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


The point of the Mass isn’t to understand everything. When you attend a Latin Mass more often, you’ll soon see it clearly visibly displays (to our limited understanding) the divine mystery of the Mass and the Sacrifice of Calvary.
Naturally Latin isn’t the only reason I say this, just one small factor. Vatican II understood this. If you read the documents on liturgy (pls don’t make me go find the official quote, just look I think it’s somewhere in the beginning), then you’ll see they wanted Latin retained. The vernacular should be permitted in certain parts of the liturgy for certain groups who desire this. This is what Vatican II said, not me


When you state that Latin be preserved in the Latin rite and also that vernacular be allowed, what’s not to like?


I understand the Eastern Catholics don’t have Latin but use Greek as their official language (to my knowledge, pls correct me if I’m wrong I haven’t studied eastern Catholicism).
A problem with the vernacular throughout the whole Mass (which Vatican II never intended (pls don’t let me look up the quote. It should be in the begging of the section on the Mass)) is that it makes us think we are meant to understand the whole part of the Mass. Mass isn’t something we understand or follow along with the priest on every part. Yes following along is a beautiful way to pray. But at the Mass we unite our prayers to the priest. We pray along with the Mass but that doesn’t necessarily mean we must say each word and know everything that’s going on at that exact moment


The Ruthenian Rite uses Church Slavonic language. I know, because I have attended. And the Maronite Rite uses both Aramaic and Arabic. I have also attended there.

SC provided that some of the Mass was to be in the vernacular. It did not make a rule that it was to be limited, as has been suggested. There is an old joke that you never want to watch sausage or law made… As noted, the vote was 2,147 to 4. Am I of the opinion that every last bishop agreed with every last idea within SC? No, I am not that naive. Some may have well wanted more changes than occurred; some less, but all were in agreement that the Mass needed to be revised - as they said, to remove things that had acreeted over the centuries, and to return things which had been lsot over the centuries.

There is a myth that the OF was made of “whole cloth” by Msgr. Bugnini and that ignores the fact the liturgical research and permitted experimentation with changes had been occurring for several decades.

And very plainly and directly spoken in SC was that they wanted active participation. Saying the Kyrie in Greek or th Sanctus or Agnus Dei in Latin does not deny that, but they were clearly in favor of the vernacular.

SC was like a road map, not a final decision on the form of the Mass. Somewhere between the great majority and the vast majority of people are fine with the OF.

Your comment is a bit akin to stepping into a conversation with several people who speak both your language and a different one; you will likely not get what is said in the other language if a significant part of the conversation is in the other language. Prayer is communication with God. You are right; “We pray along with the Mass but that doesn’t necessarily mean we must say each word and know everything that’s going on at that exact moment” doe not mean that we are participating as fully as we can if we di say each word and know everything that is going on at that exact moment. However, we are all human with all our foibles, and many if not most of us do not achieve perfection. That does not mean we should not strive for it.

by the way, I grew up with a missal with Latin on one side and English pn the other. Being able to listen to the priest in English is a major blessing IMHO. Just my opinion. and that is not a comment on the rubrics; I would have given anything in the 1950’s to be able to do so.


I presume you mean when the Bishops stated; I was not yet ordained (nor have I been, but I was in college seminary at the time).

As I noted above, SC is seen as a closed rule; it is more of a road map. Clearly it did not bind the Church forward that Latin must be used, and as I noted, putting SC (and all of the rest of the documents of Vatican 2) together and getting them passed was a matter of give and take among the 2,000+ bishops of the world.

That is not to say I am in opposition to the us of Greek and Latin in the Mass; I am not. Nor am I concerned if the Mass has neither in it, as seems prevalent throughout a significant part of the US. SC was adopted December 4, 1963 so we are fast coming up to the 55th anniversary.


Thank you for your comments, I will pray over what you have said. Would you agree that Latin in the Liturgy has great benefits? I know your defending with the vernacular, but what would you say on the positive side of Latin in the liturgy?


Again, it’s the metaphysics of the thing.

When two beings occupy the same category, one is going to be more perfect than the other. It’s just the fundamental nature of reality. When two different Roman liturgies exist, one, considered in its totality (Theology, psychology, prayerfulness, opportunities for meditation, reverence, rubrics, symbolisms etc) will be more perfect than the other. The comparison is not how it’s celebrated, I mean on the books and officially, one will simply exemplify more of Gods perfections as a whole than the other.


Now don’t take this the wrong way or be insulted please, it is not meant that way. We are on a written medium that does not convey tone and body language.

Jesus is at every Mass, every Mass is valid and has the same value. You cannot truly believe we humans, we creatures , can say ,
‘sorry Jesus, this Mass you are celebrating now with us creatures has a lot less merit than the other one with the westminster chapel choir, Andre Rieu , the Pope celebrating, a 13th century Gold communion set, etc etc’.

You can’t say
‘sorry Jesus , we are in the open in the outback in Australia, the flies are swarming, its 40C and this mass we are celebrating with you , using didgeridoo, slapsticks, our indigenous communion vessels, has less merit then the Mass at the regional Cathedral, built in 1830, of pristine bluestone and with cool marble floors, with Priests in non dusty vestments and not a fly to be seen’.

I am not buying this opinion, because its not up to me, a mere creature to dictate to Jesus, which of His masses have more merit according to human standards. And I can speak, attending all sorts of masses around my diocese both OF and EF, both in little tiny churches with communion rails, untouched since pre VatII days and in grand cathedrals ( to Australian Standards)

The confection of the Eucharist is absolute perfection regardless of where and in what environmental conditions it happens.

Your last comment about Luke and Robert remind me of the parable of the Pharisee and the publican. The pharisee was thought to be pious, smarter, stronger, more up to community standards according to Jewish Law. The publican was in the class of the second class Jewish citizens. Which of these did Jesus say had prayer that God the Father, His Abba, preferred? And why?


the liturgy changed with the Latin Mass too. It had to, for example compare Good Friday liturgy before and after VatII.


But in the end, all the research and experimentation still led to a de novo creation of a rite that represents a break with the entire liturgical tradition that preceeded it. Even one of the periti on the Council, Fr. Joseph Gelineau, an “expert” lauded by Bugnini, plainly said:

It is still a design by committee. It has never organically grown out of anything.

Also, I think you might have a somewhat narrow understanding of “active participation”. Try reading this. I, for one, can actively participate much more fully at the TLM when I can actually pray during the consecration without being disturbed by the celebrant droning a prayer which is not adressed to me in any way and which I have no need of hearing.


Here’s the article by Fr Ripperger FSSP explaining it. He makes the point any valid mass is infinitely meritorious, but we cannot receive infinitely-,%20F.S.S.P.).pdf


He is talking of the extrinsitisc, external merit of the two masses, and not the intrinsic, internal value of the masses. That is an important distinction to be made. Fr. :chad: Ripperger has written an in-depth essay on this, If you would be interested to read it.


Sorry, I should have read your post haha!


(Post withdrawn)


deleted, the post took the conversation off topic. unintentionally.


What issues does he have with his own ordinaries?


Thank you for this!! I hope it’ll answer some questions I’ve been having for a while



The reality is not so, the view of Cardinal Ottavianni is that the Novus Ordo Missae is greatly defective and therefore does not quality as a rite of the Church in the trues sense of the word.

One can claim as much as they want that both rites are on equal footing, but yet everyone knows that is not the case. If it were, why was it that those who offered after the Conciliar reforms were often persecuted for doing so?

A good book on this point:

At the end of the it, the heart of the debate is that there are real qualifying reasons for pointing the defects of the conciliar reform on the liturgy. As Cardinal Benelli pointed out "“new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology.” - Christian order, Oct. 1978


Pius X designed a new Divine Office by committee, in 1910.

Liturgical change by committee is thus not a Vatican II innovation.


Well truth is truth, despite what the local clergy imagine…

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