To the editor:
While not yet Catholic, I attended many Latin Masses before Vatican II. The formal beauty and solemnity of the processions, the cross, the priest’s vestments — all inspired reverence.
I followed the spoken Latin, although not all of it was audible. Many parishioners not understanding Latin prayed the Rosary, following which they received Communion on the tongue, kneeling at a rail.
To the editor:
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf’s column, “Latin is language for Church teaching, worship” (Catholic Herald, March 3), could be taken at its word. We have Latin. He states that Judaism has Hebrew.
When the Torah is read in Hebrew, the congregation understands it. When a child becomes Bar or Bat Mitzvah, he or she reads from the Torah and presents a short essay.
Bishop Robert C. Morlino is scheduled to preside and preach at a Mass in the Extraordinary Form at St. Patrick Church, 404 E. Main St., on Sunday, September 5, at 9 a.m.
To the editor:
As Latin is returning to our Mass, we are asking the question, why? Some of the parish members felt the Latin Mass was beautiful, although most everyone participating understood very little. Many participants prayed the Rosary during Mass and still do today.
I remember when the Mass went to English. I don’t recall anyone criticizing the change. It was beautiful to understand the prayers and hymns.
To the editor:
This is in response to the article entitled “Concerns about Returning to the Use of Latin in Mass.” First of all, I do not understand why there is so much concern about offering the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in Latin along with the Ordinary Form of the Mass in English.
No one is being forced to attend the Latin Mass. It is there for those who prefer to worship God as the Church has done for centuries and who find this traditional form of worship to be very meaningful, reverent, and spiritually uplifting.
To the editor:
I’m wondering what past century Kenneth J. Wolfe dropped in on us from after I read “Latin Mass Appeal.” His indictment of Cardinal Bugnini as the sole “perpetrator” behind liturgical reform (even hinting that Bugnini was really a Freemason) would be laughable if Wolfe weren’t so serious. Remember that the bishops and cardinals of Vatican II voted overwhelmingly for reform.
Raised a Catholic in pre-Vatican II times, I experienced the traditional Latin Mass with the priest facing the tabernacle and whispering in a foreign language. I was an altar boy, trained to respond in Latin though I had only a faint idea of what the responses meant. I experienced hundreds of Latin Masses in which, as a member of the congregation, I dutifully forced myself to focus my attention on the Latin-speaking priest.
To the editor:
Thank you for printing the editorial, “Latin Mass appeal,” by Kenneth Wolfe from the New York Times. We have read many books and articles on the subject of the Latin Mass over the years, but it is difficult to recall one that is as concise and historically accurate as this one.
To the editor:
With great interest I read a reprint of the “Latin Mass Appeal” op-ed originally published in the New York Times on November 29, 2009. The op-ed discussed some developments underlying the construction of the Novus Ordo Mass, specifically liturgical changes forced by Cardinal Annibale Bugnini that were not called for by Vatican II, bringing liturgical “chaos and banality” to the Sacrifice of the New Law “in which Christ, through the ministry of the Priest, offers Himself to God.”
In addition, the op-ed pointed out an ongoing counterrevolution fueled by Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum with its liberation of the Tridentine Mass or the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
