I, like you, have only been to one ad orientem Mass. I also found the whole Liturgy of the Eucharist to be much more profound. I was more prayerful, and frankly, all the prayers made more sense when the priest was more properly addressing God and not the “audience.” I wish it were celebrated that way in my own parish.

I attend a Byzantine parish.  It’s amazing how with ad orientem the focus doesn’t drift towards “performance” but you really get a sense that the priest is praying with us as our leader, not as someone special God-like figure at the front.  Language is key here.  You said, “where the priest was facing away from the congregation”.  While I am sure you didn’t mean anything derogatory, I think this introduces a subtle bias.  You can also say that the priest is facing “with” the people, and you can say that the opposite of ad orientem is “versus populum”—against the people.  I really do think that facing the people sets up a certain tension between priest and people.

Also, as a former charismatic prayer leader, I got to experience the other side.  Trying to worship facing the people is just so distracting and made me feel very uncomfortable.  First there was nothing to focus on; I found myself gazing up into the air at nothing awkwardly trying to avoid looking at the people.  Second, I frankly found them to be a distraction. 

So I’m all in favor of ad orientem.

The priest is supposed to be leading us in the prayers of the Mass and when he is turned from us and his arms are raised to God, it is so powerfully shown what his role is.  He is between us and God during the Mass. He is another Christ.
Now, have you experienced what it is like to kneel before the altar and receive the Body of Christ?  Now, that is powerful.

I’d rather go to a Tridentine Mass and didn’t grow up with it. I’m young, mid 20’s. I think during Vatican II some things got lost in the change or so it seems to me. Supposedly, women are still supposed to veil but we don’t in America at Mass anymore because I guess we don’t think it’s cool or something? I slowly have seen it popping up though so maybe things will change. I wish priests would speak up more though.

Im 45 and the ordinary form is all I know as well as my brother who is 48. Anyone born in the 1960 is part of post-Vatican.

[“All I want to say is that when the priest held up the bread and wine and offered them up to the Father as the Body and Blood of His Son, I experienced Mass in a different way than ever before.”]

Enough said my friend…

I discovered the Extraordinary Form Mass just two months ago after reading Windswept House by the late Fr. Malachi Martin.  He spoke so lovingly of the Mass of the Ages that I was determined to experience it for myself.  Via the internet, I found Holy Family Catholic Church in Dayton, Ohio and now understand the love Fr. Martin felt for the Extraordinary Form, also known as Traditional Latin Rite, which is steeped in history and reverence and is in full union with His Holiness, Benedict XVI.  Latin/English missals are available there as well as chapel veils for women/girls.  Parishioners are asked to keep a holy silence in the church at all times out of respect for Christ’s presence in the tabernacle and also requested that you dress modestly when attending Mass because you are in the presence of Our Lord, your king.  In the Traditional Latin Rite, Holy Communion is received on the tongue only while kneeling at the altar rail unless one is physically unable to do so at which time they remain standing/seated. I am very thankful to have discovered such a treasure.

I had the same experience. I was in New Orleans at Old St. Patricks. I remember being so confused, but also realizing that the symbols all fit into place. Thanks for sharing this Matt!

I was born in 1953, I was able to celibrate mass as a altar boy in latin in my youth. Even then as a young man I saw some of the wisdom of a universal mass, being the same worldwide. I have often thought that perhaps on occasion the mass could be said latin in every parish maybe more so in larger cities, weekly so that travelers or whomever would have a chance to attend if desired.

When you attend a Mass in the Extraordinary form, there is no doubt about Who you are worshipping and why it’s extremely important. It starts at the procession and just goes from there.  The other thing I’ve observed is that the priesrs offering it in our area are all under the age of 35.  I haven’t been to that many, but I go whenever possible.

I agree that the form of the Tridentine mass is much better except for the use of Latin.  Why can’t we have a Tridentine mass said in English with a straight translation of the Latin.  I took 5 years of Latin in high school and even with that I am completely lost every time I go to a Tridentine mass.  My experience is that the priest never uses a microphone so unless you were in the very front pew, you couldn’t even find where you were in the translation in the mass book if you had one.  I almost always end up being totally lost and daydreaming most of the mass.  I really don’t understand what the hangup on Latin is.  Seems to me that you could have all the benefits of the Tridentine mass without the translation difficulties if it was just said in English or whatever the native language of the country is. Can someone explain it to me?  To me it is an insurmountable weakness in the mass when compared to the Ordinary form.

The witness found in this article is truly profound.  So goes our Liturgy, so goes the world.

@CP: b.1927. I am with you. I grew up with the Latin Mass, had the prayer book with Latin on one side of the page and English on the other; with tiny pictures of where the priest was standing. I spent my whole time trying to keep up with the pictures. The priest in those days could really speak Latin very fast. I still like the Mass in English and I like participating instead of observing. Being in Catholic grade school, I also sang the Latin Mass. Also some of the smaller churches have awful organs, very different from organs in Cathedrals. I have participated in the past in very beautiful Folk Masses. [with guitars] Most of the bloggers here are young and the Latin Mass is new to them. If the English Mass is not done with respect and beauty, that is the pastor’s fault. I am aware that most people reading this will not agree.

I have to agree with CP on this one, much to the shock of many who know me, I’m sure.  I have a real desire to know Latin and use it.  However, since I’m not there yet, I can’t help but wonder what is wrong with using the English translation from the other side of the missal?  Mine is Latin on the left, English on the right.  Why not just read the English?  It would be great if we would do some parts in Latin, such as the Agnus Dei, but I’d like to see that in the Ordinary Form as well.  Latin is our mother tongue in the Church, just as the Jews still use Hebrew in worship and the Muslims use Arabic no matter what language is native to them.  Guess I feel a tug both ways, but think using English would reach a lot more people a lot faster with the true beauty of the Extraordinary Form.

While the alternate form left you with a new, positive experience, how much of this is attributed to the fact that it new and different and how much of that would remain after a prolonged period?  After a time, I can see the counter-argument being made that the congregation would not get to experience the Priests gestures now hidden by his reverse posture.  There are arguments for both postures.

“I took 5 years of Latin in high school and even with that I am completely lost every time I go to a Tridentine mass.”

my suggestion would be to purchase a Missal that contains both the Latin and the English. we always had those prior to Vatican II and they still exist today. the Missal allows you pray the Mass along with the priest. some even provide commentary with regards to the rubrics of the Mass.

I try to attend once a month.. the tridentine mass at a parish down the way from me…the one thing i do notice is those who share this beautiful sacrifice are there for god for a sacrifice,no laughing and shouting after mass,no leaving right after the Holy Eucharist…OUR priest who is Jesus christ in the mass..as well as the confessional processes first…not last? I am chastised because of my orthodox beliefs many times,but it isnt about us it is about Him.Have we opened ourselves up to misery or rightousness? I am not Judging a person or a nation but seeking to give God his just due which is mankind…

I would love to experience the Ordinary Form of the Mass ad orientem. I have been attending the Extra Ordinary Form for a couple of years now, and when I have to return to the O.F. from time to time, I can see how the two forms would be so eaisily combined.

The reason I continue to seek the E.F. Mass is because the atmosphere is so much more suited to the worship of God.

I also believe that the two will be combined one day, but not in my lifetime. I a 1954 model, but a convert to the faith, so my experience with the E.F. is new.

I am 55 and remember the old Latin mass, sorry I am not really interested in returning to it, but I don’t mind that it is offered to those who prefer it. People who attend the extraordinary form are usually devout Catholics and I think you can feel the power of their collective prayer at the mass(where 2 or 3 are gathered etc…). If “Tridentine” became the regular form we would then have to deal with the “regular” Catholics in attendance including the distractions and irreverence that we deal with now. Also I view the mass as the reenactment of the last supper I am fairly sure that Jesus did not have his back to the Apostles! When the priest faces the congregation I get the feeling of Jesus at the head of the table blessing & breaking the bread for all to see. As for the veils and hats that women used to wear, wearing hats fell out of fashion in the 60’s It also fell out of fashion for men (after centuries of wearing hats)When women got to church, they were not allowed to enter without a head covering so sometimes they would use a Kleenex or a piece of paper etc.. (That is worse). I had a “chapel veil” (kind of like a doily for the head). The church decided that the rule that required head coverings to be worn in the church was more a “cultural” requirement than a religious one and that a woman should not be denied access to a church because of the lack of a head covering. I AGREE.  I don’t think that rolling the time back is an answer to our dwindling church attendance. Our general culture and moral relativism is (I think) the real problem.

In our Syro-Malabar Catholic Churches, the priest faces the Altar on the presumption that he is leading the congregation to God. However some even among the clergy think that the priest should face the congregation. Both forms are alright for a sincere believer. Every Rite has its own traditions based on several factors cultural, language and similar things

I grew up Catholic in the 60’s, then was a Protestant for 29yrs, came back to my true Cathoic faith seven yrs. ago and was shocked at what the Catholic church had become!  Since then, I’ve been a member of a Catholic church but drive about twenty miles out of my way twice a month to attend a “Tridentine” Mass that literally brings me to tears.  I miss and I crave the Tridentine Mass that I find so holy but I’m glad that it’s still being offered in some Catholic churches and hopefully, more and more Catholic churches will see that the Mass can be more meaningful and reverent if celebrated this way.

We have a retreat house near Bloomington, Indiana where the friars celebrate the Mass in the ad orientem way.  What I noticed when I was there was that it was really a seamless transition to go from proclaiming the word and the homily to then going into the liturgy of the Eucharist where he was facing as we were.  As a matter of fact, I didn’t even notice when he came back around the altar - I was either singing or praying and then I just noticed.  I loved it and wish my own parish would do the same.    I do not prefer the Tridentine Mass to the English, but I do love the new Mass translations and I would love the priest to be facing away from the Congregation for the Eucharist.

I love the E.F. Mass.  I don’t put it above and against the O.F., but I will say that it is far better at communicating the spiritual truths and realities of the faith than the O.F.  The E.F. is more direct in that sense.

I suspect that “why Latin?” is that it’s a “dead” language:  it doesn’t change over time, and so it’s harder to mess with.  It’s also harder to ad lib.  Though I do take some people’s point about the English translation offered in the Latin-English Roman Missal itself.  That said, I think it does us well to realize that Latin is the mother tongue of Mother Church.  Jews have Hebrew, Muslims have Arabic.  Why can’t we have Latin?  As a language geek, I also wonder if the Latin not only clues us into our liturgical history (and also the effect of Petrine authority on the sacred liturgy), but also the fact that its rhythm is different from English, and thus adds to our being drawn into the mystery of God through the Mass.

For those who feel “lost” during the E.F., whether you’ve taken Latin or not, don’t be discouraged.  I have had no formal training in Latin, and it took me three weeks or so (along with some self-catechesis) in order to get used to it.  But you will get used to it;  give it a chance.  Also, studying the text of the Mass along with the English translation, all of which can be found here—http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/tutorial/ordo-missae-0.html—at the Sancta Missa Website should help you.  One thing that you’ll notice is that the people’s responses are actually pretty easy. 

Furthermore, don’t feel as though you’re merely an observer.  You’re not.  It’s just that participation in the E.F. is rather different:  you are participating in the Lord’s sacrifice by allowing the Mass to draw you out of yourself and orient yourself toward the Lord (as opposed to our modern sense of “participation,” which almost invariably means “doing more stuff.”  Given that pieces at The National Catholic Register have discussed how we need to get back to a sense of being, and not just doing—more Mary, less Martha—this is actually quite important).

I was in my early twenties when the mass was changed. I was profoundly saddened, especially by the change in music. God’s grace got me through those years. A few years ago, husband and I sought out a Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter Parish in Sacramento, where we were visiting, and attended their Mass at St. Stephen Proto-Martyr. I was busy skipping from the Latin to the beautiful English translation, as the priest was praying silently, and looked up just in time to see the priest raise the host not to the congregation but to the Father. The Host looked so big and white and shining that I gasped with joy. My husband had tears in his eyes. We are not privileged to have this Mass in our own parish, where there is no silence, the music is woeful, and the congregation clap-happy over everything, even the merest announcement, so I think of this as an opportunity for mortification and sacrifice.

I was born in 1955. I remember the Latin Mass, but I also remember having to do without breakfast when I was receiving communion. I also remember being bored during Mass because I didn’t understand what was going on. The fact that I attended Catholic school didn’t make a difference. With all that said, although I believe the Mass in the Ordinary Form is beautuful and meaningful, I have discivered that there is a Mass on EWTN that is said in a combination of English and Latin. For all of you who yearn for the Latin, this may be something that you would like.

Just this morning, I came across a pamphlet from a few years ago about the Eucharist.  It gave a history of the Mass.  It came in our parish bulletin a few years ago, I suppose in preparation for the new liturgy.

From it, I learned up until the year 300, what we know as “Mass”, was a supper, where Christians gathered once a week, every Sunday, in private homes, much like the Jewish Passover meal.  They separated the bread and wine Communion from the shared meal, making it more special, and I think it’s in the Bible that there had been “abuses”, by people eating and drinking too much, so the apostles created guidelines, that we still use today.

About the year 300, Constantine legalized Christianity.  Then opulent churches were built, where everyone in the community got together to worship in the same place, every Sunday.

Latin liturgies began after the Council of Trent.  But average lay people began to feel alienated, due to the manner in which the worship was handled.  So they began to withdraw to areas of the large church to be by themselves, and they asked the priest to hold up the consecrated Host high, so they’d know what was going on during Mass.

Feeling so alienated, people began to forgo receiving Communion, and that’s why the Church made it a rule that the faithful (that were attending Mass, but not receiving Communion) HAD to receive Communion at least one time a year, under the penalty of mortal sin.

Vatican II was to draw average lay people back to participating in the Mass, because even in the 1960’s and for 100 years prior, Catholics were looking to other places in order to satisfy their hunger for the spiritual, such as the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius, and to movements such as the charismatics.

There is no way that abominable novus ordo should be combined in any way with the Mass of All Ages.  The “ordinary form” is a modernist, man made concoction and will one day be buried.  “Mutual enrichment?”  How possibly can the sixties mass “enrich” the Mass that was butchered in order to make way for it?

Add some new Saints to the Missal, call it “mutual enrichment,” and ditch the novus ordo for good.

I’m a 68 year-old cradle Catholic who learned to serve Mass in 5th grade at age 9, served regularly through 8th grade and then sporadically through high school and college. I can tell you from personal experience that, with the exception of the prayers at the foot of the altar (which is really a back-and-forth between the priest and the server) actually hearing what the priest is saying is well neigh impossible much of the time, even for servers only a few feet away.

However, following the priest while in the pews is really not that hard.  There are a lot of visual cues and some audible ones, too, including bells.  It just takes a bit of practice.

Something that might be helpful is becoming familiar with an altar server tutorial. If the server is well-trained, his position in the sanctuary and what he is doing can also be a good guide to where the priest is in the Mass.

One such tutorial is located here.

Inspired by the Holy Spirit I am sure!  Great explanation of Ad Orientam.  I love our church because she is the body of Christ, thank you for performing your part so well!

It really is profound to realize the Liturgy is Divine in origin and Divine in purpose.  The symbolism is so rich in having the priest face the Altar and Tabernacle…and typically East.  Modern priests should understand that they can choose to say the Mass ad orientem.

I had the same experience, although the first mass I attended celebrated ad orientam was the OF mass, but in Latin. I studied Latin in high school but I could not follow it at all - the priest spoke very, very fast! Since then I have been to TLM several times and, as those masses were sung, found it much easier to follow. I have only been to one OF mass in English celebrated ad orientam, and I don’t see why more priests don’t do it that way.

Like many younger people I am attracted to TLM, because of its greater reverence. But I think that if all masses were TLM, you would get plenty of sloppy and rote masses and plenty of bored people. Right now, it takes real dedication to say and attend these masses, so of course you get super-dedicated priests and super-reverent people at them. I think the Pope is very wise in opening up TLM to be a leaven in parishes. An OF mass celebrated reverently and ad orientam is, IMHO, fantastic. I wish we would see more of that and less of the performance masses that have become the norm. TLM folks often say they can’t see what would come out of OF masses that could possibly improve EF masses, but I can. I was not around in the TLM days but I’ve heard PLENTY of stories. The availability of the new mass in English (or Latin) could keep the TLM mass from becoming stale,  rote, or “tossed off,” and the wider availability of TLM in normal parishes, not just parishes of their own, would get people used to reverence and worship, rather than “enjoying a show.” Both forms should be used widely.

Won’t reitierate much of was has been posted, but the reverence and the true feelings that are in EF are quite moving.  We found a local FSSP parish about 2 years ago.  We have parishers that travel 3-4 hours each way every week. 
We May be moving to TX soon and may have to do the same!

I’ve been praying for the FSSP to come to the Las Vegas diocese. I love and miss the Tridentine Mass so much!!!!!

When our new church opened in Henderson Nevada, St Francis of Assisi, the priest at that time started the ordinary form Mass in Latin with his back to the people at 3pm every Sunday.  It was such a awesome and reverent service. Each week more and more people came from all over Henderson and Las Vegas.  They transferred him out and none of the priests since have been receptive to the idea. The latin is so beautiful and having the priest with his back to you does give you the feeling that we are one praying and worshipping as one unit. I do miss it very much.  Maybe some day!!!!

...“In the Ordinary Form of the Mass today, the priest faces the congregation the whole time. I know there are theological reasons to support both practices.”

Matthew, I just want to point something out here that many are unaware of. You can research it yourself. Turning the priest around to face the congregation is found nowhere in the documents of Vatican II, like many other illicit innovations that happened after VII (communion in the hand, getting rid of communion rails, no ringing bells at the consecration, etc….)

I enjoyed reading your column.

Actually, before the 13th cent. the elevation of the Host and Chalice was only a few inches above the altar and NOT seen by the congregation. But since receiving Holy Communion was an infrequent experience because of strict fasts and long preparation the laity began to insist,even by yelling for the priest to raise the Host and Chalice above his head so they could AT LEAST SEE THE LORD AND HAVE SOME CONTACT WITH HIM, in lieu of receiving him. I believe it was the Dominicans who began to do this first. But this does not take away from the strong impression you realized of Transcendence in fact. THERE IS NO REALISTIC OPTION OTHER THAN RETURNING TO THE ANCIENT POSITION OF FACING GOD INSTEAD OF THE CONGREGATION.
As to Cardinal Burke’s quote, there is ONE BIG OBSTACLE TO THIS HAPPENING: there was OFFICIAL PROHIBITION OF USING THECEREMONIES OF THE OLD RITE WITH THE TEXTS OF THE NEW!. Until this restriction is removed THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF THE TWO RITES (and that’s what they are regardless of the fiction of terminology) of the rites coming together.

There is no possibility of any merging of the Old and New Orders of the Mass until a MAJOR OBSTACLE IS REMOVED:  Officially the Vatican PROHIBITS THE CEREMONIES OF THE OLD RITE TO BE DONE WITH THE TEXTS OF THE NEW. So Good Luck. Another obstacle is the tenacious persistence BY THE CLERGY in facing the congregation. THIS IS THE MOST OBVIOUS DEFECT OF THE N.O. OF THE MASS, HORIZONTALIZING EVERYTHING, as the author’s new experience made very clear.

For good reason the Priest was facing the other way – directing our prayers to God.  As a 1949 convert I was thoroughly educated in the infallible nature of the unassailable Magisterium and The One, Holy. Catholic and Apostolic Church. Handling the Eucharist was reserved to consecrated hands befitting its exalted nature, and every Catholic believed God was truly present. I can surely imagine the shock of Espy to see the drastic changes of thr Novus Ordo from the Mass of St. Pius V that I dearly loved as well.  It will always be my preference.  For those who have known only the Novus Ordo, I can understand your awe at the spirituality of the extraordinary Mass. I accepted the new Mass only because if error were involved the fault was not mine.  Allowing unconsecrated hands to defile the Eucharist has caused familiarity to breed at best indifference.  Belief in the real presence has sunk to an unconscionable estimated 25 percent.  That could unfortunately means 75 percent of those at Mass receive Communion sacrilegiously.  Look around you at a Novus Ordo Mass.  Can you tell by the attitude of the congregation that they all know God is there?  If you notice lines at confession, do you think more than 25 percent of Catholics go to confession since VCII.  Does anyone believe this is what Pope John XXIII meant by renewal when he called the council? The “new” translation of the Missal is the first step to try to regain the lost spirituality. I pray it is not too little too late.  I am not blaming thr council – only the dissidents responsible for the chaos that followed in its wake. Could we be seeing the wrath promised by St. Pius V for changing the Mass of the Council of Trent?

There is no reason why the OF of the Mass cannot be celebrated with the priest facing God, with kneeling rails allowed, and with a little Latin in the fixed parts of the Mass, for example during the Gloria or Agnus Dei with the rest of the Mass in the vernacular.  I love the EF for many reasons already mentioned by others in this post.  I also like the new translation in the OF, and hope that more reforms will come, which will bring the OF in line with the EF.

Maybe he wants to make sure no one is sleeping.

We have a Latin mass every Sunday. It is a church we have to drive 1 hour and 30 minutes from our homes every other Sunday. If only we are neighbors of that church, we could attend every Sunday. It’s beautiful and draws me and my family more closer to God.

A thought to keep in mind when getting used to ad orientem Masses:  It’s about Thee, not me.

Pope Benedict XVI summed it up much better in his 2001 book (as Cardinal Ratzinger), “The Spirit of the Liturgy.”  This description of Mass since the 1960s is from page 80:

“The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.”

Wow, I had EXACTLY the same experience when I went to a Latin Mass (but still Ordinary Form), and for the first time for me, the priest faced away from the congregation during the Eucharistic prayers and consecration. I was really strongly struck by a feeling like I wasn’t just watching the priest do something, but participating and celebrating with him. We were all oriented the same way - towards Christ. It was REALLY cool. Nice to see someone else felt the same way about it :)

Matthew - I experienced the same. The thought that came to me then is now summed up in words I keep in my sidebar now….
.

“Seek not the face of the priest in the Mass, but the face of Almighty God!”

I appreciate your experience. I’ve seen the extraordinary form done well and appreciated it also. However, I’ve also seen in rushed through, I didn’t understand anything that was going on. For centuries this second experience became the norm in many parishes around the world.  The congregation clicking their Rosary beads while the priest prays the mass for then rather than with them. While the novous ordo or ordinary form of the mass may give the false impression of being people centered it does involve the people more. While the traditional form of the mass may focus the congregation on God instead of the priest it can also give the impression that only the priest and the altar servers pray the mass and the congregation is just their to wait for the priest to come down from the mountain top and give them mana from heaven. The point of Vatican II is that we are all called to holiness and to live the liturgy. More education of the lay faithful will help this come about to appreciate both forms more fully.

Which way did Jesus face at the Last Supper?

“Which way did Jesus face at the Last Supper?

irrelevant

Which way did Jesus face on the cross? The priest is standing in the place of Jesus during the Mass.

Which way did Jesus face on the cross?

The priest represents Jesus sacrifice on the cross. We participate in the last supper just as the Passover is a participation in the Exodus. It cannot be irrelevant what Jesus did. The early apostles celebrated the mass as a meal. Did they stand up and face away from those at the table when they blessed the bread?

apparently Alex you are unaware as to why the priest stands ad orientem.. your question as to how Jesus stood during the Last Supper is irrelevant. you are being pedantic

feel free to read this wikipedia entry to learn more about the ad orientem position of the priest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_orientem

“The priest offers Mass facing the same direction as the people, because he and the people together are offering worship and sacrifice to God. He is not turning his back on the people to exclude them. Rather, as a Christian community, are all facing ad orientem (i.e. toward the east) waiting in joyful expectation for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ who will return to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire (Rite of Baptism, 1962).

What in the early Church determined the position of the altar was that it faced Eastward. To quote St. Augustine: “When we rise to pray, we turn East, where heaven begins. And we do this not because God is there, as if He had moved away from the other directions on earth…, but rather to help us remember to turn our mind towards a higher order, that is, to God.”

This quotation shows that the Christians of those early days, after listening to the homily, would rise for the prayer which followed, and turn towards the East. St. Augustine always refers to this turning to the East in prayer at the end of his homilies, using a set formula, Conversi ad Dominum (“turn to face the Lord”).”
http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/faq/praying-the-mass.html

I agree with Alex: The priest is at the head of the table (altar) just as Jesus was, the congregation is around the table,(altar) just as the people were.(notice in the newer church buildings, the pews are in the round)  We don’t look into the priest’s face, we say the Mass with him, meaning we celebrate Our Lord with the priest. We read our prayer books, just as the priest reads his. In my humble opinion, the Latin Mass is observed with meditation (mostly), whereas, the English Mass is
more participation.

Why is it hard to understand that the last supper of our Lord Jesus Christ was the celebration of the Jewish Passover?  When in a dinner Passover the host has ever faced the back to the people?  IMO all this talk about the Latin Mass may be a reaction to the dechristianization taking place in society.  In seeking an answer, the simple, lazy and easy way out is to see what have changed… and the naive hope that in going back in time, liturgically speaking, we “may” bring about the good old days.  Based on this, let me just remind you of what Christ said himself, that is that the problems of man come from within, not from without… “because it is from the heart of man that adulteries, fornication, lies, etc. come from…” anyone that believes that rituals and rubrics are the source of salvation for man is deceived… and if you think that it is not, then why is it hard to obey/follow the Church’s lead.  How many times in the history of Israel, did God had to abandon the Temple in the hands of the pagans to teach Israel that their salvation was in God and not in “The Temple”?  How many times did God denounce Israel for its trust in “sacrifices, prayers, oblations” when what God wanted was a heart filled with the fear of God?  How many times we heard that God wants a circumcised heart more than the following of a commandment?  Better said, that Love was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets, not of the rubrics and liturgy.  IMHO all this talk here are subtle steps to further divide the Church and is all based on seeking someone or something to blame for the ailments within the Church.  Besides, the liturgy has changed many times along the history of the Church, from what Christ did with the disciples, all in Aramaic/Hebrew, then in Greek, then Latin, now the vernacular… starting with the simplicity of a Passover dinner celebration, in small communities, to glorious temples, fanfare, incense, bells, orchestra, choirs, etc… I do not want to put down either liturgy, because sincerely it does not save anyone… but I do want to highlight the subtle temptation/desire for dissension and division that can be aroused by a mirage for better days… rather than the humility and simplicity of obedience = Love.

Alexis, why is it so hard for you to understand that the Mass is a sacrifice and not just a meal and that Christians are meant to pray facing east—toward the Lord?  In order to obey the Lord, we need to know which way we are facing:  Christ is alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.  Any step toward a more clearly Eucharistically centered liturgy is always, therefore, a step in the right direction and toward the future.  The liturgy is not mere fiddly ritual;  the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the most important prayer in the life of any and all Catholics.  What we pray is what we believe.  Therefore the liturgy and the prayers that it contains is important.  It re-presents to us the spiritual reality of the Eucharist and what it is meant to accomplish within us.  You present a rather tired litany of false dichotomies, where love of liturgy and ritual supposedly preclude Love, humility, and contrite hearts.  That is nonsense.  Have you even read the Eucharistic prayers for the Latin Mass?  Also, praying facing the Lord dates from the synagogue, where both Rabbi and congregation faced the presence of the Lord, and continues with the Church.  Furthermore, Love is not just a feeling.  Rather, real love is rooted in goodness, beauty, and truth.  It is an act of the will, and obedience, humility, and contrition take discipline.  Love at the source is the Eucharist.  That we should be awed and humbled by it and that in which we’ve been permitted to participate is only right and just.  The clearer that is, the better.

@Wsquared—-What Alexis is saying is at the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist [turning the bread and wine into God’s Body and Blood] and said “Do This In Memory Of Me” In my Church when Mass was only said in Latin, the priest faced North. [that is where the Tabernacle was on the Altar] If a priest is always suppose to face East, then why don’t they put the Altar facing East. You make a big deal over “facing East” like the Muslims. At the “new Mass” where the “Table” was presented away from the Altar, there is a Crucifix on it. I happen to like the new English spoken Mass. It has more meaning to me as a person because it is understandable. Yes, the Mass is the most important prayer, that is why I like it in English, so I can understand what I am saying and therefor from my heart instead of listening to mumblings of the priest. Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Latin. It was changed to Latin so why not change it to English. I do think it is nice having both as people have their different opinions.

Well said Wsquared. I love how you explained and I agree.

“If a priest is always suppose to face East, then why don’t they put the Altar facing East.”

it is metaphorically facing to the East it doesn’t have to physically face east. the term is “ad orientem”

this link explains it
http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/faq/praying-the-mass.html

“that is why I like it in English, so I can understand what I am saying and therefor from my heart instead of listening to mumblings of the priest. Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Latin. It was changed to Latin so why not change it to English”

prior to Vatican II one carried a Missal that contained the Latin and English side by side. latin was the universal language of the Church where ever you went in the world the Mass was the same. following Vatican II the Mass became splintered and each parish deciding which parts to do. can’t tell you how many different variations I’ve seen in the last 30 years. reminded me of Protestant services

reminding us that Jesus spoke Aramaic is nothing more than pedantry

I do not particularly care how the Mother “Church” asks us the ‘supposedly faithful’ to celebrate the Mass.  I find it more important that whatever she asks of me (or us the faithful) to simply obey.  Whether we go back to Latin or we embrace Vatican II.  What is a scandal is anyone saying publicly that the Mass in this or that ‘form’ is more ‘this’ or ‘that’ and the end result is disobedience or a subtle call to further divide the Church.  How can anyone say that ‘this’ or ‘that’ form helps one be more of a Christian and is unable to obey the Church, or so to speak, to enter into a subjective ‘cross’? (given that perhaps celebrating ‘this’ or that ‘way’ is making this person suffer),  How can we pray or preach Christ and Christ crucified if we ourselves are not able to enter into a Cross???  How can we pray with Jesus: “O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, THY WILL be done (not mine)”??? The greatest ongoing scandal in the Church have nothing to do with the liturgy, nor homosexual clergy, nor progressive nuns or religious, nor love of money, etc.  the biggest scandal in the Church TODAY is the inability of the faithful, religious and clergy to OBEY the Church’s teaching.  We have clearly seen this with the prophetic encyclical letter “Humanae Vitae”, when many BISHOPS, NUNS, RELIGIOUS, POLITICIANS, ‘so-called’ FAITHFUL, publicly and unashamedly mocked and ridiculed Pope Paul VI and the Vatican, only to be proven wrong as we are seeing the prophesies in it materialized before our very own eyes.  Luther, or the faithful unwilling to obey, divisions and thousands of churches, each one professing to have the truth, is the end result of this ‘piously intended’ error… i.e. more relativism.  The disciples left a Gospel encouraging all of us to LOVE ONE ANOTHER and to be ONE as the Father and his Son are one… they didn’t leave behind rubrics or rituals.  In His last hours the Lord Himself prayed: “May they all be one, just as, Father, you are in me and I am in you, so that they also may be in us, so that the world (the pagans the non-Christians) may believe it was you who sent me.”... As it is, the Church is asking the faithful, TODAY, to look at the liturgy from the eyes of the Jewish Passover… which was exactly what Christ was celebrating with his disciples.  Now if someone would like to disagree, or change the mind of the Church on how the liturgy should be, please and with all due respect I would ask them to do so at the Vatican level and not to stir the laity into disobedience against the Church.

Right. It’s just up to us Catholic Christians, of which ones you wanted to go to a Holy Mass with. Either you want the Novus Ordo or the Tridentine Mass under a Catholic church, I think its ok, they’re both valid forms of Mass celebrated in the Catholic church. Just what my family do, we go to both Masses. But we can’t let go of not going to a Latin mass on a Sunday because we love going to its Extraordinary form of Holy Eucharistic Mass. If only it is celebrated in all Catholic churches including our local church, we will surely go to it every Sunday and whatever day it is celebrated. This has become a Rare Form of a Holy Mass in the Modern days, and it deserves to be respected with obedience and love. I just pray for those people who are surprised and confused on why this form of mass is being celebrated in the Catholic church, that they will not see it as a bad form of a mass and too difficult to understand. Take your time. It is still a Holy Mass that brings you closer and deeper to God’s blessings.

Latin liturgy is not as difficult as some of you think.  I had entirely forgotten my two years of high school Latin by the time I attended my first tradtional Mass, but didn’t have that much trouble in following the words and the gestures.  My first missal was a St. Joseph’s continuous Sunday missal, which means that the whole Mass was written out from beginning to end for each week.  That was mostly in English, but it had a little Latin in it.  Some years after beginning my regular attendance at the old Mass, I started taking a daily missal to work with me and reading the Mass of the day in English.  Out of curiosity, I’d look for words I recognized on the Latin side, and after a while I knew it well enough that I didn’t even need the English.  (I am one of those people who drive an hour and a half to get to the Tridentine Mass every other Sunday. I would do it every week if I could.)

There are many reasons for using Latin in the liturgy; if you have ever been to a foreign country and not been able to find a Mass in a language you know (which happened to me when in the Philippines for Holy Week), you would understand the value of a common language.  I can easily name ten reasons for using the Latin, but there is only one for the vernacular.

FYI (look it up): Vatican II was thorough and clear on the rationality for renewing the liturgy.  There is, however, a part of the Church (from within) that is opposed to literary—any—change, no matter how rational the explanations are, and it is actively stirring, albeit in a subtle manner, the faithful to disobedience.  We have the Lefebvre movement (quasi-excommunicated) and many similarly flavored movements that are following a very protestant mentality (militant and relativistic) in front of change… i.e. I don’t like or care what the Church teaches… therefore, I go ahead and build my own Church.  Very similar to how the entire church reacted in front of Humanae Vitae.  Their Christianity was skin deep, their ‘obedience’ is only to the their ‘feelings’ and ‘ideas’.  The fact that the Latin mass remain and is still allowed to be celebrated, is for ‘pastoral reasons’ as the Church in its motherly love, understand that change is difficult.  But make no mistake about it, the renewal of the liturgy is a return to the origins or the sources: i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist as close as possible as to how the Primitive Church was celebrating it. The Primitive Church that converted the whole Roman Empire.  As close as possible as how the Apostles taught these small Christian communities.  As close as possible as how Jesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist with His disciples.  As close as possible as how Solomon, David, the Prophets, the Judges, Joshua, Moses, Israel were taught to celebrate the Passover by God himself.  Obedience in this case is to learn what the Church wants us to understand, trust that she is guided by the Holy Spirit and obey and encourage others to obey.  Those who seek to divide the Church, do so at their own peril.  Again, you just have to look at the Convents/Bishops/Dioceses/Countries that openly opposed Humanae Vitae and see where they are…. nuff said.

We can be reasonably certain that Jesus and the Apostles faced the same way at the Last Supper.  That’s the way it was done in those days; people all reclined at the same side of the table.  The custom was to lie on benches, and we know that St. John was at Christ’s breast, so he definitely had his back to the Lord.  To me the biggest argument against saying Mass versus populum is that, if it were ever practiced in the early church, it was completely rejected by all Christians everywhere for at least a thousand years, and only revived during the Protestant Reformation by people who rejected the true doctrine of the Eucharist.

Ed said “We can be reasonably certain that Jesus and the Apostles faced the same way at the Last Supper” ???

I quiver when I hear someone speak like you do, because your version of ‘certainty’ does not correspond to what the documents in Vatican II say.  Are you “assuming” or do you have references to your ‘assertions’?

Let the faithful beware that ‘progressives’ are looking for the weakest members of the Church to sow divisions and further weaken the Church.  Beware of the wolf in sheepskin, with high sounding words, clever articulations and in the end are pushing you, asking you to doubt and distrust the Church’s teaching.

[”(I am one of those people who drive an hour and a half to get to the Tridentine Mass every other Sunday. I would do it every week if I could.)”]

I’m sure you would Ed.  Hopefully, someday in the very near future, you will be able to attend the Mass of your choice much closer to home.

Take care… and keep praying my friend.

Alexis:  I didn’t have any references on hand, but this looks like a good source for the seating at the Last supper.  http://blog.adw.org/2010/01/the-seating-plan-at-the-last-supper/.  Pay special attention to the mosaic from Ravenna.  In that picture, He has his back to almost everyone there.  Now, perhaps, you can show me the place in the Vatican II documents where it says that Christ faced the apostles in the first Mass. “Beware of the wolf in sheepskin, with high sounding words, clever articulations and in the end are pushing you, asking you to doubt and distrust the Church’s teaching.”  Sticks and stones.  But this is the first time I’ve been called a “progressive” because I prefer the traditional Mass.

Thanks, ED.

Ed: As for Vatican II and the scholar foundation for the liturgical renewal/changes you can safely read up on Louis Bouyer and his works.  I can safely say that he and his extensive research were the most influential in Vatican II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Bouyer#Published_works
In Vatican II you will not find documents with any directive as of how to seat, as this is not an issue in a Jewish Passover.  btw, I do not accused you, nor call you a progressive for preferring a traditional Mass, the progressive attitude comes from, knowingly or consciously, someone would like to undermine Vatican II, the authority of the Church and its teaching… resulting in more distrust and division in the Church… I don’t think a real progressive would care about the rituals as long as the Church loses credibility.  That is why the proper venue for realizing changes in the liturgy is at the Vatican level, to submit to the authority of the Church and to be careful not to be a scandal for the weakest members of the Church.  These venues, for a progressive, are unbearable as they are unable to submit nor obey because of pride.

@Wsquared: To equate the Eucharist to God is a mistake because God is a person not a ritual.  The Eucharist is an instrument to help us get closer to God and not the other way around.  I would say it better, the Eucharist is an expression of Love towards God, a normal response of gratitude and love toward the one who loved us first,  a thanksgiving or what a Jewish Passover calls a Berakah (in Hebrew) = exaltation, benediction a praise.  How best to do this ‘Praise’? it can be done in many varied ways… not just one… but the moment one places one Berakah above others is a form of idolatry i.e. to make of the ritual an idol and in the process you forget about the most important thing, what Christ came to teach us by example: Love for the enemy, obedience to the Father, forgiveness, etc. in this case rebelling against the Church = lack of obedience.  When Moses, inspired by God, asked the Israel to follow him to the desert, it didn’t made sense to many of them and some were inciting the rest to stone the very one who, led by God, was trying to help them.  If we don’t believe that the Church is being led by God, then it’s time that you acknowledge that you have some Protestant mentality and that you would like to create your own Church, that you are unable to obey, that you, in the end are far from being a Christian = one who is able to submit to the will of your elders in the faith.

The fact that the Latin mass remain and is still allowed to be celebrated, is for ‘pastoral reasons’ as the Church in its motherly love, understand that change is difficult.  But make no mistake about it; the renewal of the liturgy, as clearly outlined in Vatican II, is a return to the origins or the sources: i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist as close as possible as to how the Primitive Church was celebrating it; (the Primitive Church that converted the whole Roman Empire) To celebrate it as close as possible as how the Apostles taught these small Christian communities of the Primitive Church… as close as possible as how Jesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist with His disciples… as close as possible as how Solomon, David, the Prophets, the Judges, Joshua, Moses, Israel were taught to celebrate the Passover by God himself.  Obedience to God, (if we believe that the Church is indeed led by the Holy Spirit, that the Pope seats in the Chair of Peter, i.e if we are Catholics) in this case is to LEARN what the Church wants us to understand, its method behind the madness if you will, trust that she is guided by the Holy Spirit and obey and encourage others to obey.  Those who seek to further divide the Church, do so at their own peril.  Again, you just have to look at the Convents/Bishops/Dioceses/Countries that openly opposed Humanae Vitae and see where this attitude led them.

wsquared: To equate the Eucharist to God is a mistake because God is a person not a ritual.  The Eucharist is an instrument to help us get closer to God and not the other way around.  I would say it better, the Eucharist is an expression of Love towards God, a normal response of gratitude and love toward the one who loved us first,  a thanksgiving or what a Jewish Passover calls a Berakah (in Hebrew) = exaltation, benediction a praise.  How best to do this ‘Praise’? it can be done in many varied ways… not just one… but the moment one places one Berakah above others is a form of idolatry i.e. to make of the ritual an idol and in the process you forget about the most important thing, what Christ came to teach us by example: Love for the enemy, obedience to the Father, forgiveness, etc. in this case rebelling against the Church = lack of obedience.  When Moses, inspired by God, asked the Israel to follow him to the desert, it didn’t made sense to many of them and some were inciting the rest to stone the very one who, led by God, was trying to help them.  If we don’t believe that the Church is being led by God, then it’s time that you acknowledge that you have some Protestant mentality and that you would like to create your own Church, that you are unable to obey, that you, in the end are far from being a Christian = one who is able to submit to the will of your elders in the faith.

The fact that the Latin mass remain and is still allowed to be celebrated, is for ‘pastoral reasons’ as the Church in its motherly love, understand that change is difficult.  But make no mistake about it; the renewal of the liturgy, as clearly outlined in Vatican II, is a return to the origins or the sources: i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist as close as possible as to how the Primitive Church was celebrating it; (the Primitive Church that converted the whole Roman Empire) To celebrate it as close as possible as how the Apostles taught these small Christian communities of the Primitive Church… as close as possible as how Jesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist with His disciples… as close as possible as how Solomon, David, the Prophets, the Judges, Joshua, Moses, Israel were taught to celebrate the Passover by God himself.  Obedience to God, (if we believe that the Church is indeed led by the Holy Spirit, that the Pope seats in the Chair of Peter, i.e if we are Catholics) in this case is to LEARN what the Church wants us to understand, its method behind the madness if you will, trust that she is guided by the Holy Spirit and obey and encourage others to obey.  Those who seek to further divide the Church, do so at their own peril.  Again, you just have to look at the Convents/Bishops/Dioceses/Countries that openly opposed Humanae Vitae and see where this attitude led them.

Some interesting reading:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/fr-longenecker-on-ad-orientem-worship/

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zreorient.htm

Alexis, I read the Vatican II documents, and they “allowed” the use of the vernacular to aid understanding of the readings, and kept the Latin.

RoseanneS, the fact that the mass is being said in the Vernacular by the entire Church body and that Latin is allowed, under special supervision, permission from the ordinary Bishop in their respective diocese, should tell you that it is the other way around… unless you claim to know more about how to implement Vatican II than the ‘entire Church Body’ including Bishops and the Pope himself.  The mass in Latin was kept for ‘pastoral reasons’ while, like it or not, it is being phased out.  Sure, it is not ‘illegal’ to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, which is beautiful and all the superlatives that you can read in this forum, BUT one thing is what I ‘subjetively like’ and another is what the Church is now trying to leading us to.  There are two attitudes towards change: embrace vs reject = obey vs rebel… the Christian answer is clear… the Analogy of Moses in the Desert and the attitude of the People Israel applies here (that is if we truly believe that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit = God i.e. if we are Roman Catholics)

Alexis:  You said, “To equate the Eucharist to God is a mistake because God is a person not a ritual.”  This contradicts the teaching of the Church; see the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1378 - “The Catholic Church hs always offered and still offers ot the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration.”  Adoration is offered only to God.  This is a fundamental error that should embarrass anybody who’s made his first communion.

Alexis:  You said: “In Vatican II you will not find documents with any directive as of how to seat, as this is not an issue in a Jewish Passover.”  I fear I have confused you; the issue is celebrating Mass Ad Orientem; I talked about seating at the Last Supper because many people (incorrectly) see it as an argument for offering Mass versus populum.  And Vatican II said nothing about such a change.  It did rule that Latin was to be maintained:  In Sacrosanctum Concilium  “36. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants.”  Unless we believe that up is down and black is white, the current situation of all-vernacular liturgy does not conform to this decree.

Alexis:  I apologize for saying, “This is a fundamental error that should embarrass anybody who’s made his first communion.”  It was a little harsh.  What I should have said is that it should make you consider whether you really know as much as you think.

When I was in grade school we learned from the Catechism: “Who is God?” “God is the Creator of Heaven,Earth and of All Things”.  “What is God?”“God is a Spirit”. “Where is God”. “God is everywhere”.  He came as a Person in Jesus, His Son to teach us. That is why we have the Trinity…God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. He is Three Persons In One. At the Eucharist, the Priest changes the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. It is a Mystery. In grade school we learned “What is a Mystery?” “A Mystery is A Truth which we cannot fully understand”. I don’t think anything has changed since the 1930’s. The more I think of God, who is so Great, the more I find it hard to understand, because, of his Greatness it is hard to comprehend….God is beyond our mentality.  It is a Mystery that I believe in. [as you can see, I don’t believe in the big bang]

Alexis wrote “the fact that the mass is being said in the Vernacular by the entire Church body and that Latin is allowed, under special supervision, permission from the ordinary Bishop in their respective diocese, should tell you that it is the other way around…”

apparently you are unaware of Pope Benedict’s motu proprio summorum pontificum issued back in 2007 “replaced the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988, which allowed individual bishops to establish places where Mass could be said using the 1962 Missal. (Summorum Pontificum) granted greater freedom to use the Tridentine liturgy in its 1962 form, stating that all priests may freely celebrate Mass with the 1962 Missal privately, without having to ask for permission from anyone”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summorum_Pontificum

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm

the problem is that many bishops still think to this day that they have veto authority over who can and cannot say the Mass in the Extraordinary Form

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum.htm From Summorum Pontificum  “[T]he Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”

Ed and PeterK:  I doubt that you clearly understand the ‘main’ point in my posts.  I do not pretend to be a scholar in liturgy, (although I may sound like a ‘know it all’ and for that I deserve all the insulting words) neither do I seek to get rid of the Latin Rite.  Primarily I seek unity in and faithfulness to the Church.

I have a question for you: Do you think that Benedict’s “(Summorum Pontificum) granting greater freedom to use the Tridentine liturgy in its 1962 form” was done because Benedict XVI ‘believes’ the Tridentine rite is where the whole Church should move towards (i.e. Vatican II and what the whole universal Church is doing was a mistake?) or a reaction to pressure because of the Lefebvre movement (and the likes) and the dangers of provoking a schism?

Whether the mass is said in ‘Latin’ or ‘vernacular’ is irrelevant to what I say through my posts.  The last thing I want to do is to enter into a scholar conversation about liturgy.  I am NOT qualified to credit or discredit any view in regards to liturgy, nor to enter into a dissertation pro/con either liturgy.  For that, within the Roman Catholic Church, we have the Congregation for Divine Worship as the ultimate authority in Liturgy and to them we owe our obedience.  My aim is to raise the flags of loose talk that incites doubt, undermines Vatican II and could drive the Church to another schism—all because of “rubrics and rituals”.  I already mentioned that there are proper venues to challenge and change the Liturgy within the Church and the PUBLIC route is an act of rebelliousness = pompous pride.

I have seen both liturgical extremes: liberal and ‘ultra-orthodox’, and they both are evil in their root of their arguments; both are progressive for they do not care ‘HOW’ their goal is achieved, in this case the vehicle for their goal is all about the liturgy, but what is important to both is that the Church looks incompetent.  Both Progressive sides would USE THE SAME pious rationalization for their intentions: “to help the Church in terms of liturgy”, “better Guide the Church—they really don’t know what they’re doing” or “rescue the Church from the -enemy forces-”, all of which effectively undermine the authority of the Church, raise question about the leadership, discredits Vatican II, etc.  This is either a classical “piously intended error” or the proverbial “wolf in sheepskin.”

The moment we do not have unity in a body/family is the moment we cease being a body/family. If the head chooses a direction in which ‘it’ would like the whole body to go, we (the body, the faithful, but above all of us the PUBLIC Catholic mass media, clergy, religious, etc.) should avoid being part of the voices stirring dissent or a stumbling block for those weak in the faith… unless that is exactly their real intention.

You like the Latin Rite? Do not put down/undermine Vatican II/the GIRM, in the same breath.  You don’t like the Latin Rite, do not ridicule or mock those who do.

Alexis your question can not be answered as an either or. what I can say is that after Vatican II which clearly stated that the Latin was to be kept a group decides to totally rework the Mass. Over the past 50 years I can’t tell you how many different variations of the Mass I’ve seen over the years. I never got a sense of spirituality from any of the post-V2 Masses that I attended.
what I did see Bishops denying people the ability to attend Tridentine Mass while approving all sorts of stuff. I remembert attending the Tridentine Mass in Houston where the Bishop would only allow the Mass to be said as long as there were 100 people in attendance each week. He actually sent someone each week to count heads. What in this Mass scared them that they had to try and kill it.

examples of what they “approved”
http://youtu.be/roPPBpk4vcA

http://youtu.be/ZQPkYwIOCRM

you mentioned that you’ve seen “ultra-orthodox” extremes. could you provide examples?

Pope Benedict is looking to expand the universality of the Church, just look at the Anglican Ordinariate that he established as a way to welcome back Anglicans into the Church

I belong to an EF Parish I’ve found peace and spirituality there that I don’t find in the other parishes that I attended.

“Do not put down/undermine Vatican II/the GIRM, in the same breath.”

i’ve never put it down, but have only pointed out the excesses.

let me suggest that you read some of Father Z’s postings here
http://wdtprs.com/blog/ and he will provide a greater insight into the Latin Mass for you.

Alexis: You seem to be saying that any disgreement with the status quo is beyond the pale for loyal Catholics.  If so, you contradict the CCC, which says in #907, “In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.  That is hardly a gag order. Unfortunately, many faithful have experienced that “shut up and conform” attitude from the authorities when there were serious problems.  The schisms (plural) of the post-Vatican II era might have been avoided if the authorities had been responsive to our concerns.

Do you think that Benedict’s “(Summorum Pontificum) granting greater freedom to use the Tridentine liturgy in its 1962 form” was done because Benedict XVI ‘believes’ the Tridentine rite is where the whole Church should move towards (i.e. Vatican II and what the whole universal Church is doing was a mistake?) or a reaction to pressure because of the Lefebvre movement (and the likes) and the dangers of provoking a schism?  Do you think it matters?  By your own standards, you should accept it without question, regardless of the reason.  But, if you’ve read Papa Ratzinger’s books, you should know that he wants to “reform the reform” to repair the broken continuity.  I’ve heard that the change in attitude toward the Roman Rite was motivated in part by the hope of bringing the Orthodox back into the fold.

A question from Raymond Arroyo to then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in a 2003 interview:

[“Let’s talk for moment about the Second Vatican Council, and particularly the implementation of the Council.? You have written so much about this, and talked so much about this.? For people of my generation, I suppose the thing that most stands out from the faith too of our fathers and grandfathers is the liturgy, the Mass.? You’ve spoken about the reform of the reform, reforming the reform.? How do you see that actuating?? How do you see it concretely taking shape as we move forward?’}

Read the answer here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/ratzintv.htm

Ed said: “By your own standards, you should accept it without question, regardless of the reason.” and interprets what I have written so far as “shut up and conform”… hmmmm…  Like I say, to a progressive, to obey is a four letter word.  Any abuses or blatant disregard for the GIRM you SHOULD denounce, publicly, courageously.  But to say that the GIRM is an abuse or blatant disregard for the Latin Rite, you are presuming that you know what is best for the Church, that you know more that all the Liturgists participating in Vatican 2 and by more than the Pope himself.  The Pope definitely wants to address the abuses to the GIRM and is doing so on both ends of the spectrum: from the life-teen mass as well as the Lefebvre movement were condemned.  I agree with you that there have been many abuses to the GIRM, but to assume that all are abusing the liturgy is akin to saying that all priests are Pedophiles because of the Boston scandal.

PeterK said: “you mentioned that you’ve seen “ultra-orthodox” extremes.  Could you provide examples?”  The Lefebvre movement comes to mind.  The protestant-“divorce”-mentality when there is disagreement, the lack of obedience or submission to the Church would drive them even to the point of creating another schism; all because they are following their ‘feelings’, their ‘ideas’ without a sincere desire to understand what the Church discovered during Vatican 2, etc.

PeterK said: “i’ve never put it down, but have only pointed out the excesses.”  I applaud you and hope that in expressing your ideas about the Latin Rite or your preference, this post helps anyone be cautious on how one speaks about the GIRM, VC2 and the Pope.

About the Pope and how he speaks well about the Latin Rite, etc.  That argument goes both ways.  The Pope also speaks very well about many movements, religious orders, etc. one recent example that comes to mind is the Neocatechumenal Way.  If I am not mistaken, they have a very ‘community’ oriented liturgy and it’s rationale for the changes in the liturgy are based all in solid theological teachings found in Vatican II, the Jewish Passover, etc.  Not only have the statutes been officially approved but also their Catechetical directory… i.e. their teachings on the history of the Eucharist has been approved.  According to an Opus Dei cannon lawyer, Mons. Juan Ignacio Arrieta—Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (highest authority in this field)— and I quote
“The result is quite coherent. Being characterized by public juridical personality erected by the hierarchy of the Church, the fact that it acts in the name of the Church (cf., as analogy, CAN. 313 CIC), seems quite consistent with the catechetical method configured now with juridical person is part of the organic pastoral of the Church, fully integrated in the structure, and under the trust of the diocesan pastor, in addition to the Responsibles that know its identity.” basically saying that this approval of their directives implies that their teaching is in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, Ed mentions also the Anglicans and how the Pope is welcoming them and making exceptions for them.  As I said, the Pope is a pastor and with motherly love seeks to accommodate as many as possible without violating the principles of our faith.  But it is a stretch to believe that the Pope would like everyone to celebrate the Mass as the Neocatechumenal Way does, nor the Latin Rite… we already have the GIRM.  btw: the NCW did go through the existing venues to appeal for ‘their’ liturgy changes and they got it… all I am saying is that there are ways of doing things that do not include subverting, confusing or scandalizing the laity.

Alexis:  I don’t believe I even mentioned the GIRM.  The most I said was that Vatican II decreed that Latin was to be retained (and the people instructed so that they would be able to participate), and the opposite was done.  Both of those facts are beyond question.  The conclusion is that the Liturgical changes were not in accord with Vatican II, at least in that matter.  I have never disobeyed the rightful authorities in the liturgy.  I have never attended a schismatic or Lefebvrite Mass, so don’t accuse me of refusing to obey.

Ed… then I guess we agree.  Like I said, I am not a liturgist.  However, I am deeply concerned about the unity, authority and credibility of the Church and I see how a progressive could easily use something as noble and beautiful as the liturgy to further divide the Church.  I meant no disrespect to those who behold the Latin Rite as deeply spiritual, etc. nor is it my purpose to recklessly smear anyone except if they are consciously/unconsciously trying to divide the Church.

Alexis - Promoting the traditional Roman Rite will heal the divisions caused by the liturgical revolution of the post-Vatican II era.  Many hearts were broken by the destruction of the ancient liturgy and embittered by the insolence of the reformers.  When we feel secure in having our own rite back,the bitterness and defensiveness fade away.  Also, traditionalists who have stayed with the Church have paid a high price for our faithfulness, so it is a little galling to have someone chide us for being “disobedient.”  A little consideration and understanding would serve the Church best.  Pax.

And here you started this fire so innocently, Matthew..

All of you with the exception of Alex and a couple others would surely forfend putting your own hand into Christ’s side and nail prints.  “Turn around, Lord!”

I grew up in Latin Mass with a missal, i.e., 10 a.m. High Mass and don’t you dare come to Me without confession and mea culpas the whole while I’m on this Cross for you.  You without the hat—take this rainbonnet, you loser! (Ah, yes, how to engage the modern world..)  You want reform of the reform?  Here’s the key: Mind your own business, which is to give over your hearts to Christ; only then, do what you will.

Restore the Latin mass, restore the Church.

I appreciate both forms deeply, and am familiar with both (although more so with the ordinary form). Our Holy Father Benedict XVI has said that he likes seeing the extraordinary form being offered but does not, as some would want, say that the extraordinary form should replace the ordinary vernacular form. The new translation has cleared up many things I did not appreciate about the ordinary form, but there are still things that I think could be “tridentineized” of even this new form to bring us all deeper into the mysteries unfolding during Holy Mass.  I agree with a lot of you that there is a certain beauty to the Priest facing the east with the congregation, but there are other things that are more important to me than which way the Priest faces, as historically before V-II it was done both ways (first with the priest facing the congregation, then the opposite until V-II).  As some have mentioned that covering of women’s heads with veils or hats, this is a more pressing issue to me because it is a scriptural issue and not just a theological one.  St. Paul mentions it to the earliest Christians in Corinth in his first letter to them (1 Cor 11:5&6), and it is clear what he means when you read those verses. So seeing headdresses come back would be a great thing to see, maybe not requiring it outright, but not just writing it off as an old fashion hat fad, and never exhorting the women of the congregation to consider honoring the word of god.  It would also be nice to see the form of the Our Father made scriptural as well.  Currently the ecumenical way that we say the Lord’s prayer is by saying the correct catholic bible (approved English translations) way (Mat 6:9 etc. & Luke 11:2 etc.), then following it with a pause having the priest break up the prayer into two parts, and then adding in the second part “for thine is the kingdom…” which is the way protestant bibles portray the prayer in the same verses of their translations (see KJV and such).  So I would like to take the part of the prayer that Jesus never told us to pray out of the mass.  I know they say that it is a separate prayer altogether, but that’s some strange coincidence that it lands right at that point in the mass.  As far as communion reception, I say all who wish to show full reverence for the king of kings should and can kneel (Rom 14:11), and receive on the tongue.  You don’t have to attend a tridentine mass to do so.  Every time I receive the holy Eucharist I kneel before the priest and receive our lord on my tongue.  As of yet I have not been denied communion for this, I probably get some looks and such like things from my brothers and sisters watching me, but I will gladly look like a fool (1 Cor 4:10) to show the respect our lord is due, as he is truly and bodily present every time I am there kneeling and awaiting to receive him.

I have never found so many blind “mice” in one place and at one time. Get over the old and enter into a world that want verbal participation in the Mass (in their own language). What difference if the priest faces West or East? The Mass is not to be a secret so why deny the people the opportunity to have the priest facing west? Of course there are those who will grandstand and try to make the Mass “their own.” Liturgy is the work of the people. That doesn’t do well when noone but the rigid pre-vatican II priest turns HIS back to the congregation and mumbles the prayers.

“Of course there are those who will
grandstand and try to make the Mass “their own.”“

yes we sure have seen a lot of grandstanding over the years with regards to the Mass. check some of these out
Clown Mass
http://youtu.be/fgKweu0ZWVs

Puppet Mass
http://youtu.be/rh_nqtp3VrU

http://youtu.be/KwVcfv8r2qU

http://youtu.be/7aLLsJa9xYY

http://youtu.be/ZwvUKAsHxZ8

What is it about the EF of the Mass that gets your ire up? No one is forcing you to attend an EF Mass. why deny others what they seek.