Silent Latin Mass?

[GangGreen]

I’m not going to lie, I’m not a huge fan of the Low Mass. I guess some people like it, but I can’t get into it as much. I notice that at the church where I go to the EF when I can, the Low Masses have many less people than the High Masses. So I know I’m not the only one who feels that way. Personally, I think all Sunday Masses should always be High Masses in the EF. I don’t know if it’s just that certain parishes can’t do it because of lack of servers/singers or whatever.

 

[Spooky7272]

This was the reality of the Latin Mass for thousands of devout Catholics who were totally disengaged from what the priest was doing as they couldn’t understand it or hear him.

How can you say she was “disengaged” from Mass simply because she was silently praying on the rosary? Praying the Rosary at Mass is an excellent way to participate. The Mass and Rosary aren’t in competition. I have seen in prayers a guide on what to meditate about during certain parts of the Mass. If nobody knew what was going on, how would they know when to meditate on what part?

How do you know she even wore out the beads only at Mass and not simply praying it every day at home?

 

[Rocky24]

How can you say she was “disengaged” from Mass simply because she was silently praying on the rosary? Praying the Rosary at Mass is an excellent way to participate. The Mass and Rosary aren’t in competition. I have seen in prayers a guide on what to meditate about during certain parts of the Mass. If nobody knew what was going on, how would they know when to meditate on what part?

How do you know she even wore out the beads only at Mass and not simply praying it every day at home?

This ^
I know someone who had a grandfather who died while holding his rosary beads as he went to Low Mass. Most of the people of the older generation could not read back then, but that didn’t mean they couldn’t understand what was going on at the altar. It may not have been the best way, but it was their way of participating. It’s much better than having 70% of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence today. Everyone who attended Mass back then knew what happened on that altar at the words of Consecration.
OP, try attending a High or Sung Mass. These have more “smells and bells” and you can hear the priest saying some of the prayers, except for example the Roman Canon which is silent. It won’t dissapoint you!

 

[Basilios]

This was the reality of the Latin Mass for thousands of devout Catholics who were totally disengaged from what the priest was doing as they couldn’t understand it or hear him.

How can you be a devout Catholic if you are disengaged from the source and summit of the spiritual life of the Church? It is impossible to be devout if you are not praying the Mass at all. So according to your logic, up until the reforms of 1970 nobody could ever ‘engage’ with the Mass. Excuse me, but I think some thousands of saints would beg to disagree with you. St Teresa of Avila said that she would die for just one rubric of the Mass. Are these the words of a disengaged person? Pish posh my friend. The Mass isn’t about doing as much as possible and hearing as much as possible. How can you possibly know what the majority of Catholics thought hundreds of years ago? Most people were educated in Latin somewhat, actually, and the norm of Mass was always High Mass which gave those attending Mass a very elevated and beautiful experience of Mass.

They spent the Mass carrying out their own private devotions as best they could as they waited to receive Communion.

As best they could? Your language makes it seem like they were people forced to be there who were trying to pray despite what was going on at the altar. What a horrible picture to paint. Pope Pius XII said that it was not only acceptable but even good to pray the Rosary during Mass. Please see this article for relevant quotes.

Almost reminiscent of Mediaeval England where people’s involvement in was was to wait for the elevation of the Host and then rush off to the next church hoping to witness another elevation!

Way to go, you’ve just denigrated and vilified hundreds of thousands of devout Catholics and their faith. I wonder if they’d think you any better for thinking some things about ways to participate at Mass?

Oh no! Waiting to see the elevation, because I mean… it’s only the BODY OF JESUS CHRIST, right? But in any case, you have a strange idea about medieval Catholicism, one which is a-historical.

I suggest you read Eamon Duffy’s book “The Stripping of the Altars” to get an idea of why and where you are wrong.

God Bless you.

 

[Saints_Alive]

How can you say she was “disengaged” from Mass simply because she was silently praying on the rosary? Praying the Rosary at Mass is an excellent way to participate. The Mass and Rosary aren’t in competition. I have seen in prayers a guide on what to meditate about during certain parts of the Mass. If nobody knew what was going on, how would they know when to meditate on what part?

How do you know she even wore out the beads only at Mass and not simply praying it every day at home?

This ^
I know someone who had a grandfather who died while holding his rosary beads as he went to Low Mass. Most of the people of the older generation could not read back then, but that didn’t mean they couldn’t understand what was going on at the altar. It may not have been the best way, but it was their way of participating. It’s much better than having 70% of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence today. Everyone who attended Mass back then knew what happened on that altar at the words of Consecration.
OP, try attending a High or Sung Mass. These have more “smells and bells” and you can hear the priest saying some of the prayers, except for example the Roman Canon which is silent. It won’t dissapoint you!

How can you be a devout Catholic if you are disengaged from the source and summit of the spiritual life of the Church? It is impossible to be devout if you are not praying the Mass at all. So according to your logic, up until the reforms of 1970 nobody could ever ‘engage’ with the Mass. Excuse me, but I think some thousands of saints would beg to disagree with you. St Teresa of Avila said that she would die for just one rubric of the Mass. Are these the words of a disengaged person? Pish posh my friend. The Mass isn’t about doing as much as possible and hearing as much as possible. How can you possibly know what the majority of Catholics thought hundreds of years ago? Most people were educated in Latin somewhat, actually, and the norm of Mass was always High Mass which gave those attending Mass a very elevated and beautiful experience of Mass.

As best they could? Your language makes it seem like they were people forced to be there who were trying to pray despite what was going on at the altar. What a horrible picture to paint. Pope Pius XII said that it was not only acceptable but even good to pray the Rosary during Mass. Please see this article for relevant quotes.

Way to go, you’ve just denigrated and vilified hundreds of thousands of devout Catholics and their faith. I wonder if they’d think you any better for thinking some things about ways to participate at Mass?

Oh no! Waiting to see the elevation, because I mean… it’s only the BODY OF JESUS CHRIST, right? But in any case, you have a strange idea about medieval Catholicism, one which is a-historical.

I suggest you read Eamon Duffy’s book “The Stripping of the Altars” to get an idea of why and where you are wrong.

God Bless you.

S-P-O-T O-N

 

[JustaServant]

Historically since the Mass is a prayer and not a Protestant-like “service”, people’s understanding of every word and gesture the priest gave was not important to them. In fact, Catholics 1000 years ago would have looked very confused if you wanted a complete translation of the Mass. Silence was also a major part of the Mass and considered very important. If one chose to pray during those “silent” parts they were many times encouraged to.
It irritates me when I hear modern Catholics say things like “those little old ladies who prayed the Rosary during Mass…” As if they were doing something wrong. The Mass was and is a prayer, praying is to be encouraged. When the priest prays toward the Tabernacle the people pray with him.
Meditation is a lost exercise today. Silence as well. Silence is the most effective expression of the reverance due to God during His Mass. People today seem to have an unholy fear of silence. Maybe because it is in silence that we are most likely to meet God.
“Be still and know that I am God”.

 

[JustaServant]

BTW, this thread is three years old.

 

[otjm]

And the saints. The great thing about the Mass of Trent is that you can feel that presence in the silence instead of having a priest in your face hogging all the attention for himself.

Having attended Mass in Oregon (numerous parishes), Washington, Utah, North Dakota and California, including my current parish (priest ordained @3 years), a local Trappist Abbey and the local Benedictine Abbey, I have never come across “a priest in (my) face hogging all the attention to himself.” I have come across, repeatedly, priests who love the Lord, priests who are humble, priests who are holy. I am sorry that you have had a bad experience. If you are ever out here in Oregon, I would be happy to take you along with me to those Masses.

Such coreography invites megalomaniacs and drama queens to the priesthood which may help expain the sexual orientation - and behavior - of many today in seminaries and at altars.

Coreography - you mean rubrics - the ones approved by Rome and which John Paul 2; Benedict 16 and Francis all follow?

Oh, and the John Jay report has to be read carefully, because it had a fair amount of political pressure to be politically correct - but in reading that you would find that the most significant problem was homosexual priests, and how you get from rubrics to sexual orientation I can’t quite follow. However, the great majority of the sexual abuse was by priests who at least were raised prior to the OF (and often ordained prior to it); so sorry, can’t follow your logic here.

The great majority of the abuse was by homosexual priests; but the fact that a priest is homosexual does not mean he is an abuser. Hopefully the changes implemented by Benedict 16 will resolve the issue.

Oh, and as to your comment about seminarians today - Benedict 16 seriously tightened up the requirements for entry into the seminary. That, and the great majority of the abuse cases were form the 1960s to the 1980s, which if I recall my math, was 5 to 3 decades ago.

The secularists love what’s happened to the Church because it’s made the liturgy essentially a parody of its former dignity, and a television-hungry laity often uncomfortable with silence just eats it up…then fizzles out when a better circus or a warmer community comes to town (which are often contrived and balls-to-the-wall heretics).

Not sure what you intend by this considering that the secularists couldn’t care less about The Church, the Mass in either the EF or the OF, or for that matter, the Divine Mysteries of the Eastern rites. secularists by their very nature do not attend religious services.

(I do not criticize the Second Vatican Council only its caricature which is all most of the laity ever see or hear.)

Golly, for a second there I wasn’t sure.

 

[otjm]

I’m not going to lie, I’m not a huge fan of the Low Mass. I guess some people like it, but I can’t get into it as much. I notice that at the church where I go to the EF when I can, the Low Masses have many less people than the High Masses. So I know I’m not the only one who feels that way. Personally, I think all Sunday Masses should always be High Masses in the EF. I don’t know if it’s just that certain parishes can’t do it because of lack of servers/singers or whatever.

I am not up to speed on the rubrics and rules, but when I was a kid, there was one High Mass on Sunday; our parish had a Mass at 7, 8:15; 9:30, 10:45 and 12 (we had three priests in residence). It is my recollection there was only one High Mass allowed - but it has been more than a couple of decades ago and I could be wrong about it being a rule.

 

[QuestingKnight]

‘Active participation’ has really done a number on Catholic’s understanding of what a Mass is. I believe most Catholics now think that the mass is about, for and directed at them.

So if they can’t hear everything and understand it immediately, the mass is deficient. Like people complaining about a stage show.

One more reason to return to ad-orientem, fast.

 

[GangGreen]

I am not up to speed on the rubrics and rules, but when I was a kid, there was one High Mass on Sunday; our parish had a Mass at 7, 8:15; 9:30, 10:45 and 12 (we had three priests in residence). It is my recollection there was only one High Mass allowed - but it has been more than a couple of decades ago and I could be wrong about it being a rule.

Not sure, but most churches that do EF masses only do one a week anyway.

 

[dshix]

I am not up to speed on the rubrics and rules, but when I was a kid, there was one High Mass on Sunday; our parish had a Mass at 7, 8:15; 9:30, 10:45 and 12 (we had three priests in residence). It is my recollection there was only one High Mass allowed - but it has been more than a couple of decades ago and I could be wrong about it being a rule.

No, it is not a rule. The rule for high masses is that they must be sung, and whether a parish has a choir that is willing to sing more than one mass (or multiple choirs) is the question.

Most EF parishes can only have one high mass, but mine has at least two every Sunday (both of which I sing at).

There is not a limit to the number of the Sunday High masses, but what you may be thinking of is that there is one mass that is the “main” Sunday Mass. At this mass, the Asperges or Vidi Aquam is sung, and that is the ONLY mass at which it can be sung.