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
I don't think so. I used to go to the Lithuanian Novus Ordo (when I lived near that chapel), and it wasn't the same at all.
It's a curiosity of the Anglo world -- the UK, Canada/USA, and Australia/NZ -- that we're islands or near-islands. We don't get much exposure to other languages, and somehow get the notion that everybody's like this. But they're not. Dave, most people on this earth are competent in more than one language. This is a long way of saying that there's nothing unnatural or even unusual about expecting cradle Catholics to be perfectly comfortable and at home with Latin as a second language. I've known plenty of people raised with two languages from birth; the idea that only one of those languages is The Mother Tongue and the other something alien and "unknown" would strike them as preposterous. It's another aspect of the cultural amnesia I mentioned yesterday, that Catholics don't remember the recent past, in which at least a nodding familiarity with Latin could be taken for granted in every churchgoing Catholic with a high school diploma. In those days, Latin was unknown chiefly to those who didn't want to know it.
It is difficult to answer. I honestly don't think I can divorce myself of my own experience to try to imagine such a scenario in a disinterested manner.
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.
True. But had I attended a Tridnetine Rite Mass, through growing up -- all things being equal (i.e., same disposition of my parents, same disposition of the parish itself, CCD program, etc.) - the question is would the results have been different? Or even, would there have been a greater chance of me NOT falling away? I'm not sure if this is a question that can be answered, because as you point out, most Tridentine Rite parishes are already composed of families who are devout, and if the kids are not, then their parents at least are. It's sort of like the statistic bandied about that couples who live together before marriage are many times more likely to get divorced than couples who wait to move in together until after their married -- the people who are living together are probably not (on average) Christian, and so they probably don't have the same negative opinion about divorce.
I think the real test would be to find a Tridentine Rite parish that had some liberal priest in charge, a leftover, burnt-out hippie in charge of music, and Sister Feminazi in charge of the CCD program --- and then see how the average parishioner's faith was shaped. Would the Tridentine Rite Mass ensure, despite the environmental disadvantages, proper catechetics
That's a valid point. And I think it's one that traditionalists (in the non-pejorative sense -- those who favor the Tridentine Mass) would use to argue that Mass *should* be said in Latin, because we are ultimately physical beings, and the auricular is one of our senses. The Catholic faith appeals to us on both levels -- the physical and the spiritual -- and so our worship should be cognizant of that. Therefore, our manner should be different when in the physical presence of God, our songs should be different, our language should be different -- different meaning *special* -- something reserved for God. Something that, in its form and function, resembles and embodies the "other worldliness" that is part and parcel of the Catholic faith.
I would say that using Latin for the Mass (whether NO or Tridentine) is a compelling argument. I'm not sure though -- even though I personally prefer it -- that you could likewise argue that either the NO or the Tridentine rite (aside from the language) is better at conveying a sense of "otherworldliness."
I'm not sure how you could argue one way or the other. Certainly, I think we would both agree that kids joining hands around the altar table, with folk "kumbaya" music playing, accompanied by a full drum kit and bass player dressed in baggy jeans and an unbuttoned torn flannel shirt, parishioners dressed in T-shirts and flip-flops, and a Church filled with modern "interpretation" art depicting the stations of the Cross and the Crucifix --- this sort of scene would certainly not convey that sense of "otherwordliness." The question is -- are Tridentine Rite parishes impervious to this kind of practice? I guess it would take a pre-Vatican II person to offer anecdotal evidence, but it would be interesting to hear whether, prior to Vatican II, when everyone was still saying the same Mass, in the same language, throughout the entire world --- were there parishes that allowed the "world" to seep in, at the expense of holiness, sanctity and "otherworldliness".