Why are reverently offered Latin NO Masses so rare?

  • Thread starter Thread starter crm114
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crm114

Guest
Why are reverently offered Latin NO Masses so rare? Or, to be a bit argumentative, why do so few priests offer the Mass in the fashion intended by the Council?
 
crm114 said:
Why are reverently offered Latin NO Masses so rare? Or, to be a bit argumentative, why do so few priests offer the Mass in the fashion intended by the Council?
Click to expand...
I think that it depends a lot on the diocese.

Around here (NY Archdiocese) 99% of NO Masses are reverently done.

When I travel, it varies. A fair number of places have some abuses, but the general tone appears fairly reverent.

I think there are dioceses though where the abuses are bad.

God Bless
 
Glad to hear it.

Perhaps I was not clear. Why is it so rare for the NO to be offered in Latin, with traditional chant, reverently, as intended by the Council as documented in SC?
 
crm114 said:
Glad to hear it.

Perhaps I was not clear. Why is it so rare for the NO to be offered in Latin, with traditional chant, reverently, as intended by the Council as documented in SC?
Click to expand...
Oh, Latin NO. Basically b/c a lot of people thought that vernacular Mass was the major reform of V2.

Also, those atttracted to Latin and chant will be traditional and will tend towards the EF (TLM).

God Bless
 
Is it true that many people sincerely believe that the Council intended for the vernacular to be used exclusively? That is hard to believe. After all:
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
  3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
 
crm114 said:
Is it true that many people sincerely believe that the Council intended for the vernacular to be used exclusively? That is hard to believe. After all:
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
  3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was true, I said people believed it. I love Latin.

God Bless
 
Firmly entrenched products of the 60’s still run the show, in many places.
 
So what you’re all saying here is that Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI are all doing it wrong by allowing the continuation of the NO in the vernacular?

And that the Magisterium has no power to stop these complacent popes?

And THIS is the Church of Jesus Christ?!!!

And Jesus, the Lord God, has no power to stop any of this?

That’s what I hear you saying.

No wonder so many people are Protestants. You are all following a totally ineffectual, non-functional “church.”
 
crm114 said:
Why are reverently offered Latin NO Masses so rare? Or, to be a bit argumentative, why do so few priests offer the Mass in the fashion intended by the Council?
Click to expand...
I have rarely been to a NO Mass that was not reverently offered.
 
Oh, Latin NO. Basically b/c a lot of people thought that vernacular Mass was the major reform of V2.

**At the Papal Mass at Lourdes this Sunday (14 September), the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Pater were sung–and a large part of the Canon was chanted!–in Latin.

Does this count?**
 
Our pastor offers a NO Latin Mass once a month. It is reverent. To my knowledge, we have the only NO Latin Mass in the area.
 
crm114 said:
Why are reverently offered Latin NO Masses so rare? Or, to be a bit argumentative, why do so few priests offer the Mass in the fashion intended by the Council?
Click to expand...
Latin is specifically mentioned in the documents but that little word “vernacular” seems to have trumped everything. And “vernacular” implies changing. Resulting in further changing.
 
bpbasilphx said:
Oh, Latin NO. Basically b/c a lot of people thought that vernacular Mass was the major reform of V2.

**At the Papal Mass at Lourdes this Sunday (14 September), the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Pater were sung–and a large part of the Canon was chanted!–in Latin.

Does this count?**
Click to expand...
almost 🙂
 
I have never been to an irreverent Novus Ordo Mass. I grew up attending both Tridentine and Greek Byzantine services.

How does saying a mass in Latin make it more reverent than one said in the vernacular?
Each mass is connected to every other mass by the Eucharistic sacrifice irrespective of the language spoken.

Go with Love, Go with God
 
DarkNight said:
I have never been to an irreverent Novus Ordo Mass. I grew up attending both Tridentine and Greek Byzantine services.

How does saying a mass in Latin make it more reverent than one said in the vernacular?
Each mass is connected to every other mass by the Eucharistic sacrifice irrespective of the language spoken.

Go with Love, Go with God
Click to expand...
If its said in Latin most people dont know whether is reverant or not.
 
Cat said:
So what you’re all saying here is that Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI are all doing it wrong by allowing the continuation of the NO in the vernacular?

And that the Magisterium has no power to stop these complacent popes?

And THIS is the Church of Jesus Christ?!!!

And Jesus, the Lord God, has no power to stop any of this?

That’s what I hear you saying.

No wonder so many people are Protestants. You are all following a totally ineffectual, non-functional “church.”
Click to expand...
No, the Popes are not doing it wrong by allowing Mass in the vernacular. As one Catholic lawyer has adeptly shown, Sacrosanctum Concilium has enough loopholes to allow for Mass in the vernacular anywhere and everywhere despite some of the more traditional directives regarding Latin:

latin-mass-society.org/ferrara.htm

I don’t know of really any power on earth that can stop a Pope if he wants to do something (I may be wrong on that, but I know of no historical precedent, and of course I believe God protects the Pope from officially promulgating heresy).

God, of course, could wipe everyone out in the Vatican if they make a prudential error that displeases Him. But I don’t think God operates like that. He does not keep His Church from making bad prudential decisions, He does not necessarily discipline members of the hierarchy or other Catholics if those in charge fail to do so.

Of course, as I said, I don’t think the Popes are wrong for allowing the vernacular to continue as it is allowed completely by Sacrosanctum Concilium.
 
estesbob said:
If its said in Latin most people dont know whether is reverant or not.
Click to expand...
Great point bob-

I would like to point out that the reason the vernacular is the norm over Latin is because of Paul IV stating things like this in his general audience
source
It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.
Click to expand...
  1. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
Click to expand...
  1. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
Click to expand...
  1. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.
Click to expand...
  1. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: “In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:19).
    …
Click to expand...
I say go read the whole thing. The Holy Father continues… and maybe he is a bit prophetic…
. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See’s official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.
Click to expand...
Reading that general audience really gave me the in a nutshell view of exactly what happened, when you put it in the context of the decades in which they happened.
 
ChristopherM said:
Great point bob-

I would like to point out that the reason the vernacular is the norm over Latin is because of Paul IV stating things like this in his general audience
source

I say go read the whole thing. The Holy Father continues… and maybe he is a bit prophetic…

Reading that general audience really gave me the in a nutshell view of exactly what happened, when you put it in the context of the decades in which they happened.
Click to expand...
Pertinent quotes, Christopher, thanks. It seems as if, going along with the article link I posted above, that Pope Paul VI pretty much expected the Latin to disappear except for ecclesial acts (and this has been pretty much borne out the past few decades). And he expected the loss of Gregorian chant as well.

I have to respectfully disagree with his reasoning though. Since we live in such a banal, prosaic society, we desperately need a liturgy that helps elevate us above it, and a “plain language” liturgy isn’t going to do it.

It’s been a tragic loss of our heritage, but thank God Pope Benedict apparently does not take the same view of the liturgy overall as Pope Paul VI did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top