From Reuters:
From Reuters: The Vatican issued an "instruction" to bishops as a follow-up to a 2007 papal decree authorizing the wider adoption of the Latin Mass, which was in universal use before the 1962-1965 Vatican Council introduced masses in local languages. The re-instatement of the Latin mass was one of the demands of ultra-traditionalists whose leaders were excommunicated in 1988, prompting the first schism in modern times. The pope, in a nod the traditionalists, satisfied many of them in 2007 when he allowed a wider use of the Latin mass, in which the priest faced east with his back to the faithful for most of the service. But some bishops around the world said privately it was a headache because of the scarcity of priests trained in Latin, and logistical problems inserting Latin mass in their schedule. The five-page instruction from the Vatican's doctrinal department, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, made it clear that the pope wants bishops to follow his orders. "It is the task of the Diocesan bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect for the 'forma extraordinaria'," the instruction said, using a Latin term for the old liturgy. While couched in polite, institutional language, the instruction said local parishes had to insert a Latin mass into their liturgical schedules if tradionalist faithful wanted it. It also said pastors of parishes should show "a spirit of generous welcome" to whose who wanted the old mass and had to "permit such a celebration." --Reuters
The Vatican's Instruction Universae Ecclesiae is here. A summary from Vatican radio is here. And commentary from Damien Thompson and Fr. Z. Reuters also has a mini-history of the Latin reforms. Those who expected this issue to fade away, like Douglas MacArthur said of old soldiers, are underestimating Pope Benedict XVI, the Curial officials who are firmly behind this Latinward trend and the vigorous and well-organized support among some of the faithful for the "Extraordinary Form." On the other hand, as a sign of continuing discomfort with the "new" Latin Mass, the archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, told journalists, according to the Catholic Herald, that it was "unlikely" that seminaries in England and Wales would teach the Extraordinary Form since there was no need.
God love our Holy Father.
SanctaMissa.org
It provides info and tutorials etc re Latin Mass.
JR-I attend the National Shrine in DC, where more and more Latin is being introduced. What I find fascinating is the extent to which, seemingly very simple folks, are able to participate, and do so, with joy and vigor. I don't think people know how hungry they are for reverent worship, until it is made available. We are simply starved for the beauty that the Latin Mass affords. If we were made to worship Him, and we are, stands to reason that we should we to do so, with as much reverence and beauty as humanly possible. I am simply giddy with happiness.
Why are you commenting on this blog, then?
I would think that you want to communicate.
In the spirit of Jesus and his Church, I would encouage the use of books, the internet, multiple languages (inluding *gasp* Latin), both forms of the Latin rite, and other rites. Jesus can be accessible in simple form and in complex artistic and technological foms.
Isn't it wonderful that we have such a universal (catholic) Church?
Pure rubbish.
And calling people pharisees is basically the Christian equivalent of fulfilling Godwin's Rule.
- lower church attendance
- homosexual infiltration of the priesthood pushing a liberal agenda
- A shorage of (heterosexual) priests
- a spike in priestly child abuse
- widespread acceptance of abortion, even by Catholics
- a >50% divorce rate
- a >40% out-of-wedlock childbirth rate
- Catholic adoption agencies pushed out of states to pacify homosexuals
Of course, going back to the Latin mass does not cure these ills, but it is a first step in the right direction to return the Church to its historical unique status as a driver of conservative culture and traditional morality, and to reject its previous position of appeasement towards liberal forces.
I will be writing to my parish priest to request a Latin mass and I will bring my children to that mass, week after week.
I belong to a parish celebrating the ordinary form of the Roman Rite and that is the Mass I attend on the great majority of Sundays each year. But I do occasionally attend Mass in the extraordinary form and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I also think it is good for the whole Church that the Mass that martyrs like Edmund Campion died to preserve and that missionaries like Francis Xavier carried to the farthest corners of the globe is still part of the life of the Church.
Michael Brooks, you make the statement that many of today's of societal "ills" can be traced back to the Church "caving to modernist pressure" by offering the Mass in the vernacular as the Ordinary Form. Just as making the Extraordinary Form more available won't cure these ills, the Mass in the vernacular didn't cause them,
If there is a want and a need from Catholics in a parish to celebrate using the Extraordinary Form, why should it be kept from them? I normally celebrate the Ordinary Form, but was glad when the Tridentine was available (it recently ceased being celebrated at a neighboring parish). I would be open to requesting a Latin Mass at my parish if there were enough parishioners who wanted the same.
At our local parish one of the choirs is including something Latin in its hymns at least once a month and it adds an elegance to the Mass. And during Holy Week and Easter there was some Latin at every Mass.
I’ve shared this background so that my comments are not misunderstood and so I am not dismissed as a “Latin Mass” fanatic.
Ok, so what’s the big deal? If the People of God (even if it’s 40 people) want to participate in the Extraordinary Form, which was never abrogated, isn’t this an example of the “Vatican” listening to the voice of the Laity? If that’s the case (as I think it is), then everyone here should be rejoicing, why aren’t they?
However, if some people want it, then no problem as long as it's not forced on the congregation, and as long as it doesn't eliminate a mass that is in great demand, such as Vince noted in his parish. Returning to the Latin mass will please a tiny minority, but that minority is very vocal, and unfortunately Rome listens far more closely to them than to the vast majority of Catholics because they mirror the men in Rome. John Paul II started the church on the road back, slowly dismantling Vatican II, and soon the losses began to mount. As the conservative agenda of John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger became more and more obvious, the losses accelerated, especially in Europe and the Americas (north and south). The vast majority of Catholics live in the 21st century and have no desire to return to the days of Trent, or even of Pius IX and Pius X.
I don't understand how adding one Latin Mass to the 5 or 6 in the OF each weekend is having the Latin "forced" on you. Don't go to the Latin Mass - go to one of the other 6 your parish offers. Problem solved.
I want to say that at me age, nearing 80, I can foresee the Mass returning to clerical Latin and denying the faithfull the communion and participation of the faithful in the vernacular language at the table of the Lord,
It pains me greatly but I'l join the large group of Catholics absent from the Catholic sacramental nourishing. If a smaller and Latin church is the future, it will not be mine.
I trust in God's love: He will help me and others feeling the same way, to follow Him.
I will not return to the church of my childhood. Mass was like attending a service in a foreign country. Pastoral care of the congregation was not part of the Eucharist. We were there because it was a mortal sin not to. I'm not afraid any longer after a lifetime of service to God in the world. Christ died for me and for "all".
Jesus talked in the language of the people he taught and served.
Brush up your Latin
Start using it now.
Brush up your Latin
And the people you will wow.
Just declaim a few lines from Isaiah
And in Latin the meaning will slay ya.
If in English your people ignore ya
Switch to Latin and they’ll all adore ya.
And to let them all know that you’ve heard ‘em
Just speak Latin again ad absurdum!
Brush up your Latin
And they’ll all kow-tow.
And they'll all kow-tow!
Do you believe that Jesus spoke Latin?
You seem to be answering my question by asking another question.
Kind of like having a Spanish language Novus Ordo Mass in addition to an English Novus Ordo Mass? Two camps?
"Do you believe that Jesus spoke Latin?"
Ann, do you believe that Jesus spoke English?
I'm not sure why you are asking this question.
Another not serious question, intended to provoke rather than to invite honest discussion. But, OK, if that's what you want to do, I'll respond.
As you well know, Jesus spoke in the language of his community - Aramaic. When the mass was originally said in Latin, it was the vernacular - it was the language of the whole community. It is not the language of any community any more, anywhere. I have no problem if some people want to go to the TM in Latin. Just don't force it down everyone elss'e throats. Right now that is not happening, so no problem.
Posts like this do not divide us; they call attention to that which divided us in the first place. We are a divided Church. I suspect that these returns to traditional rites are predecessors to a return to an overall more traditional Church, and will do what should have happened instead of V-2: spawn the formation of yet another Protestant sect. This will be the smaller church that Benedict speaks of.
You are right. The church is well on the way to being ''smaller'', although probably no ''purer.'' And you all are welcome to it. The rest of those hanging on by their fingernails will finally give up, maybe join the Protestants of various denominations, or, perhaps simply join those who are ''spiritual but not religious.''
Perhaps when that finally happens, everyone will be happier, the civil war in the church will be over. The ''true believers'' will be a small, self-satisified ''in-crowd'', content with one another, and forgetting all about being Christ in the world. That may not be what Christ wanted of his followers, but that's the way it's headed. The RCC has already lost most of its previous influence in the world, including in such previous ''strongholds'' of Catholicism as Ireland and Spain, and is looked at by most people in much the same way as the British royal family - an interesting and colorful relic - great fun and good shows. The hierarchy strut around in their finery, issuing various harsh proclamations, excommunicating people, discipline here and displine there, and most people yawn and turn to the next page of the news.
But those who are determined to destroy the church in the modern world will have their day, sitting in the few churches and parishes that are still open, enjoying their Latin masses - totally irrelevant as far as bringing Jesus's message to the world. The world needs a prophetic voice - perhaps the Buddhists will supply it. Civilizations rise and fall, as do religions.
There has to be a middle ground, however... If a large portion of a parish WANTS to have a Latin Rite Mass, then that would be up to their Parish Council and Pastorial staff to decide. I really don't think that this is a mandate that all Masses have to be in Latin. I don't think that it will seperate the local community any more that it is now. The same people all go to either 7:00 AM, 9:30 AM or Noon Mass - each their own little community within the greater Parish...this would be no different.
Peace - JMS
What about the more serious question, that having different language Masses in the same parish is no more or no less divisive than having a Novus Ordo and an EF Mass at the same parish? Is the difference between the rituals (in addition to the language) of more consequence in terms of divisiveness than the simple language difference between Spanish and English?
As for the "forcing Latin down our throats" issue (which you graciously concede is not being forced at this time), do you not agree that the original introduction of the Novus Ordo, which in the USA at least, was done along with the direct and complete suppression of the Latin Mass, was in some sense cramming the vernacular down the throats of an unwilling or at least uncomprehending church?
There also seems to be an aspect of seeking exalted language when worshipping God rather than our everyday vernacular. For some, that is the Latin of the older form. Others will enjoy the new translation of the Novus Ordo, which brings the original Latin of the Novus Ordo into a more transcendent form than we have in the current translation.
The official language of the Church is Latin, and I don’t have a problem with that. Yes, hearing the Mass in the vernacular is great but I don’t think that it is impossible for the majority of people to learn the vocabulary of the Church. After all, if one wants to become a doctor, or artist, or whatever, they have to learn the vocabulary of the industry.
Michael – I am not sure if the problem is Modernism per se as much as that people willingly stopped trying to have the mind of Christ – to paraphrase St. Paul. In other words, we have imbibed a “secularism” and consider that worldview to be the only valid worldview. Do I think that’s bad? Not necessarily because it gives us such a familiarity with it that if we are attentive we will easily recognize the newness of Christ. Should we adopt an “us” against “them” position? I emphatically say NO!
As anyone who reads comments here regularly knows, Anne and I do not see eye-to-eye on a lot of things but she has a point, a point worth listening to. Yes, we have a civil war, but I don’t see that as a problem. In fact, as long as the Church is full of sinners affected by concupiscence this will always be the case. So she is right when she says the Church will not be purer and if we make that our goal we are doomed, in my opinion. A few posts back she posted a video, which I watched. Sure it had an agenda, sure it was biased, but it was funny and it did highlight a truth. In fact, her suggestion to Brett look at it from a woman’s point of view was intriguing. (On the other hand, if I was the only man among an huge group of women I’d feel the same way that she says she feels among a huge group of men so I don’t think that the “sexism” charge works as well as she thinks – but that’s an aside).
I know that many people say, “let’s get rid of the heretics, let’s get rid of the Modernists” – OK, but the only two impeccable people I know are Our Lord and Our Lady. The rest of us, including me, probably have some heretical view about something and we might not even be aware of it. So, as shocking as it may seem to some, I want them to stay! Christ, through Baptism, made them my brothers and sisters, so they are my family. Should I throw them out because they don’t agree with me? What stupidity! If Christ doesn’t throw them out, if Christ respects their freedom to the point of letting them – and me – betray Him, then how could I dare to say “get lost.” We will be poorer without them and they will be poorer without us. This is a mosaic and each stone is vital. Sure, we should correct each other, sure we should remove them if they are teaching error, etc.
I work with young people and adults as a catechist and I can tell you that for many people the Faith is irrelevant because we present it in a way that makes it irrelevant. Our Faith is Beautiful, our Faith is Joyful, do we show that? I know I often don’t and that a shame! But I also know that when I get out of the way and let Christ’s magnetizing beauty shine through, that attracts people, that makes people listen. That's why I agree with Anne that silence is vital!
I’ll stop ranting now and simply end with this quote from Pope Benedict XVI: “In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1) – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.”
…Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love?
I apologize if I've ofended anyone but sometimes I get fed up with all the fighting we engage in and the role I play in that fight.
However BVXI and Curia is still looking over the Alps at those SSPX dissenters to see if they will climb back to Rome. .I also imagine the sad pastors getting visits and letters as threatened on this thread, demanding Latin Mass and getting played the biblical game 'Would you deny Latin Mass if we had only thirty? Would you deny if we had only twenty.. 'how about just you and me?" 'you don't know Latin? well get busy studying or I will tell C. Levada.'.
Sacrosanctum concilium:
"36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."
The vernacular was authoirized on an exception basis in the next paragraph:
"2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."
The use of Latin is in no way a "repeal" of Vatican II. It is in complete conformance with Vatican II.
I would like to add that in my opinion B16 has inadvertently created a sort of Anglican church. We now have the ''High Church'' (Extraordinary) and the ''Low Church'' (Ordinary) and the two groups will continue to drift apart. A Church divided is very sad indeed. History will hold B16 accountable, Benedict the ''divider''? (Depending on which side you fall on).
If the church wanted to make the latin mass available (which it should if there is a demand) then the Vatican should have created a separate church/rite to add to our other 22 rites that make up the Latin Rite or a special papal Ord. as the Anglican converts have received.
They could have been called the Old Latin Roman Catholic Church and had all latin masses, their own churches, seminaries and training, full privileges, and all the magna cappas they want, etc. That way there would be no confusion in the same way we know there is a separate and equal Roman Catholic Church and Maronite Catholic Church etc. Then each Roman Catholic can decide which church they wish to attend.
But to have both in the same parish, just asking for confusion and infighting. If you don't believe me then just read the previous comments.
Maybe we are all taking part in this when we attack one another. I know I do and I am sorry for it.
Let us pray together, okay?
Blessings.
Benedict's vision of church is the church of the big cities which is why I think the Vatican utterly failed to understand the church of Bishop Morris of Toowoomba AU. In Toowoomba many parishes will eventually go their own way because there will be no other choice.
Their 'dissent' will have been forced on them by a Vatican that puts it's need to protect it's understanding of priesthood ahead of Jesus' great commission. Eventually Catholicism will have to decide if it's identity is in Christ or in it's rubrics and cultic priesthood. If the choice is for Christ, the priesthood will change to reflect the need. If the choice is for the cultic priesthood, only the larger population areas will actually have a sacramental church.
Well, it seems to be happening again, in that the Holy Spirit having informed the Vatican II Council Fathers of what he wanted through their decisions, is changing his mind again evident in the apparent revisionist tendencies and decisions mandated into place by Church leadership. This I think through a kind of Maniple mentality that‘s slowly taking over, I mean a hankering for the way things once were, before Vatican II, a yearning for the good old Tridentine days with Latin liturgies. I remember those days very well, when praying at Mass was like talking to an unknown God in a foreign tongue! The vernacular is so much more meaningful! And so much more of the past is reasserting itself.
Or maybe, on second thought, God may not be changing his mind at all, but simply letting the Church know exactly what were the authentic plans of the Deity, relative to the decisions of the Fathers of Vatican II. Lord, if that’s what you really want, that’s fine, but how about forgetting about those waist-length lace albs - they look so girly and stay with the more masculine linen vestments, everything plain and simple.
Of course aesthetics are important in worship. Only an intellectual could be so stupid as to believe they aren't. People are drawn to beauty-beautiful architecture, beautiful music, beautiful liturgy. The Church used to know this, and is beginning to learn it again. Benedict XVI's Mass at Westminster Cathedral on his recent trip to England should be the model. It was the Mass of Paul VI, but drawing freely from the riches developed under the Mass of Pius V, and it was magnificent.
I don't know what kind of Latin masses you have attended. But, those that are around now are most likely (from what I've heard) nothing at all like those that were standard when all masses were the Latin TM. And as far as languages are concerned, spoken Latin is not especially ''beautiful'' (if you want to put mass in a beautiful language, maybe choose French or Italian). It's hard to learn too, because, like German, you not only have to learn conjugations, you have to learn all the declensions too and the sentence structure is very different from English. It's a dead language with little to commend it. I studied it for four years and won awards in it, and look back and wonder why on earth I wasted so much effort on it
I suspect that since now they are not the everyday mass, Latin masses are presented in the ''high'' form. Growing up Latin, except for a big feast day, we never heard chant, we seldom heard any decent music at all. Mass was hurried, priest's back to the congregation, they mumbled, we read our missals finishing long before the priest, and occasionally said a word or two. The grossest thing of all was having to stick out our tongues for communion, especially given that this was a common insult among kids. So our ugly, dirty tongues sticking out, the priest tries deperately not to touch them, often missing. Yuck. I cannot even imagine why people want to return to the indignity of that practice (nor do I imagine many priests would look forward to being treated by the sight of dirty tongues sticking out by the thousands on Sunday). The priest couldn't be heard. The kids looked around for their friends and made high signs, many older people simply dozed, and the old ladies usually said the rosary. There was absolutely nothing inspiriting about any of it. The music was mostly blah (have you ever heard some of our awful hymns of those days - it was NOT gregorian chant, it was ''Oh, Mary, we crown thee with blaaaahhhssoms today'' and other pap (Immaculate Mary was another hymn best left in the dustbins of history) that hurt the ears. I'll take the St. Louis Jesuits any day instead of the junk we used to endure. The congregation was an audience, not participants, and they didn't even get to watch the main ''actor's'' face. You have no idea how dreadful it all was. As long as the Latin mass stays ''not'' what most masses are, the things you find attractive about it (the aesthetics) may endure. You all seem to look at it as performance rather than community. But you know, you can buy CDs of beautiful classic miassas, sung by people who can actually sing them and not have to endure what an average parish choir does to them. A few simple Latin chants - Sanctus or Agnus Dei for example, aren't beyond the average parish choir, so maybe get your Latin fix that way. A lot better than suffering through the entire mass in mumbled or poorly sung Latin.
If it' ever the norm again (God forbid) rather than a matter of choice, you may look back fondly at today's NO and ask yourselves What did we do?
I live in a suburban area on the West Coast and am fortunate that my parish offers the Holy Mass on Sundays in English, Spanish, Vietnamese and Latin. The pastor has encouraged the use of Latin music as a unifying element of our Tri-lingual (English, Spanish and Vietnamese) liturgy at the Easter Vigil and other high Holy Days as well as during some weekday Masses. I do not believe that offering one Mass in the EF every Sunday has divided our parish but rather included people in our community who had been tempted to join the SSPX. We have seen an increase in involvement of the laity at all levels since our parish opened its doors to a multi-cultural and multi-lingual community.
I pray that an increase in vocations to the priesthood and religious life will open such opportunities to all communities.
From what I understand the Latin Mass now is very similar to what was available in the 1960's. There are some small minor differences.
Also both the current Mass and the Latin Mass are very similar in structure with some obvious prayer differences. There are more options in the modern Mass but the structure is very similar. The few times I have attended a Latin Mass recently I have not been lost at what is going on. You have a missal or a pamphlet with the translations and can follow along. Someone who knows more might point out the differences.
And some of the Latin hymns are absolutely beautiful and when translated into English become quite mundane. Panis Angelicus, Ave Maria, Adeste Fideles, O salutaris Hostia, Salvae Regina, Tantum ergo, various forms of the Gloria are a few that come to mind. A few years ago I was in Florence for Pentecost and the Mass was obviously in Italian and celebrated by two Cardinals. The music was also beautiful and might have been due to the Italian.
Of course, there are important differences among these forms.
Of course, there are important differences among these forms.''
I have not heard anyone asking for the Novus Ordo in Latin but I certainly have not heard all what people want. It sounds like a strange request. Are there really important differences between them(Tridentine and Novus Ordo)? The kiss of peace has been added as have the prayers of the faithful and some of the Mass has been simplified or made shorter. A big improvement has been the expansion of the readings including a lot of Old Testament. Some things have been added as the entrance is more elaborate as well as the procession from the altar at the end.
In the Latin Masses which is at an odd time at a neighboring parish the priest just enters and leaves the altar from/to the sacristy. In the Latin mass there sometimes is almost no singing from a choir and everything is very quiet other than the altar server responding to the priest as he occasionaly turns around and addresses the congregation. Then there are other times when there is chanting and singing all throught the Mass as the choir is an actual participant in the Mass as opposed to an occasional backdrop to different parts of the Mass. I learned to count the number of candles lit to know what to expect in terms of elaborateness but in the last year have been to the Latin Mass only about two times. I also noted that almost no one comes in late as in the regular Mass which has only about half the people there at the start.
Occasionally the choir and the priest at our parish will sing the Agnus Dei at Communion and there is more than a token inclusion of Latin during Holy Week. I find this a plus and it adds to the presentation without taking anything away. Why anyone would be against the Tridentine Mass is beyond me. I doubt there is any threat against the Mass in the vernacular and if people are moved spiritually by it, the better.