Why is the latin mass such a big deal?

[stellina]

Well, since I was born during the 2nd Vatican Council, I didn’t attend a Latin mass until a couple of years ago when I was in Rome. This was the solemn (what they used to call high mass) that was chanted or sung throughout & celebrated by a cardinal. He gave his homily in Italian (obviously the vernacular in Italy) and the petitions were in Italian as well. The solemn mass is indeed an awe-inspiring thing, and if you have a chance to get to one wherever you are, it’s well worth it.

That being said, I studied one year of Latin & forgot most of it, although when I’ve heard it in these masses I could understand some because I speak Italian (I could also translate a fair bit of the Latin dialogue in “The Passion” for a non-Catholic friend for the same reason). When you get right down to it, I don’t know Latin and, according to my parents, most people of their generation didn’t know it either. There was a good reason why the Council decided to have the mass in the vernacular: so everyone could understand it, not just those who knew Latin or studied their Latin-English (or whatever) missals. There are still many people in the 3rd World who, like my immigrant grandparents, are illiterate and therefore beyond the help of a printed missal.

Now, I’ve noticed many churches are returning to saying some of the prayers in Latin and that’s fine. Latin is an important part of the Roman heritage and it should be cultivated. It’s also fine to have the option of attending a legitimate Latin mass, but to return to Latin as the only option is not the solution. Many Catholics like to blame the removal of Latin for all sorts of abuses that happened after Vatican II, but as someone else mentioned, it isn’t quite that simple. A lot of people mistook the V II changes for granting total license to do whatever, and that’s hardly what was intended. Returning the mass exclusively to Latin isn’t going to solve liturgical abuses or any other problems in our mother church right now.

 

[bengal_fan]

Catholic Eagle:

So you are telling me they didn’t speak Latin in Rome? Latin was the Roman vernacular.[Every prostitute and bum spoke Latin in Rome] Latin was the standard language of our Church[sorry i didn’t mention the East].Latin was the vernacular of the people of Rome. The slaves and foreign visitors to Rome spoke Greek or their native languages.[the Roman vernacular wasn’t Greek, if it was thats like saying the New Yorker’s vernacular is French or Spanish]. Anyways i wasn’t talking about linguistics.[Sir you really need to study a little bit more about inguistics]

The vernacular was shunned in almost every Catholic church until Vatican II[Eastern and Western Catholicism , besides Roman Catholics having Latin the Greek Byzantine Catholics have ancient Greek,Slavic Byzantine Catholics have Slavonic,Romanian Byzantine Catholics have old Romanian,Maronites have Old Arabic,Chaldean Catholics have Aramaic and others i forgot]. I didn’t say Jesus said the first Mass in Latin. 1900 years is about from 60 to 1960. 60 is about 27 years after Christ’s death. The Church had already spread to Rome.

Also sir if i may tell you. Your knowledge of Church history somehow forgets Rome and goes on with an attack on persons who love the Traditional Latin Mass.
Yes there were other liturgical languages besides Latin and Latin is not the only one.

i’m not saying exactly that they didn’t speak latin in rome, but it was a very different form of latin coming from a (in your words) prostitute than from the emperor or cicero. even “church” latin is not exactly what was spoken by the elite. it is a “lower brow” or more vulgar latin because that was what the people spoke in the streets. i studied latin for many years so i do understand the linguistics. i also was not “attacking” people who love the latin mass, in fact i think it is very beautiful and relevant to today, i take issue with those who say it should be the only mass because history doesn’t give them a leg to stand on. i apologize if i’ve offended you. i can only assume that i have since you have taken such a hostile tone towards me. my only point is to understand why there are so many arguments on here saying that we should “get rid of the N.O.”. you sort of help make my point in listing all the other languages used. yes, the roman churched used a form of latin but the jerusalem church didn’t. neither did antioch or alexandria for many years. i understand the points of others saying there were less abuses with the latin mass and i agree, i’m saying though that a historical argument for it doesn’t stand up.

 

[Catholic_Eagle]

Why should we get rid of the Novus Ordo Mass? Because it is so problematic. One priest can choose his options and make out of the NO Mass a protestant service while another can make it into a dignified Catholic service. It has too many choices basically. Also i na comparison of both Masses the Novus Ordo has cancelled out many Catholic prayers or made them senesitive to Protestants. Here’s a great example.

Confiteor pre Vatican II
I confess to Almighty God,to Blessed Mary ever Virgin,to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist,to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul,to all the angels and saints, and to you my brothers and sisters that I have sinned exceedingly in thought,word,and deed. Through my,Through my fault, through my grievious fault and I ask Blessed Mary ever Virgin, Blessed Michael the Archangel,Blessed John the Baptist,the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Angels and Saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our GOD.

Confiteor [Novus Ordo 1970 Missal]
I confess to Almighty God, … and to you my brothers and sisters,that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my words,in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do;and I ask blessed Mary ever Virgin,all the angels and saints, and you,my brothers and sisters, to pray for me ad Dominum nostrum to the Lord our GOD

The NO one is terribly shortened and the references to the Saints are taken out. Since most Protestants have a hard time accepting saints it was taken out. The “through our fault” is taken out because most Protestants have a notion of being already “saved” if they only profess that Jesus Christ is God. there are many more problems with the New Mass but I don’t have that much time ot explain justthe prayers .

Sorry for my harsh tone. I got off your question and just wrote and wrote. What is your historical arguement?Please tell me because I can’t read It from your posts. Bengal if you are protestant you should convert now!!! YOU DON’T WANT TO DENY YOURSELF A CHANCE OF HEAVEN!!!

 

[Iohannes]

Latin is not the main issue. If they had just kept the same 1962 Missal but allowed more vernacular use there would be less problem. Of course abuses will still occur even if the 1962 Missal was continued but not to the extent of the 1970 Missal. The 1962 Missal has less options and is extremely strict in it rubrics, therefore it is much harder to introduce abuse.

Here is a good article:
latinmassmagazine.com/missal.asp

 

[weedhook]

I don’t believe in bashing the Novus Ordo mass, although if I ever got the chance to reform it, I doubt many people would recognize it. I would not get rid of it mainly because to do that would do to all those Catholics who have grown up knowing only that mass what was done to those of us who lived through the abandonment of the traditional Latin mass.

I would like to see the Vatican establish a separate rite for “traditional” Catholics, like the Maronite, Byzantine, Chaldean, etc. rites. Then traditional Catholics would not be at the mercy of the bishops who hate the “old” mass.

Finally, a word to those who say the TLM is bad because nobody understands it. Anyone with half a brain can understand it if just a little effort is put into trying. I can attest to this after experience with both masses, I get far more immersed in the TLM than in the
NO and not because I like one better than the other, but because of the nature of the two masses. Plus, I feel far more united with the rest of the congregation at a TLM than at any of the NOs (and there have been a lot of those).

 

[Catholic_Eagle]

No the idiot of a separate church for Traditionalists is stupid. The Roman Rite must be one. Catholics can’t be divided into High Church and Low CHurch. We have one Church. The Traditional Mass feed thousands of saints,repelled heresies from the Church, built new churches,converted thosands,and kept the convents,monasteries,and seminaries open.