The Latin Mass: Why You Can't Have It

[Cat]

I don’t know that it’s “fear” that keeps Catholics away from the EF when it is available. Maybe in some cases.

I think that more than likely, it’s a desire for understanding. Nowadays, with the advancements in communication technology, many of us place a hugely high value on accurate understanding.

We want to know what’s going on (what’s REALLY going on, hence the debate over where to get the most accurate and truthful news). We want to know HOW to work all the latest inventions and not feel left behind. We want to know exactly WHAT is wrong with us and exactly WHAT the doctor is doing to us and WHAT our meds are doing to us.

And we especially want to understand our faith. Many Catholics are waking up after muddling through their Catholicism for decades and having no idea what’s going on or what the Bible says or what the Mass really means.

So it makes sense that many modern Catholics consider “understanding the language” a major priority. Yes, of course we can use a translation key, but understanding the words is not really understanding all the subtle nuances of your own heart language.

There was a Dilbert cartoon a week ago in which Asok the intern misunderstood several American idioms that the Boss used when giving him instructions (e.g., "Kill this thing immediately). Asok came into the break room with a horrified expression on his face and said, “I’ve done some very bad things.”

I think that many of us don’t want to end up like Asok. We want to understand and assimilate what our Church is telling us.

Now some people are good with languages, and their understanding is actually enhanced by having another language to think through. That’s wonderful. But for the rest of us–don’t hate us because we need our own language to “get it” and understand what is going on in Mass.

BTW, I just used an American idiom. Those who are not from the U.S., or who are very young (or perhaps very old) or who have lived very sheltered lives would not understand why I said, “Don’t hate us because…” Just in case there is someone who is wondering–a few decades ago, an advertising campaign showed a beautiful woman who said, “Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful.” After that campaign, many Americans started using the phrase in everyday life and saying, “Don’t hate me because I’m…” (fill in the blank). We all understand what we’re saying and get the very subtle humor and levity and peacemaking intention of the phrase.

But for someone that doesn’t use American English as their heart language, this phrase might sound confrontational or defiant, and so they would be suspicious and distrustful of me or anyone who used the phrase. Of couse that’s not what I intended to communicate at all!–I was using a “joke” phrase that would actually reduce tension in a room full of Americans in their 30s-60s.

I hope that this real-life illustration this helps you to understand why many Americans prefer their own language when it comes to their faith!

 

[ProVobis]

I hope that this helps you to understand why many Americans prefer their own language when it comes to their faith.

But then I see a little bit of arrogance in this statement. For example, how many care if a three-year old (or a Hispanic, for that matter) understands the Our Father as long as he says it memorized in English instead of Latin or Spanish? I think you might be confusing hearts with national pride here.

OTOH, if you take a representative sample of Catholics all over the world and have them praying in their own vernaculars at the same Mass, how would that sound? Who would understand that?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

But then I see a little bit of arrogance in this statement. For example, how many care if a three-year old (or a Hispanic, for that matter) understands the Our Father as long as he says it memorized in English instead of Latin or Spanish? I think you might be confusing hearts with national pride here.

OTOH, if you take a representative sample of Catholics all over the world and have them praying in their own vernaculars at the same Mass, how would that sound? Who would understand that?

I think the statement makes more sense when you say “people” rather than “Americans” because I think the arguements are true for people generally. However, I also think that we do need an international language for Masses where people of many countries or languages join together.

The place where having your own native language is so important is in catechesis. If we taught the faith and the meaning of Mass and what happens there more carefully (and I do think catechesis is getting better), we would be so muich better off! Using Cat’s examples - yes, we want to know what the doctor is doing or what the meds are for, but once we learn we also very easily use the medical terms for our procedures and refer to our meds by the brand name instead of the use.

 

[jwinch2]

But then I see a little bit of arrogance in this statement. For example, how many care if a three-year old (or a Hispanic, for that matter) understands the Our Father as long as he says it memorized in English instead of Latin or Spanish? I think you might be confusing hearts with national pride here.

Your solution to the problems you mentioned is to make everyone not understand the Our Father?

You are also making an argument based upon logical fallacy. The 3-year old doesn’t understand the Our Father because they are 3. Changing the language does not alter that one bit.

Second logical fallacy, straw man this time. You are suggesting that because an American wants to have the Mass in their own language, that this means that they do not care about immigrants. Wanting something for oneself does not imply wishing others not to have something. The two are not mutually inclusive. The Hispanic person, if we are talking about America, chose to immigrate to a country where they speak a different language. In order to truly assimilate into American society, they are going to have to learn a basic level of English. Regardless, I have seen very few towns in the US where there is not a bilingual English-Spanish Mass to be found or even a complete Spanish one. I’ve also seen very few communities where there are not ESL classes to be found. Many times they are offered in Catholic parishes themselves. Parishes all over America offering bilingual Masses, Spanish Masses, and ESL classes are hardly indicative of persons not caring about others’ needs.

When I go visit my wife’s family in Brazil, I have no illusions about Mass being in English. If I were going to spend more than a few weeks there, I would expect to have to learn Portuguese at a higher level than I am currently capable of in order to function in their society. That’s kind of how things work.

OTOH, if you take a representative sample of Catholics all over the world and have them praying in their own vernaculars at the same Mass, how would that sound? Who would understand that?

Another logical fallacy. You are proposing a solution for a problem which does not exist. Are there Masses going on all over the place with people from countries all over the world praying in their own language in the Mass and confusing the heck out of everyone? Is this some sort of regular occurrence? If so, this is the first I have heard of it.

As I have stated many times, I want the EF of the Mass to be available to all Catholics who desire it. However, I reject the idea that having the Mass in Latin somehow makes it better or, easier for people to understand.

 

[ProVobis]

Parishes all over America offering bilingual Masses, Spanish Masses, and ESL classes are hardly indicative of persons not caring about others’ needs.

So you’re saying people should have separate Masses?

Okay but did Christ die separately for the Latins, the Greeks, and the Hebrews?

If you think this is some kind of strawman argument, so be it.

 

[Melchior_1]

So you’re saying people should have separate Masses?

Okay but did Christ die separately for the Latins, the Greeks, and the Hebrews?

If you think this is some kind of strawman argument, so be it.

If you don’t think this is a strawman, I suggest you look to the East.

 

[jwinch2]

So you’re saying people should have separate Masses?

No, what I suggested is that people coming to another country should expect to learn the language, unless they are simply visiting. For those who have difficulty, there are bilingual Masses, Spanish Masses, and classes to help them learn the language of their chosen home.

Okay but did Christ die separately for the Latins, the Greeks, and the Hebrews?

Of course not, which as you are well aware, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

If you think this is some kind of strawman argument, so be it.

It is a Strawman argument in that you are deliberately misrepresenting my position, and the position of others who wish to have Mass in their native language. It is also a Logical Fallacy in the form of a Personal Attack, in that you have suggested that those who want the Mass in their native language do so out of arrogance. Finally, you are using the logical fallacy of the Red Herring by deliberately introducing something which has nothing to do with the topic at hand in an attempt to paint my position and the position of others as unreasonable.

 

[JReducation]

Rubbish.

This is very important. We must always remember that our vocation is to be saints, regardless of the form of the mass, regardless of which Catholic Church one belongs to, the vocation is to sanctity. To defend a particular form or rite using language or actions that violate charity does not work. We tear down the graces that we’re trying to earn.

Our Holly Father Francis always said that the way to holiness was through perfect joy. He defined perfect joy as the ability to smile and to remain silent in the face of antagonism, condescension, rejection and abuse from others, because this is pleasing to God and man. Therefore, it complies with the first and second commandment, love of God and love of neighbor.

The Mass of the Ages is worth every mile.

We must be very careful to use this term correctly. The mass of the ages is the mass where the Gospel is proclaimed, the sacrifice is offered and God’s people are fed with the Body and Blood of the Son. That is the theological definition.

To say that the Tridentine form is the mass of the ages, is incorrect theology. It’s also incorrect ecclesiology. While it is the most commonly used form in the Latin Church, it is not the only form in the Latin Church and has never been the only form. It is not even the only rite in the Latin Church. The Latin Church has other rites as well: Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Carmelite, and Dominican. Then there are other forms. The Franciscan form gave birth to the Tridentine form. The Tridentine form is based on an old mass that was called the Mass of St. Peter. It was not used too often, maybe once or twice a year. In 1221, Francis of Assisi asked the pope for a simpler form of the mass that did not require too many books. The pope gave him an old missal with the Mass of St. Peter.

As the Franciscans grew and spread through Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and finally the Americas, they brought with them the Mass of St. Peter. Many secular and regular priests began to use it, because of its simplicity. The Council of Trent, desiring to pull together the Latin Church, which had too many forms of the mass, reformed this mass, hence the Tridentine Mass. Later, Pope Pius V would tweak it again. However, when he promulgated it, he never called it the mass of the ages. The mass of the ages is the proclamation of the Gospel, the offering of the sacrifice and the communion rite, in any form and in any rite, even when celebrated by an Orthodox priest.

What we endured in the OF from the 1970s through the 1990s .

The red is mine. Again, I caution on the use of language. The Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form are the same holy mass. To “endure” the mass in either form tells the listener that the form is defective or maybe even harmful. Now, let’s look at this from the point of view of a non-Catholic discerning his journey. The message, is loud and clear. Catholics are just as divided as Protestants. When you don’t like something, you don’t have to “endure”. You can just move down the street and disconnect from those people over there, so that you don’t have to “endure” their form of worship.

Well, that’s what the Methodist and Presbyterians did when they could no longer endure the similarity between the Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Catholicism.

We must remember that part of our call to holiness involves giving witness to the fact that there is one Church, one sacrifice, one celebration of the Eucharist at which Christ’s sacrifice re-plays itself, regardless of human flaws or virtues. We bear witness to the fact that despite human flaws, Christ keeps his promise to remain with us until the end of time. No matter what form or what rite, we do not have to endure anything. On the contrary, we have to be humbly grateful that God condescends to draw us into the mystery of the cross and the offer us his glorified body and blood to eat and drink.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

So you’re saying people should have separate Masses?

Okay but did Christ die separately for the Latins, the Greeks, and the Hebrews?

If you think this is some kind of strawman argument, so be it.

No, what I suggested is that people coming to another country should expect to learn the language, unless they are simply visiting. For those who have difficulty, there are bilingual Masses, Spanish Masses, and classes to help them learn the language of their chosen home.

Of course not, which as you are well aware, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It is a Strawman argument in that you are deliberately misrepresenting my position, and the position of others who wish to have Mass in their native language. It is also a Logical Fallacy in the form of a Personal Attack, in that you have suggested that those who want the Mass in their native language do so out of arrogance. Finally, you are using the logical fallacy of the Red Herring by deliberately introducing something which has nothing to do with the topic at hand in an attempt to paint my position and the position of others as unreasonable.

Let me ask both of you. Is it so difficult to leave well enough alone?

The subject on the table is the difficulties of introducing an EF mass, even when there are the best of intentions. The rest, Spanish masses, immigration, mass schedules, etc. are what they are.

The fact is that the Holy See does not list the USA as an English speaking country. We are always taught that the USA is a bilingual country with English and Spanish being the dominant languages because they are the most common and they have been present since the European colonization. American politics does not matter to the Holy See, unless it affects the Church.

I suggest that we leave what is not broken and look at the challenges that the author of the blog presented. Those are very real and important.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

…in that you have suggested that those who want the Mass in their native language do so out of arrogance.

If it has to be ONLY in their native language, what else would you call it? My godfather at one time would not listen to me unless I spoke in Polish. (We weren’t even in Poland, if that matters.) Wasn’t a certain amount of national pride involved there?

And, yes, when the vernacular was introduced, it wasn’t just given as an option. Virtually all Masses had to have it.

 

[JReducation]

If it has to be ONLY in their native language, what else would you call it? My godfather at one time would not listen to me unless I spoke in Polish. (We weren’t even in Poland, if that matters.) Wasn’t a certain amount of national pride involved there?

And, yes, when the vernacular was introduced, it wasn’t just given as an option. Virtually all Masses had to have it.

Be careful. Ethnic and cultural pride do not equate to arrogance. I’ll give you two examples.

1. Bl. John Paul II – while he was pope, everyone in his household spoke Polish, ate Polish food and his secretary had to read and write Polish, because he wrote in Polish and his secretary translated into Latin.
2. Pope Benedict XVI – everyone in the papal household must speak German. They eat German food and his staff has to read and write in German, because Pope Benedict does not write Latin. He probably know how, but not well enough to express profound theological thoughts. He writes in German and others translate into Latin.

These are touches of home.

The Capuchin Franciscans were founded in Italy. For the longest time, the official language was Italian. It was never Latin. Latin was used to communicate with the Holy See and other outside the order. Anyway, as the order grew each province adopted its own language. Even in the USA, the friars had to learn the language of the motherland.

Those provinces founded by Germans, spoke German. For example, Fr. Solanus Casey, who was an Irsh American, joined the Detroit Province of Capuchin Franciscans. He had to learn to speak German. They were founded by Germans and they kept the language alive, even after two or three generations. At least until the Germans were no longer the dominant group.

That’s not arrogance. That’s ethnic and national pride. That’s appropriate. Remember what I said, the Holy See does not look at the USA as an English speaking nation, but as a bilingual nation with English and Spanish as the dominant languages. Everything that is translated from Latin for Americans, must be translated into English and Spanish.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Remember what I said, the Holy See does not look at the USA as an English speaking nation, but as a bilingual nation with English and Spanish as the dominant languages. Everything that is translated from Latin for Americans, must be translated into English and Spanish.

Br JR, I wouldn’t be surprised if Spanish becomes the dominant language of the Church in the near future, especially after reading where there are close to 500 million Catholics in South America alone. I presume the percentages of those attending Mass are higher there than in the U.S. as well.

 

[jwinch2]

If it has to be ONLY in their native language, what else would you call it?

I don’t see anyone suggesting that it has to be only in one’s native language. I am fully supportive of the Mass being offered in Latin, Spanish, etc. based upon needs and demand. Our community has a large Hispanic population and thus, we have a parish in town that holds Mass predominantly in Spanish. The parish we were at previously had about 50/50 English and Spanish speakers. Thus on Sunday the schedule was one Mass in English, one Bilingual, and one Spanish. During Lent things like the Stations, etc. were almost always Bilingual. I was, and remain, fully supportive of this.

 

[jwinch2]

Let me ask both of you. Is it so difficult to leave well enough alone?

I would prefer that the conversation never went this direction, but as is usual with any thread on this topic, it did.

What I won’t do allow someone to deliberately misrepresent other person’s positions or call them arrogant for expressing a preference to hearing Mass in their own language without calling them out on it.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, I wouldn’t be surprised if Spanish becomes the dominant language of the Church in the near future, especially after reading where there are close to 500 million Catholics in South America alone. I presume the percentages of those attending Mass are higher there than in the U.S. as well.

It is in many dioceses in the South: Miami, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Laredo, Corpus Christi, Orlando, and El Paso. There are others, but I can’t recall all of them. I’m sure that I’ve missed one or two in Texas and Arizona.

When we say Latin America, we tend to group it all together, South America, Central America and the Caribbean. The truth is that they are not always compatible.

Argentina’s Italian speaking population is almost as large as its Spanish speaking population and both are Catholic. In Ecuador, where I was a missionary, 4 milion out of 12 million people are Native Americans who speak Quichua, not Spanish. Ecuador is officially a bi-lingual nation. Uruguay is 50/50, Spanish and Guarani. Brazil in about 60/40 Portuguese and many native languages. It’s the largest Catholic nation in the world. Until 2010, the largest Spanish speaking number of Catholics were:

Venezuela
Spain
Mexico
USA

The USA phenomenon is a very interesting one. There are second and up to fourth generation Hispanic Americans here. We’re talking about men and women who were born here and speak perfect English. They’re politicians, businessmen, doctors, teachers, etc. However, if there is an opportunity to hear mass in Spanish, they prefer that to English. One Hispanic American physician explained it to me like this, “Hispanic Catholics are very devout without being formal and rigid in their manner of worship.” Whether they have an EF or an OF mass, the environment is different.

I was trying to observe it more closely, because I work in in the Southeast. I was comparing our sisters. We have many sisters who are Hispanic. Many are American born. When you enter the Hispanic sister’s office at school or at the hospital, don’t expect to be out in 10 minutes. It’s going to be a visit, not just a business conversation. The sisters from the other European cultures are more formal, more business. Both groups are very professional and knowledgeable. If they are teachers, they are excellent. If they work in healthcare, they are excellent nurses and doctors, and so forth. But they’re different. It’s like ice cream. That’s not a bad thing. It’s just a different flavor. We have to accept that.

After looking at the sisters, I can understand why the people, even those whose grandparents were the immigrants, would want to attend mass with people of their ethnic background. It has more to do with the sense of family than with language. You can have a mass in English or in Latin. But if the dominant population is Hispanic, the environment is going to be more informal and the people are going to feel connected to each other as family. One of my Hispanic brothers once said that the difference was that when you attend mass with other Hispanics you feel as if you’re going to church with your family, even if you don’t know each other. When you attend a typical Anglo mass, it feels very parallel. You’re there with many people, all doing the same thing and all looking the same way, but disconnected. Notice, he does not say mass in English. He said Anglo. He’s referring to culture.

This may have a lot of influence on why certain people prefer mass with people of their culture. It’s not arrogance, but a hunger for family. The church should be a family that prays and worships together.

I’ve noticed that among Hispanics and Italians, the parish priest is part of the family. Rarely does a week go by when he does not have at least one invitation to eat with one of the parish families. I minister to some Italians and they want to feed me at every turn. When I say that I have to go eat with my community, the answer is always the same, “Bring the brothers along.” Fortunately, my house has only three of us.

I would prefer that the conversation never went this direction, but as is usual with any thread on this topic, it did.

What I won’t do allow someone to deliberately misrepresent other person’s positions or call them arrogant for expressing a preference to hearing Mass in their own language without calling them out on it.

There is no reason to deny anyone the mass in their language or with their ethnic group if there is a priest who can do it and wants to do it. If we have this talent and they are willing to do it, why not?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[jwinch2]

There is no reason to deny anyone the mass in their language or with their ethnic group if there is a priest who can do it and wants to do it. If we have this talent and they are willing to do it, why not?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I could not agree more.

 

[JReducation]

If you told me that the 10:00 mass is going to be Dominican Rite and the 11:30 mass is going to be Roman-Franciscan form, I may attend the 10:00 once to see a Dominican Rite mass. From then on, I would go to the 11:30 to be with my Franciscan brother.

I love the OPs and we’re kissing cousins. But there is a brother and a cousin. Which one do you prefer? It’s that simple. Some of your cousins may be nicer to you than your brother.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Denise1957]

First of all, people who have irrational fears suffer. I would never knowingly allow someone to suffer, if I can do something to alleviate the suffering.

Second, people with irrational fears tend to be reactive rather than pro-active. Not only do they suffer, but they inflict suffering on others as a means of protecting themselves. Now we have a situation in which pain is deflected and affects others.

Third, part of our vocation to holiness is to console the afflicted. Fear is definitely an affliction and one that can spread.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I would agree that those who have irrational fears suffer. And indeed it is a good idea to alleviate suffering. But how can we be sure that those who wish to alleviate the suffering of others are not suffering themselves from fears? Is it really possible to help others, if we come from a place of fear in ourselves? Sometimes fear is masked…it isn’t always obvious.

Regarding the idea of being pro-active. It’s a little difficult to be pro-active when one has to continually defend his or her position. When those who are attached to the EF are continually “corrected,” even in a charitable manner, this sets up a defensive mindset which can seem to be fear, but really its more of defense-mode. I admire those who can bear the continual criticisms and corrections by those who, though well-intentioned, can’t bear to see the EF more widely available. I think that there are many who fear the EF, and all that it represents, which can lead to them being hyper-critical, even in a charitable and seemingly corrective manner. Just as there are those who fear the OF, often based on the extremes of liturgical abuse which have happened, which are not the norm.

If we are to truly be a help to others, don’t you think that we also have to confront and admit to our own fears?

 

[JReducation]

I would agree that those who have irrational fears suffer. And indeed it is a good idea to alleviate suffering. But how can we be sure that those who wish to alleviate the suffering of others are not suffering themselves from fears? Is it really possible to help others, if we come from a place of fear in ourselves? Sometimes fear is masked…it isn’t always obvious.

Henri Nouwen wrote a wonderful book, many years ago. If you can get your hands on it, please do. The Wounded Healer. He wrote it for those of us who do spiritual direction and care of souls. The point is that we are all wounded, but even those who are wounded can heal others because nothing is impossible for God.

Regarding the idea of being pro-active. It’s a little difficult to be pro-active when one has to continually defend his or her position. When those who are attached to the EF are continually “corrected,” even in a charitable manner, this sets up a defensive mindset which can seem to be fear, but really its more of defense-mode.

I call it “the bite response”. It’s like the dog who bites. Dogs would rather not bite. It’s a last resort when they feel threatened. Human beings are no different. We have a natural instinct to attack as a mode of self-defense. It requires a great deal of self-control and inner silence to subdue this instinct.

I admire those who can bear the continual criticisms and corrections by those who, though well-intentioned, can’t bear to see the EF more widely available.

I wouldn’t say “can’t bear to see the EF more widely available”. First, most Catholics don’t even know that it’s available. Most of those who know, are not interested in it or are curious and attend a few times. After they realize that they have to get up earlier and travel across town, they go back to their home parish. There are many reasons for not attending the EF. I think the few that express vocal opposition to the EF are like the dog that I describe above.

This is an example where I do believe that some Traditionalists did a great deal of harm to other Trads. Many came out questioning the validity of the OF, using labels such as Novus Ordo parishes, or Post-Conciliar Church as if there were two churches. Others came out questioning the validity of the sacraments, including ordination. This kind of stuff rattled some people who are naturally insecure. I heard it all and I just blew it off as ranting, just as I blow off Catholics for Choice and Call to Action. Other people are rattled by Catholics for Choice and Call to Action.

It’s not that I don’t think that what they say is serious. It is very serious. But hardliners are not worth taking seriously. Most hardliners, to the left or the right, eventually end up in heresy of some kind. Rather than bite them, I just back away as I would, if there were a danger in front of me. I don’t engage, nor do I turn my back on it.

I think that there are many who fear the EF, and all that it represents,

This is a problem. The EF represents nothing more and nothing less than the OF. The Latin Rite represents nothing more and nothing less than the Maronite Rite and so forth. When we stop making this comments, we minimize the reactions.

Just as there are those who fear the OF, often based on the extremes of liturgical abuse which have happened, which are not the norm.

You got this spot on. People tend to generalize.

If we are to truly be a help to others, don’t you think that we also have to confront and admit to our own fears?

Yes, but we have to do it with help. A spiritual director who is trained in spiritual direction is very helpful. Remember, a confessor is not necessarily a trained spiritual director. Don’t forget either, that spiritual direction is like teaching. Some people never took a course in education, but they are naturals at it. A good spiritual director is just a good teacher.

Also, get your hands on Nouwen’s book. It’s very short and a good read.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[severus68]

This is very important. We must always remember that our vocation is to be saints, regardless of the form of the mass, regardless of which Catholic Church one belongs to, the vocation is to sanctity. To defend a particular form or rite using language or actions that violate charity does not work. We tear down the graces that we’re trying to earn.

Our Holly Father Francis always said that the way to holiness was through perfect joy. He defined perfect joy as the ability to smile and to remain silent in the face of antagonism, condescension, rejection and abuse from others, because this is pleasing to God and man. Therefore, it complies with the first and second commandment, love of God and love of neighbor.

We must be very careful to use this term correctly. The mass of the ages is the mass where the Gospel is proclaimed, the sacrifice is offered and God’s people are fed with the Body and Blood of the Son. That is the theological definition.

To say that the Tridentine form is the mass of the ages, is incorrect theology. It’s also incorrect ecclesiology. While it is the most commonly used form in the Latin Church, it is not the only form in the Latin Church and has never been the only form. It is not even the only rite in the Latin Church. The Latin Church has other rites as well: Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Carmelite, and Dominican. Then there are other forms. The Franciscan form gave birth to the Tridentine form. The Tridentine form is based on an old mass that was called the Mass of St. Peter. It was not used too often, maybe once or twice a year. In 1221, Francis of Assisi asked the pope for a simpler form of the mass that did not require too many books. The pope gave him an old missal with the Mass of St. Peter.

As the Franciscans grew and spread through Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and finally the Americas, they brought with them the Mass of St. Peter. Many secular and regular priests began to use it, because of its simplicity. The Council of Trent, desiring to pull together the Latin Church, which had too many forms of the mass, reformed this mass, hence the Tridentine Mass. Later, Pope Pius V would tweak it again. However, when he promulgated it, he never called it the mass of the ages. The mass of the ages is the proclamation of the Gospel, the offering of the sacrifice and the communion rite, in any form and in any rite, even when celebrated by an Orthodox priest.

The red is mine. Again, I caution on the use of language. The Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form are the same holy mass. To “endure” the mass in either form tells the listener that the form is defective or maybe even harmful. Now, let’s look at this from the point of view of a non-Catholic discerning his journey. The message, is loud and clear. Catholics are just as divided as Protestants. When you don’t like something, you don’t have to “endure”. You can just move down the street and disconnect from those people over there, so that you don’t have to “endure” their form of worship.

Well, that’s what the Methodist and Presbyterians did when they could no longer endure the similarity between the Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Catholicism.

We must remember that part of our call to holiness involves giving witness to the fact that there is one Church, one sacrifice, one celebration of the Eucharist at which Christ’s sacrifice re-plays itself, regardless of human flaws or virtues. We bear witness to the fact that despite human flaws, Christ keeps his promise to remain with us until the end of time. No matter what form or what rite, we do not have to endure anything. On the contrary, we have to be humbly grateful that God condescends to draw us into the mystery of the cross and the offer us his glorified body and blood to eat and drink.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Well put Brother.