The Latin Mass

[Socrates]

So what's so great about the "Latin Mass" for all of you Latin Mass heads out there?

I've been twice. Mostly didn't get it. Seem to prefer the Mass in a language that I can speak.

I am not saying that one is better/worse than the other. They are both from the Church and both good. But I am just wondering for folks who prefer the Latin Mass, what are the reasons for that preference?

I usually go to a "new mass" at a fairly conservative church here in Arlington VA. Actually the parish I go offers the Latin Mass, and even during the new mass the parts that can be said in Latin usually are said in Latin (such as the Gloria, etc.)

One thing I thought that was cool about the Gloria in Latin is that it actually flows better than when it is said in English, rythmatically.

One thing that I thought about the Latin Mass was that, depending on one's mental approach to it, it seems that it can become rather Protestant in that it becomes "entertainment". I thought that perhaps there was a danger that one could get too caught up in the beauty of the rite itself, such that the focus turns more inward or becomes more about one's own experience, rather than on worshiping God.

Peace

Ironically, I think one of the biggest differences between the old Latin Mass, and the typical Novus Ordo, is that the old mass definitely does not feel like entertainment, but a solemn ritual before God - as befits the Sacrifice of God's Only Son.

Especially if you go to a Low Mass (silent mass), with no singing or chanting, and only the priest performing the actions and quietly reciting prayers in Latin.  If you're not in a properly prayerful mood, it's more likely to be boring than entertaining from a worldly perspective.  And if you attend on a regular basis, the novelty factor wears off quickly.

Contrast with many (not all) celebrations of the "new mass," with contemporary pop-style music, lots of clapping and applause, priests cracking jokes, etc.  There's  more emphasis on entertaining the people, as well as more influence from Protestant services.  In contrast, in the Traditional Latin Mass, the attention seems directed more straight to God, rather than on entertaining ourselves (or attempting to do so). 

I don't consider myself a Rad Trad or Latin Mass fanatic, and done properly, a "NO" mass can be just as reverent, though in many places they're not.   I like the Latin Mass for the (usual) greater reverence, and feeling of an ancient and timeless ritual.

At least that's my superficial, subjective experience.

If interested, you can always learn Latin enough to follow along, and most parishes provide missals with translations.

Of course, people can always have the wrong "mental approach" to attending any mass.

[Peace]

Ironically, I think one of the biggest differences between the old Latin Mass, and the typical Novus Ordo, is that the old mass definitely does not feel like entertainment, but a solemn ritual before God - as befits the Sacrifice of God's Only Son.

Especially if you go to a Low Mass (silent mass), with no singing or chanting, and only the priest performing the actions and quietly reciting prayers in Latin.  If you're not in a properly prayerful mood, it's more likely to be boring than entertaining from a worldly perspective.  And if you attend on a regular basis, the novelty factor wears off quickly.

Contrast with many (not all) celebrations of the "new mass," with contemporary pop-style music, lots of clapping and applause, priests cracking jokes, etc.  There's  more emphasis on entertaining the people, as well as more influence from Protestant services.  In contrast, in the Traditional Latin Mass, the attention seems directed more straight to God, rather than on entertaining ourselves (or attempting to do so). 

I don't consider myself a Rad Trad or Latin Mass fanatic, and done properly, a "NO" mass can be just as reverent, though in many places they're not.   I like the Latin Mass for the (usual) greater reverence, and feeling of an ancient and timeless ritual.

At least that's my superficial, subjective experience.

If interested, you can always learn Latin enough to follow along, and most parishes provide missals with translations.

Of course, people can always have the wrong "mental approach" to attending any mass.

I think that it really has a lot to do with the particular church and the intentions of the people celebrating the Mass, and also the cultural context in which the Mass is being conducted.

I remember watching this video by Cardinal Arinze, where a person asked him about the subject of dancing during Mass. He basically said that in an American / Western European context it would not be appropriate, because here people generally associate dance with entertainment and not with worship. He said that it could be acceptable in some parts of Africa, because in some of those cultures certain forms of dance are generally used as forms of worship.

This weekend I went to check out that St. Augustine parish here in the DC area - it is the parish of that gospel choir that sung at Pope Francis's visit to the white house. It is for the most part an African American congregation, and looking at it from the standpoint of someone like myself who was brought into the Church in more "Traditional" parishes - one might look at St. Augustine and call it a very liberal parish. It was definitely not "Do the black, say the red". Basically their Mass has been adapted in a way that makes it seem very similar in many respects to the Baptist church that I was raised in. Most of the parts of the Mass were set to gospel type music, the style of the homily was a lot more similar to what you would see at an African American church, they took a moment to welcome people visiting the church, etc. It was very much culturally "black" and "Protestant" feeling, yet at the same time in no way would I call it less reverent than any other Mass that I have attended, and in no way would refer to what was going on there as "entertainment" although I can understand how some people who might be used to something different might look at it and see it as entertainment.

In many respects during the Mass at St. Augustine I thought to myself "Now this is the way the Mass should be." Like, for example, when they sung the "Glory to God in the Highest . . ." - they sung it with a real passion that was very apparent to me.  In some way I felt God's presence at this Mass in a way that I have not experienced before. The people there were genuinely passionate about worshiping God and you could just really feel that throughout the entire Mass.

So I don't know if there is necessarily one way that is better or worse than another. I think that some people express reverence in a way that is quiet or somber, but there are other people who express reverence in a way that is more energetic. A lot of it has to do with the intention behind it, I think . . .

People who were brought up in a church like St. Augustine might look at the Latin Mass or some more "traditional" parishes and think "Wow. These people are so dull - they don't seem to have any passion for our Lord". But that would be a wrong assessment too, just like some folks who might look at their service and incorrectly think "this is all just about having fun or entertaining oneself."

Perhaps the best way of looking at it is just to realize that people at various churches around the world are all Catholics, that we all have the same (good or bad) intentions, and that there are a variety of ways of expressing those same intentions in different contexts . . .

But that is not to say that I am a believer in "anything goes" at Mass, of course. . .

Edited November 2, 2015 by Peace

[Benedictus]

I'm not keen on the EF. I prefer the NO in Latin and attend that if I can. If I could I would merge elements of the EF and NO that I think work really well and create a new rite  I find that having Latin marks the time apart as 'holy time' or 'God language' time. I feel those masses tend to have more tradition: ritual, incense and practices that I like too. I find it also helps shift my focus away from distractions than if I have mass in English, Welsh or Spanish etc.

I personally think the shift to each language was an idealism of the 60's, that obviously has benefits in many ways, but it does seem fairly fragmented to me in practice a lot of the time .I like the idea that everyone across the world could be reciting the prayers/mass in the same tongue.

 The shift to varying languages has, maybe as a consequence, also placed more focus on blocs of Bishops conferences based on national, ethnic or cultural grounds that brings challenges in a univeral/global church. There is a risk, and I think it's a consequence, that everything becomes about the language (and the stuff that comes with that) and something of the universal is lost. If Latin was used in masses, with each person having a written translation (or picture guide) in their own language, there could be greater diversity within masses as they wouldn't exclude certain ethnic/language groups from taking part.

Some of the translations into each langauge have also been shoddy or clumsy too and it would be less of a drama to alter wording if the text was merely an aid to the mass (rather than the form of the mass itself)

[DominicanHeart]

I didn't like it at first. But I fell in love with it over time. The peace of the atmosphere, the difference in the overall behavior of the congregation, and knowing that it's the Universal language of the Church, this is how the Mass should be. It's so much more reverent. I just love it. It's so beautiful

[Basilisa Marie]

I go to the NO exclusively, maybe a couple times a year will go to an EF. 

The things I love about the EF are that it has a different kind of worship experience than the NO. It feels otherworldly, because it's easy to see that this isn't something "usual." The Latin reminds me that the Mass isn't about me, and it's ancient and universal. The priest is praying on behalf of the whole people, as our representative. He's taking all of our prayers, too, not just his own to the altar. He's at our service. 

But yeah, the biggest thing for me is to remember that the Mass is about God, not about me and my desires or needs. 

[Seven77]

 I think it's great that people appreciate the Extraordinary Form, because it is very reverent and solemn as part of the patrimony of the Roman rite.  I've gone 3 or 4 times now. Still, I prefer the Ordinary Form because I can pay attention better and not drift off... a reverent and peaceful Mass though with as much Latin as possible.

[Kateri89]

Has anyone ever been to a Latin Novus Ordo?  I think it would be fascinating but I've never known where to attend one and I always thought they were pretty rare.

[John Paul]

If you live near Stubenville,OH they offer one every month.

[Gabriela]

Has anyone ever been to a Latin Novus Ordo?  I think it would be fascinating but I've never known where to attend one and I always thought they were pretty rare.

I think they are pretty rare, but big cities often have one. There's one a week at the same parish in St. Louis.

[truthfinder]

Has anyone ever been to a Latin Novus Ordo?  I think it would be fascinating but I've never known where to attend one and I always thought they were pretty rare.

I've been to one.  I think it was All Saints Day last year.  Apparently, there used to be a more frequent one here, but now they've switched over to EFs.  

[Seven77]

Has anyone ever been to a Latin Novus Ordo?  I think it would be fascinating but I've never known where to attend one and I always thought they were pretty rare.

 They are not all that rare unless you mean with *all* the prayers in Latin…

 Oh yeah, another reason that I prefer the ordinary form is the cycle of readings… I think it promotes scriptural literacy…

[TotusTuusMaria]

I wouldn't call myself a "Latin Mass head," but I have attended it reguaraly for about 4-5 years now. I attend the Ordinary Form as well (mostly for daily Mass). I started to attend the EF because 1) I figured I was a "Latin Rite" Catholic, and I figured as such I should know both forms of the Mass in my rite. 2) The beauty and symbolism were intriguing to me; I wanted to deepen my understanding. 

No matter what form the Mass is celebrated in, I always appreciate the symbolism of the priest facing the altar. It continually brings to my mind that the priest is representing us before God and that as a people (humanity) we are renewing on behalf of the entire Church the covenant with our God. As simple as the gesture is, it nevertheless has a strong impression upon me. It continually reminds me of the reality of the priest acting in persona Christi. 

Additionally, I find the prayers slightly more eloquent in the 1962. 

It is interesting that you find it to be entertaining... hmm... I don't think I would ever say that. With the militaristic manner, the almost quiet prayers... the adjective "entertaining" doesn't really fit in my mind. 

I don't think we can ever get "too" caught up in beauty. Beauty will save the world. Beauty has saved the world. He is beauty. On an experiential level, the beauty has never drawn me away from Him... only closer to Him. This applies to both forms. 

 

[Seven77]

 

I don't think we can ever get "too" caught up in beauty. Beauty will save the world. Beauty has saved the world. He is beauty. On an experiential level, the beauty has never drawn me away from Him... only closer to Him. This applies to both forms. 

But wouldn't you say that, like all things, beauty (not the form of beauty) can be perceived in a warped way? It could lead to pride--- the devil was a beautiful angel of light caught up in his own magnificence. If we are not careful, beauty can lead to narcissism.

[chrysostom]

But wouldn't you say that, like all things, beauty (not the form of beauty) can be perceived in a warped way? It could lead to pride--- the devil was a beautiful angel of light caught up in his own magnificence. If we are not careful, beauty can lead to narcissism.

It's possible.  If you are looking for examples of proud artists you are sure to find plenty of eccentric figures over the ages whose paintings now grace the galleries of Europe and the church murals of Italy - much to our delight, of course.  Or one could imagine that a church cantor could take excessive pride in the beauty of her voice - though those I know are not such.  Or even outside of the sacred art world, there are certainly conductors and soloists who are proud and narcissistic and hard to get along with.  Or perhaps you have the composer who is stubbornly convinced of the pre-eminence of his compositional style.

In any case, beauty still retains a power of its own, entirely separate from any hypothetical pride on the part of the artist.  It is inherently transcendent.  A concertgoer does not generally care about the character of the performers; if beautiful music is made he will be satisfied and perhaps drawn a little beyond himself.  How much more the Mass, which is explicitly oriented towards God!  Beauty that is not our own, formed though it is by the hands of man, prepares us to behold and receive the form of Beauty Himself.

I do get the issue that Lillabettt brought up, though.  But I don't really think it has much to do with how we perceive beauty.

[Peace]

I wouldn't call myself a "Latin Mass head," but I have attended it reguaraly for about 4-5 years now. I attend the Ordinary Form as well (mostly for daily Mass). I started to attend the EF because 1) I figured I was a "Latin Rite" Catholic, and I figured as such I should know both forms of the Mass in my rite. 2) The beauty and symbolism were intriguing to me; I wanted to deepen my understanding. 

No matter what form the Mass is celebrated in, I always appreciate the symbolism of the priest facing the altar. It continually brings to my mind that the priest is representing us before God and that as a people (humanity) we are renewing on behalf of the entire Church the covenant with our God. As simple as the gesture is, it nevertheless has a strong impression upon me. It continually reminds me of the reality of the priest acting in persona Christi. 

Additionally, I find the prayers slightly more eloquent in the 1962. 

It is interesting that you find it to be entertaining... hmm... I don't think I would ever say that. With the militaristic manner, the almost quiet prayers... the adjective "entertaining" doesn't really fit in my mind. 

I don't think we can ever get "too" caught up in beauty. Beauty will save the world. Beauty has saved the world. He is beauty. On an experiential level, the beauty has never drawn me away from Him... only closer to Him. This applies to both forms. 

 

Those are some good things about the EF. Thanks for the explanation. I think that I could learn to like and appreciate the EF too. There are some things that I like about it already. I will see if I can go more frequently.