way.

 

[ClamDigger]

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the Agnus Dei, surprisingly enough! lol Once I found out what it was that I heard that day at mass, I looked into it, listened to it many, many times before the next Sunday, and was totally prepared for it. And when I heard it that next Sunday I too found it quite beautiful. I was very pleasantly surprised when my church sang that during Lent this year as well. In fact, I told our priest that I would love it if it could be permanent. What bothered me before that was that I had no clue what it was and no warning that it might be something I should learn. I felt very left out.

I can understand that. On Holy Thursday this year at my old parish, the priest spoke in English and the lectors spoke in English, but nearly all of the responses were said in Spanish? Which, I can understand what they were going for I think, but I think it just made everyone feel a little bit uneasy and left out, since the people who attend the Spanish Mass regularly probably don’t know the English order of the words of the Mass (even if they understand them), and the people who go to the English Mass probably don’t know the order of the words in the Spanish Mass (even if they understand them). So, yeah, very unsettling when you don’t know what is being said!

And about facing the congregation or not, I don’t think God is present only at the front of the church, I believe He is all around us as well as within us. Why is it OK to pray with our eyes closed if that’s not the case? If you and I were having a conversation, our eyes would be open because you and I are not omnipresent. We would have to be facing each other to be able to really converse (taking facial expressions, body language, etc. into account). Thank God that’s not the case with God or we would not be able to speak with Him at all.

I realize that he is omnipresent, but I guess it just feels appropriate to me that when he is present under the form of the Eucharist, it’s best to face him and talk to him under the form he’s chosen to present himself in. I don’t know, I suppose that’s really just a personal preference.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with me.

And thank you for sharing yours with me!

 

[paperwight66]

I ),
I realize that he is omnipresent, but I guess it just feels appropriate to me that when he is present under the form of the Eucharist, it’s best to face him and talk to him under the form he’s chosen to present himself in. I don’t know, I suppose that’s really just a personal preference.

Ah, but you see, during Mass we/the priest are not talking to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. The focus of the Mass isn’t the Tabernacle. The focus is what is happening on the altar, and offering the Lamb to the Father.

If I can say so without appearing irreverent: the Tabernacle is irrelevant during Mass. We reserve the Blessed Sacrament to take to the housebound, primarily, and also to worship when it is NOT mass. During Mass, we are not praying to the Tabernacle.

Mass can and does take place without a Tabernacle being there. It is not part of Mass, but a reminder for afterwards.

 

[ClamDigger]

Ah, but you see, during Mass we/the priest are not talking to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. The focus of the Mass isn’t the Tabernacle. The focus is what is happening on the altar, and offering the Lamb to the Father.

Whoever sees Jesus sees the Father. When we see the Eucharistic Christ, we see the Father who we offer the Sacrifice to. And, you are right, we are making the offering to the Father, not to the people. Also, while of course we can offer our prayers to God anywhere at any time, Eucharistic Adoration is still encouraged and beneficial.

If I can say so without appearing irreverent: the Tabernacle is irrelevant during Mass. We reserve the Blessed Sacrament to take to the housebound, primarily, and also to worship when it is NOT mass. During Mass, we are not praying to the Tabernacle.

Well, we never pray to the Tabernacle, period. We pray to the One who is in Tabernacle under the accidents of bread and wine. However, during Mass I am praying to Jesus under the accidents of bread and wine, so I am praying to Jesus who lives in the Tabernacle as well as Jesus who is present on the Altar.

Mass can and does take place without a Tabernacle being there. It is not part of Mass, but a reminder for afterwards.

Of course it is not a part of the Mass. I just think it is appropriate that, when he is present in the form of the Eucharist, we not turn our back to him and toward the people. I mean, the lay people face the crucifix and the Tabernacle, not each other, so why not the priest?

 

[paperwight66]

I mean, the lay people face the crucifix and the Tabernacle, not each other, so why not the priest?

We face the crucifix, certainly, but we don’t necessarily face the tabernacle. Many churches have separate chapels. The siting of the tabernacle is irrelevant to Mass.

St. Peter’s in Rome does not have a tabernacle at the altar where the Pope seems happy to say Mass. We need to separate the saying of Mass from seeing the tabernacle. It is not a package. True, the Real Presence is dependent on the Mass. But the Mass isn’t dependent on the Reserved Sacrament being already there. At the moment of saying Mass, they are two different things.

 

[Stitchwort]

IrishRush:

I also believe that God is not present ONLY in the front of the church.

Of course God is present everywhere, in and outside of the church. But He is present in a substantially different way in the Eucharist–Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity, physically present under the appearance of bread and wine. Thus, during Mass, our attention is to the front, on the altar. And to the tabernacle when we come in, if it is present in the sanctuary.

In fact, all I said was “I’ve been wondering why there is so much enthusiasm for a return to the Latin mass and the pre Vatican II ways.” And honestly, I do not understand why there is such a heated response by the people favoring a return to the Latin Mass.

The Mass contains two elements; vertical–offering worship to God, and horizontal–our coming together in community for worship and support. In the Extraordinary Form (what people usually mean when they say “Latin Mass”, though not necessarily) the main emphasis is vertical. In the Novus Ordo, it is horizontal.

People are different. I am speaking now strictly and only for myself. Many years of trying to practice my faith have taught me that for me the vertical is much more important. If that is well nourished, the horizontal portion flows out naturally. If the vertical is neglected, the horizontal shrivels up and “love thy neighbour” becomes meaningless. And that is why I prefer the Extraordinary Form (when I can attend it; it is still not available here.)

For over 40 years the EF has been largely banned, forbidden, unavailable, and those who prefer it have been put down and marginalized. Now Pope Benedict is trying to make it available for everyone who wants it. No wonder we are enthusiastic!

But 40 years of being put down for our preference has made us a little sensitiive–perhaps over-sensitive–to questions that seem to carry a negative weight. We go on the defensive very quickly.

And, as worded in your first post, those negative connotations were coming through, however unintended on your part. Your most recent posts have shown a willingness to learn and try to understand, and that makes an enormous positive difference.

I hope this helps.

 

[ClamDigger]

We face the crucifix, certainly, but we don’t necessarily face the tabernacle. Many churches have separate chapels. The siting of the tabernacle is irrelevant to Mass.

The priest generally doesn’t face the crucifix when he faces the people (unless there is a rood screen in the church, which I’ve never been to one in which there is).

St. Peter’s in Rome does not have a tabernacle at the altar where the Pope seems happy to say Mass. We need to separate the saying of Mass from seeing the tabernacle. It is not a package. True, the Real Presence is dependent on the Mass. But the Mass isn’t dependent on the Reserved Sacrament being already there. At the moment of saying Mass, they are two different things.

Hence the reason I said:

I just think it is appropriate that, when he is present in the form of the Eucharist, we not turn our back to him and toward the people.

Perhaps I should have clarified and said “when he is present [already] in the form of the Eucharist [in the Tabernacle on or near the altar]”.

 

[edwest2]

I was there for the Latin Mass. We also had a Mass in Polish. The changes attributed to Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II. Here are some thoughts about the Mass:

catholicexchange.com/2011/01/14/145692/

Peace,
Ed