Boo hoo for Catholic fundies crying over the Latin Mass

Per this AP piece, Francis the Talking Pope has reversed a papal action by Benedict XVI, aka Ratzi the Nazi, which had loosened the reins on the celebration of the Latin Mass.

First, Francis is right that it has been and is divisive. The reactions to his action show that; Tridentine Mass parishes, and even sub rosa ersatz bishoprics have become underground (or not so underground) centers of reaction to Francis' glasnost on divorced Catholics and other issues. The HATE in all-caps? It's on them, not on Francis.

Francis is also right that in many cases, it's a rallying ground against not so much him, but everything in the truncated (for many modern Catholics) reforms of Vatican 2:

For years, though, Francis has made known his distaste of the old liturgy, privately labeling its adherents self-referential naval-gazers who are out of touch with the needs of the church. He has cracked down on religious orders that celebrated the old Mass exclusively and frequently decried the “rigidity” of tradition-minded priests who prioritize rules over pastoral accompaniment.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Twitter reactions last week were hilarious.

One alleged former atheist said that the Latin Mass was an important part of his return to the faith. He probably forgot to capitalize The Faith.

As a good ex-Lutheran, I quote-Tweeted:

Per Martin Luther 500 years ago, if hearing a church service in a language I presume you do not understand, as with most Opus Dei-leaning Catholics fellating the Latin Mass, was an important part in your "reversion," that's kind of sad. https://t.co/Xuh5zrp8Iw

— Crushes Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid peddlers 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 16, 2021

It's true.

And, it is sad. Besides, having been to more than one Orthodox service, one can chant the liturgy in a modern language, have the faithful know the sung, not spoken responses, and go all out with the lessons in Greek, not Latin. And, if the Latin Mass is considered "beautiful," the Divine Service makes Catholics look like Baptists. 

In addition, the "original language" is Aramaic, not Greek and certainly not Latin, anyway.

Then, to others, I Tweeted:

Opus Dei-type Catholics boo-hooing over Francis on the Latin Mass probably salivate like Pavlov's dog at the ringing of the bell that does nothing, that converts nothing, that transubstantiates nothing, but IS the actual origin of the modern phrase "hocus pocus."

— Crushes Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid peddlers 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 16, 2021

In a hugely Catholic small town with a Catholic K-12 school, I've been inside the parish for parts of a Mass or two. And, that's EXACTLY what the transubstantiation bell reminds me of.

If you're not familiar, the priest who converts, changes and transubstantiates nothing, starts Jesus' Words of Institution in Latin with "Hoc est corpus meum," then "hoc est sanguis meum," that is, "This is my body / blood." With the proliferation of Masses for the dead and other endowed Masses in the late Middle Ages, priests who were paid for such rushes through these Masses in 15 minutes, hence, "hocus pocus." As Luther discovered during his trip to Rome, either before, after, or even during, some priests would say "blood you are and blood you shall remain."

That said, per that link? A change for the good, for people in the pews, that came out of Vatican II was better preaching. It's not quite a Baptist or Lutheran sermon focus (albeit with different styles of those two), of course, but, it's a lot better than old priests who entered parishes pre-Vatican II.

====

Side note: Many post-Zwinglian Calvinist Reformed argue that Luther actually accept Calvin's spiritual presence, while noting Zwingli believed the same, but involved in direct disputations with Luther, focused on the "no bodily presence." See here, near the end. Yes, Melanchthon did, but ... IMO, Luther more ignored Calvin in silence than anything. He was focused on intra-Lutheran issues post-1530 more than anything else. And, this is itself a claim from silence. Sure, Luther accepted Calvin's "spiritual presence" — as far as it went. And condemned it for not going further. In reality, Calvin stood with Zwingli and against Luther on "local presence" vs "illocal presence," and on rejecting Luther and Rome on what's technically called "oral manducation" or similar. See here.

Indeed, until writing this post, I'd never heard of claims that Calvin and Luther agreed on the Eucharist. Tosh!