Traditional Latin Mass

[jonpd]

I suspect that the EF is unlikely to become the norm again for the Catholic Mass. I think that things have changed too much. I say that as a supporter of the EF who attends an EF parish most Sundays. However I do belive many people recognize that the reforms that led to the current OF Mass went further than V2 intended and the Church, particularly the Holy Father Benedict XVI, are attempting to slowly correct this. The new language for the OF which is coming into effect in 2010 is a start in that direction. I think if a return to more Gregorian chant plus using the traditional canon (Eucharistic prayer I) were encouraged that would go a long way in making the OF more reverent.

 

[StillWondering]

As an anthropologist and as someone who grew up in an incredibly diverse cultural environment in Louisiana, “cultural diversity” as a means of explanation for abuses in the OF simply does not hold water for me. The Cajuns are farm more orthodox to this day. Not once have I seen the dance hall brought into Church. There is no MIssa Chank-a-Chank. One cannot say that about folk, rock, or pseudo-Southern Baptist masses which I have seen and heard.

Should we return to the EF as the norm? Absolutely not. Should ALL Catholics be exposed to Latin and to be able to appreciate their heritage? Absolutely.

I completely agree on the second paragraph.

As for the first paragraph and the description of Masses with abuses in the OF, I cannot relate. I do not see the same things. I see some slight issues but that is because I can be scrupulous. I do not think I have ever seen a real abuse in the OF since my youth. As for actual churches that do not have abuses, I have been parishioners at Blessed Sacrament Parish (Westminster, CA); Holy Spirit Parish (Berkeley, CA); and St. Dominic’s Catholic Church (San Francisco, CA).

Still, I think you misunderstood my claim. I am not talking about a group being a particular culture within a parish. I’m talking about within one parish there is a number of different cultures not incorporated into the parish as a whole. Some people are truly living their faith and welcome others. But that is not always the case. This leads to Catholics that are not unified within their own parish. How would it be possible to have a unified Church with a unified norm that is consistent throughout without abuses from fallen individuals. The counter argument may be the fact that the TLM was everywhere at one point. Well, people are very different now. I grew up having trouble remembering my basic prayers, through no particular fault of others. Simply, I was not well catechized. If now I’m here actively learning my faith from the internet, imagine how many more poorly catechized Catholics there are that may commit liturgical abuses without even thinking so. This combined with the lack of Catholic community found in places where people like to argue and assert their own individuality, I cannot imagine any situation without abuses. This is the culture I am talking about, not race or ethnic background in and of itself.

I hope I made sense. What I am trying to say is that to avoid abuses one needs a proper environment to maintain a common understanding. In American culture, people then to think of themselves as individuals before they think of themselves as being a part of a larger unified whole. This prevents an environment that maintains a common understanding. This is where the root of many problems occur, including liturgical abuses. As Tim and John referred to: there will be abuses in the TLM if that is soon changed into the norm because the form may change but that does not address the problem. And that is found in our divisive culture – not “cultural diversity”. Your term, not mind =P.

-BTW, I’m Vietnamese (in relation to your comment about a Vietnamese OF) and really miss the liturgy done in Vietnamese. Those have been very God-oriented with a good dose of community bonding. I would say between the three parishes I have attended, the Vietnamese one conveys the Catholic culture and meaning very well.

 

[StillWondering]

This was one of the main reasons I became a Catholic. The thought that I could go to any parish in the world and attend Mass really appealed to me. I did not know about the OF of the Mass until I already started the RCIA process; until I went to that Mass, I thought all Masses were TLM’s.

I have attended Mass in Spanish without know the language a couple of times but I can still know what is going on. I know it is not the same as having the same language and response everywhere in the world. I hope that more TLM become available. But it is very possible to go to any orthodox OF and know what’s going on. It took some getting used, to but after a few trilingual Masses presided by our Bishop, I really appreciate that the OF is the OF in at least Spanish, Vietnamese, and English.

Layman;5970098:

If it’s a solemn public

rite of sacrifice then individual, external expressions of piety have to be restrained as there is more than one person present. One could distract and annoy others, including the priest.
/QUOTE]

So would you then take the position that demanding to be allowed to kneel and receive communion, when the norm for the parish and the country is to receive standing, would be a distraction and should be restrained? I’m just curious how consistent your positon is.

I don’t personally think so but then I struggle with the boundary between personal piety and being a distraction as I noted in a previous post.

Well, if you are having mass in an open field and you kneel during the parts you should kneel, that might be a distraction if the ground is painful to kneel on. But I think that’s a good distraction if you never intended to distract but felt that God would be pleased. Not only are you being truly to your need to worship God in what way you can, you can be an inspiration for others. Not that you would want to give others pain, but it would be something that may inspire the hearts of others.

On the other hand, it’s not appropriate to shout or yell at Mass. So don’t =). I love to skip home after Church from how happy I am. But inside the Church, the joy is expressed differently. Just wanted to give a personal account as perspective.

 

[Layman]

Heh, heh, if the TLM ever becomes universal again and I had to go to Spain or Vietnam I know which Mass I’d be heading to. Have missal, will travel.

With the TLM you know what you’re going to get. You can fulfil your obligation in peace, follow along in your missal and then go home in peace. (Literally and figuratively, given the noise level.)

**With the N.O. you wonder what you’re going to find when you go to a new church. **

 

[ncjohn]

Sorry … I meant to exclude the Masses on EWTN.

I hope one day I too can be such an extraordinary Catholic that I can be arrogant.

Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think before VII, certain places had special permission to do the TLM in the vernacular.

But it would be an abuse to celebrate the TLM verbally and in English. The rubrics for the TLM are that it is said silently and in Latin.

How odd that you try to end abuses in the liturgy of the Mass by suggesting an abuse!

 

[ncjohn]

But I think that’s a good distraction if you never intended to distract but felt that God would be pleased. Not only are you being truly to your need to worship God in what way you can, you can be an inspiration for others.

That is why I struggle with that boundary on distractions. I know the USCCB was attempting to reduce or eliminate the distractions and the tendency toward judgment that expressions of individual piety bring on, but when we truly feel called to those expressions I just don’t see how to tell someone “no”. At the same time, having encountered those who publicly have expressed that they are going to indulge themselves simply to show the priest he can’t tell them what to do, it can be hard not to harbor judgments, or at least questions, about anyone else “indulging” themselves.

Layman:

With the TLM you know what you’re going to get.

With the N.O. you wonder what you’re going to find when you go to a new church.

And the whole point is that that is hogwash on both counts. The essentials of both that are needed to “know what is going on” are present in both and anyone with familiarity with the style of the Mass will know what is going on. And both have been and continue to be subject to abuses and have been abused, while at the same time the majority of both are not. I was present at FAR more abused TLMs than I have ever been at OF Masses despite having been to at least 3 times as many OF’s in my many years. This belief with “rose colored glasses” that the TLM is perfect and incapable of abuse is incredibly naive from my experience.

And while you may be blessed to be literate and have access to a missal, the majority of the world does not have either so what language other than their own they hear Mass in isn’t going to make a difference since the ability to look at a missal isn’t going to be an option.

Lord forgive us for sinning against the unity you so strongly desire and for putting our pride above our desire to please you.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I hope one day I too can be such an extraordinary Catholic that I can be arrogant.

Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.

I think the two are mutually exclusive but if you are sincere in your prayers you will become a better Catholic without being arrogant.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I was present at FAR more abused TLMs than I have ever been at OF Masses despite having been to at least 3 times as many OF’s in my many years.

We would all love to see your so-called mile long list of TLM abuses that you have been to. Any Eucharistic Ministers dressed as devils and priests dressed as Barney?

And while you may be blessed to be literate and have access to a missal, the majority of the world does not…

Those poor Catholics from the catacombs to the Middle Ages without literacy or a Missal. Its amazing we have any Catholics left to be saved by the Novus Ordo.

Lord forgive us for assisting at Mass where the Blessed Sacrament is banished from our sight.

 

[brigantine]

Those poor Catholics from the catacombs to the Middle Ages without literacy or a Missal. Its amazing we have any Catholics left to be saved by the Novus Ordo.

Lord forgive us for assisting at Mass where the Blessed Sacrament is banished from our sight.

I’m pretty sure the Mass was done in the language of those people in the catacombs!

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’m pretty sure the Mass was done in the language of those people in the catacombs!

Don’t think so. I believe it was Greek, gradually changing to Latin starting in around 190. Apparently, there was a sense of a liturgical language of the church even in these early times. But I do not believe anyone was publishing Missals as early 190 so I am not sure how anyone who didn’t speak Latin or Greek had the foggiest idea what was going on. They must have just prayed their rosaries.

 

[ncjohn]

We would all love to see your so-called mile long list of TLM abuses that you have been to. Any Eucharistic Ministers dressed as devils and priests dressed as Barney?

No, clearly if Jesus himself testified to them you wouldn’t believe him. Obviously, the mere fact that I was there and serving at those Masses isn’t nearly enough, even when coroborated by others with identical experiences. When one is blind, one is blind.

Believe me, the abuses and loss of reverence on a regular basis far exceeded the one or two occasions of the types of things you’re addressing. Instead we had Barneys dressed as priests. And this wasn’t confined to one parish but every one of the parishes I attended growing up. Not all the time either but often enough to be abundantly obvious, especially at the early morning Masses.

Don’t think so. I believe it was Greek, gradually changing to Latin starting in around 190. Apparently, there was a sense of a liturgical language of the church even in these early times. But I do not believe anyone was publishing Missals as early 190 so I am not sure how anyone who didn’t speak Latin or Greek had the foggiest idea what was going on.

Wow, the level of ignorance here is astounding. Greek and Latin were the vernacular of their times with Latin gradually supplanting Greek (much later than 190) because of the Roman Church gradually being separated, both geographically and liturgically, from the Eastern branch of the Church. There was no special “liturgical language” until Latin died out as a spoken language and the clergy decided to maintain it anyway.

As time went on very few indeed did have any idea what was going on and by around the time of Trent many were asking if it was really even important for the people to be there rather than the priest just offering Mass alone on their behalf.

 

[giuseppeTO]

No, clearly if Jesus himself testified to them you wouldn’t believe him. Obviously, the mere fact that I was there and serving at those Masses isn’t nearly enough, even when coroborated by others with identical experiences.

I also was an altar boy before the New Mass. I am sure you saw what you saw, I am just interested in what this long litany of abuses were that you suffered through. I get the feeling, though, that you are not going to tell us.

Wow, the level of ignorance here is astounding.

Yes, I agree. I am.

Greek and Latin were the vernacular of their times …

If you are saying that everyone in Rome (catacombs) spoke and understood Greek in the first century, when the Mass was celebrated in Greek, you need to bone up on your history a bit, NC.

 

[Layman]

And the whole point is that that is hogwash on both counts. The essentials of both that are needed to “know what is going on” are present in both and anyone with familiarity with the style of the Mass will know what is going on. And both have been and continue to be subject to abuses and have been abused, while at the same time the majority of both are not. I was present at FAR more abused TLMs than I have ever been at OF Masses despite having been to at least 3 times as many OF’s in my many years. This belief with “rose colored glasses” that the TLM is perfect and incapable of abuse is incredibly naive from my experience.

And while you may be blessed to be literate and have access to a missal, the majority of the world does not have either so what language other than their own they hear Mass in isn’t going to make a difference since the ability to look at a missal isn’t going to be an option.

Lord forgive us for sinning against the unity you so strongly desire and for putting our pride above our desire to please you.

Errr … An N.O. in a foreign language with local sing-along hymns (in a foreign language) with CITH and EMHCs etc.

vs.

A TLM, in Latin, where novelty would pointedly be an exception.

If you’re illiterate you can assist at a TLM. If you can remember a few Latin responses you can participate. If missalettes are provided, you don’t even need a missal. The TLM gives you a height to reach up to; the N.O. is flat by comparison.

If a priest starts getting visibly creative in the TLM the incongruity is obvious. In the N.O., it seems to be encouraged. I would like to abide in the temple of the Lord in peace.** I don’t think populism works well in a rite which is supposed to be directed toward a Deity.**

When you have to scout around for the least creative Mass in a medium-sized Irish town you wonder where the N.O. can go from here.

One of the values of Latin is that it is not the common language. Its words cannot now attract mundane, vulgar connotations; therefore it is an excellent (and musical) language for a religious rite.

It is also a simple language. And then there’s the fact that the same prayers are said over and over again. So it’s not an Everest of complexity you’re facing.

Have the new Mass, CITH, the vernacular, unvested laity in the sanctuary and folksy hymns etc. revived our religion? If not, the TLM should be given an chance.

 

[ncjohn]

I also was an altar boy before the New Mass. I am sure you saw what you saw, I am just interested in what this long litany of abuses were that you suffered through. I get the feeling, though, that you are not going to tell us.

Just page back through. The major ones are itemized though certainly not in complete detail or including every single picky thing that went on.

When you guys go on and on about how “reverent” everything is at the TLM it may now be true. It most assuredly was NOT the case a large part of the time before Vatican II.

If you are saying that everyone in Rome (catacombs) spoke and understood Greek in the first century, when the Mass was celebrated in Greek, you need to bone up on your history a bit, NC.

Greek and Latin were the language of the empire during the early centuries, just as English is the language of the US. Did everyone speak them? Of course not but they were the vernacular of the time and the bulk did just as the bulk speak English in the US.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

No, actually what you [Ultima Ratio] said was "When the Church uses the term “active participation” it does not refer primarily to outward activity, but to inward activity. " As quoted directly from the Church’s document on the liturgy, the Church has indeed made clear what it was considering “active participation”.

Not only did you not quote any Church document that contradicts what I said, but you are misinterpreting what the Church means by “active participation” - actuoso participatio. As I said earlier, “active participation” (actuoso participatio) refers primarily to an inward participation. In fact, the Latin word actuosus, which is interpreted as “active”, means an interior participation. The Latins word “activa” refers to a more external activity. Actuoso participatio is first and foremost an interior participation that is sometimes expressed through outward actions. It is not first and foremost the outward actions. Any outward actions are to flow from and express the interior activity - the “actuoso participatio” - which is the primary goal.

The following article from Father Z deals with this often misunderstood term from Vatican II:

Father Z: **In this WDTPRS series we often address the concept of *actuosa participatio *or “active participation.” It has been stated that in Latin there are more than one word for what comes into the English with the single word “active”. I have argued with others that the use of “active” to translate actuosa has contributed to the ubiquitous confusion reigning in liturgical circles about what the Council really desired for the faithful. Today “active participation” nearly always means that everyone must sing everything, carry stuff, clap their hands, etc. I say that what the Council really wanted was first and foremost a lively interior and spiritual participation and as a result of that an outward expression of participation. **I have stated that actuosa conveys a more interior sense. The Council Father’s could have used the word activa conveying a more exterior participation. In short, what the Church really means by “active participation” is an “active receptivity” that has nothing to do with either being passive or with being busy at Mass. … link

 

[ncjohn]

Not only did you not quote any Church document that contradicts what I said, but you are misinterpreting what the Church means by “active participation” - actuoso participatio.

Do you read other posts at all? Didn’t quote any Church document that contradicts what you said???

SC gives a very clear definition of what the Church defined as “active participation”, which I quoted directly and which directly contradicts what you are stating. Nobody is disputing the primary goal of that participation, only how they defined it. The Church was very clearly trying to move away from the “private devotional” mode that had become the norm of the TLM and into a participation in the liturgy itself, rather than outside devotions, that involved people in the responses, movements, hymns and gestures. I am quite aware that there were those who prayed the Mass along with the priest, but the pure and simple fact is that most did not, which the Church was very aware of. How you can read the documents specifically discussing the exterior participation they were expecting to reflect that interior disposition and come to a completely opposite conclusion I am really at a loss to understand. While the goal was most assuredly inward participation the term, as used by the documents, was reflecting the outward expression. Even in the article you quote Fr. Z says the same thing: “…lively interior and spiritual participation and as a result of that an outward expression of participation.”

As I have said repeatedly, I actually agree with your position that active exterior participation is not what people are universally called to and is not necessary or even desirable for some. All of us are called to full interior participation but we will express that in different ways. The only issue I have is with those who can’t acknowledge that many are indeed, by their very nature, called to a more external expression of their nternal devotion. I consider the ever-increasing availability of the TLM so all of us have the choice to be a true blessing.

I suspect we’re really just talking past each other on this. Either way, it’s not really germane to the topic so I’ll just leave it at that.

Peace,

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I suspect we’re really just talking past each other on this. Either way, it’s not really germane to the topic so I’ll just leave it at that.

Peace,

We may not be disagreeing. You said you disagreed, but I don’t know if you actually do. **The point I was making is that “active participation” is first and foremost and interior participation - an interior union, if you will - between the laity and the action taking place on the altar. ** External actions are to be expressions on the internal participation, and are to flow from it. The main goal is the internal participation.

Pope Benedict XVI: “The Council rightly reminded us that liturgy also means actio, something done, and it demanded that the faithful be guaranteed an actuosa participatio, an active participation… The impression arose that there was only ‘active participation’ when there was discernible external activity — speaking, singing, preaching, reading, shaking hands. ** It was forgotten that the Council also included silence under actuaosa participatio, for silence facilitates a really deep, personal participation, allowing us to listen inwardly to the Lord’s word. Many liturgies now lack all trace of this silence**.”

The purpose of any outward actions is merely to help developed the interior participation - - the “actuosa participatio” - they are secondary, and not an end in themselves.

"The Archbishop of New York, Francis Cardinal Spellman, cautioned against a
mere generalization and a purely external participation (“cavendum est a
mera divulgatione et participatione tantum externa”) which would only
appear to be worship in the Spirit and in the truth. …

By way of summary, it may be said that at the celebration of Holy Mass,
together with Christ, the faithful glorify God the Father in such a way
that:

* "they for their part offer to God the same adoration which
 Christ offers to the Father, and they unite the glorification
 which they offer, to that glorification offered by Christ. How
 does all of this occur? Through the fact that in conformity with
 the mind and heart of Christ they offer their own spiritual
 sacrifice of themselves to God, acknowledging Him as their
 Creator and Lord, adoring Him and giving themselves to Him
 completely in gratitude and love."*

In this sense one can only agree with the medieval theologians who say
that the forms in which the inner adhesion to Christ’s sacrifice are
manifested outwardly, are in fact secondary details–provided that the
“interior link” is expressed.

Another point I was making is that external physical activity, if they are excessive, can actually divert the attention away from the primary goal and lessen the true *actuosa participatio. * This should be obvious since it is true with external physical activity in other areas of the spiritual life. That’s why I mentioned the book Soul of the Apostolate, which treats of this topic. The author goes so far as to use the term “heresy of good works” to make the point that external activities can hinder the spiritual life. On the back cover of the book there is an endoresment by no less than Pope St. Pius X, in which he says he made this his “bedside book”.

If someone is engaged in external actions at Mass, without simultaneously being engaged in interior prayer, they are not fulfilling the actuoso participatio called for by Vatican II. The primary goal of active participation is internal union with the action taking place on the altar. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make, and I don’t know how in the world you could disagree with it.

 

[ncjohn]

If someone is engaged in external actions at Mass, without simultaneously being engaged in interior prayer, they are not fulfilling the actuoso participatio called for by Vatican II. The primary goal of active participation is internal union with the action taking place on the altar. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make, and I don’t know how in the world you could disagree with it.

I’ll just work from here since this distills the whole thing pretty well. As I too suspected, we are in almost total agreement. The only thing I have been disagreeing with is that SC did specifically call for the external participatpion. I totally agree that they saw it as being the expression of the interior but they were very specific in laying out the external as the result of that. Even your quote from Benedict confirms that when he notes: “The impression arose that there was only ‘active participation’ when there was discernible external activity — speaking, singing, preaching, reading, shaking hands. It was forgotten that the Council **also included silence **under actuaosa participatio, for silence facilitates a really deep, personal participation, allowing us to listen inwardly to the Lord’s word.”

This clearly acknowledges that the call for the external forms of the active participation are there, while simultaneously acknowledging that the silence that was also called for at appropriate times has largely been ignored. This is not nearly the same thing as thinking that full silence on the part of those in the pews fulfills what SC was calling for. Quite the opposite, it was the intent of SC to rewrite the liturgical books to get away from that mode.

I think, as I believe the Church has come to acknowledge, that that was a mstake. Not a mistake in promulgating a new liturgical form but a mistake in thinking that there was not a place for the existing one. There was indeed a need for a form that would allow the majority who express themselves more externally to be able to do so, but there is also a need for those who express themselves better in silence to be able to do so. The primary concern in my mind should have been in finding the appropriate ways to get people engaged in the liturgy rather than prescribing what that engagement should look like on a universal level.

I am glad that you are able to find that engagement in the TLM and that it is becoming more available. I would only pray that you might be able to come to an understanding that there are a great many of us who are just as devoted but just happen to express that differently and that that doesn’t make us lesser Catholics or imply that we just “don’t get it.” We are just as upset about true abuses as you are, and seek revererence just as you do, though it may admittedly look a little different to us at times than it does to you.

Peace to you and yours.