The Latin Rite?

[Patrick60]

I am grateful to God to be a member of a Parish where the pastor is a man of deep prayer and also faithful to the bishops and Rome. I don’t really know what is going on in other Parishes in this Archdiocese because I don’t visit them. But we’ve already had several Latin masses. I’ve been to both the low form and the high form. I couldn’t really explain the difference between them because these are really the only two Latin masses I’ve ever been to.
I have no nostalgia whatsoever for the Latin mass, primarily because I have no memory of it. I was born in 1960. I’m not exactly sure when everything changed, but let’s just say that it changed before I was capable of being aware of it. So I am one of those persons for which the Latin rite is like a visitor from another planet. I rediscovered the Church by means of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal in 1979. That in itself is a long story. I’ll come back to that in a moment.
However, I am a son of the Church. I have a deep love for the Church, and an appreciation of ecclesiastical history, as well as a strong desire to know and understand the church not only as it is today, but as it always has been. You can’t study the lives of the saints without coming to an understanding how deep the roots of the church are sunk into all of history. The lives and the writings of the saints have been a particular inspiration for me. And I know that the Mass that the vast majority(if not all) of the saints attended was not said in the vernacular.
If I didn’t see the church as an eternal reality, I would have serious problems with the Latin rite. I would object that it is not suited to the culture, and that it alienates the culture. But then it is the Church which is meant to influence the culture, not necessarily the other way around. We conform to Christ. He does not conform to us.
And so, with all of that said, I’ve really struggled with all of my objections to the Latin rite and found that my objections couldn’t really survive careful scrutiny. Do I love, admire the saints? From what I understand, the mass that the saints(think of any of your favorites) celebrated was celebrated in latin. One of the fruits of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal in my life was that I became considerably more Catholic as a result. The charisms, or the “gifts” were never the focus. The charisms were for the church. If they became less predominant during any aspect of church history, it is because God wanted them to be. Ultimately, I have no problem with the Latin rite because it is God who leads the church, and I trust in Him to lead and guide those in authority over us, particularly the Pope and the Bishops. We really can’t love what God does more than we love God Himself. If God pours out His spirit in charisms, so be it. He is God. If He leads us into a more contemplative form of worship and liturgy, so be it. He is God.
I can’t speak for anyone else. But I trust the Pope. I trust the Bishops. I trust my parish priest. I trust in God to lead me, to lead all of us through them, and instead of objecting to something on the grounds that it is “archaic” or “culturally irrelevant,” I have asked God to open my eyes, and with open eyes I see the beauty of the Latin rite. I am not intimidated by the Latin rite. It is worship no less than any other form of worship. It is another way to worship the God who loved me and saved me and whom I love and adore and to Whom I am eternally grateful. It is God Himself who is the focus.
I am not being led by any misguided nostalgia. I am 47(which may or may not be young, depending on your own age), and as such I’m really too young to have any nostalgia whatsoever for anything prior to 1966. But the Latin rite, for me, is a treasure long buried, now unearthed. I say let’s dust it off and truly come to terms with its value. It is ultimately God whom we treasure, and I find God in the Church, in the Mass, be it Latin or the vernacular. And I encourage anyone to see Him in it as well.

 

[LindaS]

I believe that you may be confused about the Latin Rite. The Latin Rite is the rite of the Catholic Church to which most of us belong. There are other rites in the Catholic Church like the Byzantine and the Maronite Rites. They are in full communion wit the Church and Rome. What you are referring to is the Tridentine Mass which is the Mass as it was celebrated prior to the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. The High Mass is with incense and requires 2 additional presiders, the deacon and the subdeacon, and is usually a sung Mass. The Low Mass does not require these. The Tridentine Mass is now referred to as the “Extraordinary form” of the Mass while the Novus Ordo is the ordinary form. Prior to Pope Benedict’s Moto Proprio, a Tridentine Mass could only be said with special permission called an “indult”. Now, either form of the Mass can be celebrated without any special permission.

Peace,
Linda

 

[japhy]

A couple notes about your terminology (just to clear up potential confusion):

But we’ve already had several Latin masses.

“Latin Mass” is ambiguous, because both the 1962 (“Extraordinary Form”, EF for short) and the 1969 (“Ordinary Form”, OF for short) liturgies are (or can be) celebrated in Latin. The EF is required to be celebrated in Latin, whereas the OF can be celebrated in the vernacular if a translation has been approved; the OF can always be celebrated in Latin.

So I am one of those persons for which the Latin rite is like a visitor from another planet.

Both the EF and the OF (whether in the Latin or vernacular) is “the Latin Rite”. The Latin (i.e. Roman) Church has one Rite: the Latin Rite. Right now, it is celebrated in two forms, the Ordinary and the Extraordinary.

But the Latin rite, for me, is a treasure long buried, now unearthed. I say let’s dust it off and truly come to terms with its value. It is ultimately God whom we treasure, and I find God in the Church, in the Mass, be it Latin or the vernacular. And I encourage anyone to see Him in it as well.

I second your sentiments. I’m much younger than you, and never knew about Mass in Latin (nor about the Mass before the reforms of the 1960’s) until a few years ago. I’ve only been to a few Masses in the Extraordinary Form, but I see their beauty and feel attracted in a meaningful way to that expression of our faith and that manner of rendering worship to God.

 

[Patrick60]

I believe that you may be confused about the Latin Rite. The Latin Rite is the rite of the Catholic Church to which most of us belong. There are other rites in the Catholic Church like the Byzantine and the Maronite Rites. They are in full communion wit the Church and Rome. What you are referring to is the Tridentine Mass which is the Mass as it was celebrated prior to the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. The High Mass is with incense and requires 2 additional presiders, the deacon and the subdeacon, and is usually a sung Mass. The Low Mass does not require these. The Tridentine Mass is now referred to as the “Extraordinary form” of the Mass while the Novus Ordo is the ordinary form. Prior to Pope Benedict’s Moto Proprio, a Tridentine Mass could only be said with special permission called an “indult”. Now, either form of the Mass can be celebrated without any special permission.

Peace,
Linda

Forgive my lack of proper terminology. The masses I did attend were Tridentine masses, and were described as such in our church bulletin. I was aware of the difference between the low and the high and have been to both(one time apiece). I was under the assumption that all masses celebrated using Latin were “Latin Masses.” If I didn’t specify it as such, pardon me.

I would believe that any mass not said in the vernacular is extraordinary. I understand the need to distinguish between differing forms. Once I have learned the proper terminology I will be sure to use the proper terminology in any future references. Thank you for your correction.

 

[LindaS]

Patrick, I hope you don’t think I was criticizing you for improper terminology. I just wanted to help you understand what the Latin Rite is, as I think you are a Latin Rite Catholic! Sorry if I came off as critical.

Peace,
Linda

BTW, I am one of those Catholics who predate VII, so I remember the Tridentine Mass.

 

[Patrick60]

Patrick, I hope you don’t think I was criticizing you for improper terminology. I just wanted to help you understand what the Latin Rite is, as I think you are a Latin Rite Catholic! Sorry if I came off as critical.

Peace,
Linda

BTW, I am one of those Catholics who predate VII, so I remember the Tridentine Mass.

Linda, even if I did think you were criticizing me, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I do not think I know everything. If I knew everything, I would not bother with the internet at all. Thank you for caring.

 

[Fred_4]

I think that the difference between the high and low mass is that one (low) is primarily spoken, and the other (high) is entirely chanted or sung. I may be wrong… it’s been known to happen before!

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I think that the difference between the high and low mass is that one (low) is primarily spoken, and the other (high) is entirely chanted or sung. I may be wrong… it’s been known to happen before!

I agree. It can’t be the use of deacons and subdeacons since in the 1950’s in my Baltimore parish we had neither of those and had one high mass (and about 6 low masses) every Sunday.

 

[rwoehmke]

I agree. It can’t be the use of deacons and subdeacons since in the 1950’s in my Baltimore parish we had neither of those and had one high mass (and about 6 low masses) every Sunday.

There were three common forms of the TLM or EF. The low Mass -unsung, two candles, one priest; the High Mass, sung , six candles, one priest, four altar boys, organist and cantor or choir on Sundays; the solemn High Mass, sung, six or more candles, subdeacon, deacon, and priest, at least four servers, incense, maybe litany of the Saints, full choir. The subdeacon, and deacon roles were usually filled by priests as a parish ordinarily had more than one. The Funeral Mass was usually a High Mass with slightly different prayers and rubrics.

Concelebration was not allowed in the period before vatican II.

 

[vocatio]

I see the TLM as an opportunity for Permanent Deacons to participate in the Liturgy at the side of the priests. But if not, why not. I love Latin and have a great respect for the TLM but I also am mostly - as most of us are - used to the NO or OF if you will.

I would be cool you know. But if I had my way I’d be Eastern Catholic and work towards the diaconate there since I love the Divine Liturgy so much along with the traditions and theology.

 

[Aramis]

There were three common forms of the TLM or EF. The low Mass -unsung, two candles, one priest; the High Mass, sung , six candles, one priest, four altar boys, organist and cantor or choir on Sundays; the solemn High Mass, sung, six or more candles, subdeacon, deacon, and priest, at least four servers, incense, maybe litany of the Saints, full choir. The subdeacon, and deacon roles were usually filled by priests as a parish ordinarily had more than one. The Funeral Mass was usually a High Mass with slightly different prayers and rubrics.

Concelebration was not allowed in the period before vatican II.

Concelebration was allowed, but only in hierarchical masses, concelebrating with the bishop, archbishop, patriarch, or the Pope.

Then again, the Deacon and Subdeacon roles in the TLM were often filled by priests.

There also were other latin masses in use, very similar, and yet also different: Dominican Mass, Carmelite Mass, Ambrosian Mass, Mozarabic Mass, Slavonic mass. The differences were generally small. The Slavonic mass was the Trent Liturgy, translated into Old Church Slavonic, permitted since shortly after Trent in a few eastern European dioceses.