Should Latin mass be brought back?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you’re saying that my preference of the EF is equally as emotionalism as those who prefer megachurches.

Well I’ve been equated to a racist because I don’t support same-sex marriage (cause bigotry is bigotry ya know) … That’s totally sound logic.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This entire thread 😔
 
Midwest88 said:
So you’re saying that my preference of the EF is equally as emotionalism as those who prefer megachurches.

Well I’ve been equated to a racist because I don’t support same-sex marriage (cause bigotry is bigotry ya know) … That’s totally sound logic.
Click to expand...
No, I’m saying that declaring that emotionalism is valid solely because it’s being applied to TLM is an incredibly bad tact.

Saying that it can’t be emotionalism because somehow the TLM is more “spiritual” or whatever, is to ignore the fact that, unfortunately, many young and old are driven not by facts, but by feelings.

Just because one gets the warm fuzzies for TLM dosn’t make it any better than the OF.
 
I do trust that no kitties were harmed in the making of this video.
And at least. . .they’re 'CAT-holic."
 
I follow the Magisterium as well, and I believe Pope Puus X was guided by the Holy Spirit when he required the Oath Against Modernism. However, ripping out Communion Rails, dropping the Eucharist in someone’s hands, shaking hands and chatting just before the Angus Dei, moving the Tabernacle waaaaay off out of sight and having the Priest face the People instead of the risen Christ were all consessions allowed by modernists and not guided by the Holy Spirit. You do realize that the entire basis of Modernism is focusing on the absence of God, don’t you?
 
The Mass is as reverent and solemn as you make it, not the language it is said in.

Perhaps the reason many people think that the Latin Mass is more reverent and solemn is because they don’t know Latin, so have a hard time following it. I would most likely feel the same way if I went to a Spanish or French language Mass as I would at a Latin Mass.
 
Thank you. I read the article.

I’m a bit new to all this. I’ve been to an EF Mass a couple of times, and the aesthetic appeal is undeniable.

But I find the idea that the EF is more efficacious, or confers more grace upon one attending the EF, to be disturbing.

And I found this:
If the priests are holy, the fruits derived from the Masses they offer are greater and the Church’s faithful benefit more hereby. This is also why the faithful have a certain sense that it is better to have a holy priest rather than an unholy priest offer the Mass for their intentions. The fact is that the Mass said by a good priest is better and more efficacious than the Mass said by a bad priest.
Click to expand...
to border on, and perhaps actually be, Donatism.
 
Last edited:
I disagree that it was done by modernists, as that implies that behind the move to make changes was a path to atheism. Modernism was specific to biblical interpretation and analysis. And it did lead some, most particularly a number of Protestant theologians, down the rabbit hole of atheism.

Calling them progressives might be better as the implications of the two words are different. Placing the Eucharist in someone’s hands goes back to the early Church - and your dismissive comment of “dropping” shows the contempt you have for it. Likewise the term “ripping”. The parish where I spent my youth had marble and brass altar rails and they most certianly were not “ripped”. They were removed, again similar to the early Church.

And “shaking hands” mis-speaks the exchange, as we do, of the kiss of peace. While I may prefer the way the Maronites do it, again, your characterization shows much.

Until the 9th century, there were no tabernacles. and until the 10th century, they were generally not in the church, and when they came in, many were either in a side chapel or elsewhere other than on the main altar.

Priests were not facing the risen Christ; they were facing east in those churches which were set on an east/west axis, as Christ in the second Coming is said to come from the East.

And it is your opinion that modernists are behind all of this, but that is only because you repeat the same old tired urban mythology of the small group of ultra conservatists who protested the changes starting right after the introduction of the OF.

You don’t like those things. I get it. I would be perfectly fine with you saying “I really can’t stand these things!” What I don’t like is when people start making comments as disparaging as you do, and make implications that the changes were un-Catholic, or bordering on heresy or a short path to athesim,

None of what you complain of is any of those three things.

And yes, I understand where the Protestant theologians, and some Catholic theologians started to go astray in the late 1800’s and very early 1900’s. and how some of that still surfaces - for example, in the Jesus seminar. I also understand how Modernism has nothing to do with changes made by progressives, in the liturgy.
 
Having attended all too many Masses in the 1950’s and early 1960’s which were seriously lacking in reverence, and having experienced the same in the OF in the 1970’s, it is MHO that reverence has less to do with language than it does with the attitude of the priest.

Priests who are saying the EF now, are doing so because they are seriously committed to it, and have an attitude of reverence; they are not rushed nor rushing. The same can be said of priests who say the OF with an attitude of reverence.
 
The EF is Catholicism. The OF is not ordinary because it wasn’t propagated by the council of Trent. We take so much for granted from them with the counter reformation but they got the Mass wrong huh? Our ancestors all worshipped with the EF and it isn’t extraordinary, it is just how it shoild always be. It is sacred. It is the true mass.
 
The OF is ordinary because that is the form of the Mass which is most widely used; as Pope Benedict pointed out. There is nothing in Church history that says that anything, to be ordinary, had to be promulgated by Trent.

And no one that I know of - including the 2,147 bishops who voted in favor of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said anyone “got the Mass wrong”. What they did say was that a number of things - both in rubrics and in prayers, had been added on over the centuries, and they wished to have them removed; and that some prayers and readings had been removed or lost from the Mass over the centuries, and they wanted them restored.

And yes, according to Pope Benedict, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass was said far, far less frequently than the Ordinary Form st the time he promulgated Summorum Pontificum, and as the Pope pointed out, that was most likely to continue. 10 years later, that is pretty much exactly on point.

And the EF is no more the ture Mass than what the Maronites celebrate; and it is no more the true Mass than the Ruthenian Byzantine rite, and it is no more the ture Mass than the OF… All are celebrations of the Eucharist, and none of the forms of all the Eastern and Western rites are more true than any of the others.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
Most people do not want the EF. They want the OF, a point that seems hard to get across.
Click to expand...
This conclusion is not reached by a fair choice. For about 50 years Catholic children have been exclusively exposed to the OF in their parishes and Catholic schools. Communion in the hand, which was originally supposed to be presented as an option, has almost universally been presented as the only option. Even after the restoration of the EF, religious education presents the OF as the only way.

In fact, many programs of adult ed, including one I attended for college students, go beyond just ignoring the TLM. I saw a filmstrip which described the TLM as a tragic accident of history, of careless accumulation of cultural practices that people clung to out of desperation and rigidity, filled with “faulty” theology.

It is not wrong to point out that the EF is a process of development, but wrong to label it faulty theology. It is also wrong to ignore the reality of cultural influences on the OF.

So don’t make a point that “most people do not want the EF”. The great majority are not allowed to make an informed choice.

Ironically this is happening at a time when Catholic school or CCD students are urged to learn more about the cultures of their great grandparents, to appreciate the insights of multiple faith traditions, past and present. It is not unreasonable to ask that Catholic children attend one EF each year, with some explanation beforehand. Even if they choose to prefer the OF, it would be useful to understanding their own heritage.

The amazing thing is that, of the tiny population of young Catholics who had been offered the opportunity to attend the EF, many seem to prefer it. The TLM in my city is mostly young adults, not seeking “nostalgia”. They were mostly exposed to the OF growing up, and still regard that as fully valid, but this is their preference.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
And no one that I know of - including the 2,147 bishops who voted in favor of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said anyone “got the Mass wrong”. What they did say was that a number of things - both in rubrics and in prayers, had been added on over the centuries, and they wished to have them removed; and that some prayers and readings had been removed or lost from the Mass over the centuries, and they wanted them restored.
Click to expand...
You speak as though one prayer is as good as another. Isn’t there a small matter of theology that has to be addressed? Pope Benedict allowed the Anglican Ordinariate to keep their liturgies because he found no theological problems with them. What were the theological problems with the mention of Holy of Holies or the Offertory or other silent prayers that the bishops had that warranted their removal from the Mass?
 
otjm said:
And no one that I know of - including the 2,147 bishops who voted in favor of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said anyone “got the Mass wrong”. What they did say was that a number of things - both in rubrics and in prayers, had been added on over the centuries, and they wished to have them removed; and that some prayers and readings had been removed or lost from the Mass over the centuries, and they wanted them restored.
Click to expand...

Mass of Easter Sunday, 1941.

Listen to Fulton Sheen’s commentary at 3:50-4:30. Look at what most Catholics have been unwittingly deprived of by the post-conciliar “reforms”.
 
Last edited:
Anglican/Episcopalian masses have always been similar. Going back to the Tridentine Mass is not going to change it.
 
I don’t recall sayig there were theological problems. What I said is that the bishops siad that there had been additions over time, and some of them they wanted removed. One example was the “last Gospel”, the beginning of John. It had started out as a private prayer, then made its way into the end of the Mass. That is pone example, and I seriously doubt there was a single bishop , let alone several, who might have posited that the Gospel had theological problems.
 
Modernism in theology promotes Deism. The old enemy of the church, freemasonry, attempts to create a Protestant super structure to rival The Magisterium. ALL of these changes reflect what freemasons would love to see, as Catholicism then can fall under the Freemason super structure like the Protestant faiths.

Your argument that these changes were all a return to early church practice is a hollow argument. Even if it can be conclusively proven that you are correct, that there were no tabernacles or they were off to the side, that there was no communion rail, that it was perfectly acceptable in the early church for people to irreverently take the Eucharist in their hands, it shows that you find ideal these supposed early church practices and negate those reverent practices seen continuously from at least the end of the first Millinium. If the church is infallible, what was wrong with these reverent practices? Is it not presumptuous to think this generation knows better than centuries of Magisterial Tradition, and that a loose interpretation of the Didache is justification for instituting reforms which clearly resemble Freemason ideals and practices?

I understand that you find Tradition vile. Just say so. However, if you find Tradition vile and inflexible, be careful… you will lose a claim to the Herminutic of Continuity and thus to the infallibility of the Church. My feeling is NOT that the OF us invalid or illicit. My feeling is that when you are talking about matters of faith and theology, conservative obedience is the best approach, lest you fall into pride.
 
One more thing… you seem to hold to an idealism of the early Church, where for the first 200 years, being elected Pope was a death sentence. Indeed, as you stated previously, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist were separate. However, this was NOT ideal. This occurred because the Liturgy of the Eucharist had to take place in hiding. When Catholicism became allowed and later the sanctioned faith of Rome, the ideal then and only then was able to be established, where both the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist occurred in the same Holy building, where ideas such as alter rails were installed out of reverence and a need to protect the Blessed Sacriment. How could you have a Communion Rail or a Tabernacle if the Liturgy of the Eucharist occurred privately and in hiding in someone’s home??? In short, the practices of the early church were done out of necessity and were NOT an ideal. In fact, to assume the early Church would have rejected the Traditional latin Mass is a complete fallacy, as they likely would have loved to enjoy the freedom to establish, practiced and experiences such a beautiful and reverent Mass. Thus, your idealization of these supposed early Church practices and your rejection of the EF is an absurdity, and the mere idea may have been promoted by enemies of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top