Is the Latin Mass the best form of the Roman Rite?


#1

I read a good book by Peter Kwasniewski, but I wanna see what y’all think?
The book’s called ‘Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis


#2

Depends on who you ask.


#3

I don’t believe I would be able to express my opinion on the matter without getting suspended from CAF.


#4

I think that if you like the Latin Mass , that’s fine. But it isn’t going to overtake the vernacular Mass any time in the foreseeable future. The number of Latin Mass attendees are outnumbered by more than a hundred to one.


#5

Will you private message me then? I come from a parish where many say, “what’s a Latin Mass?” We don’t have too many near us. So I’d like to see what others far from my little church think.


#6

That’s very true


#7

Yes, and I’m happy to see it’s coming back. But would you say you feel it’s the better expression of the Roman Liturgy?


#8

The best one is the one you go to regularly


#9

This is really subjective. The real question is: does it give sacramental grace? The rest is in the doing, that’s why it is subjective. It is all about personal preference.


#10

The Catholic Church held that the Latin Mass was the true rite for the Church for nearly 1500 years. I don’t think there is any reason to think the contrary of the expressed mind of the Church.

A good book on this issue is that of Msgr. Klaus Gamber - The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.
You can read a review of it at:

Also note worthy on this whole topic is the critique of the New Mass by Cardinal’s Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci -

http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm


#11

I mean, I get we shouldn’t compare the Eastern Divine Liturgy vs the Roman Rite, but because we have two forms of one Rite can’t we compare? Like episode one is better than episode two. Or the other way around .


#12

I can’t say for sure, because I haven’t heard Latin Mass in its current form. I understand its changed since it was the only Mass.


#13

This topic is against forum rules.


#14

How’s it against forum rules?


#15

We are not to pit the forms of Mass against one another. These threads have a history of quickly devolving.


#16

Both Masses are about one thing, worshipping God.
The best form of worshipping God comes from within. Its what is in your heart that counts.

Not what is going on externally.


#17

No. It’s not intrinsically better or worse than any other valid form of the Mass.


#18

It comes to personal preference. Asking if the OF is better or the EF is better is like asking if vanilla or chocolate is better. It comes down to the personal tastes and no one can really be wrong about which one is better for them.


#19

I know what you mean.


#20

mVitus,

Surely, no one believes it comes down to merely a question of personal preference. Surely, like all things, there are objective standards by which it is measured. - Granted that on a subjective level people may like or dislike things more or less, but this is true of anything, but for all that it doesn’t mean that things don’t have an objective standard by which they can be measured.

Many try to do this regarding the whole question of art and beauty, - they are not purely subjective realities. Likewise with the Sacred Liturgy of the Church.

What I don’t understand, is in this regard, if people actually believe that it is only a question of mere, preference, why, if that is that case, then, when Catholics express a strong contrary view, they get suspended. If it is only a matter of preference and opinion, why are some aloud an opinion, and others not allowed one? - Surely we are grown up enough to accept that others have differing views on things. Regardless of how strong those opinions/views may be.

On this question, of views, lest it be seen as my personal opinion, here is what the view of the Previous Pontiff was (when he was a Cardinal). He seemed to have an objective standard by which he was making the following statements:

“The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation . In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy . They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication . They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.” (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)

“[W]e have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators , strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the ‘doing’ becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.” (Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the French translation of Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, 1992).

“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” - Cardinal Ratzinger, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977)


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.