Why Hostility for the Latin Mass?

[dconklin]

The bishop of my diocese is not necessarily a fan of the Latin Mass.

Do you know this for a fact? My guess this is more of a “my sister’s friend’s cousin think she heard the Bishop…” guess. My own guess is there are fewer and fewer priests willing/able/trained to celebrate the Latin Mass. My diocese (Charlotte, NC) has a relatively new college seminary and intensive Latin is one of the first classes the young men study.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I have met no one, nor have I heard of anyone who hates the Extraordinary Forum. I have heard and read of a lot of hate, however, about the Ordinary Forum of the Mass. I see a lot of pejorative characterizations of the Ordinary forum, starting with calling it the Novus Ordo. That term began as a pejorative. There is no such Mass called Novus Ordo.

All officially promulgated Masses need to and deserve to have our respect. Calling any Mass by pejorative nicknames is no respectful.

But, in general, I do not think there is much hate for the Extraordinary Forum, except perhaps with liberals who think that such things are a “throwback” to a devotional Church.

I see hatred toward the Ordinary Forum literally every day, including characterizations that are blasphemous. We need to remember that disparaging sacred things (like the Mass), as well as those who have taken sacred vows (priests, bishops, religious, and other consecrated brothers and sisters, and the validly married is blasphemy.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

It is very legitimate that a bishop or priest may dislike celebrating in Latin.

I took Latin lessons from an incredibly devout priest. However, even given his extensive knowledge, he felt Latin made him lazy…mindlessly reciting endless phrases that he’d long memorized. He said during the Mass he had a hard time internally translating because it was often a word he spoke in English that would stick with him and cause him to pray in an OF Mass.

His Latin Mass was INCREDIBLY reverent. One would think he’d just about be swept away by God, enraptured in the mystery. But internally it worked very differently for him.

And I can understand why a priest would turn to feelings of despair about having to say a Mass in Latin. It’s difficult for them and it may grind on them just why some feel they must be forced to say Mass in a foreign tongue–why people feel their spirituality is more important than the Priests.

We are called to be humble and gentle and loving to our Priests, a respect they don’t often get. People demand “more reverent” music or they want the priests to wear the more ornate alb. They’ll say a priest wearing a cassock is somehow more devout than a priest in black pants and a collar. Why shouldn’t a priest dislike that? Who wants to be constantly judged on piety?

Rather than be a thorn in our Priest’s side, we should work to help them in their spiritual growth. We once had a young priest from Poland who asked to be allowed to say Mass in Polish–even though one or two parishioners even knew a word of it. The parish embraced his request and he said 2 Daily Masses in Polish. We cared about what was good for HIM, not the other way around.

And I think that’s where some Bishops and Priests want to draw the line. There are a few willing to celebrate in Latin. There are few willing to attend in Latin. They can do their thing. Pushing it any further is simply asking for something that one has no right to…forcing a priest to say Mass the way you prefer and not the way set out as Ordinary Form.

 

[Catholicos]

But, in general, I do not think there is much hate for the Extraordinary Forum, except perhaps with liberals who think that such things are a “throwback” to a devotional Church.

That’s true, I’ve also had numerous exchanges with Orthodox Christians where their criticisms were aimed squarely at the Novus Ordo to prove to themselves and non-Catholics how far from any semblance of Orthodoxy the Western Church has deviated from . I’m a little bit lat loss for words as to how to address the criticism with these people.

Being very comfortable with both forms,sometimes attend TLM early morning, then immediately go to the NO, simply because I love the peace both give me, I think TLM will revive the faith for many, especially the younger generation, Catholics, and non-Catholics. The New Mass has done that over the years too, and it isn’t given the credit when that happens. The most important thing is the Mass is conducted with reverence. If so, neither side has any basis whatsoever for being critical.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Good question.strong text

 

[godisgood77]

Interesting … I haven’t encountered ‘hate’ for the extraordinarily form of the mass, only vitriol for the ordinary form.

 

[stpurl]

It seems to depend a lot on people’s own personalities and worldview as to whether they perceive comments as ‘hateful’ or disdainful or vitriolic or disparaging or blasphemous etc.

I would venture to say that the majority of people, as others have noted, don’t really have a feeling one way or the other for either form, i.e., “The Mass is the Mass’. So people like that would read a comment like, “The EF is the Mass of the Ages” or “The EF is an outmoded dinosaur appealing only to those lost in nostalgia” and not feel as if one was an extravagant praise that 'dissed the OF” or the second a sneering judgment and disrespectful comment. Likewise, those people would hear, “the OF is often poorly celebrated with illicit innovations” or 'The OF is the gift of the Holy Spirit and finally we can ‘get’ what is going on instead of just saying rosaries" and not see the first comment as a scathing indictment by ‘holier than thou’ rigid Feeneyites and the second comment as an extravagant praise that totally dissed the EF and all its adherents for generations prior.

BUT there are a lot of people in ‘both camps’ who have had years, even decades, of being exposed to comments like the above, not just on message boards but face to face (so that one gets the full blast of the raised voices, red faces, sneering looks, being ostracized, derided, laughed at, having the matter constantly brought up with braying jeering over and over (again, this is on BOTH sides) such that those rather ‘mild’ statements above have become engrained into their hearts and minds as either terrible insults, or else as total ‘truth’, deviation or even questioning of which marks the other person as one of those jeering devils. And THAT is why you’ll see people nearly froth at the mouth (again, both sides) over comments that most people wouldn’t even think twice about.

 

[tawny]

I do not think anyone has hostility towards TLM. It is a matter of preference, with some very strong views for the preference. They are both “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”. Our Parish offers both. We have Priests & Altar Servers trained in the TLM. Surprisingly it is well attended by both the older & younger generations in the Parish. We also offer training for the Altar Servers. Both have there place, & it is nice to be able to offer both for the Parishioners.

 

[AdamP88]

I think a part of it is because people who have grown up with the NO mass are uncomfortable thinking that the older form is possibly more reverent. I have some interesting discussions about this with my mother, who thinks that we shouldn’t be so worried abous restoring traditional practices in the Liturgy and we should focus on evengalesition. However, I believe that restoring the mass to a more beautiful and reverent celebration is key to attract people back to the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

I have a relative who has talked about the matter. He had some Latin in high school, and while in seminary he took Spanish. He made an interesting comment: it took him over 5 years of saying the Mass in Spanish before he could pray the Mass in Spanish.

Yes, he could say the Mass in Spanish.

Well, there is also a small matter of sermons. I’ve attended quite a few Masses in Spanish. Knowing some Latin, I’m able to follow it without seeing the translations. Sermons I have to go by the tone as the words fly over my head.

Fortunately with the Latin Mass, the sermon is never in Latin.

 

[PHXsunsAZ]

I think people just prefer to actually understand mass. If you’re not understanding anything it’s basically just prestenteeism. I get pretty distracted when I go to these masses which is why I avoid them.

 

[pianistclare]

Exactly. About 6 people approached my former pastor, a lone priest in the parish. He said he could not change the Mass schedule for 6 people who, due to age, would likely drop off in a matter of months.
End of discussion for him, plus, he added, he wasn’t sufficiently fluent in Latin to feel like he was praying and not reciting.
That was pretty much the long and short of it. He even took a show of hand at all the masses, maybe 2 people voted yes. Everyone else did not want a change, not even for a weekday Mass.

 

[pianistclare]

I didn’t use the word, and I never asked anyone’s name who is on this forum. I simply wonder where the OP heard this from? No one on this board has EVER said that.

 

[Verdanty]

Though it has decreased somewhat in recent years when I was a practicing Catholic there was a good deal of hostility to the Latin Mass. This wasn’t so much for the Latin, although there was a strong movement in favor of the vernacular for the majority to understand, but rather for what the Triadentine Mass “represented”.

This might well be unfair, but there are some deeply negative associations to the Triadentine Mass in some corners. What it basically boiled down to was that individuals who were more likely to want to attend a Latin Mass were thought to also be vastly more likely to be Anti-Semetic, radically conservative, misogynist etc. The Mass itself wasn’t so problematic, it was the types of people who might go to it that were seem to be an issue and the Bishop didn’t want a parish under his control to cause scandal by becoming a right wing social club. Coming from a country in which the Catholic church is a minority faith with a fairly unpleasant reputation the leadership is very careful with how it styles itself for public scrutiny.

TL;DR: My diocese at the time thought Latin Mass being offered regularly would result in the more radical and fanatical SSPX devotees moving in and they wanted to avoid a parish becoming a soapbox for the far right. While that was definitely paranoid considering what some schismatics/Sedes have got up to in the diocese before the fears do have a historical source.

 

[AdamP88]

Why would you use the moniker “NO mass” on this forum to describe the OF Mass, given how offensive it is to so many people?

Also, how could you believe that that one FORM of the Mass could be more “reverent” than the other? Both forms are approved by the Church. One cannot inherently be more “reverent” than the other – only their individual celebrations can.

" restoring the mass to a more beautiful and reverent celebration" has nothing to do with the FORM of the Mass. It has everything to do with how individual Masses are celebrated.

I don’t mean to be offensive, but your posting does show why some people take exception to let’s call it the “EF Mass community.”

FWIW, the Catholic Mass is a proper noun.

And this overreaction to my comment is actually a prime example of hostility to any views that something was lost with certain “unauthorised” liturgical reforms post-vatican II.

The reason I use NO is because it stands for Novus Ordo. Which is a valid descriptor for the current form of mass.

I have nothing against the NO mass, it’s the form I regularly attend. However I do think the Latin mass ought to be made more accesable and the aspects of the NO that were never actually Church instituted reforms, such as the priest facing the people, should be gradually phased out.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

the aspects of the NO that were never actually Church instituted reforms, such as the priest facing the people, should be gradually phased out.

Sorry but you are wrong here. The Church did call for this, in the document Inter oecumenici.

 

[sko]

The reason I use NO is because it stands for Novus Ordo. Which is a valid descriptor for the current form of mass.

That’s highly debatable. The phrase Novus Ordo Missæ, when used in its entirety, means “The New Order of the Mass”, quite obviously, with the adjective novus and the genitive noun Missæ acting as modifiers of the noun ordo. However, when one calls the OF “Novus Ordo mass”, one is arguably turning the phrase on its head and making Novus Ordo the modifier of mass, giving it the meaning “The Mass of the New Order”, which, understandably, is quite unflattering. The Latin doesn’t say Missa Novi Ordini, which would the correct translation of “The Mass of the New Order”.

 

[BroIgnatius]

There is no Mass called Novus Ordo. It does not exist. It is not a proper descriptor. It is an offensive term, although I know it has caught on and thus people use it without the intention of offense.

But, I it just as easy to use a proper name such as Ordinary Mass, or its correct full name, Roman Missal of [whatever year]. Since it is just as easy to use a proper name, there is no excuse to use an improper name such as NO or Novus Ordo.

That is when it is particularly offensive is when this is explained and the person(s) use the improper name anyway. The does imply the name is being used as a pejorative.

 

[AdamP88]

Sorry but you are wrong here. The Church did call for this, in the document Inter oecumenici.

It didn’t actually “call for it”. Mass facing the people is never mentioned in Sacrosanctum Concillium". It was never called for in Vatican II. Rather it was a practice that had caught on from decades before the Council. The Church decided to “permit” it but it was never supposed to become the main way of celebrating mass. It was originally a Protestant innovation.

In a lot of countries where the Church is less political than it is in the West, they never stopped celebrating mass that way.

In any case, my preference is for the NO mass, but celebrated Ad Orientem. But I think the latin mass should be more widespread too.

Also the General Instruction of the Roman Missal still assumes that the priest celebrates Ad Orientem.

 

[AdamP88]

You’re te first one I’ve come across who has been offended by the term NO.

The versus populum was not specifically instituted by the Church. It had been a practice that many liturgists experimented with from before Vatican II. The Church merely recognised that it was widespread and decided to allow it.

It is a historical fact that the first groups to alter the liturgy so that the celebrant faced the people were Protestant. So that’s hardly a vote of confidence for Versus Populum in my opinion.

If you’re offended by what I’m saying then you must be very sensitive. It’s hardly that controversial to suggest that some aspects of how the mass was celebrated for hundreds of years before the 20th century should be brought back.

In any case, it’s already happening, more young people are going to the Latin Mass than have been for years.
People are attracted to tradition. And some of the old traditions lent a greater air of mystery and reverence to the mass. It’s not just a communal meal, it’s the sacrifice at Calvary being made present on the altar. We ought to treat it as such.