What is the allure of a Mass you cannot understand?

[Lormar]

There’s a big difference between understanding** the Mass **and understanding all of the words spoken at Mass. The Mass is not supposed to be a primarily verbal experience. (except the homily) If you understand the sequence of the Mass and join your senses, it can be almost freeing.

…

.

Corki, you are so right.

If one understands what the Mass is all about, a hand missal, or understanding what the priest is saying, is secondary. I used to sit in the first pew just so I could watch the priest and fully enter in the Holy Sacrifice.

In fact, I found using a missal a distraction.

 

[Lormar]

You previously did not make the qualification of devout Catholics who attend the EF mass. You plainly said most devout Catholics. This means Catholics in general. Out of the general set of Catholics most of the devout Catholics own the Roman missal. This is what I understood out of your post.

If you said devout Catholics who attend the EF mass, I would have known you were just referring to a subset of devout Catholics. I wrote what I wrote out of basic understanding of your post not to falsely accuse you. This is why I asked for further explanation. However I do apologize for the part dealing with moral failings.

As you can see I am not the only one who has misunderstood your post.

A subset? How insulting.

 

[bobballen_18]

On my facebook feed today, I unexpectedly came across the following excerpts (which admittedly were 19th century but of course still offer wonderful insights to the subject of this thread):

“A Variety of languages is a punishment, a consequence of sin; it was inflicted by God that that human race might be dispersed over the face of the earth. The Holy Church, the Immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ, has been established for the express purpose of destroying sin and uniting all mankind; consequently she must everywhere speak the same language. The Catholic Church is the same in every clime, in every nation, and consequently its language must be always and everywhere the same, to secure uniformity in Her service.”

-The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ch. 37, Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R. 1825-1899

And this:

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”

-Dom Prosper Gueranger, Liturgical Institutions (1840)

 

[Lormar]

On my facebook feed today, I unexpectedly came across the following excerpts (which admittedly were 19th century but of course still offer wonderful insights to the subject of this thread):

“A Variety of languages is a punishment, a consequence of sin; it was inflicted by God that that human race might be dispersed over the face of the earth. The Holy Church, the Immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ, has been established for the express purpose of destroying sin and uniting all mankind; consequently she must everywhere speak the same language. The Catholic Church is the same in every clime, in every nation, and consequently its language must be always and everywhere the same, to secure uniformity in Her service.”

-The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ch. 37, Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R. 1825-1899

And this:

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”

-Dom Prosper Gueranger, Liturgical Institutions (1840)

That’ll go over like a lead balloon here.

But, if anyone wants to get a good idea how much the Church has changed since the sixties, reading Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year will give you an excellent idea.

 

[phil19034]

I read a great article once (5 part article) that I strongly believe sums it up well (I wish I could find it).

There are many different kids of prayer, but it is a difference between people who prefer Contemplative prayer / meditative prayer / mystic prayer VS. people who prefer Charismatic prayer / vocal payer / group prayer

For people who prefer contemplative prayer, meditative prayer, and/or mystic prayer; the Extraordinary Form is appealing.

For people who prefer charismatic prayer, vocal prayer, and/or group prayer; the Ordinary Form is more appealing.

Even, if the Ordinary Form was totally in Latin, it still lends itself to the people who like vocal prayer & group prayer.

NOTE: this article made the argument that the best option is to keep two forms moving forward and to NOT blend them in the future.

 

[Cider]

On my facebook feed today, I unexpectedly came across the following excerpts (which admittedly were 19th century but of course still offer wonderful insights to the subject of this thread):

“A Variety of languages is a punishment, a consequence of sin; it was inflicted by God that that human race might be dispersed over the face of the earth. The Holy Church, the Immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ, has been established for the express purpose of destroying sin and uniting all mankind; consequently she must everywhere speak the same language. The Catholic Church is the same in every clime, in every nation, and consequently its language must be always and everywhere the same, to secure uniformity in Her service.”

-The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ch. 37, Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R. 1825-1899

And this:

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”

-Dom Prosper Gueranger, Liturgical Institutions (1840)

Thanks for posting it, even though I know you will get lots of blowback for it on this forum.

 

[Cider]

That’ll go over like a lead balloon here.

But, if anyone wants to get a good idea how much the Church has changed since the sixties, reading Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year will give you an excellent idea.

His work can be downloaded here on PDF

 

[ProVobis]

I read a great article once (5 part article) that I strongly believe sums it up well (I wish I could find it).

I don’t know where they put it but here it is in parts:

lmschairman.org/2014/02/the-death-of-reform-of-reform-part-1.html

lmschairman.org/2014/02/the-death-of-reform-of-reform-part-2.html

lmschairman.org/2014/02/the-death-of-reform-of-reform-part-3.html

lmschairman.org/2014/02/the-death-of-reform-of-reform-4-novus.html

lmschairman.org/2014/02/the-death-of-reform-of-reform-5-1965.html

 

[Sarcelle]

A subset? How insulting.

In what way is it insulting?

Some devout Catholics attend EF mass while others attend OF mass. And some attend both. What is so insulting about this?

I made no such claims about what percentage of the OF and EF mass attendees are devout.

I swore to myself that I would avoid this thread to avoid getting into hot water, again, but since I am already in trouble I figured it would be best to clear up misunderstanding.

 

[edwest2]

Good day to all, and may all have a happy week.

I understand that some are attracted to the Tridentine or Extraordinary Masses because of the beauty and reverence they can find in them. What I want to ask though is, how does one get pass the Latin prayers or chants if they cannot understand them? Does one diligently look up them up beforehand or even learn the Latin language? Could things such as a small placards in the pews that translate the prayers from Latin to English or whatever local language help draw people in?

Have a wonderful October.

One can still get missals with the Latin and English on the same page. I was going to Church since the late 1950s. This has always been the case. Latin was taught in my Catholic School. We had Masses in my native language as well.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

That’ll go over like a lead balloon here.

But, if anyone wants to get a good idea how much the Church has changed since the sixties, reading Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year will give you an excellent idea.

The Church has changed? Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Ed

 

[Mystrx]

:twocents: I know one thing for sure, at my FSSP parish we have a huge amount of young families and that’s a good thing. Also I don’t mean just on Sundays. I see kids at the weekday Masses as well. Sometimes teenagers who come together on their own. Now see that’s the future.

 

[JimG]

In the days of the Tridentine Mass, it was not unusual for young boys to sometime pretend to be priests saying Mass, using the postures and gestures illustrated in their missals. I don’t know if they do that any more.

 

[sbe]

Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is “double-tongued” and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: “Cursed be … the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many.” (Ecclesiasticus 28:13)

Because the Traditional Mass has forged many saints. “Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it …” (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)

. Because the traditional Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a Pope who was a saint, Pius V; whereas the New Mass was artificially fabricated by six Protestant ministers and Msgr. Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason. Look it up.

Because the abolition of the Traditional Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: “And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people” and the observation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.

Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, “two things which of their very nature, must remain together.” (Pius XII)

Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship between God and man, but rather a horizontal worship between man and man.

Because Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the New Mass, himself declared. “The rite … by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition …” (11/19/69)
. Because “In the Libera nos of the New Mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril.” *

In the New Mass they offer up the Fruit of the Vine and work of Human hands. In the Tridentine Mass they offer up A Victum which is pure, a Victum which is holy, a Victum which is spotless, the Holy bread of Life eternal and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.

 

[Neofight]

Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is “double-tongued” and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: “Cursed be … the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many.” (Ecclesiasticus 28:13)

Because the Traditional Mass has forged many saints. “Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it …” (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)

. Because the traditional Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a Pope who was a saint, Pius V; whereas the New Mass was artificially fabricated by six Protestant ministers and Msgr. Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason. Look it up.

Because the abolition of the Traditional Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: “And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people” and the observation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.

Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, “two things which of their very nature, must remain together.” (Pius XII)

Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship between God and man, but rather a horizontal worship between man and man.

Because Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the New Mass, himself declared. “The rite … by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition …” (11/19/69)
. Because “In the Libera nos of the New Mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril.” *

In the New Mass they offer up the Fruit of the Vine and work of Human hands. In the Tridentine Mass they offer up A Victum which is pure, a Victum which is holy, a Victum which is spotless, the Holy bread of Life eternal and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.

I was unable to keep up on the number of wrong claims and contentions you present, so I’ll refrain.

 

[SilverAvenger]

Just throwing my two cents in, as someone who lives in a country withought EF by desision of the Cardinal-Patriarch, and of someone who is an anthropologist by degree.

The Latin Mass has a different atmosphere. By the use of ancent rituals which date, at least since the renascence [certain aspects of the exterior celebration, such as candles and vestments were soly fixated then], the use of incense and the sheer antiquity of the “ritual”, it helps people to be more disposed to listening and to partake of the benefits. The fact that it’s in latin aids so, as since it’s an unused language, it requires more attention, even if only to consult the red book to find out what everyone is saying. It has an ancestral pull, plus I don’t know about you, but I do have a hard time focusing on the mass when there are scouts playing guitar during mass like in the Novus Ordo arround here…

By the way, if anyone is looking for a free Ordinary of the Mass in Latin-English, here’s a very good one…God knows how long I looked for it: allsaintsrichford.org/Latin-English%20Missal.pdf

 

[Jennifoo]

Good day to all, and may all have a happy week.

I understand that some are attracted to the Tridentine or Extraordinary Masses because of the beauty and reverence they can find in them. What I want to ask though is, how does one get pass the Latin prayers or chants if they cannot understand them? Does one diligently look up them up beforehand or even learn the Latin language? Could things such as a small placards in the pews that translate the prayers from Latin to English or whatever local language help draw people in?

Have a wonderful October.

Hi there. I’ve been to the EF pretty regularly. I prefer the OF but I appreciate the beauty of the EF. I bring an EF missal and that helps a lot. I do think that the priest could have done a lot more to help us but I still did alright. The Holy Spirit is always with us, after all.

Hope this helps.

 

[CuriousMike]

In the days of the Tridentine Mass, it was not unusual for young boys to sometime pretend to be priests saying Mass, using the postures and gestures illustrated in their missals. I don’t know if they do that any more.

Many moons ago as an 8y/o back in the final days of JPII, my friends and I played “Pope,” much to our grade-school teachers chagrin.

Having no idea of what religion was in our youth (non-religious up-bringing, you see), we thought the Pope was just some geriatric old man who could barely get by each day, with people tending to his every command. We had a hut made from old tree branches and everything. Almost like a Roman Caesar… LOL
I know its not respectful now in hindsight, but I guess youthful innocence is a good thing sometimes

 

[smead2942]

Good day to all, and may all have a happy week.

I understand that some are attracted to the Tridentine or Extraordinary Masses because of the beauty and reverence they can find in them. What I want to ask though is, how does one get pass the Latin prayers or chants if they cannot understand them? Does one diligently look up them up beforehand or even learn the Latin language? Could things such as a small placards in the pews that translate the prayers from Latin to English or whatever local language help draw people in?

Have a wonderful October.

1. For 1,962 years, liturgy in the Latin Church was not said in the vernacular. First Greek, then in the post-Nicene period, Latin. Do you really think that nearly 2,000 years of the faithful found Mass “boring” or “didn’t get anything out of it” because the language of the Holy Sacrifice was not their primary tongue?
2. Latin is not difficult to understand. Once you start memorizing the prayers and studying the missal, you will find yourself understanding more and more. I’m proficient in French, and that knowledge definitely helps me comprehend Latin.
3. Language is so casual and malleable anymore. Mass is a Divine Liturgy. There needs to be an obvious distinction between the divine and the worldly. Just because one is not fluent in the language doesn’t mean they don’t understand it.
4. Most parishes that celebrate the Traditional Mass include little Latin-English missalettes for the faithful to follow along with.

 

[smead2942]

Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is “double-tongued” and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: “Cursed be … the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many.” (Ecclesiasticus 28:13)

Because the Traditional Mass has forged many saints. “Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it …” (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)

. Because the traditional Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a Pope who was a saint, Pius V; whereas the New Mass was artificially fabricated by six Protestant ministers and Msgr. Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason. Look it up.

Because the abolition of the Traditional Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: “And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people” and the observation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.

Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, “two things which of their very nature, must remain together.” (Pius XII)

Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship between God and man, but rather a horizontal worship between man and man.

Because Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the New Mass, himself declared. “The rite … by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition …” (11/19/69)
. Because “In the Libera nos of the New Mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril.” *

In the New Mass they offer up the Fruit of the Vine and work of Human hands. In the Tridentine Mass they offer up A Victum which is pure, a Victum which is holy, a Victum which is spotless, the Holy bread of Life eternal and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.

WELL SAID!