The Spirituality of the Old Latin Mass

[VicFerrari]

“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.

The grace effused by any valid Catholic sacrificial liturgy is the same. Everything else is a very distant second in terms of importance.

Now can individuals personally prefer one liturgy over the other? Absolutely, and there is nothing wrong with stating that. To suggest however that one is superior to another is wrong. I think concern about individuals trying to suggest one Mass is better than the other is why the Church has had a rather spotty reputation with regard to offering the EF Mass.

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.

English (or any vernacular) can have every bit the impact that Latin does. No question about that. For me personally it has a greater impact because no missalette translation is necessary and because I love the English language. I suspect my all-time favorite would be an Anglican Use Mass.
oldcatholicguy;11416357:

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.

Poor analogy. The OF Mass in the vernacular is not “classical music or heavy metal” while the EF is “Gregorian chant.” While I have no doubt the difference in impacts you feel is real, it’s because of your foundation and your preferences that you bring to listening to the music (or attending the Mass.) It’s not because of any intrinsic difference in the music. In other words some interpret those types of music very differently.

 

[andrewstx]

It is also arguably (unfortunately) more edifying if it -is- in the vernacular.

What would be wrong with translating the EF MASS into English and making it entirely audible to all?

That way we would have the advantage of the Mass being understood by all. Including those with cognitive problems including those who have had strokes like myself?

I have troubles concentrating on Mass in English as it is.

Remember the days when Missals had opposing pages, one side in Latin and the other in reverent English (no calling God you).

Can we try using the English page?

 

[GangGreen]

What would be wrong with translating the EF MASS into English and making it entirely audible to all?

That way we would have the advantage of the Mass being understood by all. Including those with cognitive problems including those who have had strokes like myself?

I have troubles concentrating on Mass in English as it is.

Remember the days when Missals had opposing pages, one side in Latin and the other in reverent English (no calling God you).

Can we try using the English page?

The EF in English could work, but at the same time IDK, there would just be something off. Would the chant in Missa Cantata be in Latin or English? Unfortunately, there just aren’t many chants in English. So do we still use Gregorian chant? In the Missa Cantata much of what happens on the alter flows with the chant. I could see a low mass being easily done with the vernacular, but MC not as sure it would be the same.

 

[ProVobis]

…because no missalette translation is necessary

Last Saturday night I put this to a test. I tried following the readings and texts with one of those missalettes. I’m glad I did, because if I hadn’t I wouldn’t have understood a single sentence they read. “Here” for “He” and stuff like that from the deacon no less and everyone just sat there looking like they couldn’t have cared less.

 

[ProVobis]

The EF in English could work,

The whole idea behind the liberation of the 1962 Missal was to appease those who wanted to abide by Vatican II’s directives. The reality it seems is that it is a lot easier for a priest just to say the EF than incorporate Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc. in the OF Mass. The EF in English would only take us back to the 60’s and look what happened to it then.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The grace effused by any valid Catholic sacrificial liturgy is the same. Everything else is a very distant second in terms of importance.

Now can individuals personally prefer one liturgy over the other? Absolutely, and there is nothing wrong with stating that. To suggest however that one is superior to another is wrong. I think concern about individuals trying to suggest one Mass is better than the other is why the Church has had a rather spotty reputation with regard to offering the EF Mass.
I think we are “talking past each other” since I agree with your above. I wasn’t trying to state one form is better (in total) over the other form, but that one form can be better at one thing (such as the use of symbols and silence in the EF) than the other. One being better in one aspect doesn’t equate to one being better than the other in total.

English (or any vernacular) can have every bit the impact that Latin does. No question about that. For me personally it has a greater impact because no missalette translation is necessary and because I love the English language. I suspect my all-time favorite would be an Anglican Use Mass.
I’m not trying to say the vernacular doesn’t have an impact or as an important as impact than Latin. I’m trying to say that we can’t simply dismiss Latin for the vernacular simply because we understand the vernacular. Even without understanding Latin, it has an important impact and has an impact that is different than the vernacular. Frankly one of the reasons you will most likely never see me at a EF Mass is because I too would have my nose in the missalette the entire time.

Poor analogy. The OF Mass in the vernacular is not “classical music or heavy metal” while the EF is “Gregorian chant.” While I have no doubt the difference in impacts you feel is real, it’s because of your foundation and your preferences that you bring to listening to the music (or attending the Mass.) It’s not because of any intrinsic difference in the music. In other words some interpret those types of music very differently.
Yes, very poor analogy. I wasn’t trying to make an analogy concerning the forms at all. I was trying to give a personal example of the impact language can have to highlight the fact that Latin, given its relationship and history with our faith, is important and shouldn’t just be tossed away (and for clarity, no I’m not implying that we should just toss away the use of the vernacular). Nothing more. Sorry for the poor analogy.

 

[ProVobis]

Can we try using the English page?

Which one? They all had different translations and I found most of them bad, especially St. Joseph’s.

 

[sw85]

-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.

I’m not attributing reasons to him, I’m giving some examples of what those reasons might be which have nothing to do with validity/liceity; more specifically I’m showing how you don’t even have to go very far, certainly not beyond the logic of the people who crafted the 1970 Missal, to show some such reasons since that very same logic demands constant reform.

So here again, saying “but it’s valid and licit” is a non sequitur. He doesn’t deny that. No one does. Nor did anyone deny the validity/liceity of the old Mass pre-reform. Why bring it up then? It has nothing to do with the reasonableness of reform.

-A valid and licit Mass can be reformed.

OK, then why your earlier incredulity (on the grounds that the new Mass is valid and licit) when bilop said he’d reform the new Mass?

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.

Yes, I have been saying as much this whole thread.

-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.

This is such a confused post I’m not even sure how to begin addressing it. It has absolutely no correspondence to what anyone here is saying.

The grace effused by any valid Catholic sacrificial liturgy is the same. Everything else is a very distant second in terms of importance.

I hear this a lot and it baffles me. If none of this accidental symbolic/appearances stuff matters at all, why’d we reform it?

If it doesn’t matter, why the resistance to re-reforming it?

One gets the impression that some folk are trying to imbue the reformed Mass with a permanence it doesn’t even claim for itself.

 

[VicFerrari]

I think we are “talking past each other” since I agree with your above. I wasn’t trying to state one form is better (in total) over the other form, but that one form can be better at one thing (such as the use of symbols and silence in the EF) than the other. One being better in one aspect doesn’t equate to one being better than the other in total.

I think one form can be “better” than another at certain things in some peoples’ eyes.

What gives me pause are those who seem to feel a need to sell the EF Mass as being “better” than the OF Mass. I have Eastern Catholic friends who for some reason feel the suggest the Eastern Divine Liturgies are “better” than the OF Mass as well. Both of their constant attempts give me pause for reflection. Why do they do that? Why do they feel the need?

I’m not trying to say the vernacular doesn’t have an impact or as an important as impact than Latin. I’m trying to say that we can’t simply dismiss Latin for the vernacular simply because we understand the vernacular. Even without understanding Latin, it has an important impact and has an impact that is different than the vernacular. Frankly one of the reasons you will most likely never see me at a EF Mass is because I too would have my nose in the missalette the entire time.

I don’t discount the EF Mass. I really don’t. But I do dismiss those who seem to have a need to sell the EF Mass (or an Eastern Divine Liturgy) as being “better” than the OF Mass. Their actions do give me pause.

Yes, very poor analogy. I wasn’t trying to make an analogy concerning the forms at all. I was trying to give a personal example of the impact language can have to highlight the fact that Latin, given its relationship and history with our faith, is important and shouldn’t just be tossed away (and for clarity, no I’m not implying that we should just toss away the use of the vernacular). Nothing more. Sorry for the poor analogy.

I don’t think that Latin (or the EF Mass) should be tossed away either. Language can definitely have a major impact (both positive and negative) and it depends most on the person. No problem with the analogy.

 

[VicFerrari]

The whole idea behind the liberation of the 1962 Missal was to appease those who wanted to abide by Vatican II’s directives. The reality it seems is that it is a lot easier for a priest just to say the EF than incorporate Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc. in the OF Mass. The EF in English would only take us back to the 60’s and look what happened to it then.

Why would you say that? Ad orientum is a purely mechanical change done at Mass set-up. Incorporating Latin in the Mass shouldn’t be difficult – certainly not as difficult as learning to celebrate the EF Mass. Gregorian chant would take an equal amount of effort in either the OF or EF Mass.

 

[CompSciGuy]

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.

False. It shows favoritism to ancient Rome, a country that no longer even exists. The Ordinary Form of the mass (with the vernacular), on the other hand, shows no favoritism as it can be celebrated in any language.

 

[bilop]

I think one form can be “better” than another at certain things in some peoples’ eyes.

What gives me pause are those who seem to feel a need to sell the EF Mass as being “better” than the OF Mass. I have Eastern Catholic friends who for some reason feel the suggest the Eastern Divine Liturgies are “better” than the OF Mass as well. Both of their constant attempts give me pause for reflection. Why do they do that? Why do they feel the need?

I don’t discount the EF Mass. I really don’t. But I do dismiss those who seem to have a need to sell the EF Mass (or an Eastern Divine Liturgy) as being “better” than the OF Mass. Their actions do give me pause.

I don’t think that Latin (or the EF Mass) should be tossed away either. Language can definitely have a major impact (both positive and negative) and it depends most on the person. No problem with the analogy.

Perhaps because it is our experience that it actually is better for us, spiritually?

I come out of an EF Mass (even if it is only a private Mass said with a priest, one server, and a couple of congregants) feeling I have experienced something truly transcendental. I really feel like I am encountering God. From my very brief experience with the Eastern Divine Liturgy (two Ukrainian weddings, and one Russian Vespers), they convey that same sense.

I just don’t get that from the OF 95% of the time. I usually find it banal, and sometimes even burdensome. I intellectually know God is present, but frankly I don’t feel it.

In any case, everyone defending the OF is implicitly saying it is better than the EF. Otherwise, why would the Church have broken with 1500+ years of Liturgical development? You don’t make a major, disruptive, change to something that’s “just as good”.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

False. It shows favoritism to ancient Rome, a country that no longer even exists. The Ordinary Form of the mass (with the vernacular), on the other hand, shows no favoritism as it can be celebrated in any language.

But you have to pick a language. In many parishes Mass is offered in two or even three vernacular languages, fragmenting the congregation.

It also has nothing to do with ancient Rome. We are talking about the Latin Church; Latin is the official language. And it is Ecclesiastical Latin, not Classical Latin. The pronunciation, for one, is completely different.

The fact that it is nobody’s primary language today is a feature, not a bug. It means the language is unchanging, and universal.

God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

Incorporating Latin in the Mass shouldn’t be difficult –

Two Popes, including the one who allowed the “all-vernacular” Mass, have tried to push Jubilate Deo, giving each parish free distribution. How many people in your parish even know about it?

 

[ProVobis]

It shows favoritism to ancient Rome

How about the fact that the inscription on the cross was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, all of which are represented in the Latin Mass, both EF and OF?

 

[GangGreen]

How about the fact that the inscription on the cross was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, all of which are represented in the Latin Mass, both EF and OF?

Latin Mass being the key words. The all vernacular OF excludes Greek and Latin and only leaves Hebrew.

Having an OF Mass even in the vernacular with Gregorian Chant (in Latin) and the Kyrie (obviously Greek) would restore this.

 

[sw85]

Why would you say that? Ad orientum is a purely mechanical change done at Mass set-up. Incorporating Latin in the Mass shouldn’t be difficult – certainly not as difficult as learning to celebrate the EF Mass. Gregorian chant would take an equal amount of effort in either the OF or EF Mass.

An interesting research study would be for the bishop to instruct a few different parish priests in his diocese to celebrate one Sunday Mass ad orientem, and see how this effects things like donations and calls of complaints to the diocesan chancery.

There are reasons priests don’t generally celebrate ad orientem anymore and it mostly isn’t ideological rejection of it. Many don’t know it’s an option; many more are afraid of the consequences that would be loosed by an unruly laity.

 

[GangGreen]

An interesting research study would be for the bishop to instruct a few different parish priests in his diocese to celebrate one Sunday Mass ad orientem, and see how this effects things like donations and calls of complaints to the diocesan chancery.

There are reasons priests don’t generally celebrate ad orientem anymore and it mostly isn’t ideological rejection of it. Many don’t know it’s an option; many more are afraid of the consequences that would be loosed by an unruly laity.

It would be interesting… but you could have the Liturgy of the Eucharist done ad orientem and the LotW done as is and it would probably work quite well in the OF.

 

[clem456]

Two Popes, including the one who allowed the “all-vernacular” Mass, have tried to push Jubilate Deo, giving each parish free distribution. How many people in your parish even know about it?

IMO, what might be very helpful is for these chants to be put into standard musical notation. I have mentioned chant to our liturgy/music director, who would love to have it, but he cannot see teaching a choir to learn the notation. It is already enough with once a week rehearsals to learn hymns, with most of the choir unable to read modern musical notation. But, there are four or five of us who can read, and that makes absorption of the music doable for the whole choir, by osmosis. If the chant was readable, several of us could make it work for the whole choir.

 

[GangGreen]

I’ll agree that looking at chant is like looking at some weird language. It’s been years since I’ve read regular music, but the first time I saw chant I was so confused. There are plenty of resources out there for helping people learn the notation though. The more musically learned would should have much less of an issue than I would. The rest of us just need to hear it and repeat what we hear .