A critique of the old Latin Mass...

In the last posting I said I was offended by those who foster a return to the old Latin Mass. Over forty people responded, all at around the same time of day. A couple of comments said that I was rude, apparently because I said I was offended by people who foster the old Latin Mass. Let me explain further.

I am a fierce Vatican II loyalist. I feel resentment when people try to backtrack on what the Council was trying to do. Many people feel the pope is backtracking in some ways, as well as some bishops and priests. When this happens, I’m offended. When the bishops of the world assembled in 1962, they saw that the rite of the Mass (the old Latin Mass, basically from 1570) was deficient in a number of ways. What particularly concerned the bishops was that the rite of Mass needed to provide more opportunities for full, active and conscious participation. Thus they restored participatory elements that had disappeared from the liturgy over the course of past centuries. They restored the possibility of the vernacular, expanded the use of scripture, especially the Old Testament scriptures, they restored the homily to replace the sermon. They restored the prayers of the faithful, the procession with the gifts, the ancient sign of peace, and the option to receive Communion from the cup. Lay ministries were restored. The bishops (the magisterium) taught that our liturgical rites should be “short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension and as a rule not require much explanation.” The bishops taught that the fuller participation that these changes would bring to the Mass was “the aim to be considered before ll else” when reforming or promoting the liturgy.  

 

I’m offended when people don’t take these teachings of the Council seriously. For example, some people attempt to convince others that the requirements for “full and active participation” are met when people follow along closely in their missals and contemplate deeply during periods of silence. If this is all that is required of full participation, then why didn’t the world’s bishops know this? Why did they provide all the changes in the rite, and almost unanimously approve the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy? 

“Active engagement” and “full participation” in any human ritual requires more than reading along and contemplating. Imagine claiming to participate fully in the ritual of a Thanksgiving dinner by reading a script and not joining in the table dialogue. The Last Supper, the template for our Christian Eucharist, included full participation; shared conversation in an intelligible language, shared rituals of bread and cup, footwashing, communal singing.

The old Latin Mass is a museum piece. Returning to it deliberately surrenders the fundamental principles of liturgy that the Council Fathers sought to articulate and preserve. It’s a step backwards, and most Catholics, I suspect, find it unfortunate and discouraging. Some say, “But the pope himself made this decision.” True, but popes make mistakes, and this was one. Someone else mentioned the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I think any rite that does not provide full, conscious and active participation is a candidate for overhauling, following the principles outlined by the bishops’ Vatican II magisterial teaching.

Others will make the argument that the old Latin Mass assures reverence and holiness, in contrast to the Vatican II Mass of guitars and balloons. I have little patience with this argument. The vast majority of parish liturgies are done reverently and devoutly (see, for example, the daily Mass on EWTN). The other side of the coin: I have witnessed many Latin Masses that were poorly celebrated, poorly preached, even shortened down to fifteen minutes. Celebrating a rite in an unintelligible language with lots of repetitions and baroque vestments does not guarantee anything.

Comments

[Gil]

Mea Cuplea, but you don't in any respect represent my views as a Roman Catholic. In my view, you don't represent at all anything Catholic, but Protestant. Maybe you might resign and become a pentistocal? Stomping a 2,000 year old jewel is nonsense. May God bless amd have mercy us both and and especially the Church founded by Jesus bringing a return to reason, true religion, and to our ancient Holy Roman Catholic Church.

[Augustinus]

Indeed, Gil!

Fr. Larson is Protestant in deed.

I heard a homily last year at Our Lady of Sorrows where he was vindicating Luther and his 39 Articles. It was one of the most heresy laiden homilies I had ever heard from a Catholic Priest.

It's the only time I have ever tore up my Mass Offering. I refuse to financially support this parish while he leads the flock astray.

BTW, the pun above was not intended. His deeds do show quite clearly he is really - theologically speaking - a Protestant!

With all due respect, sincerely in Christ.

[Barbarossa]

Fr. Larson,

Paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium states: "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

Paragraph 116: "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."

I too am a Vatican II loyalist. I am loyal to what the documents of Vatican II actually say, and not to some amorphous Spirit that priest of your generation invoke whenever the text disagrees with their whims. The "Spirit of Vatican II" is a demon that the next generation of good, holy, orthodox priests will exorcise once and for all.

[J.L.]

Vindicating Luther? I did mention that not all of Luther's 95 theses were wrong (41 were condemned as errors). Some of his ideas for reform were on target, as they would be today. This is hardly vindication. Also, I based my comments about Luther on a general audience talk by Pope John Paul II years ago, on the topic of ecumenism.... As for preserving Latin, I am unaware that the Church every said that there must be Masses celebrated in Latin. It is always an option. And the current liturgy of Vatican II may be celebrated in Latin. This ancient language, along with chant, can be preserved in many ways.

[Don M]

A museum piece it is. And it is for those who harken back to needing to fulfill an obligation. For those who wish to live their Catholic life in the world, participating in the celebration of the Eucharist certianly makes more sense, though more difficult. You brought forth some good discussion. Keep it up, Jan. Good thoughts.

Don M

[Barbarossa]

That "museum piece" nourished the spiritual lives of thousands of saints and martyrs. Since the Novus Ordo debuted in 1969, we've seen catastrophic declines in Mass attendance, widespread dissent and rebellion against the popes and the Magisterium, appalling liturgical abuses and experimentation, and the emptying out of seminaries and religious convents. By their fruits ye shall know them.

Young people are desperately seeking the fullness of our faith and all of its traditions. I know it probably pains you Father, but go to a parish that offers the TLM on Sunday and pay close attention to the average age of the congregation. They are the future of the Church.

[Dunstan]

All the people who attend the TLM Masses I've been too are pushing 60. Once a good English Novus Ordo Mass is developed, and it will be in the next few years, the TLM will largely be history as will Pope Benedict. I'd like to see some of the latin musical heritage protected and used, but the all latin mass is deader than a doornail, but traditionalists don't realize the patient is dying and will not be resusitated. The TLM is destined to be an exhibit in the Victoria and Albert Museum's section devoted to quaint medievalia.

The decline in Mass attendance has been going long before Vatican II.
The Gallup organization did a poll for the US bishops in 1967, and to the bishops' shock and dismay, they discovered over 42% of US Catholics not only did not attend Mass regularly (this is the TLM mind you), they rejected transubstantiation as well.
Catholic Calvinism is a reality people. Learn to live with it.

[Don M]

Sorry, Barbarossa,those seeking the fullness of our faith and all its traditions by limiting themselves to the latin mass would be severely restricting themselves to a very narrow tradition that ignores most of the richness of the our faith. Certainly, the latin mass is a comfortable and easy way to be a Catholic. And since many of us grew up with it, it just feels good at times. That certainly doesn't make it best. And as Jan points out, the bishops as a body wanted more for us. Please let's not restrict God, as if we can.

Don M

[Jerald Franklin Archer]

The great point that should be considered is that we have a choice. The Traditional Latin Mass will soon be available in many parishes. It will remain unchanged. The New Mass will continue on with it's improvements, be changed again and again, in the future, God willing. I look at it scientifically, as it is obvious that if something works, it stays. V2 had it's good points and bad points, so we can only use those with are good and improve upon them. The Holy Sacrifice of Mass is a SACRIFICE, not a social get together that glorifies the person, not God. This point is the most obvious between the differences of the Traditional Latin and the Novus Ordo Masses. The Latin Mass is not that difficult, as it is understandable to even the most average of intelligences.It requires the one thing that is lacking with many participants of the New Mass-- concentrated attention. My parish is filled every Sunday and continues so. We have it every day. I pray it will be the standard of the future, God willing.

[Jane]

Vatican II said this in it's Constitution Dei Verbum:
"Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."

Vatican II showed that traditions should be kept with loyalty! Oh yah!