The Spirituality of the Old Latin Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arturo_Ortiz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VicFerrari said:
“More edifying?”

Because it’s in Latin?
Click to expand...
No, edifying because it’s uniform throughout the Western world without favoritism to any one country or one group. I see arguments for the vernacular and plenty of options somewhat self-serving.
 
sw85 said:
This doesn’t make much sense. Do you agree the old Mass was valid and licit? If so, why did we reform it? If you agree it was OK in principle to reform it then you implicitly acknowledge there are reasons beside validity and liceity to reform the Mass. If such reasons existed then, then it’s possible that they exist today.

In fact the logic of the liturgical reform kind of demands constant reform. If Mass has to be made intelligible to people of a given set of sensibilities, rather than expecting people of a given age to conform themselves to the objective truths expressed symbolically in the Mass, then obviously one reform won’t do it. We’d need one every 2 generations or so, which is about… hmmm… 50-60 years. Maybe we’re due for another one.

Not to say we are of course, but we aren’t a faith of mere laws – the Code of Canon Law is not our holy book – so “it’s not illegal” doesn’t even begin to exhaust the intricacies of an issue.
Click to expand...
-You must be able to read bilop’s mind because he provides no reasons what so ever for his desire to abolish the licit and valid OF if he were Pope for a day. Mind sharing his apparently valid reasons with us non-mind readers?

-So, constantly reforming the Mass (by the way the Mass has always been undergoing changes and reforms) is out of the question, but it’s perfectly ok to constantly reform the work from which the Mass is drawn from (i.e. the Bible)? Or are you also arguing that we need to all start learning how to read ancient Greek?
 
oldcatholicguy said:
-You must be able to read bilop’s mind because he provides no reasons what so ever for his desire to abolish the licit and valid OF if he were Pope for a day. Mind sharing his apparently valid reasons with us non-mind readers?

-So, constantly reforming the Mass (by the way the Mass has always been undergoing changes and reforms) is out of the question, but it’s perfectly ok to constantly reform the work from which the Mass is drawn from (i.e. the Bible)? Or are you also arguing that we need to all start learning how to read ancient Greek?
Click to expand...
That’s a strange analogy, since I explicitly said I would prefer a vernacular translation of the '62 Missal to a Latin version on the '70 Missal.

When the Bible is translated, they don’t change the story line.

God Bless
 
oldcatholicguy said:
-You must be able to read bilop’s mind because he provides no reasons what so ever for his desire to abolish the licit and valid OF if he were Pope for a day. Mind sharing his apparently valid reasons with us non-mind readers?
Click to expand...
I’m not addressing bilop, I’m addressing you – specifically your incredulity that there could ever be a reason to reform a Mass which is already valid and licit. Given that we already reformed it once and you probably don’t object to that, it must be the case that there are reasons to reform the Mass besides its validity/liceity; therefore your incredulity is unfounded.
oldcatholicguy said:
-So, constantly reforming the Mass (by the way the Mass has always been undergoing changes and reforms) is out of the question, but it’s perfectly ok to constantly reform the work from which the Mass is drawn from (i.e. the Bible)? Or are you also arguing that we need to all start learning how to read ancient Greek?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Are you suggesting that the 1970s liturgical reforms are analogous to issuing new translations of Scripture?

Surely you know that what happened in 1970 was not merely a translation…?
 
ProVobis said:
No, edifying because it’s uniform throughout the Western world without favoritism to any one country or one group. I see arguments for the vernacular and plenty of options somewhat self-serving.
Click to expand...
👍
 
ProVobis said:
No, edifying because it’s uniform throughout the Western world without favoritism to any one country or one group. I see arguments for the vernacular and plenty of options somewhat self-serving.
Click to expand...
The EF Mass is more “edifying” because it’s in a language that almost no one knows and even fewer speak?

That’s simply silly. :rolleyes:

Any “favoritism” would be to those who are native speakers of a Romance Language. No more “edifying” though.

It’s curious to watch the tactics some use to sell the EF Mass is being “better” than the many alternatives. We all have our favorites, but to suggest one sacrificial Catholic liturgy is better (or worse) than another is pure hubris.
 
bilop said:
I’m confused by this statement. What do you mean it is “not possible”?

The Latin Church clearly had a major rupture in its liturgy post-V2. The change was not organic, it was imposed.

God Bless
Click to expand...
The “organic gambit” came along when the Tridentiners were told once and for all by the Church that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is not only valid, it’s the equal of the EF Mass.

Some so struggle to suggest the EF is somehow “better” than the OF Mass. Such hubris.
 
bilop said:
That’s a strange analogy, since I explicitly said I would prefer a vernacular translation of the '62 Missal to a Latin version on the '70 Missal.

When the Bible is translated, they don’t change the story line.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Just the first part of my comment regarded your post. You gave no reason for wanting to abolish a form of the Mass that is valid and licit. Hence my confusion.

It would be one thing if my wife came up to me and said “Hey, the car works great and I love it, so if I could I’d get rid of it;” and completely different if my wife said “Hey, the car works great and I love it, but it’s to small for our family so I’d get rid of it if I could.” The first would leave me scratching my head going “what?” (poor analogy for the Mass, but I believe it gets across why I was confused with your post)
 
VicFerrari said:
Some so struggle to suggest the EF is somehow “better” than the OF Mass. Such hubris.
Click to expand...
And then there are those who know beyond the shadow of a doubt that vernacular in the Mass is the better teaching tool? Sorry, there has been no evidence of that at all.
 
Arturo_Ortiz said:
I posted the article because it helps show some light on what gives the Old Mass a specific spirituality that you don’t always find in the Vernacular.

The Old Latin Mass helps us to understand our own sinfulness, just as the vernacular does in the beginning rite called the (Penitential Rite). This is seen in the Vernacular in the Confiteor and in the Old Mass in the Prayers at the foot of the altar.

The Old Mass does a better job in my opinion showing how the Mass should be uplifting the priest and people to God. This is done by the priest facing the altar (facing the East). This shows that God is the center of the Mass and not the priest or the people.

Second of all what this does is that it in my opinion also signifies the second aspect of the Mass which it is centered on besides God. That includes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ( The Consecration) When the priest faces the altar the priest is literally consecrating and offering the Sacred Hosts to Almighty God himself.

The silence of the Old Mass is also mortifying and penitential. This is so because it more intellectual and not so much based on our own selves. It helps us to have an easier time for prayer.
Click to expand...
The old Mass is sublime and lifts you up and out of yourself.

Thank you for posting the article by Father!
 
VicFerrari said:
The EF Mass is more “edifying” because it’s in a language that almost no one knows and even fewer speak?

That’s simply silly. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So 1700+ yrs of the Latin Mass was a silly period of the Church? I don’t think even the Protestants would agree with that.
 
sw85 said:
I’m not addressing bilop, I’m addressing you – specifically your incredulity that there could ever be a reason to reform a Mass which is already valid and licit. Given that we already reformed it once and you probably don’t object to that, it must be the case that there are reasons to reform the Mass besides its validity/liceity; therefore your incredulity is unfounded.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Are you suggesting that the 1970s liturgical reforms are analogous to issuing new translations of Scripture?

Surely you know that what happened in 1970 was not merely a translation…?
Click to expand...
-I understood you were addressing me, however in addressing me you inserted reasons into Bilop’s comment that are not there. Bilop simply stated that the OF is valid and licit and he (he right?) would abolish it if he were Pope for a day. No reasons.
-A valid and licit Mass can be reformed. Church history shows us this (and I’m not just talking about the recent reforms). The Latin Mass didn’t just appear out of “whole cloth.” As Father points out in his article it underwent a long and slow development.
-I just find it odd that everyone will get up in arms about the two forms of the Mass and how we need to just put some effort into understanding the EF and how the Mass shouldn’t be changed, but no one seems to take issue with the fact that the Bible (you know the source for the Mass) isn’t in it’s original languages and is full of non-organic material (those very helpful notes that explain a passage, the historical context of a passage, how it relates to other parts of Scripture, etc). I’d think if someone had such strong feelings concerning the product of the Bible, they’d view it as necessary for everyone to not only know the ancient languages, but be so well versed in history, culture, and theology that they wouldn’t need those very helpful notes.
 
ProVobis said:
So 1700+ yrs of the Latin Mass was a silly period of the Church? I don’t think even the Protestants would agree with that.
Click to expand...
Oh come on now, you can’t sell that here. Please stay on the subject. 😉

It’s SILLY to suggest the EF is somehow more intrinsically “edifying” than the OF Mass.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Just the first part of my comment regarded your post. You gave no reason for wanting to abolish a form of the Mass that is valid and licit. Hence my confusion.

It would be one thing if my wife came up to me and said “Hey, the car works great and I love it, so if I could I’d get rid of it;” and completely different if my wife said “Hey, the car works great and I love it, but it’s to small for our family so I’d get rid of it if I could.” The first would leave me scratching my head going “what?” (poor analogy for the Mass, but I believe it gets across why I was confused with your post)
Click to expand...
Thanks for putting things in very plain words. Your analogy hits home. I’m not sure why some struggle so hard in an attempt to show that the EF Mass is somehow “better” than the OF Mass when it is not? It’s neither better nor worse. The two are identical when bestowing grace onto those participating.
 
VicFerrari said:
The EF Mass is more “edifying” because it’s in a language that almost no one knows and even fewer speak?

That’s simply silly. :rolleyes:

Any “favoritism” would be to those who are native speakers of a Romance Language. No more “edifying” though.

It’s curious to watch the tactics some use to sell the EF Mass is being “better” than the many alternatives. We all have our favorites, but to suggest one sacrificial Catholic liturgy is better (or worse) than another is pure hubris.
Click to expand...
Original-
“For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.”

Modern-
“For whoever sheds his blood with me today shall be my brother. However humble his birth, this day shall grant him nobility. And men back in English now safe in their beds will curse themselves for not having been here, and think less of their own manhood when they listen to the stories of those who fought with us here on St. Crispin’s Day.”

Don’t know about you, but I find the original to be more edifying. I won’t even go into how the Henry V movie would be different if this scene was in English- youtube.com/watch?v=_AFPghilIGY

(scene linked is the singing of Non nobis Domine)
 
VicFerrari said:
It’s SILLY to suggest the EF is somehow more intrinsically “edifying” than the OF Mass.
Click to expand...
Where did I say it was MORE edifying than the OF Mass?

BTW, the OF Mass is also in Latin, but with several hundred translations that you and I both know didn’t come easy and are still mutable.
 
VicFerrari said:
Thanks for putting things in very plain words. Your analogy hits home. I’m not sure why some struggle so hard in an attempt to show that the EF Mass is somehow “better” than the OF Mass when it is not? It’s neither better nor worse. The two are identical when bestowing grace onto those participating.
Click to expand...
“when bestowing grace onto those participating.” Yes, but I’m quite sure that the EF is better at some things and the OF is better at others. If that wasn’t the case we would only have one form. Think of it in terms of male/female (best analogy I could think of, sorry). Both are equal, but both have some things they are better at than the other. As someone mentioned earlier on this thread (I think) the EF does a “better” job in regards to the use of silence.

Another would be the use of language. English is great, but its use does not have the same impact that Latin does. Latin (by it’s lack of modern usage *, and long history and linkage with the faith, not just the language itself) has a much stronger impact, at least to me, when it comes to importance and “sanctity” (not saying it is somehow a sanctifying language, but it has a stronger spiritual impact on me) than English does. Does Latin actually make a phrase “better” or more “holy,” no, but it does a great job of making me pay attention and actually focus on the moment and stay in the proper frame of mind.

A personal example of what I’m trying to explain would be music. I listen to my ipod while working outside. If I’m listening to classical music or heavy metal my mind wanders all over the place. Turn on some Gregorian chant and I’ll spend the entire time outside in deep religious thought. Not because the chant is in Latin, but because the chant is in the “language” of my faith. Its usage puts me in the right frame of mind much more readily than English (even chant in English) could.*
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Original-
“For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.”

Modern-
“For whoever sheds his blood with me today shall be my brother. However humble his birth, this day shall grant him nobility. And men back in English now safe in their beds will curse themselves for not having been here, and think less of their own manhood when they listen to the stories of those who fought with us here on St. Crispin’s Day.”

Don’t know about you, but I find the original to be more edifying. I won’t even go into how the Henry V movie would be different if this scene was in English- youtube.com/watch?v=_AFPghilIGY

(scene linked is the singing of Non nobis Domine)
Click to expand...
Poor analogy…

In any event they seem to be pretty much the same with regard to instruction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top