Traditional Latin Mass

I am a young Catholic (19) and I love the traditional Latin Mass! I know that we can’t blame all the problems in the Church on Vatican II, and the Traditional Latin mass won’t solve all our problems. I think that as wonderful as the Pauline (Novus Ordo) Mass can be if it is celebrated reverently, like on EWTN, it still does not compare to the Tridentine Mass!
For example, in the Tridentine Mass, the priest begins with prayers at the foot of the altar. He prays Psalm 42:

. . . And I will go in unto the Altar of God: unto God, Who giveth joy to my youth . . .

This was the same thing that the Jewish priests prayed before they served at the altar in the Temple. What was wrong with it? Why fix something that isn’t broken?
Other examples of traditional Latin Mass prayers:

Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, this unspotted Host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my countless sins, offenses, and negligences: on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that it may avail both me and them as a means of salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.

Most Merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy Holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to preserve, unite, and govern her throughout the world; as also for Thy servant Benedict our Pope, and N. . . . our Bishop, and for all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received and Thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave to my inmost parts, and grant that no stain of sin remain in me; whom these pure and holy Sacraments have refreshed. Who livest and reignest world without end. Amen.

Of course, all of these prayers were prayed in Latin, a mystical, holy language which has been made holy by the blood of the martyrs.
My point is, what was wrong with these rich, holy, magnificient prayers that they had to be done away with?? At least, why couldn’t the Tridentine Mass just have been celebrated in the vernacular without doing away with all the prayers?

The whole point of the liturgical reforms, begun by Saint Pius X in the early 1900s, was to simplify the liturgy and so make it easier for laity to understand and participate actively and visibly.

However, as Sacrosanctum Concilium, the COnciliar document on the subject makes clear, the reforms were to be carried out in such a way that the revised Missal would still be “traditional” and celebrated reverently.

When the Missa Normativa is celebrated reverently and without abuses, it’s not all that different than the so-called 'Tridentine Mass." It’s just a simplified version of it.

[quote=Sacramentalist]The whole point of the liturgical reforms, begun by Saint Pius X in the early 1900s, was to simplify the liturgy and so make it easier for laity to understand and participate actively and visibly.

However, as Sacrosanctum Concilium, the COnciliar document on the subject makes clear, the reforms were to be carried out in such a way that the revised Missal would still be “traditional” and celebrated reverently.

When the Missa Normativa is celebrated reverently and without abuses, it’s not all that different than the so-called 'Tridentine Mass." It’s just a simplified version of it.
[/quote]

Why the obscession with so-called “simplicity”? What is wrong with giving our best to God? When I was a protestant, we went to church for 2 1/2 hours on Sunday mornings, 1 hour on Sunday nights, and 1 hour on Wednesday nights. There were also bible studies and prayer groups on other nights of the weeks? Why is it so hard for Catholics to give a little more time, one day a week?

[quote=Sacramentalist]When the Missa Normativa is celebrated reverently and without abuses, it’s not all that different than the so-called 'Tridentine Mass." It’s just a simplified version of it.
[/quote]

I disagree. If one were to observe the two masses “side by side”, it would be hard to say the the “Missa Normativa” is just a simplified version of the Tridentine Mass.

I realize the Novus Ordo Mass is valid and licit, but I very much prefer the Traditional Mass.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[quote=Anima Christi]I am a young Catholic (19) and I love the traditional Latin Mass! I know that we can’t blame all the problems in the Church on Vatican II, and the Traditional Latin mass won’t solve all our problems. I think that as wonderful as the Pauline (Novus Ordo) Mass can be if it is celebrated reverently, like on EWTN, it still does not compare to the Tridentine Mass!

For example, in the Tridentine Mass, the priest begins with prayers at the foot of the altar. He prays Psalm 42: This was the same thing that the Jewish priests prayed before they served at the altar in the Temple. What was wrong with it? Why fix something that isn’t broken?
[/quote]

I would love it if they restored the prayers at the foot of the altar to the Pauline Mass. It would make for a wonderful participatory prayer for the congregation.

The problem is, as I see it, we would be stuck with a dreadful ICEL translation, so instead of:

. . . And I will go in unto the Altar of God: unto God, Who giveth joy to my youth . . .

We would get something like:

. . . And I will travel to the Table of the Lord Who makes me giggle like a baby. . .

Blah. :ehh:

Why the obscession with so-called “simplicity”?

“Noble Simplicity” has always been a principle governing the development of the Roman liturgy; it’s actually something that’s distinguished Roman culture for a while, long before she even became Christian. For Roman Christianity, simpler often was considered “better.”

If one were to observe the two masses “side by side”, it would be hard to say the the “Missa Normativa” is just a simplified version of the Tridentine Mass.

I think it depends.

I do not deny that the Normative Mass is flawed in that it permits of many options. In this way, even a nonabusive celebration of it can appear to be a sharp break with tradition.

But if it is celebrated with (at least) the Ordinaries in Latin, and ad orientam, I fail to see how it’s radically different from the “Tridentine Mass” so as to constitute a completely separate Rite.

BTW, my personal preference is also for the Tridentine Rite; I serve this Mass on a weekly basis in Miami.

This is a good question. You need not look any further than the words of the man who was responsible for designing the missal.
As Archbishop Bugnini said:

                                         *“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest stumbling block or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” (L'Osservatore Romano, March 16, 1965).*

This idea of Bugnini’s, to remove prayers that were too Catholic, is best shown by the almost complete removal of the offertory from NOM. Of the 12 Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two were retained. One of the prayers removed you have just mentioned: Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God…

If you read some of Luther and Cranmers old writings you will see how much they detested the offertory and anything that talked of sacrifice. For Luther, the Mass is a sacrifice of praise, that is an act of praise, of thanksgiving, but certainly not an expiatory sacrifice which recreates the Sacrifice of Calvary and applies its merits.

When Luther revised the Tridentine Mass into what he called the “evangelical Mass” The Offertory was completely abolished and anything in the Canon that implied oblation was discarded.

Luther said:
“The Principal expression of their cult, the Mass, surpasses all impiety and abomination in that they make of it a sacrifice…”
(Christiani, p. 258)

Luther referred to “all that abomination called the offertory. And from this point [in the missal] almost everything stinks of oblation. Therefore casting aside all that savors of oblation with the entire canon, let us keep those things which are pure and holy.” [Cited in F. A. Gasquet, *Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer (London: John Hodges, 1890), p. 221. Chapter XIII

"But what availeth it to take away beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other like popery, so long as the two chief roots remain unpulled up… but the very body of the tree, or rather the roots of the weeds, is the popish doctrine of transubstantiation… and the sacrifice and oblation of Christ made by the priest, for the salvation of the quick and the … . the foulest and most heinous error that was ever imagined."
CRANMER

                                                                      “We must state in the first place”declared Luther*, *“that our intention has never been to abolish divine worship, but merely to purge the form which is used of all additions which have sullied it. I am speaking of **that abominable Canon** which is a confluence of slimy lagoons; they have made of the **mass** a **sacrifice**; they have added to it **offertories**. The **mass**[size=2] **is not a sacrifice**, it is not the act of a sacrificing high priest. Let us regard it as a sacrament, or a testament. Let us call it a blessing, or Eucharist, or any title we like, provided it is not **sullied by the term sacrifice**, or re-enactment. With the Canon **we discarded all that implies an Oblation**…”. 

To sum it up the Offertory was too Catholic, for [/size]Bugnini, and too explicit in its mentioning of expiatory sacrifice, so it had to go.

What bothers me the most is how disturbingly similar all these intentional suppressions of sacrifice are to what the Anglicans did to corrupt their priesthood. As Pope Leo XIII said on why the Anglican’s had lost their priesthood in Apostolicae curae:

‘In the whole Anglican ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice, but, as We have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not only entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out…’(Apostolicae curae).

Quit the cut-and-pastes and use your own darned words.

[quote=Anima Christi]Of course, all of these prayers were prayed in Latin, a mystical, holy language which has been made holy by the blood of the martyrs.
[/quote]

Amice: Verba bella enuntias! Ratiocinatio gravis praestas pro ecclesiae lingua. Latinitas theologica suptilitatem effundit et pulchritudinem praebet ad liturgiam Christianam.

I certainly agree that the Latin High Mass is wonderful worship. However I do remember the 15 minute Latin daily Mass, where I needed to follow in the missal to know what was prayed. (and I could never read them as fast as the Priest)

I know I love attending Mass far more today than I did as a young child, even though I definitely remember wanting to be a daily communicant from when I made my First Communion. I think I did last at least one year.

I recently attended a Tridentine Mass, and was very disappointed. I do not like the readings in Latin. The ordinary of the Mass is OK, but I do prefer English. However I love the chants --Kyrie, Confeteor, Gloria, Pater Noster Agnus Dei, etc. in Latin.

The change is here to stay. This forum is very traditional, but the rest of the world is not. I do trust that the Church did made changes to get more people to participate fully in the Mass, and this is what must be accepted. There is a shortage of Priests, and almost none who can or will celebrate a Mass in Latin. Most Parishes do not have sufficient interest in a Latin Mass to have them celebrated regularly.

Sure most people who attend the Latin Mass today participate more fully. They have made a choice, and are very involved in their Religion–you won’t find anyone attending that Mass only because it is an obligation. There are far more very involved people who attend the NO Mass, and they participate far more fully than most of the people did when there was only the Latin Mass. Notice I said they participate more fully. I will make no judgement regarding the reverence of either group, They are both very devout and reverent----just legitimately different. I believe there were at least as many situations of inattentiion (and probably more) in the pre Vatican II Latin Mass as there are in the NO today.

All those who are only there because they have to be, and their mind is anywhere but at Mass also attend the NO Mass.

I recently attended a Tridentine Mass, and was very disappointed. I do not like the readings in Latin.

Weren’t they repeated in English before the sermon?

[quote=Sacramentalist]Weren’t they repeated in English before the sermon?
[/quote]

No, they were not. I cannot remember, but I thought the readings were in English pre Vatican II. Maybe I am just remembering reading a Missal. or perhaps they were repeated—maybe just the Gospel?

[quote=Sacramentalist]Weren’t they repeated in English before the sermon?
[/quote]

In the TLM I go to the Epistle and Gospel are read in Latin and then read again in English before the sermon.

I attend the TLM on First Fridays. While I do like it, I have some problems (for lack of a better word)… Let me just reiterate that it is a beautiful Mass when celebrated worthily and reverently. However, i think that many of the prayers are needlessly repetitive. from reading church history and the development of the Mass, many of the actions and prayers of the priest are cultural innovations. VII attempted to streamline and remove innovations to the Mass that worked their way into the Mass. When I say cultural innovations – I mean, portions where there is no theology behind it. Another dislike that I have is the fact that the prayers mentioned in the first post and said silently, so the faithful do not hear the words. They may read them if they have a missal or missalette with them. Finally, and this is based on my experience solely… i have not heard a good Latin MAss. The Mass I usually attend for First Fridays, the priest slurs the words and there is certainly no clarity in the pronunciation of the Latin – and it is distracting for me, particularly b/c I know Latin – having taken it for 5 years in HS and having periodically continued to work with it…

again, i say… the TLM is beautfiul and I think that it should be more widely available, but the Missa Normativa, in accord with Sancrosanctum Concilium is just as beautiful and mystical…

Re: The TLM is too repetitive. Old Mass streamlined and innovations removed.

I attend a Tridentine Mass every Sunday. I follow along in the Missal, on the English side. I do not find any repetition. And if there was how can anyone be too repititious in the worship of God. The Rosary is pretty repititious. Should we only say one Hail Mary per Mystery to streamline it? I don’t believe so.

Why streamline the Old Mass? Ecumenism.

The New Mass was “created” by a priest (Annibale Bugnini) at the request of Pope Paul VI. Bugnini eventually became an Archbishop. Paul VI said that he wanted a Mass that members of other faiths would feel comfortable at. Bugnini and his commission had the help of six protestant theologian advisers. When they were done the Lutheran theologian said, ‘Well, we have finally finished what Luther has started.’ Should we as Catholics be happy with that statement?

There is a lot more that can be said about this but anyone can research it via their computer. Look for “Pope Paul VI and the New Mass” or “Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and the New Mass.”

If you read the Protestant Reformation on how they got rid of the Catholic Mass you will see how some of the changes we now enjoy from the Old Mass to the New Mass, are the same.

The intention of the reformers in making the Catholic Mass illegal was so that after a few generations It would be forgotten.

Remember lex orandi, lex credendi…how you pray is how you believe, or…how you believe is how you pray.

Don’t take my word, check it out.

At the Tridentine Mass, at least on Sundays and Holy Days, the readings are usually read in Latin, and then read in the vernacular by the priest before the sermon.

Sometimes this won’t be done at a week-day Mass, or a private Mass, since it is assumed that people assisting at Mass on those days probably have their own Missals to follow along.

At my Latin Mass Community, we do something else, something which is technically not allowed by th rubrics but is approved by our Archbishop. To supposedly “save time” and not interfere with the 9:00 AM English Missa Normativa, the Epistle is read silently by the priest while a server reads it aloud in English from the pulpit.

The Gospel is read in Latin by the priest, and it alone is re-read in English by him before the sermon.

I have to admit that, for as much as I love the Traditional Rite, this does appear to me to be a useless repetition. I do see some logic to it, but by gosh, I don’t think it’d be such a damned break with Tradition if we just did away with this practice and just had the readings read in English to begin with.

But that’s just me.

Mystic, you are correct. It seems others forget that the Mass has constantly been modified, such as, as you pointed out that prior to Vat II the reading (Gospel included) were in English. A couple of other changes that happened in many of our life times such as the fast was once from midnight to the time of the reception of Communion to only three hours. Another change was the the banning of the use of musical instruments other than the organ. So as you can see the Mass has always been dynamic in the life of the Church.

[quote=Dr. Bombay]I would love it if they restored the prayers at the foot of the altar to the Pauline Mass. It would make for a wonderful participatory prayer for the congregation.
[/quote]

I would too, I don’t really know why it was removed. It was removed in the 1965 missal, which resembels the 1962 missal much more then the 1970 missal currently used.

The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar would sound very clumsy if said by the whole Congregation. The Mass is supposed to be sung; it simply would be asymmetrical to begin by saying these prayers, rather than with chanting the Introit as has always been proper.

I think in the Clear Creek Monestary, they only say the readings once, in English, and I think it was that way as well with the now defunct Society of St John when they offered mass.

[quote=Sacramentalist]At the Tridentine Mass, at least on Sundays and Holy Days, the readings are usually read in Latin, and then read in the vernacular by the priest before the sermon.

Sometimes this won’t be done at a week-day Mass, or a private Mass, since it is assumed that people assisting at Mass on those days probably have their own Missals to follow along.

At my Latin Mass Community, we do something else, something which is technically not allowed by th rubrics but is approved by our Archbishop. To supposedly “save time” and not interfere with the 9:00 AM English Missa Normativa, the Epistle is read silently by the priest while a server reads it aloud in English from the pulpit.

The Gospel is read in Latin by the priest, and it alone is re-read in English by him before the sermon.

I have to admit that, for as much as I love the Traditional Rite, this does appear to me to be a useless repetition. I do see some logic to it, but by gosh, I don’t think it’d be such a damned break with Tradition if we just did away with this practice and just had the readings read in English to begin with.

But that’s just me.
[/quote]

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.