The results don’t surprise me - but too often one uses Latin in the liturgy to wave the flag of one’s (assumed) orthodoxy. I was struck by Cardinal O’Malley using the Latin form of the blessing of the incense during the Kennedy funeral. What was that supposed to indicate? The way Mass is celebrated daily on EWTN includes Latin in ways that sometimes make little sense: After the reading of the Scriptures in English, the priest or lector will say “Verbum Domini”. Why not just use the entire Tridentine Mass? What pastoral purpose does the Latin Mass serve when most of the congregation has no knowledge of the language and many of the celebrants themselves have just a minimal immersion in Latin?

Were the Roman Church try to revert to Latin in the Liturgy it might discover that the faithful night seek out other churches. The poll results ought to give the Roman congregations pause.

A friend of mine is a Fenneyite (or what I like to call a consistent Roman Catholic).  He has worked quietly and diligently to bring a Latin mass into this area for several years.  For him the issue is doctrinal, and he believes that opposition to the Latin mass is doctrinal.  What he wants isn’t so much presentation of the Mass in Latin.  He wants the theology with its aggressive Catholic distinctives.  A harsh dose of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus the way RCs universally understood it as little as 100 years ago is what he wants.

carl

The “Latin Mass” is an insufficient phrase; it’s not the language, but the Rite that’s being sought by some. In fact, the current Mass of Paul VI (the “Novus Ordo”) can be said in Latin, but it’s the Mass of Pius V (the “Tridentine Mass”, “Traditional Latin Mass”, or occasionally, the “Mass of John XXIII”, since he made small revisions in 1962) that’s being sought by hard-core traditionalists.

I would be in “don’t care” category if asked, and consider myself to be a believing Catholic. A Tridentine Mass Community used our parish church on Sunday afternoon, but I only heard that Mass once. Were the old form to become ordinary, however, I would certainly not return to a protestant religion. My belief is in the Catholic Faith, which is universal, not one particular liturgy.

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated, btw, though he later reconciled to the Church. To speak of a Feeneyite as a “consistent Roman Catholic” is, of course, a protestant take on the matter, and of no consequence to an actual Catholic.

I think a majority of Catholics (and I speak as an Anglican priest who attended a Catholic high school) would tend to agree with the “I have no opinion” category. I know some folks really like it, and such a mass on a regular basis is meaningful to them. It is a beautiful liturgy.

I’ve never understood why they couldn’t have simply kept the Tridentine form and simply do it in English. I think people’s hang ups is that it is in a language they don’t understand. I think if it was done in a language they could understand, I think a lot of Catholics other than the uber-traditionalists would really enjoy it.

As I understand the way Pope Benedict is instituting it, its as an option. I would have no problem with it as an option. If they reverted back to that liturgy exclusively, I think the opinion would become a bit more hostile. But I think most Catholics see it as it “live and let live” liturgy. I imagine they view it as, “It doesn’t do anything for me, but if some people want it and its meaningful for them, then jolly fine and good.”

I think part of the resistance to the “Latin Mass” is that many Catholics see it as a further move to roll back the reforms of Vatican II. In addition, it has been my experience that many of those that want this liturgy back would consider it to be “orthodox” or “more orthodox” than the post Vatican II Catholic liturgy - and they are fairly vocal about their beliefs in the shortcomings of the Post-VII practices. This can be quite off-putting to those who are quite content with the more modern liturgy, or for those who never experienced the old one. There is also an association between this liturgy and the Pius X bunch.

I think if it was just “do you care if some folks celebrate the liturgy in Latin,” most Catholics wouldn’t care. Unfortunately it is the baggage that goes along with it, and the concern that somehow Rome might on a widespread basis decide to substitute the use of the old liturgy instead of the post-VII one that makes some Catholics squidgy about its use.

Tridentine Mass is unlikely to be very common in the United States is because it requires too many “assistants” and too much practice.  A Mass in Latin is not necessarily the same thing as a Tridentine Mass.  Part of the reason that the use of the Tridentine Mass was discouraged was that it was often done so badly.There are a number of rites used by the Roman Catholic Church; being exposed to them keeps worship “fresh”.  Most middle age and young Catholics have no opinion about the Tridentine Mass is that they have never seen one.

The significant difference is that the three out of ten Catholics say they would attend the Extraordinary Form masses will be there every Sunday and many week days.  The majority that has no strong opinion also has no strong inclination to actually go to mass—so liturgical choices really don’t matter a great deal.  Only a very small proportion of liberal Catholics are strongly attached to the reforms as they are commonly experienced in the American Church.  For them, TEC beckons.

An issue I have with the choices made in the revival of the Traditional Latin Mass is that not that it is celebrated in a language the people don’t understand, but rather one they don’t hear.  The “soto voce” celebration hardly does justice to the language or the theology of the rite and might as well be in Urdu. My first experience as an Anglo-Catholic visiting such a “time warp” Tridentine mass was a disappointment: I expected to feel at home but instead was shocked to discover myself appreciating some of the achievements of the Reformation!

equivalent to about 5.7 Catholics

It’s a shame they couldn’t get that up to a whole sixth catholic.

I don’t believe His Holiness is attempting to slowly re-establish the Tridentine Mass as THE Mass for Roman Catholic worship.  I believe this is a pastoral provision to reach out to those devout Catholics that love the beauty, language and also the theology of the old Mass.

In some ways, I see the craving for the Tridentine Mass as a failure of many parishes to perform the Novus Ordo Mass in a solemn and dignified fashion.

is that not that it is celebrated in a language the people don’t understand, but rather one they don’t hear.

While I’m not fond of the silent prayers, either, older Catholics have pointed out that they had missals with facing pages of Latin and English, which included the priest’s parts. The fallacy is to assume that the vernacular and “full, active participation”  somehow ensures that the meaning of the Mass is clear to those in attendance. 

Then, as now, people who cared knew what was going on. Now, as then, those who don’t care don’t know. It’s a matter of the heart before becoming a matter of liturgical form.

Having spent the first 20 years of my life experiencing the Tridentine Mass, I can only concur that it was done so badly. I vividly remember my mother’s funeral (I was thirteen) celebrated by a priest in black fiddleback vestments mumbling words in a language I did not know (he did say “May the angels lead you into paradise” after he mumbled it first in Latin). The woman singing the Requiem Mass wailed and screeched the chant. Her rendition of the Dies Irae certainly made one dread the prospect of judgment. The candles were orange (unbleached) - the pall was black. There was no homily, but the priest did read the Gospel in English after first saying it in Latin.  In my late teens, just before Vatican II, I seriously considered becoming an Eastern Rite Catholic because some Eastern Rite churches did celebrate the Divine Liturgy in English and the church I attended did it beautifully. I have other stories about the way the Tridentine Rite was done - none of them positive. I have no hesitation telling those with dreamy fantasies of the Latin Mass about my experiences.

As for the comment: “Then, as now, people who cared knew what was going on. Now, as then, those who don’t care don’t know. It’s a matter of the heart before becoming a matter of liturgical form.” That’s nonsense. Many people cared, and many people had missals, and those same people were the ones pushing to have the liturgy done in the vernacular.

As a boy in a Catholic community (although from a protestant family) I learned to love the Latin Mass, particularly after I became an avid Latin Scholar.  I miss it.  I fully understand the necessity for the Church to move away from Latin toward the vernacular (one of the important reforms of the Reformation, belatedly adopted by the Roman Catholic Church after a few centuries of proof of concept by Protestants).  I also appreciate that to make that transition, it was necessary to be fairly tough about enforcing the use of the vernacular.  At this stage, however, it should be possible to preserve the use of the Latin Mass for certain occasions and certain services.  I would hate to see it lost or consigned to being a curiosity.  But several commenters (e.g., Nos. 6 and 12) have made the insightful point that in a time where priests are in short supply (let alone priests steeped in the tradition of the Latin mass), there are real quality and production problems with performing the rite as it was intended to be performed.  Better not to do it if it cannot be done competently.