Why was there hostility to the Latin Mass in 1960?

[OraLabora]

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.

My point was that the same applied to the TLM prior to the council, when it was the only form. Indifferent priests are not an OF invention.

And your constant comparison of ‘speed reading’ (obviously in a Low Mass)? First, the incidences are purely speculative.

No they are not. They are the direct experiences of my spiritual director, an 82 y.o. very orthodox Benedictine monk who was an altar server every day while in seminary in the 1950s.

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 therein lies part of the problem. It’s as if a Low Mass, even in the presence of parishioners, was simply the priest’s private Mass instead of a corporal act of worship of the entire Body of Christ in which everyone, priest, acolyte, schola, laity had his or her role to play, like a body made up of many members each doing a different task: arms, legs, voices, etc.

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.

Actually several priests. It’s a Benedictine monastery with several priests concelebrating, and a “hebdomadier” (not sure of the English term but “weekly celebrant” perhaps) that is rotated each week, but the Abbot usually presiding on Sundays and solemnities. The Abbot is the legislator of the liturgy and decides what goes and what doesn’t.

(cont’d)

 

[OraLabora]

(cont’d)

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

As were TLM parishioners I’m sure. Not distorted perhaps, although I would say mumbling inaudibly is certainly a distortion. See my comments about my spiritual director: “I hadn’t even finished chanting the Sanctus and the priest was already done with the consecration”… well before the Council I might add.

The rest of your post is just speculation. I get you prefer the EF., you have the option. But I’m sick and tired of the OF being blamed for all sorts of ills while the TLM gets off with being the solution to all that is wrong in the Church. That’s just plain nonsense. If the TLM, now largely offered by enthusiast priests and societies (FSSP and ICK) devoted to its preservation, suddenly became the OF again, what makes you think the same priests who are indifferent offering the OF will suddenly become super-reverent while offering the EF?

The problem isn’t the OF, it is indifferentism. It’s a malady of our modern times, has nothing to do with the form of the liturgy, and nothing to do with the reforms of the Council. Do I wish super-reverent OFs would exist everywhere? Of course, but human nature being what it is, that will never happen in the OF or EF if the latter suddenly became the ordinary form again. My fear in fact is that the existence of wider availability of the EF just makes indifferent priests say “oh you want chant? you’ll find that at the EF down on Atwater street in Verdun”. And thus those of us who prefer the theological approach of the OF are deprived of the rich patrimony of the Church. That does hurt, and not just the laity but the Church as a whole. Fortunately I have the abbey, but not everyone does as you correctly note. And in any event thanks to the pandemic I haven’t been since early March.

 

[stpurl]

You’re positing that the ‘less reverent’ in the OF will ‘obviously’ be ‘less reverent’ in the EF. you are assuming that because less reverent actions have occurred that it was always and only because of less reverent priests, and never that it was a ‘perfect storm’ that more or less mimics the Arian heresy times? A period of 100 years or so where all the conditions led to a small group who ‘came to power’ and imposed their heresies and wrong ideas onto the whole Catholic population but who—even though there was a time when the entire hierarchy save one man was ‘solidly Arian” and even the Pope did not object—were ‘gone with the wind’ a generation later?

Has it occurred that perhaps the ‘less reverent priests’ by and large were those who actually acted as they were ‘told to do’ by their superiors, and who, as time went on and they found that mistakes have been made, quietly adjusted?

And I have always spoken of the myriad abuses (which there were and continue to be) as those which were greater at one point, have ‘lessened’ for many, etc.

The problem is dismissing as ‘past’ legitimate concerns This is not about whether the EF or OF is ‘better. This will just make everything worse in in the long run because the root cause for the problems is not being addressed, or is being addressed wrongly. It’s similar to the sexual abuse problem (in the Church and outside) where people find a cause (such as ‘celibacy’) which they want to feel is the ONLY problem, and ignore that it is not the cause at all.

So trying to set aside the problem that exists today in the OF (and its celebrants and the laity—and there is a problem, nay more than one problem) by either trying to play ‘whataboutism’ with charges that the EF had problems too. . .

Or trying to state that the problem exists due to a failure of character only and would thus exist across the board anyway so why not keep things as they are. . .

Is just whistling as you walk past the graveyard.

You seem to put out as fact what is only your opinion.

I am putting out that things DO happen, and how they happen, and what IS happening, and asking how to deal with that. I’m not speculating on why, and that is the main difference. I’m not assuming I know why, because I believe there is more than one factor at work, and I also believe that too many people feel that even bringing up that the why is built into the form of the liturgy itself as well as the choices of the priests/people is somehow me ‘dissenting’ or ‘putting down the OF or Pope Francis or whatever, and I’m not.

There is a spirit of disobedience which is simply a part of the human condition. In this modern age, it is working with Pride to infect even good things and to spoil them.

So for this age, and for these people, we need to get to the root of why at this particular era disobedience has so flourished. I think part of it relates to the great ambiguity that our clergy have either formulated or disseminated and which have distorted their, and the laity’s, understanding.

 

[OraLabora]

So for this age, and for these people, we need to get to the root of why at this particular era disobedience has so flourished. I think part of it relates to the great ambiguity that our clergy have either formulated or disseminated and which have distorted their, and the laity’s, understanding.

And this is unrelated to the form of the Mass. Reverence is an attitude, not. rite. Does the OF invite irreverence? There is nothing in its structure, missal, General Instructions to suggest that it invites irreverence. You’re right that there seems to be a spirit of indifference today. I don’t think, however, that is a new attitude. My monk’s priest that sped through Mass faster than the altar servers could keep up was no doubt respecting the letter of the law, not leaving out one jot or tittle from the missal, but was way off with respect to the spirit of the law.

These problems will dog us until the Second Coming, regardless of the form of the rite.

If you compare the OF Mass say at our Abbey (or any of the monasteries of the Solesmes Congregation) it will be little different from an FSSP Mass except for the structural differences, in terms of beauty and reverence. Because both Masses are in the care of those who love the liturgy they are assigned to celebrate. It shows the difference between communities who have no need to rush the liturgy and with many resources, compared to a lone rural parish priest who has to rush off and drive halfway across the county to celebrate another Mass.

 

[Motherwit]

So for this age, and for these people, we need to get to the root of why at this particular era disobedience has so flourished. I think part of it relates to the great ambiguity that our clergy have either formulated or disseminated and which have distorted their, and the laity’s, understanding.

To me disobedience is rooted in this modern idea that you can pick and choose what you follow and that the Magisterium and the Pope aren’t infallible. That modern belief cuts across the traditional/liberal spectrum. There is a real loss of the virtues afforded by simple obedience and ‘thinking with the Church’.

 

[EugeneCharles]

Hi there, @Francisco_Fernando!

I don’t think that there’s a hostility for the Latin or Tridentine Mass but the Vatican II revised its form and made it simple as possible so the laity can understand the Mass. So far, we’re still using the Mass form for example, here in the Philippines, there are Masses that being said in the Latin language in some churches. And the change had affected to almost all of Rites of Mass because most of us uses the modernized form. It never change the Tridentine Mass but formed another form or rite which can be understood by all. The revision and modernization of the Mass help many people at least to understand the Scriptures and the meaning of Mass in their own language.

 

[Alexandria2020]

The Latin Rite of the Church catches almost all of the attention on the news because of its size and visibility, but other churches in the CC do indeed encounter problems in their local areas, it’s just not something you readily hear about.

that is correct.

within my own Syro-Malabar Church, our Divine Liturgy (Holy Qurbana) in pro-Latin dioceses are said like the Ordinary form (OF). So exernaly it looks just like the OF. so eventually it becomes a mix of the East Syriac Rite+OF. the pro-Latin laity and clergy think being like this means one is more “Catholic”.

 

[Alexandria2020]

The only problem was that the Spanish, French, Portuguese, Belgians, and Italians had been exposing Africa to the Roman Rite via colonization. After learning the Roman Rite, it’s kind of hard to then say, “oh, we made a mistake, you need a different rite”

if you look back at history, Rome partnering with these European kingdoms had caused many negative effects. Goa Inquisition in India for example. it’s bad for a Latin Catholic in India now, if he/she ever looks back in history or if they are questioned by other religious communities such as the Hindus and Muslims of India. the Syro-Malabar Church exists to this day due to laity in the 16th and 17th centuries that resisted the Tridentine Mass forced on by the Portuguese.

 

[mary77]

i think serious catholics had no problem what so ever with the latin mass and their deep prayer and devotion did not need to hear the words in English. I think the changes to the church proved to be a mistake because time proved so. II was in 8th grade and entered highschool an for awhile my catholic parochialfriends continued to go to mass but when we saw all the environment streamlined and had to listen to folk singers on stage, sometimes some wild people we knew in highschool, it felt like we being foolish and we had to accept that the way it was no longer existed.

 

[Francisco_Fernando]

I’ve encountered liturgical dancing at an Our Lady of Guadalupe event at my parish. The parish was at a gym.

 

[Alexandria2020]

A lot of Catholics aren’t even aware the other Rites exist. As for the Eastern Catholics themselves, the fact that they hold to their Rites is itself an affinity for tradition, because they could easily attend a Latin Rite parish.

Plus Rome encourages us to be pro-Oriental.

The theology itself among the different rites are different. For example I remember reading this rubric for a TLM written by a Latin priest. He mentioned as the priest elevates the host that part represents Christ going on the cross/his crucifixion.

While in my rite, East Syriac rite, the elevation of the host part during the liturgy represents the resurrection of Christ.

The East Syriacs are focused on the resurrection, while for the Latins it’s crucifixion and death. Explains why we have the St Thomas Cross (Mar Sleeva) - representing the resurrection and Sleeva means risen Lord. While the Latins have the Latin cross with the crucified Jesus.

Considering these differences, it really doesn’t make sense for an Oriental Catholic to attend a Latin parish and become latinized. After all ECs are so small. All the EC churches added together come up to about 16-18 million.

 

[CradleRC58]

I like Papa’s take.

New Liturgical Movement: Why a new liturgical movement?

 

[Gorgias]

But once things got rolling there was a desire to renew and celebrate in the vernacular just like the early church.

Except that the early church didn’t celebrate liturgy in the vernacular, did they? I was under the impression that they settled for Greek, which was understood by many, but was not the vernacular (outside of Greece).

 

[stpurl]

Desire by whom is also a big part. Since when is an entire 2000 year old institution hostage to the whims of a handful of people at one given time? There is an awful lot of history regarding the Council that most aren’t aware of. It is not all ‘one-sided’ either. And those who are younger than say 60 really have absolutely no idea how different society, especially “Catholic society” was prior to 1970. The big similarity is that individual credulity is still swayed by ‘who we believe’; the big difference is WHO we choose to believe in, and how much we are aware of not just our mentors, but ‘others’ as well.

 

[Shakuhachi]

In the Roman empire it was mostly Latin.

 

[Gorgias]

In the Roman empire it was mostly Latin.

OK, but we’re talking post-400AD in that case, right? Prior to that: Greek, no?

 

[Shakuhachi]

It depends on location.

 

[Gorgias]

It depends on location.

Actually, it depends on what timeframe you’re referring to as “early church”…

 

[Alexandria2020]

In the Roman empire it was mostly Latin.

Actually, it depends on what timeframe you’re referring to as “early church”…

definitely for the 1st century Jewish Christians it was Hebrew, Aramaic/Syriac, and Greek (for the hellenized Jews). Hebrew was the language of the educated and elite (a minority). While Aramaic/Syriac was the language of the commoner.

for the Latin Church, until the time of Theodosius I (late 4th century), the last emperor to rule over both the Western and Eastern Roman empire, the language was Greek. After the empire split, of course, the West switched to Latin and the East stayed Greek.

 

[johnnykins]

Not so. HE clearly knew Latin. His communications with Rome would have to be in Latin. Whether he was fluent to the point of conversational is another issue. He had no need to speak it outside Mass.
Write and read it…yes. Speak it - no.

Indeed, he knew the Requiem so well he said it at light speed and slurred over it - just as every priest I knew did for every Mass I ever served at that time. As to HE’s pronunciation - did you ever hear him speak English? He had a distinctive weird very nasal accent…add that to Latin and well…there you have it.

All that being said, I have long thought the hostility to the Latin Mass stemmed exactly from that widespread tendency to simply rush through the whole thing as fast as possible. Saying Mass was no indication of knowledge of Latin. It was rote for everyone…so just get through it. I remember, more than once, the priest telling us altar boys to speed it up…and if we didn’t he’d just go forward with his next part leaving us in the dust. That was the reality of what the Mass had become in the Boston Archdiocese by that point. I believe it was widespread beyond the pale of Boston.

BTW if you listen to His Eminence and read along at that Requiem, you can tell he is saying it all…