Should Latin mass be brought back?

[ProVobis]

Not true. John Paul II said it has to be in Latin.

Quattuor abhinc annos

Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments To the Presidents of the world’s various Episcopal Conferences. Circular Letter: Quattuor abhinc annosOctober 3, 1984 This letter from the Holy See granted an “indult” for bishops to authorize celebration of the so-called...

adoremus.org

To this date there are no official translations into any other language.

 

[Walking_Home]

From the letter – Quattuor abhinc annos

a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

 

[ProVobis]

From Trent Session 7

“CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.”

 

[Walking_Home]

The OF is valid/licit/Grace generating-- approved Mass – by the Catholic Church

 

[ProVobis]

The question is whether the bishops had a right to suppress the TLM. Seems like Canon XIII says no. And I believe Pope Benedict said the same thing.

 

[Walking_Home]

Lets say a group (or the spokesman of the group) – approach the parish priest and/or Bishop – with attitude in a) above – and the Bishop did not grant their request – would that be “suppressing”.

 

[ProVobis]

The “suppression” was gradual as I see it from 1965 until 1970 when no bishops allowed the TLM to be celebrated anymore anywhere save for Campos diocese.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

I’ve already have had this question asked of an Arch-Bishop years ago. He flatly said no.
It said and why I asked the question in an earlier post “It would profit nothing to do so”.
This past summer I had the son ( seminarian ) of our close friends to ask the same Arch-Bishop the same question. The answer was similarly the same.

 

[MonteRCMS]

But do the people speaking in vernacular know what is in their heart?

 

[jas84173]

What do you mean I own a 1962 Roman Missal published in 1964 with English translations approved by the USCCB.
At the beginning of the second Vatican council along with Pope John 23, the Missal was aloud to be translated in the vernacular. Not the liturgy of the Eucharist but readings and antiphons were aloud to be in the vernacular. It was like this in the 1960s.
Somehow the council didn’t think just allowing it in the vernacular was enough.

 

[ProVobis]

Pope John 23 signed none of the documents of Vatican II. It is doubtful if he would have approved of any vernacular in the Mass. Read Veterum Sapientia.

After his death the ICEL lobbied for the vernacular and prepared their own translations. The ICEL was quite successful to say the least. They collected the royalties for them.

http://www.icelweb.org/copyright.htm

Note: As I understand it the St. Joseph Missal of 1958 was used temporarily to say the Mass after 1964. (Maybe there was an actual 1964 Latin-English Missal with the old translations that were never intended for the priest, I don’t know.) A lot of it such as Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel were scratched out. In 1967 the rubrics such as signs of crosses, genuflections, bowing, etc. were scratched out. The 60’s handmissals were obsoleted in 1970.

 

[Matt_Michael]

Protestantism inevitably leads to atheism. The protestantisation of the Mass has lead to that and a drop off in attendance. The Traditional Latin Rite is more spiritually efficacious and meritorious. Fr Chad Ripperger makes this clear in some of his talks and he is a Catholic priest and exorcist. I’d take his word on it seeing as how he sees the spiritual affects of these things frequently. As a former Protestant turned Catholic who recently started attending the Latin mass, I’ll say that the TLM is more Christological and God centred than the NO. The NO is often times loud by comparison and leaves little to no time for the contemplation of the sacred mystery and miracle occurring before us. The silence in which God can clearly speak is continuously broken with superfluous responses from the laity.

The priest is the one who offers the Mass. That being said I don’t hate the NO. But I will say that in terms of growth spiritual growth. The TLM is far superior to it as you have more intimate time for personal prayer and thanks to our Lord present in the Eucharist.

The constant talking and interrupting of the of the responses with the sign of peace frequently cause our attention to be drawn to the the people away from the mystery occurring at the altar. We can socialize and shake hands after. We should be focused and in awe of the presence of Christ! We go to mass for him. So if anything should happen in terms of change in the NO, it would be more room for silence.

 

[dallas_r]

Of course, we should bring it back. We have the beauty of the Latin language and the English language in one mass. Latin masses are so special and I feel great after going to one. Not that one mass is necessarily better than the other, rather the several hundred years of tradition feels so nice and special.

 

[OraLabora]

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

You are still relying on emotinalism and anacdotal information.

This is all how you feel. I’ve BEEN to TLM, many times. I find even in the best cases that the Latin-THAT I KNOW- is rather distracting and tends to make me zone out. That’s not God-Centered at all.

You make the supposition that once one goes TLM one can’t possibly go back. I know a priest who was basically fluent in Latin but still loved the OF more. He’s the one who taught me and other school children Latin. To him, reverent prayer in his native tongue was far more spiritually beneficial.

Most people’s issue with the OF is that they don’t see the reverence. This is an accident of it being the most common mass. When the TLM was the most common it had it’s irreverent moments, too. Heck, I’ve been to a TLM where the priest mumbled and rushed and I didn’t understand a word he said in Latin and it was truly a miserable experiance that I never hope to repeat…I’d say worse than any OF disaster because atleast in OF one has a prayer of figuring out where one is. Simply put, it’s reverence, not language, that makes a difference in the “spritualness” of Mass.

 

[commenter]

Of course, we should bring it back. We have the beauty of the Latin language and the English language in one mass. Latin masses are so special and I feel great after going to one. Not that one mass is necessarily better than the other, rather the several hundred years of tradition feels so nice and special.

You could be right. However…

I occasionally like to attend the diocesan EF, and it is, as you say, “special”. A few priests take turns offering the Mass. A very small group of people drive many miles, just to attend this Mass. Everyone gets dressed up, they have a coffee social afterwards. These kinds of people would be reverent at any kind of Mass they would go to. There are no teens who do not want to be there, nobody slips in and out just to “make their obligation”.

When I was growing up, Latin Mass was the “ordinary form”. My parish had Latin Mass at 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. The priests were often obviously tired, they had to get through the Mass in time for the parking lot to be clear, for the next crowd. Many people were half asleep or praying their rosary through the Mass. Other people would pop in, just to make the obligated parts, then disappear. Of course, many others were praying devoutly.

So don’t equate the “special” TLM now with what it would be like if it were the only Mass. I think the TLM was a great alternative when the English Mass was subject to liturgical abuses. You may argue that people on the whole were more devout in 1960 than they are now, and I very much agree. But did the Latin Mass cause that?

One reason I sometimes skip my parish Mass, which is English with no liturgical abuses, is so I can be with those good people at the diocesan Latin Mass. I am hoping some will rub off on me.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

So don’t equate the “special” TLM now with what it would be like if it were the only Mass. I think the TLM was a great alternative when the English Mass was subject to liturgical abuses. You may argue that people on the whole were more devout in 1960 than they are now, and I very much agree. But did the Latin Mass cause that?

Doubtful. Society, in general, was more respectful. There were such things as “casual” suits…meant to be worn in leisure–like for golf or tennis. :crazy_face:

 

[Shakuhachi]

You can see it in older movies: guys wearing neckties to baseball games!
Suites and hats everywhere.

 

[jas84173]

That is true.

Why do we do the Sign of peace anyways, It seems kind of pointless and honestly awkward a lot of times. Instead of thinking about Christ we turn our attention to why certain people may or may not be acknowledging us.

 

[R_H_Benson]

You are still relying on emotinalism and anacdotal information.

Pot, meet kettle.

I find even in the best cases that the Latin-THAT I KNOW- is rather distracting and tends to make me zone out.

I know a priest who was basically fluent in Latin but still loved the OF more.

Heck, I’ve been to a TLM where the priest mumbled and rushed and I didn’t understand a word he said in Latin and it was truly a miserable experiance that I never hope to repeat…I’d say worse than any OF disaster because atleast in OF one has a prayer of figuring out where one is.

anacdotal information.