Tridentine Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter una_fide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I just looked for Tridentine Masses in Kansas, and there is apperantly one just an hour away. I don’t know if my parents would let me go though, with the cost of gas.
I haven’t thought much about how I percieve the Latin Mass, recently, or the people who attend it. Well, I think the LAtin mass would be really cool to go to, with the silence, the emphasis on sacrifice, the focus being more on God than on the people (shown be all the people, including the priest, facing the same direction in the Liturgy of the Eucharist), and all. I guess my impressions of people of people that attend the Latin Mass were, now that I think of it (and I read your responses), faulty. I kind of thought that a lot of people attending the Mass were reactionary and overly conservative. I kind of have a tendency to make unfair generalizations.
Well, I have to go to work now, so I’ll respond to the rest later.
 
Windmill said:
una fide,

you ask great questions. i would say this, the great saints throughout the ages found great nourishment and inspiration in the traditional latin mass. the mystery and solemnity that surrounded it aided them in their lives of holiness. i would venture to say that many of these people didn’t understand much latin. even the cure d’ars was horrible with latin, and he said Mass.

Now, with Latin-English Missals, I don’t think the argument about Mass in a foreign language carries weight. If the saints of the ages could find nourishment without fully understanding every word, then surely a more-educated laity like today can understand the TLM with missals.

Another thing I have noticed among contemporary Catholics is that we all feel like we have to hear and understand everything. I like to add my assent to the prayers prayed–it’s not about having to hear and understand–but about being able to offer assent. Many parts of the normative Mass have the option to be spoken inaudibly (eg., the Canon), but you rarely see this because people feel like you are excluding them. They’ve become so accustomed to having everything loudly exclaimed to them that they forget aobut sacred silence and contemplation. Combine that with the TV-Generation that is used to being fed information versus actually processing it, and you get a situation where people want everything in an easily-digestible form.

Now, with microphones and the whole works, everything is so imminent that it tends to turn off the average pew-sitter. Things are so didactic and in your face that you start mentally blocking things out. Also, since it is in the vernacular, you get so used to it that you oftentimes don’t process it. If it’s in Latin you don’t really understand it and don’t process it.

I went to a parish where the Consecration was spoken inaudibly, and the quiet was awe-striking. You could sense that something sacred was taking place.

When you go to Mass, the goal should be quiet contemplation that engages the mind. I feel like the TLM does this just as well today as it has for centuries. Is this really the goal of Mass? We come together to worship together not privately. I will grant you that the places in the current rite where we should have the silence you speak of–are usually spead through if not ignored altogether and this is something I would like to see changed. The time for this quiet contemplation is at Eurcharistic Adoration. So often on these threads its an either /or focus on God or focus on community–but it’s both/and–they are not mutually exclusive.

Okay, my soapbox :o

Now, if the TLM were made vernacular, I think many people would start to tune out what was said because they’ve heard it so many times and are not having to engage the liturgy in any other mode. When it is in Latin, you are reading and processing the words from the missal, so you are engaged. You have to be engaged. This is not what happened during the Latin Mass pre Vatican II–people were tuned out praying the Rosary or private devotions. The reason people are engaged there today is because the Latin Mass attracts reverent faithful catholics. You can find those same people at the current rite also if you look–you just find the rest of humanity there also --and that seems to be what many who prefer the TLM object to. Having to worship with those who are at a different point in the faith journey–but remember Christ is calling them–and he also calls us to witness to them–we could use your reverent example and participation at the current rite.

I suppose you could just go and sit with no missal, all-the-while staring at the ceiling, but today’s Catholic isn’t used to that, so I don’t think that would be a realistic outcome. They’d want to follow in the missal.

P.S. Is it any wonder why missals for the verncular V2 Mass are virtually non-existent? Everything is immediately understandable, so why bother buying a missal? If you don’t have a missal, you aren’t following along in the prayers, so there is one less mode of engagement that is gone from Catholic worship. Why do I need a missal to follow along with? I can hear and understand the prayer and offer my assent. I can kneel with my eye’s closed and head bowed itn deep reverence offering my assent to the prayer. I am much more engaged that way than if I was trying to follow along in the missal. It’s all there plain as day, so why bother processing it - just like TV. You sell people short.

Thanks for listening to me talk and talk and talk 😃

oh wait, reading while I type and type and type…but hey, you processed what I wrote, didn’t you. If I was talking, you could tune me out.😉
Click to expand...
 
Mark, I agree with everything you say.If you are well trained and catechised, you will know every ounce of the Latin Mass, but the Priests themselves seem spaced out by it.I understand some of them refuse to learn or use it (how?)I think Catholic parents should, however, make sure their children make a stab at learning it, even if a Latinist can be found in the parish. When we pray Credo in unam sanctam catholicam ecclesiam, we are all united by language. Being completely disengaged by the Englsih Mass, which I confess does not move me all that much, although I am in awe of the Eucharist, I was surprised in Vienna at St Stephen’s at the 11 o’clock Mass, it was in Latin. All my brothers and sisters from everywhere in the world could sing the ordinary Credo III and you could really feelQuo vadis, Domine?
Evelyn from Gloucester, England
 
I like to add my assent to the prayers prayed–it’s not about having to hear and understand–but about being able to offer assent.

Your assumption is that those who are following along in a missal are not giving assent. This does actually illustrate my point. We feel like we have to be in on every step and that comprehension has to be brought down to the lowest common denominator. A person praying along in an Latin-English missal can understand and participate very well.

If it’s in Latin you don’t really understand it and don’t process it.

I guess we should dump Latin then. The obvious understanding is that you are following along in a missal - not that you are fluent in Latin.

Is this really the goal of Mass? We come together to worship together not privately. I will grant you that the places in the current rite where we should have the silence you speak of–are usually spead through if not ignored altogether and this is something I would like to see changed. The time for this quiet contemplation is at Eurcharistic Adoration. So often on these threads its an either /or focus on God or focus on community–but it’s both/and–they are not mutually exclusive.

Ratzinger speaks of this over-activity in many of his books. He agrees that the participatio actuosa spoken of in Sacrosanctam Consilium is, in it’s essence, contemplation and not frenetic activity. Why does a congregation have to be vocalizing everything to be piously worshipping with their hearts? You assume that contemplation and community worship are mutually exclusine. It is a symptom of American ideas that we have to be doing something for it to be worship.

This is not what happened during the Latin Mass pre Vatican II–people were tuned out praying the Rosary or private devotions.

Obvious not all - tell this to St. Therese of Lisieux. But I get your point.

The reason people are engaged there today is because the Latin Mass attracts reverent faithful catholics. You can find those same people at the current rite also if you look–you just find the rest of humanity there also --and that seems to be what many who prefer the TLM object to. Having to worship with those who are at a different point in the faith journey–but remember Christ is calling them–and he also calls us to witness to them–we could use your reverent example and participation at the current rite.

I agree. I mainly attend a NovusOrdo vernacular Mass and try to pray as devoutly as possible so that the Mass will transform me further into the image of Christ.

Why do I need a missal to follow along with? I can hear and understand the prayer and offer my assent. I can kneel with my eye’s closed and head bowed itn deep reverence offering my assent to the prayer. I am much more engaged that way than if I was trying to follow along in the missal

True, the familiarity of the vernacular liturgy allows one to follow along without a missal, but familiarity is a double-edged sword - it can breed contempt and indifference.

You sell people short.

I know not all are like this. I know many pious souls who pray hard at Mass, and it is inspiring. However, I see what is going on around me at Mass. I also think it is not right to assume that TV hasn’t affected us. Not all are like this, but watch and see how many people are staring at the ceiling and are easily distracted at the slightest distraction. Reality is too slow for many, and being alone with your thoughts is discomforting for many.
 
I agree with some of the posts on this. Nobody understood Latin. The arguments didn’t make any sense.

Someone suggested that the laity could be taught to understand Latin fluently. This never happened before the Council, except when Latin was a vernacular.

Yes, the Mass changed to Latin language because it was a vernacular.

Obviously, if the laity were taught to read, write, speak in and fluently understand the Latin language – then it would become a vernacular. It would no longer be a dead language – thus meanings of words would change.

So, we’d replace one vernacular with another.

The only option is to make sure nobody understands Latin, therefore it will remain a dead language.

Obviously, that doesn’t make any sense either since nobody could understand the Mass without reading a vernacular text in a Missal.

The conclusion I’ve reached is that vernacular should be used with the Tridentine Mass (Abp. Lefevbre accepted that through the 1965 Missal) and Latin should be retained for some of the prayers to keep the bond with the apostolic age.

The Latin language is a symbol. It’s not meant to be used as a vernacular. That is, unless people are going to use it as a vernacular and read, write and converse in the Latin language (odd, I never see any so-called traditionalists posting to each other in Latin language).

But as I said, once it is used as a vernacular – then the Tridentine Mass will be celebrated with a vernacular language and there’d be no reason not to use other vernaculars.
 
Somes traditionalists might think I’m loony, but my prediction about what we will see in the end is the rite of Mass as it now stands, minus all the options, plus Latin in the Ordinary of the Mass and the Propers. The readings and homily in the vernacular. This way, no matter where you go in the world, you will be able to actively participate in Mass.

Ad orientem will return. As will altar rails. EMHC’s will go, as will guitars. The organ and Gregorian chant will actually be given de facto pride of place as Vatican II called for.

The main problem, at this point, to overcome is POOR CATECHESIS!!! After that, many more things will fall into place. Right now, we have “Catholics” who don’t have the foggiest idea what makes our religion different from, say, Pentecostals. That is a horrible fact to contemplate!

I think all here would agree.
 
Oh yeah, and when I say Propers, I mean the ANTIPHONS, too. Yeah, remember those? My generation has never even HEARD of them. Instead of the Entrance antiphon, we only have the entrance hymn. No gradual, no offertory antiphon, no communion or postcommunion antiphon. It’s all still there, but no one uses them. They’re a blessed treasure with inspiring words that have been sung throughout the ages. This link to our liturgical heritage is atrophying from disuse. Soon, no one will even remember what to do with them.

Our Schola Cantorum that I sing in uses these, and they are beauti-mous! They add a nice touch to a Mass, and they are centuries old, unlike the Hagen hymns you hear in their stead.

And I have yet to hear a convincing reason why they are ignored almost ubiquitously.
 
Windmill – I agree. Something like that will be the future eventually. The Pope is making some moves in that direction.
 
I think the problem is that the Hierarchy of the Churchare now meant to be seen as servants of all the people of the Body of Christ, as a sort of inverted pyramid with the Pope at the bottom.There was a problem with people almost worshipping the church itself and almost blindly doing everything they were told (although it might have been better for them !) and they should understand what is happening, and this understanding facilitated by it being in English.

I think in essence this is right, as it was important to be born again in the spirit of Christ, listen and understand the scriptures. Many of the Faithful in the world can’t even read, so a problem with Latin was in there. However, I do think the change was very sudden and upset a lot of people and there were many ‘gung ho’ priests like the one (now left) who dismissed the organist and polyphonic choi (a thing of the past!) and said 'I think you’ll find this a thing of the past. The young organist was warmly received at a monastic church where the cogregation went with him and the choir. He was only a young organist. Yes you mention the music.

My son was a chorister at an Anglican Cathedral and I actually enjoyed those services with them singing our music. There were tears in my eyes when he sang the Allegri *Miserere.I had never heard anything so beautiul. The local lady onthe guitar with the squawky voice and the well meaning choir don’t do it for me. I really hate the sound of it and although I was trained at Music College, and earn my living as a musician I can’t bear the noise, so I always go to the said services.You have to be a musician to understand why I think this music is not quality music for God. Since I discovered the small monastic Church, there are regular chants (a bit boring, but at least well sug in English and we have Latin Ordinary in special seasons. I could literally weep.I was told by one child I took along last year to hear my son’s choir sing the Allegri 'WOW! How fantastic. Only cathedrals can have those choirs, not because people don’t want them but perhaps the bishops don’t feel they’re ‘inclusive’ enough i.e. we can’t all sing a top C six times!

I agree with the person who said ‘You are assenting by being there’. You can follow the psalms on these special days on a handout.At Advent last year we got going and the whole junior Choir sang Magnificat *and the antiphons.Children drew huge pictures with Latin on top. they learnt Latin words like ‘King’ etc.

That’s why I think every parish should do one new rite Latin Mass perhaps once a week with some hope of the beautiful music, so that if young people go for an international day anywhere in the world, they can attend that mass for a few weeks and feel at home. I completely understand the Mass, but do feel it is very cerebral and hard work after coping with all life’s chores and the wonder and awe is not there if a response is wanted all the time and many tell me they find it hard to stay engaged, because it requires huge concentration.The ordinary should be in Latin anyway as this does give the link with the Communion of Saints using those same words all the way back through time.I don’t think Vatican II really meant things to go as far as they did, but I do think many priests were very insensitive and arrogant and caused a lot of people to leave.

I am training as a Catechist, so should anyone who can cope with it, as brilliant things are happening in the church and people are working very hard. I do hope the Holy Father will achieve some compromise on this subject, so that different people can have a choice. We now have a huge church half empty with the guitars and a small monastic church packed!This is a silly situation.I also feel there should be some possibility of the elderly who grew up with TLM to have had it for their lifetime. Many were really really upset. It was probably for all the right reasons (I never knew the TLM) but it couldn’t have been that bad if it was the form of mass for so many years. It shuld have been phased out slowly, if it had to go.
 
Vatican II only actualy called for vernacular to be used for Low Masses in extraordinary circumstances, and even then only in the Propers of the Mass- never the Ordinary.**

Well…WHAT happened? :confused:

I do know that Vatican II never intended for Latin to completely disappear from the Mass… and I don’t think there were ever any pronoucements against the wearing of headcoverings or having the priest face the altar…Again…What happened…? Although I have heard several explanations for this, I have never been totally satisfied with those answeres.

CH
**
 
Not that I think Latin is a bad thing. I do think it should be revived, but again, wasn’t Mass originally in Latin because this WAS the language of the common people? Am I wrong here:confused:
 
Catholic_Heart said:
Vatican II only actualy called for vernacular to be used for Low Masses in extraordinary circumstances, and even then only in the Propers of the Mass- never the Ordinary.**

Well…WHAT happened? :confused:

I do know that Vatican II never intended for Latin to completely disappear from the Mass… and I don’t think there were ever any pronoucements against the wearing of headcoverings or having the priest face the altar…Again…What happened…? Although I have heard several explanations for this, I have never been totally satisfied with those answeres.

CH
**
Click to expand...
Well, for head coverings, I believe the story goes like this. (This is probably fourth or fifth hand, so if it isn’t correct, don’t send in the inquisitors) Some Cardinal or the like was on TV and the reporter asked him if head coverings were required, and he replied half heartedly with a “Not really.” so the women stopped doing it.

I don’t know how ad orientem went away. Probably through some experimental priests and it caught on…then no one corrected them.
 
latin wasn’t really the “vernacular” in the sense of the average peasant spoke latin. it was the language you learned when you learned to read and write. so it was the language of scholars. everything that was written was in latin, so if you were one of the few that actually learned to read, you learned in latin and you read all the books out there in latin. consequently, the theology that came from that era was, you guessed it, in latin.

so, a priest reading out of a missal at mass only knew how to read…in latin.

am i repeating myself. i’ll just stop now.
 
The whole Church praying in Latin makes us one. I can pray the mass with a person in Africa, Hong Kong, Brazil, and be praying to God with a person who does not speak the same language as I. Latin unites us. Isn’t it kind of like Babel now, so many languages, so many different translations, so many interpretations?

Secondly, the mass is to give God worship and adoration. I look at it as what I am giving to Him, not only what I am getting out of it.
 
Windmill said:
Your assumption is that those who are following along in a missal are not giving assent. I don’t think that was my assumption but rather my response to what I believe was your assumption that somehow those who attend Mass in the vernacular tune out–which I don’t believe is necessarily true. This does actually illustrate my point. We feel like we have to be in on every step and that comprehension has to be brought down to the lowest common denominator. Who said anything about a lowest common denominator? I do not feel that the current rite of the Mass does that. I do like the fact that many of the current prayers are similar to those found in Justin Martyrs descriptions of the Mass. Less ornate does not necessarily equal low. .

I guess we should dump Latin then. I never said this either. Rather it is many here who would scrap everything post 1600 and I am probably not in favor of that.

Ratzinger speaks of this over-activity in many of his books. He agrees that the participatio actuosa spoken of in Sacrosanctam Consilium is, in it’s essence, contemplation and not frenetic activity. Why does a congregation have to be vocalizing everything to be piously worshipping with their hearts? You assume that contemplation and community worship are mutually exclusine. It is a symptom of American ideas that we have to be doing something for it to be worship. No I don’t think I really said that either but the idea that we should gather together to worship and remain Islands is well not being a community. I was responding to the idea that focus on God and focus on community are exclusive There are many things about the current rite that could be done better–silence could be used where it is supposed to be and not ignored or raced through. I would prefer the preist not face us. I would like to see the prayers at the foot of the alter restored etc. There are plenty of places in the current rite where we should have quiet and contemplation–they are just not used well.

Obvious not all - tell this to St. Therese of Lisieux. But I get your point. I never said all but posters hear usually make it sound like everything at the Latin Mass was perfect and everyone participated reverently and it was well just so perfect and that if you go to a vernacular Mass all you find is people tuned out and no one reverently praying or participating and thats simply not true. I guess my real point is that what ails the Church today is not the absence of the Mass said in Latin and I really don’t think It would be the cure all suddenly making everyone revent at Mass–this is a cultural/societal problem–and we need to be engaged and restore decency to society. The Latin Mass did not stop the Rome of Martin Luthers time from being a city of blasphemy and decadence–a city where the clergy–the clergy mind you blasphemed in public. A city where you could go to Mass and hear the preist say “thou art bread and bread thou art still” instead of the words of consecration–Latin didn’t stop that and it wouldn’t have stopped the societal changes or the 60’s and 70’s.

I agree. I mainly attend a NovusOrdo vernacular Mass and try to pray as devoutly as possible so that the Mass will transform me further into the image of Christ.

True, the familiarity of the vernacular liturgy allows one to follow along without a missal, but familiarity is a double-edged sword - it can breed contempt and indifference. But this also becomes a problem once Latin is the standard, once we become familar with it–once all the responses are learned.

I know not all are like this. I know many pious souls who pray hard at Mass, and it is inspiring. However, I see what is going on around me at Mass. I also think it is not right to assume that TV hasn’t affected us. Not all are like this, but watch and see how many people are staring at the ceiling and are easily distracted at the slightest distraction. Reality is too slow for many, and being alone with your thoughts is discomforting for many. Can’t argue with that but I don’t see Latin as a remedy for this. I see conversion and transformation of the heart as the remedy–ah but how do you help people have a conversion experience–I guess thats a different forum. Anyway I guess my heartfelt desire would be that we all worshiped together. I can think of nothing better than having many pious and reverent Catholics attending Mass and being that example that so many need–we need to be an example and to reach out to other parishioners when possible to try and pull them along. We all werent born with a converted heart and something or someone along the way helped us–I guess I’d like to see more leven at Mass. Anyway I like the discussion.
Peace
Had to delete the blue (post to long)
Click to expand...
 
marymonde said:
The whole Church praying in Latin makes us one. I can pray the mass with a person in Africa, Hong Kong, Brazil, and be praying to God with a person who does not speak the same language as I. Latin unites us. Isn’t it kind of like Babel now, so many languages, so many different translations, so many interpretations?
Click to expand...
Not in the least. Most people worship with others in their same local, their same language group. And the value of being able to hear and pray the Mass in the language in which you think and reason (I know of no one who speaks Latin who would claim to think and reason in that language, ie, they’re going to translate it in their mind) should not be underestimated.

Latin would still be valueable for international masses, etc.
 
The necessity of the Latin language in the liturgy goes far beyond its place as the universal language of the Church.

Most of the discussions over this issue revolves around the question of “why should the latin be used in the Mass?”. I would like to pose to everyone a differant question, “why not?”. What advantage does vernacular have over ecclesiastical latin? Would the Church or the Mass itself suffer from a use of latin?
 
marymonde said:
The whole Church praying in Latin makes us one. I can pray the mass with a person in Africa, Hong Kong, Brazil, and be praying to God with a person who does not speak the same language as I. Latin unites us. Isn’t it kind of like Babel now, so many languages, so many different translations, so many interpretations?

Secondly, the mass is to give God worship and adoration. I look at it as what I am giving to Him, not only what I am getting out of it.
Click to expand...
Precisely marymonde, your statements are bang on. Latin united the Church for centuries. Your attitude towards Christ is a healthy one in that you look for ways to give to Him, not just take away. Many like to wish away that Latin is the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. If it’s still His Church’s official language, I would venture to guess there is a good reason for that. People need to reflect on this.

Dominus tecum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top