Why Hostility for the Latin Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Entwhistler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
God, and the Church had a reason for allowing vernacular.
Click to expand...
And Trent and many Popes had reasons why not to allow it.

Are we going to go on and on like this?

BTW, the OF and Latin aren’t mutually exclusive. Please don’t make it so. Thank you.
 
ProVobis said:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
God, and the Church had a reason for allowing vernacular.
Click to expand...
And Trent and many Popes had reasons why not to allow it.

Are we going to go on and on like this?

BTW, the OF and Latin aren’t mutually exclusive. Please don’t make it so. Thank you.
Click to expand...
🤨

Maybe because God didn’t want the vernacular at the time? Perhaps humanity had moved in such a way that God allowed for it. I mean, the Jews had to wait thousands of years for Jesus. There were many dire events that certainly could of used Jesus sooner.

And we are talking about the OF and the “supposed” hostility for TLM. Although, I’m pretty sure I only hear Greek in the OF with the Kyre.

Also, maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t find any point in history where the Church propagated a new institution of the Mass only to pull back on it decades later and forbid it. Given that the TLM was never forbidden by the Vatican (although, admittedly, some local bishops tired). Can you name a form of the Mass that was created, approved, had approved translations decades later, then completely pulled? I can’t find the case that would be an example.

In which case there MUST be a providential reason for the propagation of the OF.
 
R_H_Benson said:
Ancient Mass with regularity.
Click to expand...
The “Ancient Mass” is the OF Mass and not the EF Mass. It might be more accurate to say the OF Mass is the restoration of the Ancient Mass.

The EF Mass comes from a much later period. The 16th Century I believe.
 
Last edited:
That’s really not true, the Latin Mass predated the protestant reformation by hundreds of years.
 
Duesenberg said:
The EF Mass comes from a much later period. The 16th Century I believe.
Click to expand...
Actually it goes back to Pope Gregory if not before, although the Roman Canon goes back to the 3rd century.

The other Eucharistic Prayers they claim come from different early periods.
 
The Roman Canon is also an optional part of the OF Mass, while prayers like the Sanctus and the Kyrie are non-optional parts of the OF Mass.
 
Last edited:
True, they have several pages of an 8th century missal printed in the Campion Missal to show this.
 
Last edited:
But was only one of many forms that existed at the reformation, most of which were suppressed at Trent, such as the Sarum rite. A few survived, such as the Ambrosian rite in Milan or the Mozarabic in Toledo, but on a limited scale.

Much was lost at Trent, including things like troped Kyries. The OF actually restored that tradition as one of the penitential rite options.
 
The Latin is far far more nuanced than English.

And it is easy to learn.

But some people get a bit red-neck about “foreign languages”.
 
With respect, how do you get that the OF is the ‘restoration’ of the Ancient Mass? Please cite your sources.

Have you ever attended a Maronite Mass? Their tradition is quite ancient. Please attend one and then tell me which Mass --the OF or the EF–resembles that Ancient Mass more.

If you can’t do that, please attend the nearest Orthodox Divine Liturgy (likewise quite ancient) and tell me which resembles it most–OF or EF.
 
stpurl said:
With respect, how do you get that the OF is the ‘restoration’ of the Ancient Mass? Please cite your sources.
Click to expand...
In comparison to the EF Mass, the OF Mass is certainly closer to the sacrificial liturgies of the early church.

No, I have never attended a Maronite Mass. I was not aware they celebrated the Mass. I do attend a few celebrations of the Holy Qurbono in a Maronite Catholic parish each year however. It’s a beautiful liturgy and quite different from the EF Mass. Definitely closer to the OF Mass.

I attend a Divine Liturgy at least monthly, but not in one of the Orthodox State churches. I do so in an Eastern Catholic church. The Divine Liturgies I have attended are again far different from the EF Mass. They are closer to the OF Mass in many respects.
 
Excuse me for the ‘misterm’, I was busy attending to family needs in the middle of the post.

Funny but your experiences of the Qurbono differ from mine in a Maronite Catholic parish about 30 miles away. . .as they do from the experiences I have had of the Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy about 8 miles away. Much closer to the EF than the OF.

Which liturgies of the early Church would the current OF be closer to? Those of the Christians celebrating in their homes? Those celebrated in the catacombs? Those celebrated in the churches at Antioch? Constantinople?
 
Remember - the Mass of the early Christians in Rome were conducted largely in secret so as to protect the fledgling Faith and the Blessed Sacrament from pagan persecutors. But as soon as the Mass was freed from the catacombs, it flourished and quickly took on a form far more reminiscent of the Traditional Roman Rite than of the New Rite of 1969. This was already occurring the the early 4th century. The primitive “meal” Liturgies of the house churches of Rome were offered by necessity, not because it was the most optimal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top