The Traditional Latin Mass is for old people

NOT!!!

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0603-altiere

The problem I see with this article is it specifically refers to English as a vulgar language- as if Latin is not- the Latin translation of the bible is called the Vulgate- which means vulgar- or the language of the people.

I’m 110% in support of the Tridentine Mass- I would go every week if I could, and they are right- it is attracting the youth (when I went, there were mostly parents in their late 20’s and their 30’s with lots of children). People who write about it need to make sure they know all the facts, rather than just go by what they think, or have read on an internet site, or in only one book.

Some of my friends and I (we’re late teens-early 20s) love going to the traditional Latin Mass. There are a few older people there, I also see quite a few people in their 20s and families with lots of young children there.

[quote=m134e5]The problem I see with this article is it specifically refers to English as a vulgar language- as if Latin is not- the Latin translation of the bible is called the Vulgate- which means vulgar- or the language of the people.

I’m 110% in support of the Tridentine Mass- I would go every week if I could, and they are right- it is attracting the youth (when I went, there were mostly parents in their late 20’s and their 30’s with lots of children). People who write about it need to make sure they know all the facts, rather than just go by what they think, or have read on an internet site, or in only one book.
[/quote]

Since no one currently speaks Latin, why would it be considered vulgar?

You can’t get much older than me ( I rember crying when the dinosaurs died) and I love the Latin Mass.
Mike

[quote=Anima Christi]Some of my friends and I (we’re late teens-early 20s) love going to the traditional Latin Mass. There are a few older people there, I also see quite a few people in their 20s and families with lots of young children there.
[/quote]

When I went to my first one, I thought it would be all people who were adults in the 1950s. I couldn’t have been more wrong. It’s mostly young people and families with lots of kids. Our entire Gregorian chant choir is teenagers and people in their young 20s.

This is unsual too, because I live in an area with tons of retirees and most Masses are a sea of white-haired heads.

I think the Latin Mass should be for everyone who wants it, if they can persuade their bishop to fall in line with the old Holy Father’s admonition. I don’t want it, as I don’t agree with the young author’s assessment that the NO Mass doesn’t articulate a theology of sacrifice, the TLM isn’t in the vernacular (I’ll save myself from being anathematized by saying that the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Mysterium Fide, the Amen, and the Agnus Dei would be wonderful sung in Latin, by the whole congregation), the Mass should be audible (we should be able to HEAR IT ALL), and the congregation should be able to make the responses, not depend on the little altar servers.

Further, to say that this Mass is abuse-proof is absurd. Here’s a little observation made by Martin Luther on his pilgrimage to Rome. It’s from a book by Richard Marius (he wrote an excellent work on Saint Thomas More and in this book, Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, Luther doesn’t come off at all well, while Marius comments on the continued vigor of Catholicism):

"Luther claimed that he went to mass time and again and was shocked by the irreverence of the officiating priests. "Bread thou art, and bread thou shalt remain, " they chanted in Latin at the altar, mocking the doctrine of transubstantiation and by extension the tradition of the church and the notion of the unseen world. Roman priests like Christian priests everywhere at the time were paid to say masses for the dead. They sped along, Luther said, as if doing a trick, and when he took his turn at the altar to say his own mass, slowly in the pious German way, the next priest in line hissed,“Get on with it! Get on!”

I support the idea of the Indult, not merely the celebration of the NO Mass in Latin, but of the TLM, for those who want it and can avoid denigrating the NO Mass. The young author, though, makes leaps in logic and makes claims of problems that cannot reasonably be blamed on the Mass of Paul VI.

Now, I think that the TLM translated into English is incomparably beautiful. Why not have that, audibly, with the congregants making the responses? Wouldn’t that take care of the supposed lex orandi, lex credendi concern?

[quote=delorean_boy]Since no one currently speaks Latin, why would it be considered vulgar?
[/quote]

It isn’t, but many traditionalists seem to think (this only my observation- and it certainly does not apply to everyone) that Mass is better simply because of the Latin language itself. I just think people exult the Latin language, and seem to forget it’s humble beginnings. I even saw on a website that supposedly Mary appeared to someone and said she missed hearing the Latin prayers (why a language would make any difference to Mary is beyond me- especially a language which, during her lifetime, was spoken mostly by those who persecuted her people). This is just one example of how people get so bent out of shape over the language the Mass is celebrated in, and they aren’t really as credible as they want you to think.

[quote=Genesis315]When I went to my first one, I thought it would be all people who were adults in the 1950s. I couldn’t have been more wrong. It’s mostly young people and families with lots of kids. Our entire Gregorian chant choir is teenagers and people in their young 20s.

This is unsual too, because I live in an area with tons of retirees and most Masses are a sea of white-haired heads.
[/quote]

Excellent!! The idea that the old are the only ones in the Mass of Pius V (Tridentine Indult Mass) is a false one. I agree with you and add=the old folks just as the older priests (not all) are the very liberal ones: the 1970’s 1980’s Kumbayah, everyone hold hands, women around the altar and purifying the sacred vessals after the distribution of communion, and the priests together with the “Community” of the parish as they love to say, and the jaccuzi/bird bath which passes as a baptismal font: are the ideas on these same dissenters. One redeptorist church (seems that order has gone down the liberal drain) here is like that: WHEN IS THIS ALL GOING TO STOP? WHEN IS REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM GOING TO BE OBEYED BY THESE PEOPLE? WHEN IS THE SO CALLED AMERICAN CHURCH GOING TO ABIDE BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH’S RULES?

[quote=m134e5]It isn’t, but many traditionalists seem to think (this only my observation- and it certainly does not apply to everyone) that Mass is better simply because of the Latin language itself. I just think people exult the Latin language, and seem to forget it’s humble beginnings. I even saw on a website that supposedly Mary appeared to someone and said she missed hearing the Latin prayers (why a language would make any difference to Mary is beyond me- especially a language which, during her lifetime, was spoken mostly by those who persecuted her people). This is just one example of how people get so bent out of shape over the language the Mass is celebrated in, and they aren’t really as credible as they want you to think.
[/quote]

Oh I see what you are saying, and agree to a point.
I think, with as many different peoples and tongues that fall under the Roman Rite, It would be beneficial to have a unifying language. I do see the merit of the vernacular, but I believe that it is a little easy to ad lib. Perhaps a liturgical Vernacular like Old church slavonic. In the English speaking world you could use Old English. Something to think about perhaps.

[quote=delorean_boy]Oh I see what you are saying, and agree to a point.
I think, with as many different peoples and tongues that fall under the Roman Rite, It would be beneficial to have a unifying language. I do see the merit of the vernacular, but I believe that it is a little easy to ad lib. Perhaps a liturgical Vernacular like Old church slavonic. In the English speaking world you could use Old English. Something to think about perhaps.
[/quote]

Why is it easier to adlib? Why can they not simply READ THE SACRAMENTARY? The problem isn’t the Mass, it’s the egos of some of the priests (and I assume some of the bishops) that they know better than the Church and they want to “shine.” The problem isn’t the Mass, it’s the same sin that got us kicked out of Eden: an inability to bend the knee and the neck and OBEY!

[quote=JKirkLVNV]I think the Latin Mass should be for everyone who wants it, if they can persuade their bishop to fall in line with the old Holy Father’s admonition. I don’t want it, as I don’t agree with the young author’s assessment that the NO Mass doesn’t articulate a theology of sacrifice, the TLM isn’t in the vernacular (I’ll save myself from being anathematized by saying that the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Mysterium Fide, the Amen, and the Agnus Dei would be wonderful sung in Latin, by the whole congregation), the Mass should be audible (we should be able to HEAR IT ALL), and the congregation should be able to make the responses, not depend on the little altar servers.

Further, to say that this Mass is abuse-proof is absurd. Here’s a little observation made by Martin Luther on his pilgrimage to Rome. It’s from a book by Richard Marius (he wrote an excellent work on Saint Thomas More and in this book, Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, Luther doesn’t come off at all well, while Marius comments on the continued vigor of Catholicism):

"Luther claimed that he went to mass time and again and was shocked by the irreverence of the officiating priests. "Bread thou art, and bread thou shalt remain, " they chanted in Latin at the altar, mocking the doctrine of transubstantiation and by extension the tradition of the church and the notion of the unseen world. Roman priests like Christian priests everywhere at the time were paid to say masses for the dead. They sped along, Luther said, as if doing a trick, and when he took his turn at the altar to say his own mass, slowly in the pious German way, the next priest in line hissed,“Get on with it! Get on!”

I support the idea of the Indult, not merely the celebration of the NO Mass in Latin, but of the TLM, for those who want it and can avoid denigrating the NO Mass. The young author, though, makes leaps in logic and makes claims of problems that cannot reasonably be blamed on the Mass of Paul VI.

Now, I think that the TLM translated into English is incomparably beautiful. Why not have that, audibly, with the congregants making the responses? Wouldn’t that take care of the supposed lex orandi, lex credendi concern?
[/quote]

"

“depend on the little altar servers” huh? Thats pretty condescending, I hope thats not the way you ment it.
Have you ever heard the term “Dialogue Mass”?
I personally love the large amounts of silence in the mass, its very contemplative. At first I found it very uncomfortable, but now i find it almost totally necessary. It seems like people today cannot deal with silence. All the noise with TVs and radios, its too the point now that you cannot have even a brief silence in a conversation without it being awkward. It seems like people bring this to mass too.

As far as abuse is concerned, I agree its not abuse proof; but saying the Mass was said too fast is a pretty weak example. At my old parish we had 30min sunday mass. A new priest recently took over; he started saying the mass in around an hour and a half or so, about a third of the parish left, most going to the local lutheran church. So id say that this abuse is just as prevalent now.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Why is it easier to adlib? Why can they not simply READ THE SACRAMENTARY? The problem isn’t the Mass, it’s the egos of some of the priests (and I assume some of the bishops) that they know better than the Church and they want to “shine.” The problem isn’t the Mass, it’s the same sin that got us kicked out of Eden: an inability to bend the knee and the neck and OBEY!
[/quote]

I agree,but, How would you ad lib at the TLM now?
Modern vernacular, you can pretty much say what you want.
such as…being PC and inclusive language.

[quote=delorean_boy]"

“depend on the little altar servers” huh? Thats pretty condescending, I hope thats not the way you ment it.
Have you ever heard the term “Dialogue Mass”?
I personally love the large amounts of silence in the mass, its very contemplative. At first I found it very uncomfortable, but now i find it almost totally necessary. It seems like people today cannot deal with silence. All the noise with TVs and radios, its too the point now that you cannot have even a brief silence in a conversation without it being awkward. It seems like people bring this to mass too.

As far as abuse is concerned, I agree its not abuse proof; but saying the Mass was said too fast is a pretty weak example. At my old parish we had 30min sunday mass. A new priest recently took over; he started saying the mass in around an hour and a half or so, about a third of the parish left, most going to the local lutheran church. So id say that this abuse is just as prevalent now.
[/quote]

No, I meant it like it sounded, it simply doesn’t sound condescending when I read it. We should, as a congregation, be making the responses, in my opinion.

Yes, I’ve heard of the term “dialog mass.” What I’m proposing is that, High, Low, sung or spoken, they all be dialog Masses.

Please note, I’m not arguing against silence. I’m arguing against the silent canon, ie., the priest speaking inaudibly from after the Sanctus to the minor elevation before the Amen. I love spaces of silence in Mass, I just would not would not want one there. How about before the reading of the Gospel, to emphasize its difference from the other readings? How about after the homily? How about a pause before and after the Consecration? How about after Communion? The monastery I’m associated with has big blocks of silence there and that’s what I was accustomed to when I was rec. into the church.

Finally, I didn’t say the Mass was said too fast, I quoted what Luther said he saw (and I’d say that wasn’t the egregious abuse, the bit about “bread thou art” would have rendered the Mass invalid) . I’ll go further, though, and say that is a complaint that I’ve heard from older people who were raised in the pre-VII Church, this rushing through Mass. .

Look, it’s okay to say that you like or prefer the Indult or the TLM.
I just don’t believe that A) the problems blamed on the NO Mass are due to something inherent IN the NO Mass, B) the problems faced by the Church are due to the abandonment of the TLM, or C) the NO Mass is ALWAYS or even GENERALLY subject to abuse. Many TLM advocates assert these arguments and I don’t think they wash.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Look, it’s okay to say that you like or prefer the Indult or the TLM. I just don’t believe that A) the problems blamed on the NO Mass are due to something inherent IN the NO Mass, B) the problems faced by the Church are due to the abandonment of the TLM, or C) the NO Mass is ALWAYS or even GENERALLY subject to abuse. Many TLM advocates assert these arguments and I don’t think they wash.
[/quote]

I would agree. However, one cannot help but notice that, so far as point “B” is concerned, the replacement of the Latin Mass with the Novus Ordo Missae has (along with other changes/innovations) fostered a shift in the fundamental understanding of priestly identity (perhaps a good subject for a different thread?).

In my humble opinion, the Latin Mass does superb job of showing the priest-celbrant’s unique and singular function as an alter Christus in the celebration of the sacrament. Of course, when saying Mass according to the Novus Ordo a priest acts as an alter Christus just as well. The difference is that his unique and singular function doesn’t always seem as such due to the emphasis (some would say over-emphasis) on lay involvement and/or direction of the liturgy…

I love the silent Canon but have no issues with an audible Canon. As a former traditional Anglican I was blessed to be able to pray a beautiful liturgy quite similar to the Latin Mass except for the use of “Elizabethan” English, a slighty different Canon and a few additional prayers. sigh Why the English-speaking world, notably the American hierarchy, finally settled on poor translations done in the worst possible English for a “new” Mass with no logical, organic flow is beyond me. Cardinal Cushing shouldn’t have been ignored! But, being humble and obedient and trusting Christ, His Vicar and His Church, I accept and embrace what we have been so lovingly given.

And as for the Latin Mass being for old folks… HA! I’m 23 and deeply in love with the “Immemorial Tridentine Mass”.

For those interested, this year marks the first time in its 20 year history that an organised group of traditional Catholic youth will be a part of World Youth Day. The group, Juventutem (juventutem.com)), have the blessing of the Holy Father and have been promised the liturgical assistance of 11 bishops including Cardinals Arinze, George and Pell. Please remember all those participating in WYD, especially the Juventutem pilgrims, in your prayers!

[quote=TradCat82]I would agree. However, one cannot help but notice that, so far as point “B” is concerned, the replacement of the Latin Mass with the Novus Ordo Missae has (along with other changes/innovations) fostered a shift in the fundamental understanding of priestly identity (perhaps a good subject for a different thread?). ***IMHO, what fostered a shift in the fundamental understanding of priestly identity was a lot of things…Experimentation, Americanism, the "spirit " of VII, as opposed to it’s actual edicts, the 60’s, maybe even the Beatles (perhaps my old gran was right). I don’t think that there is anything IN or making up the character OF the Mass of Paul VI that lead to that shift. ***

In my humble opinion, the Latin Mass does superb job of showing the priest-celbrant’s unique and singular function as an alter Christus in the celebration of the sacrament. Of course, when saying Mass according to the Novus Ordo a priest acts as an alter Christus just as well. The difference is that his unique and singular function doesn’t always seem as such due to the emphasis (some would say over-emphasis) on lay involvement and/or direction of the liturgy…There are too many EMHCs, far too many, and there are a lot of pushy nuns who want to stick their thumbs in the pie, but those things are also not inherent in the Mass of Paul VI. We could get rid of them tomorrow (and we should) and that would go a long way to addressing your concern.

I love the silent Canon but have no issues with an audible Canon. As a former traditional Anglican I was blessed to be able to pray a beautiful liturgy quite similar to the Latin Mass except for the use of “Elizabethan” English, a slighty different Canon and a few additional prayers. sigh Why the English-speaking world, notably the American hierarchy, finally settled on poor translations done in the worst possible English for a “new” Mass with no logical, organic flow is beyond me. Cardinal Cushing shouldn’t have been ignored! But, being humble and obedient and trusting Christ, His Vicar and His Church, I accept and embrace what we have been so lovingly given.
[/quote]

I converted from the Episcopal Church as well. If there were an Anglican Use parish in my diocese, that’s where I would be (for one thing, Anglican Use is ample demonstration that the laity can recieve the Most Precious Blood when it is proffered to them while they are kneeling). That’s why I say, why not simply have the TLM, in the vernacular, with an audible cannon, and the congregation making the responses? It’s already been translated (I’ve a copy by my bed), so we could entirely avoid the ICEL and the Bishops’ footdragging, etc. I bet the Holy Father could have the whole thing promulgated within a month.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]***I converted from the Episcopal Church as well. If there were an Anglican Use parish in my diocese, that’s where I would be ***(for one thing, Anglican Use is ample demonstration that the laity can recieve the Most Precious Blood when it is proffered to them while they are kneeling). …
[/quote]

Well, if you can exit the Sin City of L Vegas and move to Arlington/Dallas or San Antonio, you’d have the best A-Use Parishes in the USA!:wink:

I would like to say a couple of things brought up by TRADCAT 82 about the changes in the understanding of the Pristhood which I agree could be a thread onto itself, however, I believe is very important in this thread. I am not as familiar with the writing of our Holy Father’s work quoted, therefore, I’m going to offer my understanding (hopefully there won’t be a real difference between the two because if there is guess who is wrong?) From my studies, I don’t think it was the Novus Ordo that caused (which is different than fostered) the shift in our understanding our understanding of the priestly identity. Actually, the Novus Ordo role in this, in my opinion, was that of a conduit of the change that was emphasize in the Second Vatican Council, but had been growing before Vat II. The change was a renewal in the understanding of the role of the laity in the life and mission of the Church as declared in the Decree on the Apostolate of Laity but also deeply ingrained in other documents of Vat II, namely The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World and the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. This renewal in the Church’s understanding of the role of the laity is based on the Church’s scripturally based teachings of the rights and duties of each Baptized person in light of their baptism in which we share in Christ role as Priest, Prophet and King. The renewal in no way took away from the sacramental and eccelesial responsibilities of the Ordained Ministry.Never the less, it has been looked on by many as part of the movement to Protestantizing our Church in general and the liturgy in particular.

[quote=JKirkLVNV] …the Mass should be audible (we should be able to HEAR IT ALL), and the congregation should be able to make the responses, not depend on the little altar servers.

[/quote]

This sounds like Cranmer’s rantings against the Canon

Cranmer ordered his entire service to be said "playnly and distinctly"
Rubric in the 1549 Communion Service

**“If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church prescribing that a part of the Canon and the words of consecration be recited in a low tone of voice, should be condemned… ****let him be anathema.” **
*Council of Trent XXII session

Condemn -To pronounce to be wrong; to disapprove of; to censure.
[1913 Webster]

*You should remember that a silent Eucharistic Prayer is not something exclusive to the TLM. In the Eastern liturgies, not only is the Eucharistic Prayer said inaudibly (except for the words of [size=3]institution[/size]) — so is the Preface.

The silent Canon, “betokens the Consecration and Sacrificial Act to be an exclusively priestly function.*
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass *(St. Louis, Mo., 1908), p. 582.”

“The priest enters the sanctuary of the canon alone. Up till now the people have thronged round him, their songs at times accompanying him in the fore-Mass. But the songs have become less frequent, and after the steep ascent of the Great Prayer they have come to an end in the Triple *Sanctus. A *sacred stillness reigns; silence is a worthy preparation for God’s approach. Like the High-priest of the Old Testament, who once a year was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies with the blood of a sacrificial animal (Hebr. 9:7), the priest now separates from the people and makes his way before the all-holy God in order to offer up the sacrifice to Him”

  • The Mass of the Roman Rite *Jungmann (London, 1959), pp. 384-5.

My favorite quote from Dr. Gihr

“In every Host there are miracles, as numerous as stars in the firmament,— yet not the slightest trace of the wonders appears externally. With all this the ecclesiastical rite harmonizes perfectly. The holy silence is quite suited to indicate and to recall the concealment and depth, the incomprehensibleness and ineffableness of the wonderful mysteries that are enacted on the altar. Silent prayer is related to religious silence, and, therefore, expresses the humility, reverence, admiration, and awe wherewith the Church administers and adores the Mystery of the 'Altar.** “The Lord is in His holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before Him” (Hab. 2:20)**. The sight of the priest at the altar, communing amid profound stillness with God alone, is, therefore, also an excellent means afforded to arouse and promote in those who are present the proper dispositions, with which they should admire, adore, and offer along with the priest So grand and sublime a Sacrifice. Quam terribilis est haec hora!—thus does the deacon cry out to the people in the Syrian liturgy—“How terrible is this hour!” While the tremendous Sacrifice is being accomplished on the altar, all present should be immersed in silent contemplation and in devout meditation of the divine Mysteries.”

*The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass *(St. Louis, Mo., 1908), pp. 583-4.

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.