Well, now that B16 has declared that Catholics should have greater access to the old Latin Mass, I suppose I should offer some sort of commentary.
Disclaimer: Regular readers may notice that I rarely comment on liturgical issues. The reason: I'm mostly ignorant in this area. Because I read a lot of "Catholic stuff," I pick up on a lot of liturgical information, but I've never taken time to study the liturgy. Please read these comments as the observations of a largely disinterested and ignorant layman.
My Commentary: I find the ordinary form of the Mass vapid. I don't know why. The prayers themselves are beautiful, the lines of the liturgy are mostly beautiful. Maybe it's the accompanying saccharine-laced music, or maybe it's the folk-song hymns. I don't know. I can only say: Speaking from its effect on me, I find the ordinary form of the Mass empty.
On the other side, I've attended three Latin Masses. I was lost during most of the Masses, only understanding the homily (which was spoken in English). By any objective standard, I should've been discouraged and frustrated as I left Mass. But I wasn't. I was joyful, serene . . . at peace. I don't know why. I can only comment on the effect those three Latin Masses had on me.
Now, those three Latin Masses were performed under extraordinary circumstances, with extraordinary reverence (I attended here). I honestly don't know if a Latin Mass performed under ordinary circumstances would have the same effect. I don't know if the effect would wear off after repeated exposure.
But I'd like to find out. I welcome this change, and I hope my pastor is willing to embrace it as well.
Aside: Some Jews are upset because the Latin Mass calls for their conversion during the Good Friday prayers. I simply don't get it. Would they prefer if we prayed that the Jews stay out of our exclusive club? Every practitioner of a religion should believe that he is following the highest mode to truth available (if he doesn't believe it, I'm not sure why he's practicing that particular religion). If that's the case, it would be mean-spirited and petty to keep it to himself. We're called to missionary work, at home and abroad, because we're called to be the opposite of mean-spirited and petty; we're called to spread truth. The call for the conversion of Jews is a religious call. It's not a political call or a societal call or a friendship call. It's a religious call.
I assume some Jews are mad because they think the prayer is a type of intolerance. But tolerance and intolerance must always take place at the proper levels. I won't tolerate my friend in my wife's bed. I'm intolerant in that regard, but its proper intolerance. Catholics won't tolerate Jews at the Eucharist, but that doesn't mean we're improperly intolerant. It doesn't mean the Jews aren't our friends and that we can't be in the same civic organizations. If we took that position, the religious intolerance with regard to the Eucharist (where the intolerance properly belongs) would bleed into societal levels, where intolerance would be wrong. The call to convert the Jews is simply an offshoot of proper intolerance: the actors (Catholics acting as Catholics), the approach (prayer), the subject (the non-Catholic Jews), and the goal (conversion to Catholicism) are all at the religious level.
