Replies

Been reading through the exchange between you two and thought I'd weigh in with my opinion -- anecdotal observation is more like it, actually.

I grew up post-Vat II. Dad converted to marry Mom. Mom grew up practicing, but uninformed Catholic (she practiced, but didn't know much apologetics about her faith). Consequently, the extent of my parents' efforts to educate me on the faith was weekly Mass and Holy Days, and CCD. During Mass, my Dad would make sure I followed along in the Missal, paid attention, and didn't goof off. Never encouraged me to go to Confession, never talked to me about what was going on in the Mass, never discussed reasons behind the faith.

I never knew that the Eucharist was the literal body and blood of Christ. Oh sure, I heard the words of the priest, but I grew up thinking it was a metaphor, not to be taken literally. My favorite part of the Mass was the "kiss of peace" and later on (late 80s) when our church began to "hold hands" during the "our Father." Likewise, I thought Confession was optional (silent prayers for forgiveness from God were good enough, all the time), mortal sin was murder and cheating on your spouse (for those who aren't married, I thought everything EXCEPT actual intercourse was OK, as long as you were "in love"). Had no CLUE what infallibility was -- but if you had told me, I would have thought it was a silly notion, and that for anyone, going by the Bible alone was A-OK.

Couldn't figure out why my Mom was so worked up when I decided to leave the Church my senior year in high school. Looking back, I can see more clearly -- she KNEW there was something awful about willfully leaving the Faith, but she couldn't articulate WHY, because she herself was not well-versed enough in catechetics to be able to explain it to me.

Dabbled in born-again Christianity for a few years, midway thru college met some informed Catholics, and realized the error of what I was doing. Returned to the Church, got fanatical about learning apologetics and Church history. Stumbled across the term "Tridentine Mass", and discovered that the Mass I had known all my life, and the Mass I had assumed had been the one since apostolic times, was actually created (using the word "created" in a non-pejorative sense; I know it's valid and legitimate), and that actually the Tridentine Mass dated back to much farther back in Church history. So on a lark, I attended a Tridentine Rite Mass and loved it.

Continued to attend the Tridentine, knowing absolutely ZERO latin when I started. Just kept my nose in the missal the first few weeks, but after about 3 or 4 Masses, I was retaining more and more, so that I could look up...Worked hard at it, and after a month or 2, I was feeling much more "connected" to what was going on in the Mass than I ever did in the NO. It felt richer; more timeless; holier.

My opinion is that there is an inherent function of the Tridentine that preserves the notion of holiness and sanctity of the Eucharist that is not INHERENT in the NO. I agree w/ SD that the NO should be performed in a manner in which is intended, which translates that sense of holiness and sanctity to the congregation --- but I think that it is not INHERENT. It's obvious that it's not inherent in the NO (because if it was INHERENT, then all NO's would translate that sense of holiness and sanctity to the congregation -- but there are at least some -- many, in some people's opinion -- that do not). I would argue that it is inherent in the Tridentine -- but I guess if you were able to show an example of a Tridentine Rite mass where it wasn't true, that would blow that argument out of the water (i.e. - a clown Tridentine Rite Mass, or belly dancing through the Pater Noster).

I know that it's possible for the NO to convey the same sense as what I've experienced w/ the Tridentine. I haven't experienced it in the NO very many times, but I recall attending a Latin NO in Southern Calif. at a monastery a few times that fit the bill.

My opinion is that there is an inherent function of the Tridentine that preserves the notion of holiness and sanctity of the Eucharist that is not INHERENT in the NO.

I agree, and I think part of it is the Latin: the vernacular (the extremely vulgar vernacular) of the new Mass makes people think they understand it. (Like the old song, "Is that all there is?") Oh, they understand all the words, but the Mass as mystery is less accessible.

My opinion is that there is an inherent function of the Tridentine that preserves the notion of holiness and sanctity of the Eucharist that is not INHERENT in the NO. I agree w/ SD that the NO should be performed in a manner in which is intended, which translates that sense of holiness and sanctity to the congregation --- but I think that it is not INHERENT. It's obvious that it's not inherent in the NO (because if it was INHERENT, then all NO's would translate that sense of holiness and sanctity to the congregation -- but there are at least some -- many, in some people's opinion -- that do not). I would argue that it is inherent in the Tridentine -- but I guess if you were able to show an example of a Tridentine Rite mass where it wasn't true, that would blow that argument out of the water (i.e. - a clown Tridentine Rite Mass, or belly dancing through the Pater Noster).

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Obviously it is a great thing that a person who was deprived of learning the Faith had an opportunity to do so at a later age.

This may be difficult to answer, but do you imagine that given the same set of circumstances in your youth, that having Mass in Latin instead of English would have resulted in you learning the Faith?

As for something "inherent" in the old Mass, versus the new, I think we need to consider a few things. One, you had a true desire to learn the Faith, and to recognize the Mass of the ages.

Two, the Latin Mass community is self-selected and as such, is more particular. The reverance and holiness you find "inherent" in the Latin Mass may just be a sense of holiness in this particular community. I would reckon that if this Mass was offered everywhere, that you would find it done good and bad, with differing degrees of reverence among the congregations.

Three, not speaking Latin added a sense of awe and mystery that your own language could not. The Mass could have been said in Polish or Swahili to the same effect. The fact that it was in an unknown, special language made it special, holy, set apart. This is not to say that a liturgical language is a bad thing, just to recognize that there is a power in a special language.

SD

Been reading through the exchange between you two and thought I'd weigh in with my opinion -- anecdotal observation is more like it, actually.

Thanks for your inspiring story which parallels mine in several ways. Good insight on the sanctity inherent in the traditional Catholic Mass.

"My opinion is that there is an inherent function of the Tridentine that preserves the notion of holiness and sanctity of the Eucharist that is not INHERENT in the NO."

Perhaps it is the fact that the Saints said the same words in the same Latin. And, to God, all points in time are present...so all the Saints prayed/are praying together in unison. We are praying too but not in the same language (except for those who softly speak or think the latin responses.)