Latin Mass

[quote=Rocky8311]:Those things said, I consider myself traditional, believe in the validity of the NO Mass, and also believe we have not found a solution to the problem of irreverence to date. The NO Mass certainly seems to ALLOW many more abuses, but it’s not intrinsically wrong…
[/quote]

:thumbsup: Perfectly said. :slight_smile:

One of the things that attacted me to Catholicism was the Mass in English - I could understand what was going on! But I attended a very liturgically strict church.

One of the Msgrs who presides Mass in my current parish is 91yo, from Ireland originally. He talks about how having the Mass in your vernacular is a gift. He remembers people doing the rosary during mass pre=VII.
My guess is part of the NO abuse problem is in the translation. The new GIRM seems to recognize that and is attempting to uniformly set liturgy within it’s original intent.

Minimus,

Thank you for your added comments. I understand what you are saying about the translation.

OT, I think one of the extreme answers regarding translation that I saw by a ‘conservative and orthodox catholic’ (to have to use labels) was from an EWTN ‘lay expert’. When asked by a poster if it was proper for him, (as a lay Catholic praying the Liturgy of Hours privately) to use the Grail translation of the Psalms as he felt it was much more edifying and accurate than the current US translation, was told ’ very emphatically’ that it was a matter of obedience to the church and it would be wrong for him to substitute psalms and he must use the current translation!.

What a crock! :rolleyes: And this answer from a lay (and not speaking for the magisterium) ‘expert’ :eek: With that reasoning, we would have no right as the laity to point out the weakness in any translations. I will leave said ‘expert’ nameless, but that is ‘falling off the road on the traditional side’ (Thanks, Rocky8311 :thumbsup:

[quote=Rocky8311]Minimus-

What is this “Episocopal Rite” that you speak of? I know of the “Anglican Use of the Roman Rite”…, but if you refer to some rite that is used by Bishops that is somehow different than others, I’m unaware of it, please enlighten me!
[/quote]

Actually, I meant the Rite I of the Episcopal Church of the United States. I.e., the heavily modified (1979) modification (1928) of the … substantially modified (Cranmer) Ordo Missae Sarum, which might be argued to be the “real” English Catholic mass, despite it’s having been in Latin. For example, Matthew 26, 27-8: “Et accipiens calicem, gratias egit et dedit illis dicens, ‘Bibite ex hoc omnes: hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum.’” Compare the Episcopal rendering at their consecration: “Likewise, after supper, he took the cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins.’” Our NOM changes the “pro multis” into “for all,” which is an error (and the Greek is "epi pol™n, not “epi pant™n” as well). The “for you” is an embolus that comes from Luke 22, 20. These seem like subtle points, I suppose, but the fact is, lex orandi, lex credendi is more than just an old saw. Change a word here, a phrase there, & pretty soon you have…protestantism. IMHO!

[quote=amarikidd]One of the Msgrs who presides Mass in my current parish is 91yo, from Ireland originally. He talks about how having the Mass in your vernacular is a gift. He remembers people doing the rosary during mass pre=VII.
[/quote]

Nothing wrong with it; it was recommended by two holy Popes of the past century (St. Pius X and Pius XII).

My guess is part of the NO abuse problem is in the translation. The new GIRM seems to recognize that and is attempting to uniformly set liturgy within it’s original intent.

The new GIRM is even less traditional than the previous version. Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., analyzed it for The Latin Mass a couple of years ago.

I would suggest everyone go read CA’s guide to the Mass at catholic.com/library/liturgy/cag_changes.asp

:slight_smile: I love the rosary. Our holy blessed pope, JPII, loves the Rosary and added the Luminous mysteries. This is what JPII said about the use of the Rosary in ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE:

“In effect, the Rosary is simply a method of contemplation. As a method, it serves as a means to an end and cannot become an end in itself. All the same, as the fruit of centuries of experience, this method should not be undervalued. In its favour one could cite the experience of countless Saints”

and

“There are some who think that the centrality of the Liturgy, rightly stressed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, necessarily entails giving lesser importance to the Rosary. Yet, as Pope Paul VI made clear, not only does this prayer not conflict with the Liturgy, it sustains it, since it serves as an excellent introduction and a faithful echo of the Liturgy, enabling people to participate fully and interiorly in it and to reap its fruits in their daily lives."

:gopray: I just love our current pope

From my understanding, the Rosary is used as a popular substitute to the Liturgy of the Hours. However the CCC says “This form of Prayerful reflection is of great value. But the Christian prayer should go further: to the knowledge of the love of the Lord Jesus, to union with Him.” (ccc 2708). and the Catholic union with Christ is our FULL participation of the Mass (ccc 1140). But I don’t find a specific CCC that restricts Rosary during Mass. From the above In Cathedra, since the Rosary echos Liturgy as a compendium, it seems Mass trumps Rosary. Maybe you could refer me to those Apostolic Letters/encyclicals from X or XII? Then I can go and over to the AskAnApologist Forum.

The discussion seems to keep criss-crossing. When folks say “Traditional Latin Mass” they usually mean the Tridentine Mass, which is always said in Latin. The current version, the Norvous Ordo, can be said in Latin.

In our parish we say the NO in Latin occasionally…since it’s the same mass I always attend, I know what’s going on, although I’m sure my earnest responses are in very poor Latin. It’s a different experience for me, hard to describe. Hearing and participating in the Mass in Latin makes me feel like a part of an eternal, immense, universal church, if that makes any sense.

I enjoy it, but like the vernacular for “regular” Mass.

[quote=Flounder]The discussion seems to keep criss-crossing. When folks say “Traditional Latin Mass” they usually mean the Tridentine Mass, which is always said in Latin. The current version, the Norvous Ordo, can be said in Latin.

In our parish we say the NO in Latin occasionally…since it’s the same mass I always attend, I know what’s going on, although I’m sure my earnest responses are in very poor Latin. It’s a different experience for me, hard to describe. Hearing and participating in the Mass in Latin makes me feel like a part of an eternal, immense, universal church, if that makes any sense.

I enjoy it, but like the vernacular for “regular” Mass.
[/quote]

The reason why I use the word “Traditional Latin Mass” is because that the Mass predates Trent.

I do not understand why people do not like Latin or take some pride in it. The Jewish folks learn hebrew and I think in more orthodox synagogues celebrate in hebrew. The Islamist have their Classical Arabic, Hindu have their Sankrit, Maronite Catholics have their Aramaic, why cannot Latin Catholics appreciate Latin?

I do not understand why people do not like Latin or take some pride in it. The Jewish folks learn hebrew and I think in more orthodox synagogues celebrate in hebrew. The Islamist have their Classical Arabic, Hindu have their Sankrit, Maronite Catholics have their Aramaic, why cannot Latin Catholics appreciate Latin?

Because liberals in the church think that anything traditonal in the Mass is superstitous and the most important aspect of the Mass is to learn. They are ignorant of the mystery of the sacrafice taking place and generally resent anything traditional.

Also, people are generally lazy and want everything to be easy.

[quote=Iohannes]I do not understand why people do not like Latin or take some pride in it. The Jewish folks learn hebrew and I think in more orthodox synagogues celebrate in hebrew. The Islamist have their Classical Arabic, Hindu have their Sankrit, Maronite Catholics have their Aramaic, why cannot Latin Catholics appreciate Latin?
[/quote]

Many Latin Rite Catholics do. Many prefer it. It is the language of unity, the language that built the Church, the official language of the Church, and the Holy Father wants to preserve our heritage. I studied it for a couple of years and learned more English than I have in any English class. It’s an aid to learning medicine, science, law, etc. If many Latin Catholics don’t appreciate Latin, it is a loss to the Church as a whole, and to those Catholics in particular.

[quote=Flower_Charity]Because liberals in the church think that anything traditonal in the Mass is superstitous and the most important aspect of the Mass is to learn. They are ignorant of the mystery of the sacrafice taking place and generally resent anything traditional.

Also, people are generally lazy and want everything to be easy.
[/quote]

The above quote was in reference to a poster’s question as to why people don’t like Latin or take some pride in it. I don’t think that was what this thread was originally about. It is a very general statement to say that the Catholics who do not want to return to the liturgy only in Latin (or primarily in Latin) don’t ‘like’ Latin or ‘take pride in it’. It really has nothing to do with the above, but with a preference to have the liturgy in the vernacular. It doesn’t mean there can’t be some Latin in the responses and it certainly doesn’t mean anyone is rejecting the centuries of Latin used in the western church.

But the quote above also has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. The assumption being anyone who does not agree with them on the liturgy is a ‘liberal’ (whatever that might mean to them), is ‘ignorant of the mystery’ and ‘resents anything traditional’ and ‘lazy’ and ‘wants everything easy’. Those comments are quite the judgment on those of us who have posted on this thread and don’t agree with the view of the poster of the above quote.

Please give some specifics on your accusations and also how you can so easily judge the rest of us for the opinions we expressed. Did you read the whole thread?

[quote=Iohannes]I do not understand why people do not like Latin or take some pride in it. The Jewish folks learn hebrew and I think in more orthodox synagogues celebrate in hebrew. The Islamist have their Classical Arabic, Hindu have their Sankrit, Maronite Catholics have their Aramaic, why cannot Latin Catholics appreciate Latin?
[/quote]

For what it is worth, I agree with “jordan’s” later posting. I just returned from the worst service—catholic or protestant–I have ever attended at St. Francis cathedral in Santa Fe. My wife, an Episcopalian by way of the Lutherans, hung her head in disbelief. It was in English. It was in Spanish. It did not even follow the pathetic pulp “missal” in the stalls. It “invented” virtually everything. People we standing. People were kneeling at the same time. Being a tourist town, half of the congregation had NO idea what was going on. And, believe me, it bore no relation to the NOM missal, and paid no heed to the Holy Father’s wishes as regards the Mass. This is an archepiscopate that is lost; having abandoned all grace, all form, all dignity, it wallows in apostasy. So that is why the muslims standardize, not only on classical Arabic, but even upon the visual representation of the same in their Qur’aans. And that is why orthodox Jews dare not mispronounce even one vowel during recitation of the Torah. Only we catholics seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Pardon my rant, but I have almost never been so outraged as this evening! I fervently believe that the Christ will forgive much, but this…

[quote=Dolly]The above quote was in reference to a poster’s question as to why people don’t like Latin or take some pride in it. I don’t think that was what this thread was originally about. It is a very general statement to say that the Catholics who do not want to return to the liturgy only in Latin (or primarily in Latin) don’t ‘like’ Latin or ‘take pride in it’. It really has nothing to do with the above, but with a preference to have the liturgy in the vernacular. It doesn’t mean there can’t be some Latin in the responses and it certainly doesn’t mean anyone is rejecting the centuries of Latin used in the western church.

But the quote above also has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. The assumption being anyone who does not agree with them on the liturgy is a ‘liberal’ (whatever that might mean to them), is ‘ignorant of the mystery’ and ‘resents anything traditional’ and ‘lazy’ and ‘wants everything easy’. Those comments are quite the judgment on those of us who have posted on this thread and don’t agree with the view of the poster of the above quote.

Please give some specifics on your accusations and also how you can so easily judge the rest of us for the opinions we expressed. Did you read the whole thread?
[/quote]

If you’re so concerened with staying on the topic, why did you bring it up? By doing so you’re leaving the topic.

I don’t have to defend Latin because it’s been the norm for at least 1600 years and is still supposed to be. I’m saying in general, people don’t like Latin because they feel it makes it harder to understand. I agree, liberal is a subjective term. Mabye i should say progressive.

[quote=Flower_Charity]If you’re so concerened with staying on the topic, why did you bring it up? By doing so you’re leaving the topic.

I don’t have to defend Latin because it’s been the norm for at least 1600 years and is still supposed to be. I’m saying in general, people don’t like Latin because they feel it makes it harder to understand. I agree, liberal is a subjective term. Mabye i should say progressive.
[/quote]

Guess since I already left the topic, I’ll leave it again--------what is the meaning of your user name? I don’t understand the ‘charity’ part.

I went to my first Latin mass today - I have no words to describe it. I had been waiting for the Holy Spirit to touch me, my exploration of Christianity had thus far been purely intellectual. Today it happened, it was the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. I will go back, often. I hope I can talk my wife into going with me next time. My son went this time, he said it convinced him he wanted to be a Catholic, I second that statement. I have attended 3 different parishes prior to today - one was a protestant church in disguise, the other two were fine but this… as I said there are not words.
I guess I had the predisposition to be a ‘traditionalist’. I initially choose the Catholic faith because it has stood the test of time, something I consider important. So I kind of figure if you are going to join a 2000 year old church, maybe I should do it the way it’s been done for that time.
The parish I attended was packed, standing room only, although I will grant it is a small chapel.

Dear Kevin - I know the feeling. This is not exactly the way it has been done for “2000” years but the Traditional Mass has been celebrated for a very long time, long enough to have nothing more to prove - it is what it is and there is no real way to describe it, one must, as you did, experience it.

[quote=deogratias]Dear Kevin - I know the feeling. This is not exactly the way it has been done for “2000” years but the Traditional Mass has been celebrated for a very long time, long enough to have nothing more to prove - it is what it is and there is no real way to describe it, one must, as you did, experience it.
[/quote]

Ya I knew that the format had changed here and there. I wonder if we even still know what the first masses were like? Beyond the Last Supper I mean.

As I said I had attend 3 other parishes with the I guess ‘standard’ English mass, although I noticed they were not a great deal alike. They were nice and interesting, but I found my mind wandering. I felt somewhat lost of course since I am new at this - I don’t know when to sit, stand, kneel or what to say when and I found myself being self-conscious of all these things, wondering what I was going to do afterwards… etc.
But this latin mass - it was like being in a trance. I didn’t know what to do anymore than I did at the English masses but I didn’t care, it just didn’t matter. I was kind of shocked and sad when it ended, like being shaken awake.

[quote=kjvail]As I said I had attend 3 other parishes with the I guess ‘standard’ English mass, although I noticed they were not a great deal alike. They were nice and interesting, but I found my mind wandering. I felt somewhat lost of course since I am new at this - I don’t know when to sit, stand, kneel or what to say when and I found myself being self-conscious of all these things, wondering what I was going to do afterwards… etc.
But this latin mass - it was like being in a trance. I didn’t know what to do anymore than I did at the English masses but I didn’t care, it just didn’t matter. I was kind of shocked and sad when it ended, like being shaken awake.
[/quote]

I think the Church (and most people in these forums) is (are) very concerned with making sure that the mass is celebrated with the proper veneration and reverence. Besides not wanting to lay itself open to the usual “meaningless repetition” jibe from anti-catholics, I think the Church is also very concerned with the “familiarity breeds contempt” problem which has definitely raised its ugly head in mass.

I’ve been told that this is why the Church prescribes that one can only have communion once per day, and is probably (partially) why Latin in the mass (I have deliberately phrased it in this broad way to be all inclusive) is also still recommended by the Church. Kevin’s reactions, as quoted above, are a good example of the effectiveness of the “Latin Mass” in bringing home to those attending what the proper veneration and reverence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist is all about.

While I feel that mass in the vernacular is more meaningful to me, despite the problems with poor translations and bad grammar (see Karl Keatings latest newsletter), I have to agree that having mass celebrated differently once in a while does also have the power to increase the meaningfulness of mass to the congregation. Here I am not only speaking about “Latin Masses”, but any other approved changes that may be made to the liturgy.

In fact, this could be one of the tests that could be applied to any proposed changes to the liturgy, to determine whether it is detracting from or adding to the sacrament.

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.