The one tradition that can never be regained!

[DL82]

It doesn’t matter how well we study the rubrics, how careful the priests are in following the norms, how ‘traditional’ the congregation, how much attention is given to historical detail, there is one thing about the Extraordinary Form of the mass that will NEVER be like a pre-Vatican II mass.

That one thing is its’ universality. In 1950, people didn’t go to Latin mass because they were ‘Traditional’, they went to Latin mass because they were Catholic! It was just the mass, the one parish mass that everyone goes to.

I’ve recently been reading Catherine Pickstock (an Anglican, but very close to Catholicism in her liturgical understanding) on the liturgy. Pickstock’s view is that liturgy doesn’t just bring the community together in an ordinary event, liturgy CREATES the community. Without liturgy, there is no Church, no congregation. This is key, the people of God comes from the Body of Christ, which is imparted to us through the liturgy.

This community is, after the Eucharistic consecration itself, the most important aspect of the mass. Looking at it this way has really made me think again about the whole Latin mass movement. Like it or not, the only place we will find this universality in worship today is in the Ordinary Form, celebrated in the ordinary parish church.

Pickstock is especially critical of the ‘polity of death’ which she sees in the increasing reliance on the ‘dead letter’ rather than the living Word. Our need to tie everything down, bring it out of a book, pick up an old book (a 1962 missal?), reprint it, reproduce it, ‘pretend’ it’s still the way things are, is a disconnect from a fundamental aspect of our embodied humanity. In this context, I can understand why defunct rites, like the Sarum Use for example, no matter how beautiful they might be as a spectacle, are not properly ‘liturgical’ for us today, they are historical artefacts, learned from a book not from a human person. Learning the mass from an old book or an old film reel, no matter how authentic a reproduction, will always be reproduction, not the ongoing production of the living community.

OK, I’m guessing this is going to be a controversial post on here. Tell me why I’m wrong? I honestly want to know.

 

[iamscifimike]

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?

 

[bilop]

It doesn’t matter how well we study the rubrics, how careful the priests are in following the norms, how ‘traditional’ the congregation, how much attention is given to historical detail, there is one thing about the Extraordinary Form of the mass that will NEVER be like a pre-Vatican II mass.

That one thing is its’ universality. In 1950, people didn’t go to Latin mass because they were ‘Traditional’, they went to Latin mass because they were Catholic! It was just the mass, the one parish mass that everyone goes to.

I’ve recently been reading Catherine Pickstock (an Anglican, but very close to Catholicism in her liturgical understanding) on the liturgy. Pickstock’s view is that liturgy doesn’t just bring the community together in an ordinary event, liturgy CREATES the community. Without liturgy, there is no Church, no congregation. This is key, the people of God comes from the Body of Christ, which is imparted to us through the liturgy.

This community is, after the Eucharistic consecration itself, the most important aspect of the mass. Looking at it this way has really made me think again about the whole Latin mass movement. Like it or not, the only place we will find this universality in worship today is in the Ordinary Form, celebrated in the ordinary parish church.

Pickstock is especially critical of the ‘polity of death’ which she sees in the increasing reliance on the ‘dead letter’ rather than the living Word. Our need to tie everything down, bring it out of a book, pick up an old book (a 1962 missal?), reprint it, reproduce it, ‘pretend’ it’s still the way things are, is a disconnect from a fundamental aspect of our embodied humanity. In this context, I can understand why defunct rites, like the Sarum Use for example, no matter how beautiful they might be as a spectacle, are not properly ‘liturgical’ for us today, they are historical artefacts, learned from a book not from a human person. Learning the mass from an old book or an old film reel, no matter how authentic a reproduction, will always be reproduction, not the ongoing production of the living community.

OK, I’m guessing this is going to be a controversial post on here. Tell me why I’m wrong? I honestly want to know.

It could be universal again. Not right now. But, I can imagine at sometime in the future, a modified EF (perhaps dialogue form, with more prayers aloud, and the propers in the vernacular) might again be the universal Mass of the Latin Church, and the OF be supressed.

God Bless

 

[Phemie]

It doesn’t matter how well we study the rubrics, how careful the priests are in following the norms, how ‘traditional’ the congregation, how much attention is given to historical detail, there is one thing about the Extraordinary Form of the mass that will NEVER be like a pre-Vatican II mass.

That one thing is its’ universality. In 1950, people didn’t go to Latin mass because they were ‘Traditional’, they went to Latin mass because they were Catholic! It was just the mass, the one parish mass that everyone goes to.

The idea that Mass was only in Latin before Vatican II is a myth. Our ignorance of the other rites doesn’t make the myth fact.

 

[Timothysis]

That one thing is its’ universality. In 1950, people didn’t go to Latin mass because they were ‘Traditional’, they went to Latin mass because they were Catholic! It was just the mass, the one parish mass that everyone goes to.

I was reading about the rosary one day and one thing that struck me was the statement that said one should never say the rosary during Mass. I was confused when I read this because I wondered why someone would say the rosary DURING Mass instead of participating in the Mass. Then I realized that in the “olden” days, because of the silent Canon of the latin Mass, many people simply sat there and said the rosary or other private devotions because they had no idea what was going on. Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone had latin to english missals, and even if the did, it didn’t insure an ability to follow along with the priest. My dad told me of how men used to stand at the back of church during Mass so that they could pop outside to have a smoke!

I’ve also read that Pope Pius XII was in favor of Mass in the vernacular. Why? To put an end to the private devotions during Mass. And as others have mentioned, there are many other rites who would disagree with notion that Mass should only be said in latin.

One can no more go back to the “traditionalism” of the 1950s than culture and fashion can go back to the 1920s.

 

[Timothysis]

It could be universal again. Not right now. But, I can imagine at sometime in the future, a modified EF (perhaps dialogue form, with more prayers aloud, and the propers in the vernacular) might again be the universal Mass of the Latin Church, and the OF be supressed.

God Bless

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?

 

[bilop]

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?

Yes. They are all literate (unlike past generations) and all have the capability to follow an English-Latin Missal. If you left the ordinary in Latin (Gloria, Credo, Canon etc.) and said the propers (the parts that change daily) in the vernacular, they would catch on in a few weeks. One of my friends has three young children, and they are learning Latin at their parish, and sing in a childrens’ Schola. It’s not that hard.

The young people, and the young priests of the Church are increasingly orthodox and traditional. I believe, as more are exposed to the EF, they will realize its superiority, and the Church will gradually shift back. Not in 5 years, but maybe in 25.

Also remember, Americans are only a small fraction of the Universal Church, and the Church is not a democracy.

God Bless

 

[DL82]

I realise there were always non-Latin Divine Liturgies in other rites, but for the most part for the last 1000 years or more, in parts of the world where the Roman Rite was dominant (Europe, America, the parts of Africa and Asia evangelised after 1054AD) the Latin Mass was the only mass, and the Tridentine Rite was the dominant and ordinary form of the Latin Mass from Trent onwards.

There was unity. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

In the Ordinary Form of the Mass today, there is unity. The Extraordinary Form doesn’t have that, because it is a ‘minority’ concern within the Church.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The idea that Mass was only in Latin before Vatican II is a myth.

but for the most part for the last 1000 years or more, in parts of the world where the Roman Rite was dominant (Europe, America, the parts of Africa and Asia evangelised after 1054AD) the Latin Mass was the only mass,…There was unity. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

**This is not quite totally accurate.

In several dioceses of Croatia, the Tridentine Mass was celebrated in Slavonic from Missals printed with Glagolithic characters, even BEFORE Vatican 2.

Unity does not mean uniformity.**

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The universality is not in the form, but in the sacrifice.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Cat]

The universality is not in the form, but in the sacrifice.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Exactly.

In Acts, when the Holy Spirit came in a mighty wind, He did not teach everyone the same languge. He caused the apostles to be understood by the people in their own languages.

It is not liturgy that makes us one, but the Holy Spirit who makes us one. I Corinthians 12: 13 says that “By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”

I think the theory of a universal liturgy making us all one is interesting, but I don’t think that it can be supported theologically. I don’t think the liturgy can be equated with the Holy Spirit (God). Liturgy is the work of the people, not God. We can’t make ourselves one.

 

[Freshman88]

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 hardly think that our attachment to worldy things is a good excuse for ignoring the language of our rite. Granted that not everyone is capable of studying other languages (either because of time restraints or intellectual capacity), this however does not mean that it is a worthy pursuit for those who can. The biggest problem that I have is blind opposition to Latin. Why oppose Latin when it could be quite beneficial? I’m in no way accusing you of this (I don’t know your own stance) but there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to Latin that just seems counter-productive.

In any case, I would think that liturgical principles should trump the preferences of the laity. When dealing with the Liturgy we should seek the ideal, not the practical.

 

[Freshman88]

It is not liturgy that makes us one, but the Holy Spirit who makes us one.

I believe that this statement stems from an incorrect understanding of Liturgy.

Liturgy is the work of the people, not God. We can’t make ourselves one.

I believe this is an inaccurate understanding of Liturgy.

Liturgy is not the work of the people rather it is participation in God’s work, the result of which can only be unitive.
Catechism:

1069: “The word “liturgy” originally meant a “public work” or a “service in the name/of on behalf of the people.” In Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in “The work of God”. Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redeption in, with, and through his Church.”

 

[Freshman88]

The idea that Mass was only in Latin before Vatican II is a myth.

but for the most part for the last 1000 years or more, in parts of the world where the Roman Rite was dominant (Europe, America, the parts of Africa and Asia evangelised after 1054AD) the Latin Mass was the only mass,…There was unity. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

**This is not quite totally accurate.

In several dioceses of Croatia, the Tridentine Mass was celebrated in Slavonic from Missals printed with Glagolithic characters, even BEFORE Vatican 2.

Unity does not mean uniformity.**

It still stands that Latin was [is] the liturgical language of the Western Church, and that this example is an exception to the rule. This exception is not necessarily a bad thing, but the unique situation of this area was not common to the rest of the Church.

 

[Highwayhound]

Language, a common language, is a unifying force in life. Think of how countries are defined/determined. Groups of people that speak the same language, have similar culture and which live within a boundary (whether it be geographical or arbitrary) are a country i.e. France, Vietnam, Spain.

I have attended masses in all the above languages and including English. I have never heard a latin mass. I would like to someday.

When traveling in France (a 76 day bicycle tour) I would attend mass. I could tell where in the mass the priest was as there is a distinct rhytym to mass, but I could not fully understand it. The mass said in Vietnamese language is very pretty as the language has a lyrical sound to it. My parish has a couple of Spanish masses due to the make up of the community. I will start attending the Spanish mass to help me learn Spanish as next year I plan to be bicycling through Mexico and other countries which use Spanish.

IF mass were to have parts spoken in a common language, such as latin, I believe that would be a wonderfully unifying experience for Catholics. No matter where any person went in the world they would have that basic understanding of certain prayers in the mass. I could travel to Tanzania and know the same prayers as the locals.

I think latin would be great!

 

[a_cermak]

Language, a common language, is a unifying force in life. Think of how countries are defined/determined. Groups of people that speak the same language, have similar culture and which live within a boundary (whether it be geographical or arbitrary) are a country i.e. France, Vietnam, Spain.

Not every nation is defined by a single language. Belgium has its French and Flemish speakers, India has (last I saw) 19 official languages including Tamil, Hindi, Kanada, Gujarat… Even Spain has its Basqueland where Basque, not Spanish, is the lingua franca.

And if I walk through my suburb in Chicagoland, I can hear Spanish, Arabic, Farsi, Czech, Lithuanian and Polish spoken and business transacted in them, putting the lie to the idea of the US as a mono-lingual culture.

 

[Freshman88]

Not every nation is defined by a single language. Belgium has its French and Flemish speakers, India has (last I saw) 19 official languages including Tamil, Hindi, Kanada, Gujarat… Even Spain has its Basqueland where Basque, not Spanish, is the lingua franca.

And if I walk through my suburb in Chicagoland, I can hear Spanish, Arabic, Farsi, Czech, Lithuanian and Polish spoken and business transacted in them, putting the lie to the idea of the US as a mono-lingual culture.

This may be true, but it does not dismiss the fact that language can be a unifying factor. Not only that, but there are many countries where common language is a unifying/defining feature.

 

[Cat]

This may be true, but it does not dismiss the fact that language can be a unifying factor. Not only that, but there are many countries where common language is a unifying/defining feature.

Language is only unifying if the people understand it.

Just reciting a series of meaningless syllables is not unifying at all.

I am not being mean-spirited here, but I confess to frustration with this notion. One Language/One People might be true if all understood the language. But One Ceremony of Syllables Using a Missal to Translate/One People–sorry, but I can’t even comprehend the point of this! It’s just a notion, a sentiment. It makes no sense to me at all. And I think that many other people in the U.S. would agree with me.

In the United States, we are “One Nation” in spite of the fact that our people are from every race, color, nation, religion, creed, and sexual orientation. We speak many different languages and dialects. We listen to different music and entertainment. We worship many Gods. We cheer for different sports and teams. We are split smack down the middle at the moment when when it comes to politics. YET–we are One Nation. **It is not our practices that make us One, it is our citizenship **(or pending citizenship)–we are citizens of the U.S.

In the same way, Catholics are not “One People, One Body” because of what we practice. **We are One because of Who we belong to, Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit. **

It seems to me that practicing “one” Mass might make some Catholics “FEEL” more unified. But Christianity has never been, is not, and never will be a “religion of feelings.” The reality is, we are one because of our King, not because of what we do in His Kingdom.

I am beginning to get the feeling that some Catholics “worship” the liturgy in the same way that some Protestants “worship” the Bible. I have actually heard Protestants teach that the Bible IS Jesus Christ. Do some Catholics feel the same way about the liturgy; it IS Jesus? Is there written documentation of this teaching? Someone said above that I misunderstand the Liturgy–I was taught that it is the work of the people. Am I missing the Catholic teaching that the liturgy is another manifestation of God Himself?

 

[ethelzguy]

And, to think that for all these years I thought it was the Real Presence that universally identified us as “Catholic”, compared to our seperated bretheren…

 

[jpjd]

I was reading about the rosary one day and one thing that struck me was the statement that said one should never say the rosary during Mass. I was confused when I read this because I wondered why someone would say the rosary DURING Mass instead of participating in the Mass. Then I realized that in the “olden” days, because of the silent Canon of the latin Mass, many people simply sat there and said the rosary or other private devotions because they had no idea what was going on. Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone had latin to english missals, and even if the did, it didn’t insure an ability to follow along with the priest. My dad told me of how men used to stand at the back of church during Mass so that they could pop outside to have a smoke!

I’ve also read that Pope Pius XII was in favor of Mass in the vernacular. Why? To put an end to the private devotions during Mass.

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.