To wonder what the controversy is around the Traditional Latin Mass?

[Pinesinthedunes]

I'm not a Catholic, but I don't understand and feel like I'm missing something

As you aren't a Catholic I'm not sure if there is much to understand about what is an internecine discussion between Catholics who think priests should say mass in the local language facing the congregation and those that think they should say it in Latin facing towards to altar. I believe Pope Francis is not a fan of the latter.

That's very helpful, @Eleganz . Thank you.

The Latin Mass - although beautiful excludes - linguistically - 80% of world population. 👍🏿☘️🙏🏽🕊

I've just googled Latin Mass Controversy, and there is a lot you can read to understand what is happening.

In the very traditional "tridentine" mass it's not just the language that is exclusionary. The priest conducts the whole thing with his back to the "audience", who play no part in proceedings at all. They are very much observers of the priest's interaction with the deity. The whole thing emphasises the idea that the "laity" (ordinary people) have no relationship with god. It is mediated through the priest. That's out-of-line with what many people would like.

The Vatican Council ended the routine practice of the Latin Mass in 1962. There have since then always been a minority of catholics who regret/resent the change . Increasingly it has become a proxy for the wider question of "Should the church follow the people or should the people follow the church?" with the Latin supporters (traditionalists) generally inclining to the view that the church and its doctrine should remain immutable irrespective of changes in the wider society while their opponents, including the current Pope to some degree, maintain that a church that doesn't reflect the feelings and views of its members will become increasingly and possibly fatally irrelevant. The headline issues were this split is evident are divorce, the involvement and status of women in the church and homosexuality, among others. Interestingly, the main bastion of traditionalist thought is in the USA where the church leadership can be very reactionary and even, in a few instances, anti-semetic. You may recall Mel Gibson's dad was quite well-known for exemplifying this extreme strain of traditional catholicism.

Just read the other comments and, without disagreeing with them, would like to say that it is possible to have the mass in latin with the celebrant facing the congregation. Solemn Mass is celebrated this way daily at Westminster Cathedral for example. When I worked in the area, I would often attend this on a Friday evening when the music (there is a cathedral choir) and the experience seemed to me a truly transportive one.

You're right. The controversy is usually not so much around the language as the "rite". The older rite (tridentine - back to the crowd) is always in Latin, and not intended to be inclusive. The newer rite (Paul VI) can be in any language, including Latin (I think that the original form of wording from the 1960s was Latin which was translated into other languages?) and involves some audience participation.

Wrong! Latin Mass does not have to be a Tridentine Mass.

When I was a student, one of the local churches did an afternoon service that was the sung Latin mass. Absolutely beautiful. Actually quite miss it.

I'm old enough to remember Latin Mass. The priest did not have his back to the congregation all the time. For one thing he would face forward to deliver the sermon in English.

There was a certain amount of audience interaction too. Responses to the liturgy etc. As the church runs out of local priests and has to import then from Africa , Asia and Eastern Europe , I wonder if they miss the common language.

I often wonder this too.

We used to sing mass in Latin at school. 40 years on and I can still remember it word for word.

Wait - you think 20% of the world speaks latin?

I think one of the biggest things sticking out for me on this thread is the use of the term "audience" for congregation.
It's not a performance piece, it's not a show or a stage. There is not an audience whether mass is in Latin or otherwise.
It's a shared experience of partaking in the Last Supper and receiving the blessings of the sacrament each time we go. It's heaven and earth all in one and something to very much be part of rather than simply an audience member.

The traditional Latin mass would have the priest face the tabernacle because nobody should have their back to Christ. This way everyone is facing the same way including the priest- towards the Lord.
This is also partly why there is a bell at the key moments of mass. The bell let's all in the congregation know it's a cue to stand or look toward what is happening at that moment at the altar. Notice also Catholic Churches are generally laid out in a cross shape with everyone looking towards the top point of the cross (the sanctuary).

The priest facing towards the congregation and therefore from the other side of the altar only happened after Vatican II and allows the congregation to see what is happening although the bells are still used as cues to pay attention to specific moments such as mass beginning, the transubstantiation of the Eucharist and the wine.

Like anything people will have a preference over which they prefer and that's ok. There are Latin masses available for people who prefer that, and there are the more modern version in local dialects for those who prefer them. They ultimately do the same thing. In fact it's worth (if you are genuinely interested) looking back at the very first orders of Roman mass from when the church began. It is quite beautiful that it is really the same as it is now regardless of whether it's Latin mass or post Vatican II mass.
And if you do have more questions about the Catholic faith I would strongly encourage you to watch some of the videos by Fr Mike Schmitz on Ascension Presents on YouTube. He explains everything so clearly and in a really accessible, enjoyable way.
🙂

Oh and to answer your question (sorry) no you are not being unreasonable. Questions are always good.