Traditional Latin Mass vs NO

  • Thread starter Thread starter chuck001
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s true. With an exception; in the first few years of the Church, Mass was said in Aramaic, as Paul had not yet had his conversion experience and started out throughout areas of Greece, Turkey and what is now Italy. First Aramaic; then as the church expanded beyond the Jews, Greek as it was the common language; and then as the Romans consolidated more power, Latin. Whether it was Constantine making the change (he involved himself in some church matters) or was instigated by him, or was simply a gradual move as the Church expanded is not particularly relevant.
 
This is correct - the vernacular was used. However, in her wisdom, the Church decided to retain Latin when it ceased being the vernacular language. Pope St John XXIII issued Veterum Sapientia on the eve of Vatican II in order to safeguard the continued use of Latin. Then Vatican II reaffirmed that Latin ought to be retained.
 
Not everyone who attends the EF is opposed to the OF, or the translation (and by analogy, opposed to the vernacular). And I doubt that one could find a priest who says the EF who is liturgically casual or rushed, let alone sloppy. Some of those of us who grew up before Vatican 2 had different experiences.

To respond to you (chuck001) concerning how you responded to the OF, without knowing more and having an opportunity to speak with you, it is impossible to really respond to your comments effectively. perhaps a few points might provide some grist for you, however.

If I could provide that often used science fiction contraption of the time machine and take you back to the Upper Room for the Last Supper, I suspect you would have a very different experience from either the EF or the OF - and that, in spite of the fact that it would be Christ Himself as high priest. Given your experiences you would clearly be one-up on the Apostles as to understanding what you would see, but I doubt you might come to the conclusion that it was a Mass. A consecration, yes, But not an identifiable Mass.

And if you then “stayed around” in and out of time for several decades, you still might have a hard time recognizing the Mass, given that it was bifurcated over two days. Both experiences would be as authentic as authentic could be - one by Christ, and the others by the actual Apostles. and both exceedingly different from eithr the EF or the OF - far more different that the comparison of the EF and the OF.

The form of the OF - the entrance, penitentiary prayers, Gloria, readings, homily, Creed, Offertory, Epiclesis, Consecration, prayers after consecration, Lamb of God, Communion, prayers after Communion: all follow along in the same format in the EF. The EF has some prayers added, but the format is the same. One is in the vernacular; the other in Latin.

Comments are made about the EF being more “doctrinally clear” but as that is a catch phrase that gets tossed out with exceeding regularity, I find the comment unsubstantiated. Certainly with the three cycles of readings over three years, coupled with more biblical readings (aka the Old Testament), I don’t find the OF “doctrinally unclear” as doctrine comes to us substantially through the Bible (as well as Tradition). Certainly the EF has a different and more extensive ritual base, and may be more formalized, Beyond that, however, I can’t add comment.
 
Last edited:
Vatican 2 also clarified that the vernacular was to be used. As with all the other documents of Vatican 2, it was not a line by line explication as to exactly what changes were to be made; that was reserved for further work - just as all the other documents did. And 48 years later, after the OF was introduced, Rome still does not seem to be overly concerned with how much Latin is used; with 3 revisions and no mandate as to any particular use, those who are unhappy about it seem to be receiving no support from Rome.
 
Interesting. I had picked up the use of the abbreviation NO without negative context because I am essentially a Catholic culture newbie. I’ll use OF in the future should I feel the need to abbreviate.
 
The Mass may have very well been celebrated in Greek in the very early days. But there is every evidence that the Roman Canon was written in Latin, and could have been even been written by Greek scholars.

Latin was never really a vernacular, although Vulgar Latin, which was a father to today’s Romance languages, was probably more of the street language at the time. But the Mass wasn’t celebrated in Vulgar Latin to my knowledge.

Latin was the language of the military, law, philosophy, and later of Church documents, scripture, and the liturgy.
 
ProVobis said:
The Mass may have very well been celebrated in Greek in the very early days. But there is every evidence that the Roman Canon was written in Latin, and could have been even been written by Greek scholars.
Click to expand...
The evidence also shows that the Roman Canon is the earliest Eucharistic Prayer of them all.
 
Saxum said:
My personal opinion is that the Traditional Latin Mass is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven. The Ordinary Form is a licit and valid liturgy but it lacks much of the symbolism, and doctrinal clarity of the Old Rite.
Click to expand...
This assertion is simply not true.
 
Thank you. It is not that Novus Ordo is in itself offensive but that some (as described above) have used it as a weapon to make it sound like an adjective. I’d say it’s prevalent here more than other places on the internet, but I’ve seen bloggers and “Catholic” news sites purposefully use it to be divisive, too.
 
otjm said:
Comments are made about the EF being more “doctrinally clear” but as that is a catch phrase that gets tossed out with exceeding regularity, I find the comment unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, a side by side comparison of the traditional offertory prayers with the new ones alone is enough to substantiate this claim.
 
R_H_Benson said:
In my opinion, a side by side comparison of the traditional offertory prayers with the new ones alone is enough to substantiate this claim.
Click to expand...
Indeed. That’s really the foundation of this whole discussion.
 
Perhaps, but even so, do yourself a favor and check out the comparison.
 
R_H_Benson said:
Perhaps, but even so, do yourself a favor and check out the comparison.
Click to expand...
I have. Yes, the EF has a lot more words. But to suggest it has great “symbolism”, and “doctrinal clarity” is just silly in all honesty.
 
In the case of the offertory, the words are symbols used to clearly express the action that is taking place on the altar.
 
Duesenberg said:
Oh, no, no, the onus is on you to defend your absurd initial claim.
Click to expand...
Don’t think so, pal. You show me how I’m absurd.

I own an OF Missal and an EF Missal. I read them both and so can you. It’s patently obvious that my assertion is true. In fact, if my assertion isn’t true then the EF would have died out when the OF was promulgated. The very fact that the EF continues to exist proves that the OF lacks something. If the OF was just as good as the EF then nobody would have fought to save the EF - everybody would have embraced the new Mass. But that didn’t happen - and it didn’t happen for a reason.
 
Saxum said:
I own an OF Missal and an EF Missal. I read them both and so can you. It’s patently obvious that my assertion is true. In fact, if my assertion isn’t true then the EF would have died out when the OF was promulgated. The very fact that the EF continues to exist proves that the OF lacks something. If the OF was just as good as the EF then nobody would have fought to save the EF - everybody would have embraced the new Mass. But that didn’t happen - and it didn’t happen for a reason.
Click to expand...
You’re still trying to sell the notion that the EF Mass is somehow “better” than the OF Mass. That truly is silly. Sorry, but no sale.

Yes, the onus is on you. You made the initial statement – which you are unable to back-up.

The reasons the EF Mass “still exists” and is still attended (albeit in tiny numbers) is twofold. First as Pope Benedict XVI noted, the EF Mass was never abrogated. That’s why it still exists. People still attend it largely because of the abysmal implementation of the OF. That, and of course the true reactionaries who’ll resist ANY changes.

The OF Mass was recently updated in the last few years. The level of communication and training in my parish was outstanding. It was rigorous and thorough. Had it been that way decades before, I suspect EF attendance would be a tiny fraction of its already tiny number today. Only the true reactionaries would be attending.

I wonder how much more time and effort you’ll will spend on these forums trying to sell the absurd notion that the EF Mass is superior to the OF Mass?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top