The Latin Mass: Why You Can't Have It

[Rich_C]

Would be nice if the Tridentine Mass can be translated. Why didn’t they just do that?

If they did, there wouldn’t be a divide between “trad” and mainstream Catholics. No one would fight for Latin.* It’s over the theology of the Mass, not the language.

• okay, almost no one.

 

[Rich_C]

I think we may a live poll in action in my town, which is very small but has THREE Catholic churches. We are VERY Catholic here. Last spring the young priest who took over my Parish declared it was to be all EF all the time after he got things arranged correctly. Also, everyone would kneel and everyone would receive on the tongue. So, about half the parish left right then for the other two churches. I believe he will finally be ready for his grand EF opening at Advent.

I’ll be interested to see how many people from the other two Parishes migrate to his. Note that the two churches that are farthest apart are only six minutes apart - a really small town, so everyone can choose easily where to go.

I’ll be counting cars and report back.

Just one thing to consider, is that without preparation, people are drawn to what they’re used to.

If he imposes the TLM overnight, many people will leave, just like when the NOM was imposed overnight, many people left. The difference is now they have options.

 

[Rich_C]

Can I take my tablet to Latin Mass and pull it out in the middle of Liturgy?

I’ve seen a guy use a “Kindle” for a missal. I think it’s fine.

 

[Rich_C]

People need to understand the Mass, understand their faith, and live it, and not obsess over a language.

Every traditionalist I’ve had the chance to ask would rather assist at a *vernacular *EF Mass than a *Latin *OF Mass. So would I.

It’s not a language obsession.

 

[robwar]

I apologize for the provocative title. I’m simply carrying it over from this blog article:

The Latin Mass: Why You Can’t Have It

I think it’s a very well-reasoned articulation on why the EF/TLM hasn’t exploded in the last 5 years in the wake of Summorum Pontificum. It looks at some of the practical considerations that often get overlooked.

I think it’s a helpful article in that it encourages us to really look at what’s going on instead of falling prey to hand-wringing.

So I guess I’m just posting this as a good read and wondering if others agree/disagree.

Please, no OF vs. EF debate! I’d prefer the thread remain opened.

If this topic is inappropriate, please accept my apologies. As far as I could ascertain, there is no moratorium at present, so I went with it.

Good article and post, thanks!

 

[ProVobis]

Every traditionalist I’ve had the chance to ask would rather assist at a *vernacular *EF Mass than a *Latin *OF Mass.

Not I, but then I don’t consider myself a traditionalist, although I have painful memories of the 60’s when the old Mass was changed to the vernacular. It was very weird to say the least.

I attend a weekly EF, but I don’t think the Latin OF is defective in any way. And most wouldn’t know the difference between the EF and the Latin OF, not unless they actually notice that everyone is encouraged to respond in Latin at the Latin OF. In fact, in a parish which teaches Latin and Greek, St. John Cantius actually has more regular attendees at its one Latin OF than its two EF’s combined.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If they did, there wouldn’t be a divide between “trad” and mainstream Catholics. No one would fight for Latin.* It’s over the theology of the Mass, not the language.

• okay, almost no one.

I wonder why it hasn’t been considered. It should fix all the Liturgical issues we have right now and then we can focus on the other things plaguing our faith.

 

[Rich_C]

I wonder why it hasn’t been considered. It should fix all the Liturgical issues we have right now and then we can focus on the other things plaguing our faith.

There’s no way to know whether or not the Holy Father has considered it, but he may have judged it to be an imprudent action now.

For one, a great deal of revisionist history and propaganda surrounds everything that came, directly or indirectly from the Council, so a lot of Catholics would be dismayed at “going backwards.” Three generations after the fact, however it could yield real fruit.

Secondly, any widespread change unsettles Catholics and raises doubts for many that are weak in faith. The changes in the '60s did that and so would any change today. The short-term effects on the Faithful would almost certainly be negative, even though I’m sure the long-term effects would be really good.

Third, a pope probably wouldn’t want to be seen as descrediting one of his recent precedessors (Paul VI). It weakens the view of the office in the minds of people and that’s to be avoided.

It’s my fervent wish that something like that would happen someday, but I recognize it probably isn’t the time and its out of our hands, anyway.

 

[Faithdancer]

Personally I would say that focusing on “Latin” as the barrier misses the larger points.
The components of the OF and EF are essentially the same, but the structure is different.
I cannot speak for others but for me that difference involves a different form, a different type, of participation. I can’t really explain it too well…A lot of words come to mind that are commonly used…reverence…community participation…contemplative…involvement and so forth. I don’t say this as a slam on either form, since I love both equally.

As to the matter of Latin being used, it is just one component of the EF that, for many people, seems to add to the overall experience and draw of the form. Yes, one of many components, such as the atmosphere of total reverence and the music!

And for what it’s worth…I would say that most people who attend EF masses are probably not that well versed in Latin. I know I am not. Missals and missalettes are available that have the Latin side by side with the English. Very true. I’m good with the pronunciation, but the pacing and notation in the musical responses from the people is challenging at first, particularly without sheet music. There was a couple behind me at a recent EF Mass who couldn’t have been much over 30, but who had the sung responses down perfectly, whilst I stumbled and mumbled along

Peace
James

 

[Faithdancer]

From what I’ve read on here, the problem is that RCIA is not simply teaching the Faith in the traditional way. Posters on this forum complain that they were not taught basics. I perceive there has been an attempt to water down our religion to make it more palatable and that, I think, is doomed. The sayings of Jesus are hard.

As regards Latin: a religion, which points to the eternal, dropping an integral part of its worship, a sign and a symbol of its patrimony, isn’t exactly inspiring. The idea that something which isn’t immediately useful in catechesis, therefore has no place being restored to the main rite, does not follow.

Amen, AMEN! RCIA needs an overhaul. Some of the textbooks and other printed materials used in RCIA and Confirmation are practically “new age.” I teach Confirmation, and use the book as little as possible. The students need to understand fundamental Catholic dogma and doctrine and basic theology, including moral theology that is grounded in the teachings of the Magisterium. They need to understand what moral relativism is and why it is an evil, and what heterodoxy and “cafeteria Catholicism” are and why they are absolutely wrong.

 

[sw85]

No, you suggested that the illiterate peasants of France had no problem as long as the Church kept praying in Latin. It solved aaaaallll their problems didn’t it.

What?? No. Go back and reread what I wrote:

“I really doubt the illiterate peasants of medieval France knew Latin, much less could they read a Missal. They didn’t seem to think it was a problem.”

The word “it” refers to knowledge of Latin. i.e., they didn’t seem to think their lack of fluency in Latin was a problem. How you managed to extract from those very plain words the idea that “no one thought anything anywhere was a problem ever,” I haven’t the faintest idea.

This idea of happy ignorance and superficial faith needs to be rejected and thrown into the dustbin of history. It leads to tragedy. People need to understand the Mass, understand their faith, and live it, and not obsess over a language.

This is exactly the idea I’m disputing, so reasserting it isn’t helpful.

Rome fell in AD 476. Let’s be generous and say it was three centuries before Latin was deformed to the point that it, itself, ceased to be the vernacular. That’s still over 1100 years that the Mass was celebrated exclusively in Latin in the Roman rite. If people “needed” Mass in the vernacular, how did we go over a millennium without anyone noticing, including generations upon generations of sainted theologians, popes, bishops, and doctors of the Church, vastly more intelligent and far holier than anyone alive today? Why did the discovery of the “necessity” of the vernacular Mass just happen to coincide with the “discovery” that God is dead, sex is a meaningless recreation, and oh yeah, the collapse of vocations and adult conversions?

Now you can argue that it’s purely by accident that the Church was at its most powerful and esteemed in this period, and that its collapse into cultural poverty and irrelevance coincided with the abandonment of Latin in liturgy. There’s a case to be made there and, after all, “propter hoc” isn’t always “ergo post hoc.” But you absolutely cannot say, in light of this, that people “need” the Mass in the vernacular. To say that you simply have to discount a millennium of history as irrelevant. And who are you, anyway, to be second-guessing the judgment of several generations of theologians, sainted martyrs, and doctors of the Church, that you presume to lecture them on how liturgy *ought *to be? Even the innovators of the new form of the Mass did not presume to declare that their predecessors were positively wrong, simply that their insights were no longer applicable.

I’ve never been to such a Mass in all my 52 years with tambourines. Jokes and applasue at the recessional hymn a few times. Make sure you report me to the bishop. Out of the billions of Masses said, are you going to look for the few deviations to represent the Church you love?

If I thought they were “a few deviations” I wouldn’t be complaining. The problem is that they are virtually everywhere, and I have been to Masses all throughout the states of Texas as well as back home, in Maryland. They are the same everywhere I go. There is nowhere I can go to escape the repugnant liturgical elevator Muzak they play. Nowhere I can go to escape banal, boring, insubstantial, gray homilies, barely leavened by pained and unwelcome jokes. Nowhere I can go where Mass doesn’t seem less like a recapitulation of the sacrifice on Calvary and more like a middle school pep rally. Would that I had the luxury of every EF-hater everywhere, living exclusively in parishes where the OF is celebrated with reverence and without a speck of liturgical abuse.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There’s no way to know whether or not the Holy Father has considered it, but he may have judged it to be an imprudent action now.

For one, a great deal of revisionist history and propaganda surrounds everything that came, directly or indirectly from the Council, so a lot of Catholics would be dismayed at “going backwards.” Three generations after the fact, however it could yield real fruit.

Secondly, any widespread change unsettles Catholics and raises doubts for many that are weak in faith. The changes in the '60s did that and so would any change today. The short-term effects on the Faithful would almost certainly be negative, even though I’m sure the long-term effects would be really good.

Third, a pope probably wouldn’t want to be seen as descrediting one of his recent precedessors (Paul VI). It weakens the view of the office in the minds of people and that’s to be avoided.

It’s my fervent wish that something like that would happen someday, but I recognize it probably isn’t the time and its out of our hands, anyway.

They can introduce changes to the Pauline Mass that will make it look more like the Tridentine Mass. You don’t have to tell people that we’re reverting.

 

[ProVobis]

They can introduce changes to the Pauline Mass that will make it look more like the Tridentine Mass. You don’t have to tell people that we’re reverting.

I thought earlier you considered the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom the liturgy to be emulated?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I thought earlier you considered the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom the liturgy to be emulated?

If I can have my way

 

[ProVobis]

If I can have my way

So which parts would you like to insert into (or remove from) the OF? You may be onto something.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

If I thought they were “a few deviations” I wouldn’t be complaining. The problem is that they are virtually everywhere, and I have been to Masses all throughout the states of Texas as well as back home, in Maryland. They are the same everywhere I go. There is nowhere I can go to escape the repugnant liturgical elevator Muzak they play. Nowhere I can go to escape banal, boring, insubstantial, gray homilies, barely leavened by pained and unwelcome jokes. Nowhere I can go where Mass doesn’t seem less like a recapitulation of the sacrifice on Calvary and more like a middle school pep rally. Would that I had the luxury of every EF-hater everywhere, living exclusively in parishes where the OF is celebrated with reverence and without a speck of liturgical abuse.

I am hardly an “EF hater”, but there ARE many reverant, orthodox OF Masses all over the states. In fact, I understand that the Aggies right there in TX have some very wonderful OF Masses. And “back home in Maryland” you are right next door to many, many beautiful OF Masses in Arlington.

I think on both sides we need to be more charitable about these issues and come together to make things better, rather than using our energy in debabting each other.

 

[clem456]

What?? No. Go back and reread what I wrote:

Ok:

Where does this idea that people have to understand what’s being said come from?

The Tridentine Mass was instituted in 1570. Mass was said in Latin long before then in the Roman rite. So for at least 1000 years, Mass was said everywhere in Latin.

I really doubt the illiterate peasants of medieval France knew Latin, much less could they read a Missal. They didn’t seem to think it was a problem.

Ignorance is never a good thing, especially when it comes to faith, it leads to tragedy.

Why did the discovery of the “necessity” of the vernacular Mass just happen to coincide with the “discovery” that God is dead, sex is a meaningless recreation, and oh yeah, the collapse of vocations and adult conversions?

There you go again, implying that the Church is in bed with progressive devils, or blaming societies’’ problems on the Church’s liturgical practices. I’m really not sure which absurdity we are dealing with. Take a deep breath. Realize that not many people here object to Latin or the EF or any other traditional practice. I sure do not. I love singing Latin in choir as well as English. Absolutley love our pipe organ, adoration, the rosary, as do most Catholics. But these things are not talismans, they do not inocculate a person or a society from evil. The externals are not what makes a person holy, until they are integrated. This is why RCIA is a “process”, not just a “program” of doctrine. Living faith, well intergrated, understood per our abilities, is what is always needed. The evils of society will not disappear as a result of a return to traditional liturgical practices, it just isn’t anywhere near that easy or simple.

Why does the Church allow the Mass in the vernacular?
Maybe it’s the printing press, telegraph, radio, television, internet…advances in communication. Antique Western Europe does not determine methods of communication anymore.

Now you can argue that it’s purely by accident that the Church was at its most powerful and esteemed in this period, and that its collapse into cultural poverty and irrelevance coincided with the abandonment of Latin in liturgy.

The Catholic Church is not an institution of temporal power, and does not seek esteem, although people may hold it in esteem.
The Catholic Church has not collapsed into cultural poverty, and is definitely not irrelevant.
Did you say you are teaching RCIA?

But you absolutely cannot say, in light of this, that people “need” the Mass in the vernacular. To say that you simply have to discount a millennium of history as irrelevant. And who are you, anyway, to be second-guessing the judgment of several generations of theologians, sainted martyrs, and doctors of the Church, that you presume to lecture them on how liturgy *ought *to be? Even the innovators of the new form of the Mass did not presume to declare that their predecessors were positively wrong, simply that their insights were no longer applicable.

I am not claiming anything. The Church appreciates and alllows different languages and cultures to be expressed at Mass. I ACCEPT that, I TRUST the Church, evidently the vernacular is a wise thing at the moment.
Who is discounting Church history and tradition? Please do not hijack tradition to your own private meanings. You do not define tradition, the Church does.
I am not claiming that anyone in the Church is wrong, or that theologians saints and martyrs are wrong. Nowhere have I said or implied any such thing. Please, do not put words in my mouth.

If I thought they were “a few deviations” I wouldn’t be complaining. The problem is that they are virtually everywhere, and I have been to Masses all throughout the states of Texas as well as back home, in Maryland. They are the same everywhere I go. There is nowhere I can go to escape the repugnant liturgical elevator Muzak they play. Nowhere I can go to escape banal, boring, insubstantial, gray homilies, barely leavened by pained and unwelcome jokes. Nowhere I can go where Mass doesn’t seem less like a recapitulation of the sacrifice on Calvary and more like a middle school pep rally. Would that I had the luxury of every EF-hater everywhere, living exclusively in parishes where the OF is celebrated with reverence and without a speck of liturgical abuse.

The cure for sadness in my opinion are Hope and Trust.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So which parts would you like to insert into (or remove from) the OF? You may be onto something.

1. Move the Kiss of Peace to before the Anaphora, not after (make peace with your brother before making your offering)
2. The entire Anaphora includig the Epiklesis
3. A fixed Litany which covers pretty much everything you should be praying for, then petitions are added at the end. The current Litany in the OF, even though is pre-scripted, makes people think that it is the “free-for-all” section of the Mass. What else can you say after these?

Deacon:
For the peace of God and the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord.

People:
Lord, have mercy.

Deacon:
For peace of the whole world, for the stability of the holy churches of God, and for the unity of all, let us pray to the Lord.

People:
Lord, have mercy.

Deacon:
For this holy house and for those who enter it with faith, reverence, and the fear of God, let us pray to the Lord.

People:
Lord, have mercy.

Deacon:
For our (Pope, Patriarch, Metropolitan, Bishop), the honorable presbyters, the deacons in the service of Christ, and all the clergy and laity, let us pray to the Lord.

People:
Lord, have mercy.

Deacon:
For our country, the president, and all those in public service, let us pray to the Lord.

People:
Lord, have mercy.

Deacon:
For this parish and city, for every city and country, and for the faithful who live in them, let us pray to the Lord.

People:
Lord, have mercy.

Deacon:
For favorable weather, an abundance of the fruits of the earth, and temperate seasons, let us pray to the Lord.

People:
Lord, have mercy.

Deacon:
For travelers by land, sea, and air, for the sick, the suffering, the captives, and for their salvation, let us pray to the Lord.

People:
Lord, have mercy.

Deacon:
For our deliverance from all affliction, wrath, danger, and distress, let us pray to the Lord.

People:
Lord, have mercy.

1. The Trisagion. It is already now part of RC tradition because of Divine Mercy, might as well use it during Mass the same as the East.
2. A hymn/prayer to Mary

 

[1AugustSon7]

What?? No. Go back and reread what I wrote:

“I really doubt the illiterate peasants of medieval France knew Latin, much less could they read a Missal. They didn’t seem to think it was a problem.”

The word “it” refers to knowledge of Latin. i.e., they didn’t seem to think their lack of fluency in Latin was a problem. How you managed to extract from those very plain words the idea that “no one thought anything anywhere was a problem ever,” I haven’t the faintest idea.

This is exactly the idea I’m disputing, so reasserting it isn’t helpful.

Rome fell in AD 476. Let’s be generous and say it was three centuries before Latin was deformed to the point that it, itself, ceased to be the vernacular. That’s still over 1100 years that the Mass was celebrated exclusively in Latin in the Roman rite. If people “needed” Mass in the vernacular, how did we go over a millennium without anyone noticing, including generations upon generations of sainted theologians, popes, bishops, and doctors of the Church, vastly more intelligent and far holier than anyone alive today? Why did the discovery of the “necessity” of the vernacular Mass just happen to coincide with the “discovery” that God is dead, sex is a meaningless recreation, and oh yeah, the collapse of vocations and adult conversions?

Now you can argue that it’s purely by accident that the Church was at its most powerful and esteemed in this period, and that its collapse into cultural poverty and irrelevance coincided with the abandonment of Latin in liturgy. There’s a case to be made there and, after all, “propter hoc” isn’t always “ergo post hoc.” But you absolutely cannot say, in light of this, that people “need” the Mass in the vernacular. To say that you simply have to discount a millennium of history as irrelevant. And who are you, anyway, to be second-guessing the judgment of several generations of theologians, sainted martyrs, and doctors of the Church, that you presume to lecture them on how liturgy *ought *to be? Even the innovators of the new form of the Mass did not presume to declare that their predecessors were positively wrong, simply that their insights were no longer applicable.

If I thought they were “a few deviations” I wouldn’t be complaining. The problem is that they are virtually everywhere, and I have been to Masses all throughout the states of Texas as well as back home, in Maryland. They are the same everywhere I go. There is nowhere I can go to escape the repugnant liturgical elevator Muzak they play. Nowhere I can go to escape banal, boring, insubstantial, gray homilies, barely leavened by pained and unwelcome jokes. Nowhere I can go where Mass doesn’t seem less like a recapitulation of the sacrifice on Calvary and more like a middle school pep rally. Would that I had the luxury of every EF-hater everywhere, living exclusively in parishes where the OF is celebrated with reverence and without a speck of liturgical abuse.

My friend, you will never find the perfect Mass the way you are looking at it. Every Mass is perfect in one sense; no Mass will ever be perfect in another, if you’re focusing on the human element.

This is just practical advice from someone who was in the same boat (saying the exact same things, making the exact same arguements) you were three years ago and went through hell and nearly lost his faith in the process. The Mass is always more than meets the eye.

The EF is there for you notwithstanding. It’s a place of refuge for you to foster your faith and devotion.

 

[corsair]

Having just read the article and many of the posted comments I can say that the author is taking a realistic approach to things. Most of what he says is true. I have experienced much of what he says.