Should Latin mass be brought back?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not relying on emotionalism at all actually. For you to pass an undue judgement without knowing the heart of another is a dangerous business. The fruits speak for themselves. I’ve grown weary already of the staunch refusal to realize the problems present in the world and the Church. Corraltion does equal causation to respond to another poster on here. If we see a correlation between the attendance of mass and the belief of the true presence, in the time of the Tridentine mass all these things were higher than they are now.

Many youth want to return to tradition and with all due respect we will be the ones living through the rest of this fall out in the near future. In addition I spoke in a carefully worded way as to show respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters in this site. It would appear you don’t wish to extend the same courtesy so I’ll be blunt. You need to work out your issues with distraction. If you are working so hard to keep up in the mass on meanings and procedure then take that time to meditate and silently pray rather than making a fuss on “participation”. Plainly speaking out of the annoyance I am starting to experience. Many modernist and staunch proponants (not all) of the Novus Ordo have a malformed and erroneous view of it. It is vitally flawed at its core in its subtraction from matter, form and intent. The Tridentine mass is what still makes us Catholic and where we draw our core beliefs from. Everything from sacramental blessings to the errroneous use of the distribution of the Eucharist through Eucharistic ministers is severely flawed and lacking. Rome never said the preferred method of receiving communion was in the hand. Protestants started that to deny the true presence. The TLM draws a clear and needed line on such matters. Receiving under both species is fine but we the laity shouldn’t handle the chalice so carelessly. Our hands aren’t consecrated period.

Finally Pope Pius V made it clear that the Tridentine mass is unchangeable and cannot nor should not be changed by future popes. This is what he said in the bull:By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it." And he concluded: “No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

In belief and respect for the faith and the papacy established by Christ, this is further proof of the error present in the Church. The fact remains Pope Paul VI clearly stated he was trying to make the mass more Protestant to draw back our separated breatheran. This is flawed. Protestant thinking adapts to the belief that they aren’t in error and thus perceiving no difference they will not return home to Rome.
In short I recommend you re-evaluate your stance as with all due love and respect it is misinformed.
 
Can you provide a quote from a reliable source about what Paul VI said?
 
Not really.

It’s nice to be engaged in the Mass but a priest can perform the consecration of the Eucharist by himself, the laity are not required to do anything. That’s a misconception that has arisen in the past decades.

Even in the OF a priest can validly and is recommended to offer up the Mass once a day whether there are laity present or not.
 
We seem to be past most of the post-council radicalism, thank goodness.
 
whyeyeman said:
We seem to be past most of the post-council radicalism, thank goodness
Click to expand...
True. In terms of liturgy, abuses are much less common in my diocese. I suspect you can still find them in campus ministry and other out of the way places, but in most parishes it is ok now. The problem is that attendance is far less than even a decade ago.

Liberal Catholic parents don’t raise liberal Catholic children, they raise non Catholics. Liberal Catholic priests and sisters don’t inspire liberals to vocations, they inspire no vocations. Thus, there are fewer young priests, but none of them are the type to allow any kind of abuses at all.

The local convents are all nursing homes, with the exception of a tiny, orthodox community in formation. My liberal cousins, who are “60 ish” both in age and attitudes, would have been willing to serve on liturgy or anything liberal committees, but their kids are gone from the faith.
 
So if I get bored during Mass it is perfectly alright to read the Bible, pray other prayers and basically distance or isolate myself from what is going on in the communal prayer?
 
Yadda yadda yadda

I would say that some Lutheran and Anglican Masses are more like a low TLM mass than they are like the OF. Tridentine mass is unchangeable. Great. Dosn’t take away from the OF one bit.

You, again, are stating an emotional reaction packed with a lot of bad suppositions. Protestants, for the most part, have ALWAYS decided against Transubstantiation. The Vatican has declared communion in the hand liscit…meaning that even if it was born out of disobedience, it’s fine now.

Like I stated before. The Catholic church makes corrections but has NEVER allowed a Mass to be promulgated, made corrections and then said “oops our bad.” NEVER. The OF is licit.

Your post is full of your feelings on matters, your emotion, and your bias. You know what program with licit OF masses is creating prests? Lifteteen. 30 of the 40 men in the seminary of my nearby dioceses are former Lifeteen students.

Why not just say teen crave reverence? Obviously, based on the number of seminarians, this is by far the case.

You are dead set on the idea that the Vatican is in error. Which is too bad…because there is no evidence that it is, especially given the corrections that it has chosen to offer.
 
The priest is the only one who can perform the consecration, in any form of the mass. Being engaged in the mass doesn’t mean everyone needs a job, it means people should be aware of what is happening and not twiddling their thumbs, daydreaming or praying the rosary. Its about taking part in what God is doing, not whatever one feels personally inclined to.
 
I guess I just find it perplexing that these popes condoned personal prayer rather than focus on the Mass, I mean suppose I am praying the rosary, you are praying the divine office, another the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, etc, meanwhile the priest is in the Eucharistic Prayer. It seems to me to be losing th eunifying theme of the Mass.
 
This was only encouraged for certain occasions. Don’t forget saint Pius X famous line: “Don’t pray at the mass, pray the mass.” And he fully supported the tridentine mass.
 
I think that some are conflating the attempt of the Church in Vatican II to address the “modern world” (now 50 years gone) from a Catholic perspective with making it more like Protestantism. I somewhat understand this reactionary nature, because a lot has changed, and, perhaps more importantly, the many misuses of the “spirit of Vatican II” over the years left the Church in a state of chaos and confusion.
 
I was there. Speaking generally, I want to correct the idea that we said little to nothing during the Latin Mass. The priest spoke and we responded in Latin. Missals had the Latin and English on the same page so we knew what we were saying. We had Latin Class at our Catholic School.
 
Pope Pius XII

“Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.”
Click to expand...
What the quote above by Pope Pius XII says-- is the TLM was Not meeting the needs of all the people.

Not everyone attending the TLM:

was understanding the liturgical rites and formulas
was moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services
the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are always constant in the same individual

So for them to benefit attending Mass—other methods could be used – like praying the rosary.

[/quote]
 
Last edited:
In this day and age personal Missale aren’t that expensive. That Wasn’t always the case.
Reading along with the EF is not that hard with a Missal.
It’s the same as the reading along with one in the OF with half of the priests you cant understand now anyways.
Instead of bringing in priests from countries where Latin based languages are prominent and expecting them to speak English, just bring back the EF as norm and give them the easy transition of Latin.
 
The problems began right after Vatican II with Vatican II being used as a smoke screen. The radicals and dissidents inside and outside the Church had two interlocking goals: wreck the Church and wreck society in general. The Hippies and the radicals taught a new gospel. Reject the Church and Her teachings. Use illegal drugs and have lots of sex. Relationships would gradually be hollowed out to turn into “casual sex.” So, the foundations of authentic male-female relationships are virtually unknown to the young.

Regarding the Mass.

"Unprecedented Clericalism and the Self-Enclosed Circle

"Admittedly, these connections were obscured or fell into total oblivion in the church buildings and liturgical practice of the modern age. This is the only explanation for the fact that the common direction of prayer of priest and people got labeled as “celebrating towards the wall” or “turning your back on the people” and came to seem absurd and totally unacceptable. And this alone explains why the meal – even in modern pictures – became the normative idea of liturgical celebration for Christians. In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest – the “presider,” as they now prefer to call him – becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing.

"Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the “creative” planning of the liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, “make their own contribution.” Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a “pre-determined pattern.”

“The turning of the priest towards the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning towards the East was not a “celebration towards the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “towards the Lord.” As one of the Fathers of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, J. A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession towards the Lord. They did not close themselves into a circle, they did not gaze at one another, but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us.”

See the book, Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
 
That’s exactly how I meant it and what is intended behind what was said, so thank you for understanding! The personal contemplation of the mystery and offering thanks to God for coming to us in the mass is what needs to happen. All the automatic responses of the laity don’t make the make the bread and wine become the body and blood. It’s solely the priest who can make that happen. They have the authority given by God through the Church and their my have the hands of Christ do so. Laity shouldn’t touch the hosts or the chalice. At least use a covering for the hands when recieving although we can and should go back to using those straws I hear they use to have for the occasions of reception from the chalice.
 
He is saying that – by adopting some other methods – though they differ from the sacred rites:-- this was/is meeting the needs of the people.
On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.”
Click to expand...
To the rest which is quoted- thinking of it in terms of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form. The OF being a valid/licit/full Grace generating --approved form of the Mass. How some think of the OF as inferior.
Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the “Roman Missal,” so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.

…however, though they show also in an outward manner that the very nature of the sacrifice, as offered by the Mediator between God and men,[102] must be regarded as the act of the whole Mystical Body of Christ, still they are by no means necessary to constitute it a public act or to give it a social character.

It is to be observed, also, that they have strayed from the path of truth and right reason who, led away by false opinions, make so much of these accidentals as to presume to assert that without them the Mass cannot fulfill its appointed end.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top