Went to my 1st Latin Mass on Saturday

[cheese_sdc]

Old school - Tridentine Rite.

Here are my observations:

1. Incomprehensible gibberish! Even when I was reading along with the missal the English translation was archaic and hopelessly convoluted to a contemporary person. To be sure, sometimes it takes something a bit strange to get a person’s attention (read Flannery O’Connor) - but this was not that.
2. The liturgy itself is hopelessly convoluted. The readings were read twice, once in Latin, then in English. There was a Gospel at the end of Mass. The Priest went up to the altar and then back down. I lost count of how many times the host was elevated and I wasn’t sure if it was for the consecration, the offertory, or what.
3. No participation. None. With a liturgy, there should be a give and take between Leader and Participants. With this mass, there is none. The priest is up there in his own little world, and we are down there. Awaiting his pleasure.
4. The Tridentine Rite will set back apologetics centuries. The missal was full of references to the “Sacrifice of the Mass”. The priest stated that “[the priest] stands between God and the People.” Now I finally understand what Protestants are talking about.
5. This was not a problem with the Rite, per se, but the homily was full of the self serving tripe that priests have put out for years - “You are here for the Mass, so it doesn’t matter how bad the homily is, or if you don’t get anything out of it.” To my mind, that is interpretted as “It’s obviously your fault if you don’t like it.”
6. The whole thing seemed an exercise in liturgical maste… well, it rhymes with “consternation”. [That’ll get me banned!]
7. It seems to me that if all those uber-conservative, crybaby priests who hated Vatican II so much, put as much effort into doing the regular mass well, instead of whining about how much the new Church isn’t like the church of the 1950’s, the Ordinary Form would be much more reverent and to their liking.

 

[Monica4316]

Oki I personally love the Latin Mass.

It’s beautiful and reverent, that’s why I like it. I don’t know Latin either but I just read along from the Missal. I think the English translation is wonderful, because again it inspires reverence and humility. And it’s so poetic.

There IS participation, but it’s internal, not external. We participate in the Mass by offering our prayers along with the prayers of the priest. That is very powerful.

I really loved receiving the Eucharist at the Latin Mass, at the altar rail. Afterwards, there was a lot of time to pray, and people stayed behind to offer thanksgiving before the Tabernacle.

btw, the “Sacrifice of the Mass” is not the “old understanding” from several centuries ago! It is STILL the Catholic understanding. It says so in the current Catechism. The problem is that many people don’t know about it. But it’s true.

Also, the reason the priest is “up there” and we are “down here”, is because what takes place in the Sanctuary is very holy and there are many Angels there and even the Mother of God (says St Padre Pio) and we participate in Heavenly worship. I think the Tridentine Mass reflects this truth very well. Hopefully with time, as the Novus Ordo Mass gets ‘purified’ of abuses, and comes closer to what VII actually said, it will reflect it too, in every parish. ALL Masses are holy though.

 

[Tedster]

1. Incomprehensible gibberish! Even when I was reading along with the missal the English translation was archaic and hopelessly convoluted to a contemporary person. To be sure, sometimes it takes something a bit strange to get a person’s attention (read Flannery O’Connor) - but this was not that.

It’s called LATIN. If you don’t know the language, it WILL sound like gibberish.

1. The liturgy itself is hopelessly convoluted. The readings were read twice, once in Latin, then in English. There was a Gospel at the end of Mass. The Priest went up to the altar and then back down. I lost count of how many times the host was elevated and I wasn’t sure if it was for the consecration, the offertory, or what.

The readings are read twice so you can understand them in your native tongue not the aforementioned “gibberish”. The Gospel at the end of Mass is called the Last Gospel in the Rubrics of the Mass, as are all of the actions of the Priest. I should have elevated the Body of Christ once, and the Precious Blood once, again according to the Rubrics of the Mass.

1. No participation. None. With a liturgy, there should be a give and take between Leader and Participants. With this mass, there is none. The priest is up there in his own little world, and we are down there. Awaiting his pleasure.

You are speaking in a truly Novus Ordo way when you make this comment. All participate at the EF Mass by praying with the Priest and following the Mass.

1. The Tridentine Rite will set back apologetics centuries. The missal was full of references to the “Sacrifice of the Mass”. The priest stated that “[the priest] stands between God and the People.” Now I finally understand what Protestants are talking about.

So, for roughly 2 thousand years the Church was being set back? What???

1. This was not a problem with the Rite, per se, but the homily was full of the self serving tripe that priests have put out for years - “You are here for the Mass, so it doesn’t matter how bad the homily is, or if you don’t get anything out of it.” To my mind, that is interpretted as “It’s obviously your fault if you don’t like it.”

Can’t help. Our Priests give EXCELLENT sermons (homilies are a new term also).

1. The whole thing seemed an exercise in liturgical maste… well, it rhymes with “consternation”. [That’ll get me banned!]

Now you are showing your true colors. To attack any Mass and claim what you do is an attack on the Church, since it is a VALID form of the Mass.

1. It seems to me that if all those uber-conservative, crybaby priests who hated Vatican II so much, put as much effort into doing the regular mass well, instead of whining about how much the new Church isn’t like the church of the 1950’s, the Ordinary Form would be much more reverent and to their liking.

And the same could be said about ultra-liberal Priests who are afraid of offering a Mass as the Church had done for centuries.

It’s pretty clear you are not endeared with the EF, and that’s fine. Continue to go to your OF Mass, and don’t be to concerned about those who love this form of the Mass.

 

[jam070406]

Old school - Tridentine Rite.

Here are my observations:

1. Incomprehensible gibberish! Even when I was reading along with the missal the English translation was archaic and hopelessly convoluted to a contemporary person. To be sure, sometimes it takes something a bit strange to get a person’s attention (read Flannery O’Connor) - but this was not that.
2. The liturgy itself is hopelessly convoluted. The readings were read twice, once in Latin, then in English. There was a Gospel at the end of Mass. The Priest went up to the altar and then back down. I lost count of how many times the host was elevated and I wasn’t sure if it was for the consecration, the offertory, or what.
3. No participation. None. With a liturgy, there should be a give and take between Leader and Participants. With this mass, there is none. The priest is up there in his own little world, and we are down there. Awaiting his pleasure.
4. The Tridentine Rite will set back apologetics centuries. The missal was full of references to the “Sacrifice of the Mass”. The priest stated that “[the priest] stands between God and the People.” Now I finally understand what Protestants are talking about.
5. This was not a problem with the Rite, per se, but the homily was full of the self serving tripe that priests have put out for years - “You are here for the Mass, so it doesn’t matter how bad the homily is, or if you don’t get anything out of it.” To my mind, that is interpretted as “It’s obviously your fault if you don’t like it.”
6. The whole thing seemed an exercise in liturgical maste… well, it rhymes with “consternation”. [That’ll get me banned!]
7. It seems to me that if all those uber-conservative, crybaby priests who hated Vatican II so much, put as much effort into doing the regular mass well, instead of whining about how much the new Church isn’t like the church of the 1950’s, the Ordinary Form would be much more reverent and to their liking.

Pretty disrespectful and offensive.

 

[Monica4316]

Pretty disrespectful and offensive.

I agree…

 

[cheese_sdc]

Pretty disrespectful and offensive.

I’m planning on this being my last posting here, so I wanted to go out with a bang!

Disrespectful and offensive? Probably. But it pretty well sums up my thoughts and feelings on the whole affair. I’m not even Catholic anymore, but I am open. I thought that I’d see if what the uber-conservatives say about the EF are correct.

I was open to any sense of the Divine, but the whole thing just left me with nothing.

Like I said, it had the feeling of a cobbled together liturgy. In my estimation, the OF is a much better crafted Liturgy.

 

[cheese_sdc]

It’s called LATIN. If you don’t know the language, it WILL sound like gibberish.

Wow. And here I thought that going to a Latin Mass would be in English. Please to be reading the rest of my comment on this subject. Reading comprehension is not just for the big kids!

The readings are read twice so you can understand them in your native tongue not the aforementioned “gibberish”. The Gospel at the end of Mass is called the Last Gospel in the Rubrics of the Mass, as are all of the actions of the Priest.

That’s the point. In the ordinary form of the mass, all of the readings are together, in an organic format. In the EF, having readings all over the place gives the liturgy a thrown together and inorganic flow.

You are speaking in a truly Novus Ordo way when you make this comment. All participate at the EF Mass by praying with the Priest and following the Mass.

I wonder what definition you use for participation.

So, for roughly 2 thousand years the Church was being set back?

Please to be re-reading my original comment.

Now you are showing your true colors. To attack any Mass and claim what you do is an attack on the Church, since it is a VALID form of the Mass.

Never made any question of my colors. And please check the hyperbole at the door. If I’m attacking the church by attacking the EF, then what about all those council fathers during Vatican II. Mmmmmm. On second thought, maybe YOU are showing your true colors…

And the same could be said about ultra-liberal Priests who are afraid of offering a Mass as the Church had done for centuries.

A poorly done OF is as bad as well done EF. However, a well done OF is a thing of beauty.

It’s pretty clear you are not endeared with the EF, and that’s fine. Continue to go to your OF Mass, and don’t be to concerned about those who love this form of the Mass.

I don’t go to the OF Mass anymore either. I was kinda hoping that the EF would be better. I found out that it is not.

 

[Tedster]

Wow. And here I thought that going to a Latin Mass would be in English. Please to be reading the rest of my comment on this subject. Reading comprehension is not just for the big kids!

Funny! It’s just that there is not one ounce of “gibberish” in the Mass that I attend. It just takes a little “big kid” comprehension to understand the prayers.

That’s the point. In the ordinary form of the mass, all of the readings are together, in an organic format. In the EF, having readings all over the place gives the liturgy a thrown together and inorganic flow.

Strangely enough, they are in the exact same organic format in the EF, all together. They are NOT “all over the place”. If you do not know the flow of the Mass, how can you make such a comment?

I wonder what definition you use for participation.

Praying the Mass along with the Priest, silently.

Never made any question of my colors. And please check the hyperbole at the door. If I’m attacking the church by attacking the EF, then what about all those council fathers during Vatican II. Mmmmmm. On second thought, maybe YOU are showing your true colors…

I have no qualms about telling my true colors… the EF is the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven in my mind.

A poorly done OF is as bad as well done EF. However, a well done OF is a thing of beauty.

At least we can agree on one thing. However, that’s not what you were complaining about. Nowhere did you state that the EF you attended was done poorly. On the contrary, you said you don’t like the format.

I don’t go to the OF Mass anymore either. I was kinda hoping that the EF would be better. I found out that it is not.

That might be the problem. As a fallen away Catholic, how can you expect to see the beauty of the EF?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The guy has the right to his opinion and I wouldn’t go as far as to say it is offensive. But what trips me out the most is what the OP has down as his religion: chesian? Which branch of Chesian is it: cheddar, American, provalone, mozzarella? LOL

To each his own really. I am only 34 years old so I never got the opportunity to hear the Latin Mass like so many of you and in my area it isn’t offered, period. If it were, I’d give it a whirl. It sounds dignified to me and most of all I just HATE the strumming guitars and koombaya-type songs I hear at Church. If it were up to me, and it sure isn’t, I’d have no instruments except an organ and it’d sound like the Middle Ages LOL

Whatever works…I for one wouldn’t mind the Tridentine.

 

[Deconi]

Catholics! They make the worst anti-Catholics, just as a sibling makes the worst enemy!

Harp to the OT when God instituted the priesthood. Only ‘THEY’ can conduct the offerings of the sacrifice! Indeed, they ARE between God and man…because that is how He established it! When the sacrifices were offered then, the Israelites stood around AWAITING the priest to complete the ceremony, and then partook in CONSUMING the sacrificed offering. This is what God decreed of HOW the sacrifice is to be offered to Him.

We now enjoy the fulfillment of the same ceremony, but without the shadows of uncertainty the OT participants ‘suffered.’

The God-man revealed much much, more of the same ceremony and left it for us. Even becoming MAN, Through His Son, He is the ULTIMATE Priest, and continues to be so!

The Mass is the same as the OT sacrifice, except we are now ALLOWED to stand in The Presence of He Who Instituted it! Lo and Behold, we also get to CONSUME the sacrificed offering…AND WHAT AN OFFERING!!!

I wouldn’t care if I never, ever, understand a single utterance throughout the entire ‘ceremony!’ But I have been blessed to be made to understand WHAT IS GOING ON, WHO IS PRESENT, AND THAT I AM A MEMBER OF THOSE GATHERED!

If you must ‘wander,’ go with His blessings, but keep the place of sacrifice in view. It is perpetual…

 

[jam070406]

The guy has the right to his opinion and I wouldn’t go as far as to say it is offensive.

I would. When the guy refers to the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass as an exercise in liturgical masterbation I take offense to that.

 

[kalt]

How old is this form of the Mass, and why is it, in some people’s minds, the default setting?

 

[adstrinity]

How old is this form of the Mass, and why is it, in some people’s minds, the default setting?

It’s about 1,000 years old and because, in the West, it is. This is what the standard was once everything was codified (there were always OT reading, Psalms, Gospel, Prayers, Eucharist, but, everybody had a different role, not all these roles always showed up; this (Latin Mass) was the solution to the problems). It is the default setting in the West because it works. It’s what has been used and it is what the OF Mass doesn’t want to be. I’ve seen the OF Mass in Latin and participated in it in English – done properly, the Priest still faces away from the congregation.

 

[dzheremi]

This fetishization of “participation” is bizarre to me. Granted, I would not have as much problem with Latin as the OP does, but even so…there is something to be said that all s/he apparently got out of the experience is that there isn’t enough participation and that everything is gibberish! I suppose there are a few different ways you could look at it, but for me I am quite taken with the idea, expressed to me a while ago by a Dominican priest friend and mentor of mine, that there is much to be experienced in the presence of God that CANNOT be experienced if you are focused on your own “participation” as takes place in the OF in many cases (holding hands, talking to friends as a part of the “peace”, etc). This is the wisdom that is still alive in the Orthodox Churches and Eastern Catholic churches, and why I deeply regret having missed my chance to attend the EF (I’ve just moved and its not offered here). Participation? You are gathered together to worship God in solemn reverence and worship. What more could you want?

Afterthought: While I missed the EF, I did get a chance to celebrate at the local Ukrainian Catholic Church back in Oregon…if you think Latin is “gibberish”, try Old Church Slavonic!

 

[Harpazo]

It’s about 1,000 years old and because, in the West, it is. This is what the standard was once everything was codified (there were always OT reading, Psalms, Gospel, Prayers, Eucharist, but, everybody had a different role, not all these roles always showed up; this (Latin Mass) was the solution to the problems). It is the default setting in the West because it works. It’s what has been used and it is what the OF Mass doesn’t want to be. I’ve seen the OF Mass in Latin and participated in it in English – done properly, the Priest still faces away from the congregation.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I believe that some prayers in the TLM go back farther than that, to St. Gregory the Great (if I remember correctly). But doesn’t a lot of it go back to the Council of Trent, hence Tridentine Latin Mass?

I personally think that the Latin Mass would be more engaging if it were in the vernacular and rood screens still existed and pews were done away with. But that’s just me.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

If we really want to go back to the beginning… why not do the Mass in Aramaic? Or Coptic (see this article).

The first Eucharistic prayers were said extemporaneously (egad… sounds Evangelical). The liturgy of Justin Martyr, as were the other early Christian liturgies, was Koine Greek. The shift to Latin happened in the 3rd-4th centuries, mainly because of African converts who more readily spoke Latin. It became entrenched in the Ambrosian liturgy, which is around the end of the 300’s (I think - it’s been a while since seminary). After that, the only Greek left was the Kyrie. A much more extensive history can be found here.

I enjoy hearing the mass in Latin, and enjoy going to the Divine Liturgy when I have opportunity to do so - but I’m a liturgical nerd. Historically, the mass was changed to Latin primarily because it was the predominant language - for a while. It is certainly a wonderful thing to offer Catholics who find it faithful to them. But I think it requires us to think if it’s an essential or a preference. Is there anything really sacred about Latin that makes it more sacred than Greek, or English, or Spanish?

Of course, I’m a Protestant. I am sure I don’t get it fully.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have 2 cousin Catholic Priest who conduct the Latin Mass; My experience was a revelation of Spiritual realities, it took me right into the heavenly vision of Ezekiel and brought me home to the “unveiling” of the Apocalypse (book of Revelations) when the bride groom and the bride reveal one another to each other. Where God “dwells with the human race” and The Spirit and bride say, “come”.

1Corinthian 2: “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” 10 this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11 Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God.

12 **We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. **7 14 Now the natural person 8 does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. 15 **The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment 9 by anyone. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ. **

Mathew 13; …11 He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, **because ‘they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.’ 14 Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but not understand you shall indeed look but never see. 15 Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.’ ****16 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. 17 Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. **

 

[Harpazo]

If we really want to go back to the beginning… why not do the Mass in Aramaic? Or Coptic (see this article).

The first Eucharistic prayers were said extemporaneously (egad… sounds Evangelical). The liturgy of Justin Martyr, as were the other early Christian liturgies, was Koine Greek. The shift to Latin happened in the 3rd-4th centuries, mainly because of African converts who more readily spoke Latin. It became entrenched in the Ambrosian liturgy, which is around the end of the 300’s (I think - it’s been a while since seminary). After that, the only Greek left was the Kyrie. A much more extensive history can be found here.

I enjoy hearing the mass in Latin, and enjoy going to the Divine Liturgy when I have opportunity to do so - but I’m a liturgical nerd. Historically, the mass was changed to Latin primarily because it was the predominant language - for a while. It is certainly a wonderful thing to offer Catholics who find it faithful to them. But I think it requires us to think if it’s an essential or a preference. Is there anything really sacred about Latin that makes it more sacred than Greek, or English, or Spanish?

Of course, I’m a Protestant. I am sure I don’t get it fully.

Generally, the liturgy was done in the vernacular. While I find Latin to be very beautiful, it just isn’t the vernacular anymore. After all, Ss. Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles to the Slavs brought them the Liturgy in their own tongue.

I think up until the 1950s or so the Trisagion was sung antiphonally in Latin and Greek during the Easter Triduum, but you are right, the Kyrie is the only Greek left. Tonight after Vespers, Father was talking about the liturgy with us and mentioned that it is believed that St. James brother of the Lord came up with the first basic structure of the Liturgy, or at least some prayers for it.

And we all know that Italian is much more sacred.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Mannyfit75]

Pretty disrespectful and offensive.

I agree with that statement. Extremely Offensive. I know a little bit of Latin.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would. When the guy refers to the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass as an exercise in liturgical masterbation I take offense to that.

I’m by no means defending the OP, trust me, but I have re-read it a few times and see no “masturbatory” references, jam? I must be missing it…