Would you support the Traditional Latin Mass in the vernacular?

[Timothysis]

One person on this forum said that Mary Queen of Scots died for the Catholic faith because she prayed in latin before she was beheaded.

There was another poster who said that evidence had recently been uncovered that pointed to Christ using latin at the Last Supper.

Yet another said that the Roman Rite was written by St. Peter, in Rome, in latin.

What is this fanatical devotion to the latin language?

Is the Catholic faith about the commitment of the intellect or the language in which one chooses to pray? Does one who prays in latin have a spiritual advantage over one who prays in the vernacular?

 

[Bluegoat]

One person on this forum said that Mary Queen of Scots died for the Catholic faith because she prayed in latin before she was beheaded.

There was another poster who said that evidence had recently been uncovered that pointed to Christ using latin at the Last Supper.

Yet another said that the Roman Rite was written by St. Peter, in Rome, in latin.

What is this fanatical devotion to the latin language?

Is the Catholic faith about the commitment of the intellect or the language in which one chooses to pray? Does one who prays in latin have a spiritual advantage over one who prays in the vernacular?

I think these arguments you mention are the Catholic equivalent of “If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, than it is good enough for me!” Crackpots.

 

[ProVobis]

I believe Luther’s 95 thesis were in Latin, and the Catholic responses were also in Latin.

But he didn’t have substantial following until he rewrote them in German.

 

[ProVobis]

What is this fanatical devotion to the latin language?

Is the Catholic faith about the commitment of the intellect or the language in which one chooses to pray? Does one who prays in latin have a spiritual advantage over one who prays in the vernacular?

Please reread Veterum Sapientia and what Cardinal Arinze wrote in 2006.

 

[GIR]

I think we’re all forgetting that the mass, even in the west, was said in GREEK for many centuries. It was changed to latin because latin was the VERNACULAR. The idea of a vernacular liturgy is not without president. I think there are good arguments that can be maid for both Latin and vernacular masses. Let’s also remember that the tridentine mass came out of the council of trent. Trent axed other liturgies and standardized the roman rite, so it’s not as though pope Clement was saying the TLM as we know it today in the first century.

Perhaps one might say that the change to the OF was too much all at once, or, in my opinion, was far too ambiguous in its instructions and allowed too many variations. Do we really need 6 eucharistic prayers to choose from?

Since I’m ranting, what’s up with children’s masses. I don’t mean clowm masses. I mean short masses that kids can supposedly sit through better. Did St. Dominic Savio need a children’s mass? I don’t think so.

 

[The_Reginator]

Perhaps one might say that the change to the OF was too much all at once, or, in my opinion, was far too ambiguous in its instructions and allowed too many variations. Do we really need 6 eucharistic prayers to choose from?

The more I learn about the Catholic Church I become more and more amazed that the OF was ever introduced.

My understanding: For about 1500 years we celebrated the same Mass, in the same language, with only one Canon (Eucharistic Prayer) throughout the world.
The Mass did change, but the change was organic.
I cannot understand how the Church allowed something brand-new and made-up to become the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I`m not even sure if the Vatican II council gave any instructions for a new Mass rather than simply updating the Mass of the 1963 Missal.

One logical step (in my mind) would have been to consider a *Traditional Latin/Vernacular Mass. *
(In other words, slowly making appropriate changes – possibly using the vernacular for the prayers and readings that change from Mass to Mass, but retaining the official language for the unchanging portions of the Mass.)

Do we really need 6 eucharistic prayers to choose from?

As a former Anglican the existence of more than one prayer really shocked me.

 

[choy]

wait, the Latin or Roman Church has celebrated in Latin

the Eastern Churches has celebrated in their own language for far longer

if you truly believe that changing the language changes the prayer, then you should be asking that we pray The Lord’s Prayer in Aramaic, not Latin, because that’s how Jesus taught the prayer

 

[Timothysis]

The more I learn about the Catholic Church I become more and more amazed that the OF was ever introduced.

My understanding: For about 1500 years we celebrated the same Mass, in the same language, with only one Canon (Eucharistic Prayer) throughout the world.

Hopefully, you will continue to learn that the Church never used the same eucharistic liturgy for 1500 years throughout the world and that there have always been different Canons used throughout. Are you aware that Eucharistic Prayer II in the Ordinary Form is the ancient anaphora of St. Hippolytus which dates to the third century, predating the Roman Rite? Are you also aware that in the two centuries before Gregory the Great the entire canon of the Roman Rite was totally revised and recast by unknown hands for unknown reasons?

It is a fallacy of the most extreme to think that the Church did everything the same way up until 1970. There have always been additions and subtractions to the canons throughout the centuries. While the notion of “organic” growth is indeed important to the integrity of the Church’s liturgy it is too often used as a blanket excuse in the argument of EF vs. OF here.

 

[Timothysis]

Please reread Veterum Sapientia and what Cardinal Arinze wrote in 2006.

“It is true that there is a tendency, both in the Church and in the world at large, to give more attention today to modern languages, like English, French and Spanish, which can help one secure a job quicker in the modern employment market or in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their country.”

An odd tendency, isn’t it, for one to learn their native language so that we can make a living to earn our daily bread, huh?

There was an first-generation Italian man who lived a couple of houses down who was far from an intellectual; his passion was growing the vegetables that the pastor of the church let him grow on the church property. He raised 8 children and sent them to Catholic school. He wore old overalls and drove an old truck. Even his understanding of Catholic doctrine and theology was probably below par but he was a sincere, devout Catholic who believed in Jesus. He died some years ago and is buried in the mausoleum on the church property with his father and his brother.

So, how exactly would latin have made him a better catholic?

 

[choy]

“It is true that there is a tendency, both in the Church and in the world at large, to give more attention today to modern languages, like English, French and Spanish, which can help one secure a job quicker in the modern employment market or in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their country.”

An odd tendency, isn’t it, for one to learn their native language so that we can make a living to earn our daily bread, huh?

There was an first-generation Italian man who lived a couple of houses down who was far from an intellectual; his passion was growing the vegetables that the pastor of the church let him grow on the church property. He raised 8 children and sent them to Catholic school. He wore old overalls and drove an old truck. Even his understanding of Catholic doctrine and theology was probably below par but he was a sincere, devout Catholic who believed in Jesus. He died some years ago and is buried in the mausoleum on the church property with his father and his brother.

So, how exactly would latin have made him a better catholic?

nice story. reminds me of back home. the Philippines was colonized by Spain in the 1500s. the locals were baptized into the faith, but the Spanish didn’t bother to educate the masses. in fact when the Americans came in the 1900s, Spanish was quickly trumped as the official language by English. why? most locals don’t speak Spanish anyway and spoke the local dialect. so i wouldn’t believe that the Spanish made the effort to teach Latin to the converts. many of those who became financially able were educated well enough in Spanish, and probably Latin. but not the masses who were generally poor. and yet the country was over 90% Catholic at the turn of the last century.

 

[Lycorth]

The more I learn about the Catholic Church I become more and more amazed that the OF was ever introduced.

Indeed; I was born and raised Catholic but only now, since my return from apostasy, have I even known that the Mass of Paul VI was not the same order of the Mass that was used in ages past. That alone was shocking and I am still having a hard time finding any logic in the introduction of the current OF.

My understanding: For about 1500 years we celebrated the same Mass, in the same language, with only one Canon (Eucharistic Prayer) throughout the world.
The Mass did change, but the change was organic.
I cannot understand how the Church allowed something brand-new and made-up to become the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I`m not even sure if the Vatican II council gave any instructions for a new Mass rather than simply updating the Mass of the 1963 Missal.

I agree; it makes absolutely no sense, especially when all one had to do was order the Traditional Mass to be said in the vernacular if the big problem was that no one could understand the Mass or that it seemed too inaccessible to people.

One logical step (in my mind) would have been to consider a *Traditional Latin/Vernacular Mass. *
(In other words, slowly making appropriate changes – possibly using the vernacular for the prayers and readings that change from Mass to Mass, but retaining the official language for the unchanging portions of the Mass.)

Indeed; why on earth were things done the hard way? Drawing up a new order of the Mass must have been far more difficult than merely saying “OK, we’ll say the Mass in the vernacular now”; even if the Council had the authority to make the changes, the changes still do not make sense.

As a former Anglican the existence of more than one prayer really shocked me.

Heck, it shocks me, and I’m a cradle Catholic.

 

[choy]

what might not make sense to use makes sense to those who are called to lead the Church

men don’t become priests and bishops on their own, they are called to become priests and bishops. and it is part of our faith that we believe the Holy Spirit guides these chosen men

they know what they were doing and we should be submissive to the decisions of our bishops

 

[Lycorth]

what might not make sense to use makes sense to those who are called to lead the Church

men don’t become priests and bishops on their own, they are called to become priests and bishops. and it is part of our faith that we believe the Holy Spirit guides these chosen men

they know what they were doing and we should be submissive to the decisions of our bishops

Oh, of course; no disagreement there.

But, it still doesn’t make sense. It’s not a matter of doubting faith and morals to wonder what the deal was.

 

[choy]

Oh, of course; no disagreement there.

But, it still doesn’t make sense. It’s not a matter of doubting faith and morals to wonder what the deal was.

at some point we just have to trust God and the promises that Jesus made that He will be with us always, and that the Holy Spirit will not allow any doctrinal error to enter our Church

 

[Lycorth]

at some point we just have to trust God and the promises that Jesus made that He will be with us always, and that the Holy Spirit will not allow any doctrinal error to enter our Church

Again, I agree; I am amongst those who believe that the Mass of Paul VI is valid and does not constitute a doctrinal error, but that it is less efficacious and more vulnerable to alteration and abuses than the Traditional Mass.

 

[Timothysis]

I am amongst those who believe that the Mass of Paul VI is valid and does not constitute a doctrinal error, but that it is less efficacious…than the Traditional Mass.

Can you please explain how any one validly celebrated Eucharistic liturgy can be “less efficacious” than another?

A Catholic in a state of grace who receives the Eucharistic has his soul sanctified because of the infinite merits of Christ in the Eucharistic; is it possible for one soul to be more sanctified or less sanctified than another?

 

[Lycorth]

Can you please explain how any one validly celebrated Eucharistic liturgy can be “less efficacious” than another?

A Catholic in a state of grace who receives the Eucharistic has his soul sanctified because of the infinite merits of Christ in the Eucharistic; is it possible for one soul to be more sanctified or less sanctified than another?

I didn’t say anything about the sanctifying graces of the Mass - my remarks are directed more at the affirmation of Catholic belief presented at each form rather than the graces we receive.

Since each Mass is sacramentally valid, the graces we receive are the same. However, read the text of each Mass and you’ll see what I mean.

 

[Timothysis]

I didn’t say anything about the sanctifying graces of the Mass - my remarks are directed more at the affirmation of Catholic belief presented at each form rather than the graces we receive.

Since each Mass is sacramentally valid, the graces we receive are the same. However, read the text of each Mass and you’ll see what I mean.

Originally Posted by Lycorth View Post
I am amongst those who believe that the Mass of Paul VI is valid and does not constitute a doctrinal error, but that it is less efficacious…than the Traditional Mass.

Your words. And I have read the text of each Mass and still do not see what you mean.

 

[MarkThompson]

Originally Posted by Lycorth View Post
I am amongst those who believe that the Mass of Paul VI is valid and does not constitute a doctrinal error, but that it is less efficacious…than the Traditional Mass.

Your words. And I have read the text of each Mass and still do not see what you mean.

Well, you can argue that it’s less effective in fostering reverence, instilling a sense of worship, transmitting the faith, etc. Those are all empirical claims.

 

[The_Reginator]

Can you please explain how any one validly celebrated Eucharistic liturgy can be “less efficacious” than another?

A Catholic in a state of grace who receives the Eucharistic has his soul sanctified because of the infinite merits of Christ in the Eucharistic; is it possible for one soul to be more sanctified or less sanctified than another?

I have assisted at both forms of Mass.
The Tridentine Mass has more reverence built in.
Using our bodies we show more reverence to Jesus – kneeling during parts of The Confiteor, kneeling to receive our Lord, etc.
More additional prayers are often used granting indulgences (more graces).
The whole atmosphere is one that discourages chatter while encouraging prayer.

The Eucharist is still the Eucharist in either Form. But, from my experience, the TLM is naturally more reverent. And it really encourages people to believe in the Real Presence.
I am really worried about the congregation at my OF parish – the Blessed Sacrament is often treated with a cavalier attitude.