The Latin Mass: Why You Can't Have It

[manwithblackhat]

I was not speaking to your article. I was simply responding to the comments on your posts.

No, you were not simply replying to my posts. You were making assertions about what I was implying in the article, assertions which were baseless. I am repeating what I said earlier, that I am confining myself to the substance of the article. I have nothing more to add regarding my comments in this forum.

 

[manwithblackhat]

If you scroll back to one of my earlier posts, I truly liked your article. I commented especially on your observation about attitudes. I thought that was a point well made and a necessary one too.

By the way, I did send a link to several friends.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Duly noted. I regret that I am unable to scroll back through dozens of posts, over several pages, to remember every little thing someone may have said. It is one of the limitations of this venue that the most reliable responses come from the most recent comments.

Thank you for reading it, and for spreading it around.

DLA

 

[DavidinStLouis]

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.

What’s going in Mass is a mystery. You’re witnessing a priest (a miracle in himself) confect bread and wine into the body and blood of Our Lord. It’s not something you’re meant to understand. This is why the Mass being in Latin was, to my mind, a feature, not a bug – it emphasized more effectively the alienness and otherworldliness of what was going on. Likewise the posture and vestment and respect paid to the priest during the Mass emphasized the ontological otherworldliness of the priest. Likewise the fact that the priest alone could touch the Eucharist, and only the priest and deacon could touch the vessels that carried the Eucharist (the subdeacon was required to hold the paten using the humeral veil so that it did not come into contact with him) emphasized the otherworldliness and centrality of the Eucharist. The loss of things, and the loss of the sacral sense that they entailed, has not been a good thing.

Here, here! Well said and reasoned.

 

[jwinch2]

I actually disagree.

Well before Vatican II, it was expected that Catholics would learn the Roman Missal and understand the Mass. They were to learn, and understand, the prayers and responses in Latin. Whether this happened or not, is a completely different story, but it was the expectation.

The words “Full and Active Participation” in reference to the Mass actually were in use before Vatican II as well. Pope Pius XII spoke of it in his encyclical Mediator Dei where he also stated his approval of dialogue Masses.

For probably the thousandth time, let me state my unequivocal support for Catholics who wish to have access to the EF of the Mass. I am of the opinion that those Catholics today who seek that out are the same ones who actually will read the Missal, learn enough Latin to get by, etc. I do happen to think however, that those things would not take place at all for the majority of Catholics, even ones who take their faith seriously.

In addition, as I have already stated, I have lost count of the number of times here on CAF I have hard traditionalist Catholics speak of how the Mass itself is supposed to provide catechesis and used that as a vehicle for bashing the OF of the Mass, particularly under the previous translation for the inaccuracy of its prayers and lack of richness in the text, etc. If the Mass is supposed to be an aspect of catechesis as is often Claimed, then there must be a level of understanding which goes a long with it. If it is not supposed to be understood, then people need to stop making the argument that Mass is also supposed to provide an education in the Faith.

I happen to believe that yes, Mass is supposed to be catechetical in nature. As such, I believe that there is a level of comprehension which needs to exist in order for that to take place. Those Catholics who are inclined to learn the EF of the Mass well enough for that to take place, and perhaps to educate their children to do this as well have my complete support. Again, I consider that to be an unrealistic expectation for the vast majority of Catholics.

Peace David,

 

[ProVobis]

The words “Full and Active Participation” in reference to the Mass actually were in use before Vatican II as well. Pope Pius XII spoke of it in his encyclical Mediator Dei where he also stated his approval of dialogue Masses.

The Latin was plena et actuosa participatio. IMO, the Latin would have been closer to “actio” or “agens” if the concept of movement was intended.

In any case, “actuosa” shouldn’t be confused with external activity, according to the Pope.

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/06/the-holy-father-on-active-participation-and-worth-reverent-liturgical-worship/

 

[jeannetherese]

I actually disagree.

Well before Vatican II, it was expected that Catholics would learn the Roman Missal and understand the Mass. They were to learn, and understand, the prayers and responses in Latin. Whether this happened or not, is a completely different story, but it was the expectation.

. I am of the opinion that those Catholics today who seek that out are the same ones who actually will read the Missal, learn enough Latin to get by, etc. I do happen to think however, that those things would not take place at all for the majority of Catholics, even ones who take their faith seriously.

Peace David,

Hello Jason,
Do you have a sense of why this has not happened in the past and why it might not happen in the future?
I’m looking for ideas about how to overcome this challenge (without completely derailing our thread)

Have you any insights to share in relation to the catechesis of the Latin masses and that of the vernacular masses?
My thanks in advance for your insights. May God bless us all!

 

[jwinch2]

The Latin was plena et actuosa participatio. IMO, the Latin would have been closer to “actio” or “agens” if the concept of movement was intended.

In any case, “actuosa” shouldn’t be confused with external activity, according to the Pope.

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/06/the-holy-father-on-active-participation-and-worth-reverent-liturgical-worship/

I read that differently.

The red comments are not the Pope’s, as you are certainly aware. Fr. Z is an interesting blogger and does some good things, but he obviously has a preference and bias for the EF of the Mass. I am not saying that is wrong, just that his interpretation of what the Holy Father said will be colored by that worldview. For example, notice that Fr. Z ties the statement to Summorum Pontificum, but the Pope does not mention it at all.

From what I see, the statement by the Holy Father does not suggest that external aspects of full and active participation are not important, merely that they are not the desired end. When done properly, the external activity should lead us to an internal reality of participation.

The renewal of external forms, desired by the Council Fathers, was intended to make it easier to enter into the inner depth of the mystery.

I see his statement as lamenting the fact that this does not happen in far too many cases.

Yet not infrequently, the revision of liturgical forms has remained at an external level, and “active participation” has been confused with external activity.

So, if I am understanding the Pope properly, he is advocating for doing a better job at making the link between the external and internal in the Mass.

If I am correct, then I agree completely with the Holy Father.

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

Hello Jason,
Do you have a sense of why this has not happened in the past and why it might not happen in the future?
I’m looking for ideas about how to overcome this challenge (without completely derailing our thread)

Have you any insights to share in relation to the catechesis of the Latin masses and that of the vernacular masses?
My thanks in advance for your insights. May God bless us all!

I think that would make for an interesting topic in another thread. Personally, I have limited exposure to the EF of the Mass in that I have gone a few times, but find more spiritual fulfillment personally in a reverently celebrated OF Mass at this time in my life. I think we can lament the state of catechesis in general and we would not be wrong to do so. How much of that is the Church’s fault versus parents not doing their own duty in passing on the faith, is a topic for another thread as well.

If you decide to start a thread on teaching people to understand and participate fully in the Mass, please leave a link. I would be interested in the topic.

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

Not to mention:
Sacrosanctum Concilium:

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

 

[MarMax]

Not to mention:

My Missal from Angelus Press has tons of explanations on everything and what it symbolizes in addition to the English translation.

Here’s what I don’t understand: if the NO can be translated into umpteen different languages with approval, I see no reason that the TLM can’t be as well. All the publishers would have to do then is throw X language into the section of its place and voilà. Same-same with the NO’s language of celebration.

What would this accomplish? Well, simply put, the Priest would then be praying in Latin EVERYWHERE in the world. Business trip to Thailand? Introibo ad altare Dei… Family vacation to France? Introibo ad altare Dei… Refugee from China coming to America? Introibo ad altare Dei…

As opposed to Thai (what on earth is this man saying? I am at a Catholic Church right?), French (Sounds romantic, Fr., but I have no idea what you’re saying…), and now the sign of Peace (me no unnastan Engrish!).

The Church, anywhere one goes, should feel and be like home. It should be, I dunno, universal. One shouldn’t feel like a stranger in a strange land, when in Mass.

This could be done in the NO, sure. But it won’t be. Instead, businessmen will continue to sit there dumbfounded; families will continue to be assaulted by a romance language without having the ability to bring their own trusty Missals and follow along, and the poor refugee from China will feel the stress of not knowing the language even in a setting which should be absolutely tranquil.

Even more so, language, as is often the case, separates us exactly like the Tower of Babel. The Vietnamese have the Vietnamese Mass. The Haitians have the Haitian Mass in Creole. The Spanish have the Spanish Mass. Us mutt Americans have the English Mass. Do we have any way to empathize with the Vietnamese, Haitians, or various Hispanics? Nope.

Babel accomplished and division apparent. This has nothing to do with the form of the Mass in reality, but the ripping away of the official language of the Church in the Liturgy as commonly celebrated.

 

[jwinch2]

My Missal from Angelus Press has tons of explanations on everything and what it symbolizes in addition to the English translation.

Here’s what I don’t understand: if the NO can be translated into umpteen different languages with approval, I see no reason that the TLM can’t be as well. All the publishers would have to do then is throw X language into the section of its place and voilà. Same-same with the NO’s language of celebration.

What would this accomplish? Well, simply put, the Priest would then be praying in Latin EVERYWHERE in the world. Business trip to Thailand? Introibo ad altare Dei… Family vacation to France? Introibo ad altare Dei… Refugee from China coming to America? Introibo ad altare Dei…

As opposed to Thai (what on earth is this man saying? I am at a Catholic Church right?), French (Sounds romantic, Fr., but I have no idea what you’re saying…), and now the sign of Peace (me no unnastan Engrish!).

The Church, anywhere one goes, should feel and be like home. It should be, I dunno, universal. One shouldn’t feel like a stranger in a strange land, when in Mass.

This could be done in the NO, sure. But it won’t be. Instead, businessmen will continue to sit there dumbfounded; families will continue to be assaulted by a romance language without having the ability to bring their own trusty Missals and follow along, and the poor refugee from China will feel the stress of not knowing the language even in a setting which should be absolutely tranquil.

Even more so, language, as is often the case, separates us exactly like the Tower of Babel. The Vietnamese have the Vietnamese Mass. The Haitians have the Haitian Mass in Creole. The Spanish have the Spanish Mass. Us mutt Americans have the English Mass. Do we have any way to empathize with the Vietnamese, Haitians, or various Hispanics? Nope.

Babel accomplished and division apparent. This has nothing to do with the form of the Mass in reality, but the ripping away of the official language of the Church in the Liturgy as commonly celebrated.

Many people, myself included among them, do not feel like I am participating in an internal fashion in the Mass, when I have my head buried in a Missal because I don’t understand the language being spoke. There are many, including myself, who don’t see the point for everyone to sit in a Mass they don’t understand, just so some businessmen can travel and hear a Mass they don’t understand in the same language which they didn’t understand when they were at home. Frankly, I do not see how the faithful praying the Rosary instead of paying attention to Mass, or trying to follow along in a Missal, meets the standard of enabling one to “understand with ease” or to lead one from the external activity to the “inner depth of the mystery”.

I support your decision, as you put it on your signature, to only go to the TLM. That is up to you and I have no problem with it. In fact, I pray that the EF of the Mass will always be there for those who are fulfilled spiritually by it.

 

[JReducation]

My Missal from Angelus Press has tons of explanations on everything and what it symbolizes in addition to the English translation.

Here’s what I don’t understand: if the NO can be translated into umpteen different languages with approval, I see no reason that the TLM can’t be as well. All the publishers would have to do then is throw X language into the section of its place and voilà. Same-same with the NO’s language of celebration.

What would this accomplish? Well, simply put, the Priest would then be praying in Latin EVERYWHERE in the world. Business trip to Thailand? Introibo ad altare Dei… Family vacation to France? Introibo ad altare Dei… Refugee from China coming to America? Introibo ad altare Dei…

As opposed to Thai (what on earth is this man saying? I am at a Catholic Church right?), French (Sounds romantic, Fr., but I have no idea what you’re saying…), and now the sign of Peace (me no unnastan Engrish!).

The Church, anywhere one goes, should feel and be like home. It should be, I dunno, universal. One shouldn’t feel like a stranger in a strange land, when in Mass.

This could be done in the NO, sure. But it won’t be. Instead, businessmen will continue to sit there dumbfounded; families will continue to be assaulted by a romance language without having the ability to bring their own trusty Missals and follow along, and the poor refugee from China will feel the stress of not knowing the language even in a setting which should be absolutely tranquil.

Even more so, language, as is often the case, separates us exactly like the Tower of Babel. The Vietnamese have the Vietnamese Mass. The Haitians have the Haitian Mass in Creole. The Spanish have the Spanish Mass. Us mutt Americans have the English Mass. Do we have any way to empathize with the Vietnamese, Haitians, or various Hispanics? Nope.

Babel accomplished and division apparent. This has nothing to do with the form of the Mass in reality, but the ripping away of the official language of the Church in the Liturgy as commonly celebrated.

I’m going to disagree and offer you one simple example. In 2009, the Franciscans celebrated our 800th birthday. Every male branch was asked to send a delegation to Assisi for the Chapter of Mats. It was a general chapter of all Franciscan men from the 112 branches of the order. There were 1400 of us, speaking 48 languages. The mass was celebrated in Italian, because Assisi was the host city and Spanish, because the number of Spanish speaking friars was the highest. The homily was in Italian and Spanish, much like that of the Pope when he celebrates a mass for an international congregation, he recaps in a second or third language.

None of the brothers from the other 46 languages felt lost during the mass. We knew exactly where we were and the actual prayers and responses. I’m fortunate enough to speak Italian and Spanish fluently. However, I sat between a friar from Norway and another from Kenya. Neither spoke a word of Italian or Spanish. I could hear them respond to the prayers of the mass in their own language. They were subvocalizing.

I don’t speak Vietnamese. However, when I attended mass at the local Vietnamese Catholic Church, I never felt lost. The only thing that I didn’t understand were the readings and the homily. The readings I followed along in the Missalette. The homily, I figured it couldn’t be too far from the theme of the readings. The Gospel was from John 6.

I think that people who go to mass frequently, visually recognize where they are in the mass and know the prayers and responses.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Many people, myself included among them, do not feel like I am participating in an internal fashion in the Mass, when I have my head buried in a Missal because I don’t understand the language being spoke. There are many, including myself, who don’t see the point for everyone to sit in a Mass they don’t understand, just so some businessmen can travel and hear a Mass they don’t understand in the same language which they didn’t understand when they were at home. Frankly, I do not see how the faithful praying the Rosary instead of paying attention to Mass, or trying to follow along in a Missal, meets the standard of enabling one to “understand with ease” or to lead one from the external activity to the “inner depth of the mystery”.

I support your decision, as you put it on your signature, to only go to the TLM. That is up to you and I have no problem with it. In fact, I pray that the EF of the Mass will always be there for those who are fulfilled spiritually by it.

The red is mine. That’s totally inappropriate and unacceptable in any Catholic Church in the East or West, in the OF and EF. The rosary is not a liturgical prayer. It’s not a prayer for public devotion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[jwinch2]

The red is mine. That’s totally inappropriate and unacceptable in any Catholic Church in the East or West, in the OF and EF. The rosary is not a liturgical prayer. It’s not a prayer for public devotion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I agree completely. Yet, by all accounts I have heard and read of, it was a common occurrence before Vatican II.

Peace,

 

[ProVobis]

The homily, I figured it couldn’t be too far from the theme of the readings.

Br. JR, I just go with the tone. Hopefully, it’s soothing and not political. Proper names are usually distinguishable in any language.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, I just go with the tone. Hopefully, it’s soothing and not political. Proper names are usually distinguishable in any language.

Political is a touchy area, because some people feel that the Church should never say anything about politics, which is totally false. Most Catholics are not well read on current Catholic news. I was mentioning to some people that the Holy Father deliberately changed the schedule for the Ad Limina visits for the American bishops to address the HHR Mandate with them. I know this for a fact, because my bishop was called to report to Rome for his Ad Limina visit and given three days notice. His visit was not for a few months. We had the Vicar General do Confirmations.

The mandate that the Holy Father gave to the American bishops was to rouse the American Catholics on this issue and they were to do it from the pulpit. This was not optional. He was as serious as a heart attack.

Very often, people get upset when Father speaks about political affairs from the pulpit and they don’t know that Father is following orders. There are several issues on which the Holy Father is very clear: the HHS Mandate, abortion, religious freedom, the environment, global economy, ecumenism, terrorism, and liturgical reform. When we hear about these things from the pulpit, it’s because it has come to us from the Vatican. Usually, it’s directly from him to the bishops of the different countries, depending on what he sees as their number one problem. Right now, his number one concern for the USA is the upcoming elections.

While the Holy Father realizes that there is no such thing as the ideal political party, he follows the moral law. You choose the greater good, even if it’s not all the good that is needed. In the case of the USA, the greater good is a president and congress that are going to make abortion more restrictive. It’s not the ideal. The ideal is no abortion at all. But less abortions is better than unregulated access to abortion.

As far as separation of Church and State, the Church’s decree on religious freedom is very clear. The state is not the secular arm of the Church. The State is subordinate to the Church in moral matters. The Church has a voice and a place in the secular State, but the State has no place in the Church.

I always explain it this way. God could walk through the Garden of Eden, because he owned it. Man could walk through heaven by invitation only. The Church’s divine authority gives it the right to speak to politics and to speak about politics, defining what is right and wrong in the political sphere. The political has no right to define what is right or wrong in the divine sphere.

In the USA we have become Jeffersonian. It was Jefferson who coined the expression, “separation of Church and state.” It was also Jefferson who wrote that no one would be more pleased to see the fall of Christianity and it’s god than he would. He even wrote his own version of the Gospel, calling the Christian Gospel a composition by charlatans and thieves.

We have to be very careful where we get our inspiration. Jefferson may have been good for the American Revolution, but he was diabolical for the nation. He planted in the American mind a subconscious aversion to the voice of the Church. He did it deliberately and bragged about it to his friends. Just Google or read anything on him and his writings. He’s a fascinating and totally deviant human being. Much of our way of thinking about the Church and politics comes from his writings and his influence.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[MarMax]

I’m going to disagree and offer you one simple example. In 2009, the Franciscans celebrated our 800th birthday. Every male branch was asked to send a delegation to Assisi for the Chapter of Mats. It was a general chapter of all Franciscan men from the 112 branches of the order. There were 1400 of us, speaking 48 languages. The mass was celebrated in Italian, because Assisi was the host city and Spanish, because the number of Spanish speaking friars was the highest. The homily was in Italian and Spanish, much like that of the Pope when he celebrates a mass for an international congregation, he recaps in a second or third language.

None of the brothers from the other 46 languages felt lost during the mass. We knew exactly where we were and the actual prayers and responses. I’m fortunate enough to speak Italian and Spanish fluently. However, I sat between a friar from Norway and another from Kenya. Neither spoke a word of Italian or Spanish. I could hear them respond to the prayers of the mass in their own language. They were subvocalizing.

I don’t speak Vietnamese. However, when I attended mass at the local Vietnamese Catholic Church, I never felt lost. The only thing that I didn’t understand were the readings and the homily. The readings I followed along in the Missalette. The homily, I figured it couldn’t be too far from the theme of the readings. The Gospel was from John 6.

I think that people who go to mass frequently, visually recognize where they are in the mass and know the prayers and responses.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother, I respect you greatly and have followed your posts for a while before registering. That being said, Friars are not the laity and have much more experience to draw from in these random situations. You admit that the readings and homily were lost on you in a Vietnamese Mass (and apparently on the Norwegian and Kenyan)-- does this not render ineffective the argument of Jwinch2, in some sense? Doesn’t this render a material lack of participation in that day’s Propers? I think it does.

I started in the NO, and it honestly reminded me of Protestant services that way I saw them celebrated. Nothing about it spoke to me, due to the feel-good banality and largely touchy-feely weirdness which went on. I have watched videos of the Holy Father on youtube celebrating the NO in Latin, ad orientem and it was fine. Not my cup of tea though. I can’t afford tickets to Rome every Sunday, or whenever he does this. Upon seeing the TLM for the first time, it all clicked.

Again, there is a separation in the community due to language. There is no reason we can’t have a veritable “people of the world” every Sunday in Mass. Instead, it’s a sea of dark faces during the Creole Mass, lighter faces during the Vietnamese Mass, a smattering of brown shades during the Spanish Mass, and a rare earth-tone rainbow in English Mass. It HURTS me. I WANT to see everyone, for how could I not wish to be with my brothers and sisters in Christ? I see that at the TLM. I see the Catholic faith. I see reverence, quiet from the cacophony of the world, an escape… I dislike it when Mass is over. I couldn’t wait for the NO to be over. It offered no reverence, quiet, or escape. Guitar this, hand-holding that (grrr… quit squeezing!), etc. But that isn’t particularly the fault of the form rather than the banal, on-the-spot production which has seeped its way into the form.

So I sought out this mythical Latin Mass… ye olde Tridentine, of yesteryear and cobweb accusations. And I found the Mass my heretical ancestors left. I found the Mass which St. Padre Pio celebrated. I found the Mass which John Sobieski saw before and after riding off to defeat the murderous Turks. I saw the Mass which the great Franciscan missionaries of the American southwest brought to the people. I saw the Mass Saint Maximilian Kolbe must have undoubtedly yearned for when in Auschwitz. I saw THE Mass. And if I go to anywhere this Mass is celebrated, I will know EXACTLY what is being read because it is in Latin and I have an app for that (err, a Missal). Those who assist at the NO could have this too, if they’d just step away from the division of Language. Latin ain’t exactly rocket science. This southern boy picked it up in no time through repetition. I don’t even pray in English once I learn the prayer in Latin. English is banal and grates the ears. It is too familiar. My ancestors prayed Pater Noster… Ave Maria… Gloria Patri… and though they likely didn’t speak Latin fluently, they knew what the prayers meant. Just like the children at the Traditional parishes know their prayers in Latin and their native tongue.

It’s high time Catholics reunite and cast off the division of language in the Liturgy, and it’s high time the Bishops and priests quit thinking of the laity as idiots who can’t pick up a little Latin. After all, it is what the Holy Father wants. Yet, I never had the resources to make good on this until I found the TLM. It’s not the fault or accolade of the form, it’s the fault of Catholics who have lazy tongues and lazier brains.

*Dominus vobiscum. *

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I respect you greatly and have followed your posts for a while before registering. That being said, Friars are not the laity and have much more experience to draw from in these random situations.

There is really not much difference in this regard. We’re familiar with the parts of the mass and we know the words for each part.

You admit that the readings and homily were lost on you in a Vietnamese Mass (and apparently on the Norwegian and Kenyan)-- does this not render ineffective the argument of Jwinch2, in some sense? Doesn’t this render a material lack of participation in that day’s Propers? I think it does.

Not really. The readings we follow in our own language. The homily, is unfortunately out of the realm of possibility, since you can’t print it in a missalette. The homily is always going to be in the local language.

I started in the NO, and it honestly reminded me of Protestant services that way I saw them celebrated.

Were you a Protestant at one time? That seems to be the case with many converts. I believe it has to do with the fact that most converts don’t know that the form of worship in many Protestant communities is originally Catholic. Luther was a monk. The mass of the Augustinians has always been very much like the OF of today, so has the mass of the Benedictines, Cistercians and Servites.

I’m a convert from Judaism. When I was a kid, I was introduced to the mass by the Capuchin Franciscans. I was first introduced to the Roman-Franciscan form as celebrated from the Seraphic Missal. After Vatican II, I was exposed to the OF. When I saw the OF, I felt that I actually understood it, because everything about it is very Jewish, not Protestant.

Nothing about it spoke to me, due to the feel-good banality and largely touchy-feely weirdness which went on. I have watched videos of the Holy Father on youtube celebrating the NO in Latin, ad orientem and it was fine. Not my cup of tea though.

I find the Holy Father’s celebration of the OF absolutely stunning in its austerity and solemnity.

So I sought out this mythical Latin Mass… ye olde Tridentine, of yesteryear and cobweb accusations. And I found the Mass my heretical ancestors left. I found the Mass which St. Padre Pio celebrated. I found the Mass which John Sobieski saw before and after riding off to defeat the murderous Turks. I saw the Mass which the great Franciscan missionaries of the American southwest brought to the people. I saw the Mass Saint Maximilian Kolbe must have undoubtedly yearned for when in Auschwitz.

The red is mine.

Acutally, no you did not. You saw the Tridentine form of the mass. The Franciscans have never celebrated the Tridentine form. We have always been exempt from it. Individual friar-priests have celebrated it, because the superiors could grant permission to do so. What St. Pio, St. Maximilian and the other Franciscans celebrated, all the way back to St. Francis’ day is what was called the Mass of St. Peter, which the Franciscans tweaked and it later became known as the Seraphic mass. The Tridentine form came out of the Seraphic mass when the Council of Trent and later St. Pius V, made the Franciscan form the universal form for most of the Latin Church, with some additions. He added Gregorian chant, the prayers at the foot of the altar, the last Gospel of John and later the prayer to St. Michael was added. Franciscans never had any of this.

Our mass was dialogue between the friar-priest and the congregation. There was never Gregorian Chant, because St. Clare banned it. We sang Laudas, which are hymns in the language of the people, mostly German, because the German composers were very busy. Such hymns as Silent Night, Praise to the Lord, Humbly we Adore Thee and others were not originally in Latin. These are called Laudas or songs of praise. Then there were other hymns sung in Latin, because they were written in Latin, but are not Gregorian, such as Adeste Fidelis, Pange Lingua, Tatum Ergo, etc.

By the time that St. Pio died, the hybrid mass was being celebrated in Capuchin Friaries. Pope Paul VI had banned the Seraphic Missal. We could no longer celebrate the old Roman-Franciscan mass. Today we have a new Roman-Franciscan mass.

 

[JReducation]

It’s high time Catholics reunite and cast off the division of language in the Liturgy, and it’s high time the Bishops and priests quit thinking of the laity as idiots who can’t pick up a little Latin. After all, it is what the Holy Father wants.

The red is mine.

Actually, it’s not. He was asked this question and his answer was negative. He wants Latin to be retained, because it is part of the Church’s patrimony. He wants Latin to have a place of honor, meaning that it should never be dismissed as being archaic and that it should be used when the presider feels that it’s appropriate to do so. But he also wants to perpetuate the mass in the language of the people and has given permission for translations into more language. Originally, the translations were only into the European languages. Now they are into the indigenous languages of Africa, Asia, Oceania and South America. Bl. John Paul did not grant this permission. It was Pope Benedict who opened this door.

There are several books in which he is being interviewed and this comes up in one of them, I’m not sure if it was Light of the World. This question came up with COTT. He states that he has been misunderstood. It has never been his intent to impose either on the Latin Church. It has always been his intent to show that they are part of the Latin tradition an that they can and should be available along with the other changes. He makes this point very clear in trying to rectify how people have misunderstood him.

I have to say something here in defense of the faithful. Pope Benedict is not the best communicator in the world. He is one of the best scholars of the 20th and 21st century. But he often does things and assumes that he is being understood only to have to back-pedal and explain. We saw this happen a Regansberg when he made the reference to something some ancient emperor said about Islam. He was quoting, but forgot that among those listening to him were people who were not historians and needed a little more context. It also happened to him when he made the comment about condoms, AIDS and male prostitutes. The only ones who understood him were those who are theologians, particularly moral theologians. The meaning went right over the heads of many people. It happened to him with the Williamson affair. He said that had he known about it, he would not have lifted his excommunication. This triggered the anger of many Trads, because they felt that anti-Semitism has nothing to do with doctrine or morals. The Holy Father failed to explain that Bishop Williamson’s comments had the potential to put in danger the lives of many Christians in the Middle East and that it conflicted with His personal apostolate, the dialogue with Muslims and Jews, which he has personally attended to for over 25 years.

When people say, “This is what the Holy Father wants,” I’m very careful to check exactly what he said and if he said anything more about it in another context. I love him very much, because I have met him many times as Cardinal Ratzinger. He is very holy, intelligent, kind, and humble. He usually speaks in concepts rather than details. One has to pay attention to this. He’s a fascinating man to listen to. I could listen to him teach theology all day long and not get tired. When he does certain things or makes certain comments, he does not speak to the whole of humanity. It’s more for the theologian. He doesn’t mean to do that. It’s just who he is. Fortunately, he is humble and will go back and clarify when questioned.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Church_defender]

Let’s be honest here. A person understands best in their native toungue, it’s pretty difficult to get away from that, and to try to do so is an exercise in the absurd, although I’m sure we can go on and on parsing the word understanding (have a good time).

I have to have 7 classes to be confirmed(Due to my devotion, and the fact that I can answer all questions to be confirmed in as little as a week), and I fully understand the mass.I blew through the Baltimore Catechism #3 in a week, and I could answer everything in there now. I tried a Novus Ordo mass, I personally didn’t like it at all. Don’t act like the Church won’t teach you Latin, or that we are idiots and Novus Ordo people are “smarter”. Most Novus Ordo people I know can’t even come close to my knowledge of the Church, and I’m just 4 months on my trip into the Church for life. Most people at my Church fully know everything about the Church. One of my friends was told by a Novus Ordo priest he could receive the eucharist in the state of mortal sin, after 1 week in the church I already had known this was a complete and utter lie.

Preferring the Latin, especially in an archane setting smacks of being drawn to exclusive, esoteric rituals that only a few enlightend souls are aware of. Maybe it enables the participants to feel a wee bit more special than they ordinarily do, just like other gnostic & occultists!

This is the reason I signed up. I lurked quite a bit, but I seen this, and I have to say you’re so misguided! WE ARE NOT GNOSTIC OR OCCULTISTS! How can you say that about the people who follow the tradition of the Catholic faith? Your statement is sickening!

An excellent article, and I recommend it for other converts to Catholicism who have become confused or upset reading some of the posts and threads on CAF about the Latin Mass.

The information in the article certainly matches what I have seen in our city. Our Latin Mass parish is right smack in the middle of the city conveniently-located for everyone in the city of 150,000. There are plenty of smaller towns within a half-hour drive of the parish.

The parish has the support of the Bishop.

The Latin Mass been offered there daily and several times on Sunday since the 1990s.

About four hundred people attend the parish. That’s all.

Our very contemporary parish has 7000 members, and we offer nine Masses on Sundays (including two Saturday evening Masses). These are very well attended.

My Latin parish has over 500 people come on Sunday, we only have two masses, and our parish only has seating for about 250(270 if you count the cry room). Almost everyone attends every sunday, about 25 come on daily masses(I go on Thursdays, once I start driving I will go everyday). We only offer two masses on Sunday. I’d say we are doing very good for how many we can fit into our parish, not a single pew is empty on Sunday during both low and high. If you are to go by numbers, in the USA and Canada, the Proddies have us beat.

Other parishes are also fairly full. Yes, there are parishes that are low in attendance, but much of this is economic–our city has a very high unemployment rate compared to the National rate, and a lot of people have just given up on church, or they’re working all the time at low-pay jobs and church has become a low priority for them. That’s tragic, IMO.

There is also a lot of attrition to the Willowcreek church plant, our local megachurch, which attracts almost a tenth of the population of the city to their Saturday evening and Sunday morning worship services–by the way, the music is very contemporary, thus casting doubt on the theory that many Christians are looking for traditional music.

Many Christians will not make it into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Some people just bypass the church plant and drive an hour to Barrington straight to the real Willowcreek, which has around twenty-thousand people in attendance on Sunday morning.

We have several other very large Protestant churches in the city, including three that are the homes of the three largest Protestant schools in the city. (There are many dozens of smaller Protestant schools, along with the Catholic schools, and along with the very large population of home schools in the city). Many Catholic kids end up at these Protestant schools for various reasons, often having to do with price of tuition, and sometimes because they are recruited by athletic directors. Also, sad to say, a lot of kids go to the Protestant schools because they find them friendlier than the their Catholic parish schools. Often, these Catholic kids end up going to the Protestant churches with their friends, and eventually, the whole Catholic family starts attending the Protestant church because generally speaking, for families with school-aged kids, their friends are in their schools. It’s so easy to fall out of the habit of attending the church you grew up in.

Anyway, it’s a well-written, thought-provoking article and I appreciate it very much. Thank you to the author.

I’ve had a better time with friendliness in a traditional Catholic parish than I ever have had with proddies. My ex attends a “superchurch”(I wouldn’t call it “super”, or even a real “church”), I plan on bringing her to my parish, I assume she’ll say the same as other guests to our parish, it’s nicer there than anywhere most people have been.