slamjet

Please Explain - Pope Reimposed Restrictions on the Latin Mass

Recommended Posts

I admit total ignorance on this.

Seems that Pope Francis overturned the loosening of celebrating the Latin Mass.  Seems that, according to Pope Francis, the Latin Mass was being used to put a wedge between the traditionalist and the reformists, if that is the case.  I remember my Grandma saying she stopped going to mass when her parish stopped doing the mass in Latin so I think I have a bit of an understanding why the traditionalist are in an uproar.  If someone can explain what the arguments are on both sides and how, if it is, the Latin mass is divisive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, slamjet said:

I admit total ignorance on this.

Seems that Pope Francis overturned the loosening of celebrating the Latin Mass.  Seems that, according to Pope Francis, the Latin Mass was being used to put a wedge between the traditionalist and the reformists, if that is the case.  I remember my Grandma saying she stopped going to mass when her parish stopped doing the mass in Latin so I think I have a bit of an understanding why the traditionalist are in an uproar.  If someone can explain what the arguments are on both sides and how, if it is, the Latin mass is divisive.


this is a gross oversimplification. 

Basically, Vatican II changed the liturgy of the Catholic mass. Pre-Vatican II, the mass (except for small parts)was in Latin. Post Vatican II, you could find Latin masses (I went to one as a kid) but they were rare. I think they did not qualify as fulfilling your Sunday obligation, but I’m not sure. 


Pope Benedict, the pope in retirement,  basically (and again, this is a huge oversimplification) said it was “okay” for Catholics to go to the Latin Mass while Pope Francis, the current one said it’s not with his latest teaching. 
 

It’s the classic battle of traditionalists vs those who have trouble with change. That’s what it boils down to. Pro-trads think change is blasphemy. “Modernists” (a pejorative in the Catholic church in some circles) feel the Latin Mass is out of date and not understood by the average Catholic. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, slamjet said:

I admit total ignorance on this.

Seems that Pope Francis overturned the loosening of celebrating the Latin Mass.  Seems that, according to Pope Francis, the Latin Mass was being used to put a wedge between the traditionalist and the reformists, if that is the case.  I remember my Grandma saying she stopped going to mass when her parish stopped doing the mass in Latin so I think I have a bit of an understanding why the traditionalist are in an uproar.  If someone can explain what the arguments are on both sides and how, if it is, the Latin mass is divisive.

The so-called conservatives or traditionalists take their tradition very seriously, especially about things they consider central, like celebrating the Mass and using ecclesiastical Latin. Since the mid-1960s, Catholic Masses have commonly been celebrated in the local vernacular—that is, in English or Spanish or Korean or Italian or whatever, not in Latin. The Latin Masses never entirely ceased, of course, but I believe they were restricted to certain traditional cathedrals and areas, unless specifically approved by a priest's bishop or the Vatican.

Since around 2007, those restrictions were loosened such that any Catholic priest could celebrate a Latin Mass without direct permission from his bishop or the Vatican. This was greeted with rejoicing in many areas. Francis rescinded that open invitation for any priest to celebrate a Latin Mass, requiring instead that priests who do not normally engage in Latin Mass again seek permission. He also said that while parishes which have been established to celebrate Latin Masses can continue, no new ones can be established.

If the news agencies are to be believed (translation: Beware! Caveat emptor!), this underlines political divisions within Roman Catholicism. The conservatives are, we suppose, a minority in the religion, but obviously a large and extremely important minority; I imagine the majority of faithful, committed, "active" tithing Catholics consider themselves conservative. The 2007 concession was interpreted as an olive leaf to the conservatives. Francis' recision of the more than decade-old rules is thus interpreted as a slap in the face of conservatives. Francis' own excuse is that the liberties granted in 2007 are being misused to create division and strife within the Body of Christ (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church). As long as such liberties are being misused, they should therefore not be extended.

I have no dog in the fight, so I don't greatly care what the resolution is, but I find myself sort of siding with the conservatives. On the one hand, the conservatives' insistence on Latin Mass is itself antithetical to the entire reason the Latin Mass was originally established: To allow the common man to understand the Mass. It wasn't Caesar's classical Latin that the medieval priests were spouting up there, but so-called ecclesiastical Latin, which is directly based on various dialects of vulgar (meaning "common") Latin spoken in the Italian peninsula in the early Middle Ages. It bears about as much resemblance to classical Latin as Spanish does to Italian. On the other hand, the Vatican II reforms took much that Catholics had for centuries considered sacred and made those things optional and/or outdated. It also opened the door to reinterpretations of very fundamental Catholic teachings, something the Catholic Church has struggled with throughout its existence. (A strong argument could be made that Augustine, the greatest theologian of Catholic history and the real founder of modern Catholic doctrinal interpretations, was the foremost of such "reformers".)

As I wrote, I have no dog in the fight. But when the most truly devout and religious Catholics of my acquaintance tend so strongly to be conservative while the RCINOs line up with the reformers, I cannot help but have more sympathy for the one side than the other.

Anyway, don't accept my understanding at face value. I'm no Anatess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit complete ignorance to Catholic traditions which are very confusing and illogical to me.  As near as I can tell, neither Jesus, while he was alive nor during the lives of any of his apostles; during their era ever conversed in Latin except to the Romans (Gentiles).  The pure tradition of G-d communicating to man for thousands of years was in Hebrew; not Latin????????  And in our time we have discovered that the Latin versions of scriptures (contrary to traditions arising in the Dark Ages) are not the most accurate text - even by the admission of the most prominent Catholic scholars.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

 “Modernists” (a pejorative in the Catholic church in some circles) . . .

Perhaps not just in Catholic circles:

“Well, the Church is trying to be more relevant.”

”To God?”

”Oh, of course not, Prime Minister.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

The so-called conservatives or traditionalists take their tradition very seriously, especially about things they consider central, like celebrating the Mass and using ecclesiastical Latin. Since the mid-1960s, Catholic Masses have commonly been celebrated in the local vernacular—that is, in English or Spanish or Korean or Italian or whatever, not in Latin. The Latin Masses never entirely ceased, of course, but I believe they were restricted to certain traditional cathedrals and areas, unless specifically approved by a priest's bishop or the Vatican.

Since around 2007, those restrictions were loosened such that any Catholic priest could celebrate a Latin Mass without direct permission from his bishop or the Vatican. This was greeted with rejoicing in many areas. Francis rescinded that open invitation for any priest to celebrate a Latin Mass, requiring instead that priests who do not normally engage in Latin Mass again seek permission. He also said that while parishes which have been established to celebrate Latin Masses can continue, no new ones can be established.

If the news agencies are to be believed (translation: Beware! Caveat emptor!), this underlines political divisions within Roman Catholicism. The conservatives are, we suppose, a minority in the religion, but obviously a large and extremely important minority; I imagine the majority of faithful, committed, "active" tithing Catholics consider themselves conservative. The 2007 concession was interpreted as an olive leaf to the conservatives. Francis' recision of the more than decade-old rules is thus interpreted as a slap in the face of conservatives. Francis' own excuse is that the liberties granted in 2007 are being misused to create division and strife within the Body of Christ (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church). As long as such liberties are being misused, they should therefore not be extended.

I have no dog in the fight, so I don't greatly care what the resolution is, but I find myself sort of siding with the conservatives. On the one hand, the conservatives' insistence on Latin Mass is itself antithetical to the entire reason the Latin Mass was originally established: To allow the common man to understand the Mass. It wasn't Caesar's classical Latin that the medieval priests were spouting up there, but so-called ecclesiastical Latin, which is directly based on various dialects of vulgar (meaning "common") Latin spoken in the Italian peninsula in the early Middle Ages. It bears about as much resemblance to classical Latin as Spanish does to Italian. On the other hand, the Vatican II reforms took much that Catholics had for centuries considered sacred and made those things optional and/or outdated. It also opened the door to reinterpretations of very fundamental Catholic teachings, something the Catholic Church has struggled with throughout its existence. (A strong argument could be made that Augustine, the greatest theologian of Catholic history and the real founder of modern Catholic doctrinal interpretations, was the foremost of such "reformers".)

As I wrote, I have no dog in the fight. But when the most truly devout and religious Catholics of my acquaintance tend so strongly to be conservative while the RCINOs line up with the reformers, I cannot help but have more sympathy for the one side than the other.

Anyway, don't accept my understanding at face value. I'm no Anatess.

The Catholic Church is in a difficult position.  I sympathize with the traditionalists.  But, as one who had a really hard time with the changes to the LDS temple rite a couple years ago:  I’m not sure it would have been a good thing for the Church to accommodate me by offering different versions of the endowment.  I think we benefit, as a church, from participating in the same liturgies and knowing that we are all making the same covenants in the same way; and I imagine the Catholic leadership feel similarly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The Catholic Church is in a difficult position.  I sympathize with the traditionalists.  But, as one who had a really hard time with the changes to the LDS temple rite a couple years ago:  I’m not sure it would have been a good thing for the Church to accommodate me by offering different versions of the endowment.  I think we benefit, as a church, from participating in the same liturgies and knowing that we are all making the same covenants in the same way; and I imagine the Catholic leadership feel similarly.  

Catholicism long, long ago gave up trying to maintain the sort of top-down order and compliance that the Restored Church demands, if indeed they ever did try. The Restored Church and the Catholic Church bear many superficial similarities on ideas of authority, but I'm not sure those similarities are more than skin-deep. I doubt they bear examination. Roman Catholics claim to believe that their Pope is the inerrant voice of Christ, yet openly defy him when they don't agree with him. Latter-day Saints claim no man as inerrant except One, and yet they seek to sustain their leaders, including (especially) the prophets and apostles who form the Church's leading quorums even when they may not agree with them.

In short, I don't think comparing Latter-day Saints and Catholics based on "conservatives" versus "reformers" or "modernists" works in any sense. If most faithful, believing, devoted, honest Catholics of my acquaintance were the latter, I would probably tend to take their view of things. But as I've already said a couple of times, I have no dog in the fight, so ultimately it's of limited interest to me how they view their own church.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While looking up some info, I discovered that the Latin mass is called the Tridentine Mass.

But just spit-balling here, and again forgive my ignorance: I'm kind-of wondering if there is an ideology in the Catholic church that the Tridentine Mass is the "true" Catholic mass so those that perform and attend it are "true" Catholics.  If that is the case, then possibly Pope Francis is trying to do away with such rigidity in the ministry so that the ministry would concentrate more on service rather than complex mass and strict dogma. 

Or that the ministry who perform the Tridentine Mass do so with the guise of holding together the traditional Catholic faith in opposition to the changes being made by a more liberal Pope in a more liberal time.  If that is the case, then Pope Francis pretty much kicked a hornets nest.  I'm already seeing where there are people saying that he is not the "real" Pope and will be pushing against this latest motu proprio.

Either way, my limited exploration of the subject has taught me that the issue of the Catholic mass can get complicated and that the Catholic church has a couple of thousand of years of tradition and rule making to throw a lot of wrenches into the works.  But it's fascinating stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, slamjet said:

I'm kind-of wondering if there is an ideology in the Catholic church that the Tridentine Mass is the "true" Catholic mass so those that perform and attend it are "true" Catholics.

There lies the problem. Once again, it boils down to ego. The trads who go to the Latin Mass cause division by thinking themselves as “pure” or “true” Catholics, and all those fools who don’t are evil sinners watering down the liturgy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vort said:

Catholicism long, long ago gave up trying to maintain the sort of top-down order and compliance that the Restored Church demands, if indeed they ever did try. The Restored Church and the Catholic Church bear many superficial similarities on ideas of authority, but I'm not sure those similarities are more than skin-deep. I doubt they bear examination. Roman Catholics claim to believe that their Pope is the inerrant voice of Christ, yet openly defy him when they don't agree with him. Latter-day Saints claim no man as inerrant except One, and yet they seek to sustain their leaders, including (especially) the prophets and apostles who form the Church's leading quorums even when they may not agree with them.

In short, I don't think comparing Latter-day Saints and Catholics based on "conservatives" versus "reformers" or "modernists" works in any sense. If most faithful, believing, devoted, honest Catholics of my acquaintance were the latter, I would probably tend to take their view of things. But as I've already said a couple of times, I have no dog in the fight, so ultimately it's of limited interest to me how they view their own church.

I’ve been studying the Catholic Church and Catholicism recently.  The struggle to maintain control is being lost and doctrine/politics are merging at many levels.  I’m really enjoying the rich history and devotion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I'm guessing that this information from Rome to the churches abroad was contained in a missive that was mass ive. 

So massive it had to be delivered by rocket. A massive missile missive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2021 at 4:06 PM, Vort said:

So massive it had to be delivered by rocket. A massive missile missive.

Judging by the degree of division between the traditionalists and the reformists, I'm guessing that perhaps there was a mishap, whereby the massive missive missile misfired and missed its mark, thereby causing much miss ery and misunderstanding between the two groups.

Edited by askandanswer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now