Why did Pope Francis restrict the ancient Latin Mass?

[Akita Suggagaki]

A few other thoughts:

Hosea 6:6 For I desire goodness, not sacrifice,
Devotion to God, rather than burnt offerings.

Isaiah 1:11, 13: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? I am fed up with the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fat cattle; I have no delight in the blood of bullocks or lambs or goats… Bring me no more vain offerings…”).

As Isaiah added: “...when you make many prayers, I will not hear, [because] your hands are full of blood…” (1:16).

Micah 6:6-8“With what shall I come before the Lord? ...with burnt offerings or with calves of a year old? ...will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams… rivers of oil (libations)? ...shall I give my first born for my transgression? ...God, has told you, man, what is good and what does God [really] ask of you? Only to do justly, offer covenantal love, and walk humbly with your God”.

Proverb 21:3To do righteousness and justice is more desirable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Psalm 50:23 The one who offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice glorifies me; to one who orders his way rightly I will show the salvation of God!”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As I understand the controversy, it is most fundamentally the Tradition that is crucial. The language is important to the preservation of the (capital T) Sacred Tradition, thus it is not negligible. The Mass was primarily a Sacrifice - The Sacrifice made Present here, now, everywhere. The NO made the liturgy more about "us" - a change favorable, sadly, to many of us.

Sacred Tradition has to do with the meaning of words that are said, not the language used. Sacred Tradition (capital T) is
the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine used at Mass, not the language. The Mass can be celebrated in Chinese
as long as the words used are of the same meaning as the words Christ used.
Christ did not speak Latin, but Aramaic, so demanding that only Latin can be used would not keep Sacred Tradition in place
unless the words used mean the same as Christ did when he instituted the sacrament.

 

[fide]

A few other thoughts:

Hosea 6:6 For I desire goodness, not sacrifice,
Devotion to God, rather than burnt offerings.

Isaiah 1:11, 13: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? I am fed up with the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fat cattle; I have no delight in the blood of bullocks or lambs or goats… Bring me no more vain offerings…”).

As Isaiah added: “...when you make many prayers, I will not hear, [because] your hands are full of blood…” (1:16).

Micah 6:6-8“With what shall I come before the Lord? ...with burnt offerings or with calves of a year old? ...will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams… rivers of oil (libations)? ...shall I give my first born for my transgression? ...God, has told you, man, what is good and what does God [really] ask of you? Only to do justly, offer covenantal love, and walk humbly with your God”.

Proverb 21:3To do righteousness and justice is more desirable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Psalm 50:23 The one who offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice glorifies me; to one who orders his way rightly I will show the salvation of God!”

Old Testament sacrifice pointed to the once-for-all perfect sacrifice of the Christ who is God the Son. It was God's will that this perfect sacrifice - which was and is also the perfection of love and truth - was to be commemorated and re-presented in a liturgy instituted by Christ before the actual inactment. This liturgy was to be continued in the Church in the Holy Eucharist, the Mass. This liturgy developed in the Church, in time, with the aim and intention to be faithful to the perfection of worship - or adoration - fitting for God, "in spirit and truth."

 

[fide]

Sacred Tradition has to do with the meaning of words that are said, not the language used. Sacred Tradition (capital T) is
the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine used at Mass, not the language. The Mass can be celebrated in Chinese
as long as the words used are of the same meaning as the words Christ used.
Christ did not speak Latin, but Aramaic, so demanding that only Latin can be used would not keep Sacred Tradition in place
unless the words used mean the same as Christ did when he instituted the sacrament.

Hello Jim - it's been a while ... I hope you are remaining firm in trust in our Lord, in these trying times. He is ever Lord of it all.

The Catechism speaks much of Tradition, in various ways. One brief statement says much:

CCC 83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit.

If I may expound a bit: The apostolic Tradition, passed on first by the apostles, and over the ages, includes

1. the teaching of Jesus: His words, spoken often in Aramaic as you said.
2. the example of Jesus: what He did and how He did it. This was communicated in the Spirit to listeners, in many languages, and
3. what they learned, and came to understand under the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit. This full and sacred "Word" of God was passed on in languages which soon became standardized - and retained for centuries - in Latin. The reasons for this decision were many.

Clearly without one standard "official" language, reason predicts we will fall into countless local languages around the world, resulting in the loss of unity so precious to Christ and His Apostles, in all the four pillars of the Faith.

Paul wrote:

Eph 4:1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called,
Eph 4:2 with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love,
Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hello Jim - it's been a while ... I hope you are remaining firm in trust in our Lord, in these trying times. He is ever Lord of it all.

The Catechism speaks much of Tradition, in various ways. One brief statement says much:

If I may expound a bit: The apostolic Tradition, passed on first by the apostles, and over the ages, includes

1. the teaching of Jesus: His words, spoken often in Aramaic as you said.
2. the example of Jesus: what He did and how He did it. This was communicated in the Spirit to listeners, in many languages, and
3. what they learned, and came to understand under the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit. This full and sacred "Word" of God was passed on in languages which soon became standardized - and retained for centuries - in Latin. The reasons for this decision were many.

Clearly without one standard "official" language, reason predicts we will fall into countless local languages around the world, resulting in the loss of unity so precious to Christ and His Apostles, in all the four pillars of the Faith.

Paul wrote:

Hello and of course, I'm closer to the Lord than ever before.

Latin wasn't used until the 4th Centuries, and it had to do with the fact that Latin was the common language of Europe.
For a long time after until the 8th century (I believe) the liturgy in Latin was referred to as the European Liturgy.

The Latin Mass had its beauty, but left many Catholics outside active participation in the Mass.

During St Teresa of Avila's time in the 1500's in Spain, the Church forbade Scripture from being printed in
anything by Latin. This meant that even St Teresa and her nuns could not read Sacred Scripture. St John of the
Cross and other priest could because they were trained to be fluent in Latin.

Keeping Scripture and the Mass in Latin, only helps to provide ignorance to the average Catholic.
This is what is done in Islam as the Koran in anything, but Arabic is prohibited.

The Mass did evolve, and few know the history of how it evolved. The former spiritual assistant
to the OCDS community I belong to, gave a series of talks on the history of the Mass. He has
a PHD in Liturgy and Spirituality which he got in Rome.

The bottom line here is that Pope Francis did not prohibit the TLM, but put restrictions in that the authority
was given back to the bishops on deciding when and where the TLM could be celebrated. My dioceses as
well as many others in the US, still have the TLM, as the bishops in those dioceses approve and have submitted
to Rome for approval which I haven't seen denied yet.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

The Bishops had difficulty in implementing the TLM because there aren't enough priest trained and willing to celebrate
the TLM in the dioceses.

Not surprising.

Also, having one TLM in a parish upsets the entire parish, as I witnessed it on my old parish. Few people from the
parish attended the TLM. Mostly, people from outside the parish and even the dioceses attended and the parking
was a mess and of course the people who traveled far for the TLM, wanted refreshments after the Mass.

I've seen this as well. TLM'ers, God love them, tend to be a little entitled. Also, they think they should have some influence over the parish, which only annoys the locals.

So, the pastor tried to schedule the TLM for 1 PM on Sundays, but again that interfered other parish activities.

Not to mention football.

Theproblem was solved when the priest who celebrated the TLM was defrocked and put in prison for embezzlement.
There is no longer a TLM at that parish.

THAT took an unexpected turn there, Jim.

 

[mourningdove~]

And certainly we cannot let it divide us.

I so very much agree.

I have to say, I really don't understand the dismay so often shown towards those who prefer the TLM.
Not from you personally; I'm speaking in broad generalities here.

When the N.O was introduced, suddenly the TLM was no longer the norm. And the change was sudden.

Many either made the adjustment to the N.O. or left the Church.
For many the departure was gradual, but many did leave.

All these years, those that stayed have continued in the way of the N.O.
They have no choice, if they want to remain a practicing Catholic and don't have access to the TLM.

So, the 'adjusting' that's been done has been on the part of those who prefer the TLM.
Not those who prefer the N.O.

I jumped into this thread because of comments being made about TLM people thinking they are 'special'.
I jumped in to say that that just isn't true of many of us.

What many TLM worshippers are, is sad.
We lost something very special, very traditional Catholic, and we are sad about it.
It is not 'pathological' to miss something that was once loved, to sometimes talk about it, to long to see it again.
(We do this all the time, about loved ones who have died, favorite places, etc.)

I do realize this isn't an easy subject to discuss in this forum. Most here prefer the N.O. And I respect that.
And that is why I recently voted for the Traditional forum to be reopened, so as to avoid any potential divisiveness here.

Perhaps if the new pope lifts TLM restrictions, and more posters appear with interest in the TLM, there will be the vote needed to support reopening the Traditional forum, where Traditional subjects can be discussed without potentially resulting in divisiveness.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I so very much agree.

I have to say, I really don't understand the dismay so often shown towards those who prefer the TLM.
Not from you personally; I'm speaking in broad generalities here.

When the N.O was introduced, suddenly the TLM was no longer the norm. And the change was sudden.

Many either made the adjustment to the N.O. or left the Church.
For many the departure was gradual, but many did leave.

All these years, those that stayed have continued in the way of the N.O.
They have no choice, if they want to remain a practicing Catholic and don't have access to the TLM.

So, the 'adjusting' that's been done has been on the part of those who prefer the TLM.
Not those who prefer the N.O.

I jumped into this thread because of comments being made about TLM people thinking they are 'special'.
I jumped in to say that that just isn't true of many of us.

What many TLM worshippers are, is sad.
We lost something very special, very traditional Catholic, and we are sad about it.
It is not 'pathological' to miss something that was once loved, to sometimes talk about it, to long to see it again.
(We do this all the time, about loved ones who have died, favorite places, etc.)

I do realize this isn't an easy subject to discuss in this forum. Most here prefer the N.O. And I respect that.
And that is why I recently voted for the Traditional forum to be reopened, so as to avoid any potential divisiveness here.

Perhaps if the new pope lifts TLM restrictions, and more posters appear with interest in the TLM, there will be the vote needed to support reopening the Traditional forum, where Traditional subjects can be discussed without potentially resulting in divisiveness.

If L:atin helps one pray better, fosters a mood or disposition, then Great. I prefer N.O. because I celebrate it with other people,
But I prefer Divine Office in Latin because I pray it alone and feel more connected to the centuries.

But back to Francis. His concern was that the Latin Mass was "being used in an ideological way" in reaction to modernity, hostile to Vatican II as well as N.O. At least that is my understanding.

The issue of is it about God or about us is a both/and answer. Above all God desires a worship characterized by love, kindness and justice. God is both transcendent and immanent. A "My liturgy is more sacred than your liturgy" attitude is the antithesis of the celebration.

So, was Francis right about the ideology? Maybe for some. Who knows how many. For others maybe nostalgia. I don't thing there is anything wrong with that as long as we are clear about it.

 

[mourningdove~]

If L:atin helps one pray better, fosters a mood or disposition, then Great. I prefer N.O. because I celebrate it with other people,
But I prefer Divine Office in Latin because I pray it alone and feel more connected to the centuries.

But back to Francis. His concern was that the Latin Mass was "being used in an ideological way" in reaction to modernity, hostile to Vatican II as well as N.O. At least that is my understanding.

The issue of is it about God or about us is a both/and answer. Above all God desires a worship characterized by love, kindness and justice. God is both transcendent and immanent. A "My liturgy is more sacred than your liturgy" attitude is the antithesis of the celebration.

So, was Francis right about the ideology? Maybe for some. Who knows how many. For others maybe nostalgia. I don't thing there is anything wrong with that as long as we are clear about it.

I hear ya!

And just so "we are clear about it", my preference for the TLM is not about "ideology'"... nor about "nostalgia" ... nor about "my liturgy is more sacred than your liturgy" ... but is about what is the Tradition of the Church, and what has been for ages.

The TLM represents the Tradition of the Church.

I don't agree with you that "above all" ... "God desires worship characterized by love, kindness and justice".
No, I believe God desires worshippers who worship Him in Spirit and truth.
So on that, we will need to agree to disagree.
I won't be debating you on it.

I very much understand why Pope Francis had concerns about the Latin Mass. Very much so, do I.
But I've discussed all I intend to about his concerns, in this thread.

My hope is that the next pope will not be holding to the same personal 'ideological' beliefs that Pope Francis held.

 

[fide]

He also told them a parable:

"Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?​

A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher." (Lk 6:39-40)​

AND

"It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one ["then", or "therefore"in Gk oun ] who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." (Jn 6:45)​

AND

"But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.​

And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.​

Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.​

He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;​

whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.​

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in." (Mt 23:8-13)​

How careful we must be, when we submit ourselves to a "teacher", or a "master", or a "father". The path is true that leads us to Truth, even though its gate is narrow and constrictive, and its way is hard.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I believe God desires worshippers who worship Him in Spirit and truth.

Maybe we can talk more about what that means and what it entails.
It seems to me Spirit and truth are more about an interior disposition than an exterior form.

 

[mourningdove~]

Maybe we can talk more about what that means and what it entails.

I don't think so, but thanks for the invite to do so.

When it comes to things God shows us spiritually, it is sometimes very hard (for me) to put down into words what I see. So I will just say that the TLM liturgy (to me) is the more clearer expression of the sacrifice of the Mass as I believe was intended by Christ.

Anything more I might say could come across as criticism of the N.O., and I don't want to do that here.

Again, both liturgies are valid. Perhaps what we prefer is just based more on what we spiritually see.

God bless.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

He also told them a parable:

"Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?​

A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher." (Lk 6:39-40)​

AND

"It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one ["then", or "therefore"in Gk oun ] who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." (Jn 6:45)​

AND

"But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.​

And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.​

Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.​

He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;​

whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.​

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in." (Mt 23:8-13)​

How careful we must be, when we submit ourselves to a "teacher", or a "master", or a "father". The path is true that leads us to Truth, even though its gate is narrow and constrictive, and its way is hard.

Fide, I love you like a cyber brother, but there are times I really don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

I've been a teacher half my adult life, and all I ever wanted for any of my students was for them to outshine me.

And I tried (oh my God did I try - 4 non-Blondes) to make sure that they had the tools to do so.

Poor is the pupil who does not surpass his master.

Leonardo da Vinci

This quote carries a profound meaning, emphasizing the need for growth and progress in every aspect of life. It serves as a reminder that true learning lies not only in absorbing knowledge from our mentors but also in pushing ourselves beyond their limitations.

Christ didn't need tools.


But he left us with TONS of them.


Most of which, we ignore.

 

[mourningdove~]

Beware of celebrity saints; their ladders don't reach high enough. The wisdom we need is very simple, found in detachment from the world and total self-gift in obedience to God. If we would hear the sermon on the mount, and receive it as it deserves, we would find more than we could expect. If we would pray the Our Father in complete obedience, we would need no more. The summary/conclusion of that "Sermon on the Mount" is true.

I do hear what you are saying, and very much appreciate the warning about 'celebrity saints'. But ... while all you've said is very good and useful ... folks like me do occasionally need (human) teachers to help us along the journey.

I mentioned the online Saint Paul Center because I've discovered some good teaching there. Personally, I don't learn well from Scott Hahn*. But he has other teachers on his site ... I think they are all out of Steubenville ... and those others have been very good. One, just excellent: Dr. Larry Feingold ("The Eucharist"). His is the best teaching series I've ever heard on the subject.

For obvious reasons, Taylor Marshall is not a favorite person here. But since we've been discussing here the TLM and Latin, and he teaches lessons on both, I thought I'd mention his school. I personally haven't taken his formal courses, but he does seem to teach well on his YouTube channel.

Ideally, The Best Teacher is The Holy Spirit. I love being in His school. But I've learned things from many 'human' teachers, too ... including you! (lol) And I've also learned how to 'chew on the meat and spit out the bones'.

Resources$$ seem very tight in the many parishes around me. I don't see much formal teaching happening. Online classes present options for those of us who don't have local access to good religious education, and yet occasionally want or need a (human) instructor.

Always I do appreciate your input, including the warnings.

ETA:
* While Scott Hahn's books are very easy (for me) to read, I have difficulty keeping up with him when he speaks. He is a very educated man and tends to give out alot of information when he speaks. It's sometimes more info than I can take in at one time, at the pace it's being given. But that is 'on' me, and not 'on' Dr. Hahn. (He is a scholar ... and I am not! lol)