A Traditionalist: to be or not to be

[Margaret33]

…To Be!

Subtitle: one sinner’s journey

Probably, and first off, we Catholics, Traditional, Novos Ordo, or whatever we call each other, are Traditionalists, no matter what one thinks of the other. It has been pointed out, and quite well I’ll add, by some posters to this forum that, and this next phrase is my opinion–and the rest of the sentence is my perspective only-- one of our greatest Traditions is submitting ourselves to the authority of those to whom Jesus ordained, and to their successors: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kindom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:18-19).

One poster made a point that it is not about what we want (the poster was speaking about the reception of Our Lord in the Eucharist), but what He wants. 40-odd yrs ago, Peter’s Successor granted some changes that make some people very unhappy. A couple of years ago, Peter’s Successor granted some other changes–a return to the Traditional Mass–that made others very unhappy. Of course I am focussing my remarks right now on the way in which we are able to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist.

And I am confused. Did not Jesus tell Peter that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?” That which Peter’s Successor has bound and loosed is that we have a choice. Choice comes with a profound responsibility, lest we should forget. And by giving us, the faithful, this choice, the Church takes on a great responsibility to teach us what these choices mean. It has not, in my opinion, succeeded. Because we are yelling at one another.

It is my understanding, and my understanding may be wrong, that the Second Vatican meant “aggiornamento” as a way of making Christ’s Church more understandable to the modern world. To live in the world, yet not be a part of the world. To be an example to the world, yet not sacrifice one iota of the Truth. We have done this before. Listen to protestants and their complaints of the paganification of Christianity by the Church: the feast of the Incarnation, praying to Saints, etc. Protestants are wrong, it is true. They do not, or do not want to, understand the Truth behind these, as they say, innovations. It is obvious, though, and I agree with many posters’ assessments, that the “Spirit of Vatican II” has been perverted. For similar reasons. Those who have perverted the “Spirit” of the Council, either do not, or do not want to, understand. On the other side of the coin, there are Traditionalists who taunt the Liturgy of the New Order as a protestantization of the Mass. Ouch.

I have a huge problem with the irreverence shown at many many Parishes and Masses that I have attended. My problem is that I am unable to worship in peace. Sometimes it is not possible to “fa e fatti tuoi.” Sometimes I am robbed of the experience of Communion with Our Lord, conversation with Our Lord, in His house. Sometimes the roof of the Sanctuary is firmly fixed, and there is no blurring of the line between Heaven and earth, as was meant to be during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

I want that back. And I am going to a Traditional Parish, as often as I can to find it. Faccio e faccio i miei.

And I will remember Jesus’ answer to the question, “Who is my neighbor.”

I know I’m reviving an older post so please forgive the intrusion… I found it by accident when doing a search for a term… and it blew me away. I’ve been trying very hard to define these past few years where my inner disquiet seems to be originating from since my return to the Church… and don’t think I would have ever been able to put it into words. Mostly I just assumed that time had passed me by more than I realized and the way things have become was just another illustration of getting older that I had to accept. Your post hit home… I guess if one were to ask me now what causes this disquiet that I feel, you helped me put my finger on it. I too grew up Catholic in a time when things were very different, and the rules that existed before gave me comfort and made me who I am today. I don’t dare express some of my confusion and disagreement with some of the changes that have taken place within the Church since I was a child, I know I would be in a stark minority and it would not serve a beneficial purpose. Let me ask you… If I agree with most of what you’ve expressed, shall I assume then that I am a Traditionalist? If that is the case, so be it And thank you for your beautiful post, and helping me figure some things out I probably would have buried otherwise…

 

[Margaret33]

I am a Traditionalist. My conscience was formed before Vatican II. Which is not to say that anyone else’s conscience was formed improperly after Vatican II but that there is a huge difference. There are some who are of an age with me or older than me who post here. The Catholicism in which we grew up is, for better or worse, significantly different from today. That’s not a judgment, merely a fact.
It’s not just a question of liturgy and worship. It is a question of what went on from 1965 through 1970…
… I could go to Confession on the way home. Daily. A downtown New Orleans church had priests avialable for Confession all during the day. I don’t believe we can say this now.
I had to pass two Catholic churches on my public bus ride home. Catholic piety back then called for you to make the Sign of the Cross upon passing in front of the Holy Eucharist. I wasn’t the only one to do this…and I don’t mean just my fellow students. I don’t believe we can say this now.
Granted, it was part of our culture. New Orleans was and is a predominately Catholic city. Movies and restaurants closed on Good Friday when I was in high school. Make no mistake about it, the New Orleans you see on TV is not the New Orleans of any Catholic I’ve ever known even to this day.
Ride the bus on Ash Wednesday and see the number of people with ashes on their foreheads.
In four short years after Vatican II, we went from piety being accepted as the norm; we went from an almost utter abject reverence for the Eucharist to guitars and music which sounded as if the Beatles could have written it. A wholesale abandonment of that which defined us as Catholic. Do any of you realize that in 1970 with the NO Mass we still received Communion kneeling down and on the tongue only?
Can you conceive being shocked to the core of your being, if the Holy Eucharist fell on the ground? Yes, shock - shock that Our Lord should be profaned. How many of you know today that only Father should pick it up? Or that in 1965 only a priest could distribute Communion. There were no extraordinary ministers.
I’m not trying to convert you to a society and practice for which many of you have absolutely no understanding. The past is water under the bridge. I attend a very reverent NO parish which is quite orthodox. But it is not what I grew up with.
Father has asked me and several other older choir members if we would be willing to form a Gregorian choir. I am assuming he is looking forward to possible actions by the Holy Father. If it means being able to resume the practices of my youth, I answer with a resounding, yes!
Look, I am not trying to “convert” any of you. Y’all want to bang on drums, strum electric guitars, wave your hands all about…be my guest. Just let those of us who remember…an opportunity to resume the faith we practised as children and to accept people of like minds. I really don’t see why a return to the TLM is causing such heart burn.
On another thread… reference was made to a Catholic parish in Tokyo. I googled the parish. They offer Masses in English, French, German, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Chinese…in 1965 it would have been one language - Latin which all Catholics would have understood. Think about that.

I know I’m reviving an older post so please forgive the intrusion… I found it by accident when doing a search for a term… and it blew me away. I’ve been trying very hard to define these past few years where my inner disquiet seems to be originating from since my return to the Church… and don’t think I would have ever been able to put it into words. Mostly I just assumed that time had passed me by more than I realized and the way things have become was just another illustration of getting older that I had to accept. Your post hit home… I guess if one were to ask me now what causes this discomfort that I feel, you helped me put my finger on it. I too grew up Catholic in a time when things were very different, although I grew up after you, the rules and respect that existed when I was a child gave me comfort and made me who I am today. I don’t dare express some of my confusion and disagreement with some of the changes that have taken place within the Church since I was a child, I know I would be in a stark minority and it would not serve a beneficial purpose. Let me ask you… If I agree with most of what you’ve expressed, shall I assume then that I am a Traditionalist? If that is the case, so be it. And thank you for your beautiful post, and helping me figure some things out I probably would have buried otherwise … for lack of a better alternative…

 

[marymonde]

I am a Traditionalist. My conscience was formed before Vatican II. Which is not to say that anyone else’s conscience was formed improperly after Vatican II but that there is a huge difference. There are some who are of an age with me or older than me who post here. The Catholicism in which we grew up is, for better or worse, significantly different from today. That’s not a judgment, merely a fact…

Wow! If you do not mind, I am saving this.

 

[reggieM]

…in 1965 it would have been one language - Latin which all Catholics would have understood. Think about that.

With all due respect, and I enjoyed your post … I think you’re mis-remembering something.

Your phrase is more correctly “… few Catholics would have understood”.

Granted, I grew up later than this, but I never met one Catholic who understood the Latin. Not one. I see so-called traditionalists going around today boasting about how great they are because they have Mass in Latin – I’ve never met one who understood the Latin. I see young priests graduating from traditonalist seminaries who don’t even understand it.

“Understanding Latin” means you can listen to the Epistle and Gospel in Latin and understand them. You can listen to all the Propers of the Mass and understand them perfectly. You can read the Divine Office in Latin and understand the prayers and the sermons from the Fathers fully.

It never happened that way. Sure, people knew the Agnus Dei or maybe the Credo – but they didn’t know Latin. It’s a very difficult language. You have to study for years to be fluent.

People had missals – so they read the Mass in the vernacular. That’s just a fact. They didn’t know the Latin. That was the problem.

So if you go to Mass in Japan, it’s the same thing – bring your missal and read in the vernacular. You’d be doing what people did in the old days.

 

[reggieM]

…in 1965 it would have been one language - Latin which all Catholics would have understood. Think about that.

With all due respect, and I enjoyed your post … I think you’re mis-remembering something.

Your phrase is more correctly “… few Catholics would have understood”.

Granted, I grew up later than this, but I never met one Catholic who understood the Latin. Not one. I see so-called traditionalists going around today boasting about how great they are because they have Mass in Latin – I’ve never met one who understood the Latin. I see young priests graduating from traditonalist seminaries who don’t even understand it.

“Understanding Latin” means you can listen to the Epistle and Gospel in Latin and understand them. You can listen to all the Propers of the Mass and understand them perfectly. You can read the Divine Office in Latin and understand the prayers and the sermons from the Fathers fully.

It never happened that way. Sure, people knew the Agnus Dei or maybe the Credo – but they didn’t know Latin. It’s a very difficult language. You have to study for years to be fluent.

People had missals – so they read the Mass in the vernacular. That’s just a fact. They didn’t know the Latin. That was the problem.

So if you go to Mass in Japan, it’s the same thing – bring your missal and read in the vernacular. You’d be doing what people did in the old days.

 

[RobedWithLight]

On another thread… reference was made to a Catholic parish in Tokyo. I googled the parish. They offer Masses in English, French, German, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Chinese…in 1965 it would have been one language - Latin which all Catholics would have understood. Think about that.

I fail to see what your problem is with Masses offered in other languages. Despite differences in tongue, they all validly offer the same Mass, glorify the same God, consecrate the same Body and blood of Christ.

The fact is, the average Catholic never really understood Latin, not then during the good old pre-Vatican II days, and not so now. Even the most knowledgeable traditionalists here would be unable to read whole passages from the Latin Vulgate and then translate them into clear, grammatical English, and vice versa do the reverse. Only those with a degree in Classical languages can do that. At most what the “latinizers” here actually do is memorize the prayers and responses in latin. Memorization unfortunately isn’t the same as authentic fluency in the language, which takes years of intensive study to master.

I have nothing against latin per se, as it is concededly a beautiful, profound language, with an air of sublime mystery animating it, albeit a dead one. But disparaging masses offered in tongues other than latin for various reasons is simply improper.

 

[devotus]

With all due respect, and I enjoyed your post … I think you’re mis-remembering something.

Your phrase is more correctly “… few Catholics would have understood”.

Granted, I grew up later than this, but I never met one Catholic who understood the Latin. .

I believe that he meant that we understood the ordinary of the TLM rather than the Propers.

I went to Germany and attended NO Mass and I was 100% lost… If it was a TLM, I would have understood 80% and miss only the propers and sermon…

 

[Windmill]

Do we need to be fluent in Latin to fully participate in a TLM?

I guess the experiences of all the saints in ages past are all empty and fruitless. They didn’t know Latin. The Cure d’Ars was horrible at Latin, but he knew what he was saying at Mass.

I think it is sad to have all these different Masses at a given parish. English, Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, etc… Not only are the Masses exclusive, but the communities. You don’t see the Koreans mixing with fellow parishioners who attend the Spanish Mass. They each socialize with their own kind. If you had a Latin Mass, it wouldn’t matter which Mass you attended, you could participate. You might have a different type of missal than the guy next to you, but you are praying just the same prayers.

I think, with time, you have read and re-read all these passages in the missal that you only need it for the readings.

Can anyone validate this?

 

[devotus]

Do we need to be fluent in Latin to fully participate in a TLM?

I think, with time, you have read and re-read all these passages in the missal that you only need it for the readings.

Can anyone validate this?

That is my experience ,
the missal has English on one side and Latin on the other… very simple to follow

Granted to truly appreciate the Mass you have to go several times…

The High Mass was described to me as a “three ring circus” because so much is going on in both what is said and what is symbolized you can never take it all in at one attendance

 

[mary_bobo]

I fail to see what your problem is with Masses offered in other languages. Despite differences in tongue, they all validly offer the same Mass, glorify the same God, consecrate the same Body and blood of Christ.

The fact is, the average Catholic never really understood Latin, not then during the good old pre-Vatican II days, and not so now. Even the most knowledgeable traditionalists here would be unable to read whole passages from the Latin Vulgate and then translate them into clear, grammatical English, and vice versa do the reverse. Only those with a degree in Classical languages can do that. At most what the “latinizers” here actually do is memorize the prayers and responses in latin. Memorization unfortunately isn’t the same as authentic fluency in the language, which takes years of intensive study to master.

I have nothing against latin per se, as it is concededly a beautiful, profound language, with an air of sublime mystery animating it, albeit a dead one. But disparaging masses offered in tongues other than latin for various reasons is simply improper.

I think it is nice to have Masses in languages that different groups can understand. Being from the pre-V2 era with four years of high school Latin behind me, I always thought the Latin Mass was wonderful because no matter where you went to Mass, it was the same.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I fail to see what your problem is with Masses offered in other languages. Despite differences in tongue, they all validly offer the same Mass, glorify the same God, consecrate the same Body and blood of Christ.

The fact is, the average Catholic never really understood Latin, not then during the good old pre-Vatican II days, and not so now. Even the most knowledgeable traditionalists here would be unable to read whole passages from the Latin Vulgate and then translate them into clear, grammatical English, and vice versa do the reverse. Only those with a degree in Classical languages can do that. At most what the “latinizers” here actually do is memorize the prayers and responses in latin. Memorization unfortunately isn’t the same as authentic fluency in the language, which takes years of intensive study to master.

I have nothing against latin per se, as it is concededly a beautiful, profound language, with an air of sublime mystery animating it, albeit a dead one. But disparaging masses offered in tongues other than latin for various reasons is simply improper.

But you discount the unifying nature of the language and sadly, I know far too many young people who are ostensibly “fluent” in English for whom Shakespeare much less Chaucer is a great challenge. OK, so I memorized the prayers when I was a kid. I am fluent in reading Spanish. Not intimidated by either Chaucer or Shakespeare. And by golly with all the Latin in English and Latin in Spanish, I still after all these years see it as a unifying force.

Perhaps far more important…I was a teenager when all this occurred and at 55, I haven’t gotten over it. I don’t think you realize what a profound paradigm shift the shift from Latin to English was. Or what it meant going from a liturgy which was firmly grounded in the late Renaissance to the oft times cacophany and downright silliness which are the abuses of the NO today. I was a devout and dedicated altar boy as a teen. What is seen as “springtime in the Church” for some is seen by me as an open invitation for “anything goes” and yes, anthying goes today.

Fifty years ago, I could go to any Mass, anywhere across the face of the globe, understand, and participate in it. We cannot say this today.

 

[TNT]

…
I have nothing against latin per se, as it is concededly a beautiful, profound language, with an air of sublime mystery animating it, albeit a dead one. But disparaging masses offered in tongues other than latin for various reasons is simply improper.

Just curious:
How is something animated yet dead?
The rest of yur post makes a lot of sense.
BUT:
Hebrew was pretty much in the same basket when the whole Jewish world had gone Aramaic and Greek.
But I imagine Christ was pretty obstinate about the language He used to officially celebrate the Passover, (can’t say what He used at the institution of the Eucharist… err Lord’s Supper), and other Jewish Worship services.
Finally,
Language diversity to local dialects has the unintended consequence of creating “closed” enclaves.
For instance, we have a beautiful Vietnamese parish nearby. But I have never been inclined to go to Mass there because I’d need a translator beside me. They have Vietnamese missalettes with no English.

 

[RobedWithLight]

But you discount the unifying nature of the language and sadly, I know far too many young people who are ostensibly “fluent” in English for whom Shakespeare much less Chaucer is a great challenge. OK, so I memorized the prayers when I was a kid. I am fluent in reading Spanish. Not intimidated by either Chaucer or Shakespeare. And by golly with all the Latin in English and Latin in Spanish, I still after all these years see it as a unifying force.

Perhaps far more important…I was a teenager when all this occurred and at 55, I haven’t gotten over it. I don’t think you realize what a profound paradigm shift the shift from Latin to English was. Or what it meant going from a liturgy which was firmly grounded in the late Renaissance to the oft times cacophany and downright silliness which are the abuses of the NO today. I was a devout and dedicated altar boy as a teen. What is seen as “springtime in the Church” for some is seen by me as an open invitation for “anything goes” and yes, anthying goes today.

Fifty years ago, I could go to any Mass, anywhere across the face of the globe, understand, and participate in it. We cannot say this today.

Let me make this clear. I never denied the importance that Latin has in our Liturgy, nor its unifying influence upon the Church through the Mass, nor did I say that it must be eliminated. Far from it. It is true Latin has its advantages, as Pope John XXIII in *Veterum Sapientia * points out, it is “set and unchanging”, meaning, being a dead tongue, it is no longer subject to changes in its structure unlike modern languages, and being so, the Latin we know today will still be the same Latin 300 years from now.

I however was only trying to point what is perfectly obvious to you and me, that the average Catholic today doesn’t really understand it, unless of course one has a degree in Classical Languages. Hence, the necessity of the use of the vernacular as well, which however need not be in conflict with the importance or use of Latin.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Just curious:
How is something animated yet dead?
The rest of yur post makes a lot of sense.
BUT:
Hebrew was pretty much in the same basket when the whole Jewish world had gone Aramaic and Greek.
But I imagine Christ was pretty obstinate about the language He used to officially celebrate the Passover, (can’t say what He used at the institution of the Eucharist… err Lord’s Supper), and other Jewish Worship services.
Finally,
Language diversity to local dialects has the unintended consequence of creating “closed” enclaves.
For instance, we have a beautiful Vietnamese parish nearby. But I have never been inclined to go to Mass there because I’d need a translator beside me. They have Vietnamese missalettes with no English.

Aramaic was indeed the dominant tongue during Jesus’ time, and I believe He spoke Aramaic.

Concerning my use of the term “animated”, I was using it in the sense that something is “pervaded by” or “possessed by”, or “exudes” a certain quality. I apologize if my choice of words wasn’t as clear as it should be.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I however was only trying to point what is perfectly obvious to you and me, that the average Catholic today doesn’t really understand it, unless of course one has a degree in Classical Languages. Hence, the necessity of the use of the vernacular as well, which however need not be in conflict with the importance or use of Latin.

Today is the part I missed! You are quite correct in this, I would think most of the folks born after 1960 have only heard Latin a few times at best and so wouldn’t understand it without study. That having been said when they do hear it (primarily whenever chant or a Latin motet is sung), it has been my experience that they are at least interested.

Vernacular is fine for local liturgies. But there are times when nations gather as Church and it sure is nice to have a single unifying language.

 

[reggieM]

Vernacular is fine for local liturgies. But there are times when nations gather as Church and it sure is nice to have a single unifying language.

As I see it, that’s a pretty remote argument for retaining the Mass entirely in Latin. The language can be unifiying as long as people understand it. Even just the ordinary of the Mass was not understood by every Catholic. Many did, but not all.

Additionally, even in that gathering of the nations, some vernacular would be used for the sermon – unless the sermon was given in Latin also.

If Latin was that widely studied and understood, it would be essentially a vernacular language of its own. This would kill off all the arguments for not having the Mass in the vernacular since Latin would be a vernacular.

Perhaps the other argument would be that all Catholics should be required to read, write and speak Latin fluently. I think the amount of study required to do that is immense. I have studied Latin for years in high school and college level. I am so very far from having fluency … I just can’t see it happening unless people started speaking in Latin all the time from the time they are young.

At the same time, it’s a lot of work – is Latin that essentially a component of the Christian life that people are required to dedicate themselves to learning it fluently? This truly never happened prior to the Council.

I believe it would be a road-block for many who want to enter the Church - if they were told that they had to be fluent in Latin in order to hear the sermons, we would lose people.

Protestants would jump all over that – as they did with vernacular bibles.

Latin is either a vernacular language that we should all learn and know, or it is a symbol of Faith.

Personally, I believe it is a symbol of Faith – a symbol of the apostolic age and of Rome and the founding of the Church. As a symbol, it shouldn’t be required that we have to be fluent in learning. The Agnus Dei, Gloria, Credo – knowing those in Latin would be fine to give the symbolic message of the language.

The vernacular is used in the Tridentine Mass anyway – at the sermon. The readings are all done again in vernacular, and the prayers after Low Mass are in vernacular. I think Vatican II envisioned more prayers in the vernacular, with Latin retained for parts of the ordinary and perhaps the Canon where the symbolic language is fitting for when the priest is offering the consecration to God.

 

[brotherhrolf]

All well and good. In 1992 my cathedral parish celebrated its 200th anniversary. We had the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons, France in attendance as well as the Archbishop of Salamanca, Spain, the Archbishop of New Orleans, the two Archbishops emeritus of New Orleans, the Bishop of Baton Rouge and the remaining bishops of the province of Louisiana in attendance.

The Cardinal Archbishop spoke and prayed in French (I don’t speak French); the Archbishop of Salamanca spoke and prayed in Spanish (OK I do Spanish) and the rest spoke in English.

At the end of Mass, the Cardinal Archbishop gave the totally unscripted Apostolic Blessing in…LATIN! 1200 people in a Catholic Cathedral and only about 50 know the response.
I submit to you that 50 years ago any prelate would have be able to give the Apostolic Blessing in Latin and the congregation would have known the response… I was one of five (count’em five) members of a cathedral choir who knew the response!

Many are equating fluency in Latin as a prerequisite for being able to participate in a Latin Mass. Such is not the case as so many of my age have pointed out to you over and over again. We had these handy-dandy things called Missals. Attend Mass long enough and you can see…dare I say it…Shakespeare used an awful lot of them…the dreaded…dah, da, dah! Cognate!

Oh, pardon me, I can’t understand cognates. Sorry folks. I went to a Catholic high school during Vatican II. The Brothers put a heavy emphasis on vocabulary and if you can’t see that a whole slew of English words are Latin in origin…You are afraid of that which is part and parcel of your language. It ain’t all that difficult.

 

[SnorterLuster]

Perhaps the other argument would be that all Catholics should be required to read, write and speak Latin fluently. I think the amount of study required to do that is immense. I have studied Latin for years in high school and college level. I am so very far from having fluency … I just can’t see it happening unless people started speaking in Latin all the time from the time they are young.
Why would you have to be “fluent” in Latin? The missals for the TLM are translated into all languages. It certainly didn’t keep us school kids in the 50s from following the Mass in our Latin/English missals. If you can read subtitles during a foreign movie, you can follow a missal.

I believe it would be a road-block for many who want to enter the Church - if they were told that they had to be fluent in Latin in order to hear the sermons, we would lose people.
I remember reading that conversions have fallen since the Mass has been in the venacular. Maybe being flluent in English is keeping people away–given the state of education these days.

Protestants would jump all over that – as they did with vernacular bibles. ?

Latin is either a vernacular language that we should all learn and know, or it is a symbol of Faith. Latin is a dead language and suitable for a sacred language. The Jews have Hebrew and the Moslems have Arabic. Christians used to have Latin.

—snip–

The vernacular is used in the Tridentine Mass anyway – at the sermon. The readings are all done again in vernacular, and the prayers after Low Mass are in vernacular. The sermon, Epistle and Gospel are not part of the Mass. Mass is suspended while Father is out of the sancturary. The prayers after low Mass are after, not during.

I think Vatican II envisioned more prayers in the vernacular, with Latin retained for parts of the ordinary and perhaps the Canon where the symbolic language is fitting for when the priest is offering the consecration to God.

 

[Margaret33]

Many are equating fluency in Latin as a prerequisite for being able to participate in a Latin Mass. Such is not the case as so many of my age have pointed out to you over and over again. We had these handy-dandy things called Missals. Attend Mass long enough and you can see…

Because I grew up after Vatican II our mass was never entirely in Latin, but maybe about half was if I remember correctly. And that applied to churches near my grandparents home as well. I didn’t then nor do I know now how to speak or interpret Latin in it’s entirety… but I still knew the meaning behind a lot of what the priest was saying and what our responses were. It was my impression that many young Catholics who attended any formal amount of CCD were taught the meaning behind what was being said in mass. I don’t think you have to be fluent to appreciate the beauty of the language either, but that is just my take.

 

[reggieM]

We had these handy-dandy things called Missals.

Yes – which means you’re reading the Mass in the vernacular. You can use any language or translation you want. Thus, your participation in Mass is a vernacular one – and therefore why should the priest use Latin?