The Latin Mass.

[JustaServant]

I beg pardon for my ignorance (or re-education) on this issue, as I have only recently returned to the Catholic Church after 20 years in evangelical/fundamentalist religion. So please do not take this post the wrong way, I am merely trying to re-educate myself on this issue again.

My mother and father were very much believers in the Latin Mass and were upset by the reforms of Vatican Two. My father’s concern was that putting the Mass in the colloquial language of the people left open a door for liturgical abuse. I remember my father reading several books by Michael Davies on Catholic liturgy.

As I understand it, correct me if I am wrong, the advantages of having the liturgy in Latin involved integrity of worship, and giving a sense of unity to the Church’s worship in a time when the language and dialect of Europe was still evolving.

The word ‘liturgy’ comes from two Greek words meaning ‘people’ and ‘work’. In its root meaning, liturgy means an act performed for the good of a community. In its restricted meaning, it refers to the public rites and ceremonies officially authorized by the Church. It is literally the ‘work of the people’ in their common life of prayer and worship.

One of the chief values of a liturgy is that it teaches us both how to pray and what things we should pray for. One of the things I hungered for in evangelical churches was TRUE WORSHIP. This I have found in the Catholic Church and it’s Liturgy.

As I remember it, the SSPX Church my parents were a part of had little for the worshipper to do in terms of participation in the Mass, as much was done by the choir (which my father sang in). For myself (keep in mind I was young then), I felt more like a spectator than a participant (which is the style in evangelical churches) as I did not know the Latin language. That church was my only experience with the Latin Mass.

My question is this: how can the Latin Mass be true to the word ‘Liturgy’ in terms of participation of the people in it?

Again, pardon my ignorance on this issue.

[PaxVobiscum]

As I understand it, correct me if I am wrong, the advantages of having the liturgy in Latin involved integrity of worship, and giving a sense of unity to the Church’s worship in a time when the language and dialect of Europe was still evolving.

Latin also gives a sense of mystery as it is not a vernacular language today.  Some older priests may still converse in Latin, once virtually all could do so, but laity don't, as a rule.  Even if you know the English meaning of the Latin, you can just lose yourself in the sounds as you pray.

As I remember it, the SSPX Church my parents were a part of had little for the worshipper to do in terms of participation in the Mass, as much was done by the choir (which my father sang in). For myself (keep in mind I was young then), I felt more like a spectator than a participant (which is the style in evangelical churches) as I did not know the Latin language.

You should have had a Latin/English Missal with the Latin on one page and the English on the facing page so that you could follow along in English if you wanted to do so.  You pray with the priest when you do that.  (Missals are usually available at the church, or were before Vatican II.)  It is also acceptable to pray independently of what the priest is praying as he is offering the Mass for your benefit.  

That church was my only experience with the Latin Mass.

My question is this: how can the Latin Mass be true to the word ‘Liturgy’ in terms of participation of the people in it?

Again, pardon my ignorance on this issue.

The people participate through prayer, following the rubrics, and receiving the Body of Christ.  That's all we need.

Hope this helps.

[JustaServant]

The people participate through prayer, following the rubrics, and receiving the Body of Christ. That's all we need.
Hope this helps.

Thanks.
A further question (its been almost a quarter century since I have been to a Latin Mass).
How do they follow the rubrics when they are in Latin? Do they answer in Latin or in English? My parent's Church had a book that had the English alongside the Latin. 
Certainly recieving the Body of Christ is paramont and truly the center of Liturgy.

[Sonoman]

The people participate through prayer, following the rubrics, and receiving the Body of Christ. That's all we need.
Hope this helps.

Thanks.
A further question (its been almost a quarter century since I have been to a Latin Mass).
How do they follow the rubrics when they are in Latin? Do they answer in Latin or in English? My parent's Church had a book that had the English alongside the Latin. 
Certainly receiving the Body of Christ is paramount and truly the center of Liturgy.

Yes, the two texts are side-by-side. There are several sources for free online missals if you'd care to see them. I know there's one on the EWTN website under the SP heading in the right-hand side.

I'm rather fond of the idea of everyone worshiping together. It brings multi-lingual parishes back together and I believe it will strengthen the community - it certainly can't make them any greater enemies.

[edomuret]

I believe the issue is that much of what has been changed since Vatican II was to focus on the community to the detriment of focus on Christ in the Sacrament. 

Numerous times during the Mass the Priest turns to the congregation saying "Dominus Vobiscum" and we of course respond.  This shows the strong bond between priest and congregation in what is happening upon the altar. 

The priest facing the congregation puts more attention upon him than it does upon the Sacrifice at the altar, namely Our Lord.  Vatican II says that Christ is present in the congregation at Mass, but is "most especially present" in the Eucharist.

You are a blessed and humble man, and after reading your blog I feel it is wonderful that we have such Catholics like you in our Church.

[charlesh]

First of all, congrats on coming back. I just came to it.

What you said is somewhat right. Maybe it would help to distinguish between "liturgy" and "mass." "Mass" is, at core, the sacrifice of the cross made present. "Liturgy" is the rites in which that sacrifice is framed. The chief purpose of liturgy then (as regards the mass), is to effect the sacrifice, not to teach us to pray. The mass is not principally a didactic ceremony. Something really happens before us, whether we are physically there or not. Sure, if you learn more about the mass, what it is, and what the various parts mean, you will certainly learn more about your faith and how to pray better. But that is not its chief purpose. The sacrifice, being perpetuated in time, brings down God's grace into the world and into our souls. That is its chief purpose.

How is it the "people's" "work?" Well, we "assist" at mass by uniting our souls to the sacrifice effected by the priest. That is our work. A validly ordained priest effects the sacrifice there at mass. That is his work. The people have nothing to do with it. But they reap the benefits of it, and they unite themselves to it, and receive the graces. It may help to realize that the priest has his part, and we have ours, and they are not the same. You don't even have to know what he's doing and saying in order to unite yourself to the sacrifice.

It may also help when you realize that much can be happening inside of a person when it only appears outwardly that nothing is happening. You see a guy just staring straight ahead, and you think, "He's not doing anything." But that's not true. His mind is going, his emotions are going, and there may be spiritual or mystical events going on in his soul that you and I aren't even capable of comprehending. So "work" means something more interior and, really, much more "involved" than you might think.

I've gone to a few Novus Ordo masses since converting, and I have to say, it's maddening. They're distracting you with this and that the whole time, and they don't give you a moment to collect yourself and unite interiorly with what's going on. You come out feeling like you did the hokey pokey for an hour.

[ancientpapacy]

It's not the case that the faithful at Mass should be like mere spectators.

The issue of participation as well as the deeper dogmatic issues
are covered in the encyclical Mediator Dei.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM

[Catholicmilkman]

First of all, congrats on coming back. I just came to it.

What you said is somewhat right. Maybe it would help to distinguish between "liturgy" and "mass." "Mass" is, at core, the sacrifice of the cross made present. "Liturgy" is the rites in which that sacrifice is framed. The chief purpose of liturgy then (as regards the mass), is to effect the sacrifice, not to teach us to pray. The mass is not principally a didactic ceremony. Something really happens before us, whether we are physically there or not. Sure, if you learn more about the mass, what it is, and what the various parts mean, you will certainly learn more about your faith and how to pray better. But that is not its chief purpose. The sacrifice, being perpetuated in time, brings down God's grace into the world and into our souls. That is its chief purpose.

Actually the Mass is principally a didactic ceremony.  The Mass and the other sacraments are the first and foremost instruments in teaching and virtue and the moral law.  It is not its primary principle but a principle nonetheless.

How is it the "people's" "work?" Well, we "assist" at mass by uniting our souls to the sacrifice effected by the priest. That is our work. A validly ordained priest effects the sacrifice there at mass. That is his work. The people have nothing to do with it. But they reap the benefits of it, and they unite themselves to it, and receive the graces. It may help to realize that the priest has his part, and we have ours, and they are not the same. You don't even have to know what he's doing and saying in order to unite yourself to the sacrifice.

Just because the people don't effect consecration of the bread and wine does not mean that the people have nothing to do with it. They do and they ought to. They ought to receive our Lord and give themselves to Him as well. To do this the people ought to sing when they are meant to. This is the desire and will of the Church for the Liturgy as it is Her official Public Worship of Her God. We are members of the Church too and ought to fully participate in that worship.

I've gone to a few Novus Ordo masses since converting, and I have to say, it's maddening. They're distracting you with this and that the whole time, and they don't give you a moment to collect yourself and unite interiorly with what's going on. You come out feeling like you did the hokey pokey for an hour.

That has absolutely no bearing on the Solemn Tridentine Mass with the whole congregation chanting. The under participation that you are advocating is exactly what lead to the over participation in the liturgy and the Church today. We need to seek for the proper and active partcipation according God's Will and that is for the whole parish to sing the propers and hymns and responses according to their abilities.

[JustaServant]

I'm rather fond of the idea of everyone worshiping together. It brings multi-lingual parishes back together and I believe it will strengthen the community - it certainly can't make them any greater enemies.

Good point. Our church has a priest from India who has only been to a Latin Mass once in his life and knows no Latin. He's a wonderful priest (we are very blessed to have him). But it makes me wonder at how different the liturgy looks in his native country.

[Catholicmilkman]

JustaServant I suggest finding a church with a good choir and the Tridentine high Mass and sing with them. This is proper participation. The Holy Ghost tells us to do this in the Bible to sing the praises of God, and St. Augustine said: singing is praying twice.