Latin and the Novus Ordo

I’m very proud of our new Holy Father, Pope Benedict, for implementing changes in the Liturgy already such as eradicating abuses like extradordinary ministers performing that tasks of priests and mistranslations within the English Mass. But I do think he feels that there is a lot he’d like to see be restored, but can’t, because he feels that the change would be too drastic now; such as the Latin in the NO Mass. I’m not saying whether I’m a traditionalist or liberal but I definately have sympathies with the TLM and the beautiful mystery it has. Couldn’t it be possible to put some parts of the Novus Ordo in Latin? Such as the Kyrie (Greek), Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei? These parts wouldn’t seem to be that much of a drastic change if the rest of the Mass was left in the vernacular, because I do agree that it is a wonderful thing to have the Mass in one’s own native language and not to stand their silently watching but to respond with one’s voice and heart. How does everyone feel about this? Should the Novus Ordo stay entirely in the vernacular or should some Latin be added? I just agree entirely with Pope Benedict that some mystery should be added back into the Novus Ordo that the TLM provides so well, if every Novus Ordo Mass in the world was celebrated the way the Mass in St. Peter’s is the Novus Ordo would be beautiful!

I believe this is what was called for at Vatican II. Most parishes just don’t do it that way.

Personally, I prefer the vernacular. I mainly attend the Byzantine liturgy, and their custom is the vernacular. I don’t have a problem with Latin though, either in principle or in knowing/not knowing what to say.

I may be yelled at for this, but I think most people want Latin because it usually is accompanied by chant, incense, no bad music or theology, and just more reverence and a better Mass in general. Conversely, those who don’t want it (usually) are the ones who want a more “people-oriented” Mass. I think that if we could add the chant and incense, celebrate ad orientem, and follow the rubrics, maybe drop the “low Mass with four hymns stuck in specific spots” idea (the idea is not to sing at Mass but to sing the Mass), then it could take us a long long way.

My :twocents: :slight_smile:

your :twocents: is worth smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_1_220.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_8_10.gif :thumbsup:

.

%between%

I might be wrong on this, but the use of Latin in the Novus Ordo is perfectly acceptable to the Vatican. (They use it everyday.) Isn’t it entirely up to the local pastor if he is willing to add Latin elements to his parish? But since many priests don’t know their Latin, it is hard for them to make a Latin mass available.

I think the Latin itself adds beauty, mystery, and a universality that transcends time and space. Some of this is not inherent to the Latin itself, but is the result of various historical factors.

Also, for chant and prayer I think the Latin is far superior. It is just not the same when done in English.

Finally, I think the Latin forces me to focus on the prayers more closely than I otherwise would if everything were done merely in English. Of course, I have the English translation and rely on it, but the use of the Latin increases my attention.

I am not SSPX and in fact I am a new convert too the Church from Presbyterianism who has never been trained in Latin. But, after attending a Trindentine indult for the last year and a half I have grown to love it. I go way out of my way (ie. travel many miles), often on a daily basis, to attend the Tridentine Mass. I love it and can’t fathom why the church would want to throw it away.

[quote=papaspicey]But since many priests don’t know their Latin, it is hard for them to make a Latin mass available.
[/quote]

This is true. Many also don’t know Greek or Hebrew. Frankly, I think it is outrageous that they don’t know the languages of the Church and Scriptures. Many of these priests have much less knowledge in these things than your average Protestant who has a touch of training in a seminary or other theology program. That is a sad state of affairs.

Having the Ordinary be in Latin would be good, but realistic, change to the N.O.

BUT, I’ve never seen the point of a Latin Novus Ordo. If you are going to use an entirely new and fabricated liturgy anyway, why not “go all the way” and have it be in the vernacular, with communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers galore, and altar girls.

I mean, seriously. The kind of people (like me) who feel strongly about latin in the mass are going to go to a TLM.

For those who prefer new coke, they can have new coke. And those who like classic should have classic. But let’s not create a third, basically hybrid option.

There should be no moderate liturgy. Have it reactionary or progessive, but be you latin-novus-ordo and I shall vomit thee out of my mouth…

This is what is done every Sunday at the 9:30 Mass at my parish. It’s great.

Thank you for that caveat of “usually.” I love the NO in the vernacular (but the music available is almost always bad) and want to keep it. I certainly don’t want anything “people centered.”

We’ve had a Latin Novus Ordo for over 20 years in my parish.

Kirk, the Pauline Rite is by design people centered. Everything from the constant standing and sitting, responses constantly, lay people involved in each and every action from start to finish, the sign of Peace?? The placement of the Altar itself. Come on Kirk, you know the reasons for these things, vertical worship and seeing Christ in your fellow man rather than as a 2,000 year old mythic character. I actually heard that one in a sermon once. The words the Priest used went something like this:

It is no longer relevant to think of a disembodied Christ who died on the cross 2,000 years ago. Thats mythology. See Christ as risen in the faces around you. That is true Christianity.

Don’t say you don’t want something people centered when the very Mass that you so wholeheartedly support is just that, people centered.and designed to be so.

I’m not trying to be judgemental, but to me this is bordering on the heretical. :o

And by the way, about the Mass being people oriented, that’s one of the biggest problems that came about during Vatican II. True, God does come to us but we are the subordinate creatures and it’s all about us looking for HIM in the Sacrifice of Mass! And yeah, I did say Sacrifice

No you didn’t!..It is a Service not a Sacrifice!..:wink:

-Sacrifice-
Wow, now that is a word I haven’t heard in my parish in a long time.

People would look at me crazy if I called the Mass the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I think they don’t even want to call it Mass, “service” sounds much more comfortable.

We have a presider instead of a priest, readers instead of lectors pantsuits instead of habits and dancing girls with bowls instead of acolytes with censers.

Don’t you start speaking any dead languages in my Parish! We would rather repeat different variations of the Lamb of God in as many languages as we can except for Latin. Anyone for tonga?
Yep we speak that, but no Latin.

In Christ,
Scylla

Yes it is and it was a Jesuit Priest who said it. In the context of a Mas by the way. I’m glad that you said it is a sacrifice. I’m very happy that not everyone has forgotten that particular fact… As far as being judgemental maybe had a few people exercised that option forty years ago instead of rolling over and taking it in the shorts, the Church wouldn’t be having some of the problems it does today.

We recently received a new Priest at our Parish from Missions abroad and our whole parish is simply ‘Floored’!

He is simply AMAZING! He makes the Novus Ordo rise to the height of the Heavens I kid you not. :thumbsup:

God Bless Father Dan!!!

I don’t agree with you, but then you knew that, dear brother in Christ. In particular, I don’t see how the people making the responses detracts from the God-centeredness of the Mass. I hope there’s no whooping and hollering, but I think we SHOULD make the responses. Certainly, there are people who have over-emphasized the vertical in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (and our pastor uses that term to refer to the Mass), but that’s an abuse that will hopefully die away. As for the placement of the altar, that’s not much of an issue, IMO, that cannot be settled by simply having the priest celebrate ad orientum (because I don’t think shifting the altar five or ten feet is going to matter one whit). Thankfully, I’ve never been subjected to such a sermon (though I had to sit through a lay sermon once, then the priest paraphrased the entire Mass, but that was in California and I’m starting to think there’s something in the water they serve at the seminaries out there).
But no, I disagree that the NO Mass is, of its nature, inherently “non-vertical,” or not God-centered.

**GENERAL WARNING:

To those who cannot state their preferences without critiquing either their fellow Catholics not in agreement with them, or an alternative recognized liturgy please refrain from posting your assertions about others in the thread.

No one individual has the edge on holiness, piety or reverence; in other words, when the horse is dead, it’s time to get off. In many cases the best argument for the efficacy of your worship is the courtesy with which you treat others.

Thank you in advance for your charity towards one another.**

And it is to be remembered that the topic deals with Latin in the Novus Ordo Missae.

I know someone who attends a daily Tridentine Mass.

She’s young, highly educated, professional, successful…and a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism.

She used to attend the Novus Ordo, until one day a priest told her he noticed she wasn’t making the responses.

She made a sarcastic reply about how she was flattered that he noticed her not mouthing responses out of a hundred or so people. He replied with quotes about “full and active participation” from Vatican II.

And, she promptly left his parish and now attends a Tridentine Mass where, as she notes, the priest can’t see what people are doing for much of the liturgy.

Some places do seem to have this obsession with vocal responses, and singing, as if such things are the “proof” of participation. It is quite possible to participate actively and fully while remaining perfectly silent.

It is also possible to participate quite passively and limply and be the loudest of all.

For centuries the Church had the wisdom to leave people alone liturgically. Only lately have we begun to hyperrubricize their every gesture and action.

She made a sarcastic reply about how she was flattered that he noticed her not mouthing responses out of a hundred or so people. He replied with quotes about “full and active participation” from Vatican II.

And, she promptly left his parish and now attends a Tridentine Mass where, as she notes, the priest can’t see what people are doing for much of the liturgy.

Some places do seem to have this obsession with vocal responses, and singing, as if such things are the “proof” of participation. It is quite possible to participate actively and fully while remaining perfectly silent.

It is also possible to participate quite passively and limply and be the loudest of all.

For centuries the Church had the wisdom to leave people alone liturgically. Only lately have we begun to hyperrubricize their every gesture and action.

Amen. The whole “full and active participation” has NOTHING to do with “doing” stuff-it is all about understanding and internalizing the Mass. That means knowing what Mass is all about and participating as it describes in my '62 Missal. Nothing new, just trying to get people out of a rut.

What I wonder is if that same priest would have given your friend a talking to had she been dressed like she was going to a club. One would hope so, but dress isn’t as offensive as someone who isn’t fully and actively doing stuff. :rolleyes:

I don’t police what people do in Mass, so I’m not aware if they’re making the responses of not. In a mild defense of the idea of the people MAKING the responses, however:

“In 1958, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued the instruction, De musica sacra, which distinguished several qualities of participation:
The Mass of its nature requires that all those present participate in it, in the fashion proper to each.
This participation must primarily be interior (i.e., union with Christ the Priest; offering with and through Him).
b) But the participation of those present becomes fuller (plenior) if to internal attention is joined external participation, expressed, that is to say, by external actions such as the position of the body (genuflecting, standing, sitting), ceremonial gestures, or, in particular, the responses, prayers and singing . . .”

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/65/SubIndex/120/ArticleIndex/35

This is not a defense of the mindset that seems to think everyone ought to have a job, or crowd around the altar, or have a number of EMHCs that are a specific percentage of the congregation, nor is it a criticism of those who give their responses quietly(I usually make the responses quietly) or even mentally.

The problem today in many places is not leaving people alone. It’s the mentality that you have to have everything people do at Mass codified by rubrics, “norms”, posture edicts, etc.

The liturgical books before the Council didn’t codify that sort of thing…not, as some think, because the Church didn’t care about the assembly, but because in her wisdom the Church realized every single thing doesn’t need to be documented, rubricized, normified, or what have you. And guess what? People survived, the Church thrived, attendance and vocations were high.

Now we have some dioceses where edicts are issued about how many inches from your chest you should hold your hands to receive Communion.

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.