We'll Take "The Quiet Mass"

What makes Latin more reverent than English?

Pope John XXIII, the "father of the Council," decreed in 1962 that Latin must always remain the language of the Church. This was the same year that Vatican II opened. You can read the whole encyclical here:

The apostolic constitution Veterum Sapientia

Pope John pointed out:

Thus the "knowledge and use of this language," so intimately bound up with the Church's life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons." These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church's nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time . . of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non vernacular."
Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity" makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

And if those who feel an attachment to the old liturgy had stayed and applied their energies to the normative Mass, there would be FAR fewer abuses those very same folks routinely complain about

Been there and done that, twice, and to no avail. These so-called priests stack their liturgy committees with people who will agree with their abuses. The lone few who will speak out about abuses are quickly labelled as rebel rousers.

For some real fun, try contacting your bishop when you have a priest who refuses to say the N.O. properly. First off, you won't be able to get past the goons at the chancery office. You will need to threaten to hold a news conference on the cathedral steps. Amazingly, the bishop suddenly has the time to chat with you. When you get there, the bishop will be late for the meeting. He will announce that you have 10 minutes, eventhough you had requested 30 minutes. He will spend 5 minutes berating you for coming to him with your silly little problem. He will then listen to your complaints and at the end of the 10 minutes tell you that "you don't understand the finer points of theology," get up from his seat and leave the room. Your priest has now been vindicated and emboldened to create even more abuses.

So, no, there will not be far fewer abuses. There will be an escalation of the abuses.

And no, I am not a schismatic. I attend an FSSP Mass. I chose to fight from within.

Been there and done that, twice, and to no avail

<> Me too, and to no avail.I eventually moved, as did almost all of my former friends in our informal "Dan's House Thursday Night Study Group." We used to gather weekly for study, prayer, laughter and complaint time. We had a favorite priest join us several times - a Jesuit who received permission to quit them and join the FSSP. We also had mtgs. with out Local Ordinary. And, we were just as successful as were you.

I count myself over-abundantly Blessed. I am a member of a Parish with a brilliant priest who celebrates the normative Mass reverently. In the Sanctuary there is a 25 ft. Crucifix, beneath which is a handsome Gold Tabernacle. The Sermons of this priest ought to be taped and distributed so insightful and educational (and funny) are they. He has been so brillinat at times that folks have just spontaneously aplauded when he finished.

This Saturday, Sean Patrick O'Malley (Irish) will be installed as our New Bishop. He was formerly Bishop of Fall River, Mass. I left a dead Diocese in Maine and I moved to a Dead Diocese in Palm Beach County Florida about six years ago. Since I have been here, TWO Bishops have been forced to flee due to pederasty.

A few months ago, I went to an Ordination of a tiny little man who had made a miraculous journey to America from Central America. Duirng the trip, over one-half of his travelling companions had been killed. That Ordination seemed, to those of us in atendance, to have been Our Resurrection. It seemed to us that this little man with a permanent smile on his face, who had faced so much hardship and danger and opposition, had been chosen by God to lift all of us up. It is impossible to describe the atmosphere of that Ordination. One could physically and spiritually identify that as the day the stone had been rolled away and the day our Diocese emerged from the darkness.

And now, tomorrow, the post-resurrection continues when our new orthodox, holy and brilliant Bishop is installed. I only wish all the other Dioceses in the United States could tell similar stories.

IMO, the Resurrection of this Diocese is due solely to prayer and obedience and sacrifice. Thanks be to God.<>

You imply here that the Novus Ordo is responsible for the decline in faith?

That's a fair question, due to my phrasing. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was specifically addressing sinkspur's point about the popularity of the NO as a basis for rejecting the Tridentine.

You make many good points about Secular Humanism and Modernism with which I totally agree. Those are certainly the root causes of our current crisis. However, it seems to me that the NO is far more susceptible to corruption by these forces than the old Mass. Does that mean the Novus Ordo caused the corruption? No. However it opens a question about whether one of our best defenses has been replaced by something that isn't nearly as good at the job.

What makes Latin more reverent than English?

That's a disingenuous question. Surely you understand there are more differences between the old Mass and the NO than the language. In fact, according to Vatican II, the normative language of the Novus Ordo is supposed to remain Latin, though bishops throughout the world have ignored this.

However, in pursuit of an answer to your question, you might the past few centuries of Church apologetics addressing that topic. It has been a common accusation of Protestants against the Mass since the reformation. It is rather disheartening to hear Catholics attack their own traditions in the same terms.

That's a disingenuous question.

I didn't mean the question to be disingenuous! My apologies.

Surely you understand there are more differences between the old Mass and the NO than the language.

Of course!

In fact, according to Vatican II, the normative language of the Novus Ordo is supposed to remain Latin, though bishops throughout the world have ignored this.

That isn't quite what the council said. The use of vernacular could be of "great advantage". Let's see what the council said...

CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS

POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (Why at least some is NOT preserved is beyond me. This we are in agreement. I Think?)

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.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

...

54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

...

40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

Thank you. It was this specific statement:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

that I was referring to.

The overall tone of the SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM exerpts you cite points to a Mass in which there is some vernacular prayer amidst an overall Latin background. We might see occasional pockets of extended vernacular use, but those pockets should be able to cite what great necessity caused them to drop the Latin in favor of the vernacular.

Obviously, in the context of this document, the fact that Latin wasn't the spoken language of that parish would not be considered a reasonable standard for an extreme adoption of the vernacular. Yet this is the one I see cited almost continually by Catholics explaining the almost total loss of Latin in the Mass.

As I stated above, it is deply distressing to see Catholics turn on their own Latin tradition. When Protestants attacked the Church's use of Latin for centuries, Saints, Popes, and other apologists eloquently defended it. Why are these apologetics so casually ignored today, while the age-old attack of the Protestants meets with meek acceptance, or even enthusiastic support?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.