This New Mass vs Old Mass nonsense

[empacae]

Sorry if the thread title is offensive,

But I just wanted to say my own ignorant 2 cent opinion of this. I cannot see what is so great about going back to the Latin Mass. I barely remember it as a kid. And I’ve been other places where I’ve had Mass said in Phillipino, French, Italian, Potuguese and even though you can follow along in an English Missal, it is part of being involved with the dialogue of the Mass to Preist in a language I can understand. Didn’t Paul say that he had to be all things to all men… sorry for not acuurately quoting scripture, but isn’t the intent that all men (people) must understand what is being said? Again I don’t understand, what is being lost by transmitting the Mass in the venacular of the regional or local culture. Take for instance Buck who lives in the hills out of town, doesn’t read all that much but is a man on his path with God. Buck comes to town from the hills and enters the parish to hear a garble that is completely alien to him. How many more times will Buck come to town to church. (Buck doesn’t really exist, just a product of my disordered imagination, but the example I think is valid). And even when I was a kid whether Mass was in Latin or English as a kid I would usually just sit in the pew and day dream, sometimes about God or Jesus, mostly about what it might’ve been like to be an Apostle or John the Baptist, and even sometimes I would try to blow 30 to 50 feet from the pew to the alter to make the candle flame flicker and dance to break up the boredom. But since being a teenager to now I’ve always heard the Mass and homily in English and am hooked in by understanding what’s being said.

Was there traditions other than language that was done in the Old Mass that’s not done now? I just heard about the preist facing away from the people, and I like the idea of holding the host up with the back to the people. Though I’ve never felt or seen a preist glorifying himself either by facing the Mass.

Anybody shed any light on this? Though on the positive note, my father who had Mass in Latin most of his life made him proficient in speaking French and Italian. And personally I feel I need the handicap of hearing the Word in English as I am far from even mastering this language.

Cheers all,

emp

 

[Tom]

Welcome to the forums.
Funny, but I was recently in Italy for three weeks, attended four Masses strictly in Italian, of course I don’t speak a word of Italian. The locals were amused at me repeating the various parts of the Mass in English. Never missed a beat, of course the homily was completely lost but the readings I had in English. Being a former altar boy helped by having memorizied the Mass in Latin.

 

[patti2]

empacae:

Sorry if the thread title is offensive,

But I just wanted to say my own ignorant 2 cent opinion of this. I cannot see what is so great about going back to the Latin Mass. I barely remember it as a kid. And I’ve been other places where I’ve had Mass said in Phillipino, French, Italian, Potuguese and even though you can follow along in an English Missal, it is part of being involved with the dialogue of the Mass to Preist in a language I can understand. Didn’t Paul say that he had to be all things to all men… sorry for not acuurately quoting scripture, but isn’t the intent that all men (people) must understand what is being said? Again I don’t understand, what is being lost by transmitting the Mass in the venacular of the regional or local culture. Take for instance Buck who lives in the hills out of town, doesn’t read all that much but is a man on his path with God. Buck comes to town from the hills and enters the parish to hear a garble that is completely alien to him. How many more times will Buck come to town to church. (Buck doesn’t really exist, just a product of my disordered imagination, but the example I think is valid). And even when I was a kid whether Mass was in Latin or English as a kid I would usually just sit in the pew and day dream, sometimes about God or Jesus, mostly about what it might’ve been like to be an Apostle or John the Baptist, and even sometimes I would try to blow 30 to 50 feet from the pew to the alter to make the candle flame flicker and dance to break up the boredom. But since being a teenager to now I’ve always heard the Mass and homily in English and am hooked in by understanding what’s being said.

Was there traditions other than language that was done in the Old Mass that’s not done now? I just heard about the preist facing away from the people, and I like the idea of holding the host up with the back to the people. Though I’ve never felt or seen a preist glorifying himself either by facing the Mass.

Anybody shed any light on this? Though on the positive note, my father who had Mass in Latin most of his life made him proficient in speaking French and Italian. And personally I feel I need the handicap of hearing the Word in English as I am far from even mastering this language.

Cheers all,

emp

Hello I will certainly try my best to enlight you but I have been thinking and your subject surely is important to consider if we talk about being a traditional Catholic. For starters, I think Latin is a beautiful language and it appeals to me. I surely would love to learn it more. I think the spiritual songs are beautiful sung in Latin !!

I believe that all the languages especially Italian, French, Greek, Spanish… derive from Latin no ?! I don’t think it a very bad idea if masses would be in Latin. It is not that hard to understand .
Personally , for example imagine singing the Adeste Fideles in English? It wouldn’t sound the same would it and wouldn’t be as beautiful sounding.

You could continue reading the Bible in English or other literature ? I have been to a Spanish mass, an English mass, and French mass, and Italian mass…But I have never been in a Latin mass. I’ve only seen it in the movies…It sounds nice and I would love to assist one in a more traditional way. Other traditions for one is communion on the tongue kneeling at the alter railing and going to Confession before mass. The priest would always be in the confessional a half hour at least before mass. Also woman dressed moderately with veils and long skirts and dresses. No woman was on the alter, only alter boys and also only the Priests gave communion to the people. Devotion before the Blessed Sacrement and the Kneeling upon entering the Church we see less and less and something that I can’t stand is when people speak during mass before and after in the Church. Where is the respect and the silence in the Church we used to have ?!
Oh yes there is something else that I loved when I was little and I loved going to mass when there was the wonderful perfume of essence in the air. I know of only one church I grew up in that still uses the essence (ashes) at the alter. It brings back memories of my childhood of my Father and I going to mass. Yes, and the mass was in English. I do return there sometimes.

That is just to name a few, I hope I have helped in any way.
END QUOTE//patti2

 

[Batjacboy]

empacae,

The reason why those devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass promote it is not simply because of the language. The liturgy is vastly different. The prayers are different, there is more emphasis on the Sacrifice of the Mass, and those who are devoted to it will say it is much more spiritual. The actual Latin language is not the most crucial aspect, although it is the Church’s language and is the language in which most of the prayers were originally written, so there are no translation issues.

If you can, try going to a parish that has an Indult Mass. Go a few times, to get a sense of it; the first time can be a bit overwhelming. If you have a good Latin/English missal (and they’re usually provided at the back of the church), you can follow the prayers, and you’ll see how very different the actual prayers are when compared to the English. Some missals also have explanations to help you understand why the priests and the altar boys do what they do at the various parts of the Mass.

I definitely sympathize with Tom. Every time I go overseas, I regret that the Church stopped using the Latin Mass. People will tell you that they used to be able to go to any country in the world and hear the same Mass. It didn’t take long for people to learn the Latin, so when they went to foreign countries, they’d follow the Mass just as well as they did in their own parishes.

 

[empacae]

Batjacboy,

Not only English/Latin in the Missal, maybe the phonetic spellings too of the Latin words in the third column for guys like me. Unfortunately for me I’m limited to my choices of Mass I go to being here nudged between the Rockies on my east and the Purcell ranges in the west. You take what you get in the sticks brother and sisters…heh heh

emp

 

[Batjacboy]

Emp,

Try this .

Do a search according to your zip code, and look for those Masses that are listed as “Diocese.” Those are the ones in communion with Rome.

(By the way, take the rest of this website with a grain of salt.)

 

[JSmitty2005]

empacae:

I cannot see what is so great about going back to the Latin Mass.

The very problem that traditionalists have with the post-conciliar liturgy is hidden within this statement. It shouldn’t be something to “go back to.” There should be organic growth, development, and reform in line with the liturgy that has been handed down through the centuries by means of tradition. The problem is that it is hardly recognizable that the Tridentine was the predecessor of the N.O. There’s a huge lack of liturgical continuity and it’s really pretty sad. I think, hope, and pray that B16 will straighten things out though.

 

[Eileen_T]

Our parish has begun the process of re-introducing Latin into the NO Mass by planning August 6th, the Feast of the Transfiguration, to have a single Sunday Mass - the Tridentine Mass.

Our PP is having a series of meetings leading up to Aug.6, to help everyone understand better what it is all about, why certain things were done etc…

After Aug 6, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus & Angus Dei will more than likely continue to be chanted at the NO Sunday Mass. Father says he is looking forward to reclaiming a sense of the sacred into the Mass.

This will be more in line with what Vatican II intended to happen. I don’t know if he will also have his back to the people during the Consecration as Pope Benedict has suggested should happen, I’ll have to wait and see.

 

[empacae]

JSmitty2005:

The very problem that traditionalists have with the post-conciliar liturgy is hidden within this statement. It shouldn’t be something to “go back to.” There should be organic growth, development, and reform in line with the liturgy that has been handed down through the centuries by means of tradition. The problem is that it is hardly recognizable that the Tridentine was the predecessor of the N.O. There’s a huge lack of liturgical continuity and it’s really pretty sad. I think, hope, and pray that B16 will straighten things out though.

JSmitty2005

Dude, you’re talking about things like doctrine, and political stuff right? No matter what the evolution of the Church, it will always be the three year reading of The Bible, the Lord’s Prayer, a sign of peace, and of course the Eucharist. You will always be standing or sitting or kneeling to cue certain parts of the mass. And children understand right off the bat that something unseen is happening, and to most of those parishoners that know they are in the presence of God throughout the Mass. You can see it in their faces, but most of the time my head is bowed and I feel Real Presence. Always have, and I’m sure most of us do. Okay Okay… I’m a bad Catholic… I’ll admit it and take this beam out of my eye. I don’t use most of the jargon, that has been handed down to us over the years (In fact it took my Jewish friend to tell me what a Novena was ) I said, “Oh that!” Perpectual Adoration, Vigils, etc etc. I mainly just went to Mass and read the Bible. Had Communion and Confirmation Catechism, and continued on… as I’ve said in relative ignorance to the faith. But things I did if they were of a Christian nature (ie. Helping someone, giving a ride, nursing an ill or injured friend yadda yadda) These things just seemed as natural to do as breathing and probably because of some sort of osmosis through Church teaching. But I grew up largely in a farm town with a tiny little RC church sorrounded by Knox Presbeterians, Baptists, two Anglican, a JW center, United, Salvation Army (Who I always thought those guys and gals were great)… well you get the idea… probably 10 to 1 And of course come Christmas and Easter the wee chapel would be busting at the seams, and latecomers would be standing at the back of the church and down the stairs and even on the sidewalk. (okay that only happened to us once, but every year somebody is on the pavement at C & E). But aren’t we still learning? And if God wanted to be taught in the universal language… then why would he have befuddled all us with many languages? Oh that tower thing at Babel…right. For documentation for the ages, doctrinal records, and Diaries and writing I would think that Latin is just fine to preserve the Church. But for the masses Give us our lesson in Christ. Give us homilies that will teach us how to apply the Gospel in our daily lives. Give us what we need to be the body of Christ so that her (the Church) branches can grow through us. I am very bad Catholic as I see for the most part of my life it was my ignorance that saved me, and now something is compelling me to seek out more knowledge about us. But in my lack of knowledge I have always known God was with me, and most of those I knew that were catholic, whether they were Church goers or not. Perhaps human flaw is not appreciating something you have until it is lost. So if the mass were to reurn to the Latin Traditional Mass… how would the knowledge be absorbed into the children of tomorrow?

 

[paramedicgirl]

empacae:

Batjacboy,

Not only English/Latin in the Missal, maybe the phonetic spellings too of the Latin words in the third column for guys like me. Unfortunately for me I’m limited to my choices of Mass I go to being here nudged between the Rockies on my east and the Purcell ranges in the west. You take what you get in the sticks brother and sisters…heh heh

emp

I also live in the Columbia Valley. (The mountains are spectacular, aren’t they?) When I get to Calgary on a Sunday, I go to St Anthony’s Tridentine Mass (just off McLeod Trail). I’m going next Sunday!

 

[empacae]

paramedicgirl:

I also live in the Columbia Valley. (The mountains are spectacular, aren’t they?) When I get to Calgary on a Sunday, I go to St Anthony’s Tridentine Mass (just off McLeod Trail). I’m going next Sunday!

I’ve been to St. Anthony a few times. I was there this Christmas Eve, perhaps you were there. It was truelly amazing. The orchastra, the choir, and all of us signing… wow! I was…was… moved, ya know? Cool. Livin in Invermere, sometimes go to St Joe’s in Radium too… The mountains make an awesome backdrop to the statues on the mountain of the Stations of the Cross. Of course, the fact that live mountain sheep are munching around the statues only add to the amazement of The Church in a place like this.

emp

 

[JSmitty2005]

empacae:

JSmitty2005

Dude, you’re talking about things like doctrine, and political stuff right? No matter what the evolution of the Church, it will always be the three year reading of The Bible, the Lord’s Prayer, a sign of peace, and of course the Eucharist. You will always be standing or sitting or kneeling to cue certain parts of the mass. And children understand right off the bat that something unseen is happening, and to most of those parishoners that know they are in the presence of God throughout the Mass. You can see it in their faces, but most of the time my head is bowed and I feel Real Presence. Always have, and I’m sure most of us do. Okay Okay… I’m a bad Catholic… I’ll admit it and take this beam out of my eye. I don’t use most of the jargon, that has been handed down to us over the years (In fact it took my Jewish friend to tell me what a Novena was ) I said, “Oh that!” Perpectual Adoration, Vigils, etc etc. I mainly just went to Mass and read the Bible. Had Communion and Confirmation Catechism, and continued on… as I’ve said in relative ignorance to the faith. But things I did if they were of a Christian nature (ie. Helping someone, giving a ride, nursing an ill or injured friend yadda yadda) These things just seemed as natural to do as breathing and probably because of some sort of osmosis through Church teaching. But I grew up largely in a farm town with a tiny little RC church sorrounded by Knox Presbeterians, Baptists, two Anglican, a JW center, United, Salvation Army (Who I always thought those guys and gals were great)… well you get the idea… probably 10 to 1 And of course come Christmas and Easter the wee chapel would be busting at the seams, and latecomers would be standing at the back of the church and down the stairs and even on the sidewalk. (okay that only happened to us once, but every year somebody is on the pavement at C & E). But aren’t we still learning? And if God wanted to be taught in the universal language… then why would he have befuddled all us with many languages? Oh that tower thing at Babel…right. For documentation for the ages, doctrinal records, and Diaries and writing I would think that Latin is just fine to preserve the Church. But for the masses Give us our lesson in Christ. Give us homilies that will teach us how to apply the Gospel in our daily lives. Give us what we need to be the body of Christ so that her (the Church) branches can grow through us. I am very bad Catholic as I see for the most part of my life it was my ignorance that saved me, and now something is compelling me to seek out more knowledge about us. But in my lack of knowledge I have always known God was with me, and most of those I knew that were catholic, whether they were Church goers or not. Perhaps human flaw is not appreciating something you have until it is lost. So if the mass were to reurn to the Latin Traditional Mass… how would the knowledge be absorbed into the children of tomorrow?

First off, I don’t remember mentioning Latin, dude. Your above rant seems to be directed at what you perceive the traditionalist movement to be all about (ie - returning to Latin), and it just sounded like “blah, blah, blah” to me. I’m sorry, but there’s much more to it than that and I don’t have the time to go into now. I wouldn’t even be qualified since I do not attend an FSSP chapel or anything of the sort. As for the things that I bolded/underlined in your quote above, let’s start with the first. If it is true that parishioners in your parish know “right of the bat” that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist then how is it that 80% of Catholics across the country don’t believe in His Real Presence? Secondly, if you are being compelled to learn more about us Catholics with regard to the liturgy, I suggest reading Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy and a book published by Ignatius called Looking at the Liturgy. I had a similar reversion as well and I thank God for it. Thirdly, as for catechesis becoming poorer with a return to the TLM, what gives you the idea that it’s good now? All the people I know that were educated in the Faith pre-Vat 2 know much more than I do. All I learned was least common denominator, social Gospel, buddy Christ trash in my CCD. To me, this indicates that the language of the Mass does not determine the knowledge of the faithful. And finally, despite the fact that I didn’t mention Latin in my post, since you mentioned it, I must share a quote from Pope John XXIII:

“The Latin language, which we can truly call catholic, having been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, mother and teacher of all the churches, must be considered a treasure…of incomparable value, and a door which leads into direct contact with the Christian truths handed down by tradition and with the documents of the teaching of the Church.”
-Veterum Sapienta

 

[empacae]

JSmitty2005:

First off, I don’t remember mentioning Latin, dude. Your above rant seems to be directed at what you perceive the traditionalist movement to be all about (ie - returning to Latin), and it just sounded like “blah, blah, blah” to me. I’m sorry, but there’s much more to it than that and I don’t have the time to go into now. I wouldn’t even be qualified since I do not attend an FSSP chapel or anything of the sort. As for the things that I bolded/underlined in your quote above, let’s start with the first. If it is true that parishioners in your parish know “right of the bat” that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist then how is it that 80% of Catholics across the country don’t believe in His Real Presence? Secondly, if you are being compelled to learn more about us Catholics with regard to the liturgy, I suggest reading Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy and a book published by Ignatius called Looking at the Liturgy. I had a similar reversion as well and I thank God for it. Thirdly, as for catechesis becoming poorer with a return to the TLM, what gives you the idea that it’s good now? All the people I know that were educated in the Faith pre-Vat 2 know much more than I do. All I learned was least common denominator, social Gospel, buddy Christ trash in my CCD. To me, this indicates that the language of the Mass does not determine the knowledge of the faithful. And finally, despite the fact that I didn’t mention Latin in my post, since you mentioned it, I must share a quote from Pope John XXIII:

“The Latin language, which we can truly call catholic, having been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, mother and teacher of all the churches, must be considered a treasure…of incomparable value, and a door which leads into direct contact with the Christian truths handed down by tradition and with the documents of the teaching of the Church.”
-Veterum Sapienta

Sorry JSmitty2005 (about the dude reference, familiar term of affection between bros),

Anyhow, really 80% of Catholics don’t believe that the bread and wine are transformed into Body and Blood? What is the point of being Catholic then if 80% DON’T BELIEVE? And I didn’t mean to come off like a rant. I’m just trying to get perpective. I didn’t think catchesis was really any good when I was growing up and helping my friend’s daughter going through her First Holy Communion now, well it always seems preists are busy, and they probably are. So outside of confession you never seem to have their full attention. Just seems like it anyway. And perhaps I’m just a little scared of the mass changing too. Something I’ve known all my life is going to be different. And it was the one thing that kept me achored no matter where I travelled to. It was always the same. I’ve just known it as always perfect, and didn’t know how it could be any more perfect.

 

[Crumpy]

There are different levels of the discussion about the Latin Mass.

Having been an altar server for several years before the Mass in English, I can say that there was far more uniformity of the liturgy of the Mass, from priest to priest, you know what I mean? The Mass didn’t have optional parts in it, for example.

The tabernacle was right there, beyond the altar, and the Mass was celebrated right under a crucifix (usually). The Mass was somewhat synchronized with the altar servers, so if the priest were to deviate from the script of the Mass (this just didn’t happen), then it would have caused some confusion.

Even so, a “low” Mass (non-sung) could be celebrated in less than 30 minutes.

For special occasions, there was a solemn Mass, which required two extra priests garbed as sub-deacon and deacon. There was some choreography to that, that I can’t detail here.

The Mass was always a very formal liturgy.

Now, the Mass is constantly undergoing innovation in virtually all details. It is much less formal (in terms of following a precise script and choreography) and it is subject to much more improvisation by the priest. Some priests especially like to choose the shortest of all prayer options, and everything is done in such a conversational manner with the congregation.

It has lost so much of the reverence, that a few things (so far) have been done to try to restore some of that awe and reverence to the Mass. For example, you didn’t have servers holding lighted candles next to the priest for the reading of the gospel before, even in the English version of the Mass. That hasn’t been around as long as you might think.

And, more recently, the bowing or genuflecting before receiving communion has been introduced.

I don’t understand why so many Catholics aren’t committing themselves to the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That is tending to restore the devotion of “benediction” with the Blessed Sacrament.

I don’t know why catechists over the last 40 years haven’t been more diligent in teaching that doctrine of the faith. That’s what the liturgy of the Mass is all about. but,you see, so much has been dismantled, and as I would say, there you go.

 

[Crumpy]

Catholicism has been so watered down, especially due to the loss of nuns teaching religion in the Catholic schools, that we are seeing real crises in faith.

I think they must teach remedial catholicism in seminaries, but I don’t think they would admit to it.

Look at EWTN. Most of the shows usually involve some sort of Q&A and/or call-in, because even adult Catholics don’t understand the faith. Fr. Corapi has that extended series on teaching the Catechism. But, that is oriented towards adult Catholics.

I think the Bishops of the U.S. have really allowed the infrastructure of the parish to collapse since Vatican II.

 

[JSmitty2005]

empacae:

Sorry JSmitty2005 (about the dude reference, familiar term of affection between bros),

Anyhow, really 80% of Catholics don’t believe that the bread and wine are transformed into Body and Blood? What is the point of being Catholic then if 80% DON’T BELIEVE? And I didn’t mean to come off like a rant. I’m just trying to get perpective. I didn’t think catchesis was really any good when I was growing up and helping my friend’s daughter going through her First Holy Communion now, well it always seems preists are busy, and they probably are. So outside of confession you never seem to have their full attention. Just seems like it anyway. And perhaps I’m just a little scared of the mass changing too. Something I’ve known all my life is going to be different. And it was the one thing that kept me achored no matter where I travelled to. It was always the same. I’ve just known it as always perfect, and didn’t know how it could be any more perfect.

Sorry if I came off snappy, there’s another poster on this forum that has been recently giving me a hard time. They’ve taken it upon themselves to be charity police and monitor the political correctness of my posts, BUT anyways ! I don’t know what the point of being Catholic is if they don’t believe in the Real Presence either. As for changing the Mass back, how do you think all the pre-Vat 2 people felt when it was changed to how it is now? You see, the problem is that the liturgy should never change so drastically that it is unrecognizable. Similar terms are used when speaking of doctrines. They can develop, but they never change. It’s a key distinction. I think that the liturgy should surely develop and I’m not one of these people that think that V2 was heretical, but the implementation of it was hijacked by liberal progressivists in this country in an attempt to Protestantize the liturgy…and it worked. We have to return to what Vatican II really intended to do. Consider the following which can be found at this link:

Sacrosanctum Concilium—The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

The liturgy is no doubt the most neuralgic area of post-conciliar life. It is here that we are treated to some of the most egregious examples of ecclesial mythology. One of the first myths foisted on the laity is that Vatican II taught that Christ is as present in the liturgical assembly as he is in the eucharistic species. Here’s what the Council Fathers really said:

“To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of his minister, ‘the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,’ but especially under the eucharistic species” (SC 7, emphasis mine).

We are also led to believe that the Council did away with devotions. That flies in the face of the following: “Popular devotions of the Christian people are to be highly commended, provided they accord with the laws and norms of the Church, above all when they are ordered by the Apostolic See” (13).

Those who think that it’s cool to personalize the liturgy or that incessant change is the goal of liturgical life would be well advised to heed the Council’s words: “No other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. . . . Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (22, 23).

And, of course, we all know that the reforms of Vatican II did away with the Latin Mass. Strangely enough, nobody informed the bishops: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (36). And some priests will be amazed to learn that “in accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office” (101). It would seem that a real Vatican II Catholic ought to foster the use of Latin, eh?

And what kind of music should form the backbone of Catholic worship? The answer is quite direct: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services” (116).