Should Latin mass be brought back?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think because the wide-held belief is that the vernacular would imbue the quality of being “understandable” to those too lazy and ignorant to appreciate Latin and give them no “valid” reason to turn away from it.

However, this could not be less true. I’ve attended OF masses in languages outside my own–languages that I knew far less of than I know of Latin–and it’s an entirely different experience. It’s not a matter of exposure or spoken language–they have 2 different purposes and to me, the priest facing the people, together offering up, rather than facing away and leading makes a huge difference in my disposition towards the Eucharist.
 
joshua said:
The Tridentine Mass is a thousand years old. The Novus Ordo is not and is basically a failed experiment. It is valid / licit but every atheist I end up running into was either raised Protestant or Novus Ordo.
Click to expand...
The Tridentine Mass certainly kept Henry the 8th and Martin Luther in line, now didn’t it. :roll_eyes:

Lukewarm faith is the danger. There are plenty of young people who attend the OF through programs like Lifeteen, that are on fire for their faith and become great Catholic mothers and fathers, lay people and many, many that have fostered religious vocations.

It is not the Mass that is at fault, but the education to the Faith.
 
Tridentine in Vernacular is a sort of oxymoron since Trent was opposed to vernacular.
 
In all fairness, Martin Luther predated the Tridentine Mass.
[/quote]

Interesting. Was the Mass Martin Luther attended more like the EF or the OF?
 
Interesting. Do you think, however, that it’s not the celebration of the Mass but the disorder surrounding the teachings of the church that caused him to fall away? Or do you think how the Mass is celebrated is correlated to bad behavior?
 
Usually a emoticon will get you past that rule.

It’s interesting. Why do you think, then, the liturgy gets blamed when it’s likely only a miniscule factor?
 
Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Summorum Pontificum that the Roman Missal "must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage, " that it “never be abrogated” and that “…where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal…”

If you take this to your pastor and/or bishop, you can ask for the Traditional Mass.
 
Tradition? The early Church tradition was vernacular.

What makes a ritual “sacred”? The language?
 
Christ worshipped in Hebrew, a non-vernacular. That would have been more traditional.
 
There are Roman Missals which came out in 1964 that have the EF mass in vernacular.
 
Are you thinking that because Jesus worshipped in Hebrew we should worship in Latin?
 
Latin was chosen to preserve Church documents, scripture, and the liturgy. Latin is sacred for those reasons. It’s not called the Latin rite for nothing. Whether it SHOULD be is not my call.
 
There were handmissals in the 19th century which had translations. Only in 1964 did they select one of them to actually be used in the Mass. It could have been any number of translations. That’s why the ICEL was formed.
 
Last edited:
So what was wrong with the form of the mass just begin said in the vernacular that the Council decided it wasn’t enough? I own a 1962 Missal in the vernacular , as well as the new 2011 3rd edition and I can tell by far the EF is much more sacred. I have no issue with the Vernacular, even at the Council of Trent this was discussed. However to change the entire form and gestures of the Mass? Like things were taken out of the Mass. There no longer is even an offertory antiphon, among many other things.

I am not on the level of the SSPX on this. I believe in the Church. However I also believe the Church is man and does make mistakes and I believe the push the recent ten years which by the way is irritating the current Pope which doesn’t surprise me, is proof that maybe the Tridentine Mass should be brought back. Use the 1962 Missal in the Vernacular. That should be how the Council approached it.
I wasn’t implying I don’t think the OF is valid, I am saying historically it was changed to what it is now to appeal to Protestants and Anglicans. Of course I know Anglican service isn’t true but if you didn’t know better you’d think they were the same. It is sad. And young Catholics realize this. Many young Catholics are partaking in music sung in Latin. We want the Church to go back to what it was intended. Not a social move which is whay the OF is. How can anyone not think so?
 
Should Latin Mass be brought back? Absolutely not! I took four years of Latin in high school and can’t conjugate a verb to save my life. Or soul, as the case may be.

I’d be a model Catholic and get up to the pearly gates and St. Peter would say, "Sorry son, but remember that time when you used the pluperfect subjunctive? It was supposed to be pluperfect ablative. Sugit vos esse.
 
Or was it Aramaic? FWIW, I don’t think Biblical Hebrew is the same as the Hebrew of modernity. IIRC, a Jewish friend of mine explained that the Hebrew in current use is not the same as ancient Hebrew, which had been lost over the years of the diaspora.
 
Probably true. But one could see how even the effort to retain something like Hebrew might help a people maintain their threatened ethnic identity.

Christianity, on the other hand, celebrates its diversity and inclusivity.
 
But the Roman Church shouldn’t be constrained by pressure to unify any more than the Orthodox should feel compelled to change with the Church.
 
Interestingly the Mass of H.H. Pope Paul VI involves a legitimate restoration of the ancient rite of Mass, and this includes the rubrics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top