Secular article on Latin Mass

[Missa_Solemnis]

Okay:

The Mass in the vernacular was a noble experiment that didn’t quite work. The Latin Mass might soon be back, and that could be a good thing for the Roman Catholic Church.
**The word “could” implies “possibility,” not “certitude.” **

Pope Benedict XVI plans to make it much easier for churches to use the 16th-century Latin Mass. That could help deepen faith and unite an American church whose members speak a veritable babel of languages. **It “could,” but it’s by no means certain that it will. **

The Catholic faith is, at its heart, a mystery. The Christian religion is best known in community. The Latin Mass enhanced mystery and created community for more than a thousand years and might again. The Mass in English has done neither. In his subjective opinion, it has done neither. I didn’t find in my attendance at the TLM that mystery was particularly enhanced. I’ve been to many, many Novus Ordo Masses where I was choking back the tears at Communion (admittedly, there have been a few where I wondered if I was too angry to go to Communion, but those have been a minority in the near 20 years that I’ve been a Catholic)

The Roman Catholic Church only began to use English in worship in the mid-1960s following the Second Vatican Council.
English might have helped the English-speaking faithful understand what worship was about, but explaining a mystery in any language is an oxymoron. The use of English in the church’s central act of worship turned a profoundly moving and, yes, mysterious experience into a dull, pedestrian meeting with little power to stir the spirit or motivate the faithful. **Here he mixes historical fact with subjective opinion. True, this WAVE of vernacular has only been since the council (the original switch from Greek to Latin was another “wave” of vernacular use, but that’s ignored by a lot of people advocating for Latin). I agree that it’s difficult to explain a mystery in any language, but it seems necessary (or Saint Patrick wouldn’t have pulled that shamrock out of the ground when he was trying to explain the All-Holy Trinity). He stated that such an effort was oxymoronic; well, it would have to be oxymoronic in Latin as well. Language (words) being symbols that vary from culture to culture, yes, they’re all going to be inadequate in the face of mystery, esp. the Mystery of Divine Grace and Redemption. But using a language you don’t understand seems illogical. **
St. Paul argued that the people should be taught in a language they understood. Sermons, instructions and teaching should be in such a language, but worship is another matter. Again, subjective opinion.
(continued)

Stop using the word ‘could’.

How about the word has

The Latin Mass has unified languages and communites.

The Latin Mass has enhanced the myster of the Mass.

The Latin mass has been what the American Church needed.

 

[LilyM]

Stop using the word ‘could’.

How about the word has

The Latin Mass has unified languages and communites.

The Latin Mass has enhanced the myster of the Mass.

The Latin mass has been what the American Church needed.

Yup the Latin Mass has unified languages and communities. And that’s why, even in the small though multiethnic town I grew up in, well prior to the vernacular Mass, there were churches that catered to different ethnic groups.

There was one Catholic church that was distinctly ‘Italian’, staffed by Italian-speaking priests and offering all sorts of devotions and events in the Italian language which were relevant to the Italian culture. We had another that was distinctly ‘Maltese’, another that was distinctly ‘Croatian’ (in fact it was CALLED Our Lady Queen of Croats), a fourth that was distinctly ‘Polish’ and so on.

In America there would appear to be plenty of instances of this too - St Boniface’s in the Chicago area for example - built in 1864, distinctly German in heritage.

There is so much more to the life of a church than the parts for which Latin used to be prescribed. Did a priest ever advise a parishioner in the confessional or outside of it in Latin? Teach a schoolclass in Latin? Give a homily in Latin?

Local vernacular languages and cultures come into play however much you might wish to cling to that veneer of cookie cutout unity.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Yup the Latin Mass has unified languages and communities. And that’s why, even in the small though multiethnic town I grew up in, well prior to the vernacular Mass, there were churches that catered to different ethnic groups.

There was one Catholic church that was distinctly ‘Italian’, staffed by Italian-speaking priests and offering all sorts of devotions and events in the Italian language which were relevant to the Italian culture. We had another that was distinctly ‘Maltese’, another that was distinctly ‘Croatian’ (in fact it was CALLED Our Lady Queen of Croats), a fourth that was distinctly ‘Polish’ and so on.

In America there would appear to be plenty of instances of this too - St Boniface’s in the Chicago area for example - built in 1864, distinctly German in heritage.

There is so much more to the life of a church than the parts for which Latin used to be prescribed. Did a priest ever advise a parishioner in the confessional or outside of it in Latin? Teach a schoolclass in Latin? Give a homily in Latin?

Local vernacular languages and cultures come into play however much you might wish to cling to that veneer of cookie cutout unity.

Again it is not the love for the Latin language that makes us Traditionalists love the Mass. It is the love of the rubrics and flow of the TLM that is truly lost in the NO.

We must never forget that the NO is not the vernacular Mass. It is the Eucharist in a totally new package.

Same eucharist sure…but it is not the same mass, nor an organic continuation of it.

So while it is the norm for catholic communities today, it has enstranged itself from the much larger community of yesterday.

 

[LilyM]

Again it is not the love for the Latin language that makes us Traditionalists love the Mass. It is the love of the rubrics and flow of the TLM that is truly lost in the NO.

We must never forget that the NO is not the vernacular Mass. It is the Eucharist in a totally new package.

Same eucharist sure…but it is not the same mass, nor an organic continuation of it.

So while it is the norm for catholic communities today, it has enstranged itself from the much larger community of yesterday.

I was specifically adressing your claim that the Latin Mass ‘unified languages and communities’, and responding with the counterpoint that in fact it didn’t.

Catholic churches were very often constructed to serve the needs of specific ethnic communities. The communities they served were in fact often divided along ethnic lines for this reason. This was very much true under the Latin Mass as it is now.

So my point stands and yours fails regardless of any issues of Latin per se.

And why the obsession with organic development? I don’t notice Christianity itself as being a particularly organic development of Judaism. Not when it abandoned so much:

a) requirement of cirumcision,
b) all dietary rules,
c) purity laws (eg ritual washing, uncleanliness of lepers and bleeding women and so on)
d) animal sacrifice in atonement for sins
e) changed the day of the Sabbath, the rules surrounding it, and lost all bar one of the Jewish religious holidays

 

[CatholicNick]

And why the obsession with organic development?

The “obsession” with organic development, is that it is the way the Mass of Ages has developed right from the beginnings of the Church. The TLM we have now (The Missal of 1962) is the result of organic development from way back to the First Mass ever celebrated, The Last Supper.

It is the way Liturgies of the Church have always developed, nowhere in the History of Holy Mother Church until the 1960’s/70’s, has there been fabrication of the Liturgy and especially not a whole Church wide implementation of such fabrication in just under 10 years.

Organic development is Catholic.

Fabrication is not.

 

[AlexV]

Historically, what happened in c. 1965-1975 was without precedent in the Roman Rite.

You had an appointed committee take the entire liturgy…not just the Mass…and rewrite everything.

Canons were composed in a Swiss hotel suite. New prayers were composed en masse. New cycles of pericopes of Scripture readings were composed. Nothing was left untouched…not a single item of the liturgy, except the Rite of Exorcism, which was finally added as the last piece of the new Roman Ritual in 1999, though not without a note that exorcists could petition to use the “Tridentine” rite, and that petition would be “libenter” (= pleasurably, freely) given.

One man was in de facto control of the whole process, appointed by Paul VI: Annibale Bugnini. He was named an archbishop in 1972 while at the zenith of his power (he never once had pastoral care of a diocese). While previous liturgical “changes” had always zealousy made accomodation for legitimate custom and diversity, Bugnini’s changes were a hard line: THE NEW WAY OR NO WAY.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Stop using the word ‘could’.

How about the word has

The Latin Mass has unified languages and communites.

The Latin Mass has enhanced the myster of the Mass.

The Latin mass has been what the American Church needed.

Again, these are subjective opinions, nothing more.

In my school district, we cover the difference between “fact” and “opinion” in the fourth grade curriculum. It’s distressing that so few seem to understand the difference.

 

[AlexV]

Actually, I think everyone who hasn’t should read John XXIII’s motu proprio VETERUM SAPIENTIA if they want to see authentic magisterial teaching on Latin. John only delivered one motu proprio in full vestments, at the Chair of Saint Peter…and it was VETERUM SAPIENTIA.

Preference for Latin isn’t just a subjective issue of emotion or personal choice. The principal reason Latin is the superior language for the Roman Rite is the same reason any dead language is superior to the vernacular: it is easier to preserve dogma if the dogma isn’t constantly subjected to the vicissitudes of a changing tongue.

Look at all the translation nonsense that has resulted in just 30 years from this issue in the USA alone.

Also, look at how the US Bishops seem utterly incapable of releasing translated liturgical texts. The revised Breviary has been out for 20 years. It’s not available in English.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually, I think everyone who hasn’t should read John XXIII’s motu proprio VETERUM SAPIENTIA if they want to see authentic magisterial teaching on Latin. John only delivered one motu proprio in full vestments, at the Chair of Saint Peter…and it was VETERUM SAPIENTIA.

Preference for Latin isn’t just a subjective issue of emotion or personal choice. The principal reason Latin is the superior language for the Roman Rite is the same reason any dead language is superior to the vernacular: it is easier to preserve dogma if the dogma isn’t constantly subjected to the vicissitudes of a changing tongue.

Look at all the translation nonsense that has resulted in just 30 years from this issue in the USA alone.

Also, look at how the US Bishops seem utterly incapable of releasing translated liturgical texts. The revised Breviary has been out for 20 years. It’s not available in English.

Read it, agreed with it, doesn’t say we can’t have the vernacular Mass (even if it did, I would still say that the use of a paricular langauge is matter of liturgical discipline, not faith and morals).

 

[palmas85]

I was specifically adressing your claim that the Latin Mass ‘unified languages and communities’, and responding with the counterpoint that in fact it didn’t.

**Catholic churches were very often constructed to serve the needs of specific ethnic communities. The communities they served were in fact often divided along ethnic lines for this reason. This was very much true under the Latin Mass as it is now. **

So my point stands and yours fails regardless of any issues of Latin per se.

And why the obsession with organic development? I don’t notice Christianity itself as being a particularly organic development of Judaism. Not when it abandoned so much:

a) requirement of cirumcision,
b) all dietary rules,
c) purity laws (eg ritual washing, uncleanliness of lepers and bleeding women and so on)
d) animal sacrifice in atonement for sins
e) changed the day of the Sabbath, the rules surrounding it, and lost all bar one of the Jewish religious holidays

Very true point. Often you had different churches right across the street from each other. A perfect example in New Orleans, St Marys Assumption on one side of the street and St Apphonsis on the other. One for Germans one for Irish. No doubt about it. Different Saints were honored, and slightly different devotions practiced. .

However, the Mass was said in Latin in both, not in the vernacular. The sermons, if there was one, would be in the vernacular, and Parish business would be conducted in the vernacular of whatever ethnic group pre-dominated. Also, these churches were built well over 100 years ago in a different time with different norms for social contact and interaction. When I was a kid, it was perfectly acceptable to go to either of the above two churches and as an altar boy I served Mass at both, often, since the same priests said Mass at both.

Organic development from Judaism. Interesting thought. Lets see, the Ebionites, basically believed that to be a Christian you had to be a Jew and conform to all Jewish Laws. During Pauls evangelization of the gentiles, many non Jews were baptized into the Church and the Ebionite factions claimed they, the gentile converts, could not be true Christians unless they adhered to Judaic law and customs. This included circumsicion for the men , which probably cut down on the conversion rate a bit. This friction led to the calling of the Council of Jerusalem in which it was decided that gentile converts did not have to adhere to all Judaic customs and laws. They did have to comply with some, not eating the meat of strangled animals for one.

However, those Christians that had been Jews were still bound by the old laws. As time passed, fewer and fewer Jews converted and children were born into Christian families. As fewer and fewer Christians who had actually been Jews at one point came into the Church, the Judaic requirements gradually passed out of the system. It did not happen overnight and was most definitely an organic development…

 

[AJV]

The “obsession” with organic development, is that it is the way the Mass of Ages has developed right from the beginnings of the Church. The TLM we have now (The Missal of 1962) is the result of organic development from way back to the First Mass ever celebrated, The Last Supper.

It is the way Liturgies of the Church have always developed, nowhere in the History of Holy Mother Church until the 1960’s/70’s, has there been fabrication of the Liturgy and especially not a whole Church wide implementation of such fabrication in just under 10 years.

Organic development is Catholic.

Fabrication is not.

Never say so in front of a nitpicker. Like me.

Organic developement from the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great.

 

[AJV]

Also, look at how the US Bishops seem utterly incapable of releasing translated liturgical texts. The revised Breviary has been out for 20 years. It’s not available in English.

You don’t suppose this could be an effort to get everyone to start reciting the breviary texts again in the Most Excellent Language Of All Time, do you?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Make no mistake, if the only Mass was in Latin, I’d go, as I was bound to go. I’m talking about a situation where there’s both Latin and vernacular masses in a parish. Some will go to the Latin Mass, but I bet that the bulk will go to the vernacular. This will be noted, ie., given the choice, I think the people will want to go to the vernacular Mass. I’m not talking about a formal poll.

That could say a few things. One being that many (if not most) Catholics are utterly ignorant on these matters. On the Catholic Answer boards, you have many people who are fervently interested in this kind of thing and I’ve noticed that an internet board is a big time congregating point for folks who want to talk liturgy (or whatever their major interest is) while in the “real world” many people don’t have a clue.

I’ve been told plenty of times that the “Latin Mass” wasn’t “allowed” anymore, or that Fr. So and So said that Vatican II got rid of Latin so the “Latin Mass” is for schismatics and radicals etc. etc. ad nauseam. There are also plenty of people who don’t want to leave their “comfort zone” and actually have to really participate in Mass (like VII really calls for). There are also people who honestly don’t care and have only the foggiest idea that Mass was said in Latin many many moons ago and don’t realize the difference between the '62 and the NO.

While I respect your opinion, my own experience has shown that folks like you who really like the NO Mass in the vernacular for thought out reasons are few and far between. I’m not saying they aren’t out there or that there are practically none but rather that from what I see, the “popularity” of the vernacular does not have much of a foundation.

But here’s a thing: the Church exists for the salvation of souls. That’s the only reason she exists, to save and be saved. The shepherds (the good shepherds, anyway) KNOW, more or less, what their sheep can bear and they don’t put burdens on them that they don’t HAVE to put on them, for the good of their souls.

The Church didn’t think it was too much to bear for the past 1,500 some years. I don’t see how having the Mass in Latin would be a detriment to the salvation of souls.

Latin is a moral neutral, the Church can have it or not have it, as she thinks prudent. I think that prudentially, the pope knows this and he and his successors (of which Bishop Fellay won’t be one, even if he sees the error of his ways and comes home), will not ask the sheep to go on a path that isn’t absolutely necessary to their salvation.

What is the detriment? That people would cease going to Mass if it were in Latin? If that was the case, are these people really that faithful if they are fickle enough to jump ship for reasons that I question they even understand?

They can go to Latin Mass or go to hell? Again, if you’re discerning whether or not you’re called to be one of the shepherds, I urge you to tell your ordinary that this is your firm belief. And the pope, be sure and write the Holy Father. Give him your name and address.

I don’t think that was his point, but rather the same one I made above.

I personally would love to see Latin restored or at least more Latin restored but I go to a vernacular Mass currently and have no actual problem with it. That is the difference, I don’t jump ship because vernacular Mass is said in 99% of parishes in the country.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

WHEN!!!

While I’m at my 50 hour a week work? Doing cooking and cleaning and laundry for hubby and 4 young kids? Running them around to different activities? Before or after taking care of my handicapped mother in law? Before or after teaching CCD?

Come live my life for a few weeks, and then tell me about learning a new language.

Its not learning a new language. Its learning how to read (from a Missal) or just memorizing the song version of the prayers…

We know the english Gloria.

Its not that hard to just learn the rhytm and words of the Latin Gloria and connect the dots.

I dont speak latin…but I understand the Mass perfectly.

And if it is any condolence…there have been mothers before you with even greater loads who knew the Mass well.

And then there were always the converts during World War II who somehow had time to learn latin.

Its not a whole language your learning.

Just about 1-1/2 hours of listening and understanding. And about 50% of the Mass is inaudible. During those parts only God needs to be listening.

 

[rpp]

My word! I have seen less heated exchanges between Molems and Christians or Nazis and Jews.

Okay, that was an exaggeration.

It does seem to me that many, though obviously not all, who have expressed concerns and reservations about the reintroduction of the TLM have never attended one. If you haven’t you might be intertested to learn that you often cannot hear what the priests is saying anyway, no matter what language he is using. Perhaps that is because the priests don’t generally use the wireless, ear-mounted mics. Perhaps that is the whole point.

How do you know what is going on? You use the missal. Latin on one column, venacular on the other.

I have seen claims that bishops don’t really suppress the TLM.
I am sorry, but I my personal experience is quite to the contrary. I have heard, in person, from the very mouth of the Ordinary, that he would do everything possible, including remodel every church to move the tabernacle, to “suppress” the Latin Mass. This was received with much glee and univeral support among the Diocesean center staff, a few of whom may have even been heterosexual. (This, thankfully, was not my home diocese.)

A a general rule, those who are indifferent or mildly curious about the TLM are not “Cafeteria Catholics”. On the other hand, my experience has been that those who wish the TLM would die have all been these “Cafeteria ‘Catholics’”, including those who have received Holy Orders.

Oh, the popular definition of a “Traditional Catholic” is one who supprts and attends the TLM as their sole, or at least primary rite of Mass attendance. If you attend the Novus Ordro because you prefer it, you are not really Traditional. You may fall into the “orthodox” catagory (vs. “cafeteria”).

 

[brotherhrolf]

Let us not forget that Eucharistic Rite I is a translation of the TLM.

Several folks have posted some excellent links to various TLM videos. Low Mass, Missa Cantata, and Missa Solemnis. Served many a Low Mass at 6am with just Father and I and maybe one or two people in church.

And this bit about learning Latin? I must have gone to an extremely progressive Catholic school in 1957 because I can clearly see Sr. Mary Maurice (not making this up) giving us pronunciation lessons and carefully explaining what the Latin meant to sing - (oh! shocking! horrible!) Adeste Fidelis! How horrible to inflict this upon first graders! Oh, the humanity!

And THEN, in the second grade, we were prepared to receive our First Holy Communion where each of us were given our first missal - then called a “little missal”. I still have mine. I’ve got to tell you that even though I was an altar boy, it was tough to not know what was going on in the Mass because it was in Latin. I guess I was learning challenged or something. I mean, you had this handy-dandy missal with the Latin on one side of the page and English on the other. AND, OOOH, OOOH, there was this other feature called “rubrics” and line drawings which showed exactly what was happening on the altar.

In other words, folks, it wasn’t the least bit mysterious but it was reverent. I don’t have a problem with the NO in the vernacular when it is celebrated as it should be. We can all see on EWTN what a NO in Latin looks like. I’d be happy with that or in English. We dance around the real problem which is all the liturgical abuse and, for me, the music. But that would hijack the thread.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Let us not forget that Eucharistic Rite I is a translation of the TLM.

Actually, EPI is the Roman Canon (with a few very slight differences), but not the whole Mass.

I don’t mean to knit-pick, other than that I agree wholeheartedly with your observations. I know plenty of folks that weren’t “lost” or “didn’t know what was going on” at the TLM and who prefered it, or at least the reverence.

 

[batteddy]

They can go to Latin Mass or go to hell?

I didn’t say that. I said IF the Latin Mass was the only mass available then, yes, that would be the choice.

Obviously, people these days are free to pick the vernacular to fullfill their sunday obligation and avoid Hell.

Make no mistake, if the only Mass was in Latin, I’d go, as I was bound to go.

I’m glad to hear it.

But there are some who wouldn’t…who simply wouldn’t go, or would go to protestant vernacular services, or even would leave the Church…

And do you honestly believe they are saved simply because the Church’s current allowance matches with their desires? People who would leave the Church under certain circumstances, really aren’t all that committed.

At the very least, they are in a spiritually dangerous place. People in the roman rite who would not attend the latin mass IF it was mandated…are not great Catholics.

I’m talking about a situation where there’s both Latin and vernacular masses in a parish. Some will go to the Latin Mass, but I bet that the bulk will go to the vernacular. This will be noted, ie., given the choice, I think the people will want to go to the vernacular Mass. I’m not talking about a formal poll.

So what?

I agree that this would happen. Doesn’t make it a good thing. If the ban on birth control was made “optional,” most people would of course choose the more “progressive” option of using it (heck, most already do) but that does NOT mean birth control is correct. The people are a *massa damnata *without the hierarchy, they don’t know what’s good for them.

Yes more would choose the vernacular if it was made optional, so the hierarchy should IMPOSE the latin mass again.

The shepherds (the good shepherds, anyway) KNOW, more or less, what their sheep can bear and they don’t put burdens on them that they don’t HAVE to put on them, for the good of their souls. Latin is a moral neutral, the Church can have it or not have it, as she thinks prudent. I think that prudentially, the pope knows this and he and his successors (of which Bishop Fellay won’t be one, even if he sees the error of his ways and comes home), will not ask the sheep to go on a path that isn’t absolutely necessary to their salvation.

No. The Church exists for the sanctification of souls, not just the salvation. For the highest QUALITY of salvation, not just the highest QUANTITY. She tries to make people holy, not just barely drag them into heaven with the bare minimum of grace.

The Church has always imposed many practices that she “doesn’t have to” under pain of mortal sin: the sunday obligation, fasting regulations, holy days of obligation, etc…

People who would not fullfill such things IF they were obligated to, and are only bothering to stay in a state of grace when it is easy or enjoyable or a mass they “can understand” are not sincerely obedient Catholics.

I think it’s more about the MONEY for the current hierarchy if you ask me. Not that they are living rich, but they seem to want to keep attendance up just for attendance’s sake and have turned to the “bussiness model” of trying to make the “product” appealing to the “customers” to do this. Sad. Very sad.

Imposing the TLM would sift out who is really Catholic, who is sincerely dedicated and who is just going along with it “until it gets too hard”…

I think we need a smaller but purer church.

It is the ones like you and me who can say, “Make no mistake, if the only Mass was in Latin, I’d go, as I was bound to go.” who would be willing to suffer for our faith, who wouldn’t betray the community in a persecution.

But those people who would stop coming if the mass was in latin…are also those who would stop coming if they had to die for it.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I think that it is obvious from earlier posts that those who grew up in HMC after say, oh, 1970 really don’t have a clue about what we are talking about. Why should they? The baby was flushed down the drain with the bathwater by then. I was absolutely enfuriated that I had to sing “Bridge Over Troubled Waters” and “Sounds of Silence” as part of the liturgy for my graduation from a Catholic high school in May of 1969. Entrance hymn was the now politically uncorrect hymn “Sons of God, Hear His Holy Word” and the recessional was “And They’ll Know We Are Christians”. (The above referenced songs were the Offetory and Communion “hymns”. What was the relevance to this to me then? What is the relevance to me now?

I am the voice crying in the desert. The Mass changed when I was a teenager. I didn’t like it then and I would like us to go back to something more reverent now. The Mass is about God not us. That seems to be the difference.

 

[rpp]

…
I think we need a smaller but purer church.
…

I recall hearing a homily that saind this very thing. The occassion? One of the memorial Masses for Pope John Paul II. The homilist? The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

It is the ones like you and me who can say, “Make no mistake, if the only Mass was in Latin, I’d go, as I was bound to go.” who would be willing to suffer for our faith, who wouldn’t betray the community in a persecution.

But those people who would stop coming if the mass was in latin…are also those who would stop coming if they had to die for it.

I think it is important to remember that the Mass is all about worship, not teaching. This is one of the important and essential differences between many protestant churchs and the Catholic Church.

Language is not as important as the form. The language used in the liturgy and the common language of the people do not need to corespond for true devotional worship to take place.

Batteddy, you did not say this directly, but I can tell this is at the core of what you said. Good observations.