Why was there hostility to the Latin Mass in 1960?

[Jbrady]

Or better yet, have two parallel rites. That’s what we do now in the Roman Rite.

That’s a fundamental error. The OF and EF are in no way whatsoever different rites, but two forms of the exact the same rite. I know that some Traditionalists would like the EF to be considered a separate rite, and a new particular church or “ordinate” of some kind be established to accommodate them, but that’s never, ever going to happen.

 

[Maximian]

It could be that hostility is being interpreted where there was none.

Abolition feels like hostility.

 

[commenter]

umamibella:

It could be that hostility is being interpreted where there was none.

Abolition feels like hostility.

I believe St Pope Paul had a fear that the Latin Rite had been united for so long that it would be a source of division to tell people “we are updating the liturgy (except for those who don’t want that).”

If I could go back in a time machine I would tell him

1. Yes update the liturgy, put it mostly in vernacular, make some modifications but retain emphasis on supernatural, the Sacrifice of the Mass. Don’t let those ICEL folks put that mundane in. Put in accountability against abuses.
2. Encourage each diocese to offer one daily TLM for those who desire it, more if there is a proven demand.

I suspect that this might have prevented some of the bitterness and genuine sadness. I think a lot of people would have appreciated not having the gospel and epistle in Latin, and vernacular responses.

I used to visit the TLM sometimes, but, besides the majesty of the worship, there is almost a tangible sense of suspicion towards the Church by the lay leaders. This anti hierarchy mood was not present in 1960, and is almost Protestant in its flavor. There is more than a little defiance mentality from the secular culture creeping in.

But many, many other good elements are present too. I will visit again after pandemic.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Or better yet, have two parallel rites. That’s what we do now in the Roman Rite.

That’s a fundamental error. The OF and EF are in no way whatsoever different rites, but two forms of the exact the same rite. I know that some Traditionalists would like the EF to be considered a separate rite, and a new particular church or “ordinate” of some kind be established to accommodate them, but that’s never, ever going to happen.

I see. I was conflating “rites” with “uses”, “forms”, or “liturgies”. I do acknowledge that “rite” has a very specific meaning in Catholicism, but following the same logic, it might be technically incorrect to speak of “last rites”, “funeral rites”, and so on.

In most significant ways, I usually consider myself a “traditionalist”, but I would not like to see traditionalists quarantine themselves within separate ordinariates (though this possibility does exist in the diocese of Campos, Brazil). I hold out hope that the EF will continue to grow in importance and availability within existing diocesan structures.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A lot of what I do involves real estate and contracting, therefore the law and legal terminology. Both my “altar boy Latin” and college French have come in handy occasionally over the years.

 

[commenter]

1. Here is a typical diocesan TLM let’s say 2019:

• Everyone is highly motivated, drive long distances to be there.
• Everyone has a missal, appears to follow closely. Nobody says rosary during Mass, though some say it before Mass.
• The priest takes as much time as needed. Every possible optional devotional action appropriate for that day is done and explained.
• The children, mostly home schooled, are extremely well behaved. If a young kid starts fidgeting, there is a slightly older sibling who redirects them to focus on the liturgy.
• The priest always repeats the readings in English. He also explains the significance of this particular feast.
• After Mass there is a magnificent pot luck brunch.

1. Here is a typical TLM in 1960:

• The priest has to rush through because there are Masses 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and they have to clear the parking lot. My pastor had a host on your tongue before your knees hit the cushion.
• Lots of folks drift in late, say rosary during Mass, many don’t have a missal. (There is a hard core that does use one, appear to be following along closely).
• The readings might or might not be read in English. If the Mass was said by a visiting high school teacher he might explain the particular feast.
• A lot of phrases like “Sursum Cordat” stick out in my mind because we sometimes hit the High Mass, but I didn’t know what they meant. I went to Catholic schools, and even was taking Latin by the time it went into vernacular, and still didn’t know. I guess many who lacked that background likely had even less idea what was going on.

1. People today visit the current TLM and imagine this is what Mass would be like now if TLM was universal, in the neighborhood parish.

 

[stpurl]

I’m sorry but I totally disagree with your TLM of 1960. So does my mother, who at nearly 91 remembers these quite well.

For one, the Masses were not rushed in most places. Low Masses were often the earlier Masses, high Mass at noon or so. There were MANY more priests available then as well. So while Father X may have said the 7 a.m. low Mass, Father Y was there for the 8:15 and Father Z for the 9:30, while Father X then was off doing a Mass at 10 in the lower church or at the convent and Father Y went on with Mass at 10:30 etc. Etc.

There was a lot less ‘clearing of the parking lot’ because Sunday was much more a DAY OF LEISURE.

Again at low Mass there was not so much ‘drifting in’ as there was the fact that during Mass confessions were often held and somebody could come in at the start, later go down for confession, come back, and continue praying at Mass. Rosaries were not a ‘substitute’ but a legitimate practice. And just because people might not have a missal (many did), after many years’ attendance a lot of people knew exactly what was going on and could follow ‘without a book’ (What a concept!)

So not quite the scenario you remember. . .

 

[Shakuhachi]

I was there and there was a bit of both. A an alter boy I remember I had to pray saying the Confiteor as fast as possible. I hated that. But I thought it was very cool (at 12) that we used such an old language only for Mass.

 

[commenter]

just because people might not have a missal (many did), after many years’ attendance a lot of people knew exactly what was going on and could follow ‘without a book’

You are giving osmosis too much credit.
As I wrote there was a small solid core that learned young, pretty thoroughly what was going on. Then there people who really didn’t know most of what was going on even after many years.

Missals varied in usefulness. At a Mass other than Sunday, there were so many bookmarks, so much paging back and forth for the propers, you lost track of what was going on.

The many who never had a missal, or forgot it that day, were lost. If I heard the priest (facing away from me? Not sure) sing “Sursum Corda” how would that be clearer the hundredth time than the first? Did that lift hearts for anyone?

 

[Gilly_flower]

I was brought up with the Latin Mass and well remember the utter tedium of watching a man with his back to you mumbling for an hour in a foreign language while your parents urged you not to fidget…and It wasn’t just children who found it tough going - it was common for many of the more elderly members of the congregation to ignore Mass altogether in favour of saying their rosary…I recall nothing but general delight when the decision to offer Mass in the vernacular was made.

 

[Shakuhachi]

I was brought up with the Latin Mass and well remember the utter tedium of watching a man with his back to you mumbling for an hour in a foreign language while your parents urged you not to fidget

Yes, I was glad when i was old enough to be an Altar boy and could do something and see what was going on.

 

[SeekSalvation]

FYI, even Archbishop Fulton Sheen signed off on Vatican II and the new mass. I heard Archbishop Strickland say the NO Mass has far more liturgy in the mass than the TLM mass. But Archbishop Strickland has recently performed the TLM mass and enjoys it greatly. An interesting fact I heard from Tim Gordon is he feels the TLM mass a greater product. He moved from California recently and has to attend a NO Mass.

 

[commenter]

Some of the good memories of the 1960 TLM are well deserved. But some are influenced by liturgical abuses common prior to the 1980s, but uncommon now.

Compared with the abuses, the TLM looked even better.

 

[otjm]

My discussion does not include what latin a legal professional knows or does not.

I don’t know about the discussion; nor, from your comments am I sure what country is your reference point.

Your comment (not discussion) was that there was “lots” of Latin in the law.

I took Latin both in high school and for 2 years in college in the seminary; and after my law degree I pracitced law; I can guarantee that in the US there is a minimal amount of legal phrases, many of which are two or three words long.

I do not consider that “lots” so we disagree. And as the Latin in the law is not conversational, but rather descriptive and much of it centuries old, it is a mere convenience.

 

[ralfyman]

I know several who grew up in countries like the Philippines before Vatican 2, and they related that although they went to Catholic schools, very few of the latter taught Latin because they also had to teach English and Spanish.

It was helpful that English and a few local language translations of the Bible were available, but Catholic students right after the war were not allowed to read it unless guided by a religion teacher.

Most Catholics could not attend Catholic schools because many could not afford to provide free or cheaper education, which meant public school, which was also lacking due to small national budgets, and leading to high illiteracy rates.

Most Churches still had altar rails, but they were eventually removed because there were increasing numbers of people attending Mass and not enough Churches and priests. One possible reason for increased attendance was not just population but the use of the vernacular (which allowed most who barely received schooling–Catholic or otherwise–to understand more of the content of the Mass).

The implication is that it wasn’t so much hostility towards the Extraordinary Form that led to a decrease in its use but difficulties involve personnel, availability of facilities, and lack of education that led to greater reliance on the Ordinary Form plus many other changes.

 

[stpurl]

Actually a lot of people did understand quite a bit of the ‘TLM’. One thing about the OF; it may be in the vernacular and have ‘more readings’ but it is also kind of thin. the priest says one of three options, you respond X. It’s very cut and dried.

Some people may find it easy to focus; others become so accustomed to ‘hear A, do B” that they zone out.

The focus is on ‘communal meal’ predominantly.

There is a very ‘outward driven’ aspect. You are told what to do and you do it immediately. There is little chance for you to meditate or to respond ‘in addition to’ what is expected; again, priest says A, you do B, move it along.

Since 2011 Eucharistic Prayer II is slightly better but it is still extremely terse. At least it mentions humility, but the focus is utilitarian as compared to the TLM’s Roman Canon.

While you CAN get ‘smells and bells’, you are just as likely to get Woolworth—Gimcrack felt banners, tie-dye, loud guitars, and bare decor.

It is very much ‘chance’ that any average Catholic can go to an OF and receive the kind of nourishment offered —I emphasise ‘offered’ because it all depends on the person accepting the offering—at any TLM both before and after the OF.

You may say that despite the riches of the TLM, prior to the OF people did not recognise or partake in them. That is true, but it is not the fault of the TLM.

But today though there can be riches in the OF, quite often the priest himself ‘does not partake’ and thus deprives the people, as often as the people themselves do not partake.

As an example, if you offer a 10 course banquet, some people will sample all, some will only sample one course—but they’re all fed (unless they choose not to partake) because there is a wide variety of choice.

If you offer a 3 course meal, some will sample all and some only one but with only 3 choices there are likely to be many who don’t partake of a much more limited meal.

Again, both offer nourishment. And if a person is very fond of one of the choices at the 3 meal option, that person will consider himself well-fed and be astonished that people don’t feel the same.

 

[OraLabora]

Actually a lot of people did understand quite a bit of the ‘TLM’. One thing about the OF; it may be in the vernacular and have ‘more readings’ but it is also kind of thin. the priest says one of three options, you respond X. It’s very cut and dried.

It’s as thin… or thick… as the celebrant makes it just as the TLM could be sped through to get it over with so quickly that you had trouble keeping up in your missal, or said with care and devotion.

The focus is on ‘communal meal’ predominantly.

I disagree with this. The focus is that we are all part of the Body of Christ with whom we enter into communion at the Eucharist. Vatican II emphasizes that the Church is not just the clergy but the entire Body of Christ. It is the sense I get as we worship together as one, saying the responses, etc.

Since 2011 Eucharistic Prayer II is slightly better but it is still extremely terse. At least it mentions humility, but the focus is utilitarian as compared to the TLM’s Roman Canon.

And then there’s the sheer beauty of EP IV. At our abbey it is used regularly when it is authorized. EP II is rarely used on Sundays or important feasts/solemnities, but is frequently used at weekday Mass. The Roman Canon is also regularly used, especially on memorials or feasts of saints mentioned in the Canon, but also on Sundays.

While you CAN get ‘smells and bells’, you are just as likely to get Woolworth—Gimcrack felt banners, tie-dye, loud guitars, and bare decor.

Just as a TLM low mass speed-read by a priest in a hurry is no comparison to a High Mass or even Missa Cantata.

You may say that despite the riches of the TLM, prior to the OF people did not recognise or partake in them. That is true, but it is not the fault of the TLM.

It’s also not the fault of the OF that it is sometimes offered sloppily. Which the TLM was also victim of back in the day.

But today though there can be riches in the OF, quite often the priest himself ‘does not partake’ and thus deprives the people, as often as the people themselves do not partake.

See above about speed-reading the Mass prior to Vatican II. Priests are human and there were good and indifferent priests now, and back prior to the Council.

I know people here say that many feel we are prejudiced against the EF, but I sense the same feeling towards the OF in your post, and that you attribute much of what is wrong to the form of the Mass itself, and that is regrettable.

 

[ralfyman]

Pope Benedict XVI also gives additional points, as quoted here:

Pope Benedict XVI Likes The Novus Ordo | Policraticus

That is, it borrows from an “ancient situation,” it is a “renewed form” of what has been used “from the Church’s earliest history” onward, in encourages “the community character of worship,” and it shows how liturgy is also actio and participasio actuosa. Given that, if any, what it shows as “thinness” in content is made up by the complete opposite of what is “cut and dried”: it becomes essentially the living embodiment of action, participation, and Church history.

There are more details on that here:

In Praise Of The Novus Ordo…when It’s Prayed Correctly! | Voxnovablog

which offers one more point: not only does it offer more readings but much more from the Bible:

The congregation now hears readings from the entire Bible. The Tridentine Mass neglected altogether the Gospel of Mark, and certain passages from the Gospel of Matthew were read repeatedly in Latin (one example is the parable of wise and foolish virgins that was read at EVERY feast day for women saints). The revised lectionary exposes Catholics to virtually the entire Bible, saturating them with the Word of God.

Given that, the term given for it–ordinary–not to mention its form, appears to be very deceptive. It’s no wonder, then, that Pope Benedict XVI insists that both the OF and the EF are two forms of the same rite:

Letter to the Bishops that accompanies the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" Summorum Pontificum on the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970 (July 7, 2007) | BENEDICT XVI

 

[stpurl]

You made my point for me in the beginning of your post, and confirmed it thereafter, that in the OF ‘what you get’ depends on the celebrant, not on the Mass itself.

And your constant comparison of ‘speed reading’ (obviously in a Low Mass)? First, the incidences are purely speculative. Second, as the Low Mass itself remained with the same prayers and actions, which were for the most part not ‘heard’ in any case, and as the actions took place regardless, the Mass itself did not change regardless of ‘speed of speech’. Whereas in the OF, the Mass itself can be so widely different as to be nearly unrecognisable. . .and can also be illicit and even invalid in myriad ways.

I understand that you love the OF and if you’re lucky enough to have a reverent priest who uses the ‘beautiful’ options, you’re gold. But over the years the majority of Catholics have been subject to ‘thin’, even distorted, Masses. Which was not the case prior to the OF. Those who found the TLM ‘thin’ found it so not because of the failing of the TLM but due to their own ‘lack’ —and that lack was often fed by those who wished to bring about a model that was itself based on often erroneous understanding from a particular cadre of ‘liturgists’. Those who find lacks in the OF aside from its much more narrow focus as opposed to the great breadth and depth of the TLM more often find them due to the whim of the ‘presider’. It’s a situation which leads to a true ‘clericalism’ whereby the OF priests are constantly tinkering and putting ‘their stamp’ on a Mass which is supposed to be for all.

 

[Dovekin]

in the OF ‘what you get’ depends on the celebrant, not on the Mass itself.

Just to be clear, “what you get” on one level is the same in both forms. The priest acts in the person of Christ the Head, so that it is Christ himself who is the celebrant. The differences being discussed between the two forms are in addition to what they share in common.

as the Low Mass itself remained with the same prayers and actions, which were for the most part not ‘heard’ in any case, and as the actions took place regardless, the Mass itself did not change regardless of ‘speed of speech’.

Gestures were just as rushed as the words being read. If you could not distinguish one priest from another in the Low Mass, you were not paying attention. Inaudible prayers and rushed gestures were certainly part of the ars celebrandi of some priests in the older rite, just as they are part of the newer rite for some.

In the older rite, the priest was so fully in command that no one had to hear the prayers, no one had to recognize the gestures. That is what led to clericalism, the sense that priests were somehow the ones in charge of everything and the laity did not matter.

over the years the majority of Catholics have been subject to ‘thin’, even distorted, Masses.

This was certainly the case before the OF. I may have attended one or two High Masses, but by far, most were Low Mass. The name itself suggests how “thin” they were. Distortions may have gone by unnoticed since it was intentionally inaudible anyway.