Latin Mass

[dauntingknight]

The priest who says the Latin Mass at my parish I once saw him where at-shirt that said
"Do the red say the black".
So [size=7]Latin Mass Rocks![/size]

[Aloysius]

you can get those from Fr. Z: [url="http://www.wdtprs.com"]http://www.wdtprs.com[/url]

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1800659' date='Mar 9 2009, 12:25 AM']because he shouldn't be putting his personality into the mass at all!!!

have you been to a Latin Mass? I think most who have been to both forms know what I'm talking about... the priest's personality is completely eclipsed by the old mass. I would like to see the New Mass eclipse his personality as well. an ad orientum position and less common language would go a long way towards eradicating the mindset by which priests insert their personalities into the mass.[/quote]

Verbum. Times nineteen.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='RemnantRules' post='1795077' date='Mar 2 2009, 01:19 PM']

But never with a Latin Mass. That is one def. positive for Latin Mass is you hardly ever hear of any problems liturgically with the Latin Mass.[/quote]
Thats because the priests who are saying now WANT to say it. Its no longer the norm. You seem to forget that the Mass was changed because the Church decided[i] before [/i]Vatican II that there were serious problems that needed correction.

The Trid Mass is not the end all and be all of Masses, or it would not have been reformed, and that the liturgical process and restatement is an ongoing process.

[elizabeth09]

There some outside that wish that the Latin Mass did not get stated because they do not understand it at first. They may not try it first.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='elizabeth09' post='1801398' date='Mar 9 2009, 02:58 PM']There some outside that wish that the Latin Mass did not get stated because they do not understand it at first. They may not try it first.



[/quote]

For me its quite the opposite.
I would only go if there were no other option.

[Aloysius]

there was indeed a liturgical movement prior to Vatican II and in many ways the Latin Mass as it is found in these Extarordinary Useage communities is the continuity of that movement, with priests who pretty much never rush through the rubrics and a laity who deeply immerse themselves in what is going on. Pius X was himself a very important beginning to a liturgical movement.

In my opinion, the '65 missal was the ultimate culmination of what the Second Vatican Council actually called for as a big radical step in the liturgical movement, and had things stopped there we could say that the liturgical reform following Vatican II had been a culmination of pre-Vatican II reforms. Paul VI's missal, in my opinion, was a departure from the pre-Vatican II liturgical reform efforts that went in a totally different direction.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1801413' date='Mar 9 2009, 08:14 PM']there was indeed a liturgical movement prior to Vatican II and in many ways the Latin Mass as it is found in these Extarordinary Useage communities is the continuity of that movement, with priests who pretty much never rush through the rubrics and a laity who deeply immerse themselves in what is going on. Pius X was himself a very important beginning to a liturgical movement.[/quote]

I'd recommend Dom Guéranger's "on the Holy Mass" to absolutely everyone. If I recall correctly his work either prepared or was part of the liturgical movement Aloysius mentioned. On the Holy Mass is a read that can deepen everyone's devotion to the Mass, even the ordinary form - although in my experience it highlights the deficiencies of versus populum worship, I don't know if this might be the case for others.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='elizabeth09' post='1794559' date='Mar 1 2009, 06:12 PM']Some people say that the Latin mass is boring. What do you say about the Latin mass? Which one do you like? English or Latin?[/quote]

i think the Latin Mass has a higher "learning curve" than the ordinary form of Mass. in this sense, many people did not and still do not care to put in much effort into learning it and discovering how beautiful it really is.

-the first time i thought it wasn't for me at all. it was "boring" and i couldn't follow anything.

-the second time i made the effort to follow along in the Latin-English missal, and i fell behind, but i noticed the prayers were much deeper, more beautiful. it's like the Bible starts to come alive, in a more profound way. the side notes in the red booklet explained things i never even knew about the Mass before.

-the third time i went to a High Mass, with all the bells and whistles, including a full Gregorian chant choir. all these things rocked all of my senses and sent me into a state beyond anything ever before. the extended time spent in prayer after Communion allowed me to have the most intense vision of the Passion i have ever experienced. some of the prayers still make my eyes water, especially the ones that sound like an angel is singing them.

i now think the Latin High Mass is the most beautiful Mass in the world! when i can, i will do anything to make it to one, but if not, it's not the end of the world.


both Masses bring Jesus to you in the Eucharist, both can be done very well and very reverently, both can have devout parishioners, but the Latin Mass i think is just more conducive to going deeper. it's like comparing the Cliff's Notes summary of a book compared to the full, epic novel. which one is more likely to take you deeper? unfortunately, no one cares to even go any deeper, or would they even if they tried? well for those that can, oh my, be prepared to get your face blown off in awe!


this is what we should probably see, at either Mass.
[img]http://ourladyoflourdescatholicgifts.com/LatinMass.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.a2latinmass.org/FatimaVision3.jpg[/img]

just a thought, when the priest faces us from behind the altar and elevates the Eucharist, is the mystical crucifix facing him or us? i get kinda confused, but i imagine towards each one of us..

notice in this "old" style, that when the Eucharist is raised, it makes your eyes line up right on the crucifix, right on His most Sacred Heart. every movement is precise and has deep meaning. often behind the altar is a retablo, or like a castle-like wall that, i believe, is taken from the book of Revelation describing the heavenly Jerusalem. Scripture, and heaven, come alive!
[img]http://dotnettemplar.net/blogfiles/LatinMassinPrincetonNewJerseyArea_145D8/Mass.jpg[/img]
[img]http://somehavehats.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/27/latin_mass.jpg[/img]

these are just a few examples of things that are not absolutely necessary, but they just seem to make it that much better.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1802097' date='Mar 9 2009, 11:01 PM']both Masses bring Jesus to you in the Eucharist, both can be done very well and very reverently, both can have devout parishioners, but the Latin Mass i think is just more conducive to going deeper. it's like comparing the Cliff's Notes summary of a book compared to the full, epic novel. which one is more likely to take you deeper? unfortunately, no one cares to even go any deeper, or would they even if they tried? well for those that can, oh my, be prepared to get your face blown off in awe![/quote]

I am happy you feel this way. However I grew up having latin Masses, have attended latin Masses since, and still prefer the new rite for its simplicity and participation.

[Aloysius]

not to make this too personal, but how wedded are you to the versus populum position? that is a huge problem in my estimation, though actually not a proscribed difference as the Novus Ordo can go Ad Orientum and the Traditional Latin Mass can actually be done Versus Populum, Rome answered that dubium saying that there was nothing in the rubrics that forbade it, but to me in both rites I am hugely in favor of the ad orientum position over the versus populum position.

also, have you ever seen the text of the '65 missal? done in the vernacular (as most to all of it was permitted to be done), it has most of the same advantages that most people who like the Novus Ordo like it for while not taking away many of the good things that were lost from the Traditional Mass. I believe the text of it can be found online, I personally have a leatherbound missal from it (it only has some latin/english side by side because most of it was always in the vernacular)

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1802272' date='Mar 10 2009, 01:24 AM']not to make this too personal, but how wedded are you to the versus populum position? that is a huge problem in my estimation, though actually not a proscribed difference as the Novus Ordo can go Ad Orientum and the Traditional Latin Mass can actually be done Versus Populum, Rome answered that dubium saying that there was nothing in the rubrics that forbade it, but to me in both rites I am hugely in favor of the ad orientum position over the versus populum position.

[color="#0000FF"]I think it depends if you see the Mass as Calvery or the Last Supper, leading to God, or mediator between God and man. On a practical note if my last priest had done it Ad orientum, we never would have heard a word of the Mass. It really depends on your perspective, the church architecture and the congregation. I prefer Populum but on the other hand ...what I would REALLY like returned are the altar rails, and Communion on the tongue. I think that speaks volumes of theology that we are missing.[/color]

also, have you ever seen the text of the '65 missal? done in the vernacular (as most to all of it was permitted to be done), it has most of the same advantages that most people who like the Novus Ordo like it for while not taking away many of the good things that were lost from the Traditional Mass. I believe the text of it can be found online, I personally have a leatherbound missal from it (it only has some latin/english side by side because most of it was always in the vernacular)

[color="#0000FF"]Seems to me I still have my copy buried somewhere in my attic, I confess I haven't seen it for awhile. I'll look online when I am more awake.[/color][/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

Would anyone like to do me the great service of going over the main points that the liturgy was reformed in the 60s?

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1802250' date='Mar 9 2009, 08:54 PM']I am happy you feel this way. However I grew up having latin Masses, have attended latin Masses since, and still prefer the new rite for its simplicity and participation.[/quote]

duly noted and respected. my wish would be for every parish to have at least 1 available Latin Mass. it's so rare, and in many cases, shunned, at the disservice of those who would benefit greatly from it. most of us don't even have a clue about it since we're so young, but some are blessed enough to discover such a glorious gem in it and realize it must not be lost or hidden away. our Holy Father, B16, knows this very well..


on a side note, i have wondered if i may be called to the FSSP..

[elizabeth09]

I believe that only boys (who are thinking about the priesthood) only serves.

















Latin Mass Rocks My Socks

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='RemnantRules' post='1794593' date='Mar 1 2009, 09:04 PM']Jesus didn't have the Last Supper extraordinary style.[/quote]



[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1801335' date='Mar 9 2009, 12:01 PM']Thats because the priests who are saying now WANT to say it. Its no longer the norm. You seem to forget that the Mass was changed because the Church decided[i] before [/i]Vatican II that there were serious problems that needed correction.

The Trid Mass is not the end all and be all of Masses, or it would not have been reformed, and that the liturgical process and restatement is an ongoing process.[/quote]



[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1804423' date='Mar 11 2009, 11:35 PM']Would anyone like to do me the great service of going over the main points that the liturgy was reformed in the 60s?[/quote]

I'd also be interested in learning more about this. I think both sides tend to over/under-emphasize certain issues, so i'd like to know more.

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1804874' date='Mar 12 2009, 01:10 PM']duly noted and respected. my wish would be for every parish to have at least 1 available Latin Mass. it's so rare, and in many cases, shunned, at the disservice of those who would benefit greatly from it. most of us don't even have a clue about it since we're so young, but some are blessed enough to discover such a glorious gem in it and realize it must not be lost or hidden away. our Holy Father, B16, knows this very well..[/quote]

Okay - time for my two cents. Granted, i've only been to five Latin Masses (4 EF & 1 OF) in the 6-7 years i've been Catholic, so i recognize my bias. That said, there is something i really just don't understand. I completely agree that more parishes, as long is there is a group within that parish interested in it, should offer an EF or OF Mass in Latin. Sounds simple to me. What i don't understand is parishes without parochial boundaries that form specifically for liturgical reasons, i.e. those set up specifically to offer EF Masses in Latin or Charismatic Masses.

I realize that the local bishops have approved these EF and Charismatic parishes, and i respect their decisions. I just don't understand the reasoning yet, because to me, it speaks of disunity. If any of you have met members of EF or Charismatic parishes who tend to look down on Catholics who attend normal parishes, you might know what i'm getting at. Part of the reason i went with Catholicism was its universality. I really haven't seen a well-presented argument for the necessity of establishing EF Mass or Charismatic Mass parishes that, in effect, end up separating Latin Rite Catholics into different groups. That's just me. By all means, please fire away if you think you can help me understand this.

Edited March 17, 2009 by fides quarens intellectum

[Aloysius]

the reason is the liturgical crisis in the Church which is recognized by Rome. it is not a few isolated novus ordo parishes that are in crisis, it is all of them; and Rome recognizes that the preference for the Extraordinary Form is a legitimate aspiration. Rome cannot, or at least will not, deny to Catholics the perpetual right granted to them by Quo Primum. Summorum Pontificum confirmed that Rome never did that since it never abrogated the old mass, and so every Catholic has the full right to worship according to the traditional form of the Roman Rite; moreover, every Catholic has the right to a liturgy free of abuses, which in many [b]whole[/b] dioceses can only be found in the Extraordinary Form parish of the diocese.

Rome and the bishops are not separating us into different factions now, Rome is now recognizing that different factions were created in the aftermath of the liturgical reform. Extraordinary Form parishes are necessary because the older form MUST have a place in the Church, without it the Church's liturgical tradition is at best on life support and at worst dying. this is not to say that the liturgies are without the true sacrament, just that they are without most of the prayers surrounding the true sacrament that they ought to have.

Benedict's ultimate mission is to reunite these factions by making the ordinary form more like the extraordinary form... it may be interpreted that he wants the extraordinary form to be enriched by the ordinary form as well but aside from the insertion of some feast days and new prefaces, I don't think that's the priority; the priority is what Fr. Z calls the "gravitational pull" wherein the novus ordo gets sucked more and more back into the continuous liturgical tradition of the Church and out of the discontinuous limbo it's been residing in for the past 40-50 years. that involves big centers in dioceses that can be looked to AND latin masses popping up in most every parish. this is NOT on par with the Charismatic stuff, this is not analogous at all. Charismatics are permitted their specific devotions, Extraordinary Formers are given their rights back to them; Charismaticism is allowed as a movement for specific people in the Church who desire it; but Benedict intends the Extraordinary Form as something which MUST necessarily affect everyone in the Church if the liturgy of the Roman Rite is to survive. the Extraordinary Form must have both these extra-ordinary canonical structures and the freedom to operate within the regular canonical structures because Benedict wants it to impact every single Catholic; Benedict does not want it relegated to a personal preference, he wants it as a shining example of things to be emulated in the ordinary form... and for that purpose there must be the extraordinary parishes as part of the renewal plan he has.

and I am saying nothing more dramatic than ways it has been described by Rome itself: a widespread liturgical crisis of drastic proportions exists in the novus ordo today.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1794768' date='Mar 1 2009, 10:35 PM']Pictures of [url="http://www.atonementonline.com/tour.php"][u]Our Lady of the Atonement Church[/u][/url][/quote]

Me and my family attended this same parish for about a year or two, 12ish years ago. Had some problems with the pastor (won't go into that here) and then left for the Marionite Rite parish which was probably my favorite church that I attended before becoming sede.

Edited March 18, 2009 by goldenchild17

[elizabeth09]

SOme people will leave because they dislike the pastor or priest that did the mass.

















Nothen here.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1810028' date='Mar 17 2009, 04:06 PM']it is not a few isolated novus ordo parishes that are in crisis, it is all of them;[/quote]

i didn't know that was the case.