Why does "Latin Mass" seem like such a dirty word?

[TNT]

Originally Posted by otm

Part of the reason that people react is not that they are progressives - or liberals - they are simply Catholics who rejoice at being able to hear and understand, and therefore follow along with the priest as he says Mass. Some of them have had the opportunity to attend a Mass said in Spanish or Vietnamese, and feel that those experiences are fairly close to what their experience would be if the Mass were in Latin; that is, they would either simply have the Mass "happen" while they were present, with much less participation ir offering the prayers, or the experience of trying to do two things at once - listten to a language they did not understand, by and large, while they read the prayers in English.

The only people who would call this set of Catholics liberal are those who consider anyone to the left of them a liberal; and that is an abuse of the term.

So, if everything in the TLM was hunky-dorey, except the absolutely insumountable obstacle of being said in Latin, then why did they not just Convert the TLM to the vernacular?
Answer:
Because it would have been even Less Ecumenical than it was in Latin. The NOM was designed for Ecumenism, vs the TLM was designed for teaching and exemplifying the Catholic Faith with no thought to Ecumenism. Since Ecumenism is the Keystone of the VAT-II Church, all of her worship, disciplines, preachings, teachings and laws must not be an obstacle to Ecumenism.
Therefore, since the 2 Masses had "opposing" philiosophies, there will always be a natural tension between the two, as well as those who are in their persuasions.
This is not rocket science, just comon sense.
I have no anamosity toward a devotee of the NOM. Likewise I expect the same respect from those dedicated to the NOM. Nevertheless, that tension will remain between the two conflicting philosophies.
I am anti-Ecumenical (nearly all TLM advocates are by definition) in the modern sense. I adhere to Coversion as the object of ecumenism, not just dialogue. To me, dialogue without explicit and honest attempt at Conversion is an analogy to contraception ...lots of activity, no arrival at the original proper objective.

[otm]

Originally Posted by netmilsmom

Just because you or anyone prefers it, doesn't mean that it should be denied to the rest of us.. There is no reason why we can't have an EWTN type Holy Mass in every parish. If we are offered a Modernist mass, why not the alternative.
The original poster is right. Finding Latin, even certain parts, entails a drive. That's a shame.
When I said "keeping up" it was if we were to attend a purely Latin mass, now. We are not used to it. In a few weeks we would be up to speed.
Unlike the Polish were we would be lost.

If my post meant to you that I would ban latin in the Mass, I apologize; that was not my intent.

However, unless it is a small amount of Latin, I would guess that most people, who are accustomed after about 40 years of the vernacular, would prefer that the majority of the Mass be in the vernacular.

As I do not receive EWTN, I do not know what you are referencing; I would agree that solemnity can be lacking in the Pauline rite, although as time passes and the GIRM is more widely implemented, a good deal of that will take care of itself.

I would also point out that there was not a lot of solemnity in the weekday or the Sunday TLM - including high Mass. Incense was pretty well limited to Solemn high Mass and funerals. Until hymns were interjected, only the High Mass had singing.

And I am, to a certain extent, distinguishing between solemnity and reverence. While I have attended Pauline rite Masses that lacked reverence, the greater majority have had reverence; perhaps that is just my diocese.

I am not convinced I know what you mean by a Modernist Mass. Mass should be celebrated within the guidelines of the GIRM and should be reverent. I would presume that if it is said thus, you would not label it Modernist.

[otm]

[quote=brotherhrolf][quote=otm]
I have taken Latin in both high scholl and college, as well as Homeric and a bit of koinae Greek in high school. I have sung, as part of a large choir while in college, on a record of Gregorian Chant in Latin. I have a couple of records of Gregorian chant and at least one CD in Latin. and, contrary to some of whom I call purists, I think that English can be sung in Gregorian chant form; I have done it in the Liturgy of the Hours.

Indeed English can be sung in Gregorian chant form. We use the settings in the 1942 Episcopalian hymnal in my cathedral choir. I have to say that singing the Golden Sequence in English is not the same as singing the Lauda Sion. And I don't have a problem with the Mass in English. My problem is that without exposing the congregation to Latin, the younger generations grow up with no knowledge of the one-time universality of Latin in the church. My parish uses the old chant settings in Greek and Latin for the Kyrie, Sanctus, Great Amen and Agnus Dei during Lent. My kids got at least that much exposure but what about those kids in all the other parishes who have never heard Latin?

It seems that there is a mindset that the Roman rite is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church encompasses the Roman rite, but is not limited to it. I am not suggesting that children should not be exposed to Latin; but given that many, if not all the Eastern rites do not use Latin and never have, might be something to keep in mind. They seem to have gotten along quite well for 2000 years.

Change is always difficult, and those required to change often fight it mightly; the next generation remembers the change because they were young and remeber their parents angst, but generally do not fight the change; and the third generation doesn't remeber the fight, and can't understand what the fight was about (that is, they don't care; they are comfortable with the new way).

My great-great grandparents came form Holland, and my great grandfather grew up here. He spoke both Dutch and English, and my grandparents spoke a limited amount of Dutch - which they would use around their children when they didn't want the kids to understand. However, English was their first language. My mother remembers a few corrupted Dutch words but did not speak it. By the time the change got to my grandmother, it was a non-issue.

I suspect that most kids will learn enough history of the Church to know that it once used Latin exclusively. and I suspect that like many of their parents, they will see Latin as something that was beautiful, and at the same time, not something they want for their main prayer form.

[Kielbasi]

Originally Posted by Affirmed

Just a note- I think that those who say that they became "lukewarm Catholics" or stopped attending Mass after the NO was put into place are copping out big time. You don't abandon your Catholic responsibilities just because you don't agree with Rome's desicions on how the liturgy should be celebrated.

Whether or not its "copping out" or not, a lot of people did. The introduction of the English mass in the 60s was pretty earth shaking, it seemed protestant to many of the Catholics of the time. A side by side comparison of the new English mass with the Lutheran liturgy would see many, many similarities , particularly to a non-theologically trained mind.

But more so, the entire paradigm of the mass changed. Where in the Latin mass, the people stayed quiet and prayed, in the English mass, the people were suddenly expected to participate vocally, reading large volumes of text. A huge change.

Other simultaneous changes during that epoch, such as the expectation that Catholics at mass would receive communion each week instead of staying in the pews as 3/4 or more did during the Latin mass were also pretty dramatic.

The massive changes in the wake of VII shook a lot of people up.

[otm]

Originally Posted by pnewton

It seems that while the Church is slow to change, She seems to changing faster the last century than in the past. I do not find this at all disturbing. The world is not the same as it was. While truth remains constant, the speed of communication has increased exponentially. Therefore the Church is more capable of keeping disciplinary matters current and applicable to the times.

Case in point. Imagine this thread if we had to wait a week or two between each post to know what the next person would post. It would be stagnate and confusing. As it is, we can follow the thoughts of each other in a much more efficient manner.

If the future continues toward faster communication and information, I think you will see a church even more quick in responding to a changing world.

and that has undoubtedly had a hand in the speed of the change, which is in large part, I suspect, why people are upset.

Coupled with that, however, is the fact that many people were taught that the Church is unchangeable, but were not able to understand really what that meant or applied to. That, in large part, is due to the fact that most Catholics were not (and still are not) educated much beyond grade school level.

One element is still in shock over the changes, and feels betrayed; andother element decided what they were taught no longer applied to anything, and all was up for grabs.

There seems to be a large element somewhere between the two extremes which may not be particularly shocked, not particularly bent on change, especially when it is explained to them what is changeable and what is not.

[otm]

Originally Posted by netmilsmom

There is a difference between meeting Catholic responsibilities and adoring the thought of being there!

The sad part is that so many simply have no clue. And ever was it thus...

[otm]

Originally Posted by TNT

So, if everything in the TLM was hunky-dorey, except the absolutely insumountable obstacle of being said in Latin, then why did they not just Convert the TLM to the vernacular?
Answer:
Because it would have been even Less Ecumenical than it was in Latin. The NOM was designed for Ecumenism, vs the TLM was designed for teaching and exemplifying the Catholic Faith with no thought to Ecumenism. Since Ecumenism is the Keystone of the VAT-II Church, all of her worship, disciplines, preachings, teachings and laws must not be an obstacle to Ecumenism.
Therefore, since the 2 Masses had "opposing" philiosophies, there will always be a natural tension between the two, as well as those who are in their persuasions.
This is not rocket science, just comon sense.
I have no anamosity toward a devotee of the NOM. Likewise I expect the same respect from those dedicated to the NOM. Nevertheless, that tension will remain between the two conflicting philosophies.
I am anti-Ecumenical (nearly all TLM advocates are by definition) in the modern sense. I adhere to Coversion as the object of ecumenism, not just dialogue. To me, dialogue without explicit and honest attempt at Conversion is an analogy to contraception ...lots of activity, no arrival at the original proper objective.

I have seen your psots on other threads about Ecuminism, and I am still baffeled as to where you get your facts, or what ecumenical process or gathering you have ever actually observed.

I am not going to posit that no individual bishop or cardinal or priest that has ever made a public statement that flies in the face of the Magisterium. but I have seen so many statements out of Rome and out of diocesesan offices that speaks the truth of the Catholic Church while addressing ecumenical issues that I find you statements puzzling at the bare minimum.

I fail to understand what you mean by Ecumenical in the modern sense. Would you care to site some defining literature which sets out the position you are objecting to?

[otm]

Originally Posted by Kielbasi

Whether or not its "copping out" or not, a lot of people did. The introduction of the English mass in the 60s was pretty earth shaking, it seemed protestant to many of the Catholics of the time. A side by side comparison of the new English mass with the Lutheran liturgy would see many, many similarities , particularly to a non-theologically trained mind.

But more so, the entire paradigm of the mass changed. Where in the Latin mass, the people stayed quiet and prayed, in the English mass, the people were suddenly expected to participate vocally, reading large volumes of text. A huge change.

Other simultaneous changes during that epoch, such as the expectation that Catholics at mass would receive communion each week instead of staying in the pews as 3/4 or more did during the Latin mass were also pretty dramatic.

The massive changes in the wake of VII shook a lot of people up.

Actually, studies not long after the changes showed the great majority of people approving of the changes. Some were shook up, no question. but the statistics put the appoval at about 80- 85%.

The issue of Communion was one that had been following the Church since not long after Trent, with the heresy of Jansenism; it's remanants could be seen long after Pius 10th made his moves against it.

It was found that there was a practical barrier and that was the long fast; when it was reduced from Midnight to three hours, the number of communicants went up, and when it was reduced to 1 hour, the number went up again. That, and we finally shook of Jansenism. and that was also before we got so far off the track with moral theology, when it took a wrong turn at situational ethics, but that, too is grist for another thread.

[Affirmed]

I've been to alot of different parishes, seen alot of different things. And there were some that I strongly disagreed with. But I was there to worship God, no matter what. I can understand how such a sweeping change would take folks by surprise. I get that. But I don't get people giving that as an excuse for not going to Mass. I don't always get the happy vibes from praying. Doesn't mean I stop. Same thing with the Mass. You don't stop going just because you aren't enjoying it as much as "the old way". You keep going. It isn't about you, if you "like" the Mass or not. It's about God.

[Anna Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by TNT

So, if everything in the TLM was hunky-dorey, except the absolutely insumountable obstacle of being said in Latin, then why did they not just Convert the TLM to the vernacular?
Answer:
Because it would have been even Less Ecumenical than it was in Latin. The NOM was designed for Ecumenism, vs the TLM was designed for teaching and exemplifying the Catholic Faith with no thought to Ecumenism. Since Ecumenism is the Keystone of the VAT-II Church, all of her worship, disciplines, preachings, teachings and laws must not be an obstacle to Ecumenism.
Therefore, since the 2 Masses had "opposing" philiosophies, there will always be a natural tension between the two, as well as those who are in their persuasions.
This is not rocket science, just comon sense.

TNT: This may be "common sense," but if the great majority of lay Catholics never hear it, or, hearing it, reject it out of hand as conspiracy theory, or refuse to read the VII documents to confirm it, how will they ever realize the cause of the tension of which you speak?

How many posters, editorial writers in the Catholic press or, for that matter, pastors have you ever heard so much as mention this? How many Catholics ever bother to ask why the old form wasn't just translated, if that was so all-important? (Is this, indeed, the proverbial elephant in the VII drawing room?)

Do you EVER hear anyone ask about Eucharistic Prayer #2, in which the idea of sacrifice is watered down as much as possible? What finer example of exchanging the Mass as The Great Sacrifice Re-presented for a jolly little neighborhood potluck? ( And, if one is lucky, the MC will give a stirring homily on "luv.") Then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that when the Mass ceases to be focused on God, it becomes a celebration of ourselves and thus useless. Who can doubt that this is what many of us have?



Anna

[SnorterLuster]

Originally Posted by otm

Actually, studies not long after the changes showed the great majority of people approving of the changes. Some were shook up, no question. but the statistics put the appoval at about 80- 85%.

I've asked before, do you have a link to these stats? I would be interested is reading these studies.

Thanks

[netmilsmom]

Originally Posted by Dr. Bombay

Sounds catholic -- and unifying.

Thanks!

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by Dr. Bombay

Sounds catholic -- and unifying.

Thanks for the comment. It helped bring my BP down when I read the previous judgemental post.

[netmilsmom]

Originally Posted by Lux_et_veritas

I didn't even realize just how dirty of a word it was until I started sharing with people that I was going to Assumption Grotto here in Detroit. I didn't get any funny glances until I mentioned there was Latin involved in the 9:30am mass and then it started.
.

The DRE at my old parish told me straight off, "The people at the Grotto are weird." Being from Cleveland, I had no clue what she meant. I didn't know what the Grotto was.

NOW I know that this should have been a clue as to what kind of church I was in.
God Bless your Parish.

[netmilsmom]

Originally Posted by otm

If my post meant to you that I would ban latin in the Mass, I apologize; that was not my intent.

However, unless it is a small amount of Latin, I would guess that most people, who are accustomed after about 40 years of the vernacular, would prefer that the majority of the Mass be in the vernacular.

As I do not receive EWTN, I do not know what you are referencing; I would agree that solemnity can be lacking in the Pauline rite, although as time passes and the GIRM is more widely implemented, a good deal of that will take care of itself.

I would also point out that there was not a lot of solemnity in the weekday or the Sunday TLM - including high Mass. Incense was pretty well limited to Solemn high Mass and funerals. Until hymns were interjected, only the High Mass had singing.

And I am, to a certain extent, distinguishing between solemnity and reverence. While I have attended Pauline rite Masses that lacked reverence, the greater majority have had reverence; perhaps that is just my diocese.

I am not convinced I know what you mean by a Modernist Mass. Mass should be celebrated within the guidelines of the GIRM and should be reverent. I would presume that if it is said thus, you would not label it Modernist.

I'm so sorry I missed your post to me.
An EWTN type Holy Mass has the some of the mass in the Latin and Greek. It's not the vernacular but is sprinkled in.
A moderist mass is holding hands, Orans at verying parts and maybe even Dancing girls.
I can't consentrate on the Lord there. It's just me, but we have only one parish that offers the first, ours. As for the second, you don't know what you are wiling into. That's at 11 parishes.