How Jane Austen Got Me into the Latin Mass

A couple of months ago, I started going to the Traditional Latin Mass. From the get-go, I was intrigued. I found it both incredibly appealing but also deeply unsettling, and I didn’t know what to make of it. I mean, why all the Latin? WHY??

In my usual (slightly bizarre) way, I compared the Latin Mass to a tall, dark, handsome stranger. That description seemed to best capture my conflicted response. Plus, I tend to filter all my life experiences through the prism of a Jane Austen novel. (What can I say? It’s one of my spiritual gifts.)

Still, I went back to the Traditional Mass (or to visit my handsome stranger as some friends took to calling it. (Yeah… awkward, right?)). But I loved it. It was just so beautiful. I quickly found my love for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament deepening, and I was amazed as the chanted prayers of the Mass seemed to give expression to the confused longings of my heart.

Robert Campin, Mass of St Gregory, c. 1415 (Musée Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels)

But, I was still unsure. So I did what I always do when I don’t understand something: I read about it. And then my questions started changing. Instead of asking, “why the Latin Mass?”, I found myself asking, “WHY IS THIS NOT STILL OUR MASS?” Seriously, why? I could understand if the New Mass (or Novus Ordo) was a straight translation of the Latin Mass into the vernacular, but it’s a lot more than that. Or rather, it’s a whole lot less than that.

I started asking questions like these…

• Why completely remove the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel, not to mention the Asperges?
• Why remove mentions of Our Lady and the saints from the Confiteor and significantly reduce mentions of them elsewhere?
• Why reduce the Kyrie from three to two for each member of the Holy Trinity? (Seriously, what possible gain could that be??) Why remove the Prayer to the Holy Trinity? Why remove or change any number of other prayers?
• Why completely change the Offertory Prayers, transforming them from an anticipatory offering of the spotless host to Almighty God to atone for our “numberless sins, offences, and negligences” to a vague blessing prayer.

And above all, why create three new Eucharistic Prayers to be used instead of the Roman Canon? Seriously, parts of the Roman Canon date from the 4th Century and it was codified by St Gregory the Great in the 7th Century. From then, it has remained essentially unchanged and was the only Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman Rite until 1970.

(Oh, I just looked it up and the Novus Ordo also changes the words of consecration – not much, but again, why?? This is as well as adding the memorial acclamation, which has to be one of the worst ideas ever. We have just witnessed the miracle of Transubstantiation and we’re going on about how “when we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.” Talk about mixed messages…)

Now, in its place, we can use the three Eucharistic Prayers, one of which (EP2) is loosely based on a 2nd to 4th Century canon recorded by St Hippolytus (but we have no evidence of it ever being used). The other two (EP3 & EP4) are both new creations. Call me crazy, but I’d prefer the ancient canon of the Mass, the words prayed by St Gregory the Great, St Pius V, and every priest of the Roman Catholic Church for around 1,500 years, than one written when lava lamps were cool.

Francisco Goya, St Gregory the Great, 1797 (Museo Romantico, Madrid)

I couldn’t understand why you would change that sort of stuff. Honestly, I still don’t. When I read the Ottaviani Intervention, I couldn’t stop the emphatic hand gestures because, dude, EXACTLY.

The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed.

Just to be absolutely clear (and in case anyone thinks I’m going all heretical on them), the New Mass is completely valid, licit, and awesome. (Of course it is, Jesus turns up!!) But that doesn’t mean it’s not an impoverishment of the Old Mass.

If you’re thinking I’m sounding pretty keen on the Latin Mass, you’d be right. But come on, is that really a surprise? I – an Austen addict and hopeless romantic – compared it to a tall, dark, handsome stranger. Clearly, yours truly does not have nearly enough willpower not to succumb to that.

But in true Austen style, it wasn’t the beauty, the reverence, or the richness of the vestments (“He wore a blue coat and rode a black horse!”) that did it. Nor was it the Latin that won me over. I’m still somewhat uneasy about Latin but it’s so much easier to pick up than I thought it would be. (You should hear me Domine, non sum dignus-ing like it’s nobody’s business.)

No, what won me over was content of this stranger’s character. It was the ancient prayers of the Mass, spoken by countless saints and shaping countless more. It was the confidence that I could let myself be shaped by this Mass. As a former Protestant, when I’m at a Novus Ordo mass, I often have to concentrate hard to remind myself of the heavenly reality of the Eucharist in spite of what I’m seeing and hearing.

It’s just the opposite at the Latin Mass. Everything about it — from the venerable Roman Canon to the floating incense — reminds me to direct my prayers, thoughts and heart to the Altar and Heavenward, to my Eternal King and High Priest!

On that note, I’d like to end with my favouritest bit of the Traditional Mass. It’s far better than anything I have to say.