I am only 30 years old and have never been to an all Latin Mass.  I am extremely pleased to see that it will be celebrated more throughout the world.  I have relied on the testimony of my father and his family about the beauty of the mass.  I have listened to prayers in Latin, and while I do not understand them, I love them.  The beauty of the language is unmatched. 

How can any Catholic have qualms about it?  It still is the official language of the Universal Church (Roman Catholic Church).  The English mass is not being abolished.  People need to get a grip.  I get tired of Catholic lay people trying to determine how the faith should be taught/preached.  We are lay people for a reason....to follow.  If God wanted you to lead his only church, he would have called you to be a priest, deacon, bishop, etc...  Let the men run it and pray for them.  Life is too short to get hung up on things.  As far as I know, the Pope has not changed any doctrine but discipline (and disciplines can be changed). 

 If you don't like it, there are thousands of Protestant denominational churches...pick one.  The key to humility is obedience.  Obedience to the faith handed down to us, obedience to God's word.  So many people in todays world do not want to be obedient.  They want to make their own rules, their own faith.  Follow God and his shepherds and you can never get lost.  NEVER  

Thankful Catholic for Pope Benedict XVI and JP II

Robert Roetting

mass in any language is fine.

Dear Sir:

Does this actually seem logical to you?

The statement actually is logical, at least in the sense of how human beings actually learn new languages. Learning the particulars (e.g. phonics and memorizing definitions and translations and so forth) is absolutely important if one is ever to hope to learn a new language. But these particulars, while necessary, are absolutely insufficient to the task. If this approach is not immersed in the context of living, so to speak, in the target language, whatever great body of knowledge one possesses about a language does not translate (forgive the pun) to actually knowing the language. The knowledge must be mastered, of course, but this knowledge can only be internalized if one suffers through the difficulty of engaging others in the target language without necessarily understanding every detail. In this sense, language acquisition itself might be said to function in an illogical manner: once a few basics are understood, general understanding precedes detailed understanding.

I suspect Latin in the liturgy works in exactly the same way. Though many who love it do not understand perfectly (or at all) the phonology, syntax or general semantics of Latin, the particular understanding they bring with them to the Latin liturgy is embedded in the liturgy itself. In other words it is exactly the sort of contextual understanding that is such a tremendous aid in the acquisition of new languages. This allows for a thorough understanding of the Latin liturgy even if the language itself is unknown. This can (and often does) prompt deeper study into the phonology, syntax and semantics of Latin, which opens new doors for understanding subtleties which might have gone unnoticed before. But the initial experience is of the heart. And the mind is humbled because not only does it not understand every detail, it is also acutely aware of this lack of understanding. The result can be (and often is) a greater attentiveness to the Holy Sacrifice, if only because greater concentration is generally required to follow along.

bhokuto,

the article you linked started off wrong -- the motu is NOT a concession to tradtional Catholics.  To paraphrase Inside the Vatican magazine:

This is a serious misunderstanding of Benedict’s motivation. He is not concerned with Latin in itself. His respect for the "old Mass" is not a nostalgic cultural attachment to an ancient language. No, Benedict is concerned about the essence of the Mass itself.

And what is that essence? The right worship of God.

Certainly there is something to be said, in practical terms, for the use in a worldwide Church of a single liturgical language. And certainly, Latin is in some ways a good candidate to be that universal language. It was the language of the Empire under which Jesus lived and died and rose again. It has been used for almost 20 centuries. And translations could make the language "accessible" to all even today – and even in times to come.

But that is not the point. It isn’t about the Latin. (And the Latin Mass is, in any case, not the Latin Mass at all; that is a misnomer; it is, rather, "the Latin, Greek and Aramaic Mass," with "Kyrie eleison" in Greek and "Amen" and "Alleluia" in Aramaic.) And those who think Latin is at the core of this matter do not see fully what is at stake here.
And what is at stake is not a trivial matter.

If it were, the Pope wouldn’t have given two years of attention to it, or 25 years as a cardinal to stating repeatedly that there needs to be a "reform of the reform." Rather, it is an important matter. In fact, the most important one. For the Mass is celebrated for a single reason: for the Eucharist. And the Eucharist is one thing only: Christ with us. And Christ with us is the sole reason for the Church’s being.

So in dealing with the Mass, the Pope is not dealing with a marginal, a peripheral matter. The liturgy is not a "side issue." It is a central one; indeed, the central one. It is the little matter (and the Orthodox rightly stress this) of... the divinization of man! A reality which brought Padre Pio to tears.

So it is a very important matter. But what is the problem being addressed? It seems that Benedict, like many thoughtful believers, is concerned about the fact that the conciliar reform of the liturgy in the 1960s has in some way apparently failed to achieve its chief goal, which was to bring about an even greater reverence for the Eucharist, an even greater participation by the faithful in the mystery of Christ, an even deeper sacramental life within the Church. (That is what the conciliar fathers hoped to accomplish by approving a liturgical reform.)

And if there are in the "old Mass," as many argue, qualities too hastily discarded in the 1960s – a sense of tradition which made it a bit easier for some to turn their minds toward the eternal, a sense of solemnity which helped some to turn their hearts toward God – and if that loss can, even if only in part, be made good, if it can be remedied, by a motu proprio allowing the "old Mass" to be celebrated more widely, then it is a work of great import for the Pope to carry out.

If the "old Mass" is merely a "cultural" matter, the fad of a small elite, it will not flourish in any case, and the motu proprio will be a dead letter.

But if it is a matter of renewing the Church, and if the dignity and holiness of the old rite strikes the faithful in such a way as to re-kindle in them a sense of that devotion which prepares them to encounter Christ, then allowing the old Mass to be celebrated more widely will be an act worth preparing for with much toil and care.

PTR,

It is rather interesting.  The Jews will always feel this way until Christ returns. 

Sure raises some hairs don't it? 

But then again in the 2000 year history of the Church this is nothing new. It's always been the center of attacks from the enemy. 

Also there is a stipulation from the Pope about Latin Mass to be held.  The requirement is that enough people must attend. 

To me it doesn't matter one way or the other because the Center of the Mass is Christ in any language.  I got rid of the bias to certain language it really is a block to lean one way or the other.  What does it matter that we argue about one word? It serves no purpose.

Hi Tarheel,

In Latin Mass, the only english parts are the First and Second Readings, the Gospel, and of course the Homily.

The majority of the Latin Mass of course is in Latin, but the Kyrie is in Greek, and I think the Alleluia is in Aramaic.

It is important to note that there is a difference between "Latin Mass" and the Tridentine Mass. 

When people simply say "Latin Mass", they are usually referring to the New Order of Mass being offered in Latin.  For this style of Mass, the priest faces the congregation and the format follows the modern Mass we all know.

When people say "Tridentine Mass", they are referring to Mass in Latin, but also a very ancient form of Mass that, while it was revised in 1962 to remove language that was offensive to Jews, has a different format than the modern Mass we all know.  Rather than facing the congregation as if on a stage or presiding over a meal, the priest faces the crucifix as if he is one of the people, praying with and leading them in worship.  Another way some describe this is "the priest turns his back to the people".  In any case, the Tridentine Mass is a more formal Mass, for which the ancient ritual is followed.

Your local priest has never needed the bishop's permission to celebrate the New Order Mass in Latin.  In order to offer the Tridentine Mass however, until now anyway, your local priest had to apply for and receive permission from the local bishop. 

With his recent motu proprio, Pope Benedict removed the restriction on the Tridentine Mass, and so your local priest can offer that form of Mass at his discretion, without consulting the bishop.

I have not been around that long, but to me it seems that since Vatican II council, there must have been a big push to limit the use of Latin and maybe even a concerted effort to stamp it out, or at least make the average Catholic forget about Latin.  Also, there must have been a big push for informality, with casual dress becoming the norm, and along the line, the priests somehow were encouraged to personalize the Mass, winging it and adding their own stylistic and/or lingustic touches.  Add to this the more casual musical additions like the guitar/tamborine Mass, or the polka Mass, and choirs with amplifiers and microphones and lay people running all over the church during Mass, and you have what we routinely see today.  In our parish, so many people crowd onto the altar around communion time that there is hardly any space for the altar servers.

All this has led to the very thing pope Benedict is trying to remedy.  Indeed, the crowd that promotes all of the aforementioned is probably the same crowd that is now saying that Pope Benedict's motu proprio cannot easily be implemented.  Amazingly, they give their very success at stamping out Latin, along with various notions of formality and ritual during Mass as the very reasons it would be difficult to return to the more formal rite.

I am glad Pope Benedict is at least trying to do something about this.

You are welcome Tarheel, and you are correct that the Mass format often differs from place to place. 

It is interesting you mention the children.  Our priest does not have them on the altar for communion.  As I mentioned earlier, we have quite a few lay communion ministers up there instead.  Somewhere along the line our parish picked up the practice of escorting the children out of Mass during the readings, Gospel, and homily.  They go with one of the Catechism teachers and listen to Bible stories or the like.  Frankly I do not care for this practice, because again, it leads to people needlessly roaming around the building during Mass and moreover, the children are missing part of the Mass. 

I suppose it does make things quieter, but that is not the point.  Parents should be able to reign in their children for an hour in order to sit through Mass and pay attention to the priest (they will learn something) and in any case, kids old enough to walk around on their own don't usually make enough noise to bother anyone. 

In our parish the practice of taking the children out like this is limited to the english Mass.  They do not do this during spanish Mass.  Indeed, few Mexicans would go along with this strange practice. 

In general I think it best to let the children participate in the Mass from start to finish.  Of course if an individual child has a problem or is fussing too much, one of the parents should take him or her to the cry room or outside for a moment.  We do not send our boy out for Bible stories during Mass (he is only 2), but we sometimes do have to use the cry room or the front steps for a brief time out!

; )

We have Children Liturgy of the Word at our church for the same age group mentioned by PTR.  Personally I think this is good as it allows childen to have their own service geared towards them.  And not all kids will join in on this. 

As for the gathering around the altar it typically is the same age group.  Most times the children are very quiet and respectful but then again they are kids.

How or why this allowed here I cannot speak.  It was here when I joined this parish after moving to Mobile two years ago.

I would like to add here that for many years I attended mass at military chapels all across the world (retired USAF, 20 yrs-11 days- 9hours) and the Catholic chaplains were always somewhat restricted with what they could display in the church.  Our cross or crucifix was always on something movabale so it could be hidden from view during the Portestant servcies.  And we never could allow our service to run long.  At one base the Tabernacle was so well hidden that we used to ask new priests to find it.  At another the Tablernacle was on a rolling TV cart.  And the military had restrcitions on what the priests could say in there homilies and prayers.

RE: "I disagree that the feelings of the people should have a say. That is where the lay people get in trouble. When lay people start deciding doctrine is the day the devil himself sits on the throne. God chooses certain men to be our leaders. If he left everything up to the feelings of the people, this world would be in a worst state. "

If I am correct, that it is no more than a discipline, and despite any of the the Church's disciplines not being recommendations to be dismissed willy-nilly, I think it would be wise to consider carefully before running the risk of alienating anyone for the sake of a discipline.  Benedict appears to have a somewhat similar view since he is so ready to reverse the exclusionary position that led to the banning of the Tridentine Mass.  In fact I believe he said that the act was wrong to begin with.  More so would the risk be unjustifiable if the language is less than a discipline.  Have you seen anything in Benedict's statement that describes the language choice as a matter of discipline?  I can understand the matter of obedience to the Pope as one of discipline, regardless of whether it's about language or something else, but is there verification in a Vatican document calling it a discipline?  What is the history from the standpoint of the Church, as the language evolved in the first place.  The early Christians, those who were Jewish, probably did not say the prayers spoken at the Mass in Latin.  Were all of the language changes subjects of pronouncements?  I think the language in use is liable to be a persistent tradition rather than a discipline both in the Roman rite and in the other rites of the Church.  (I think this is so, because it is the particular words spoken, not the language used that is logically subject to oversight.  When missionaries, as they spread out from Palestine, adopted the language of the indigenous people to what degree were their translations of the prayers reviewed by Rome.  I feel certain that the review was a matter of ensuring the translation maintained orthodoxy and I am unaware of any stance taken against the concept of translations per se.  Unfortunately, I am not a student of the rubrics and do not know enough to argue from examples.  Both Greek and Chaldean, and I think there is even a small group that uses modern Aramaic, would need to be examined from a historical perspective. 

In any case I am comfortable with you and I not agreeing on this.

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic & generally inveterate amateur)

RE: my 12 July post of 8:28pm

Well, that's my thought for the moment, anyhow.

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic & generally inveterate amateur)

RE: "authority, obedience and doctrine vs. discipline"

Regarding the original topic, everyone needs to be aware that VII did not bar Latin from use in the Novus Ordo. 

It allowed the use of the vernacular, using approved texts & translations. 

What happened, as we all can see, is that the people's yearning for comprehension in their participation, has led to the nearly exclusive use of the vernaculars of communities. 

It also should be noted that the underground Church in China uses the Tridentine rite.  Is this also the case for the Patriotic Church (so-called)?  There may be more to B-XVI's letter than meets the eye (or ear).

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic & generally inveterate amateur)