Why are reverently offered Latin NO Masses so rare?

[JReducation]

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?

Come to my parish, you’ll like it. We have seven full Ordinary Form masses every Sunday, very reverent. We have a full Ordinary Form mass daily, very reverent.

We also have two or three Brothers hearing confessions on Saturday for at least an hour. Adoration and Benediction on Thursday for the Life Teen group and on Friday for the rest of the parish community.

We have a parish directory of over 125 ministries run by lay people, including three seniro citizen centers where mass is celebrated in the OF once a week in a very reverent manner.

We cannot generalize. Mistakes do happen and things don’t always go as we like, but we try harder the next time. That’s all.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[crm114]

Yes, a very admirable example.

 

[crm114]

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

Using the vernacular exclusively does not automatically make a Mass less reverent. But the practice is contrary to the Council’s guidance in SC, and it does miss an opportunity to invoke history and solemnity.

 

[japhy]

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. 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.

What saddens me is that this public audience of his basically flies in the face of Vatican II and everything that had come before it, regarding Latin and Gregorian chant. If Latin and Gregorian chant were supposed to go out the window, why didn’t Vatican II just say it?

 

[marchoi]

What saddens me is that this public audience of his basically flies in the face of Vatican II and everything that had come before it, regarding Latin and Gregorian chant. If Latin and Gregorian chant were supposed to go out the window, why didn’t Vatican II just say it?

I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. “If Latin and Gregorian chant were supposed to go out the window” we would see absolutely NO Latin and NO Gregorian chant. Vatican II didn’t say it because they weren’t supposed to go out the window and they did not go out the window. Yes, it’s probably less prevalent than what Vatican II intended, but don’t dismiss the current situation as hopeless. Hopefully with last year’s motu proprio Latin finds its way back to common use.

And throw my two cents in, I would agree with most people in their diagnosis: people who want a Latin Mass tend to flock to the TLM. If there was more interest in the Mass of Paul VI celebrated in Latin, I’m sure you would find them more common.

 

[JReducation]

What saddens me is that this public audience of his basically flies in the face of Vatican II and everything that had come before it, regarding Latin and Gregorian chant. If Latin and Gregorian chant were supposed to go out the window, why didn’t Vatican II just say it?

Let’s clarify some things here.

1. Latin and Gregorian chant were never meant to be discarded. They continue to be part of the patrimony and identity of the Church’s worship. All Vatican II did was open the door to allow the Church to build on these traditions. The Church is not static in time. It is continuous. Art and languages build on what was there before, but they do not anull what was there.
2. Like all Councils in the church, Vatican II has taken time to undersand and implement. We feel as if this is the greatest catastrophe that has hit the Church. But the truth is that others before us felt the same way after each Council. Each Council required understanding and implementation. The draw back in our age is the speed of communication. In the past, these things did not hit the local churches as quickly as Vatican II did, because they didn’t have the means of social communication that we have today. It often took years before people found out what happened at a council and before it was implemented. That laptse in time actually helped. It bought the Church some time to reread its decrees and correct this detail and clarify that one. This did not happen with Vatican II, because the distribution of the documents was very quick. This led to much speculation and individual and local interpretation. It complicated issues.
3. Vatican II was the third part in a series of councils. In the early years of the Church she dealt with the person of Christ. It was important to solidify Christ’s identity. The early councils all dealt with Christological topics. The next set of councils had to deal with doctrine and faith. Thus we had Trent and Vatican I and smaller councils in there. Finally, it was time for the Church to define itself and its place in the world. That’s why Vatican II did not deal with Christology or dogmas. That work had been done. It dealt with the Church’s image of herself. The Church needed to clarify for herself and the world what she’s about and her mission. This included looking at her liturgy and making sure that it reflected her identity.

Given all the above in parr 3, this is not easy stuff to implement and clarify in just a few years, especially when the media does not give you a chance to step back and reflect on what you have said. Things are out in public before the ink is dry on the paper. There is no chance to write up the directions that go with the ideas. That’s where we’re at today. We’re trying to catch up with the Documents of Vatican II. The Church is trying to write the directions that go with the ideas of Vatican II. This will take a while.

The key is not to lose one’s inner peace or silence. I have learned from St. Francis and St. Benedict that the best way to maintain my inner peace and silence is to do the following:

1. Remember Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against us.
2. Trust the words of Jesus that Pope John Paul often repeated, “Do not be afraid.”
3. Remember that our vocation is to be like Christ. St. Francis and St. Benedict said that if we focussed on the Gospel and pick a teaching or a command of Christ and follow it, it will lead us to the perfection of charity. That is the ultimate happiness that we must never lose sight of. It will stretch on into eternity.
4. In eternity, the liturgy in Latin with Gregorian chant will no longer be needed, but love will always be in mode, because that’s what Heaven is about.
5. St. Francis said that your call to holiness is a call to do penance. Penance requires that at times we accept that we are not in control and that things are not predictable. We have to wait for God to act.
6. I also learned from St. Francis to obey obey obey. The Church may be led by sinful men, but it is a holy body. We can obey her and trust that God will reward our obedience, even when we obey foolishness. Francis always said, if you are ordered to obey that which is dangerous for your soul, you need not obey, in all other things you must be willing to be a fool for Christ as he was a fool for us.

There is a certain joy that comes with being a fool for Christ.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[japhy]

1. Latin and Gregorian chant were never meant to be discarded. They continue to be part of the patrimony and identity of the Church’s worship. All Vatican II did was open the door to allow the Church to build on these traditions.

Vatican II opened the door, but after the Council, no one stood guard at that door. The majority of Latin and Gregorian chant, as Pope Paul VI laments here, are being “lost”. Latin and Gregorian chant are on life support; these traditions weren’t “built upon” so much as they were “swept under the rug” and hidden from view so that new things could have prominence not due them.

1. Like all Councils in the church, Vatican II has taken time to understand and implement. … But the truth is that others before us felt the same way after each Council. Each Council required understanding and implementation. The draw back in our age is the speed of communication.

Along with the increase in speed of communication comes the increase in speed of miscommunication. How many Catholics have been told blatant lies about the documents (and spirit) of Vatican II? How many Catholics have been told that Trent doesn’t matter anymore? People – and sadly, some ordained men – lied about this stuff.

1. That’s why Vatican II did not deal with Christology or dogmas. … This included looking at her liturgy and making sure that it reflected her identity.

Some people involved in the liturgical reform that resulted in Mass of Paul VI do think doctrine was involved. (See the attached images, which are two consecutive pages from A Challenging Reform by Piero Marini.)

I think the identity of the Church, within the Roman Rite, has suffered because of the growing independence of bishops and conferences of bishops. At a Mass I attended a few weeks ago, the priest, making up his own Eucharistic Prayer, did not say “with Benedict, our Pope”, but “with Benedict, Bishop of Rome”. That is not legitimate. That is an affront to the papacy. That is pride. That is a mistaken identity.

Given all the above in parr 3, this is not easy stuff to implement and clarify in just a few years, especially when the media does not give you a chance to step back and reflect on what you have said.

And yet Annibale Bugnini is reported to have said that all the Consilium needed was five years. And in 1969, six years after the Constitution was promulgated, poof, new order of the Mass.

That’s where we’re at today. We’re trying to catch up with the Documents of Vatican II.

The best place to start is the documents themselves, then. In their original Latin and with an honest, unbiased translation into whatever vernacular you prefer.

The key is not to lose one’s inner peace or silence.

I do indeed pray for patience and peace and inner calm and silence.

St. Francis said that your call to holiness is a call to do penance. Penance requires that at times we accept that we are not in control and that things are not predictable. We have to wait for God to act.

I will do penance and I will act, and I will pray God is with me in my actions, because otherwise, whatever I do is in vain.

The Church may be led by sinful men, but it is a holy body. We can obey her and trust that God will reward our obedience, even when we obey foolishness. Francis always said, if you are ordered to obey that which is dangerous for your soul, you need not obey, in all other things you must be willing to be a fool for Christ as he was a fool for us.

Surely God will not reward those who kept silent, at the urging of bishops, about the sexual misconduct of priests! That was danger to their souls! I would guess that some Catholics feel likewise – that their souls are in danger – about attending the Ordinary Form of the Mass, because of abuses and irregularities, and also because of the content often preached at it.

 

[JReducation]

I would guess that some Catholics feel likewise – that their souls are in danger – about attending the Ordinary Form of the Mass, because of abuses and irregularities, and also because of the content often preached at it.

I think that you’re focussing on one aspect of the Church, which is the things that seem negative to you. A true balance in the spiritual life requires that we also meditate and reflect on the virtues around us and within the Church. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming over zealous as St. Teresa of Avila said. She often thought that over zealous souls run a great risk of being lost, because one can get trapped into believing in one’s judgment over that of the Church. It’s an interesting and important point that should not be forgotten.

In addition, never forget that those who say that attending the Ordinary Form of the Mass is a danger to their soul are incorrect. The mass is never a danger to anyone’s soul What others do or say wrong does not have to become mine. Being in a Church where the preacher makes heretical statements does not make me a heretic any more than being in a room with a Communist makes me a Communist. The salvation or loss of one’s soul depends on one’s choices, not what others say or do.

Those who make poor choices without knowing better are not culpable. Those who know better, do not have to follow bad preaching, but still benefit from the grace of the liturgy.

The beautiful thing about the sacraments is that they do not depend on the holiness of the minister to be efficacious. It would be ideal if the minister were holy, but it is not necessary for the sacrament as long as matter and form are preserved.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[japhy]

I think that you’re focussing on one aspect of the Church, which is the things that seem negative to you. A true balance in the spiritual life requires that we also meditate and reflect on the virtues around us and within the Church.

In addition, never forget that those who say that attending the Ordinary Form of the Mass is a danger to their soul are incorrect.

I think for some people, because of the way the Ordinary Form of the Mass is celebrated, attending it is an occasion of scandal and a source of great personal spiritual unrest. (Of course, there also people who attend the Extraordinary Form of Mass who can hear heretical rants in the sermon as well.)

Being in a Church where the preacher makes heretical statements does not make me a heretic any more than being in a room with a Communist makes me a Communist. The salvation or loss of one’s soul depends on one’s choices, not what others say or do.

But if a person’s soul begins to be shaped by what they are exposed to week after week, that is a problem. When the secular world starts glamorizing homosexuality and promiscuous sex and materialism, and the parish priest doesn’t speak out against such things – or worse yet, endorses them to some degree – some Catholics might have their souls put in terrible danger.

The beautiful thing about the sacraments is that they do not depend on the holiness of the minister to be efficacious. It would be ideal if the minister were holy, but it is not necessary for the sacrament as long as matter and form are preserved.

Call me over-scrupulous, but I refuse to receive Holy Communion from a priest who refuses to call Benedict our Pope.

 

[crm114]

I think that you’re focussing on one aspect of the Church…

JR

JR, your spirituality and your patience are admirable.

Please keep in mind, that one thing upon which we are focussing is what the Council fathers called “the source and summit of the Christian life.” When that one thing is denigrated by the holy priests whose highest calling in life is to offer it, that can be kind of discouraging to those of us who are attached to the Holy Mass and whose charity, regrettably, is not as great as yours.

CRM

 

[JReducation]

I think for some people, because of the way the Ordinary Form of the Mass is celebrated, attending it is an occasion of scandal and a source of great personal spiritual unrest. (Of course, there also people who attend the Extraordinary Form of Mass who can hear heretical rants in the sermon as well.)

I can only share my experience. I can’t make you believe. My experience has been through the contemplative life. The more deeply I contemplate, the more I spend time in silence, the more I dedicate time and energy to prayer, the more I dedicate time and energy to spritual reading and to the scriptures, the less these things bother me. When I walk into a church for mass my attention is quickly absorbed by the Eucharist and the liturgy itself, it’s prayers, readings and the entire celebration.

But if a person’s soul begins to be shaped by what they are exposed to week after week, that is a problem. When the secular world starts glamorizing homosexuality and promiscuous sex and materialism, and the parish priest doesn’t speak out against such things – or worse yet, endorses them to some degree – some Catholics might have their souls put in terrible danger.

Again, I can’t convince you or anyone. I can only share my spiritual experience and heritage. My whole life revolves around my Franciscan Rule and Constitutions. I live in the same world as you do and work in the same world. I see the same things. But I’m so deeply and passionately in love with my Franciscan live and spirituality that these things do not bother me in the least. I know they are wrong, but they are not my choices. My vocation is to live the Gospel as St. Francis lived it. So I focus on that and I ask myself that every night before I go to bed. Did I do what Francis would do today?

Call me over-scrupulous, but I refuse to receive Holy Communion from a priest who refuses to call Benedict our Pope.

Again, I learned from our holy father Francis to imitate Christ, not the priest. Francis praised and kissed the hands of a priest who was a heretic and another who was living in sin with a woman. He taught us that we see nothing physical of our Lord Jesus Christ, except the Eucharist that comes through the words of the priest. Therefore, the preist’s actions or words were irrelevant, because we were called to worship, adore and love Christ in the Eucharist. We are also called to venerate and love all priests, regardless of their sins, because despite their sins, they are still successors of the Apostles and this cannot be taken from them. They are dispensors of grace and forgiveness, which can not be taken away. They are the only ones who can consecrate the precious host and wine. Nothing else about the priest matters except the faculties that Christ has given him for our salvation. His own salvation is for him to work out, not for us to judge or fear.

Our life must continue focused on God’s love, regardless of what goes on around us. We must continue to preach through example, rather than words and to live in peace with all men, especially with priests, said St. Francis.

Like I said, my mandate from our Holy Rule is to tell you this, not to convince you. Francis did not expect everyone to be convinced, just informed.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[japhy]

My experience has been through the contemplative life. The more deeply I contemplate … the less these things bother me. When I walk into a church for mass my attention is quickly absorbed by the Eucharist and the liturgy itself, it’s prayers, readings and the entire celebration.

It is the liturgy I am concerned with! Most Catholics don’t have the contemplative life with which God has graced you. And the reason “these things bother me” is because it is the liturgy of the Church, the source and summit of our faith. If that liturgy is celebrated in bland, secular, or banal manner, what does that say about that priest/parish’s view towards the Eucharist? I am concerned not so much for myself, but for others who don’t know the difference.

I can “tune out” the idiosyncracies, but I think in the long run (or perhaps even the short run), that does more harm than good. Most of my parishioners routinely see a priest pouring the Precious Blood from one chalice to another. Could it affect their faith in the Real Presence? The Chuch thinks so, enough to reprobate the practice, “lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery” (RS 106) and call it a “grave matter” which “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist” (RS 173).

We are also called to venerate and love all priests, regardless of their sins, because despite their sins, they are still successors of the Apostles and this cannot be taken from them. They are dispensors of grace and forgiveness, which can not be taken away. They are the only ones who can consecrate the precious host and wine. Nothing else about the priest matters except the faculties that Christ has given him for our salvation. His own salvation is for him to work out, not for us to judge or fear.

I know this, or at least, I know I ought to know it. It’s a funny thing… I never heard such words growing up. I wish I had. I am sorry for my rash attitude in the past towards certain priests.

But at the same time, isn’t receiving Holy Communion from a priest who defies the Church in such a way a sign of complicity?

(The other factor is, I strongly prefer to receive on the tongue, and I have a feeling it would’ve ended up being a bit of scene, even if a small one.)

 

[eucharisteo]

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

It depends on the priest and his commitment to orthodoxy. We are lucky I guess, because the other ordinary masses [NO is no longer used] around my area seem bland compared to our parish. One of the priests says it in Latin sometimes. I hear he even absolves using Latin. Haven’t tried him yet and can’t speak first handed yet.

 

[Al1953]

I was an altar boy in 1965 and 1966, in those days Latin was the norm. Its been a while but I would guess 75 percent was latin, I know all my responses were in latin. Since I have been attending the Tridentine mass exclusively for roughly 25 years I really have no grasp of the reverence of the Novus Ordo. I have always thought St. John Cantius parish in Chicago should serve as the model for ALL Catholic parishes. They have a Tridentine mass, a Latin Novus ordo and an English Novus ordo. I think an arrangement like this can only help unify our church. Here is their link if anyone is interested. cantius.org/

 

[brigid12]

What saddens me is that this public audience of his basically flies in the face of Vatican II and everything that had come before it, regarding Latin and Gregorian chant. If Latin and Gregorian chant were supposed to go out the window, why didn’t Vatican II just say it?

I have read somewhere (and I can’t remember where, sorry) that the devil hates Latin and Gregorian Chant. Putting that together with the vision that Pope St. Leo XIII had and that the liturgical movement really got started around the turn of the 20th century (didn’t it - mainly , although I know there were a few proponents of it that were excommunicated before that) it makes me wonder if this loss of Latin and Gregorian Chant weren’t “directed” by the Liar - so that it’s not from a natural leaning of any one person, of course assuming that it’s true that the devil hates Latin.

 

[brigid12]

And throw my two cents in, I would agree with most people in their diagnosis: people who want a Latin Mass tend to flock to the TLM. If there was more interest in the Mass of Paul VI celebrated in Latin, I’m sure you would find them more common.

Actually, this Archdiocese has only one TLM (in a small chapel) and only one Latin NO to my knowledge. The only place I have assisted at Mass in the vernacular, that was completely solemn and reverent, was at the parish that also has the Latin NO (run by a religious congregation, so not diocesan). Even then, though I knew practically no Latin, the Latin NO was much more “other worldly”. It made me want to cry! Oh , there was also a Benedictine chapel of a Benedictine monastery in Southern Cal. that I assisted at Mass at when I lived in the area, and it held a reverent and solemn NO in the vernacular, as did a church run by some Dominicans, however both those had Gregorian Chant.
When I spoke with the priest where I attended Mass (NO), he didn’t understand what I was speaking about when I used the term “TLM” or “EF” but when I spoke, finally, about the Tridentine Mass he said that the Archbishop had asked all the priests of this Archdiocese, including retired ones, if they knew Latin and they all said that they didn’t. In a number of remarks that the Archbishop made on radio, it became clear that he wasn’t in favor of the MP, so I don’t know how purely factual that assessment of the Latin knowledge of the priests in the Archdiocese was.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, this Archdiocese has only one TLM (in a small chapel) and only one Latin NO to my knowledge. The only place I have assisted at Mass in the vernacular, that was completely solemn and reverent, was at the parish that also has the Latin NO (run by a religious congregation, so not diocesan). Even then, though I knew practically no Latin, the Latin NO was much more “other worldly”. It made me want to cry! Oh , there was also a Benedictine chapel of a Benedictine monastery in Southern Cal. that I assisted at Mass at when I lived in the area, and it held a reverent and solemn NO in the vernacular, as did a church run by some Dominicans, however both those had Gregorian Chant.
When I spoke with the priest where I attended Mass (NO), he didn’t understand what I was speaking about when I used the term “TLM” or “EF” but when I spoke, finally, about the Tridentine Mass he said that the Archbishop had asked all the priests of this Archdiocese, including retired ones, if they knew Latin and they all said that they didn’t. In a number of remarks that the Archbishop made on radio, it became clear that he wasn’t in favor of the MP, so I don’t know how purely factual that assessment of the Latin knowledge of the priests in the Archdiocese was.

Your bishop’s assessment may be correct. Most secular priests had little reason to learn Latin. Religious Orders, such as friars and monks, had more reason to learn it, since many of their spiritual writings are originally in Latin or Greek. Of course they have been translated into modern languages, but when studying the spiritual life, the orders often use Latin and Greek.

Also the orders are international, unlike a diocese. They tend to use Latin, Spanish, French or English more often for their internal communication.

I only know of one international religious society whose official language is English and only allows English to be used in its documents, Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity. The sisters from every country must speak English, read and write it, pray in English only and attend mass in English. This is because they are an exempt religious society. The Motu Proprio does not apply to exempt religious communties. They use the language of their community. Their unifying language is English. However, as I said, most international communities tend to use Latin. So are likely to find more friars, nuns (not sisters) and monks who can manage Latin. Sisters tend to use English, Spanish or French.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[ProVobis]

Your bishop’s assessment may be correct. Most secular priests had little reason to learn Latin.

So following Canon Law is little reason?

Can. 249 The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well versed in latin, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to be necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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?

Prayers in the vernacular language are no less reverent than those recited in Latin.

Nor does the Mass in vernacular language violate liturgical norms. Observe…

On December 4, 1963, Pope Paul VI promulgated Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The document commands that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” It furthermore adds:
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. (emphasis added) This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants (SC, 36.2). The “limits” were later extended to the whole Mass by the Roman Pontiff during the promulgation of the second edition as the *editio typica *(1975):
Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was able to acknowledge that “the use of the mother tongue frequently may be of great advantage to the people” and gave permission for its use. The enthusiasm in response to this decision was so great that, under the leadership of the bishops and the Apostolic See, it has resulted in the permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the faithful participate to be in the vernacular for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated (12). Permission to use the vernacular, then, was extended because of a great good: “a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.”

 

[EasterJoy]

almost

This is one reason the “reverent NO” is so “rare”…the scorers are those Catholics who literally think they’re more reverent than the Pope.

I have read somewhere (and I can’t remember where, sorry) that the devil hates Latin and Gregorian Chant. Putting that together with the vision that Pope St. Leo XIII had and that the liturgical movement really got started around the turn of the 20th century (didn’t it - mainly , although I know there were a few proponents of it that were excommunicated before that) it makes me wonder if this loss of Latin and Gregorian Chant weren’t “directed” by the Liar - so that it’s not from a natural leaning of any one person, of course assuming that it’s true that the devil hates Latin.

We named our child after Gregory the Great, but his era was also largely responsible for the loss of Greek to the Roman Catholic Church, a loss which I think is even more lamentable than the recent “loss” of Latin. After all, the Scriptures are in Hebrew and Greek, not Latin. That’s a lot of heritage we’ve buried, yet who’s crying about it now? It’s a fat chance that the Western Church will bring her liturgy back to the more traditional Greek, though.