Went to first Traditional Latin Mass today

[NewsTheMan]

Maybe there were some who could not “connect” with the Mass, but it should be noted that many did connect with the traditional Mass, and felt a disconnect with the rapid changes of the Novus Ordo Mass foisted on them.

I don’t understand all the talk of “connecting”. That smacks of modernism, egoism and self-centeredness. It’s emotional rather than supernatural and spiritual. Our presence at the Mass is accidental, the Mass is not about us. Our “connection” is neither here nor there it seems to me.

 

[Madaglan]

I don’t understand all the talk of “connecting”. That smacks of modernism, egoism and self-centeredness. It’s emotional rather than supernatural and spiritual. Our presence at the Mass is accidental, the Mass is not about us. Our “connection” is neither here nor there it seems to me.

People have their personal preferences, but the liturgy is not specifically tailored to each person’s desires. I think that when Christians see that the liturgy is not about “you and me” but “God and us” that this does not become as much of an issue.

I attend a Divine Liturgy in the Russian tradition, and there are a few practices I personally prefer less than in, say, the Ruthenian or Greek tradition, and which I personally sometimes wish were different. But I know that this is the venerable tradition, and that the spiritual efficacy of the Divine Liturgy is more than how I feel.

 

[asd72]

I attended mass at the Brompton Oratory the last time I visited London a few years ago and it was certainly a beautiful mass. The choir did one of Mozart’s masses if I remember correctly. It was standing room only, though, so I would go early if you can.

Yes I gather it is very popular. I will get there early.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

People don’t understand the Mass at all any more. So much for the promise that the vernacular would bring greater understanding. The opposite has occurred. Ask someone what the Mass is and you’ll hear anything from “sharing a meal with Jesus” to “a celebration of the resurrection” or something equally as wrong and/or offensive. You may hear something along the lines of ‘sacrifice’ once in a while but never will you hear “this is a representation of Christ on the Cross, we are transported to the foot of the Cross at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”. Then the usual apologetic response is “that’s because people are badly catechized”. Oh really? So then we have to teach them about the Mass and educate them? Oh! But I thought that learning about the Mass was too hard? I thought the vernacular was easy to understand? The inconsistencies are glaring. I’m not denigrating the Mass, but something has gone wrong, and the usual responses don’t seem to work any longer. People don’t even know why they go to Mass if they even do go - and yet we sit here wondering why people are leaving the Church?

I’m glad you’re a member of this forum.

 

[JRKH]

Maybe there were some who could not “connect” with the Mass, but it should be noted that many did connect with the traditional Mass, and felt a disconnect with the rapid changes of the Novus Ordo Mass foisted on them.

Understood.
But I also think that we should recognize that the changes in the mass did not come out of thin air either. Some of the abuses certainly did, but the changes as authorized by our Good Pope Paul VI did not.

Regarding how the priest faces, it would have been all right if the priest, during certain prayers of the Mass, faced the people. However, what has ended up happening is that the priest no longer faces toward the East at all (or very little). This ancient tradition of the priest facing the East, going back to the early Church, has been largely discarded.

Well the only thing that I can say about this is that apparently this is a matter of discipline that the Church could change.

Don’t get me wrong here - I Love the EF mass. I also love the OF done properly. If I could I probably would attend the EF every Sunday and the OF during the week. As it is, due to health issues, I’m lucky to be able to attend the OF, just blocks from my house, once a month.

Peace
James

 

[ProVobis]

Well the only thing that I can say about this is that apparently this is a matter of discipline that the Church could change.

Okay, but it becomes a matter of dispute whether the defined doctrines of Trent can whimsically become matters of discipline to fit the times. And there are certain disciplines or principles, such as stare decisis or lex orandi, lex credendi which no society can change, try as much as they want.

 

[NewsTheMan]

I’m glad you’re a member of this forum.

:tiphat:

Okay, but it becomes a matter of dispute whether the defined doctrines of Trent can whimsically become matters of discipline to fit the times.

I believe what you have described above is modernism and heresy .

 

[Melchior_1]

The problem isn’t either Form, it never was. The problem isn’t any of the different Rites, it never was. The problem, as some have stated, is in the classroom. It’s at the pulpit. It’s in the home.

For the last hundred years, worldwide, we have seen teaching and catechesis go downhill. We have seen blithe and total disregard for the sanctity of life (case and point; two world wars, plus the Cold War and all the other wars). We’ve seen society turn towards the god of relativism and the faith of atheism, embracing it.

The solution? We need to look back a few centuries to find it:

“It is not by the display of power and pomp, cavalcades of retainers, and richly-houseled palfreys, or by gorgeous apparel, that the heretics win proselytes; it is by zealous preaching, by apostolic humility, by austerity, by seeming, it is true, but by seeming holiness. Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth.”

St. Dominic was on the money.

 

[JRKH]

The problem isn’t either Form, it never was. The problem isn’t any of the different Rites, it never was. The problem, as some have stated, is in the classroom. It’s at the pulpit. It’s in the home.

For the last hundred years, worldwide, we have seen teaching and catechesis go downhill. We have seen blithe and total disregard for the sanctity of life (case and point; two world wars, plus the Cold War and all the other wars). We’ve seen society turn towards the god of relativism and the faith of atheism, embracing it.

The solution? We need to look back a few centuries to find it:

"It is not by the display of power and pomp, cavalcades of retainers, and richly-houseled palfreys, or by gorgeous apparel, that the heretics win proselytes; it is by zealous preaching, by apostolic humility, by austerity, by seeming, it is true, but by seeming holiness. Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth."

St. Dominic was on the money.

Amen to this.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Okay, but it becomes a matter of dispute whether the defined doctrines of Trent can whimsically become matters of discipline to fit the times. And there are certain disciplines or principles, such as stare decisis or lex orandi, lex credendi which no society can change, try as much as they want.

Since it was not a “society” but Christ’s Church herself who made the changes in the form of the mass, I will go with His Church on this one instead of those who might choose to dispute the matter.

Peace
James

 

[Denise1957]

The problem isn’t either Form, it never was. The problem isn’t any of the different Rites, it never was. The problem, as some have stated, is in the classroom. It’s at the pulpit. It’s in the home.

For the last hundred years, worldwide, we have seen teaching and catechesis go downhill. We have seen blithe and total disregard for the sanctity of life (case and point; two world wars, plus the Cold War and all the other wars). We’ve seen society turn towards the god of relativism and the faith of atheism, embracing it.

The solution? We need to look back a few centuries to find it:

“It is not by the display of power and pomp, cavalcades of retainers, and richly-houseled palfreys, or by gorgeous apparel, that the heretics win proselytes; it is by zealous preaching, by apostolic humility, by austerity, by seeming, it is true, but by seeming holiness. Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth.”

St. Dominic was on the money.

The above quote from St. Dominic regarding how heretics win converts is interesting. He is presumably saying that only those who are austere can be humble, holy, zealous, have sanctity, and preach truth. But my experience is that is those traditional priests who are in full communion with Rome who are the most humble, sanctified, and zealously preach undiluted Catholic teaching. And…they wear beautiful vestments, have displays of pomp (but not worldly power), and often have beautiful, ornate churches. What does austerity have to do with preaching Truth?

 

[YoungTradCath]

The above quote from St. Dominic regarding how heretics win converts is interesting. He is presumably saying that only those who are austere can be humble, holy, zealous, have sanctity, and preach truth. But my experience is that is those traditional priests who are in full communion with Rome who are the most humble, sanctified, and zealously preach undiluted Catholic teaching. And…they wear beautiful vestments, have displays of pomp (but not worldly power), and often have beautiful, ornate churches. What does austerity have to do with preaching Truth?

Well, we need to understand that just because a saint writes something, that it isn’t necessarily true. Saint’s opinions are just that, fallible opinions.

 

[Denise1957]

Well, we need to understand that just because a saint writes something, that it isn’t necessarily true. Saint’s opinions are just that, fallible opinions.

True, and I would like to see the larger context from which the quote was taken. St. Dominic could have been wanting to prove a point which does not necessarily have to do what what this particular paragraph is referring to, in a larger context.

That being said, I’m off to Mass now, at a beautiful and ornate Dominican parish (OF!).

God bless!

 

[Melchior_1]

The above quote from St. Dominic regarding how heretics win converts is interesting. He is presumably saying that only those who are austere can be humble, holy, zealous, have sanctity, and preach truth. But my experience is that is those traditional priests who are in full communion with Rome who are the most humble, sanctified, and zealously preach undiluted Catholic teaching. And…they wear beautiful vestments, have displays of pomp (but not worldly power), and often have beautiful, ornate churches. What does austerity have to do with preaching Truth?

To understand the quote is to understand the heart of Dominican spirituality, and why it came about. At the time of Dominic (and Francis) there was clergy being sexually deviant (like the last hundred years), violent fighting (like the last hundred years), the “ordination” of women.

The quote I gave stems from when Rome sent a delegation to counter a heresy, and the people came back in full regalia, splendor…and not a lick of success. You say that the traditional priests you know have “beautiful vestments and displays on pomp (but not in the worldly sense”, and that’s partially what Dominic was saying. To lose the worldly pomp, to lose the things of this world. Which is why you can see beautiful Dominican-run parishes.

On the flip side, even at times to scale back on the externals that you mentioned. If the vestments are causing one to lose sight of the Gospel, it’s time for that priest to consider losing the vestments, if even in a metaphorical sense (such as taking time for a retreat). There were several men during Dominic’s time who felt that they were getting caught up in the pomp, the vestments, the wonderful looking churches. They joined him in the Order of Preachers. Several men who felt something similar decided not to join him, and instead decided to join a fellow named Francis.

Austerity can be more than what you see on the outside. The priests you mentioned can have all the fancy robes in the world, and proceed to eat once or twice a day, not own a TV/Cell Phone/Computer/iPod, buy their clothes secondhand.

 

[liturgyluver]

I am going to try and go to the Brompton Oratory which is near to me. to the Extraordinary Form Mass and to hear some traditional Catholic music.

I really have no idea of Catholic music, we have no instruments, choirs or hymns at my Parish, although we sometimes sing the Mass.

You will love the Oratory, but just be aware that 9am is the EF form mass and has no music. There is then a family mass at 10am in English which includes hymns and the ordinary sung to plainchant with the junior choir, and the solemn mass sung in Latin, ordinary form. with full choir. Oh, and Solemn Vespers and Benediction at 3.30pm.

 

[AntiqueCatholic]

I really hate the notion of austerity applied to a Mass. It’s supposed to offer glory to God. A congregation that wilfully strips a church or goes with albs-n-sneakers at the primary rite of the Roman Catholic church is being perverse, in my opinion.

Yeh, like, there were times when magnificent Masses did not equate to popular piety. Well, duh! That’s no excuse for bare diocesan Churches in Western countries in the 21st Century.

Or, “we’re in a poor parish, we can’t afford these things” (the parish having been in existence for 100 years)

It does work well if you want to give people even less reason to go to Mass, however.

Add in bland sermons, saccarhin hymns and the sacred language replaced with the common one and you have to wonder what the deuce is going on.

Oh, and ‘The Church’ is not infallible. The Pope is on those special occasions when he says he is being so. That’s it. Otherwise, Jansenism and Arianism wouldn’t have taken off. ‘Creeping infallibility’ is another cross for traditionalists to bear.

You could suppress the Paul VI rite and the Vatican II documents tomorrow and it wouldn’t change the Catholic faith a jot.

 

[E.E.N.S]

You speak truly…Especially where you expose that this is not simply a matter of the type of liturgy or the language etc. But rather one of catechesis.

One need also remember that the problems have been evolving over time - getting worse as time went on.
I can remember the initial negative response (mostly from older folks) when the language was changed and some left the church over it. This was fairly minimal where I lived because most Catholics held to the “obedience” aspect and tried to roll with it.
Then started the other sorts of changes - in music - instruments etc. - the so called hootenanny masses. Still not too bad, though disturbing to some.
But along with this, and to me more important, were the changes occurring in the classrooms. The introduction of more “socially relevant” religion classes and a de-emphasis and removal of the Catechism. This has resulted in the things lamented above. A poor understanding of what the mass is.

This is a complex matter and a difficult one. It requires that we do what we can to both present ourselves at church properly disposed (despite distractions) and to teach others by word and example, what the mass truly is.

Peace
James

Technically, the Church only called for SOME vernacular, not a complete removal of the Latin. And with the music, the “changes” simply don’t exist, as the Church has allowed, even previous to the Second Vatican Council, other types of music. If you actually read the text, the verbiage really didn’t say anything different than it has always said, and it explicitly states that Gregorian Chant is still to be the music proper to the Roman Liturgy.

For the record, I have NEVER been to an OF mass that has been inline with what the Church called for, (though I have been to thousands that may very loosely fit in on the extreme outskirts of what the Church allows.) That being said, I have never been to the Assumption Grotto parish in Detroit, and I hear that they are pretty faithful to what the Church actually called for.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh, and ‘The Church’ is not infallible. The Pope is on those special occasions when he says he is being so. That’s it. Otherwise, Jansenism and Arianism wouldn’t have taken off. ‘Creeping infallibility’ is another cross for traditionalists to bear.

You could suppress the Paul VI rite and the Vatican II documents tomorrow and it wouldn’t change the Catholic faith a jot.

Since it was not a “society” but Christ’s Church herself who made the changes in the form of the mass, I will go with His Church on this one instead of those who might choose to dispute the matter.

Christ’s Church herself, not society or modernism, created the doctrine as defined in Trent and many Popes have upheld. And according to ewtn:

…As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=3

 

[asd72]

You will love the Oratory, but just be aware that 9am is the EF form mass and has no music. There is then a family mass at 10am in English which includes hymns and the ordinary sung to plainchant with the junior choir, and the solemn mass sung in Latin, ordinary form. with full choir. Oh, and Solemn Vespers and Benediction at 3.30pm.

I found out today we do have an organ upstairs, we had hymns and some instrumental organ music and a choir who lead us. I went to the afternoon Mass for the first time. It was so beautiful! I didn’t really think I liked hymns, but it turns out I do.

I was still go to the Oratory though. I have some leave from work coming up, so will have more time.

 

[promethius]

Some of of us, who know what Catholic worship is supposed to be, spend a great deal of time and money traveling to places where we can participate in authentically Catholic worship. I have reduced my parish contribution by 50% so as to travel to Latin Mass a few times each year.

I’m sorry, can you clarify… you seem to be saying here that the OF is not “authentic” catholic worship and, as I understand it, that’s a violation of forum rules… I’d rather offer you the chance to clarify before I report your post.

I expect a much smaller Catholic population in years to come as Hispanic youth join their Anglo contemporaries in an accelerated migration to the cultish big box churches or to Sunday morning sports events.

Your expectations are completely off the mark in terms of social trends currently under way then. While the church is decreasing as a percentage of population in latin America, it is growing in terms of numbers over all. The church is bigger than it has ever been, in fact when we compare the size of the church in America it has grown by 50% since 1962 and worldwide the size of the church has nearly doubled.

There is no valid argument whatsoever that the OF has led to abandonment of the church, and the only place that the church IS being abandoned is in the Western First world… where it has been losing membership steadily since the 1900s (aka, before the OF was even introduced).

So it isn’t the rite influencing the number of Catholics… or you have to credit the OF with the fastest growing period of catholicism the world has ever seen.