The Latin Mass - Should It Be the Universal Catholic Mass Again?

[corsair]

To answer the original question; YES, Thats my opinion!

 

[clem456]

There was literally nothing in it that was “offensive and uncharitable” and I defy you to point to anything in it that was. You took offense at it because you misread it. I corrected your misreading of it, including, among other things, your objectively false imputation of traditionalism to me. Your tasteless response here suggests to me you didn’t bother reading that correction.

Originally Posted by sw85
I’d be interested in seeing some detailed reports on the differential demographics of the regular parishioners for the two forms. My impression is that exclusive adherents to the EF tend to be younger, higher fertility, and (outside the more radical elements of, for instance, the SSPX) less inclined to apostasy or schism than those of the OF. If that impression corresponds to reality, we may end up in a few generations with a Church where the EF is the more celebrated form, anyway.

Oh geez, no probelm then, sure, my mistake. Nothing uncharitable in what you said…no.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

But it would be fallacious to think that what’s happening in Religious life doesn’t affect what happens to the rest of us secular people.

I’m not arguing that at all. I’m simply saying that pointing out that religious were denied their traditions prior to Vatican II has little to do with whether or not the diocesan parish I attend as a secular layman should use traditions that were part of diocesan parish life prior to Vatican II.

Why else would Pope Benedict tell the bishops he wanted them to focus more on promoting vocations to the religious brotherhood (religious non-priesthood … it’s awkward phrasing either way. We’ll need to work on that).

I don’t disagree with this at all. Bring on the brothers! The Church needs their consecrated lives of prayer and penance.

It’s also a fact that many practices have come from a Religious tradition. Remember how we some people are convinced that a tabernacle in the sanctuary is practically a matter of dogma (I think we can classify is as an “official traditionalist position”)? Franciscan tradition.

And God be praised for that Franciscan “tradition” as it is a perfect example of lex orendi, lex credendi.

And the traditions of Religious life can impact secular life even more. As has been pointed out, if you ask you parish priest to celebrate an EF Mass, and he’s a member of a religious order and the Superior forbids him to celebrate the EF, then you don’t get an EF. Some people complain that we should have more times for confession everyday, but if your parish is served by religious that might not happen because he has community obligations (and his community obligations override his parish obligations).

An excellent reason why we need more diocesan priests, so that they can serve the faithful first, as is their vocation, and the religious priests can serve their community first, as is their vocation.

Spiritual practice? How do we even begin to define spiritual practice apart from the influence of Religious, the masters of spirituality? Diocesan priests do not often learn spirituality and are allowed to develop their own spirituality.

No disagreement here. But again, I’m not sure why this means that every time we are discussing the traditional practices of the Latin Rite in secular parishes someone has to toss in that some religious somewhere did it or does it differently. If there were threads discussing Franciscan traditions, for example, wouldn’t it become a bit tiresome if someone constantly pointed out that the Carthusians do it differently (with the subtle or not-so-subtle hint that the way the Carthusians do it should be implemented in Franciscan life?)

There’s also nothing that objectively makes one orthodox spirituality better than another.

I’ll agree on principle, with the standard disclaimer that there are lots of factors and variables at play in your statement.

Liturgy? Well, many of our best liturgists (as has been pointed out) are Benedictines.

Yes, and I love Benedictine spirituality. I often go on retreat at two nearby Benedictine monasteries.

It is important to note, however, that religious are living a life devoted to a Rule which guides and informs them every single day. They are better formed and better informed than most laity. Us lay folk don’t have that type of support and constant spiritual direction. It was provided for us in the very structured and ornate rituals of our Rite. The simplification of those rituals in the manner of the Benedictines and Franciscans doesn’t take into account the fact that the lex orendi lex credendi is particularly important for lay people who don’t spend 6+ hours a day praying the Divine Office, etc. We don’t have a Rule and a structure and all the things that make a religious life religious. We need other supports, and the traditional liturgical and devotional practices pre-VII were meant to fill that.

To try and put the laity in a separate realm from Religious is disingenuous.

It is equally disingenuous to put the laity and the religious in the same realm.

They influence us; it’s their job.

Actually, their job is to follow their Rule. Some religious have basically no interaction with the laity. Check out the almost 100% isolation of the Carthusians.

To go and say “we don’t want their influence” is, frankly, demeaning.

The devil is in the details of the word “influence.” I do want their influence. I want their prayers, their spiritually formed advice, their example of a life of holiness, their understanding of God and our relationship to Him.

They don’t exist to live in their own little bubble apart from us doing their own thing, they exist to be who they are.

But what if “who they are” is to be in that bubble apart from us? See my comment on the Carthusians above.

One last practical note. If the religious are going to have a direct influence on the way parish life is conducted, well, then, which religious order would that be? Shall we all become Franciscans? Benedictines? Dominicans? Trappists? Carthusians? Carmelites? Or should we absorb a little here and there from each order that will best help the laity achieve a life of holiness and sanctity and ultimate save our souls? I say the latter. Every religious practice is NOT appropriate for lay people; therefore, much more needs to be said in a discussion over a practice for lay people than simply “the Benedictines do it this way.” It may be wonderful and perfect for them to do so, but not beneficial for the laity. We would have discuss the individual practice rather than whole-sale accept it. Again, this is practical – when religious order practices are contrary, which do we as the laity accept?

• PAX

 

[clem456]

Here is a passage that sums up that teaching: 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

In other words, Vatican II taught that use of Latin is to be preserved but a limited amount of vernacular may be used.

Geez your not going to throw a balanced quote from official Church teaching into this conversation are you?

 

[JustaServant]

I figured it was more charitable to assume the posters on this thread were affected by the Good Idea Fairy then to assume that they actually think they know more about how the Church is supposed to be then its leadership does.

Yeeeeeah.

Anyway, the OP asked The Latin Mass - Should It Be the Universal Catholic Mass Again? To which it has been shown by the** leadership **of the Church that it still is and will always be. The popular retention of the venacular liturgy does not preclude the Latin structure of the Mass. Even the Novus Ordo (sorry I’m old fashioned and not much into acronyms) was originally presented in the Latin language.
That does not mean the venacular Mass is somehow inferior and will die out, it simply means the Latin will never die out. See the quote by Bishop Henley who explains it much better than I.

 

[floresco]

I really don’t think this is viable or sustainable. One of the things I noticed is that some of the more difficult-to-translate parts of the Tridentine (Introibo, Lavabo, Deus Qui Humanae, etc.) were removed in the 60’s in preparation of the vernacular and 69 Missal. Heck they still don’t have the Dominus vobiscum and Sursum Corda right in the English IMO. Vernacular presupposes translations and take 10 translators and you’ll get 10 different translations. Controversies and committees surrounding the extraordinary form translations are the last thing the Church needs at this point IMO.

Well then, you should be happy that nobody has put me in charge of liturgy for the Church.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I think I’ve strayed off topic – my apologies.

Curlycool89, if you’d like to continue this discussion we could take it to another thread. However, I think I might have had my say. You may have the last word, if you wish

• PAX

 

[Cat]

Hey, I’m with you, but I tend to aim for 1250-1350.

Ah, the good ol’ days of the 13th century…

Ah, yes, Those halcyon days from 1346 -1352 when the Black Death killed over half the population of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

Of course, the 13th Century was actually the 1200s, right? But then there was smallpox.

I’ll take 2012 with joy, thank you. It’s bad enough that tiny bacteria like Aeromonas hydrophilia still possess the power to eat off a healthy teenager’s leg and hands, in spite of all our medical knowledge.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Ah, yes, Those halcyon days from 1346 -1352 when the Black Death killed over half the population of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

Of course, the 13th Century was actually the 1200s, right? But then there was smallpox.

I’ll take 2012 with joy, thank you. It’s bad enough that tiny bacteria like Aeromonas hydrophilia still possess the power to eat off a healthy teenager’s leg and hands, in spite of all our medical knowledge.

It’s interesting how often people judge the past based on medical issues, as if the greatest measurement of a time or society is its advancement in medical science.

Of course, we all know that there are way more important things than health and preserving the body, right?

• PAX

 

[sw85]

Oh geez, no probelm then, sure, my mistake. Nothing uncharitable in what you said…no.

This isn’t a response at all. You libeled me a few pages back by saying I wanted some people to die so I could have my way, which you judged to be a standard traditionalist agenda. That libel is obviously falsified by the fact that I’m not a traditionalist and don’t go to EF masses, and by the fact that the obvious, plain words of my post contain no value judgment with respect to the two forms of the mass but simple scientific pondering. Which, as a scientist, I’m prone to do. So defend your libel or retract it.

Pointing out that trads are in my experience (a) younger (b) more fertile and (c) more likely to remain Catholics isn’t controversial. Not even remotely. I know lots of ex-Catholics. None of them were trads. I’ve known a few trads, and none of them are ex-Catholics. You can argue your experience contradicts mine; whatever. That’s why, as I’ve said about eight times in this thread already, I’d be interested in seeing some detailed reports on the differential demographics of the regular parishioners for the two forms.

Again, my observations (which I’ve said repeatedly are anecdotal and value-free) are all certainly due to selection bias. That doesn’t make it not a real thing. Given that it’s a real thing, it kind of changes our calculus when discussing whether or not the Latin mass “ought” to be restored to widespread use. My point is that it may well be restored to widespread use simply by force of demographic inertia.

That was my point – the point you missed in your rush to be offended by an eeebil traditionalist you apparently felt compelled to fabricate.

Again, defend your libel (with real words and not just the snark of a sullen teenager) or retract it.

 

[jam070406]

Many don’t. The point was that this the prerogative of the superior, and nobody can demand an EF out of a religious priest if the superior doesn’t allow it.

Yes, there will always be those that go against the wishes of the Pope.

 

[Cat]

I would love to see it happen but I fear it never will. There are way too many in the Church heirarchy who actively loathe the Extraordinary Form of the Mass for it to have much of a chance to succeed. I well recall a Cardinal from the west coast of the United States who firmly stated that the Extraordinary Form did not serve the spiritual needs of his flock so he was not in favor of promoting it or even allowing it in his area. Sadly that view is all too common. I’m sure all who are old enough will remember the intense, almost visceral reaction, almost outrage of many of the Clergy after the loosining of the restrictions by Pope John Paul II. Things are somewhat better these days but I am not real optimistic it will get much better.

I think that the best we can hope for is a gradual phasing in to where the Extraordinary Form would be offered on certain days in every Parish, Holy Days of obligation etc., and exclusively in certain parishes only. A development that I see forming already.

However I may be overly optimistic about that and after Pope Benedict XVI passes who knows what will happen.

If a pastor (cardinal) says that the EF does not serve the spiritual needs of his flock, then I think that those of us who have no knowledge of his flock should back off and accept that he is in a better position to know and evaluate his flock than we are. I don’t think we should assume that a priest loathes the EF and is using “his flock” as an excuse to avoid it. I think we should assume that after all his years of schooling and his daily experience in the role of priest, that he actually knows what he is talking about.

I feel for pastors nowadays. I’m guessing that a lot of wide-eyed young men enter the priesthood with all kinds of wonderful ideas of how they will shepherd their flock, and then discover to their dismay that their shepherding plan has to be trashed and re-done from scratch to fit reality. Sheep, as most of us know, tend to be a little dull-witted at times.

 

[clem456]

This isn’t a response at all. You libeled me a few pages back by saying I wanted some people to die so I could have my way, which you judged to be a standard traditionalist agenda. That libel is obviously falsified by the fact that I’m not a traditionalist and don’t go to EF masses, and by the fact that the obvious, plain words of my post contain no value judgment with respect to the two forms of the mass but simple scientific pondering. Which, as a scientist, I’m prone to do. So defend your libel or retract it.

Pointing out that trads are in my experience (a) younger (b) more fertile and (c) more likely to remain Catholics isn’t controversial. Not even remotely. I know lots of ex-Catholics. None of them were trads. I’ve known a few trads, and none of them are ex-Catholics. You can argue your experience contradicts mine; whatever. That’s why, as I’ve said about eight times in this thread already, I’d be interested in seeing some detailed reports on the differential demographics of the regular parishioners for the two forms.

Again, my observations (which I’ve said repeatedly are anecdotal and value-free) are all certainly due to selection bias. That doesn’t make it not a real thing. Given that it’s a real thing, it kind of changes our calculus when discussing whether or not the Latin mass “ought” to be restored to widespread use. My point is that it may well be restored to widespread use simply by force of demographic inertia.

That was my point – the point you missed in your rush to be offended by an eeebil traditionalist you apparently felt compelled to fabricate.

Again, defend your libel (with real words and not just the snark of a sullen teenager) or retract it.

Hey np, you’re right. Don’t worry about, I’m one of the infertile Catholics that will be gone in the blink of your eye. Anything we can do to make your life easier. np.
You can wiggle all you want, your words speak for themselves.

 

[ProVobis]

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

Actually the Latin to the first bolded is vernaculae; the translation to “mother tongue” is curious because it doesn’t seem to take into account the fact that bishops of one country wouldn’t have to participate in approving some foreign languages which they know nothing about. But maybe I’m not reading it right.

The Latin to the second bolded is haud raro (not rarely). “Frequently” seems a little biased towards the all-vernacular.

 

[jam070406]

If a pastor (cardinal) says that the EF does not serve the spiritual needs of his flock, then I think that those of us who have no knowledge of his flock should back off and accept that he is in a better position to know and evaluate his flock than we are. I don’t think we should assume that a priest loathes the EF and is using “his flock” as an excuse to avoid it. I think we should assume that after all his years of schooling and his daily experience in the role of priest, that he actually knows what he is talking about.

I feel for pastors nowadays. I’m guessing that a lot of wide-eyed young men enter the priesthood with all kinds of wonderful ideas of how they will shepherd their flock, and then discover to their dismay that their shepherding plan has to be trashed and re-done from scratch to fit reality. Sheep, as most of us know, tend to be a little dull-witted at times.

Meh…the pastor at my local Parish made it clear to me that he doesn’t like the TLM and when asked the possibility of having one there he said, “not while I’m here”

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Meh…the pastor at my local Parish made it clear to me that he doesn’t like the TLM and when asked the possibility of having one there he said, “not while I’m here”

Our Bishop said he’d allow the TLM “over my dead body.”

No need to assume his position when he says things like that, eh?

The ironic thing about bishops and priests who are so antagonistic to the TLM is that they drive the faithful into the arms of the SSPX.

• PAX

 

[OraLabora]

Yes, there will always be those that go against the wishes of the Pope.

You clearly don’t understand religious life at all. It’s got nothing to do with disobedience to the Pope. The Pope never called on religious to offer the EF against the wishes of their superiors. Religious owe obedience to their superior and it is the superior’s prerogative to determine if the EF or the OF suits the needs of the communities. Most did switch to the OF in the 1970s in order to obey, well, the Pope.

Benedict XVI never ordered the religious to offer the EF, he has respected their relative autonomy on liturgical matters. When the religious provide clergy for a diocesan parish as a favour, they don’t become diocesan priests in the process…

 

[ProVobis]

Well then, you should be happy that nobody has put me in charge of liturgy for the Church.

You’re not in charge? We’ll have to trust the Pope on his knowledge on the liturgy then.

I’m sure he’s well aware of the consequences of the all-vernacular and the seeming inconsistencies among the English Mass and the Spanish Mass and the German Mass and so on.

 

[Cat]

Our Bishop said he’d allow the TLM “over my dead body.”

No need to assume his position when he says things like that, eh?

The ironic thing about bishops and priests who are so antagonistic to the TLM is that they drive the faithful into the arms of the SSPX.

• PAX

Wow.

When did he say this? Is there a published article? Or did he say it on the radio or televission? Is there any record of all of this comment, or was it something that was said over dinner somewhere? If so, how did any regular person get to be present when he said such a thing? Did YOU personally hear him make this statement, and do you mind telling the circumstances?

Truly, I’m not being sarcastic. I’m honestly in awe that any bishop these days would make such a visceral statement after the Motu became reality, and I’m amazed that a regular Catholic layperson witnessed it. (My apologies if you are more than just a regular Catohlic layperson.)

Our bishop, at least the one that just retired after 20 years, is never so accessible to the regular ordinary people, although he certainly gets out and about and makes plenty of appearances, has a weekly radio show, and does plenty of Masses. God bless him in his retirement, and God bless his replacement, who seems to be a fantastic bishop after only a week in office!

I guess here in the Midwestern U.S., we’re really blessed with good bishops!

 

[jam070406]

You clearly don’t understand religious life at all. It’s got nothing to do with disobedience to the Pope. The Pope never called on religious to offer the EF against the wishes of their superiors. Religious owe obedience to their superior and it is the superior’s prerogative to determine if the EF or the OF suits the needs of the communities. Most did switch to the OF in the 1970s in order to obey, well, the Pope.

Benedict XVI never ordered the religious to offer the EF, he has respected their relative autonomy on liturgical matters. When the religious provide clergy for a diocesan parish as a favour, they don’t become diocesan priests in the process…

I understand quite clearly. We are creating hypotheticals of rare instances to justify denying the TLM at parishes.
And…I was not referring to the Pope’s dealing with religious orders but his wish that the TLM should be more widely available to the laity.