@@glennso47 What is good about the old Mass is the prayers used and not the language the prayers are said in. By giving permission to say the Traditional Mass in the vernacular rather than Latin will ensure that the Old Mass will still be universally used and not just by a small group of people as is the case because for some reason the Traditional Mass has to be said in Latin.
@@miketrrtx471 The Mass is from God's only begotten Son but the Latin just happened to be the language of the time. Keep in mind that Jesus never spoke Latin with His Apostles and the NT was written in Greek and not Latin. This should show us there is nothing sacred about Latin. What makes the Latin language sacred is the prayers used. Now using these prayers in English will make English language sacred. Likewise using Latin without the prayers will see to it that Latin will lose anything sacred about it.
The Mass is all about the Holy Eucharist. Jesus spoke in vernacular. It's more than just the words spoken in the language spoken in that area. It's the common language to bring the Word on each person's level. Jesus loves us so much, not in a legalist arrogant way like the Sanhedrin or the Pharisee of Jesus's Day, but a loving and gentle way. St. Paul, when he went to a Jew he was a Jew when he went to the Greeks he was a Greek, and he brought it on their level and, of course, also their language. 1 Corinthians 9:20 Christ wants us to be as one as His Father and He are one. John 17: 21-23. The mass is about the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior the Holy Eucharist. John 6:51-56, it all comes down to love. It's All About Love. 1 Corinthians 13. We have to watch out that we don't become full of ourselves. Proverbs 16:18 We have to have the fullness of the Lord. Faith Hope, Love, the greatest of these is Love. God bless 🙏
@michaelpalomba7992 Then why does the NO fail in effectively transmitting the Truth of the Holy Eucharist? Why do only 17% of US Catholics attend the NO on Sunday compared to 99% of TLM Catholics? Why do only 30% of US Catholics in the NO believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist while 99% do who attend the TLM? If it's all about LOVE, then where are the people? It's because the nature of that LOVE is the Holy Sacrifice of our Lord on Calvary. The NO all but eliminated the whole premise of the Mass: the remembrance of the Holy Sacrifice of Christ our Lord on Calvary--the ultimate expression of love. The NO replaces that with a community meal. The NO, drafted by a committee that flouted the Vatican Council Fathers hubristically broke with Tradition and the Lord has allowed us to suffer the consequences for the last 50 years. Fortunately, the Mass of the Ages is the only viable future. TLM families are young and prolific. Deo gratias.
@brianbacon5149 First of all, tradition goes back further than 1570. Your words have a tone to them that sounds very judgemental. I could be wrong, and if I am, my apologies. There is respect for the Holy Father, that's tradition. The true magisterium is the Pope in Union with the Bishops, that's tradition. And all of the councils. Even the ones you don't like. We have to believe in Jesus Christ words. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against It. He built His Church upon Peter. His Church upon the Rock. Saint Peter, our first Pope to the current Pope Francis. You said how many believe in the Holy Eucharist that go to Latin Mass. That's good, but I would say James 2:19 just believing doesn't get you saved. I believe it's the body blood soul and divinity of the Lord and savior for every Mass that is approved by the Catholic Church. The traditional Latin mass and all of them.
@michaelpalomba7992 +JMJ I attended the NO for 50 years. It failed me. I have been attending the TLM for almost a year now. I won't ever go back to the NO. I feel very gypped. The NO seriously impeded my ability to pray the Mass, commune with the Lord and therefore harmed my relationship with the Lord and the Blessed Mother. The Church always had marginalized the TLM until Pope Benedict and now this pope wants to eliminate it. That accounts for any judgment you may have detected. From what I have personally experienced, the NO is casual and banal. Men wear flip flops and shorts and women dress the same. They would be better dressed for a job interview than for the worship of our Lord. You're quite right about James 2:19. I'm a sinner in need of God's grace. In my case I'm not holy enough to withstand the NO in which I never know what to expect when I walk in. It's full of distraction with lay people traipsing on and off the altar. Why do the unconsecrated hands of laypeople distribute the Most Blessed Sacrament? We see altar girls yet wonder why boys don't consider vocations. The music is unbecoming of divine worship. It's banal. I'm convinced the Church is in crisis because of the NO. The laxity of the NO has enabled and encouraged a gay culture in the clergy and sexual abuse. With that said, the TLM is saving my soul. I attend DAILY. You can go to Confession every day. And every day we have Rosary before Mass. It's OK to be Catholic (Protestants don't like that passage in James you cited). The TLM teaches that good works shine through faith and that Faith and Hope are the building blocks to Charity. The TLM is True, Good and Beautiful. It's all about sacrifice borne of love. It's taking up the Cross. Young people come for the authenticity of the Cross and the beauty and mystery. May the Lord's countenance shine upon you.
***I refuse to understand on how "truly a divine way to worship"; latin is just a language that stayed until our days due reasons that come from the christendom replacement of the roman empire with the pseudo conversion of Constantino, with all good and mostly bad things that come with it. It is just about time we the so called christians realise the truth of all that, we have to have a lot of courage to chance, I know as I did changed, it is like being sure of ourselves and alone in a desert. ***
As one who served as “Server” at Mass 1945-1961, I learned the prayers in the Mass in Latin. We were instructed that the prayers in Latin in the prayer books were in a “frozen” language (not subject to colloquial changes) , and in the prayer books both - Latin and ENGLISH were on opposite pages of the books. So the meaning of the words prayed in the Mass were not changing to meet/idiomatic language that changes word meaning over time. The main teachable point is that prayer intention was frozen, in a meaning of love/reverence/homage to God offered up to God by the consecrated priest and altar server.
@hughmccoll2698 They weren't subject to idiomatic change anymore because they stopped being the language spoken in the former Roman Empire between 600 and 1000. The Mass was translated from Greek to the vernacular language, Latin, for the benefit of the Latin speaking Christians. While Latin was still the vernacular, it was subject to all the linguistic variation that any spoken language is. After all, Latin became modern French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.
@StoaoftheSouth nice try. Ecclesial Latin is different from the Latin spoken by people outside of Church, same way the Greek and Hebrew used by Orthodox Christians and Jews in their worship is not the same as the language spoken on the streets of Athens and Tel Aviv.
@brandywineblue I'm not sure I completely understand your argument here. Are you saying that Ecclesiastical Latin was a completely different language from regular, day-to-day spoken Latin? Because if that's your argument, wouldn't agree with you about that.
@brandywineblue No, I was talking about the change that naturally occurs in a language over time. Latin was in a state of gradual change that eventually led to the modern Romance languages. When the liturgy was put into the vernacular, it was put into Latin which was language of most people in the western Roman Empire. It hadn't undergone all those changed that would lead to modern Romance languages yet.
I get the same objections, especially “the Latin mass was invented at Trent” or something like that When I was a brand new Catholic I wanted to hear more Latin in the new mass but I almost exclusively go to the Latin mass now and it’s not mainly for the language that’s probably 5th or 6th reason that I attend the TLM
its the liturgy? the holy liturgy is set in stone.... exactly why modernist hates it... because they cant insert the rainbow dancing musical, ecumenical, progressive, inclusive modern liturgy they want to promote in the TLM
I grew up in the 50’s and 60”s and it never occurred to me until now that I never said I was going to the Latin mass…… I was just going to mass! No reason to point out it was Latin….
....until a bunch of revolutionaries wrote a Protestantized "liturgy" using only 23% of the prayers of the Roman Catholic Mass....expressing a completely different theology/ecclesiolgy, Cardinal Roche said so himself
@@brandywineblueI think if you could possibly cut out the idea that the only reason the Mass was changed to make it more Protestant and really read the prayers and looked at text as prayers and their meaning you might find more beauty in the NO Mass. I wish they had simply change the prayers in the vernacular but they did not . I do pray the Mass now that it is in my vernacular because I did not always understand the Latin. Wish all Catholics, Roman Rite would accept both Masses,and not divide but unite in our dogma and spread it United in core beliefs. The summit of the Mass is the Holy Eucharist and I feel certain Christ listens to our words, our devotion, our hearts and our intent as we receive His wonderful gift of LOVE at communion. God bless you.
@@brandywineblue ***the "protestants" exist due to the so called catholics where less christians, so the reform started, you must know that no revolution stays in the ideas of it, there are always someone to take over and change it, mostly due to political reasons.***
@katiedid8192 Just the facts ma'am. I would "cut out the idea" (as you call it) if they had, in fact, simply translated the Mass into English. If they had, there would be no problem because there would be, in fact, no difference from what had gone before. Alas, they did not. I have indeed read both liturgies side by side, beginning to end. And because I have done that, plus way more than just that, it is crystal clear that they changed EVERYTHING about Christ's Church. Not only did they change the Holy Mass, but also: the liturgies for all of the other six Sacraments, the liturgical calendar, the lectionary (readings), canon law, the Catechism, the Bible, the Breviary, rites of exorcism, prayers, even the training of priests...These changes were not just saying the same things in a different language or with synonyms --- the changes are NOT saying the same things AT ALL Therefore, THE PEOPLE WHO DID THIS are the ones who divided the church, and the ones insisting the Novus Ordo is the ONLY way to worship (like Cdl Roche, Cdl Cupich, Prof. Grillo, etc) divide the church today. Not me or you....unless we go along with their wicked plans. So, no, thank you, I will stay with the faith that got generations of my family through famines, immigration, prejudice, economic depressions, plagues, and two "World Wars." I will stay with the faith that has made saints in every generation. God bless you. PS if you want to understand the Latin, just read the page opposite in your missal. Missals were, and still are, available in Latin-English, Latin-Spanish, Latin-Polish, etc. Hope that helps.
@@brandywineblue as I said, I wished they had just translated into the vernacular but they did not. I still live the dogma of pre Vatican II . Neither of us can change what they have done but we can pray the Mass and be thankful for the blessings that Christ gave to us. Both Masses are beautiful and I feel blessed to be able to receive the Holy Eucharist at both. It disturbs me that Satan is getting so much satisfaction out of trying to divide Christ’s Church. I certainly pray that Pope Francis will see the importance of preserving the Latin Mass as it is one of the treasures we have today. God bless you!
The Second Vatican Council instructed that all existing forms of the Liturgy were to be reverenced, respected and preserved. It was the intention of the Council that the existing form of the Mass should include the vernacular, with the intention that the congregation would then be more closely involved, saying the responses instead of just listening while the Altar Servers said the responses. This was the aim of the reforms. There was no instruction to introduce a new form of Liturgy, nor to remove any parts of the existing Liturgy. Then with the enthusiasm for ecumenism which followed the Council, a decision was made to prepare a new form the the Mass, which would be more acceptable to Protestants. So, a Committee was set up, which included Protestants and their wishes were taken into account. The Protestants did not like the “Prayers at the Foot of the Altar” (because they consider that it is a communion table, not an Altar) so these had to be removed on their instructions. Then, they did not like the Last Gospel, because many Protestants espouse one form or another of the Arian heresy and they do not believe that the eternal Word is Jesus, but that it is the Sacred Scriptures. So, on their instructions, the Last Gospel was removed. Then, they insisted upon the Prayer to the Archangel Michael being removed, of course, since they did not like the idea of asking Michael being asked to protect the Church from error and heresy, naturally enough! Then, their wishes to “water down” the Canon of the Mass were partially successful. The succeeded in having the words of the consecration of the wine altered to “shed for you and for all” (as many on the Committee espoused the Universalist heresy) but, after about forty years of this error, Pope Benedict XVI did, finally, put his foot down and restore the correct wording. The Roman Canon was preserved as Eucharistic Prayer I, and was, for many years, used, particularly on the “Roman” feasts, St Peter and Paul, the Chair of St Peter, the Dedication of St John Lateran etc., however, I understand that most Bishops have now instructed the Clergy that it is to be discretely retired from use, as it is seen as offensive to Protestants. Of the three other Eucharistic Prayers, almost all of the Clergy now simply choose the shortest of them, without ever considering which might be more appropriate to the particular feast, as was originally intended. What is surprising, after all of this bending over backwards to please the Protestants, is that those Protestants who have come into the Church recently have done so because they love the certainty which the Tridentine form of the Mass offers and they tend to seek out the Tridentine Mass for this reason.
@@sanctifyme4543 A recent survey of Protestants disclosed that about sixty percent of them espouse one form or another of the Arian heresy. For this reason, you will find that most Protestant Churches do not recited the Nicene Creed, as a large percentage of their congregations do not accept the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Nicaea - for that reason, they use only the Apostles Creed. Since most Protestants believe in the authority of Scripture alone, it suits them to consider that the first chapter of the Gospel of John is referring to the Sacred Scriptures, when it refers to the eternal Word. The Catholic Church, of course, believes that the eternal Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Protestants on the Committee would not consent to the Last Gospel remaining in the new form of the Mass, for this reason.
@@Mark3ABE If the majority of Protestants refuse to profess the Nicene Creed, formulated at that council as a statement of the beliefs of Christians, can they truly claim to be Christians?
Thank you for the post, correcting many wrong understanding of Vatican II. I believe the real enemies of the Church use Vatican II to create confusion, misunderstanding, and division in the Church, by twisting and abusing the Vatican II reforms. I believe the Ecumenism and related changes in the liturgy are the work of the enemies infiltrated into the Church Hierarchy to begin the demolition of the Church from inside.
Exceptional! It’s about the words. Latin is a language that was not spoken any longer, so it would not change arbitrarily, the Church used it for everything thereafter, so I that the worship, prayer and chants would be used Universally without change. Impartial.
@@Hope_Boat Which is of course why God allowed Constantinople to be taken and the Orthodox Church to be subjugated by multiple secular nations across its history. You can’t be in the right for the same, very simple reason that neither the Oriental Orthodox and The Assyrian Church of the East can’t be in the right. Their strongholds were seized just as yours were because they taught messages contrary to our Lord and as a result the message these churches sought to convey was stifled. This is not something the Lord would allow to happen if these churches were actually speaking what he wanted of them. The Church as an institution will never be overcome by the world, so any Church that has been overcome and be restricted in its purpose must be incorrect.
The teachings of the church were first decided at the council of Nicaea. The Roman emperor Constantine and church leaders chose the principles to be taught and followed. The Latin mass is as much a political construct as a religious one. Roman emperors saw organized religion as a way to unify people under their leadership. Old traditions are not good just because they are old. It was past time that the average parishioner could understand the words being said during mass. If you consider yourself a follower of Jesus, why would the language being used during worship affect your beliefs?
@@catherinemacaskill1421 If you do NOT want unity under Christian leadership, you are clearly preaching disobedience, which by the bible is as bad as wickedness - already in the OT.
@@catherinemacaskill1421 +JMJ The Mass of the Ages is anything but a political construct. Wow. That's a new one. And yes old traditions are not good just because they are old. The Mass has organically developed over 2000 years. By contrast the NO was a radical rupture with that organically developed tradition. I invite you to watch the Mass of the Ages trilogy for free on TH-cam. You should also read the Once and Future Roman Rite by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. Latin was one of 3 languages inscribed on the Cross mocking the Jesus and the Jewish people. It is an ancient language that ties us to the Lord. Its use highlights the victory of Christianity over pagan Rome. Its beauty and mystery is hardly the only reason why people are attracted to the TLM. The key reason is that the whole focus is on the reverent remembrance of the Holy Sacrifice on Calvary in which the priest in the person of Christ offers the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the only begotten Son to the Father and makes the Body and Blood present to the Faithful on the Altar of Sacrifice. Dominus vobiscum.
I have only gotten to attend TLM one time in 5 years being Catholic. It is not about the language. In my life I have never experienced anything like it. There was a reverence an awareness of something holy taking place. I would love to have the option. “Going to church” for anything other than engaging God in true worship which requires a sacrifice is simply a get together, not worship.
***I made the transition as easy as a wake up with a difference, I could feel the Mass much better in my own language, latin was OK, I was accustomed to it and use a missal with both languages, in english it was like my own language; never had any problem with Mass in any language.***
A friend who served in the Navy told me that when mass was in Latin, no matter where he was in the world, he could participate in the mass, he only missed out on the homily. Once mass was said in the vernacular, that changed.
@@RPlavoactually you did if you had the missal as both languages are in it. Unfortunately we live in an age of laziness and where people want God's word to be changed to suit this aspect of modern man. That is also why so many people don't even realize how teachings have been watered down. The New Mass is now often an innovation by some liberal clergy and deliberate watering down of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and about entertainment by and large and man focused not God focused. So in essence the new'god' is man. Will there by any faith on earth when Christ returns? the attempt to destroy the from within as the freemasons said in 1917 when parading on the outskirts of Vatican City. Unfirtunaly for them God is in control and is allowing it to happy, maybe to give humanity a chance to change and return to Him. Hopefully mankind will let go of the pride and ego and return, as God is not only mercy but also justice. The one cannot have only mercy it's contrary to Christ's teaching
@@chemicalpathology7724 thanks for the thoughtful reply……I’ve been around a while and today’s clergy are certainly not liberal……they are very respectful with Mass and tradition…….yes, God focus is a real problem in our pampered world, lawlessness, and political cultism, and please, no Trump
You are every bit right. It's flabbergasting to see how many people believe it's essentially about Latin. Your point about Latin is excellent, explaining both how important Latin is (in fact, it's part of the orthopraxis of the Western Church) and how it's not the essential point. So many people out there believe that the NOM is just a vernacular translation of the same rite as the TLM. I've seen hundreds of folks unaware (or unwilling to understand) that it's about two different rites: a traditional, organically-grown rite vs. a manufactured one. Everything was modified (well, "turned upside down" would be more accurate): not only the Ordinary but also the rubrics, propers, calendar etc. etc. So, a big thanks for making this crucial point. Please, keep hammering it: it's badly needed.
In fairness, I do get pretty happy when my Novus Ordo parish at least prays the Agnus Dei in Latin. Kinda like a potato chip given to a starving man. But I get your point and agree 100%.
The latan mass is about a whole lot more!!! The alter rail is actually where you have communion with jesus as the altar rail is were we join our sufferings with jesus suffering!! There is absolutely so very very much more to the Latin mass!!!
its the liturgy? the holy liturgy is set in stone.... exactly why modernist hates it... because they cant insert the rainbow dancing musical, ecumenical, progressive, inclusive modern liturgy they want to promote in the TLM
Maybe it's our fault for calling it the TLM. More correctly, it's the traditional mass or Vetus Ordo; old order. Latin is wonderful, but it's the near-silent filing out for communion, reverential reception (kneeling, on the tongue), the altar rail, the ad orientum that really distinguish the mass from human society function's. In this respect the NO seems kindergartenesque by comparison. Something you'd go to with a fussy toddler until they grew on a bit.
Excellent! Very articulate and cogent! I will be sharing this with my family as part of my ongoing catechisis on the Traditional Roman Liturgy/Traditional Roman Rite (the TRL or TRR, perhaps?)
The mass as said by the Apostles was in Aramaic, when gentiles started coming into the church the mass switched to Greek, the mass then changed slowly to Latin when in 380 AD the church was made the the official religion of the empire.
Whether Jesus could speak any language he wanted, he actually only spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. English was not a language until way after his resurrection. And the apostles said the mass in Aramaic and switched to Greek after gentiles started coming into the church is numbers.
Yeah, but y'all wouldn't sit still for Divine Liturgy in Greek or Aramaic. The Bible says only Latin, Greek, and Hebrew were on the Cross as Jesus died for us. Not English.
@@joejohn1492If you think the Liturgy was performed in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople or Alexandria at any time before or after 325 you are very much mistaken. The entire time that Christianity was the “Official” language of the Roman Empire the Capital was Constantinople and Greek was its Language. In Antioch, Jerusalem and elsewhere they used neither Greek of Latin in the Liturgy.
I am catholic the NO Mass started when I was 4 or 5 I have no recollection of it. I experienced my “first” TLM just a few weeks ago while travelling, and I am seeing so much now on YT. There is no TLM where I live, the closest 350 kilometres away. My current Parish Priest did not have to learn latin in the Seminary anyway . I am very curious about TLM but will continue going to The Mass that is available to me for now.
I would change the title of this video to "...isn't just about Latin". Latin is indeed part of what the traditional Latin mass is about, and it's an important part, as the value of a consecrated language of worship, set apart from the ever changing Tower of Babel of secular languages, is very great.
Thank you for this, it's my hope that hundreds of years from now Catholics will be amazed to read that for a period of 60-70 years in the late 20th/early 21st century the Church experimented with a different Mass but ultimately returned in full to the Tridentine use. Much like how we are amazed to read about French and German churches in the 18th-19th centuries...
For me it’s the same Mass my great grandfather and grandfather knew and prayed every Sunday, that same Faith they then passed to my father then I, if they had Faith and my grandmother who it was most important to raise her kids as Catholic then I too want to celebrate and praise and worship our great God in the same way!
The NO and the TLM are both valid and beautiful forms of the mass of the Roman Rite. The speakers bad mouthing the Novo Ordo by taking Pope Benedict’s statements out of context is shameful.
+JMJ The NO is beautiful? Maybe a couple in the last 50 years. Do a search on TH-cam for Novus Ordo Masses. You will see a parade of utter sacrilege. Beautiful NO Masses are extremely rare and rely entirely upon the control of the individual priest due to the wide optionality of the NO. The NO is "valid" but but it is most often irreverent, banal, inane and fraught with abuse. Those are facts. Moreover it poorly transmits the faith as evidence by the freefall of marriages, priestly vocations, infant baptisms and belief in the Real Presence. I think it's pretty clear that the Church will be reverting to the constant Tradition of the Mass of the Ages.
The NO was invented to purposefully destroy the true Catholic faith which had been the goal of many dissenters, heretics and apostates for a long time prior to its invention. The NO is the worship of man above God. It is the incorporation of the synthesis of heresies, Modernism (which Popes Pius IX and X exposed).
What context is needed? What context will mitigate his statements? Beauty is quite subjective, and to compare a rite with over 1000 years of organic growth to a rite cobbled together by committee is apples and oranges, to say the least. Benedict's statements aren't those of a simple Catholic commentator or even liturgist. He saw what the Council fathers intended in great contrast to the product of the Consilium. It's shameful to try to minimize his valid critique for so-called context.
@@josephodoherty7864 Why would the "Holy Sprit" seek to honor God less, to remove prayers of petition and protection? Hardly the "Holy Spirit" at work here.
When I described the Traditional Latin Mass as the Vetus Ordo Mass as against the Novus Ordo Mass, a lot of people do not know or are unfamiliar with the term Vetus Ordo.
Linguistically, the term "Vetus Ordo" is not wrong, it means "old order". It's a verbiage that has recently begun to be employed mostly by so-called "pope-splainers" and other anti-traditional modern Catholics. I'm not quite sure why except perhaps to avoid the term "traditional" in "Traditional Latin Mass". Maybe in doing so, they feel they can de-emphasize the ancient character of the TLM and try to portray an equivalency between the TLM and the Novus Ordo, thereby undermining the credibility of traditionalist arguments.
As a new Catholic, I have a question. If one were to take the "traditional latin mass" and strictly translate it, "word for word" into English, would it be similar to the High Anglican liturgy (or the Ordinariate liturgy?).
I’m Eastern Orthodox where the Divine Liturgy is Saint John Chrysostom was originally written in Greek. Yet it’s said in English at my parish. But it’s also said in Arabic, Romanian, Slavonic, etc. Yet it’s the same liturgy from 400 AD. The Eastern Catholic Churches also use it. Why hasn’t the Tridentine mass never been translated to the vernacular? The essence of the old mass is its content. Some Western Rite Orthodox churches use the Tridentine mass in English.
Latin was adopted to standardise the liturgy in the Western Church. It is also a good singing language. The Eastern Rites are starting to come under attack.
I find that for many Orthodox, their attitude toward anything Roman and Western is, "Why can't you be just like us?" It's a strength for the Orthodox, but useless for the West.
Some Anglo-Catholics also say the TLM in English or a bilingual version with Latin music and English prayers. This is what Vatican II actually called for besides adding an OT reading on top.
That's a good question. Vatican II never said to trash the Mass and write a whole new order of worship with a few scraps of the original. But that's exactly what they did, and they illicitly supressed the Mass on top of it for 18 plus years
The answer to this is it was characteristic of Eastern rites to use vernacular. I am an Eastern Catholic myself. For the west, their tradition was to use Latin as a veil, similar to how Byzantines use the Iconostasis, of Syriac Christians use the altar curtain.
My wife and I attended Latin mass for first time in January in a school gym. We thought it was the novus ordo mass in Latin. Wow were we mistaken. We haven’t left TLM since. We gave up the most beautiful church to attend TLM in a school gym. The beauty of the liturgy in worship is worth much more than a beautiful building.
Yeah this has come to mind also. It’s the whole movement of the mass itself. I guess some people get all caught up in the language itself for some reason? It doesn’t seem like a stumbling block to me though, I’ve gotten used to it, following the Latin/English missal, not too hard to follow I think.
Its called the Tridentine Mass, NOT TLM. My aunt is from a village on an island in asia , borned into a catholic family, just like so many millions of Catholic outside of the european sphere ( yes, we non-english speaking, non-american, non-white Catholic Churches EXIST). She went for Mass since young but couldnt understand a word the priest was saying during mass. She ended up becoming protestant because that church proclaim the gospel in her native tongue and worships in that tongue too. She was shocked when she visited a catholic church to attend a wedding of one of my cousins some 10 years ago.. It opened her eyes to the catholic faith that she once found rediculous when she was young. The Mass was in her language ! She could understand whats going on ! Today she sits with her family in a catholic church named after an asian saint St. Agnes Tsao. Even her protestant husband joined her Reciting church prayers and participate in the mass she once found rediculous because she could not understand the mumbo-jumbo the priest was reciting, meaning latin. She came home. Latin is only beautiful to those who understand it, not so with those who are latin-illiterate, and whose livelihood depend on the earth , sea and mountain that demand hard labourous work to just eke out a living. Not all elaborate liturgical ceremonies are grand and beautiful in the eyes of non-european, non-white catholic population. The second vatican Council Fathers saw this, and they knew the imposition of a european-centric catholicism will eventually push the catholics in non-european spheres out of the church. The Tridentine Ceremonial Mass holds no positive memories to a lot of cultures. We love the popes who listen to our voices. We pray for Pope Francis everyday. The church in my country is active and vibrant, despite our country not being catholic, thanks to second vatican council. We dont understand, why are you arguing?
Very important perspective. Thank you for pointing that out. My mother was raised in the Catholic faith, attended Catholic schools & was forced to learn Latin. She hated it, & due to some poor behaviors of some priests left the church forever. My wife & I are new catholics from a protestant background. Truth be told, I love the Latin tradition & being mostly Irish & German, my ancestors no doubt prayed in Latin & I feel this in my bones. But the Word of God is powerful as a 2 edged sword. If order for it to work on our hearts, we need to understand it. Thank you sister for sharing your experience. I pray the rosary in Latin & French but go to NO churches because that is all that's available. I will let the RC leaders fight about this & pray that Jesus gets his church in line & unified so we can show out love to a world that so desperately needs to see Christian love lived out in 3 D.
Indonesian Catholic here. This is the problem of the "Old" Catholic communities, mostly in Western countries. It is relatively easy for them to reintroduce the Tridentine mass (TLM) to their flock, but it would be a serious problem for Catholic Churches in Asia and Africa due to the language barrier. Meanwhile Catholic Church is burgeoning in these two continents despite we celebrate Novus Ordo Mass
My grandmother came to live after her wedding in an erstwhile Portuguese colony. She was the wife of an upholstery shop owner, yet as she was indigenous, had to sit at the back of the Portuguese Church on the floor while the Upper class colonisers and their mixed progeny would sit in the pews in the front of the altar. The mass used to be in Latin and not being able to understand it she and her community members would say the Rosary till Mass ended. It's only after VatI and II when the Bible, Lectern and Liturgy were translated to vernacular languages did they understand what Mass was all about. But not knowing Latin didn't effect their faith because faith itself is a gift from God and when Jesus called out to His Father on the Cross, he spoke in Aramaic not in Hebrew, the language of scripture. So whereas the Latin Mass should not be banned completely as it is the original language of Church liturgy, it should not be enforced or forced on the laity who do not follow it.
What are the orders or organizations that still celebrate TLM? I know there is SSPX but I don’t want to go there as they are schismatic. There’s a other one but I can’t remember the name.
I agree and appreciate the explanation about why the tridentine is a better mass, but I would choose NO calendar's six year rotations than tridentine's. IMO it gives more to the people. Please advise.
OK. I already knew that the preference for the TLM was NOT about Latin, or at the very least not primarily about Latin. I do thank you for the interesting information. If all this is about is yearning for what you heard or did in your youth, then fine, and I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would want to deprive you of that. But I think there is more to it than that. I was an altar boy in the early '60s, so I am familiar with the TLM, and the change to English in the first half of the Mass. Later in life, I served as a lector for many years. A few years back, I attended my granddaughter's performance in a Christmas play inside of a Methodist Church. While there, I took the opportunity to peruse one of their prayer books used in their services. The similarities to our Novus Ordo Mass were striking! So, my question is what are those theological differences between the TLM and the NO, that the good Cardinal talked about?
I am not Roman Catholic and would like to understand this better. I don't see anyone saying that the Novus Ordo (NO) Mass is invalid. In the video and in the comments I see that there are traditions missing in the NO - but - if in the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ are received in this Mass is not the full grace of God received? Is it not communion with God and with our fellow believers and is that not what is important?
@@mpkropf5062only some, not all but definitely on the oppression by the authority when most are obedient with the chair of peter. Why are we facing these persecution when only a tiny fraction are disobedience? Why are their more allowance for liturgical abuses, sexual abuses, improper governenace but not a little bit of breathing space for the latin mass? Please do attend one that is reverent and in good standing with rome a TLM and see it for yourself.
It's not just about missing traditions. It's important because how we pray, is how we believe, is how we live (this is often cited as lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi). Certain Vatican officials are quoted in the video as stating that the old mass doesn't fit the new view of the Church (or _ecclesiology_ in the video). This is a problem because the teachings we have received don't cease to be true because it was said the Church needed some "fresh air" in the 60's. This is where the deposit of faith and the Magisterium comes in. The Eucharist is about communion with God. That we do it with a community is nice and reinforces our mutual faith and culture, but no, it's not about our fellow believers. This is one of the stark differences in theology. Also, there is a difference between doing what is considered the bare minimum, and doing the best one can. Sure, both modes will get the job done, but if it's something that one cares about deeply, that means so much, is the bare minimum what you really want to do? The prayers of the NO and even the sacramental reforms that followed, watered down and simplified prayers because it was thought that less complexity and/or so-called formality would make everything more accessible to the common person. It had the opposite effect, as referenced by Benedict XVI, making everything banal and everyday. Blessings that, for most of the life of the Church, had implored God for every possible protection explicitly, or prayers of honor that explored various attributes of God and in the process making God more known to His people, were simplified to be basic. In making the highest prayer of the Church into something palatable to everyone of any persuasion, its identity was lost, and experience of the sacred was discarded. I hope this gives some window on why the masses are viewed differently. Yes, the low bar of validity is cleared for both usages, but the organic growth of more than a millennium cannot be compared to a committee creation (some of which began as a back of the napkin scribble!). I'd be happy to discuss further if there are questions.
@@drstewart I once had a friend from USA visiting us in my country. We were talking about what draws us to the latin mass. I told him that i see contradictions from what i was taught in cathecism class and the real stuff in Mass. In class we were taught Jesus is truly in the eucharist and it is the summit, centre of faith. The altar in the sanctuary is the sacrifice consecrated. We need to respect that. I see people casually walking to recieve him in the eucharist, without altar rail i see people walking up and down casually talking smiling. I see tank tops, hot pants, i see people walking in halfway and walking out as and when they like. I see contradictions. People can dress up for party, for meetings, for events but they cant at least to the bare minimum neat and modestly for Mass. When i started to learn about the latin mass and started attending. I was like " This is what was taught to me" i saw everything in this form, the reverence, the attitude that centre and summit of it. This is lex orandi lex credendi lex vivendi!
@@supreme87878 Precisely so. Wonderful that you're seeing what draws so many to the TLM. I was a nominal Catholic with an entirely post-Conciliar formation, like almost everyone. It was that version of the faith that caused me to drift away, and some time later, it was the "traditional" practice and the TLM that brought me back.
Your reasoning presumes that the Mass always evolved in a positive way. The devolution of a liturgy in which people actively participated into a ritual that was "heard" by the people and "said" by the priest was hardly a positive evolution. I participated in such Masses until I was 16 every Sunday, sometimes daily Mass, and on holy days. While the Missal was available so congregants could follow the Mass in Latin (with English translations), only a small part of the congregation availed themselves of it. Many people prayed the rosary during Mass. The canon was said in a very low, inaudible voice and often the priest rushed through the audible texts , an easy feat, as very few folks understood Latin. "Go to the 7 AM Mass, Father Dougherty gets it over in 25 minutes, I was advised." So much for the dignity of the rite. While some priests said the Mass reverently and with dignity, more often they seemed barely there, rushed, or rarely, even lacking reverence. High mass and Solemn High Mass were more participatory with the inclusion of a choir and varied congregational movements. And by the 1950's there were in some parishes dialogue masses in which the congregation recited the parts of the Mass that would have been said by servers. Unfortunately that was the exception. So the problems with what some people call the Latin Mass, at least for me, have nothing to do with the use of Latin. The use of liturgical languages which are not the vernacular is a phenomena that occurs across many religions. The problem is in with how the liturgy is celebrated and the Tridentine Low Mass is just bad liturgy for myriad reasons.
I totally support those who want the Latin Mass, and in all honesty I wish I was one of you. But the last sentence of this video is my entire problem with the Extraordinary Form: if I could HEAR the Mass as it's supposed to be presented, I might like it. But every time I try to attend it, three quarters of the Mass is whispered or mumbled. I have twice been fortunate to attend a High Mass, which was glorious. For me (at least in my area), Low Mass seems to suffer its own abuses. I attend a parish in my area with the most respectful OF I can find. I'll have to stick with that.
I am glad you mentioned the Modern Sacrosanctum Concilium; if you read it, it is very conservative; however, every article of it has been gutted with the loophole that the local bishop can administer as he pleases. It's time to remove those loopholes.
@@StoaoftheSouth why would Christ not speak in the Roman tongue to a Roman?...He is God after all, also The Word made flesh..it would be cumbersome and proud no to.
Father, all that you say is Nice and good. The Latin Mass has a nice ring of mysticism and religiosity about it. I actually grew up with the Latin Mass in my childhood and was also in the church choir singing the full Mass in Latin. However what no one is talking about is that, we do not know and understand what they are saying. It’s only with the introduction of the English Mass that we could fully and wholly participate in our worship and whole hearted adoration of our Lord at Mass. I still do love the Latin hymns with all my heart and feel very nostalgic listening to the old Latin hymns. All praise, glory and honor to our most Holy triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I attended the Latin Mass for the first time in my life just last month. I admit I was instantly enamored by the reverence and religiosity of the experience: the choir singing hymns in Latin, the women covering their hair, receiving Eucharist from the rail by tongue, etc. However, as you said, I couldn't understand anything that was going on. The priests were doing a lot of pomp and circumstance up at the altar while everyone waits for them to finish, saying a bunch of things in Latin in hushed tones that's incomprehensible and inaudible, etc. While I admired the solemnity, I personally don't think I could go through one again and I began to understand why the Church opted to institute changes. I think one of the best things the Second Vatican Council did was have the Church undergo de-Latinization, bringing the Roman rite to the vernacular, reserving the Latin Mass as the Extraordinary Form, preserve and protect the other non Roman liturgies such as the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites, and give more recognition and autonomy to the Eastern rite churches. I believe it was the will of the Holy Spirit that this happened. What will become of the Latin Mass in the future? Let us leave it to God.
With all due respect, I do not understand why you say "we do not know and understand what they are saying." Do you not have a missal? After only a few months of following along in the missal on the English side of the Latin translation, one learns what the prayers mean and exactly what the priest is saying. I pray silently along with the priest ( "assisting at the mass) and that deepens my understanding of the liturgy and my connection to the prayers. The meeting of heaven and earth is supposed to be a profound mystery, not fully accessible. I believe this elevated awareness is enhanced by the bells, the incense, the sacred language of Latin, the vestments that tend to be more elaborate at the Latin Mass than at the Novus Ordo, the number of times the priest genuflects and crosses himself, and communion given kneeling, on the tongue, only by a priest.
Im a outsider.(Orthodox) Why is the TLM in vernacular languages not a thing? I understand the attraction/ need for tradition. I love the liturgy of St John Chrysostom in any language, but its more meaningful if i understand more
I have the idea that 50 + years ago when mass was said in Latin the people still understood it. I am not Catholic but I remember hearing the mass in Latin when I was very young and I thought it was beautiful even though I didn't understand it. Likewise I love Ave Maria more when it's sung in Latin than when it's sung in English. I'm not positive but I believe Ave Maria was written in German and I have heard it performed in German, it's nice but still not the same as Latin. I think it's important to distinguish that a Latin Mass is said in Church Latin, not Roman Latin because they can be very very different and I don't think most people realize this, they think there is only 1 version of Latin. On a doctoral level I'm a bit fuzzy but I thought there was something in The Bible or maybe it's just church doctrine that says something about being able to understand what is being spoken about and if you don't understand what's being said then it's useless.
The passage you wrestled referring to is about speaking in tongues, and it says it’s useful if there’s a translator. Even 50 years ago the Latin Masses had handouts with English translations of the prayers.
@@CatholicTraditional Oh I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear but I was talking about the song, not the prayer. I kind of thought that was understood when I mentioned singing.
@@phillipcampbell843 No, that is not the passage I was thinking about. Yes I understand that if someone speaks in tongues it is only authentic if there is a translator there to interpret. I like that passage. Forgive me, I have not studied theology in close to 40 years so I'm rusty. What I'm thinking about may not have been a Bible passage and I'm sorry I didn't state that more clearly. I kind of thought it was but yeah, I'm not positive, it could have been something I heard in a Bible study class. As I state I am not Catholic and I only went to a a few services where Latin was used but I did think it was lovely.
I have an honest question and take heed because I am a novice: If the TLM were celebrated by translating all the prayers in the English language would it still be radically different than the N.O.? Thanks.
The reason for Latin is its power over the Devil and the graces it disperses. Our Lord replied to Pilate in Latin. For 1900 plus years it unified the whole world 🌎 ❤️
Thank you for your clear and faithful explanation of your position regarding the Tridentine Mass. If only those who reject the validity of the Second Vatican Council and/or deny the Papacy of Pope Francis would not use it as a rallying point for their movement, Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum would still be in place.
Why cant both masses be offered,wouldnt that clear up the problem? Why didnt the council forsee this and allow for it,just think no sspx problem,mabe no sedevecantist problem?
The council was on a power trip. They didn’t care about divinity. They cared about being snowed by tearing apart & causing discord (or something similar to that. I feel discord is too strong of a word).
@@sam12587 I been a Catholic just 6 years now and believe the Church cannot be brought down according to Christs promise that the gates of hell will not prevail and somehow God will prevail even without us taking the law into our own hands,I mean what now we start a whole new catholic church? is that not what the protestants do?I wish the trads could just try and reason with the Pope and come to some kind of agreement instead of just trashing him and maybe it would not have come to this,I dont want to see the old Mass taken away either its our heritage as Catholics.
No, that would never do. If that were allowed, the superiority of the traditional Latin mass over the Novus Ordo would become increasingly manifest, as more and more souls, hungry for authentic Catholic spirituality, gravitate toward it, and abandon the NO. That would make the clergy responsible for the NO look like the fools that they actually are, which is something that their pride would never allow.
@alphaomega238 I used to exclusively attend the mass celebrated according to the '62 missal. I now attend the reformed Roman Rite. While I can appreciate certain aspects of the older missal, I don't think it is inherently superior (I actually think I prefer the reformed Roman Rite, when done like intended.)
@@StoaoftheSouth You bring up a good point. There's positive aspects to the different kinds. We go ot both NO & TLM because we gather fruit from both. Now I will say the NO we go to has very very virtuous clergy (three kinds serve there) and I feel their honest hearted leadership & hard work makes that church one of the best around.
THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL directed: "The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly so that a richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word." (Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, No. 51) The scriptural readings provided in the 1570 Tridentine Mass included only 1 percent of the OldTestament and 17 percent of the New Testament, and had only a one year cycle of readings-with most of the Gospel readings taken from the Gospel of Matthew. In the Mass restored by the 2nd Vatican Council, the scripture readings include 13 percent of the Old Testament and 71 percent of the New Testament.
While removing 87% of prayers. The mass is not intended to be a Bible study, that is Prot error. Moreover, readings could've been expanded quite easily without wreckovating the rest of the liturgy. The SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL also said that Latin was to be retained and previous rites were to be respected. Where is your fervor for these pronouncements of the Great Council? Quite convenient to cherry pick.
@@drstewart Cherry picking? Where is your fervor for the liturgical prouncements of the Great Catholic Church and its legitimate authority? You are guilty of Cafeteria Catholicism! You accept teachings that tickle your fancy while rejecting those that don't. From 17% to71% of the New Testament!!! Oh, how I love the Word of God! And I love the 2nd part of the Mass, the Eucharistic Liturgy which is now, thank God!, in my native language, American English!
@@Catholicity-uw2yb No no, you love the pronouncements of the Great Council, again, that council says explicitly that Latin is to be retained, cherry picker. Are you defending that pronouncement, cafeteria Catholic? It seems like you're only passionate about that which suits your taste. Typical of the great Springtime, yep. Show me the Vatican II document that mandated mass in the vernacular, removal of altar rails, mass versus populum, and EMHCs. Then you can tell me what I reject and what I don't. Until then, you're quite the cafeteria Catholic.
One clarification: Veterum Sapientia by John XXIII is an Apostolic Constitution, not an encyclical. an apostolic constitution is the most solemn form of legislation issued by a Pope. As a form of reference, Sacrosanctum Concilium is also an apostolic constitution. That's how important Pope John XXIII thought Latin was for the church.
The vernacular is a better choice for the Mass now since virtually no one knows Latin anymore. In Spain the Mass is in Spanish and everyone understands it and same applies to other countries. I much prefer to participate in the Mass fully just like the early church did rather than have no clue as to what the priest is saying and rely on a Mass card, when available, to be able to vaguely follow the Mass. The vernacular is more appropriate for our times whether or not the mass rubrics are Tridentine or NO. The apostles and early church used the vernacular so I see no problem with it . Latin was fine when it was the vernacular, problem was by 1960 most people could not participate in the Mass because they did not understand the language it was said in. Even many priests did not know Latin, they just read and understood the words in the missal.
@@joejohn1492 You are completely wrong! In most places, where TLM is held, the books contain the texts in Latin AND the local language. ANYONE can understand it! At least, anyone who is able to read.
I went to Rome with fellow students who complained about Mass being in Italian. I told them "You know, you could attend the Latin Mass and it would be exactly the same as the Mass I'm attending here in Rome."
The vernacular is a better choice for the Mass now since virtually no one knows Latin anymore. In Spain the Mass is in Spanish and everyone understands it and same applies to other countries. I much prefer to participate in the Mass fully just like the early church did rather than have no clue as to what the priest is saying and rely on a Mass card, when available, to be able to vaguely follow the Mass. The vernacular is more appropriate for our times whether or not the mass rubrics are Tridentine or NO. The apostles and early church used the vernacular so I see no problem with it . Latin was fine when it was the vernacular, problem was by 1960 most people could not participate in the Mass because they did not understand the language it was said in. Even many priests did not know Latin, they just read and understood the words in the missal.
The problem of the NO is mainly, that it misses out soo much of the very essential, very detailed information of the very developed Latin mass, it in fact misses about 87%, due to recommendations of a PROTESTANT commission!!
People don't know Latin because it's not taught...because the Novus Ordo is not typically said in Latin. You're reverse engineering the problem. Secondly, most of the TLM is silent. It's a rather silly complaint when you don't hear most of it anyway. And finally, I have no sympathy for adults whining about Latin when little Saint Jacinta went to Mass without complaining about Latin.
This is a false notion. Projection after projection. Hand missals were in widespread use. Priests definitely knew Latin as it was part of their formation traditionally. Another false notion. The idea that the mass must change with the times is false, as is the idea that the use of a sacred language is so incomprehensible to the public at large. How many falsehoods are needed to justify your argument? There was no "problem" by 1960. There was not a clamoring for the mass to be in the vernacular (which btw, was not what the Council called for). There was discussion that at most, the Gospel and Epistle could be in the vernacular, possibly along with the Our Father. Everything was made banal and desacralized, and a mass exodus followed. Where was the new springtime of the Church? Even Paul VI recognized that mistakes were made.
Do you not have a missal? You can read right there on the opposite page the translation of the Latin. I don't understand why people think this is so difficult.
The first Mass, at the Last Supper, included a singing of the Hallel in either Classical Hebrew or Greek. We don’t know which because we do know that Our Lord spoke both. Colloquially Jesus spoke Aramaic, but this was not used liturgically by him or his followers. He probably also spoke Latin because the sign Pilate caused to be fixed to the Cross asa warning to Jesus’ followers included a translation into Latin.
As a Trad, besides the 2000 year Scripture and Tradition of the Church, Latin plays a key role. I don't know Latin and that is a good thing. When I hear Liturgical Latin it is the flowing waters of Christ. I don't know what the priest is saying in Latin, but my heart unserstands it complete, mystically knowing it's all about God.
It would help if we all called it by its proper name, the Tridentine Rite of the Holy Mass. It happens to be in Latin though as you correctly noted, that is not the crucial issue.
I have this idea that Latin was a universal language of the Roman Catholic Church because priest could speak Latin no matter if they were Italian, Spanish, English or whatever. Latin was the official language of the Vatican for a very very long time.
“Don’t impose your language”. Is the title of a recent Video by Fr. Josiah Trenham against Orthodox use of non vernacular language in the liturgy is against Scripture. Makes since, fist century Rome Latin, Jerusalem Syriac and Greek elsewhere. Centuries later Slovanic, Arabic, Romanian………. Suggesting Latin has some special meaning or supremacy is awkward and non Scriptural if Trenham is correct.
Well, my parish still does NO mass in complete Latin with Gregorian chants. Also, the priest makes asperges outside the mass by wearing a cope, which can avoid violating the instruction to sing the Kyrie. Moreover, even the confiteor is still read before the communion. The priest position is toward the altar like the old one. Didn’t see too much difference
ALSO-- Without a common language there is no community. Or if there is, it is severely muted. Jews around the world can communicate and celebrate worship. Same for Muslims.
@@adelinomorte7421 One use of a common tongue in a religion is so its members, from other countries, can communicate easily with each other. Not only have a formal way to celebrate. This would be most important in Vatican City, where its population is from everywhere.
@@ablarod948 It is for technical and business purposes, but English will not help when reading RC documents written thousand or two thousand years ago. Also, English changes quickly (try reading 300 year old English documents); whereas Latin is largely static. Finally, English is a translation. Everytime you translate something, things are lost... sometimes big, sometimes small, but there is always loss. My main argument though is that RC needs its own language.
@@kevinderrick2787 Sure, I understand this. My point though is that the TLM can be said in English (and other languages) without degrading the reverence of the prayers and it would be more accessible to people.
Speaking as an outsider. If only the clergy and some scholars can actually understand the mass, how will they hear and understand the message? It is essentially a priest talking to God but no one else can understand the conversation or benefit from the lessons of the homily.
Cradle Catholics here. If Latin is so important then why when The Holy Spirit filled the Apostles (Acts 2: 4 - 28), they spoke in different languages? Not vice versa i.e. made the audiences understand the language they used. Latin is beautiful and had served RCC as lingua franca and should be in future. But the future of Church are in Africa and Asia with their rapid growth. By avoiding using vernacular languages in mass, Catholic Church would inhibit herself from spreading the Gospel. Salvation is universal should not be hindered by language.
I never understand this objection because Latin is the liturgical language of the rites of the *Latin* Church. Many of the things we associate with "traditional Catholicism" are just historic Latin Christianity. Imagine the outrage if we applied the same level of innovation and scrutiny toward Eastern rites that we do the Roman Rite.
Aramaic is special because our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught in that language. Surely that means something to you? Your video was very well done. There was no need to insult people who have valid questions about the use of different languages in the early Church. Your points about tradition are good and well taken, but isn’t the celebration of the Eucharist the central part of the Mass? How can one celebration of the Eucharist be inferior to another if they are both valid? Anyway I think that the Latin Rite should be preserved forever and I think the infighting that seems to be happening is very sad. We have enough problems dealing with the secular culture.
+JMJ The NO is valid, but minimalist. For many it impedes prayer and catechesis. It's precisely why Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence or attend Sunday Mass (only 17% of Catholics attend Sunday Mass). The permissiveness and irreverence of the NO have fostered a collapse in marriages, infant baptisms, and priestly vocations. It has enabled a gay culture to take over the clergy and hierarchy. By contrast the TLM allows the Faithful to pray the Mass. Churches are full. Moreover, 99% of TLM members believe in the Real Presence and attend Mass weekly. Young families are sprouting children and vocations are booming. One of the ecclesia dei communities had to turn away seminarians for lack of space. The future of the Church is the Roman Rite Mass of the Ages.
@@brianbacon5149 Do you have evidence for your claims? I think your idea of the Novus Ordo Mass comes from the irreverent abuses that were done early on. To say that the Novus Ordo is per se irreverent across the board today is simply not true and smacks of exaggeration. The Novus Ordo parish I grew up in is exactly the way you describe the TLM parishes. I know that is anecdotal but still I would need hard evidence to consider your claims. What you have described are symptoms and I think the causes are more numerous and hard to combat. Remember we live in a culture that has become the pinnacle of demonic influence. Our public schools indoctrinate children. Demonic parades are celebrated on the news. I could go on and on and you’ve seen it too. People have been overtaken by the culture and their spirits have withered. The Church is thriving in other parts of the world like Africa which are culturally much more conservative.
@MJ23915 +JMJ. Evidence? I'm a 50 year eyewitness of NO abuses. I lived through it and no more. I'm done with it. I found the TLM a year ago and praise God every minute for leading me there. Read the Pew Study. It lays out the fruits of the 50 year NO break with Tradition. Paul VI admitted in his famous orations introducing the NO that it was ALL NEW. All the statistics are public record. See the Catholic Almanac and the Catholic Directory. Let me give you one clear cut example just on vocations. The woke and modernist (i.e. gay ) Paulist Fathers, the order established under Pius IX to evangelize Protestant America has only 50 priests today in the entire order and is aging rapidly so that in 5 years only 38 priests will be left. The Paulists just sold their seminary in Washington DC. By contrast the FSSP, founded in1991 has more than 200 seminarians and has to turn applicants away. It has 400 priests. The Lord is letting us suffer the consequences of our hubristic sinfulness. I have every confidence that He will bring forth good out of this evil plaguing the Church. The Church needs to put on sackcloth and ashes and return to the Usus Antiquior. I could write a book documenting the profuse evidence of the utter failure of the NO.
@MJ23915 +JMJ. Count yourself blessed in your parish. See if that blessing remains when a new priest comes in. He could decide to institute "liturgical" dance. Have you ever been to a Clown Mass? I have. It's satanic. The wide optionality of the NO invites abuse. The abuse translates to violations of the Commandments including fostering gay culture in the clergy. It's a reason why the Bishops are silent in the face of a President who claims to be Catholic but pushes infanticide, abortion, gendet bending and gay "marriage". At my last NO Mass, men were dressed in flip flops, shorts and tee shirts. I saw a woman in a halter top. The lector broke through the noisy church (as no one prays before Mass but they feel free to catch up with friends) to tell people to turn off their cellphones as Mass was about to begin. Then the piano played and a procession of altar girls moved down the aisle. Over 50 years, I never knew what to expect at any given moment in the NO. It's distracting, dissonant, inane, banal and creates serious obstacles to devotion and praying the Mass. I will never go back to the NO.
@@MJ23915 The Pew Study found that only 30% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate found that only 17% of Catholics attend Mass on Sunday. I understand your point about other pagan and outright satanic influences. However, I strongly believe that the radical switch to the NO in 1970 and what we have seen in the last 24 years is a major source of the collapse in Catholic belief. The Mass is supposed to be the source and summit of our faith in Christ. The problem with the NO is the downplaying to the point of eliminating any semblance of the purpose of the Mass: i.e. to remember the Holy Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary and for the Faithful through the priest in persona Christi to offer Christ's own Body and Blood to the Father in the forms of bread and wine. In the TLM the priest and people face the east which was how the Apostles celebrated Mass as God is situated in the dawn. Today with the NO, in an effort to appeal to Protestants, the Mass is pro populum where the priest faces the people to celebrate a meal rather than to recall a holy sacrifice. By eliminating 87% of the beautiful orations in the TLM, the NO eliminated any scriptural references to our sinfulness, our need to Confess our sins to be worthy of receiving Christ's own Body and our need to make reparation for our sins. Those topics are rarely covered in the NO. A key complement to the TLM is frequent confession. In the NO it's backwards: frequent Holy Communion and rare Confession. Thus the NO minimizes the demands of taking up the Cross. It is less authentic and even less mystical. I attended the NO for 53 years. I won't go back. I have seen casual and presumptuous familiarity on the part of clergy toward references to God. I have seen dissonance and distraction with lay people ever moving about the altar. I have seen altar girls. With altar girls who needs boys and therefore why would a boy ever consider priesthood? Lay people with unconsecrated hands distribute the Most Blessed Sacrament to lay people who stand and receive our Lord by hand. I find that practice offensive and sacrilegious. A priest should distribute Holy Communion to a kneeling communicant on the tongue. And we wonder why people no longer believe in the Real Presence? I have not even touched the inanity and the banality of the music and how the NO eliminated Latin and Gregorian, which were in use for 2000 years in Masses attended by the saints. I now attend the Rosary and TLM daily and Confession weekly. I thank the Lord every day for that wonderful blessing. I wish it for everyone. Domina nostra monti Carmeli, ora pro nobis.
The theology has changed as per Cardinal Roche? Did Jesus come again and I missed it? Because only Jesus has the authority to do so. BTW I love my TLM. I will never apologize for that!!!!
In manuscrits all over western Europe there were entire passages of the western liturgy in Greek written in latin alphabet for the use of priests during the divine liturgy. Those passages were typically the Trisagion, the creed (without the filioque) and the hymn of the Cherubim. Those manuscript range from the 7th to the 13th century and from France to Germany, England to Italy. Rome forced everyone to drop that tradition in favour of the tridentine mass that was generalized after the 13th century. Last the traditional sign of the cross with three fingers and from the right shoulder to the left was still the the majority tradition in the West till the 13th century and was replaced by the 'Catholic' sign with the flat hand and from the lest to the right. Why? Well as I said the Greek creed did not include the filioque and the Latin church had no more greek education. That's why the greek text was written in the latin alphabet, sometimes with pronunciation deviations showing the scribed had no idea whatthe greek word realy was. In those conditions it was not possible to add the filioque in correct greek to the Greek creed. So Rome forced everyone to practice in Latin. The other point is that after the schism there was an anti-greek sentiments (still persistent today among Trads) and all references to the Greeks was removed even in the Gospel where the word 'Hellens' (Greeks) war systematically turned into 'Gentiles'. Not the Novus Ordo tyrants are paying the Trads the same king of payment by eradicating the Latin mass. Lord have mercy on us all sinners ☦️
Thank you - a most instructive comment. I much prefer comments which are full of useful factual information, rather than simply an expression of personal opinion.
In the Western Roman Empire, Greek was never a common language. Outside the Greek colony cities, it was never the language of commerce or law. As barbarian invasions, Norse raids and conquest and Muslim raids and conquest choked commerce between the eastern and western parts of the Empire, the knowledge and use of Greek simply dwindled beyond usefulness. Malign intent is not required to explain its absence.
Compare side by side the texts of the TLM translated into English, to the NO English. The NO is a deficient comparison. Yes, while valid, the TLM offers rich worship to God that the NO has been mostly stripped of.
This slander of bishops disagreed with by labelling them modernist isfar more politics than theology & as is always the problem with the sin of slander it is a very vicious cycle. The overwhelming majority of bishops in question would take this seriously I'm sure except their knowledge of what defines modernism And the polar distinction of what they actually believe & practice only leaves them shaking their heads in sorrow and frustration.
Slander? It's a fact that many support the so-called "right to choose" who should know better because (as they like to remind everyone) they are Catholic. Jesus warned to whom much is given, much will be expected. Pray they repent because the Last Judgement will go much harder with them than those who are completely ignorant of Christianity
The language isnt everything , but it’s still important and necessary. Even the New Mass is enriched by the use of Latin. Because it’s a Sacred Language. If fact, if the Council Documents would have been adhered to, most of the New Mass would still be in Latin.
As for me about Latin; is that, God specialised Latin through the Holy Cross of calvary where it states : " INRI " is enough to believe, they were in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. The council of ancient Church Father had canonised Latin, thus, we can live in Latin liturgically in the church, so TLM is holy n valid, than those worldly languages as we can conclude those languages are not venerable n can't be holy, thus, in our age it had cause us to be disunity n chaos n also all unholy happenings in the church leaders n congragation.
I think that if we can the Liturgical Chant in all languages. But it is not necessary. What is necessary is to give an experience. For that. The door must be open to mysticism. So priests should not be the centre of attention. Secondly whatever be the language the believers are able to contemplate by the symbols and celebration. It is what is more important.
This issue of the TLM can be easily resolved if permission can be given to celebrate the Traditional Mass in the vernacular if it is not about Latin but about the traditional Mass. Keep in mind that the reason the Traditional Mass was said in Latin was only because Latin happened to be the vernacular language of the time. What those who insist on the TLM don't understand is that an inferior understandable Mass disposes you to receive more graces that a superior Mass that you don't understand because it is not in the vernacular. Also if the Vatican is placing restrictions on the TLM it is not because there's anything wrong with the TLM but because people are weaponizing the TLM as a means to stay in a nostalgic past rather than let the Holy Spirit move the Church to something more applicable for our time. Also the question I don't hear people pushing the TLM ask is why was the TLM so quickly abandoned after Vatican 2? The answer is because it was realized that a superior Mass of the ages you don't understand doesn't dispose you to receive the graces God want to give you as much as an inferior Mass that you understand does. Keep in mind that the sense of the faithful felt that it was best to have the New Mass rather than the TLM. Lastly we need to be aware that all transitions are difficult but sometimes we need to leave the old behind for the new when the old has outlived its purpose like when you remove the training wheels of a bicycle when the child gets older or when you let go of the landline for the cellphone.
@barbararussell9757 There's nothing magical about Latin as a language compared to other languages like Greek, Hebrew, Coptic etc. Latin was used for no other reason than that it was the language of the people at that time. Now English happens to be the language of the USA, UK and other countries like Australia, New Zealand etc. So for this reason it makes sense to have the Mass in English in these English speaking countries. As for reading the Mass in English while being said in Latin. This only serves to distance yourself from the reality of what is taking place. If the language of the Mass is the same language as that spoken at home it helps to materialize and make the Sunday worship part of your daily life. If the language of Mass is different from your home language even if you happen to understand the language it leads to compartmentalize your faith. This then increase the possibility of worshipping God with your lips but not your heart. Having the same language at Mass as spoken at home makes it more personal and greatly increase your chance of encountering the living Christ. Take note that the first miracle God did for the Church was that everyone heard the message of salvation in their own language and not that everyone understood the language the apostles used. This is a strong argument in favor of having Mass and Catechesis in the language spoken at home.
@ Clearly I don’t agree with you. If you think there is nothing powerful about Latin you should read what exorcists say about it. The miracle you speak about is the Descent of the Holy Ghost which transcends language. Archbishop Lefebvre wrote, “The spiritual is infinitely more alive, more real than what is material. Therefore what we do not see is more real than what we see.” If the Catholic Church is truly the universal church then the Latin Mass unites the whole world with the same liturgy. I can go to Mass in a foreign city and follow everything in the Mass but the homily. Since you find great spiritual grace in the Novus Ordo I can understand your defense of it. The Traditional rite should be available to those who find great spiritual grace there. Unfortunately over the last few years this has been under restrictions.
@@barbararussell9757 My whole point is that it is the liturgy and not the language that is supposed to unite the Church. Yes, exorcists do say that Latin somehow makes a difference in exorcism. However, this does not exclude the possibility of having exorcisms in Latin while having the Mass in the vernacular. Keep in mind that only a priest can do exorcisms and then not every priest but only the priest appointed by the bishop. So, exorcism doesn't involve the laity or the need for laity to know Latin. Must the overwhelming majority of Catholics be disadvantaged just because of a priest who uses latin exorcism prayers? Also is it because there is something superior about Latin itself or is it just that the newer exorcism prayers aren't as forceful as the older Latin exorcisms prayer so that the exorcists prefer to use the older exorcism prayers which are only available in Latin. In this case the same argument goes for exorcisms as for Mass about just translating the language rather than the prayers, ritual or liturgy. To want to argue from a language point of view for liturgy just in case you want to go overseas that you know the Mass is to ignore the fact that less than 1 in 1000 Catholics will ever leve their country to go overseas for any period of time. So must 999 people be inconvenienced by the 1? Is it not better that the 1 in 1000 make an effort to learn the Latin prayers if they will be going on a pilgrimage to Rome rather than enforce it on everyone else? Keep in mind that the suppression of the Latin Mass is a new thing only under the Francis pontificate. Here it is not about the Latin Mass itself but rather that those who push the Latin Mass has weaponized the Latin Mass as a sign of opposition to any Vatican 2 changes. Had those pushing the Latin Mass only be concerned about having Mass in Latin while accepting the necessary Vatican 2 changes the restrictions wouldn't have been there. It is precisely because Rome sees value in the Latin Mass that it is only being restricted and not abolished. Also keep in mind that the Latin was dropped so quickly after Vatican 2 precisely because it had its flaws, and the overwhelming majority of laity didn't benefit from hearing Mass in Latin.
@@albertpost9776 I don't know how to reply to you because you repeatedly misunderstand what I say. It is the liturgy that unites the Church and the Latin Mass is a different one than the Novus Ordo which was written after Vatican II in an attempt to reach out to Protestants. The fact that Latin is a powerful language for the rite of exorcism is not negated by the fact that the laity do not perform exorcisms. It doesn't matter if one never travels overseas! The point is that the Church has a universal language that unites every Mass said in the world. You see it as being "inconvenienced" to have to attend a Mass in Latin but when I go to Mass the church is packed with people grateful to be in a Latin Mass. I don't know why you think the people who love the Latin Mass are somehow responsible for the fact that it is being restricted.
Here's a thought, how about fixing and then saying a "good" mass with "so much more" in the current language of the region. I have nothing against Latin. I honor tradition, so I would also welcome a sacred mass of my ancestor's heritage, an apostolic mass said in Aramaic. I imagine the early church experts arguing the benefits of structuring their mass in Hebrew along with the many benefits of circumcision.
The mass aside, why do people feel like they have to pray the rosary in Latin? Are they meditating on the mysteries in Latin, also? I doubt it; that's not how our minds work - we think in our native tongue and translate when we speak. So if it's not their native language, what's the point?
The greatest truth of the Roman Catholic Church is the ability to grow and change. Judge not….comes to mind. Each and every protestation made claiming the passage of time grants some imprimatur of virtue or authority is wrong. Sometimes old and s just old. Jesus Christ changed the world and still does.
The mass is not good because it’s old, it’s old because it’s good!
Amen!
May I add that it is good because it is from God's only begotten Son.
@@glennso47 What is good about the old Mass is the prayers used and not the language the prayers are said in. By giving permission to say the Traditional Mass in the vernacular rather than Latin will ensure that the Old Mass will still be universally used and not just by a small group of people as is the case because for some reason the Traditional Mass has to be said in Latin.
@@miketrrtx471 The Mass is from God's only begotten Son but the Latin just happened to be the language of the time. Keep in mind that Jesus never spoke Latin with His Apostles and the NT was written in Greek and not Latin. This should show us there is nothing sacred about Latin. What makes the Latin language sacred is the prayers used. Now using these prayers in English will make English language sacred. Likewise using Latin without the prayers will see to it that Latin will lose anything sacred about it.
The Mass Of The Ages. Truly a divine way to worship Jesus Christ. It’s eternal and crushes modernism with its holiness
The Mass is all about the Holy Eucharist. Jesus spoke in vernacular. It's more than just the words spoken in the language spoken in that area. It's the common language to bring the Word on each person's level. Jesus loves us so much, not in a legalist arrogant way like the Sanhedrin or the Pharisee of Jesus's Day, but a loving and gentle way. St. Paul, when he went to a Jew he was a Jew when he went to the Greeks he was a Greek, and he brought it on their level and, of course, also their language. 1 Corinthians 9:20 Christ wants us to be as one as His Father and He are one. John 17: 21-23. The mass is about the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior the Holy Eucharist. John 6:51-56, it all comes down to love. It's All About Love. 1 Corinthians 13. We have to watch out that we don't become full of ourselves. Proverbs 16:18 We have to have the fullness of the Lord. Faith Hope, Love, the greatest of these is Love. God bless 🙏
@michaelpalomba7992 Then why does the NO fail in effectively transmitting the Truth of the Holy Eucharist? Why do only 17% of US Catholics attend the NO on Sunday compared to 99% of TLM Catholics? Why do only 30% of US Catholics in the NO believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist while 99% do who attend the TLM? If it's all about LOVE, then where are the people? It's because the nature of that LOVE is the Holy Sacrifice of our Lord on Calvary. The NO all but eliminated the whole premise of the Mass: the remembrance of the Holy Sacrifice of Christ our Lord on Calvary--the ultimate expression of love. The NO replaces that with a community meal. The NO, drafted by a committee that flouted the Vatican Council Fathers hubristically broke with Tradition and the Lord has allowed us to suffer the consequences for the last 50 years. Fortunately, the Mass of the Ages is the only viable future. TLM families are young and prolific. Deo gratias.
@brianbacon5149 First of all, tradition goes back further than 1570. Your words have a tone to them that sounds very judgemental. I could be wrong, and if I am, my apologies. There is respect for the Holy Father, that's tradition. The true magisterium is the Pope in Union with the Bishops, that's tradition. And all of the councils. Even the ones you don't like. We have to believe in Jesus Christ words. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against It. He built His Church upon Peter. His Church upon the Rock. Saint Peter, our first Pope to the current Pope Francis. You said how many believe in the Holy Eucharist that go to Latin Mass. That's good, but I would say James 2:19 just believing doesn't get you saved. I believe it's the body blood soul and divinity of the Lord and savior for every Mass that is approved by the Catholic Church. The traditional Latin mass and all of them.
@michaelpalomba7992 +JMJ I attended the NO for 50 years. It failed me. I have been attending the TLM for almost a year now. I won't ever go back to the NO. I feel very gypped. The NO seriously impeded my ability to pray the Mass, commune with the Lord and therefore harmed my relationship with the Lord and the Blessed Mother. The Church always had marginalized the TLM until Pope Benedict and now this pope wants to eliminate it. That accounts for any judgment you may have detected. From what I have personally experienced, the NO is casual and banal. Men wear flip flops and shorts and women dress the same. They would be better dressed for a job interview than for the worship of our Lord. You're quite right about James 2:19. I'm a sinner in need of God's grace. In my case I'm not holy enough to withstand the NO in which I never know what to expect when I walk in. It's full of distraction with lay people traipsing on and off the altar. Why do the unconsecrated hands of laypeople distribute the Most Blessed Sacrament? We see altar girls yet wonder why boys don't consider vocations. The music is unbecoming of divine worship. It's banal. I'm convinced the Church is in crisis because of the NO. The laxity of the NO has enabled and encouraged a gay culture in the clergy and sexual abuse. With that said, the TLM is saving my soul. I attend DAILY. You can go to Confession every day. And every day we have Rosary before Mass. It's OK to be Catholic (Protestants don't like that passage in James you cited). The TLM teaches that good works shine through faith and that Faith and Hope are the building blocks to Charity. The TLM is True, Good and Beautiful. It's all about sacrifice borne of love. It's taking up the Cross. Young people come for the authenticity of the Cross and the beauty and mystery. May the Lord's countenance shine upon you.
***I refuse to understand on how "truly a divine way to worship"; latin is just a language that stayed until our days due reasons that come from the christendom replacement of the roman empire with the pseudo conversion of Constantino, with all good and mostly bad things that come with it. It is just about time we the so called christians realise the truth of all that, we have to have a lot of courage to chance, I know as I did changed, it is like being sure of ourselves and alone in a desert. ***
As one who served as “Server” at Mass 1945-1961, I learned the prayers in the Mass in Latin. We were instructed that the prayers in Latin in the prayer books were in a “frozen” language (not subject to colloquial changes) , and in the prayer books both - Latin and ENGLISH were on opposite pages of the books. So the meaning of the words prayed in the Mass were not changing to meet/idiomatic language that changes word meaning over time. The main teachable point is that prayer intention was frozen, in a meaning of love/reverence/homage to God offered up to God by the consecrated priest and altar server.
@hughmccoll2698 They weren't subject to idiomatic change anymore because they stopped being the language spoken in the former Roman Empire between 600 and 1000. The Mass was translated from Greek to the vernacular language, Latin, for the benefit of the Latin speaking Christians. While Latin was still the vernacular, it was subject to all the linguistic variation that any spoken language is.
After all, Latin became modern French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.
@StoaoftheSouth nice try. Ecclesial Latin is different from the Latin spoken by people outside of Church, same way the Greek and Hebrew used by Orthodox Christians and Jews in their worship is not the same as the language spoken on the streets of Athens and Tel Aviv.
@brandywineblue I'm not sure I completely understand your argument here. Are you saying that Ecclesiastical Latin was a completely different language from regular, day-to-day spoken Latin?
Because if that's your argument, wouldn't agree with you about that.
@@StoaoftheSouth you just did.
@brandywineblue No, I was talking about the change that naturally occurs in a language over time. Latin was in a state of gradual change that eventually led to the modern Romance languages.
When the liturgy was put into the vernacular, it was put into Latin which was language of most people in the western Roman Empire. It hadn't undergone all those changed that would lead to modern Romance languages yet.
I get the same objections, especially “the Latin mass was invented at Trent” or something like that
When I was a brand new Catholic I wanted to hear more Latin in the new mass but I almost exclusively go to the Latin mass now and it’s not mainly for the language that’s probably 5th or 6th reason that I attend the TLM
***WE ALL HAVE OUR MEEK REASONS, I INCLUDED.***
@@adelinomorte7421 razones mansos?
its the liturgy? the holy liturgy is set in stone.... exactly why modernist hates it... because they cant insert the rainbow dancing musical, ecumenical, progressive, inclusive modern liturgy they want to promote in the TLM
Sad that all the replies are complete nonsense.
I grew up in the 50’s and 60”s and it never occurred to me until now that I never said I was going to the Latin mass…… I was just going to mass! No reason to point out it was Latin….
....until a bunch of revolutionaries wrote a Protestantized "liturgy" using only 23% of the prayers of the Roman Catholic Mass....expressing a completely different theology/ecclesiolgy, Cardinal Roche said so himself
@@brandywineblueI think if you could possibly cut out the idea that the only reason the Mass was changed to make it more Protestant and really read the prayers and looked at text as prayers and their meaning you might find more beauty in the NO Mass. I wish they had simply change the prayers in the vernacular but they did not . I do pray the Mass now that it is in my vernacular because I did not always understand the Latin. Wish all Catholics, Roman Rite would accept both Masses,and not divide but unite in our dogma and spread it United in core beliefs. The summit of the Mass is the Holy Eucharist and I feel certain Christ listens to our words, our devotion, our hearts and our intent as we receive His wonderful gift of LOVE at communion. God bless you.
@@brandywineblue ***the "protestants" exist due to the so called catholics where less christians, so the reform started, you must know that no revolution stays in the ideas of it, there are always someone to take over and change it, mostly due to political reasons.***
@katiedid8192 Just the facts ma'am. I would "cut out the idea" (as you call it) if they had, in fact, simply translated the Mass into English. If they had, there would be no problem because there would be, in fact, no difference from what had gone before. Alas, they did not.
I have indeed read both liturgies side by side, beginning to end. And because I have done that, plus way more than just that, it is crystal clear that they changed EVERYTHING about Christ's Church. Not only did they change the Holy Mass, but also: the liturgies for all of the other six Sacraments, the liturgical calendar, the lectionary (readings), canon law, the Catechism, the Bible, the Breviary, rites of exorcism, prayers, even the training of priests...These changes were not just saying the same things in a different language or with synonyms --- the changes are NOT saying the same things AT ALL
Therefore, THE PEOPLE WHO DID THIS are the ones who divided the church, and the ones insisting the Novus Ordo is the ONLY way to worship (like Cdl Roche, Cdl Cupich, Prof. Grillo, etc) divide the church today. Not me or you....unless we go along with their wicked plans.
So, no, thank you, I will stay with the faith that got generations of my family through famines, immigration, prejudice, economic depressions, plagues, and two "World Wars." I will stay with the faith that has made saints in every generation. God bless you.
PS if you want to understand the Latin, just read the page opposite in your missal. Missals were, and still are, available in Latin-English, Latin-Spanish, Latin-Polish, etc. Hope that helps.
@@brandywineblue as I said, I wished they had just translated into the vernacular but they did not. I still live the dogma of pre Vatican II . Neither of us can change what they have done but we can pray the Mass and be thankful for the blessings that Christ gave to us. Both Masses are beautiful and I feel blessed to be able to receive the Holy Eucharist at both. It disturbs me that Satan is getting so much satisfaction out of trying to divide Christ’s Church. I certainly pray that Pope Francis will see the importance of preserving the Latin Mass as it is one of the treasures we have today. God bless you!
This video is amazing thank you so much. Long live the Traditional Mass.
The Second Vatican Council instructed that all existing forms of the Liturgy were to be reverenced, respected and preserved. It was the intention of the Council that the existing form of the Mass should include the vernacular, with the intention that the congregation would then be more closely involved, saying the responses instead of just listening while the Altar Servers said the responses. This was the aim of the reforms. There was no instruction to introduce a new form of Liturgy, nor to remove any parts of the existing Liturgy. Then with the enthusiasm for ecumenism which followed the Council, a decision was made to prepare a new form the the Mass, which would be more acceptable to Protestants. So, a Committee was set up, which included Protestants and their wishes were taken into account. The Protestants did not like the “Prayers at the Foot of the Altar” (because they consider that it is a communion table, not an Altar) so these had to be removed on their instructions. Then, they did not like the Last Gospel, because many Protestants espouse one form or another of the Arian heresy and they do not believe that the eternal Word is Jesus, but that it is the Sacred Scriptures. So, on their instructions, the Last Gospel was removed. Then, they insisted upon the Prayer to the Archangel Michael being removed, of course, since they did not like the idea of asking Michael being asked to protect the Church from error and heresy, naturally enough! Then, their wishes to “water down” the Canon of the Mass were partially successful. The succeeded in having the words of the consecration of the wine altered to “shed for you and for all” (as many on the Committee espoused the Universalist heresy) but, after about forty years of this error, Pope Benedict XVI did, finally, put his foot down and restore the correct wording. The Roman Canon was preserved as Eucharistic Prayer I, and was, for many years, used, particularly on the “Roman” feasts, St Peter and Paul, the Chair of St Peter, the Dedication of St John Lateran etc., however, I understand that most Bishops have now instructed the Clergy that it is to be discretely retired from use, as it is seen as offensive to Protestants. Of the three other Eucharistic Prayers, almost all of the Clergy now simply choose the shortest of them, without ever considering which might be more appropriate to the particular feast, as was originally intended. What is surprising, after all of this bending over backwards to please the Protestants, is that those Protestants who have come into the Church recently have done so because they love the certainty which the Tridentine form of the Mass offers and they tend to seek out the Tridentine Mass for this reason.
Thanks Mark..I'm blown away that prods are iffy about St John's Gospel..how can this possibly be???
@@sanctifyme4543 A recent survey of Protestants disclosed that about sixty percent of them espouse one form or another of the Arian heresy. For this reason, you will find that most Protestant Churches do not recited the Nicene Creed, as a large percentage of their congregations do not accept the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Nicaea - for that reason, they use only the Apostles Creed. Since most Protestants believe in the authority of Scripture alone, it suits them to consider that the first chapter of the Gospel of John is referring to the Sacred Scriptures, when it refers to the eternal Word. The Catholic Church, of course, believes that the eternal Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Protestants on the Committee would not consent to the Last Gospel remaining in the new form of the Mass, for this reason.
@@Mark3ABE
If the majority of Protestants refuse to profess the Nicene Creed, formulated at that council as a statement of the beliefs of Christians, can they truly claim to be Christians?
Thank you for the post, correcting many wrong understanding of Vatican II. I believe the real enemies of the Church use Vatican II to create confusion, misunderstanding, and division in the Church, by twisting and abusing the Vatican II reforms. I believe the Ecumenism and related changes in the liturgy are the work of the enemies infiltrated into the Church Hierarchy to begin the demolition of the Church from inside.
@@mpkropf5062 Ssshhh - don’t let the Pope know! I won’t tell if you don’t.
Exceptional!
It’s about the words. Latin is a language that was not spoken any longer, so it would not change arbitrarily, the Church used it for everything thereafter, so I that the worship, prayer and chants would be used Universally without change. Impartial.
Thank you! The fruits of rejection of the traditional Latin rite over the past six decades are clearly visible.
The fruits of a millennium of rejection of the orthodox faith in showing.
@@Hope_Boat
Which is of course why God allowed Constantinople to be taken and the Orthodox Church to be subjugated by multiple secular nations across its history.
You can’t be in the right for the same, very simple reason that neither the Oriental Orthodox and The Assyrian Church of the East can’t be in the right. Their strongholds were seized just as yours were because they taught messages contrary to our Lord and as a result the message these churches sought to convey was stifled. This is not something the Lord would allow to happen if these churches were actually speaking what he wanted of them. The Church as an institution will never be overcome by the world, so any Church that has been overcome and be restricted in its purpose must be incorrect.
The teachings of the church were first decided at the council of Nicaea. The Roman emperor Constantine and church leaders chose the principles to be taught and followed. The Latin mass is as much a political construct as a religious one. Roman emperors saw organized religion as a way to unify people under their leadership. Old traditions are not good just because they are old. It was past time that the average parishioner could understand the words being said during mass. If you consider yourself a follower of Jesus, why would the language being used during worship affect your beliefs?
@@catherinemacaskill1421
If you do NOT want unity under Christian leadership, you are clearly preaching disobedience, which by the bible is as bad as wickedness - already in the OT.
@@catherinemacaskill1421 +JMJ The Mass of the Ages is anything but a political construct. Wow. That's a new one. And yes old traditions are not good just because they are old. The Mass has organically developed over 2000 years. By contrast the NO was a radical rupture with that organically developed tradition. I invite you to watch the Mass of the Ages trilogy for free on TH-cam. You should also read the Once and Future Roman Rite by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. Latin was one of 3 languages inscribed on the Cross mocking the Jesus and the Jewish people. It is an ancient language that ties us to the Lord. Its use highlights the victory of Christianity over pagan Rome. Its beauty and mystery is hardly the only reason why people are attracted to the TLM. The key reason is that the whole focus is on the reverent remembrance of the Holy Sacrifice on Calvary in which the priest in the person of Christ offers the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the only begotten Son to the Father and makes the Body and Blood present to the Faithful on the Altar of Sacrifice. Dominus vobiscum.
💥 this is what I’ve been saying! Thank you as always for your explanation! 🎉
I have only gotten to attend TLM one time in 5 years being Catholic. It is not about the language. In my life I have never experienced anything like it. There was a reverence an awareness of something holy taking place. I would love to have the option. “Going to church” for anything other than engaging God in true worship which requires a sacrifice is simply a get together, not worship.
***I made the transition as easy as a wake up with a difference, I could feel the Mass much better in my own language, latin was OK, I was accustomed to it and use a missal with both languages, in english it was like my own language; never had any problem with Mass in any language.***
A friend who served in the Navy told me that when mass was in Latin, no matter where he was in the world, he could participate in the mass, he only missed out on the homily. Once mass was said in the vernacular, that changed.
So no matter where you were you didn’t understand!
In the old Latin Mass the whole point was that the people didn't participate. Many prayed the rosary because the Mass was the prayer of the priest.
@@RPlavoactually you did if you had the missal as both languages are in it. Unfortunately we live in an age of laziness and where people want God's word to be changed to suit this aspect of modern man. That is also why so many people don't even realize how teachings have been watered down. The New Mass is now often an innovation by some liberal clergy and deliberate watering down of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and about entertainment by and large and man focused not God focused. So in essence the new'god' is man. Will there by any faith on earth when Christ returns? the attempt to destroy the from within as the freemasons said in 1917 when parading on the outskirts of Vatican City. Unfirtunaly for them God is in control and is allowing it to happy, maybe to give humanity a chance to change and return to Him. Hopefully mankind will let go of the pride and ego and return, as God is not only mercy but also justice. The one cannot have only mercy it's contrary to Christ's teaching
@@chemicalpathology7724 thanks for the thoughtful reply……I’ve been around a while and today’s clergy are certainly not liberal……they are very respectful with Mass and tradition…….yes, God focus is a real problem in our pampered world, lawlessness, and political cultism, and please, no Trump
You are every bit right. It's flabbergasting to see how many people believe it's essentially about Latin. Your point about Latin is excellent, explaining both how important Latin is (in fact, it's part of the orthopraxis of the Western Church) and how it's not the essential point. So many people out there believe that the NOM is just a vernacular translation of the same rite as the TLM. I've seen hundreds of folks unaware (or unwilling to understand) that it's about two different rites: a traditional, organically-grown rite vs. a manufactured one. Everything was modified (well, "turned upside down" would be more accurate): not only the Ordinary but also the rubrics, propers, calendar etc. etc. So, a big thanks for making this crucial point. Please, keep hammering it: it's badly needed.
In fairness, I do get pretty happy when my Novus Ordo parish at least prays the Agnus Dei in Latin. Kinda like a potato chip given to a starving man. But I get your point and agree 100%.
The latan mass is about a whole lot more!!!
The alter rail is actually where you have communion with jesus as the altar rail is were we join our sufferings with jesus suffering!! There is absolutely so very very much more to the Latin mass!!!
its the liturgy? the holy liturgy is set in stone.... exactly why modernist hates it... because they cant insert the rainbow dancing musical, ecumenical, progressive, inclusive modern liturgy they want to promote in the TLM
***Robert, you are just "newfobist" period.***
Altar rails exist in parishes which celebrate only the reformed Roman Rite, too.
Maybe it's our fault for calling it the TLM. More correctly, it's the traditional mass or Vetus Ordo; old order.
Latin is wonderful, but it's the near-silent filing out for communion, reverential reception (kneeling, on the tongue), the altar rail, the ad orientum that really distinguish the mass from human society function's. In this respect the NO seems kindergartenesque by
comparison. Something you'd go to with a fussy toddler until they grew on a bit.
Maybe we should call it "the Mass with the unmistakable Catholic prayers in it," or "the Mass that was composed without the influence of heretics."
ordered towards God, not man.
Deo gratias❤
A good explanation
Excellent! Very articulate and cogent! I will be sharing this with my family as part of my ongoing catechisis on the Traditional Roman Liturgy/Traditional Roman Rite (the TRL or TRR, perhaps?)
I usually tell these people, "Yeah, and Jesus didn't speak English either!!!!" Unbelievable. As if God couldn't speak any language He wanted.
The mass as said by the Apostles was in Aramaic, when gentiles started coming into the church the mass switched to Greek, the mass then changed slowly to Latin when in 380 AD the church was made the the official religion of the empire.
Whether Jesus could speak any language he wanted, he actually only spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. English was not a language until way after his resurrection. And the apostles said the mass in Aramaic and switched to Greek after gentiles started coming into the church is numbers.
@@joejohn1492
but there is no time with God - who knows everything always+❤️
New Testament was written in Greek 👍🏻
Yeah, but y'all wouldn't sit still for Divine Liturgy in Greek or Aramaic. The Bible says only Latin, Greek, and Hebrew were on the Cross as Jesus died for us. Not English.
@@joejohn1492If you think the Liturgy was performed in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople or Alexandria at any time before or after 325 you are very much mistaken. The entire time that Christianity was the “Official” language of the Roman Empire the Capital was Constantinople and Greek was its Language. In Antioch, Jerusalem and elsewhere they used neither Greek of Latin in the Liturgy.
Thank you for this! God bless! 🙏🙏🙏
I am catholic the NO Mass started when I was 4 or 5 I have no recollection of it. I experienced my “first” TLM just a few weeks ago while travelling, and I am seeing so much now on YT. There is no TLM where I live, the closest 350 kilometres away. My current Parish Priest did not have to learn latin in the Seminary anyway . I am very curious about TLM but will continue going to The Mass that is available to me for now.
I would change the title of this video to "...isn't just about Latin". Latin is indeed part of what the traditional Latin mass is about, and it's an important part, as the value of a consecrated language of worship, set apart from the ever changing Tower of Babel of secular languages, is very great.
This is the best explanation I've ever heard. You earned a subscription from me.
YAYYYY
I’m attending my first Latin mass tomorrow and very excited! I’ve always wanted to experience the Latin mass
Thank you for this, it's my hope that hundreds of years from now Catholics will be amazed to read that for a period of 60-70 years in the late 20th/early 21st century the Church experimented with a different Mass but ultimately returned in full to the Tridentine use. Much like how we are amazed to read about French and German churches in the 18th-19th centuries...
For me it’s the same Mass my great grandfather and grandfather knew and prayed every Sunday, that same Faith they then passed to my father then I, if they had Faith and my grandmother who it was most important to raise her kids as Catholic then I too want to celebrate and praise and worship our great God in the same way!
The NO and the TLM are both valid and beautiful forms of the mass of the Roman Rite. The speakers bad mouthing the Novo Ordo by taking Pope Benedict’s statements out of context is shameful.
Thank you for a sane ,moderated & factual counterpoint. A breath of fresh air and the Holy Spirit.
+JMJ The NO is beautiful? Maybe a couple in the last 50 years. Do a search on TH-cam for Novus Ordo Masses. You will see a parade of utter sacrilege. Beautiful NO Masses are extremely rare and rely entirely upon the control of the individual priest due to the wide optionality of the NO. The NO is "valid" but but it is most often irreverent, banal, inane and fraught with abuse. Those are facts. Moreover it poorly transmits the faith as evidence by the freefall of marriages, priestly vocations, infant baptisms and belief in the Real Presence. I think it's pretty clear that the Church will be reverting to the constant Tradition of the Mass of the Ages.
The NO was invented to purposefully destroy the true Catholic faith which had been the goal of many dissenters, heretics and apostates for a long time prior to its invention. The NO is the worship of man above God. It is the incorporation of the synthesis of heresies, Modernism (which Popes Pius IX and X exposed).
What context is needed? What context will mitigate his statements? Beauty is quite subjective, and to compare a rite with over 1000 years of organic growth to a rite cobbled together by committee is apples and oranges, to say the least. Benedict's statements aren't those of a simple Catholic commentator or even liturgist. He saw what the Council fathers intended in great contrast to the product of the Consilium. It's shameful to try to minimize his valid critique for so-called context.
@@josephodoherty7864 Why would the "Holy Sprit" seek to honor God less, to remove prayers of petition and protection? Hardly the "Holy Spirit" at work here.
When I described the Traditional Latin Mass as the Vetus Ordo Mass as against the Novus Ordo Mass, a lot of people do not know or are unfamiliar with the term Vetus Ordo.
Linguistically, the term "Vetus Ordo" is not wrong, it means "old order". It's a verbiage that has recently begun to be employed mostly by so-called "pope-splainers" and other anti-traditional modern Catholics. I'm not quite sure why except perhaps to avoid the term "traditional" in "Traditional Latin Mass". Maybe in doing so, they feel they can de-emphasize the ancient character of the TLM and try to portray an equivalency between the TLM and the Novus Ordo, thereby undermining the credibility of traditionalist arguments.
Who knows why. But it's only ever used online never in real life. AI maybe?
Yes. The old order is the true Catholic order. The new order is the heretical Modernist order.
As a new Catholic, I have a question. If one were to take the "traditional latin mass" and strictly translate it, "word for word" into English, would it be similar to the High Anglican liturgy (or the Ordinariate liturgy?).
I’m Eastern Orthodox where the Divine Liturgy is Saint John Chrysostom was originally written in Greek. Yet it’s said in English at my parish. But it’s also said in Arabic, Romanian, Slavonic, etc. Yet it’s the same liturgy from 400 AD. The Eastern Catholic Churches also use it.
Why hasn’t the Tridentine mass never been translated to the vernacular? The essence of the old mass is its content. Some Western Rite Orthodox churches use the Tridentine mass in English.
Latin was adopted to standardise the liturgy in the Western Church. It is also a good singing language. The Eastern Rites are starting to come under attack.
I find that for many Orthodox, their attitude toward anything Roman and Western is, "Why can't you be just like us?" It's a strength for the Orthodox, but useless for the West.
Some Anglo-Catholics also say the TLM in English or a bilingual version with Latin music and English prayers. This is what Vatican II actually called for besides adding an OT reading on top.
That's a good question. Vatican II never said to trash the Mass and write a whole new order of worship with a few scraps of the original. But that's exactly what they did, and they illicitly supressed the Mass on top of it for 18 plus years
The answer to this is it was characteristic of Eastern rites to use vernacular. I am an Eastern Catholic myself. For the west, their tradition was to use Latin as a veil, similar to how Byzantines use the Iconostasis, of Syriac Christians use the altar curtain.
My wife and I attended Latin mass for first time in January in a school gym. We thought it was the novus ordo mass in Latin. Wow were we mistaken. We haven’t left TLM since. We gave up the most beautiful church to attend TLM in a school gym. The beauty of the liturgy in worship is worth much more than a beautiful building.
Yeah this has come to mind also. It’s the whole movement of the mass itself. I guess some people get all caught up in the language itself for some reason? It doesn’t seem like a stumbling block to me though, I’ve gotten used to it, following the Latin/English missal, not too hard to follow I think.
Its called the Tridentine Mass, NOT TLM. My aunt is from a village on an island in asia , borned into a catholic family, just like so many millions of Catholic outside of the european sphere ( yes, we non-english speaking, non-american, non-white Catholic Churches EXIST). She went for Mass since young but couldnt understand a word the priest was saying during mass. She ended up becoming protestant because that church proclaim the gospel in her native tongue and worships in that tongue too. She was shocked when she visited a catholic church to attend a wedding of one of my cousins some 10 years ago.. It opened her eyes to the catholic faith that she once found rediculous when she was young. The Mass was in her language ! She could understand whats going on ! Today she sits with her family in a catholic church named after an asian saint St. Agnes Tsao. Even her protestant husband joined her Reciting church prayers and participate in the mass she once found rediculous because she could not understand the mumbo-jumbo the priest was reciting, meaning latin. She came home. Latin is only beautiful to those who understand it, not so with those who are latin-illiterate, and whose livelihood depend on the earth , sea and mountain that demand hard labourous work to just eke out a living. Not all elaborate liturgical ceremonies are grand and beautiful in the eyes of non-european, non-white catholic population. The second vatican Council Fathers saw this, and they knew the imposition of a european-centric catholicism will eventually push the catholics in non-european spheres out of the church. The Tridentine Ceremonial Mass holds no positive memories to a lot of cultures. We love the popes who listen to our voices. We pray for Pope Francis everyday. The church in my country is active and vibrant, despite our country not being catholic, thanks to second vatican council. We dont understand, why are you arguing?
Very important perspective. Thank you for pointing that out. My mother was raised in the Catholic faith, attended Catholic schools & was forced to learn Latin. She hated it, & due to some poor behaviors of some priests left the church forever. My wife & I are new catholics from a protestant background. Truth be told, I love the Latin tradition & being mostly Irish & German, my ancestors no doubt prayed in Latin & I feel this in my bones. But the Word of God is powerful as a 2 edged sword. If order for it to work on our hearts, we need to understand it. Thank you sister for sharing your experience. I pray the rosary in Latin & French but go to NO churches because that is all that's available. I will let the RC leaders fight about this & pray that Jesus gets his church in line & unified so we can show out love to a world that so desperately needs to see Christian love lived out in 3 D.
Indonesian Catholic here. This is the problem of the "Old" Catholic communities, mostly in Western countries. It is relatively easy for them to reintroduce the Tridentine mass (TLM) to their flock, but it would be a serious problem for Catholic Churches in Asia and Africa due to the language barrier.
Meanwhile Catholic Church is burgeoning in these two continents despite we celebrate Novus Ordo Mass
My grandmother came to live after her wedding in an erstwhile Portuguese colony. She was the wife of an upholstery shop owner, yet as she was indigenous, had to sit at the back of the Portuguese Church on the floor while the Upper class colonisers and their mixed progeny would sit in the pews in the front of the altar. The mass used to be in Latin and not being able to understand it she and her community members would say the Rosary till Mass ended. It's only after VatI and II when the Bible, Lectern and Liturgy were translated to vernacular languages did they understand what Mass was all about. But not knowing Latin didn't effect their faith because faith itself is a gift from God and when Jesus called out to His Father on the Cross, he spoke in Aramaic not in Hebrew, the language of scripture. So whereas the Latin Mass should not be banned completely as it is the original language of Church liturgy, it should not be enforced or forced on the laity who do not follow it.
Very well articulated, thank you!
What are the orders or organizations that still celebrate TLM? I know there is SSPX but I don’t want to go there as they are schismatic. There’s a other one but I can’t remember the name.
Do not attend the SSPX they do not have faculties. Try to find a diocesan priest for TLM.
Reminds me of what an Architect said about Tradition.
It is the Preservation of the Fire not the worship of the Ashes.
Agreed. No TLM supporter then should object to saying the TLM in English.
I agree and appreciate the explanation about why the tridentine is a better mass, but I would choose NO calendar's six year rotations than tridentine's. IMO it gives more to the people. Please advise.
OK. I already knew that the preference for the TLM was NOT about Latin, or at the very least not primarily about Latin. I do thank you for the interesting information. If all this is about is yearning for what you heard or did in your youth, then fine, and I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would want to deprive you of that. But I think there is more to it than that. I was an altar boy in the early '60s, so I am familiar with the TLM, and the change to English in the first half of the Mass. Later in life, I served as a lector for many years.
A few years back, I attended my granddaughter's performance in a Christmas play inside of a Methodist Church. While there, I took the opportunity to peruse one of their prayer books used in their services. The similarities to our Novus Ordo Mass were striking!
So, my question is what are those theological differences between the TLM and the NO, that the good Cardinal talked about?
I am not Roman Catholic and would like to understand this better. I don't see anyone saying that the Novus Ordo (NO) Mass is invalid. In the video and in the comments I see that there are traditions missing in the NO - but - if in the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ are received in this Mass is not the full grace of God received? Is it not communion with God and with our fellow believers and is that not what is important?
@@mpkropf5062only some, not all but definitely on the oppression by the authority when most are obedient with the chair of peter. Why are we facing these persecution when only a tiny fraction are disobedience? Why are their more allowance for liturgical abuses, sexual abuses, improper governenace but not a little bit of breathing space for the latin mass?
Please do attend one that is reverent and in good standing with rome a TLM and see it for yourself.
It's not just about missing traditions. It's important because how we pray, is how we believe, is how we live (this is often cited as lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi). Certain Vatican officials are quoted in the video as stating that the old mass doesn't fit the new view of the Church (or _ecclesiology_ in the video). This is a problem because the teachings we have received don't cease to be true because it was said the Church needed some "fresh air" in the 60's. This is where the deposit of faith and the Magisterium comes in.
The Eucharist is about communion with God. That we do it with a community is nice and reinforces our mutual faith and culture, but no, it's not about our fellow believers. This is one of the stark differences in theology.
Also, there is a difference between doing what is considered the bare minimum, and doing the best one can. Sure, both modes will get the job done, but if it's something that one cares about deeply, that means so much, is the bare minimum what you really want to do? The prayers of the NO and even the sacramental reforms that followed, watered down and simplified prayers because it was thought that less complexity and/or so-called formality would make everything more accessible to the common person. It had the opposite effect, as referenced by Benedict XVI, making everything banal and everyday. Blessings that, for most of the life of the Church, had implored God for every possible protection explicitly, or prayers of honor that explored various attributes of God and in the process making God more known to His people, were simplified to be basic. In making the highest prayer of the Church into something palatable to everyone of any persuasion, its identity was lost, and experience of the sacred was discarded.
I hope this gives some window on why the masses are viewed differently. Yes, the low bar of validity is cleared for both usages, but the organic growth of more than a millennium cannot be compared to a committee creation (some of which began as a back of the napkin scribble!). I'd be happy to discuss further if there are questions.
@@drstewart
I once had a friend from USA visiting us in my country. We were talking about what draws us to the latin mass. I told him that i see contradictions from what i was taught in cathecism class and the real stuff in Mass.
In class we were taught Jesus is truly in the eucharist and it is the summit, centre of faith. The altar in the sanctuary is the sacrifice consecrated. We need to respect that.
I see people casually walking to recieve him in the eucharist, without altar rail i see people walking up and down casually talking smiling. I see tank tops, hot pants, i see people walking in halfway and walking out as and when they like. I see contradictions.
People can dress up for party, for meetings, for events but they cant at least to the bare minimum neat and modestly for Mass.
When i started to learn about the latin mass and started attending. I was like " This is what was taught to me" i saw everything in this form, the reverence, the attitude that centre and summit of it. This is lex orandi lex credendi lex vivendi!
@@supreme87878 Precisely so. Wonderful that you're seeing what draws so many to the TLM. I was a nominal Catholic with an entirely post-Conciliar formation, like almost everyone. It was that version of the faith that caused me to drift away, and some time later, it was the "traditional" practice and the TLM that brought me back.
@@drstewart I kinda left in 2002, a year before my confirmation only to be back in late 2015, to a latin mass i know from a mutual friend on facebook.
It’s the mass of the ages. It’s not modernist.
Your reasoning presumes that the Mass always evolved in a positive way. The devolution of a liturgy in which people actively participated into a ritual that was "heard" by the people and "said" by the priest was hardly a positive evolution. I participated in such Masses until I was 16 every Sunday, sometimes daily Mass, and on holy days. While the Missal was available so congregants could follow the Mass in Latin (with English translations), only a small part of the congregation availed themselves of it. Many people prayed the rosary during Mass. The canon was said in a very low, inaudible voice and often the priest rushed through the audible texts , an easy feat, as very few folks understood Latin. "Go to the 7 AM Mass, Father Dougherty gets it over in 25 minutes, I was advised." So much for the dignity of the rite.
While some priests said the Mass reverently and with dignity, more often they seemed barely there, rushed, or rarely, even lacking reverence. High mass and Solemn High Mass were more participatory with the inclusion of a choir and varied congregational movements. And by the 1950's there were in some parishes dialogue masses in which the congregation recited the parts of the Mass that would have been said by servers. Unfortunately that was the exception.
So the problems with what some people call the Latin Mass, at least for me, have nothing to do with the use of Latin. The use of liturgical languages which are not the vernacular is a phenomena that occurs across many religions. The problem is in with how the liturgy is celebrated and the Tridentine Low Mass is just bad liturgy for myriad reasons.
I find it puzzling that the NO Mass contains only 13% of the wording of the TL Mass. Why was the NO Mass changed so radically?
I totally support those who want the Latin Mass, and in all honesty I wish I was one of you. But the last sentence of this video is my entire problem with the Extraordinary Form: if I could HEAR the Mass as it's supposed to be presented, I might like it. But every time I try to attend it, three quarters of the Mass is whispered or mumbled. I have twice been fortunate to attend a High Mass, which was glorious. For me (at least in my area), Low Mass seems to suffer its own abuses. I attend a parish in my area with the most respectful OF I can find. I'll have to stick with that.
I am glad you mentioned the Modern Sacrosanctum Concilium; if you read it, it is very conservative; however, every article of it has been gutted with the loophole that the local bishop can administer as he pleases.
It's time to remove those loopholes.
Someone once asked.."what language do you think Jesus Christ our Lord spoke to the roman centurion in?"....
and Pontus Pilate asked Jesus “ what is truth” in Latin obviously, the language of the Roman rulers.
Probably Greek, maybe Aramaic.
@@josefinborg3069 Maybe, or maybe he spoke to him in Greek or Aramaic.
@@StoaoftheSouth why would Christ not speak in the Roman tongue to a Roman?...He is God after all, also The Word made flesh..it would be cumbersome and proud no to.
@@josefinborg3069 yes, Jose, obviously The Word would have spoken in Latin.
Father, all that you say is Nice and good. The Latin Mass has a nice ring of mysticism and religiosity about it. I actually grew up with the Latin Mass in my childhood and was also in the church choir singing the full Mass in Latin. However what no one is talking about is that, we do not know and understand what they are saying. It’s only with the introduction of the English Mass that we could fully and wholly participate in our worship and whole hearted adoration of our Lord at Mass. I still do love the Latin hymns with all my heart and feel very nostalgic listening to the old Latin hymns. All praise, glory and honor to our most Holy triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I attended the Latin Mass for the first time in my life just last month. I admit I was instantly enamored by the reverence and religiosity of the experience: the choir singing hymns in Latin, the women covering their hair, receiving Eucharist from the rail by tongue, etc. However, as you said, I couldn't understand anything that was going on. The priests were doing a lot of pomp and circumstance up at the altar while everyone waits for them to finish, saying a bunch of things in Latin in hushed tones that's incomprehensible and inaudible, etc. While I admired the solemnity, I personally don't think I could go through one again and I began to understand why the Church opted to institute changes. I think one of the best things the Second Vatican Council did was have the Church undergo de-Latinization, bringing the Roman rite to the vernacular, reserving the Latin Mass as the Extraordinary Form, preserve and protect the other non Roman liturgies such as the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites, and give more recognition and autonomy to the Eastern rite churches. I believe it was the will of the Holy Spirit that this happened. What will become of the Latin Mass in the future? Let us leave it to God.
With all due respect, I do not understand why you say "we do not know and understand what they are saying." Do you not have a missal? After only a few months of following along in the missal on the English side of the Latin translation, one learns what the prayers mean and exactly what the priest is saying. I pray silently along with the priest ( "assisting at the mass) and that deepens my understanding of the liturgy and my connection to the prayers. The meeting of heaven and earth is supposed to be a profound mystery, not fully accessible. I believe this elevated awareness is enhanced by the bells, the incense, the sacred language of Latin, the vestments that tend to be more elaborate at the Latin Mass than at the Novus Ordo, the number of times the priest genuflects and crosses himself, and communion given kneeling, on the tongue, only by a priest.
Im a outsider.(Orthodox) Why is the TLM in vernacular languages not a thing? I understand the attraction/ need for tradition. I love the liturgy of St John Chrysostom in any language, but its more meaningful if i understand more
I have the idea that 50 + years ago when mass was said in Latin the people still understood it. I am not Catholic but I remember hearing the mass in Latin when I was very young and I thought it was beautiful even though I didn't understand it. Likewise I love Ave Maria more when it's sung in Latin than when it's sung in English. I'm not positive but I believe Ave Maria was written in German and I have heard it performed in German, it's nice but still not the same as Latin.
I think it's important to distinguish that a Latin Mass is said in Church Latin, not Roman Latin because they can be very very different and I don't think most people realize this, they think there is only 1 version of Latin. On a doctoral level I'm a bit fuzzy but I thought there was something in The Bible or maybe it's just church doctrine that says something about being able to understand what is being spoken about and if you don't understand what's being said then it's useless.
The passage you wrestled referring to is about speaking in tongues, and it says it’s useful if there’s a translator. Even 50 years ago the Latin Masses had handouts with English translations of the prayers.
Shubert’s “Ave Maria” is not the same as the prayer.
@@CatholicTraditional Oh I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear but I was talking about the song, not the prayer. I kind of thought that was understood when I mentioned singing.
@@phillipcampbell843 No, that is not the passage I was thinking about. Yes I understand that if someone speaks in tongues it is only authentic if there is a translator there to interpret. I like that passage. Forgive me, I have not studied theology in close to 40 years so I'm rusty. What I'm thinking about may not have been a Bible passage and I'm sorry I didn't state that more clearly. I kind of thought it was but yeah, I'm not positive, it could have been something I heard in a Bible study class. As I state I am not Catholic and I only went to a a few services where Latin was used but I did think it was lovely.
I do love singing Latin songs but I don’t understand Latin in Mass
Thank you much needed video .
I have an honest question and take heed because I am a novice:
If the TLM were celebrated by translating all the prayers in the English language would it still be radically different than the N.O.? Thanks.
Yes
If you could get a steak dinner at Ruth’s Chris or at Ponderosa for the same price, which would you choose?
The reason for Latin is its power over the Devil and the graces it disperses. Our Lord replied to Pilate in Latin. For 1900 plus years it unified the whole world 🌎 ❤️
@@vazgl100 Ask the Exorcists
Thank you for your clear and faithful explanation of your position regarding the Tridentine Mass. If only those who reject the validity of the Second Vatican Council and/or deny the Papacy of Pope Francis would not use it as a rallying point for their movement, Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum would still be in place.
Why cant both masses be offered,wouldnt that clear up the problem? Why didnt the council forsee this and allow for it,just think no sspx problem,mabe no sedevecantist problem?
The council was on a power trip. They didn’t care about divinity. They cared about being snowed by tearing apart & causing discord (or something similar to that. I feel discord is too strong of a word).
@@sam12587 I been a Catholic just 6 years now and believe the Church cannot be brought down according to Christs promise that the gates of hell will not prevail and somehow God will prevail even without us taking the law into our own hands,I mean what now we start a whole new catholic church? is that not what the protestants do?I wish the trads could just try and reason with the Pope and come to some kind of agreement instead of just trashing him and maybe it would not have come to this,I dont want to see the old Mass taken away either its our heritage as Catholics.
No, that would never do. If that were allowed, the superiority of the traditional Latin mass over the Novus Ordo would become increasingly manifest, as more and more souls, hungry for authentic Catholic spirituality, gravitate toward it, and abandon the NO. That would make the clergy responsible for the NO look like the fools that they actually are, which is something that their pride would never allow.
@alphaomega238 I used to exclusively attend the mass celebrated according to the '62 missal. I now attend the reformed Roman Rite.
While I can appreciate certain aspects of the older missal, I don't think it is inherently superior (I actually think I prefer the reformed Roman Rite, when done like intended.)
@@StoaoftheSouth You bring up a good point. There's positive aspects to the different kinds. We go ot both NO & TLM because we gather fruit from both. Now I will say the NO we go to has very very virtuous clergy (three kinds serve there) and I feel their honest hearted leadership & hard work makes that church one of the best around.
It's about the true faith..
THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL directed: "The treasures of the Bible are to be
opened up more lavishly so that a richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word." (Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, No. 51) The scriptural readings provided in the 1570 Tridentine Mass included only 1 percent of the OldTestament and 17 percent of the New Testament, and had only a one year cycle of readings-with most of the Gospel readings taken from the Gospel of Matthew. In the Mass restored by the 2nd Vatican Council, the scripture readings include 13 percent of the Old Testament and 71 percent of the New Testament.
While removing 87% of prayers. The mass is not intended to be a Bible study, that is Prot error. Moreover, readings could've been expanded quite easily without wreckovating the rest of the liturgy. The SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL also said that Latin was to be retained and previous rites were to be respected. Where is your fervor for these pronouncements of the Great Council? Quite convenient to cherry pick.
@@drstewart Cherry picking? Where is your fervor for the liturgical prouncements of the Great Catholic Church and its legitimate authority? You are guilty of Cafeteria Catholicism! You accept teachings that tickle your fancy while rejecting those that don't.
From 17% to71% of the New Testament!!! Oh, how I love the Word of God! And I love the 2nd part of the Mass, the Eucharistic Liturgy which is now, thank God!, in my native language, American English!
@@Catholicity-uw2yb No no, you love the pronouncements of the Great Council, again, that council says explicitly that Latin is to be retained, cherry picker. Are you defending that pronouncement, cafeteria Catholic? It seems like you're only passionate about that which suits your taste. Typical of the great Springtime, yep.
Show me the Vatican II document that mandated mass in the vernacular, removal of altar rails, mass versus populum, and EMHCs. Then you can tell me what I reject and what I don't. Until then, you're quite the cafeteria Catholic.
We want it because it delivers the faith intact.
One clarification: Veterum Sapientia by John XXIII is an Apostolic Constitution, not an encyclical. an apostolic constitution is the most solemn form of legislation issued by a Pope. As a form of reference, Sacrosanctum Concilium is also an apostolic constitution. That's how important Pope John XXIII thought Latin was for the church.
Thank you. A good teaching point.
I don't think of "Traditional Latin Mass" as meaning "Mass in Traditional Latin", but "The Traditional Mass of the Latin Rite".
Its all about the priest facing the alter instead of the crowd and speaking one tongue in all nations
Where can I find Mass in Sanskrit
How about same rite, just translate some parts?😊
I feel theirs a fear by some that Latin unifies the Catholic Church. No matter where you go you would understand the Mass. catholic means universal.
The vernacular is a better choice for the Mass now since virtually no one knows Latin anymore. In Spain the Mass is in Spanish and everyone understands it and same applies to other countries. I much prefer to participate in the Mass fully just like the early church did rather than have no clue as to what the priest is saying and rely on a Mass card, when available, to be able to vaguely follow the Mass. The vernacular is more appropriate for our times whether or not the mass rubrics are Tridentine or NO. The apostles and early church used the vernacular so I see no problem with it . Latin was fine when it was the vernacular, problem was by 1960 most people could not participate in the Mass because they did not understand the language it was said in. Even many priests did not know Latin, they just read and understood the words in the missal.
@@joejohn1492
You are completely wrong! In most places, where TLM is held, the books contain the texts in Latin AND the local language. ANYONE can understand it! At least, anyone who is able to read.
I went to Rome with fellow students who complained about Mass being in Italian. I told them "You know, you could attend the Latin Mass and it would be exactly the same as the Mass I'm attending here in Rome."
@@samuelwalker1410
Where and which mass was in Italian? Which one did you attend in Rome?
@@kletterfreak814 they attended various churches around Rome for the Novus Ordo. I attended the TLM.
The vernacular is a better choice for the Mass now since virtually no one knows Latin anymore.
In Spain the Mass is in Spanish and everyone understands it and same applies to other countries. I much prefer to participate in the Mass fully just like the early church did rather than have no clue as to what the priest is saying and rely on a Mass card, when available, to be able to vaguely follow the Mass. The vernacular is more appropriate for our times whether or not the mass rubrics are Tridentine or NO. The apostles and early church used the vernacular so I see no problem with it . Latin was fine when it was the vernacular, problem was by 1960 most people could not participate in the Mass because they did not understand the language it was said in. Even many priests did not know Latin, they just read and understood the words in the missal.
The problem of the NO is mainly, that it misses out soo much of the very essential, very detailed information of the very developed Latin mass, it in fact misses about 87%, due to recommendations of a PROTESTANT commission!!
That's a protestant argument. Catholics never had a problem participating in the mass during the 1500 years when Latin was not a vernacular language.
People don't know Latin because it's not taught...because the Novus Ordo is not typically said in Latin. You're reverse engineering the problem. Secondly, most of the TLM is silent. It's a rather silly complaint when you don't hear most of it anyway. And finally, I have no sympathy for adults whining about Latin when little Saint Jacinta went to Mass without complaining about Latin.
This is a false notion. Projection after projection. Hand missals were in widespread use. Priests definitely knew Latin as it was part of their formation traditionally. Another false notion. The idea that the mass must change with the times is false, as is the idea that the use of a sacred language is so incomprehensible to the public at large. How many falsehoods are needed to justify your argument? There was no "problem" by 1960. There was not a clamoring for the mass to be in the vernacular (which btw, was not what the Council called for). There was discussion that at most, the Gospel and Epistle could be in the vernacular, possibly along with the Our Father. Everything was made banal and desacralized, and a mass exodus followed. Where was the new springtime of the Church? Even Paul VI recognized that mistakes were made.
Do you not have a missal? You can read right there on the opposite page the translation of the Latin. I don't understand why people think this is so difficult.
The first Mass, at the Last Supper, included a singing of the Hallel in either Classical Hebrew or Greek. We don’t know which because we do know that Our Lord spoke both.
Colloquially Jesus spoke Aramaic, but this was not used liturgically by him or his followers.
He probably also spoke Latin because the sign Pilate caused to be fixed to the Cross asa warning to Jesus’ followers included a translation into Latin.
As a Trad, besides the 2000 year Scripture and Tradition of the Church, Latin plays a key role. I don't know Latin and that is a good thing. When I hear Liturgical Latin it is the flowing waters of Christ. I don't know what the priest is saying in Latin, but my heart unserstands it complete, mystically knowing it's all about God.
It would help if we all called it by its proper name, the Tridentine Rite of the Holy Mass. It happens to be in Latin though as you correctly noted, that is not the crucial issue.
I have this idea that Latin was a universal language of the Roman Catholic Church because priest could speak Latin no matter if they were Italian, Spanish, English or whatever. Latin was the official language of the Vatican for a very very long time.
But many people couldn’t understand a thing when it was Latin. Many cradle Catholics left the Church because they couldn’t understand the Mass.
I do love Latin, either way. Good video.
“Don’t impose your language”. Is the title of a recent Video by Fr. Josiah Trenham against Orthodox use of non vernacular language in the liturgy is against Scripture. Makes since, fist century Rome Latin, Jerusalem Syriac and Greek elsewhere. Centuries later Slovanic, Arabic, Romanian………. Suggesting Latin has some special meaning or supremacy is awkward and non Scriptural if Trenham is correct.
Well, my parish still does NO mass in complete Latin with Gregorian chants. Also, the priest makes asperges outside the mass by wearing a cope, which can avoid violating the instruction to sing the Kyrie. Moreover, even the confiteor is still read before the communion. The priest position is toward the altar like the old one. Didn’t see too much difference
ALSO--
Without a common language there is no community. Or if there is, it is severely muted.
Jews around the world can communicate and celebrate worship. Same for Muslims.
***kevin can you elaborate why? is it for openness or closeness.***
@@adelinomorte7421 One use of a common tongue in a religion is so its members, from other countries, can communicate easily with each other. Not only have a formal way to celebrate. This would be most important in Vatican City, where its population is from everywhere.
Sure and today that universal language is English.
@@ablarod948 It is for technical and business purposes, but English will not help when reading RC documents written thousand or two thousand years ago.
Also, English changes quickly (try reading 300 year old English documents); whereas Latin is largely static. Finally, English is a translation. Everytime you translate something, things are lost... sometimes big, sometimes small, but there is always loss.
My main argument though is that RC needs its own language.
@@kevinderrick2787 Sure, I understand this. My point though is that the TLM can be said in English (and other languages) without degrading the reverence of the prayers and it would be more accessible to people.
We love it because it “preserves our heritage”. -Benedicat Deus
The TLM is a sacrifice in Latin; the NO is a celebration in the Vernacular. Christ is the focus in the TLM; the people are the focus in the NO.
Originally Novus Ordo was not versus populam it was later alterations
Speaking as an outsider. If only the clergy and some scholars can actually understand the mass, how will they hear and understand the message? It is essentially a priest talking to God but no one else can understand the conversation or benefit from the lessons of the homily.
THANK YOU!
Cradle Catholics here. If Latin is so important then why when The Holy Spirit filled the Apostles (Acts 2: 4 - 28), they spoke in different languages? Not vice versa i.e. made the audiences understand the language they used.
Latin is beautiful and had served RCC as lingua franca and should be in future. But the future of Church are in Africa and Asia with their rapid growth. By avoiding using vernacular languages in mass, Catholic Church would inhibit herself from spreading the Gospel.
Salvation is universal should not be hindered by language.
I never understand this objection because Latin is the liturgical language of the rites of the *Latin* Church. Many of the things we associate with "traditional Catholicism" are just historic Latin Christianity. Imagine the outrage if we applied the same level of innovation and scrutiny toward Eastern rites that we do the Roman Rite.
Aramaic is special because our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught in that language. Surely that means something to you? Your video was very well done. There was no need to insult people who have valid questions about the use of different languages in the early Church.
Your points about tradition are good and well taken, but isn’t the celebration of the Eucharist the central part of the Mass? How can one celebration of the Eucharist be inferior to another if they are both valid? Anyway I think that the Latin Rite should be preserved forever and I think the infighting that seems to be happening is very sad. We have enough problems dealing with the secular culture.
+JMJ The NO is valid, but minimalist. For many it impedes prayer and catechesis. It's precisely why Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence or attend Sunday Mass (only 17% of Catholics attend Sunday Mass). The permissiveness and irreverence of the NO have fostered a collapse in marriages, infant baptisms, and priestly vocations. It has enabled a gay culture to take over the clergy and hierarchy. By contrast the TLM allows the Faithful to pray the Mass. Churches are full. Moreover, 99% of TLM members believe in the Real Presence and attend Mass weekly. Young families are sprouting children and vocations are booming. One of the ecclesia dei communities had to turn away seminarians for lack of space. The future of the Church is the Roman Rite Mass of the Ages.
@@brianbacon5149 Do you have evidence for your claims? I think your idea of the Novus Ordo Mass comes from the irreverent abuses that were done early on. To say that the Novus Ordo is per se irreverent across the board today is simply not true and smacks of exaggeration. The Novus Ordo parish I grew up in is exactly the way you describe the TLM parishes. I know that is anecdotal but still I would need hard evidence to consider your claims. What you have described are symptoms and I think the causes are more numerous and hard to combat. Remember we live in a culture that has become the pinnacle of demonic influence. Our public schools indoctrinate children. Demonic parades are celebrated on the news. I could go on and on and you’ve seen it too. People have been overtaken by the culture and their spirits have withered. The Church is thriving in other parts of the world like Africa which are culturally much more conservative.
@MJ23915 +JMJ. Evidence? I'm a 50 year eyewitness of NO abuses. I lived through it and no more. I'm done with it. I found the TLM a year ago and praise God every minute for leading me there. Read the Pew Study. It lays out the fruits of the 50 year NO break with Tradition. Paul VI admitted in his famous orations introducing the NO that it was ALL NEW. All the statistics are public record. See the Catholic Almanac and the Catholic Directory. Let me give you one clear cut example just on vocations. The woke and modernist (i.e. gay ) Paulist Fathers, the order established under Pius IX to evangelize Protestant America has only 50 priests today in the entire order and is aging rapidly so that in 5 years only 38 priests will be left. The Paulists just sold their seminary in Washington DC. By contrast the FSSP, founded in1991 has more than 200 seminarians and has to turn applicants away. It has 400 priests. The Lord is letting us suffer the consequences of our hubristic sinfulness. I have every confidence that He will bring forth good out of this evil plaguing the Church. The Church needs to put on sackcloth and ashes and return to the Usus Antiquior. I could write a book documenting the profuse evidence of the utter failure of the NO.
@MJ23915 +JMJ. Count yourself blessed in your parish. See if that blessing remains when a new priest comes in. He could decide to institute "liturgical" dance. Have you ever been to a Clown Mass? I have. It's satanic. The wide optionality of the NO invites abuse. The abuse translates to violations of the Commandments including fostering gay culture in the clergy. It's a reason why the Bishops are silent in the face of a President who claims to be Catholic but pushes infanticide, abortion, gendet bending and gay "marriage". At my last NO Mass, men were dressed in flip flops, shorts and tee shirts. I saw a woman in a halter top. The lector broke through the noisy church (as no one prays before Mass but they feel free to catch up with friends) to tell people to turn off their cellphones as Mass was about to begin. Then the piano played and a procession of altar girls moved down the aisle. Over 50 years, I never knew what to expect at any given moment in the NO. It's distracting, dissonant, inane, banal and creates serious obstacles to devotion and praying the Mass. I will never go back to the NO.
@@MJ23915 The Pew Study found that only 30% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate found that only 17% of Catholics attend Mass on Sunday. I understand your point about other pagan and outright satanic influences. However, I strongly believe that the radical switch to the NO in 1970 and what we have seen in the last 24 years is a major source of the collapse in Catholic belief. The Mass is supposed to be the source and summit of our faith in Christ. The problem with the NO is the downplaying to the point of eliminating any semblance of the purpose of the Mass: i.e. to remember the Holy Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary and for the Faithful through the priest in persona Christi to offer Christ's own Body and Blood to the Father in the forms of bread and wine. In the TLM the priest and people face the east which was how the Apostles celebrated Mass as God is situated in the dawn. Today with the NO, in an effort to appeal to Protestants, the Mass is pro populum where the priest faces the people to celebrate a meal rather than to recall a holy sacrifice. By eliminating 87% of the beautiful orations in the TLM, the NO eliminated any scriptural references to our sinfulness, our need to Confess our sins to be worthy of receiving Christ's own Body and our need to make reparation for our sins. Those topics are rarely covered in the NO. A key complement to the TLM is frequent confession. In the NO it's backwards: frequent Holy Communion and rare Confession. Thus the NO minimizes the demands of taking up the Cross. It is less authentic and even less mystical. I attended the NO for 53 years. I won't go back. I have seen casual and presumptuous familiarity on the part of clergy toward references to God. I have seen dissonance and distraction with lay people ever moving about the altar. I have seen altar girls. With altar girls who needs boys and therefore why would a boy ever consider priesthood? Lay people with unconsecrated hands distribute the Most Blessed Sacrament to lay people who stand and receive our Lord by hand. I find that practice offensive and sacrilegious. A priest should distribute Holy Communion to a kneeling communicant on the tongue. And we wonder why people no longer believe in the Real Presence? I have not even touched the inanity and the banality of the music and how the NO eliminated Latin and Gregorian, which were in use for 2000 years in Masses attended by the saints. I now attend the Rosary and TLM daily and Confession weekly. I thank the Lord every day for that wonderful blessing. I wish it for everyone. Domina nostra monti Carmeli, ora pro nobis.
The theology has changed as per Cardinal Roche? Did Jesus come again and I missed it? Because only Jesus has the authority to do so. BTW I love my TLM. I will never apologize for that!!!!
In manuscrits all over western Europe there were entire passages of the western liturgy in Greek written in latin alphabet for the use of priests during the divine liturgy.
Those passages were typically the Trisagion, the creed (without the filioque) and the hymn of the Cherubim.
Those manuscript range from the 7th to the 13th century and from France to Germany, England to Italy.
Rome forced everyone to drop that tradition in favour of the tridentine mass that was generalized after the 13th century. Last the traditional sign of the cross with three fingers and from the right shoulder to the left was still the the majority tradition in the West till the 13th century and was replaced by the 'Catholic' sign with the flat hand and from the lest to the right.
Why? Well as I said the Greek creed did not include the filioque and the Latin church had no more greek education. That's why the greek text was written in the latin alphabet, sometimes with pronunciation deviations showing the scribed had no idea whatthe greek word realy was. In those conditions it was not possible to add the filioque in correct greek to the Greek creed. So Rome forced everyone to practice in Latin.
The other point is that after the schism there was an anti-greek sentiments (still persistent today among Trads) and all references to the Greeks was removed even in the Gospel where the word 'Hellens' (Greeks) war systematically turned into 'Gentiles'.
Not the Novus Ordo tyrants are paying the Trads the same king of payment by eradicating the Latin mass.
Lord have mercy on us all sinners ☦️
Thank you - a most instructive comment. I much prefer comments which are full of useful factual information, rather than simply an expression of personal opinion.
In the Western Roman Empire, Greek was never a common language. Outside the Greek colony cities, it was never the language of commerce or law. As barbarian invasions, Norse raids and conquest and Muslim raids and conquest choked commerce between the eastern and western parts of the Empire, the knowledge and use of Greek simply dwindled beyond usefulness.
Malign intent is not required to explain its absence.
@@frankmcgowan9457 not required but existed
@@Hope_Boat
Can you see into the heart of your fellow man?
@@frankmcgowan9457 Actions speak volumes.
Compare side by side the texts of the TLM translated into English, to the NO English. The NO is a deficient comparison. Yes, while valid, the TLM offers rich worship to God that the NO has been mostly stripped of.
Truly it is interior form of Liturgy. Amen
How I wish that we had a Catholic pope 🤷🏻♂️
@BillyJoeBob-hd9fm he's not Catholic because he teaches heresy.
Google is your friend: we had heretic popes before 🤷🏻♂️ this one is just a lot worse.
The problem is modernist Bishops and modernist Catholic Christians who vote for proAbortion politicians.
This slander of bishops disagreed with by labelling them modernist isfar more politics than theology & as is always the problem with the sin of slander it is a very vicious cycle. The overwhelming majority of bishops in question would take this seriously I'm sure except their knowledge of what defines modernism And the polar distinction of what they actually believe & practice only leaves them shaking their heads in sorrow and frustration.
Slander? It's a fact that many support the so-called "right to choose" who should know better because (as they like to remind everyone) they are Catholic. Jesus warned to whom much is given, much will be expected. Pray they repent because the Last Judgement will go much harder with them than those who are completely ignorant of Christianity
Cor Jesu sacratissimum miserere nobis.
The language isnt everything , but it’s still important and necessary.
Even the New Mass is enriched by the use of Latin. Because it’s a Sacred Language.
If fact, if the Council Documents would have been adhered to, most of the New Mass would still be in Latin.
@JesusRulez-l3j
Which became a Christian city.
As for me about Latin; is that, God specialised Latin through the Holy Cross of calvary where it states : " INRI " is enough to believe, they were in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. The council of ancient Church Father had canonised Latin, thus, we can live in Latin liturgically in the church, so TLM is holy n valid, than those worldly languages as we can conclude those languages are not venerable n can't be holy, thus, in our age it had cause us to be disunity n chaos n also all unholy happenings in the church leaders n congragation.
This is right on! It has to do with the TLM vs the fractured hodge pod of the NO.
Did those Centurions Jesus spoke to speak Koine or Vulgar or Aramaic?
Yes, it is about the words and the worship and the sacrifice of Jesus.
Amen.
I think that if we can the Liturgical Chant in all languages. But it is not necessary. What is necessary is to give an experience. For that. The door must be open to mysticism. So priests should not be the centre of attention. Secondly whatever be the language the believers are able to contemplate by the symbols and celebration. It is what is more important.
This issue of the TLM can be easily resolved if permission can be given to celebrate the Traditional Mass in the vernacular if it is not about Latin but about the traditional Mass.
Keep in mind that the reason the Traditional Mass was said in Latin was only because Latin happened to be the vernacular language of the time.
What those who insist on the TLM don't understand is that an inferior understandable Mass disposes you to receive more graces that a superior Mass that you don't understand because it is not in the vernacular.
Also if the Vatican is placing restrictions on the TLM it is not because there's anything wrong with the TLM but because people are weaponizing the TLM as a means to stay in a nostalgic past rather than let the Holy Spirit move the Church to something more applicable for our time.
Also the question I don't hear people pushing the TLM ask is why was the TLM so quickly abandoned after Vatican 2? The answer is because it was realized that a superior Mass of the ages you don't understand doesn't dispose you to receive the graces God want to give you as much as an inferior Mass that you understand does. Keep in mind that the sense of the faithful felt that it was best to have the New Mass rather than the TLM.
Lastly we need to be aware that all transitions are difficult but sometimes we need to leave the old behind for the new when the old has outlived its purpose like when you remove the training wheels of a bicycle when the child gets older or when you let go of the landline for the cellphone.
Why say the Mass in English? Just get a missal and follow along with the translation.
@barbararussell9757 There's nothing magical about Latin as a language compared to other languages like Greek, Hebrew, Coptic etc. Latin was used for no other reason than that it was the language of the people at that time. Now English happens to be the language of the USA, UK and other countries like Australia, New Zealand etc. So for this reason it makes sense to have the Mass in English in these English speaking countries.
As for reading the Mass in English while being said in Latin. This only serves to distance yourself from the reality of what is taking place. If the language of the Mass is the same language as that spoken at home it helps to materialize and make the Sunday worship part of your daily life. If the language of Mass is different from your home language even if you happen to understand the language it leads to compartmentalize your faith. This then increase the possibility of worshipping God with your lips but not your heart. Having the same language at Mass as spoken at home makes it more personal and greatly increase your chance of encountering the living Christ.
Take note that the first miracle God did for the Church was that everyone heard the message of salvation in their own language and not that everyone understood the language the apostles used. This is a strong argument in favor of having Mass and Catechesis in the language spoken at home.
@ Clearly I don’t agree with you. If you think there is nothing powerful about Latin you should read what exorcists say about it. The miracle you speak about is the Descent of the Holy Ghost which transcends language. Archbishop Lefebvre wrote, “The spiritual is infinitely more alive, more real than what is material. Therefore what we do not see is more real than what we see.”
If the Catholic Church is truly the universal church then the Latin Mass unites the whole world with the same liturgy. I can go to Mass in a foreign city and follow everything in the Mass but the homily.
Since you find great spiritual grace in the Novus Ordo I can understand your defense of it. The Traditional rite should be available to those who find great spiritual grace there. Unfortunately over the last few years this has been under restrictions.
@@barbararussell9757 My whole point is that it is the liturgy and not the language that is supposed to unite the Church. Yes, exorcists do say that Latin somehow makes a difference in exorcism. However, this does not exclude the possibility of having exorcisms in Latin while having the Mass in the vernacular. Keep in mind that only a priest can do exorcisms and then not every priest but only the priest appointed by the bishop. So, exorcism doesn't involve the laity or the need for laity to know Latin. Must the overwhelming majority of Catholics be disadvantaged just because of a priest who uses latin exorcism prayers? Also is it because there is something superior about Latin itself or is it just that the newer exorcism prayers aren't as forceful as the older Latin exorcisms prayer so that the exorcists prefer to use the older exorcism prayers which are only available in Latin. In this case the same argument goes for exorcisms as for Mass about just translating the language rather than the prayers, ritual or liturgy.
To want to argue from a language point of view for liturgy just in case you want to go overseas that you know the Mass is to ignore the fact that less than 1 in 1000 Catholics will ever leve their country to go overseas for any period of time. So must 999 people be inconvenienced by the 1? Is it not better that the 1 in 1000 make an effort to learn the Latin prayers if they will be going on a pilgrimage to Rome rather than enforce it on everyone else?
Keep in mind that the suppression of the Latin Mass is a new thing only under the Francis pontificate. Here it is not about the Latin Mass itself but rather that those who push the Latin Mass has weaponized the Latin Mass as a sign of opposition to any Vatican 2 changes. Had those pushing the Latin Mass only be concerned about having Mass in Latin while accepting the necessary Vatican 2 changes the restrictions wouldn't have been there. It is precisely because Rome sees value in the Latin Mass that it is only being restricted and not abolished. Also keep in mind that the Latin was dropped so quickly after Vatican 2 precisely because it had its flaws, and the overwhelming majority of laity didn't benefit from hearing Mass in Latin.
@@albertpost9776 I don't know how to reply to you because you repeatedly misunderstand what I say. It is the liturgy that unites the Church and the Latin Mass is a different one than the Novus Ordo which was written after Vatican II in an attempt to reach out to Protestants. The fact that Latin is a powerful language for the rite of exorcism is not negated by the fact that the laity do not perform exorcisms. It doesn't matter if one never travels overseas! The point is that the Church has a universal language that unites every Mass said in the world. You see it as being "inconvenienced" to have to attend a Mass in Latin but when I go to Mass the church is packed with people grateful to be in a Latin Mass. I don't know why you think the people who love the Latin Mass are somehow responsible for the fact that it is being restricted.
Here's a thought, how about fixing and then saying a "good" mass with "so much more" in the current language of the region.
I have nothing against Latin. I honor tradition, so I would also welcome a sacred mass of my ancestor's heritage, an apostolic mass said in Aramaic.
I imagine the early church experts arguing the benefits of structuring their mass in Hebrew along with the many benefits of circumcision.
The mass aside, why do people feel like they have to pray the rosary in Latin? Are they meditating on the mysteries in Latin, also? I doubt it; that's not how our minds work - we think in our native tongue and translate when we speak. So if it's not their native language, what's the point?
Tenete Traditiones
God bless.
The greatest truth of the Roman Catholic Church is the ability to grow and change. Judge not….comes to mind. Each and every protestation made claiming the passage of time grants some imprimatur of virtue or authority is wrong. Sometimes old and s just old. Jesus Christ changed the world and still does.
It’s a beautiful mass