Latin Mass Discussion

looksee

hinault wrote: »

You didn't bother either to open the Latin-English Booklet Missal that was linked in this thread earlier.

In fact I did, and read quite a lot of it, but became exhausted by the minute detail of folding cloths and putting things to one side or the other. I am sure that this is not the missal that was being discussed. Please do not jump to conclusions.

hinault

looksee wrote: »

In fact I did, and read quite a lot of it, but became exhausted by the minute detail of folding cloths and putting things to one side or the other. I am sure that this is not the missal that was being discussed. Please do not jump to conclusions.

Did you bother to read the part of the link that translates the Latin text of the Mass in to the English language, given your "peripheral interest"?

Latin-English Booklet Missal is usually available at all Tridentine Masses.

The booklet enables the members of the congregation to articulate the words of the Mass in Latin while reading the English translation.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Did you bother to read the part of the link that translates the Latin text of the Mass in to the English language?

Latin-English Booklet Missal is usually available at all Tridentine Masses.

The booklet enables the members of the congregation to articulate the words of the Mass in Latin while reading the English translation.

Would it not be easier just to listen directly to words spoken in a language they understand? What's the point?

looksee

hinault wrote: »

Did you bother to read the part of the link that translates the Latin text of the Mass in to the English language, given your "peripheral interest"?

Hinault, I have been trying to have a civil and non-confrontational conversation. I cannot see that i have said anything that would suggest a sarcastic and abrasive answer would be helpful.

hinault

looksee wrote: »

Hinault, I have been trying to have a civil and non-confrontational conversation. I cannot see that i have said anything that would suggest a sarcastic and abrasive answer would be helpful.

I'm not interested in having a confrontational exchange with you.

I took it that you had an interest in the Tridentine Mass and how those, with or without a knowledge of Latin, can be appraised of what is being said during the Mass through using the Latin-English missal.

I notice at the Tridentine Mass that I attend that many people there don't even require the use of Latin-English missal. It would appear that they understand what is being said.

One other point.
Latin was used as working language in several professions up until recent times. The medical profession for example used write prescriptions in Latin.
Therefore a doctor and a pharmacist would be required to have a working knowledge of the language to carry out their duties.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Latin was used as working language in several professions up until recent times. The medical profession for example used write prescriptions in Latin.
Therefore a doctor and a pharmacist would be required to have a working knowledge of the language to carry out their duties.

They would be required to have a working knowledge of certain aspects, but not the entire language.

What relevance does that have to the general public following a ceremony in a language they don't know?

Thinkingaboutit

looksee wrote: »

Going back to the start of the discussion, there was mention of accessibility to the mass in Latin, and a few people said they had no problems following the Latin Mass. However, would this not be because they had been extensively exposed to the Mass in English?

If they had never heard anything other than a Mass in Latin, had no knowledge of Latin and no guidance or education in the meaning of the Mass then the whole experience would surely be mysterious and impressive, but something from which they were detached.

My understanding (ie, I was told) was that in times before people had education they were not expected to understand the Mass, that was the prerogative and responsibility of the Priests; they were only required to be physically present.

Most churches, no all churches, offering the Tridentine Mass have missals with parallel translations, if not some app like iMass provides a missal, or also Ebay or anywhere has missals for little enough. The St Andrew's Missals are best I think, as they keep as much of the Mass in one location. Some Missals seems to divide up the Mass more than needed meaning a lot of Missal hopping.

I think between the 1962 Missal and the New Mass, there was a transitional Missal. If the New Mass had stuck strictly to translation of the rubrics, things would have been far better.

https://lxoa.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/1968-transitional-daily-missal.pdf

Thinkingaboutit

katydid wrote: »

Far too much information to even start responding. All I can say, reading it, is that a Christian who thinks a Eucharist may not be valid because the priest doesn't join his thumb and forefinger together at a certain point in the rite, or because a table rather than an altar is used, really needs to get their priorities right.

And maybe think of the early Christians, including those who knew Christ, who sat around a table in a room, and ate and drank from ordinary cups and plates, and celebrated the sacrament of the Eucharist...

You ignore the short paragraphs of the faq rather than question your Protestant understanding of the Mass. Okay.

The very earliest Christians used the finest surroundings they could muster, so if some among them were minor public officials or wealthier still, the best room in the house was used. Some of these plush insulae are preserved in Rome to make the connect explicit. Lullington Villa gives its finest room. Stating neo Protestant propaganda as fact does not make it so.

Details matter a lot. Showing careful reverence is not a bad thing. The SSPX faq is the shortest I can find. This a matter of complexity. The faq is almost too short. A priest faces ad orientem so both him and the people are facing God together. Glass vessels and a table are not really good enough if a person can manage better. I strongly suspect a fair few have given up on Mass seen a priest using glass vessels and rushing through the rubrics, sometimes getting them wrong, having preached a sermon that makes marginal sense.

The Tridentine Mass has undergone a revival in Africa too. An African country can have some 200 languages. A New Mass in French or English is no particular gesture to local sentiment or understanding.

looksee

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Most churches, no all churches, offering the Tridentine Mass have missals with parallel translations, if not some app like iMass provides a missal, or also Ebay or anywhere has missals for little enough. The St Andrew's Missals are best I think, as they keep as much of the Mass in one location. Some Missals seems to divide up the Mass more than needed meaning a lot of Missal hopping.

Thank you for your courteous reply. My interest was in the fact that I had been told by apparently good authority that the Latin Mass was never intended for the 'masses' to understand.

I am of course going back several centuries, but I was referring (perhaps not very clearly) to the fact that now people expect to understand and participate in the Mass, whereas in past times not only did they not expect to participate, there was little effort to ensure that they even understood what was going on. This did not include the educated members of the congregation, but did include the vast majority of people.

This is not intended as a negative, just pursuing what I had previously been told. The point being that if it is not considered approachable now, is that surprising since it was never intended to be.

Thinkingaboutit

looksee wrote: »

Thank you for your courteous reply. My interest was in the fact that I had been told by apparently good authority that the Latin Mass was never intended for the 'masses' to understand.

I am of course going back several centuries, but I was referring (perhaps not very clearly) to the fact that now people expect to understand and participate in the Mass, whereas in past times not only did they not expect to participate, there was little effort to ensure that they even understood what was going on. This did not include the educated members of the congregation, but did include the vast majority of people.

This is not intended as a negative, just pursuing what I had previously been told. The point being that if it is not considered approachable now, is that surprising since it was never intended to be.

No bother.

It wouldn't think they were not approachable. The Liturgical Movement and in particular Dom Prosper Guéranger and his books moved explanation outside sermons to books which the lay person could read and digest. There was now a critical mass of people, enough for a commercial publishers, and there were theologians who wanted to explain the Mass clearly.

Parallel missals are old enough. The Late 19th century saw the appearance of what we would recognise as parallel translated missals while in earlier centuries glosses seemed to suffice as a working knowledge of Latin was fairly widespread among the literate.

hinault

looksee wrote: »

Thank you for your courteous reply. My interest was in the fact that I had been told by apparently good authority that the Latin Mass was never intended for the 'masses' to understand.

I am of course going back several centuries, but I was referring (perhaps not very clearly) to the fact that now people expect to understand and participate in the Mass, whereas in past times not only did they not expect to participate, there was little effort to ensure that they even understood what was going on. This did not include the educated members of the congregation, but did include the vast majority of people.

This is not intended as a negative, just pursuing what I had previously been told. The point being that if it is not considered approachable now, is that surprising since it was never intended to be.

Good authority? Who is the authority that you refer to?

In the meantime, in the here and now, as you have been told by several posters, members of the congregation attending the Tridentine Mass can avail of the Latin-English missal should they choose.

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

You ignore the short paragraphs of the faq rather than question your Protestant understanding of the Mass. Okay.

The very earliest Christians used the finest surroundings they could muster, so if some among them were minor public officials or wealthier still, the best room in the house was used. Some of these plush insulae are preserved in Rome to make the connect explicit. Lullington Villa gives its finest room. Stating neo Protestant propaganda as fact does not make it so.

Details matter a lot. Showing careful reverence is not a bad thing. The SSPX faq is the shortest I can find. This a matter of complexity. The faq is almost too short. A priest faces ad orientem so both him and the people are facing God together. Glass vessels and a table are not really good enough if a person can manage better. I strongly suspect a fair few have given up on Mass seen a priest using glass vessels and rushing through the rubrics, sometimes getting them wrong, having preached a sermon that makes marginal sense.

The Tridentine Mass has undergone a revival in Africa too. An African country can have some 200 languages. A New Mass in French or English is no particular gesture to local sentiment or understanding.

Short paragraphs? Surely you jest? It was almost impossible to wade through, and almost as difficult to respond to, since you had for some reason put the whole response to my question in a box I couldn't quote from. I took the salient points, as much as I could take them from the mess, and addressed them.

Perhaps instead of copying and pasting a set of FAQ's, you could consider explaining in your own words...

Church history is neither "Protestant" nor "Catholic". it is factual. While naturally people in the early church treated the Eucharist with respect, they did not lose the meaning of the celebration in rubrics and rites. If they were to read that someone was bothered because an altar wasn't used or the priest didn't join his thumb and forefinger at a point in the ceremony, I would imagine they would be bemused, to say the least. Joining your forefinger and thumb or not joining your forefinger and thumb is not the measure of how you respect the central tenet of Christianity, and the fact that you think it's important says more about you than about any celebration of the Eucharist.

Ditto with the direction the priest faces. You make think that it's more respectful for priest and people to face God together, others think differently. Why does it matter, as long as the Eucharist is being celebrated in the right spirit.

So explain why glass is not good enough? Do you think that Jesus drank out of golden chalices at the Last Supper?

Certainly priests rush through the rubrics. There are careless priests everywhere. Do you really think no priest in the days of the Latin mass rushed it?

You seem very caught up with the external aspects of the sacrament, and seem to have forgotten what the Eucharist is actually about. I have to say, I find that quite sad.

hinault

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

You ignore the short paragraphs of the faq rather than question your Protestant understanding of the Mass. Okay.

The very earliest Christians used the finest surroundings they could muster, so if some among them were minor public officials or wealthier still, the best room in the house was used. Some of these plush insulae are preserved in Rome to make the connect explicit. Lullington Villa gives its finest room. Stating neo Protestant propaganda as fact does not make it so.

Details matter a lot. Showing careful reverence is not a bad thing. The SSPX faq is the shortest I can find. This a matter of complexity. The faq is almost too short. A priest faces ad orientem so both him and the people are facing God together. Glass vessels and a table are not really good enough if a person can manage better. I strongly suspect a fair few have given up on Mass seen a priest using glass vessels and rushing through the rubrics, sometimes getting them wrong, having preached a sermon that makes marginal sense.

The Tridentine Mass has undergone a revival in Africa too. An African country can have some 200 languages. A New Mass in French or English is no particular gesture to local sentiment or understanding.

Good points.

The Tridentine Mass in comparison to the NO Mass does contain far more ceremonial duties and behaviours.
Outward displays of the ceremonial duties and behaviours before and during the Tridentine Mass suggests an interior will to try to be more reverential in practice.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Good points.


.
Outward displays of the ceremonial duties and behaviours before and during the Tridentine Mass suggests an interior will to try to be more reverential in practice.

Only to those for whom external things matter more than the essentials.

looksee

hinault wrote: »

Good authority? Who is the authority that you refer to?

In the meantime, in the here and now, as you have been told by several posters, members of the congregation attending the Tridentine Mass can avail of the Latin-English missal should they choose.

Well thank you for explaining the only bit of the conversation that you apparently understood. It was irrelevant to my point but never mind.

hinault

looksee wrote: »

Well thank you for explaining the only bit of the conversation that you apparently understood. It was irrelevant to my point but never mind.

I understand you more than you care to admit. You don't fool anyone here

Who's the "good authority" who you claim to have spoken to about the Tridentine Mass?:rolleyes:

hinault

katydid wrote: »

Only to those for whom external things matter more than the essentials.

You haven't the capacity to know either way.

How did you get removed from my ignore list?

This is the first message of yours that I've read in months.
What has a prod got to offer to a discussion about the Tridentine Mass anyhow?

You're on the ignore list anyhow.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

You haven't the capacity to know either way.

How did you get removed from my ignore list?

This is the first message of yours that I've read in months.
What has a prod got to offer to a discussion about the Tridentine Mass anyhow?

You're on the ignore list anyhow.

Ah yeah, that's right. Ignore me, because I speak the truth and you don't like the truth.

The Eucharist is the Eucharist, whether it's celebrated in the Tridentine rite or any other rite, by Roman Catholics or any other Christians. The Eucharist unites it, as Christ wanted it to. You seem determined to do the opposite.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

I understand you more than you care to admit. You don't fool anyone here

Who's the "good authority" who you claim to have spoken to about the Tridentine Mass?:rolleyes:

hinault wrote: »

You haven't the capacity to know either way.

How did you get removed from my ignore list?

This is the first message of yours that I've read in months.
What has a prod got to offer to a discussion about the Tridentine Mass anyhow?

You're on the ignore list anyhow.

MOD NOTE

Please stop with the disrespectful/snarky attitude towards other posters.

Thanks for your attention.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Ignore list/ off-topic posts deleted.

@hinault: there is no need to repeatedly post that you have another poster on ignore. Once is enough.

Thanks for your attention.

hinault

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Ignore list/ off-topic posts deleted.

@hinault: there is no need to repeatedly post that you have another poster on ignore. Once is enough.

Thanks for your attention.

No hassle.

There must have been some sort of problem which resulted in the displaying of several users messages who should be included on my ignore list. Anyhow that has since been rectified and the ignore function now appears to be working properly thankfully.

Thinkingaboutit

katydid wrote: »

Ah yeah, that's right. Ignore me, because I speak the truth and you don't like the truth.

The Eucharist is the Eucharist, whether it's celebrated in the Tridentine rite or any other rite, by Roman Catholics or any other Christians. The Eucharist unites it, as Christ wanted it to. You seem determined to do the opposite.

I don't like ignoring unless some poster really falls off the wagon.

However, Communion is not the same. The intent is different for one thing. A Reformed minister is holding a memorial with the Divine Service. An Anglican traditionally hold the Christ is present in the Eucharistic offering, but there is not an inward transformation, while Transubstantiation is the Catholic position, putting very roughly and crudely. Ignoring the differences might make you feel enlightened, but to me it mocks deeply held positions and understandings formed over centuries.

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I don't like ignoring unless some poster really falls off the wagon.

However, Communion is not the same. The intent is different for one thing. A Reformed minister is holding a memorial with the Divine Service. An Anglican traditionally hold the Christ is present in the Eucharistic offering, but there is not an inward transformation, while Transubstantiation is the Catholic position, putting very roughly and crudely. Ignoring the differences might make you feel enlightened, but to me it mocks deeply held positions and understandings formed over centuries.

The different interpretations of what the Eucharist represents might divide Christians, but the idea of the Eucharist unites us. It matters far more to me that we all remember what happened at the Last Supper than whether I believe that there is an actual inward transformation or not. I can just imagine Jesus shaking his head in bewilderment at us...

La Fenetre

I much prefer the ordinary form myself, and that's the primary mass and will of the Church. Done well, I think it's as beautiful as any Latin mass. The Church also caters for the smaller number of Catholics who prefer the Latin rite, and I'm glad their preferred form is available.

There's also huge range of different spirituality available to Catholics. Ignation, Franciscan, Carmelite, Charismatic, Domincan etc to name just a few. Once size does not fit all Catholics. May the holy spirit guide you to yours.

ucseae1

katydid wrote: »

I'm curious; if it's Latin, it's hardly accessible.

Latin is extremely accessible. its also a 2000 year old rite.

Lot of catholics today are returning to their roots, big revival of the Roman Rite in Ireland.

katydid

ucseae1 wrote: »

Latin is extremely accessible. its also a 2000 year old rite.

Lot of catholics today are returning to their roots, big revival of the Roman Rite in Ireland.

How is Latin accessible, when virtually nobody learns it in school any more and very few people know more than the few words that have found their way into English?

La Fenetre

ucseae1 wrote: »

Latin is extremely accessible. its also a 2000 year old rite.

Lot of catholics today are returning to their roots, big revival of the Roman Rite in Ireland.

It's not though, it once was, but no longer.

Vatican II is the work of the Holy Spirit, and all teachings remains the same, only the focus and presentation is different.

Granted the misuse and misinterpretation of Vatican II by both divisive liberal extremists and divisive conservative extremists, inside and outside the Church has caused problems, but that is the work of something else.

The Latin rite should be preserved and supported and available to those who prefer it, as that is the will of the Church, but the particular language the mass is said in, is not of any importance, the mass itself is, and the preferred ordinary form of the Church is the vernacular.

ucseae1

La Fenetre wrote: »

It's not though, it once was, but no longer.

Vatican II is the work of the Holy Spirit, and all teachings remains the same, only the focus and presentation is different.

Granted the misuse and misinterpretation of Vatican II by both divisive liberal extremists and divisive conservative extremists, inside and outside the Church has caused problems, but that is the work of something else.

The Latin rite should be preserved and supported and available to those who prefer it, as that is the will of the Church, but the particular language the mass is said in, is not of any importance, the mass itself is, and the preferred ordinary form of the Church is the vernacular.

I was born post vatican II, with Summorum Pontificum it opened the church to our centuries old rite. My kids love the rite. We have our English/Latin missals. its 2015, practically every child in Ireland can read.

Also while the rite of the mass may be in Latin, the homily is in the vernacular.


Priests have been celebrating mass Ad orientem since the beginning. Even Anglican high masses are still celebrated Ad orientem. Why did the roman rite change? I see some masses today that make a mockery of the liturgy.

That is not to say I don't like the Novo Ordo. I can see its merits.

If you go to the eastern churchs they have a very rich liturgy, Divine service, evening prays. They could never understand how we could alter our liturgy so drastically. Some churchs resemble social clubs rather than church's today.

I suppose we are entering a time when you can't be Catholic by accident. Its a time to be Catholic by Conviction.

La Fenetre

ucseae1 wrote: »

I was born post vatican II, with Summorum Pontificum it opened the church to our centuries old rite. My kids love the rite. We have our English/Latin missals. its 2015, practically every child in Ireland can read.

Also while the rite of the mass may be in Latin, the homily is in the vernacular.


Priests have been celebrating mass Ad orientem since the beginning. Even Anglican high masses are still celebrated Ad orientem. Why did the roman rite change? I see some masses today that make a mockery of the liturgy.

That is not to say I don't like the Novo Ordo. I can see its merits.

If you go to the eastern churchs they have a very rich liturgy, Divine service, evening prays. They could never understand how we could alter our liturgy so drastically. Some churchs resemble social clubs rather than church's today.

I suppose we are entering a time when you can't be Catholic by accident. Its a time to be Catholic by Conviction.

Oh I agree with much you say, I was referring to Latin's accessibility in general rather than your local Latin mass, if you and your family find that mass accessible, I believe you. A mass can be said beautifully or altered and made a mockery of, or less seriously, lackluster, in any setting and language, including Latin. As can other Catholic and Christian services. I'm not against a properly said Latin mass at all, especially when it is such a source of obvious grace for you and your family, and I doubt you are against a well prayed mass in the vernacular. If I was ever unfortunate enough not to have access to a faithful and respectful mass in the vernacular locally, I'd be very happy to attend one in Latin. God's grace flows from both. By the grace of God may neither of us slip into the trap of mere cultural Catholicism.

There is a renewal coming for all Christians in Ireland via the Holy Spirit, if we continue to pray for one and the healing of the nation, and let us pray and prepare that we are ready to respond in our respective churches when it does.

ucseae1

@la fenetre. trying silversream Priory. They are a new benedictine monastery. All young benedictines. They only use the Usus Antiquior of the Roman rite. Dom Kirby is an extraordinary preacher.

As regards the Novo ordo Mass in English, Well the best place is Westminster Cathedral. While the mass is in English, The Chant is Latin, and many parts of the mass are in Latin.