Why do you regularly attend the tridentine mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MillTownCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t have to worry about walking in to see Jesuspalooza Mass, mosh pit, dancers, mimes, and all.
I see this sometimes here on these boards. I live in one of the largest cities in Canada, and there’s only one or two parishes here that have something like this. Actually, I think only one. Yet with the amount of times I see people post stuff like you just did, you would almost think that over 50% of the Ordinary Form Masses are filled with such things.

I mean, seriously. How many parishes have mimes and moshpits? Even the uber liberal/heretic Church here doesn’t do either of those. People mention “clown Masses” often enough that you’d think it happens weekly during Ordinary Time. I don’t mean to discount when terrible things happen at parishes, but I question how widespread some of this stuff is in comparison to the amount of times people talk about it.
 
Otherwise, why aren’t we having Mass in Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew?
There is no reason why all the Masses can’t be in the languages whose nuances were prevalent during the time of Christ, especially those which are represented on the inscription on the cross, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.
Latin also works out well because it is easily learned with enough exposure. Read the side by side translations… it’s not some mystery language that is not able to be learned. I sat last night and did a comparative reading of Pater Noster with the English next to it. Wasn’t hard to figure out what was being said and how it was structured. Very hard to mess up when kept pure.
The interlinear version might be even better.

rickmk.com/Mass/masstext.html
 
I see this sometimes here on these boards. I live in one of the largest cities in Canada, and there’s only one or two parishes here that have something like this. Actually, I think only one. Yet with the amount of times I see people post stuff like you just did, you would almost think that over 50% of the Ordinary Form Masses are filled with such things.

I mean, seriously. How many parishes have mimes and moshpits? Even the uber liberal/heretic Church here doesn’t do either of those. People mention “clown Masses” often enough that you’d think it happens weekly during Ordinary Time. I don’t mean to discount when terrible things happen at parishes, but I question how widespread some of this stuff is in comparison to the amount of times people talk about it.
Having come from Protestantism, and having seen how things can devolve with an absolute quickness, and having seen for myself abuses of the Mass with the music, jokes, etc… I’m not just regurgitating.

What’s worse, is that the OF Masses I have been to aren’t necessarily all that overt in terms of abuse. But understanding what the Mass IS and ISN’T, you can certainly see them.

Again, I’m not faulting the form, but I am faulting the ignorance with which people abuse the form.

The following, taken from this PDF from this website:
3.** Moreover, the wondrous mystery of the Lord’s real presence under the eucharistic species, reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council6 and other documents of the Church’s Magisterium7 in the same sense and with the same words that the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith,8 is proclaimed in the celebration of Mass not only by means of the very words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation, but also by that interior disposition and outward expression of supreme reverence and adoration in which the Eucharistic Liturgy is carried out**. For the same reason the Christian people is drawn on Holy Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, and on the solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of
Christ, to venerate this wonderful Sacrament by a special form of adoration.
I’ve yet to see the disposition, relayed here in text, in full form amongst parishioners or even myself at the OF. Again, NOT a dig on the OF or faithful congregants. I see multiple breaks in focus, mindless, automaton-like repetition (which apparently was shaken up by the New Roman Missal), etc.

What I see, through what appears to be laziness on the part of the parishioners at multiple OF Masses I’ve gone to, is the slippery slope made worse by everyone squirting soap everywhere so to speak.

The Mass, if properly understood, is just not approached with reverence, at least locally. It is my sincere hope that perhaps people would read these things and say, “nope, not in my parish”. I’d be ecstatic. But, unfortunately, these things persist in written form because they persist in actual form.

I can tell you this: If I, as a searching Protestant, walked into, unknowingly, a “youth” Mass or anything not explicitly and outwardly Catholic, even from the perspective of an ignorant Protestant (and I was one, so I can say that, right?), then I would have thought: “Well, why on earth do I need to become Catholic? Worship is the same.”

Is that really want the Church wants? Is that REALLY what the spirit of Vatican II was? Is that really what’s going to save souls?

If it is, then why on Earth don’t we all just do what we want?

On Earth, as it is in Heaven, right? Just do what we want?

If so, I have a great 5-point plan to sell you, here’s the founder’s outline:
13 …I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. 14 I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High.
 
Does anyone else sense there is a subtle movement of people in the CC to go back to the EF or use more latin? At the highest level, it seems the Vatican is trying to appease the SSPX and traditional Catholics with this new translation. At lower levels, I see young Catholics, many who were born 25 years after Vatican II, who prefer the EF.

I like the EF Mass and appreciate its beauty, but I hope there isn’t a movement to rewrite Vatican II.
Vatican II didn’t change the OF to the Novus Ordo. That was changed after Vatican II. I would be glad to see the EF replace the current OF.
 
17 pages about this subject

Are you, friends, going to set a CAF record?
Of All, On this subject?
Much ado about nothing…
I receive the daily digest of the saints of the day from catholic.com (I stongly recommend)
The other day I received one form St. Ambrosius who change the language of the Eucharist from greek to latin.
If CAF existed at the time (around 350 dC), there would be a thread not with 17 pages but with 17000 pages !!!
 
17 pages about this subject

Are you, friends, going to set a CAF record?
Of All, On this subject?
Much ado about nothing…
I receive the daily digest of the saints of the day from catholic.com (I stongly recommend)
The other day I received one form St. Ambrosius who change the language of the Eucharist from greek to latin.
If CAF existed at the time (around 350 dC), there would be a thread not with 17 pages but with 17000 pages !!!
:D:p
 
I would gladly go to the EF more often if I did not have to travel 50 miles+ one way for it. I just wished I learned about it much sooner as I love the reverence, respect, the music of the High Masses/Missa Cantatas, and the quiet of the Low Masses. Until then, I attend Ordinary Form as they are plentiful in my area & close by.
 
You really can’t say that, and know much about this history of liturgical worship. It’s not like worship in the venacular is some invention of the 20th century. The fact that Latin is used at all is it’s self proof that worship in the venacular is a historical reality.

Latin is fine, but the english is every bit as fine. Just like switching from Greek to Latin was fine, just like St. Sabas allowing his Egyption and Arminian followers to worshing using a liturgy in their language (~500’s A.D.) was fine.

The complaint you make can’t be made with out throwing the Latin, Arminian and Coptic (venacular) liturgies all into question. One can, at some point, even say the same for the greek. As I doubt St. Peter spoke much greek.
English and Latin are not of the same. Vernacular languages are not sacred languages. Even the switch to Latin was not to the Latin spoken in the streets, but to a sacred version. The sacred languages are Latin, Hebrew, and Greek. Prayers in those languages are more efficacious than those of the vernacular.

sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Sermons/Disk6/Latin.mp3

Furthermore, Latin is the official language of the Latin Rite. Vatican II did not change this.
 
I haven’t been to this thread for some time now, and see that there are many arguing about the use of Latin (perhaps based on my posting ages ago). I can’t believe the quote below, however.
Prayers in those [sacred] languages are more efficacious than those of the vernacular.
Surely only God can say which prayers are more efficacious. Only God can see into a person’s heart. Only God knows our true needs and dispositions.
 
Prayers in those languages are more efficacious than those of the vernacular.
This sounds like pure superstition. Prayers in the vernacular are equally traditional - including our Lord’s most efficacious prayers during the Agony in the Garden. Don’t get me wrong, I attend the TLM and I frequently pray the rosary in Latin, but I’ve never seen a pronouncement from the Church indicating that prayers in Latin itself would be more efficacious.

A person stumbling through the Divinum Officium not being able to tell if it’s in Latin or Zulu isn’t the ideal.
 
I haven’t been to this thread for some time now, and see that there are many arguing about the use of Latin (perhaps based on my posting ages ago). I can’t believe the quote below, however.

Surely only God can say which prayers are more efficacious. Only God can see into a person’s heart. Only God knows our true needs and dispositions.
This sounds like pure superstition. Prayers in the vernacular are equally traditional -
Perhaps efficacious is not the right word, but Greek, Latin, and Hebrew do go all the way back to the cross, and by definition certainly more traditional than modern languages. Is it superstition to use prayers in the nuances of those languages? Is the restoration of the 1614 exorcism ritual by the Pope a superstition as well when doubts arose as to the efficacy of the modern vernacular attempts at exorcism?

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0410-euteneuer
 
English and Latin are not of the same. Vernacular languages are not sacred languages. Even the switch to Latin was not to the Latin spoken in the streets, but to a sacred version. The sacred languages are Latin, Hebrew, and Greek. Prayers in those languages are more efficacious than those of the vernacular.

sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Sermons/Disk6/Latin.mp3

Furthermore, Latin is the official language of the Latin Rite. Vatican II did not change this.
I’m really not sure where you are getting your idea’s from regarding “sacred language” vs. “venacular language”. It is clear to me that you have not understood the history of the Liturgy, and that you don’t really know how we got to Latin in the first place.

It would be good for you to note, that Latin was it’s self at the time the Liturgy moved towards it, the venacular language. You are correct that Latin is not the venacular now, but you are very mistaken with the idea that it is some form of “sacred language”. Latin is no longer the venacular, simply because we do not speak it on a daily basis today. This idea that the language had to have existed at the time of Christ is a red herring, the idea that if it existed then, then it is sacred is wrong. You should note, that when the Liturgy moved from Greek, to Latin there was great resistance from many quarters for the very reasons you bring up. Latin is not Greek, the Liturgy was “Orginally in Greek” (actually Hebrew / Arimaic), I"m sure someone even argued that Greek was a Sacred language and that Latin was a venacular language.

The Liturgy has always moved towards the venacular, St. Sabbas allowed it, the Popes allowed it (hence we have Latin, and now English/Spanish/Italian et. al). The only difference between now, and then is that Christianity no longer exists with in the context of a single great empire, in which only a handful of languages are common. It now exists globally, in many disconnected nations, with many languages. Thus the Liturgy is now available in whatever language is local.

I like the Latin, I really really do. But you have been mislead. I pray you will study the Liturgy more closely, and consider this matter more carefully. I recommend the book “The Mass: A Study of Roman Liturgy”.
 
I’m really not sure where you are getting your idea’s from regarding “sacred language” vs. “venacular language”.
Maybe Veterum Sapientia?
It would be good for you to note, that Latin was it’s self at the time the Liturgy moved towards it, the venacular language.
Not really. By the 3rd century Latin had been vulgarized quite a bit and from there the Romance languages were developed. The Church Christianized the Classic Latin which had already been codified (by Cicero et al) even before Christ was born. Its vocabulary, grammar (word endings), and nuances have been intact since then.

Now Latin was used in the liturgies as early as the first century. So you would be right in calling it the vernacular at that time, as was the Greek. But these two languages were the languages of the cross as well. If that alone doesn’t make them sacred, I don’t know what else would convince you.

I really don’t think you can say one language is as good for the liturgy as another. The whole purpose of language is to give identity to a culture, allowing expressions a certain way and to a certain extent provide some exclusiveness as well. And witness vernacular-loving Protestantism, where over 30,000 denominations have been formed, most of them without direction. Is this what you really want?
 
For an outsiders’ perspective, on my one visit to an EF service (on a Holy Day of Obligation rather than a Sunday) in a traditionalist parish (Bl. John Henry Newman’s Birmingham Oratory) it did seem somewhat more reverent, though that parish often is anyway.

Though I did have trouble following the Latin text when chanted or sung often, and often lost where we were - though I imagine that gets better with practice.

The Catholic cathedral in my city has the Pater Noster, the Gloria and the Credo in Latin during its Sunday High Mass (which is otherwise in English), and I’m getting better at following them (at some point I’d like to memorise the prayer in Latin, but so far only the first lines of Pater Noster and Ave Maria will stay in memory).

Unfortunately I started feeling ill half-way through that EF mass so ended up leaving 😦
 
Is it superstition to use prayers in the nuances of those languages?
No. And like I said, I often pray in Latin.
Is the restoration of the 1614 exorcism ritual by the Pope a superstition as well when doubts arose as to the efficacy of the modern vernacular attempts at exorcism?
No. And I’d like to go back to the pre-conciliar rituals altogether…but that’s another discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top