Why Hostility for the Latin Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Entwhistler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R_H_Benson said:
and quickly took on a form far more reminiscent of the Traditional Roman Rite than of the New Rite of 1969.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not true.

I compare the DLs I attend with the OF and EF Masses and I find the OF Mass to be far more similar to the DLs. Most DLs are celebrated in the vernacular. The EF is not. Communion is under both kinds in most DLs. It’s not in the EF. The “penitential rite” (for lack of a more universal label) of the OF Mass is closer to the different DLs.
R_H_Benson said:
The primitive “meal” Liturgies of the house churches of Rome were offered by necessity, not because it was the most optimal.
Click to expand...
I suspect a great number of liturgies over the years were non-optimal – including the EF of course. That said, I believe the OF Mass is closer to liturgies of the early church and to Eastern DLs than the EF Mass.
 
In this era, if we want to persuade people and it requires effort, then it had better
come in the form of a TV remote. These days people have it much easier in regards to
Latin than I recall of the 50’s. These days the missal comes with the interpretation on
the opposite page. But it’s actually a fun practice. One can hear the chorus and follow the words and follow the articulation. I actually became quite good at (low keyed)singing after years of being out of practice. Who knows, I may actually become good enough for the choir, which would be a life long dream. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Well, we’re at a standstill, aren’t we?

Certainly it is in my experience.

I suppose we’ll know who was ‘closer to being correct’ some day. If it’s you, I’ll be the first to admit it. I hope you’d do the same if it turns out I’m the one who was right.
 
Last edited:
I agree. I don’t understand as well. If it was welcome for so many years why the flack…?! I must first share that I came into the Church as a Protestant convert so the Latin Mass was foreign to me. Through the years I have been growing to love and appreciate it more and more. I continue reading the Catholic faith and am learning the power of the Latin Mass as the Latin is very much opposed by any evil forces in the World today. Exorcisms in the old Latin are extremely more powerful from things i’ve read. There is something very Holy in the Latin Mass. Also, in every way it is oriented toward God, not man! This is most impressive!!! Reverence is so important. Not about me, ALL about Him!!! I love this and it makes so much sense😊 I conclude in thinking this is an attack on our Lord in our most reverent worship which the evil one HATES.
 
stpurl said:
I suppose we’ll know who was ‘closer to being correct’ some day. If it’s you, I’ll be the first to admit it. I hope you’d do the same if it turns out I’m the one who was right.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

My first EC pastor had grown up in a bi-ritual family – The Latin Church (father) and the Ruthenian Church. He was baptized in an RC church, but raised in both. After HS he joined a well known (western) religious order and was ordained. He was an order priest for a number of years. He then became disillusioned, bought an auto repair shop and drifted away from the Church. He later returned – this time to the Ruthenian Church, were he eventually untangled his priestly status and finally became a pastor once more.

His small EC parish was about 60% actual ECs, 30% fire-breathing “traditional” RCs and possibly 10% (at most) like me – simply Roman Catholics that loved the eastern liturgy and kept our feet planted firmly in both churches. When anyone made the claim that (for example) the DL of Saint John Crysostom was more like the EF than the OF Mass, he would respond strongly. First that such comparisons were meaningless, second, they were divisive, third, if you were seeking a “tlm” this wasn’t it, and that the “vernacular Mass” was indeed closer to the DL than the EF.

It was sad to see the tC’s rail about “Latinizations” they had only heard about WHILE doing all they could to “EF” the local EC parish. I remember a few people pressuring him to allow them to place an antiquey confessional in the church. He said no, they would continue with the existing Byzantine tradition. Talk about a battle royale!
 
The thing that gives me pause about this thread is the very premise that there is hostility for the EF Mass. I don’t think there is. I don’t think its existence even crosses the minds of 90% of the world’s Catholic Christians.

I personally believe the question is asked to garner sympathy and empathy and to spur negative debate.

However I do think some (like me) dislike some of the negative stuff that so often surrounds the celebration of the EF Mass. The politics if you will.

I also feel disgust at times because I think a number of those that publicly associate with the EF Mass are often those that will continue to hold it back from growth it might otherwise enjoy.
 
For me, no hatred, but a strong preference for Mass in my native tongue. My gripe is with Catholics that are fanatical about it, in bullying (No Mass but the Latin Mass) and in loving ways (Really, dear, once you’ve been to the Latin Mass, you’ll never go back). I’ve met both types of Catholics.

I have more of a gripe with the “hybrid” Mass, where they slip in a Kyrie here, a Sanctus there.

Mass is worship, first and foremost, and the worship should be heartfelt. To me, this implies that it should be comfortable to the worshiper. We all need to tolerate things that aren’t comfortable for the greater good sometimes, but we are, at the end of the day, one holy, catholic and apostolic church. I have no problem with there being Latin Masses and God bless those that attend and get meaning out of them and worship God fully and completely at them. That’s just not me.
 
Wretched_1 said:
When I first attended the Holy Sacrifice, the Ancient Rite I was moved by the reverence and beauty. When I usher and take the money back to put in the vault during the Ancient Rite I truly feel as if I am in the presence of Almighty God. I had never felt that way at the N.O. I live well away from the parish I attend on Sunday. I have a parish within walking distance, but whenever I’ve attempted to attend Mass there they tried to force me to receive the Eucharist from a woman. There were females dressed up as altar servers and just about every body was receiving in the hand which is blasphemous. The Church itself is an eyesore. I thank the LORD everyday I don’t have to attend Mass in that ugly Protestant church. The N.O. looks way more like a Lutheran service than the Ancient Rite, and seeing as I am NOT a Protestant by the Grace of God I won’t attend it. Before you label me a schismatic I would ask you to watch a video of what the heretic Lutherans service looks like. If you can’t tell the difference between what you do on Sunday and what they do…
Click to expand...
You don’t agree with the Pope, then?
 
Probably a few of them and especially not with the current one. Sorry, but that’s my experience. I understand feelings don’t mean anything but hey as long as I attend Mass on Sunday in a state of Grace, I can only do what I can do right? God made me to feel this way. I would think if he had a problem with it on any one of the many times I’ve asked him in Adoration He would have told me?

And before you condemn me, I would challenge you to find a video of a Lutheran service, a Catholic Mass from before the 60’s and your own experience with the Modern Mass. Tell which of the two services are more similar? We know the Catholic Mass before the 60’s is legit, was there EVER a time when whatever you call what the Lutherans do would be considered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?
 
Last edited:
Your arguments are more persuasive when you describe why you like the EF, rather than criticizing the OF, or comparing it to a Protestant service. When you do that, you stir up feelings of opposition to the EF. It makes people ignore the good ideas you might communicate.

You might for instance point out the music of High Mass was composed for all time, by acknowledged masters. (I am tempted, but resist, the temptation to point out the cornfield ditties of Oregon Catholic Press, half of which are a distraction).

You could point out the undeniable emphasis on the supernatural, which Cardinal Ratzinger noted. The EF explicitly points the heart and mind towards God. It makes clear God’s majesty, our own shortcoming, and our absolute necessity to rely on God. It is VERTICAL! Now, the OF has all those elements, but implicitly.

If you are uncomfortable with women in certain liturgical roles, ok. But if you write that, or say that to people, they will not listen to the far more persuasive stuff (like what Ratzinger said).

On the internet, or in person, share your own feelings about why you like the EF. How does it help you come closer to God. Using terms like “heretic” to describe Lutheran services - I mean do you think this helps anything? It does not cause listeners to think bad of Lutherans, it causes them to think bad of you. And your Mass. I notice you did not put your post in Latin, you put most of it in English, except for the “N. O”. Next time say OF.

When you go on the internet, or talk to people, do you want to “express yourself, get it all out” - or do you want to actually persuade people?
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
You might for instance point out the music of High Mass was composed for all time, by acknowledged masters.
Click to expand...
The problem with this argument, is that it is not restricted to the EF Mass. Many churches and abbeys, including the one I worship at, use Gregorian chant at the OF Mass. The abbey of Solesmes in France is the « official » Church guardian of Gregorian chant, with several of its monks being scholars on the topic. They use the OF Mass exclusively, in Gregorian chant, exclusively. As does our abbey, whose choirmaster is a former choirmaster at Solesmes.

I also sing in a schola -of which there are 3 others I know of in the province of Quebec- that does Gregorian chant at the OF.

If the poster you responded to went to solemn Mass at Monte Cassino in Italy, in the OF, in Gregorian chant and ad orientem, as an example, it would become obvious that all the attributes he speaks of as exclusive to the EF are in fact nothing to do with the form of the mass, and everything to do with the care in celebrating it.

The EF can be and was carelessly celebrated in the past, especially when it was the only form. Even today, I have heard of at least one EF parish that does the Gregorian chant poorly. I’d rather hear good chant at an OF, or no chant at all, than poorly done chant at an EF.

As a side note, the chant composed for « all time » is in fact a relatively recent interpretation of ancient chant, and is the product of « chant wars » in the 19th century (heated disagreements on how to interpret ancient chant). Solesmes won that war, but we still have no idea what ancient chant sounded like. The words themselves are timeless, being 90% or so the words of scripture, the rest some ancient prayers and supplications.
 
Last edited:
But there was a time, like the 1970s, when hostility towards the Latin Mass was expressed in many liberal corners of my diocese. When I was training to be an Extraordinary Minister, there was a filmstrip that depicted the preVatican II Mass as incredibly bad, bordering on heresy; etc, etc, in adult education programs and the diocesan newspaper.

That era did exist. That era is mostly over. The diocese not only has Latin Masses, they publicize the activities of the Latin Mass community widely. Yes, there are pockets here and there, that don’t like it.

If in earlier decades the EF was hurt by its enemies, today it is hurt by its “friends.” When I visit the Latin Mass, I like it, but then a speaker or the website will go off against Pope Francis without naming him, or Vatican II, or, incredibly, reject the Luminous Mysteries, which came from a saint. They almost seem to treasure the 1970s experience of being criticized.

I wish everyone would visit a Latin Mass a few times in their life. It makes explicit some crucial aspects which are fully present but easy to miss in the OF. I wish every Catholic school would have the EF at least once every other year. My worship, usually at my OF parish, is a little better because I occasionally go to the EF.
 
I just would take issue that you use the word “hate” in connection with the Bishops. I don’t think you can draw that conclusion unless they have specifically said that they “hate” the latin mass.
 
I have not read this very long thread. (And sure I will) But one of my issues is that seems to foster some degree of divisiveness with the Roman Catholic or Latin Rite (if that is more correct to say) and there needs to be a unity of mind among Catholics. I tend to be of the opinion that this OF and EM is not ideal. As of now, I’m of the opinion that it should be one or the other, but not both.

I’m open to changing my mind, however, if someone could convince me otherwise.
 
Perhaps, even though, as I understand, some things introduced in the OF “because the Early Church did it” are, based on research carried out since the seventies, not what the Early Church actually did.

Moving on, there is a common misconception that in 1570, Pope St. Pius V simply pulled the Tridentine missal out of a hat or something. Nothing could be farther from the truth – in promulgating his missal, he merely set uniform standard for liturgy which, with countless local variations (and, by his time, abuses), dates back to the 6th century (sure, if one wants to measure centuries, the Jacobite liturgy probably still wins, if only by 200 years or so).

And even if the OF were a 100 % restoration of the liturgy used in the 2nd century or whatever, is it so obvious that that’s a good thing? Pretty much every rite and use gets to enjoy uninterrupted, natural and organic development, so why should the Roman Rite be suddenly rewound back as if the centuries and millenia of Catholic piety that nurtured its growth were somehow inferior to sentiments of the 20th century (or the 2nd)?

Please, do not understand this as a criticism of the OF. I deeply love both forms of our rite and I understand (or at least I believe I do) some of the motivations of the latest reform. I simply believe that some of the arguments often used to justify the OF (“we’re restoring the practices of Early Christians and that’s self-evidently great”) do not hold much water.
 
Last edited:
Half of these are Episcopal or Lutheran… no relevance whatsoever.
 
I must say - I went to Latin mass this morning - and it didn’t seem like I was praying. I was trying. I had the booklet and tried to follow on, but the priest and altar servers speak their Latin so fast (and I know I’m not great at it, and it’s been a while since HS, but I studied Latin quite a bit before…) and appear to practically mumble (it’s a large Church, and their facing away, so it could just be the echo). It seemed wrong, but my mind kept wandering. I just stared and had no real comprehension. I hate using the “F” word, but it just didn’t feel right. But I’ll go again (since I want to get to a 7am daily mass).

Honestly, it didn’t seem reverent to me. It seemed rushed. More so than an English daily mass by that same exact priest in the same time slot. I could barely hear the reading/gospel too. The last one I attended (at a different parish on a Sunday) - they at least turned on the mic or faced towards you (for the reading/gospel/homily) - but he did neither. I’m going to go again, but honestly, I’m glad we have the vernacular and the OF.
 
Last edited:
I just noticed your reply in the earlier thread, I didn’t realise I was responding to you again. Apologies.
 
Guitars and tamborines are allowed. Maybe not to your taste but no more liturgical abuse than organs.
Edited to say I still don’t have the answer feature mastered.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top