Should Latin mass be brought back?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Keep in mind – people who left the Church prior to the OF – received communion on the tongue.
 
Trishie said:
A random thought…While Latin was chosen as the universal language, would it be true that English is the modern equivalent?
Click to expand...
As far as the Church goes, Italian is the most widely used language at the Vatican.

That said, one valid reason to keep Latin even in the Ordinary Form, at least for some parts of it, is the enormous patrimony of Gregorian chant built up over the last millenium (most of it coming from the 9th-12th centuries). Such a treasure should be lovingly maintained, even if it isn’t used in every Parish on every Sunday.

Monasteries do a fine job of it, in many places, and in the Ordinary Form.

The vernacular however is, with good reason, here to stay.
 
R_H_Benson said:
I have. One difference is that in the Novus Ordo Missae, the use of a guitar does not necessarily constitute an abuse. Whereas in the Traditional Mass, it does.
Click to expand...
One of the most beautiful “modern” hymns, Silent Night, was first performed in 1818 in Austria, accompanied by guitar, at midnight Mass. Most certainly not the Mass of Paul VI.

For those complaining about abuses, and poor music at their local OF Mass, I can only say one thing: instead of complaining, do something about it. Start or join a schola. Get on the liturgical committee. Politely make suggestions to the priest that you would like to hear a bit more chant, and could we try having simple settings of the ordinary please?

Don’t just wait for something to happen and complain on an Internet forum. I joined a schola, and the Gregorian Institute of Canada (past director), in order to “evangelize” my love of chant. I have only ever sung Gregorian chant at OF Masses.

It can be done and is far more satisfying than whingeing. Hearing Gregorian chant is one thing, actually singing it in the middle of a schola is probably one of the most spiritually uplifting things I have ever done. I can show up for a Mass or rehearsal or the occasional recital we give, grumpy as heck (and at 59 that is unfortunately all too common), and come out walking on clouds.
 
BornInMarch said:
Most people don’t speak Latin but would still like a mass where we can actually understand what the Priest is saying.
Click to expand...
I’m not bothered by not understanding the priest. We have a fair number of foreign priests locally and they can be difficult to understand. Also, I’ve been to bilingual Masses. I can’t understand all of those. One thing that encouraged my conversion was the universality of the Church. A liturgical language makes this more clear.
Trishie said:
A random thought…While Latin was chosen as the universal language, would it be true that English is the modern equivalent?
Click to expand...
You could argue that. I don’t know that Latin is especially holy. I’ve seen the claim made. But it does benefit from being a fixed language. It doesn’t change like English does over time and in different regions. So it may not be so much that Latin was a common language but that it no longer is a common language.
 
That’s fine — I receive on the tongue too. But I am not going to turn around and thumb my nose at communion in the hand. The Church has authorized it.

As far as particles – I also am not going to charge – that the people who receive in the hand are being careless when receiving.
 
exnihilo said:
You could argue that. I don’t know that Latin is especially holy. I’ve seen the claim made. But it does benefit from being a fixed language. It doesn’t change like English does over time and in different regions. So it may not be so much that Latin was a common language but that it no longer is a common language.
Click to expand...
As a chorister the main advantage I see to Latin is the vast patrimony of Gregorian chant that was built around it. The melodies are not easily transposed to other languages, if they can be transposed at all, other than the very simplest ones, as the melodies make use of Latin accentuation and cadences. So if we got rid of Latin altogether, we could kiss Gregorian chant goodbye. I for one, though I prefer the OF Mass by a long shot, am not willing to take it that far.

I don’t think Latin is any holier than any other language, but it still has a role as a source language for the liturgy, so that we do not end up with translations of translations of translations. Even Latin is a translation from the original biblical languages, so Latin is at least once removed from the source already.

I however do not buy the argument about the immutability of Latin. There are many differences between the Vulgate and Neo-Vulgate texts of the Bible for instance. So the Latin has changed over time. Of course many traditionalists would deny the validity of the Neo-Vulgate as well… it just never ends. I for one am quite happy with what the Church prescribes, and just ask that whatever the form, the liturgy be executed adroitly, because it isn’t always, nor was it always in the pre-Vatican II days. The EF is like a steam locomotive in a museum, lovingly preserved. When steam locomotives were king on the railways, they were usually gritty and dirty except on the premier trains, and it’s often been that way with the liturgy.

There is nothing to make me hope that if we returned completely to the EF Mass and it became the normal form, that the people who are currently sloppy with the liturgy would be any more disciplined in the EF. There just would be more rules to break, that’s all. It will still be the “me” generation if we were to go back to the Tridentine Mass.
 
Do think the Apostles and the Early Church were as scrupulous about particles? The whole reason the hosts are very rigid and pretty hard is for this reason.
 
pianistclare said:
Do think the Apostles and the Early Church were as scrupulous about particles? The whole reason the hosts are very rigid and pretty hard is for this reason.
Click to expand...
I’ve often asked myself the same question. When Jesus was alive, being fully human as well as fully divine, He would have shed skin particles and hair, etc., like everyone else. I wonder if He had disciples running behind him to collect every fleck of dandruff or hair He left behind…
 
The point is people received in the hand. Everybody did for a LONG time.
No one became worried about such until the age of clericalism.
That’s when we started having lots of things, like altar rails, and other things in distrust of the laity.

When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: **“When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost” **
**In this passage, which is taken from lectures St. Cyril gave to catechumens—people who were being instructed in the faith in preparation for baptism—**St. Cyril is taking for granted that Communion will be distributed in the hand. Not only that, he takes for granted that Communion in the hand can be done in a reverent fashion. Note his instruction about a communicant hallowing his eyes by touching the consecrated host to them before consuming the host—not an option the Church allows for today, but still an indication that the consecrated host not only is not profaned by being touched to the hands of anyone besides the priest but makes holy that which it touches.
 
So Taylor Marshall is your authority?
You’re kidding right?
 
Tell it to the Catholic Bishops.
And Catholic Answers.
And all the legit sites that quote the Saint.
 
I’m not addressing the rest of your post. Some of it is downright silly.

When will everyone get over this disobedience thing?

I don’t get how one can sit and say that the church will never change on X and Y and Z because “gates of Hell” and all that jazz but thinks the Church is going to just lay down and roll over on one of it’s most vital sacraments?

No, no it is not. It may have been born out of disobedience but the Church saw to restore those actions to a licit form.

I feel like the issue that so many have is not that the Church accepts Communion in the Hand as valid, but that it accepts anything that came from a disobedient act. They still feel that even though the Church has very clearly made it licit it’s not ok by merit of its origin.

Which is silly, because if you want to play that game we can keep going back and back and back to things like pews…which were once thought of as VERY disobedient and VERY sinful because they were gasp places to SIT DURING MASS!!!. One was to STAND for Mass or Kneel. Sitting during Mass was only for layabouts or cripples.

To constantly dredge up the initial act of disobedience is a clear way of trying to stop arguments for fear the Chruch will apply it to other things.
 
So now what – you’re above average Catholics.
 
Last edited:
We should be sharing – a Catholic perspective.
 
Last edited:
If the homilies you heard made you look at the OF like it’s not up to par – the homilies didn’t do you any favors.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top