[tmbchr]™

The Traditional Latin Mass



I asked my new Traditionalist Catholic info-evangelist “what the dilly-o” with the Latin Mass. This is one of central points of the Traditionalist Catholic argument, as far as I understand it. The Vatican II Council of the 1960’s allowed for the Mass to finally be spoken in the vernacular language of whatever country it was being held in, rather than the traditional Latin. (I’m not sure if it went into effect at that time or not. My source said something about the New Mass not being celebrated until 1970. I’ll have to look into that more.)

Anyway, essentially their argument was “this is the way it’s always been” - in other words, that there were apostolic roots to it being celebrated in Latin. This strains my credulity rather a lot though. Didn’t Jesus supposedly speak Aramaic? Didn’t most early Christians speak the Koine Greek? Didn’t Christianity develop in a Roman context largely due to a non-Christian or spuriously-Christian emperor’s political motives? I mean, I don’t know a ton about the historical development of the mass, but as far as I understand it, if you’re going to base your arguments on historical precedent, then the Latin Mass as a tradition completely falls apart. As does the very concept of “Mass” at all, and let’s not forget more or less the whole structure of the Church.

A much better explanation for the Latin Mass goes back to Joseph Campbell. I don’t happen to remember which book it was in, but I remember him talking about how the purpose of religious worship was to be “cast out” rather than drawn in. And that the Latin Mass tossed you out of your normal world and language, as did the ornate symbology and iconography of Catholic Churches and priestly hierarchy. He thought that the modern decline of Catholicism had to do with the fact that they were misunderstanding an integral component of the human religious drive. Don’t necessarily know if I buy this in its entirety, but it’s a pretty interesting argument.

I’ve never actually been to a Latin Mass in my life, so I don’t know. But my own personal guess as to why it might be considered “better” by some is more in line with Campbell’s. A mass in Latin would basically be more “spooky.” It would make Catholicism seem more “magic” and less ordinary. I mean, priests are basically nothing more than wizards, anyway, right? Why not let them do their incantations in a special magic language? Seems like it would be more fun for everybody involved.

From a whole other perspective though, I almost feel like a better question to ask is which is more out-dated: a medieval hierarchical religious system based on fear and guilt or a medieval hierarchical religious system based on fear and guilt where their ceremonies happen in another language? Seems pretty much like a moot point to me.

Anyway, here are some more resources for investigating the Latin Mass “controversy”:

  1. Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) on Wikipedia
  2. Old Mass vs. New Mass
  3. Documents on the Latin Mass vs. the New Mass.






5 Reader Responses

  1. crasspastor Says:
    April 24th, 2005 at 3:06 am

    Nail meet head. Yep. If it was only until the 1960’s that the RCC finally allowed mass to be held in local vernacular, one must suspect that anything they do today is geared toward something to the same shortsighted effect.

    Perhaps the RCC took the enlightenment as embodied in the western liberal revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s seriously. The US, where they had stacked all their corporate cards went down hard in Vietnam, as far as reputation and opinion go, thus causing them to tuck their tail and fortify what they knew they had. Now, we’re seeing a follow the leader routine that leads everybody straight into the abyss of unthreatened empire as there does not seem to be any form of revolution outside of South America.

    However, once the force that does rise to take it on does, I think we will quickly find it is nothing any of us will want anything to do with. The polarized paradigms will simply be too confusing and aggressive, making any middle ground impossible.

  2. Tom Harrison Says:
    April 24th, 2005 at 9:25 am

    I’d always supposed that it was part of the whole “catholic” thing; That the mass was in Latin so that all Christians everywhere were saying and hearing the same thing. Maybe over time it evoloved into a mechanism to exclude the laiety, but if that were the case then Latin wouldn’t have been so agressively taught in school.

    In my small town, people said it didn’t make any difference when they switched from Latin to English. The Priest had such a thick German accent that nobody could understand him anyway.

  3. Ran Says:
    April 24th, 2005 at 11:34 am

    “…which is more out-dated: a medieval hierarchical religious system based on fear and guilt…”

    Hierarchy and fear are not outdated! In many ways they are now at their peak. Unequal distribution of wealth and the rule of “experts” are two forms of hierarchy that are worse now than ever, and contemporary Americans are the biggest fear-worshippers of all time. I hope I live long enough to see this shit outdated.

  4. J. Puma Says:
    April 25th, 2005 at 12:47 pm

    we use a few latin phrases in our mass at the eg (though it’s mostly in english), and it’s almost certainly for the reason campbell gives. it’s about creating & instilling a sense of mystery & timelessness.

    ever read ‘the chaldean oracles’?

    http://www.anunnaki.org/library/oracles.php

    they’re basically a condensed myth-system for roman era theurgists, and they address the issue:

    “Never change the barbarous names;
    For there are names in every nation given from god,
    Which have unspeakable power in rites.”

    Iamblichus says the same thing in “On the Mysteries.”

  5. Bill Says:
    April 25th, 2005 at 10:38 pm

    I am pretty sure that the Old Testament was written in Ancient Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. I’ve read (don’t remember where) that in some ways the New Order of the Mass is supposed to be more traditional (stripping out rituals that have creeped in over decades if not centuries), despite other changes (which some obviously regard as very significant) such as use of vernacular languages and altar girls.

    Apparently, according to some articles I’ve read, documents of the Vatican II were written in such a way that one can support either the idea of the Vatican II “staying the course” or “promoting liberal reform” (or something like that). See URL below.

    Regarding Ratzinger’s experiences, such as under National Socialist Germany:

    “Only by grasping this core conviction, that slavery begins when power dislodges truth, is it possible to understand how Ratzinger’s supporters can insist he has not been a repressive force.”

    The Vatican’s enforcer by JOHN L. ALLEN JR. NCR staff
    http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/041699/041699a.htm

    And I’d agree that he is the best chance we have right now of Hell breaking out between for example the West (Christianity and secularism) and the East (Islam) or U.S. (of America, not Mexico (although Mexico could become the 52nd state after Israel)) vs. an alliance such as between Venezuela, Russia, China, India, and Brazil.

    Not sure what to make of it:

    If America dares to attack Venezuela, every supertanker approaching the American southern oil terminals will be sunk by Mach 2.9 missiles by Joe Vialls http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=29045



SURROUND YOURSELF WITH STRENGTH.