The one tradition that can never be regained!

[skatepixie]

I am curious as to why you believe this. Do you honestly think that the mainstream practicing Catholics of America with their minivans, two and a half kids, dog, soccer practice, xbox 360 , text messages, big-screen tvs, computers, blu-ray dvds , private schools and guitar hero have a knowledge, much less a desire to go to Mass in latin?

I have a big screen tv, comuter, blu-ray, went to a private school…and I go to Latin Mass.

I like my technology, and I like my tradition too. I firmly believe that there are somethings that are eternal in beauty and truth (ie Mass), and somethings that are meant to change frequently (technology, fashion, etc). Life should have a good mix of things that change (to make things interesting) and those that don’t (to keep us grounded).

As far as the OP is concerned, I do think its sad that not everyone in the western rite experences the same Mass. 60 years ago, the Mass I attend in California would have very few differences vs the Mass my family in Italy attends. Today, there is a massive difference even within my parish (youth mass, family mass, noon mass, etc).

 

[Freshman88]

I became Catholic in 1994 throught RCIA. For better or worse I have been trying to understand why latin only or vernacular is better. I feel I have spend many hours on a topic that really doesn’t matter other than the latin mass is coming back due to old timers. I continue to pray about this but feel that a mass that I do not understand is close to meaningless to me after years of mass in my language.

latinmassmagazine.com/stickler.asp

Or this:
newsweek.com/id/142217 Priests have been excommunicated for practicing the latin mass earlier?

It would seem our “high school” mass at 5:30 Sunday would be dead with the latin rules. I feel the reform was right and do not understand this latin revival is going to take the church in the right direction. THere are so many things about the church that are right to go to Latin Only mass which is where this is headed would be dreadful again.

Help? Thanks!

There are two forms to our Western rite, the Extraordinary form and the Ordinary form. The Extraordinary form has a completely different set of rubrics and prayers, and may only be said in Latin. The ordinary form is the more common mass, the mass you most likely attend, and it can be said in any language.

As far as the EF is concerned, there is no wiggle room when it comes to language, it must be said in Latin.

That however is not the case with the OF. There is plenty of room for the OF to be said in Latin, and in fact, Latin is the official language of our rite. Yet Latin OF masses are rare, very rare. This shouldn’t be the case,there should be more exposure to Latin in the OF community. I’m not talking about a return to “Latin-only”, but something more like my local NO parish, which has a Latin OF once every month. This mass does very well, and tends to attract quite a large crowd.

If you’d like to read more about the benefits of Latin, I suggest reading “Veterum Sapientia” (“ancient wisdom”), an encyclical written by Pope John XXIII advocating the return of Latin. What is really interesting about this encyclical is the fact that it’s author, John XXIII, also called on the same council which would bring a deadly blow to the Latin cause.

latin-mass-society.org/veterum.htm

P.S
The Latin EF mass is not being brought back by “old timers”, all one needs to do is look at the overflowing seminaries of the FSSP and ICRSS (orders which only celebrate the latin-EF), and their youthful parishes to realize that. (I myself, am only 20)

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I became Catholic in 1994 throught RCIA. For better or worse I have been trying to understand why latin only or vernacular is better. I feel I have spend many hours on a topic that really doesn’t matter other than the latin mass is coming back due to old timers. I continue to pray about this but feel that a mass that I do not understand is close to meaningless to me after years of mass in my language.

latinmassmagazine.com/stickler.asp

Or this:
newsweek.com/id/142217 Priests have been excommunicated for practicing the latin mass earlier?

It would seem our “high school” mass at 5:30 Sunday would be dead with the latin rules. I feel the reform was right and do not understand this latin revival is going to take the church in the right direction. THere are so many things about the church that are right to go to Latin Only mass which is where this is headed would be dreadful again.

Help? Thanks!

I think your observations here are entirely correct. While I am familiar with the Latin mass (I would not call it dreadful) having been born in 1940, I do prefer the mass in my vernacular, i.e., English. The parish I am in is extremely orthodox and the response of the people and of the teens in a testament to what we have here and now. I actually see our teens in our parish excited about the mass, retreats, different Church functions that we have. I do believe that as Church, we are going in the right direction.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[KathleenElsie]

Our family attends three rites:

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church (Ukraine, USA) weekdays and some Sundays and Holy days
Ordinary Form (USA) most Sundays and Holy days home parish
Extraordinary Form (USA) only rarely as it is 40 miles from home.

We would find it extremely insulting and would be saddened if this rich opportunity were denied to us.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Thanks for this list. It simply shows the richness of the Catholic faith and its ability to serve all people wherever they may be. While I believe Latin has its place, I prefer English for mass. I do at times attend some of these simply to experience the richness of Catholicism. Which I also do when attending the Novus Ordo (my preference) What many fail to recognize is that we are simply talking about personal preference. That’s all. As we can see, Our Church is indeed Universal.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[KathleenElsie]

---

Seems your RCIA skipped the part about Latin being the language of the Church. By the way —from what I hear —the majority of those who attend the Latin Mass are not “old timers”.

If I look around when attending an EF I see the vast majority as 40yo or younger. If everyone that participated in the EF in their youth (figure they are now 55 and above to have even some memory of this form).

The “old timers” are going home to God in both the OF and EF. Just ask the people that are in the resurrection choirs. It is a busy time right now with the so called baby boomer’s and older passing on. Generations pass.

Birth control (some priests approved and still do), abortion (legal and some think it is a personal decision not to be judged), divorce (so easy to get with everyone harmed IMHO), the necessity of two wage earners (for many to just survive) and shops & malls open (7 days a week 24 hours a day). It is not surprising parishes are shrinking in my area and that many are closing. Everyone of these things happened around the same time and IMHO it is because of the changes that came at the same time as the OF Mass the has caused this shrinkage. Way to many issues to handle in an organized way.

 

[Cat]

This is a false dichotomy, the mass is liturgy.

He did indeed institute the liturgy although the prayers and traditions have developed.

No, no, no. You have missed reading part (most ) of my post:

(quote)
“He did NOT institute the Liturgy of the Mass, with Latin as the langugage, certain prayers, various songs, readings (the Bible hadn’t even been written yet when Jesus was on this earth, or at least the New Testament portion of it), the passing of the people to the front to receive Holy Communion, etc.”
(end of quote)

Jesus did NOT say, "Here is the Order of the Mass. First, we shall have a processional, with the Crucifix going on before. Then we shall have the priest welcome the people by saying “Peace be with you,” and the people will respond by saying, “And with your spirit.” And then we shall have a penitential rite, and the priest shall be allowed to choose one of several penitential rites. and then we shall switch to Greek and say three Kyries, or more if there is time. And then we shall sing a song called “Gloria”.

etc. Do you understand what I’m saying now? The
specifics of the Liturgy were NOT given to us by Jesus. They were mapped out by the Church. And the Church has the authority to modify the specifics of the Liturgy.

If I am mistaken about this, then I would appreciate seeing the written documentation in which Jesus designed the Liturgy of the Mass, please. Thank you. That would be interesting reading.

 

[Freshman88]

No, no, no. You have missed reading part (most ) of my post:

(quote)
“He did NOT institute the Liturgy of the Mass, with Latin as the langugage, certain prayers, various songs, readings (the Bible hadn’t even been written yet when Jesus was on this earth, or at least the New Testament portion of it), the passing of the people to the front to receive Holy Communion, etc.”
(end of quote)

Jesus did NOT say, "Here is the Order of the Mass. First, we shall have a processional, with the Crucifix going on before. Then we shall have the priest welcome the people by saying “Peace be with you,” and the people will respond by saying, “And with your spirit.” And then we shall have a penitential rite, and the priest shall be allowed to choose one of several penitential rites. and then we shall switch to Greek and say three Kyries, or more if there is time. And then we shall sing a song called “Gloria”.

etc. Do you understand what I’m saying now? The
specifics of the Liturgy were NOT given to us by Jesus. They were mapped out by the Church. And the Church has the authority to modify the specifics of the Liturgy.

If I am mistaken about this, then I would appreciate seeing the written documentation in which Jesus designed the Liturgy of the Mass, please. Thank you. That would be interesting reading.

I was commenting on your misuse of the terms “liturgy” and “mass”.

Christ did not institute most of particulars, this is true, to a point. Although He did institute the liturgy (the mass is Liturgy), contrary to what your post had stated.

Certain things in the mass, such as the words of consecration, are traced directly to Christ.

Also, the liturgy has its origins in the Hebrew liturgy. Ergo, God did institute many aspects of the Liturgy.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

This post hits the nail on the head. People today misperceive the Latin Mass of back in the day. I think if you were to go back in time and view a Mass of the 1940’s and '50’s, you’d be lamenting the fact that people weren’t paying attention, on the order of how you lament that at the OF of the Mass today. There was a reason for Vatican II, for changing Mass to the vernacular, etc. Obviously, the Mass at the time was needing reform.

In case you haven’t noticed, people don’t pay attention now, and the Liturgy is in the vernacular. Whether the Liturgy is in Latin, Slavonic, Ukrainian, Russian, Italian, etc… it does not guarantee fuller participation or even attendance of a Liturgy. There might be more participation, but there is way less attendance now. Thus, there are more people living in Mortal Sin now than ever.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

No, no, no. You have missed reading part (most ) of my post:

(quote)
“He did NOT institute the Liturgy of the Mass, with Latin as the langugage, certain prayers, various songs, readings (the Bible hadn’t even been written yet when Jesus was on this earth, or at least the New Testament portion of it), the passing of the people to the front to receive Holy Communion, etc.”
(end of quote)

Jesus did NOT say, "Here is the Order of the Mass. First, we shall have a processional, with the Crucifix going on before. Then we shall have the priest welcome the people by saying “Peace be with you,” and the people will respond by saying, “And with your spirit.” And then we shall have a penitential rite, and the priest shall be allowed to choose one of several penitential rites. and then we shall switch to Greek and say three Kyries, or more if there is time. And then we shall sing a song called “Gloria”.

etc. Do you understand what I’m saying now? The
specifics of the Liturgy were NOT given to us by Jesus. They were mapped out by the Church. And the Church has the authority to modify the specifics of the Liturgy.

If I am mistaken about this, then I would appreciate seeing the written documentation in which Jesus designed the Liturgy of the Mass, please. Thank you. That would be interesting reading.

Not to nitpick, but the First Liturgy/Mass did have prayers and songs. The First Mass/Liturgy was a Jewish Seder and that’s how we get it’s shape. The traditional Rites have more of this characteristic with more direct Scriptural quotes. Also, these Rites were modeled after the Temple sacrifices which were mere shadows of the One Sacrifice of Christ.

 

[Freshman88]

Not to nitpick, but the First Liturgy/Mass did have prayers and songs. The First Mass/Liturgy was a Jewish Seder and that’s how we get it’s shape. The traditional Rites have more of this characteristic with more direct Scriptural quotes. Also, these Rites were modeled after the Temple sacrifices which were mere shadows of the One Sacrifice of Christ.

Exactly.

Even the idea of a liturgical language has its roots in the Liturgy of Israelites. The spoken language was NOT Hebrew, it was Aramaic, yet still they continued to worship in Hebrew.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

True, Freshman, and my ROCOR* friends worship in Slavonic, not in the vernacular.

• Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

P.S. Fr. Thomas Loya of Annunciation Byzantine Catholic parish uses Slavonic in his Divine Liturgy. So, even Rites that are known for the vernacular use Sacred Languages in all or parts of the liturgy.

 

[Cat]

Not to nitpick, but the First Liturgy/Mass did have prayers and songs. The First Mass/Liturgy was a Jewish Seder and that’s how we get it’s shape. The traditional Rites have more of this characteristic with more direct Scriptural quotes. Also, these Rites were modeled after the Temple sacrifices which were mere shadows of the One Sacrifice of Christ.

I know all about that. I knew that as a Protestant. I’ve always known that God is a God of ORDER and CEREMONY. It is one of the reasons that I started questiong my evangelical Protestant church, because order and ceremony were being eliminated in favor of a free-for-all open mike session.

I am getting just a tad irritated here.

Mass = Liturgy. Yes, when you are talking about the theology.

But in the common use of the term, the way common people like silly ol’ me uses it, Liturgy refers to the “Order of Show.” Sorry to use such a blatently secular and possibly offensive term, but THAT is what I’m talking about when I say that Jesus did NOT establish the ORDER of the Catholic Mass.

Yes, various prayers and of course, the Words of Consecration are straight from Jesus and the BIble, and the idea of a liturgical ceremony surrounding the Consecration of the Host is from the Passover ceremony.

But Jesus did NOT give the apostles a specific ORDER OF MASS that must be followed from the 1st century all the way to the end of time. You are playing with words and trying to imply that Jesus did give out an exact order of Mass. He didn’t. He left those details up to the CHURCH and gave them the authority to establish the “order of show.”

Right?
Jesus did NOT make up the order of the Catholic Mass.

 

[maurin]

I know all about that. I knew that as a Protestant. I’ve always known that God is a God of ORDER and CEREMONY. It is one of the reasons that I started questiong my evangelical Protestant church, because order and ceremony were being eliminated in favor of a free-for-all open mike session.

I am getting just a tad irritated here.

Mass = Liturgy. Yes, when you are talking about the theology.

But in the common use of the term, the way common people like silly ol’ me uses it, Liturgy refers to the “Order of Show.” Sorry to use such a blatently secular and possibly offensive term, but THAT is what I’m talking about when I say that Jesus did NOT establish the ORDER of the Catholic Mass.

Yes, various prayers and of course, the Words of Consecration are straight from Jesus and the BIble, and the idea of a liturgical ceremony surrounding the Consecration of the Host is from the Passover ceremony.

But Jesus did NOT give the apostles a specific ORDER OF MASS that must be followed from the 1st century all the way to the end of time. You are playing with words and trying to imply that Jesus did give out an exact order of Mass. He didn’t. He left those details up to the CHURCH and gave them the authority to establish the “order of show.”

Right?
Jesus did NOT make up the order of the Catholic Mass.

Cat,

I think what you are missing here, according to those with whom you are speaking, is that, to paraphrase the Gospel, Jesus did not come to change not even one iota of the law or the prophets, but to fulfill it.

Jesus used the form and ceremony of Temple Worship and Synagogue services and gave them their New, Complete and Fulfilled meanings.

So yes, in a way, Jesus did establish the Ritual and Liturgy.

And yes, you are correct, that he did leave it to the Church to bind and to loose the particulars.

 

[Joannm]

Cat,

I think what you are missing here, according to those with whom you are speaking, is that, to paraphrase the Gospel, Jesus did not come to change not even one iota of the law or the prophets, but to fulfill it.

Jesus used the form and ceremony of Temple Worship and Synagogue services and gave them their New, Complete and Fulfilled meanings.

So yes, in a way, Jesus did establish the Ritual and Liturgy.

And yes, you are correct, that he did leave it to the Church to bind and to loose the particulars.

The Last Supper was most likely a Passover Meal (except in John;s Gospel). It was not modeled after the Temple worship and syagogues at the time were places of study not worship. The early Christian liturgies were meals, real meals, and there was little mention of sacrifice. What Jesus was doing at the Last Supper was a Berekah, or traditional family meal blessing over wine and bread. The difference was in how he asked his disciples to understand what He was doing. Later it developed into a more stylized liturgy, but early celebrations of the Eucharist were pretty much left up to the presider with no set rubrics or texts. I beleive Justin Martyr has a pretty good explaination of early liturgies.

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I think what we are seeing here are perceptions of what people think others are saying instead of understanding what they are saying. Each is looking at the picture from one’s personal life experiences. Why not let it go at that. The tradition that is never changed is that Jesus humbles himself to come to us in the form of bread and wine. He comes to feed us spiritually. Considering that our opinions and life experiences are nil. Lets accept the mass for what it is…
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[maurin]

The Last Supper was most likely a Passover Meal (except in John;s Gospel). It was not modeled after the Temple worship and syagogues at the time were places of study not worship. The early Christian liturgies were meals, real meals, and there was little mention of sacrifice. What Jesus was doing at the Last Supper was a Berekah, or traditional family meal blessing over wine and bread. The difference was in how he asked his disciples to understand what He was doing. Later it developed into a more stylized liturgy, but early celebrations of the Eucharist were pretty much left up to the presider with no set rubrics or texts. I beleive Justin Martyr has a pretty good explaination of early liturgies.

Joan,

the Last Supper was certainly a pre-figurement of what was to take place the very next afternoon on Calvary. Not a Sacrifice? Then what is your understanding of that which Paul is talking about in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11: 23-32?

On a different note, it so sad to me how much of Calvary we have lost in this new order of the Mass.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote a beautiful book “Calvary and the Mass.” A beautiful book.

 

[East_and_West]

Universality in liturgy has to occur temporally as well as instantaneously. It doesn’t matter so much how things change down through the ages, it matters how much they stay the same. Think about the mass from before The Latin mass. Think about the Book of Revelation and how it speaks to Christians about how to worship at mass.

It’s the fundamentals, some of which that have been kept even in protestant groups.(which I believe is a testament to the Catholic Church). One of our most important traditians is obedience. Our allegiance to the Pope and the Magisterium. As long as we have these things, we have this liturgical universiality that you speak of.

Am I wrong, did I misread your post?

Universiality? Not all Catholic Churches are Roman.

 

[maurin]

I think what we are seeing here are perceptions of what people think others are saying instead of understanding what they are saying. Each is looking at the picture from one’s personal life experiences. Why not let it go at that. The tradition that is never changed is that Jesus humbles himself to come to us in the form of bread and wine. He comes to feed us spiritually. Considering that our opinions and life experiences are nil. Lets accept the mass for what it is…
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I think that is exactly the point, Deacon Ed–how can we accept the Mass for what it is when we no longer have, judging from the sad state of the Liturgy in many places, a clear understanding anymore of what the Mass is.

 

[jeanannemarie]

Really interesting discussion. I guess what I want to get to the heart of is this though:

The Latin EF post-Vatican II has introduced something NEW into the Church, in that it is a liturgy specifically FOR “Traditional” Catholics. Not a liturgy in a language or a rite for a particular ethnic people, not a liturgy for a defined Religious order, but something that caters to a particular ‘taste’ within the Church.

Surely in terms of new innovations, this one is more ‘radical’ on a personal and communal level than the most liberal, liturgical-dancing-hand-holding-pop-music-singing vernacular mass.

I was under the impression that something beautiful was being PRESERVED in the Latin Mass so that it would not be lost forever.