Latin Mass And This Blog

The future

Some time ago, I published a poll to know the opinion of my readership about the Latin mass. Now, my blog is certainly not the Catholic supertanker of the blogosphere, but the statistical numbers I receive lead me to believe it is not entirely stupid, either.

You can click directly on the poll scrolling down the page. As I write, it turns out 90% of the respondents either already have regular access to a Latin mass, or would regularly attend if they had one. Most tellingly, only 2% of the respondents say they would not regularly attend even if they had the possibility to do so, and something tells me they are not regular readers or, so to speak, friends of this blog.

What does this, then, tell us? Are at least 90% of my readers instructed in the Latin language?  Or are they so intelligent they can manage to do what other people can’t? With all due respect, I think neither is the case. What I think is happening, is that the smartest part of the Catholic population (meaning: the one taking Catholicism seriously) has by now clearly understood you do not need to have been to a grammar school to attend – and fully appreciate, and fully enjoy – the Traditional Mass, and this Mass is the one which best incarnates and transmits traditional Catholics values. In Latin, the Catholic Mass is fully Catholic, but when you start contaminating it with vernacular influences Protestant errors start to creep in.

Granted, I have attended to perfectly orthodox Novus Ordo Masses; but crucially, only in places where the Tridentine Mass was also celebrated and I have no doubt in all of these places the celebrants would go back to an only-Latin regime without blinking. It is encouraging, though, that among the readership (apparently spread throughout the English-speaking world) some 40% already have access to a Tridentine Mass. This does not mean enough is being made (it clearly isn’t), but it means being seriously intentioned to attend to a Tridentine Mass and being able to put some time and fuel costs in the exercise already gives one a good probability of being reasonably able to attend to a decent Tridentine; which – allow me to say so – automatically guarantees a good priest, sensible homilies, and no blood-curdling ecumenical crap.

The latter alone would be worth the time and the hassle.

Mundabor

    

Posted on March 4, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. When, in the late 1950s, I attended Mass in a small local Church, the Tridentine rite was all that was available. What struck me was the courtly ceremony of what was happening at the Altar, and the diverse private devotions of the conregation (rosaries, private prayer etc.)

    I read a lot of C.T.S. booklets at the time and they all seemed agreed that the Mass was an act. Transubstantiation took place, regardless of the convictions, intentions, distractions, or plain unbelief of those present.

    One simply HEARD Mass. The Act was the essential, and the Latin (which was translated into English on the right-hand page of the Missal was no distraction. One was there, at the re-presentaion of the Sacrifice at Calvary.

    As far as I am concerned, the language, so long as it worthy of the Occasion (and Latin is very worthy), is unimportant. What matters is what is happening, and not how we feel about it.

    • True on one side, Leftfooter.

      On the other side, from the time of Pius X on there has been a clear effort to instruct the faithful to “pray the Mass” rather than “praying during Mass”, as the increase in literacy meant more people could follow the Mass, albeit said in Latin, in a very good way through translation booklets.

      Having said that, you are absolutely true the meaning of Mass for the faithful is in the being there to witness the miracle, rather than in the degree of understanding of the minute proceedings. The modern thinking seems to be that one has to be “persuaded” by the Mass, rather than just being an obedient Christian.

      Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: