A Traditionalist: to be or not to be

[reggieM]

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.

It means you’re reading a vernacular text. If you can pray the entire Mass in the vernacular, why shouldn’t the priest just use the vernacular himself?

Latin is a dead language and suitable for a sacred language.

I see this as meaning that if it was a living language, then it wouldn’t be suitable as a sacred language. Therefore, it’s best that Latin should not be spoken and learned because then it would not be a dead language. In other words, it’s best if nobody understands it because then it will remain a dead language and be suitable for Mass.

The sermon, Epistle and Gospel are not part of the Mass. Mass is suspended while Father is out of the sancturary.

Why should the Epistle and Gospel be read in the vernacular? Is it more important that we understand the readings than the propers of the Mass?

In other words, why not suspend the Mass at various points and just read vernacular versions of the prayers?

Or again, what is the value of having a dead language that nobody understands? Why is is more sacred if nobody can understand it? Was Latin less sacred in the centuries where many people understood it?

 

[Margaret33]

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?

While one’s ‘participation’ in the mass may be in the vernacular, that is not to say that one’s experience of the mass is nearly as ordinary.

I think when you look at the issue from practicality alone, you are not seeing the whole picture of why some prefer latin within the mass. To some, Latin is the mass… the heart and soul of the Catholic experience we came to know and love at a formative and innocent time of our youth…

Something some may never be able to understand if they grew up looking at going to mass as a chore, as opposed to others who internalized a feeling of true sanctuary in their hearts by the mere entrance into God’s house.

 

[Margaret33]

I will exit now and stop interjecting and interrupting… My apologies for getting overly esoteric,

I do that sometimes

 

[brotherhrolf]

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.

We keep going back and forth on this. There were no missalettes in the pews back then. Everyone from the time one made one’s First Communion had a Missal. In America, when one made one’s First Communion, one got one’s “Little Missal” - an abbreviated (i.e. not all of the daily liturgical settings) Missal which one was taught to follow along with. I have my “Little Missal” from when I made my First Communion in 1958.

We were confirmed in the sixth grade back then upon which one received one’s “Big Missal” - a complete Missal with all readings etc. when one was Confirmed. Mine is 1963. I was 12 when I was confirmed which was the norm for my generation.

I grew up in the period. I most certainly was able to follow along with the Mass. Even if I hadn’t been an altar boy, I could have followed along. We all followed along. It was NOT rocket science. You had Latin on the left side of the page and you had English on the right side of the page.

From a very early age, I learned that there are a whole bunch of words in English which are obviously Latin words. Gosh, when I studied Spanish, I learned that there are a whole bunch of Spanish words which are derived from Latin too.

Oh, we are asking too much…Latin is a dead language…Or is it?

I will freely admit that I am a Math dummy. But I will tell you this, take a look at the profound influence of Latin on the English language by the Elizabethan poets and scholars. Ask yourselves, for your own sake and for your children and grandchildren’s sake about verbal aptitude on the SATs and ACTs. Then tell me that Latin is trivial.

 

[Margaret33]

I don’t still have a missal but I know what you’re talking about…

We were confirmed in the sixth grade back then upon which one received one’s “Big Missal” - a complete Missal with all readings etc. when one was Confirmed. Mine is 1963. I was 12 when I was confirmed which was the norm for my generation.

You’re speaking to someone who grew up in a parish where communion came before confirmation, but have since been told by my current church that my childhood church was an aberration and made up their own rules because they’ve ‘never heard of anyone doing things in that order’

Even if I hadn’t been an altar boy, I could have followed along. We all followed along. It was NOT rocket science. You had Latin on the left side of the page and you had English on the right side of the page.

Love the part about rocket science, lol

From a very early age, I learned that there are a whole bunch of words in English which are obviously Latin words. Gosh, when I studied Spanish, I learned that there are a whole bunch of Spanish words which are derived from Latin too.

Oh, we are asking too much…Latin is a dead language…Or is it?

I will freely admit that I am a Math dummy. But I will tell you this, take a look at the profound influence of Latin on the English language by the Elizabethan poets and scholars. Ask yourselves, for your own sake and for your children and grandchildren’s sake about verbal aptitude on the SATs and ACTs. Then tell me that Latin is trivial.

Latin is by no means trivial. All you have to do is speak to any physician and ask him where he’d be without the Latin language. The entire medical profession has it’s basis in latin root words, which I use it on a daily basis. You cannot learn a lick of medical terminology without knowing each word’ root and suffix, which are primarily Latin. As are the origins of most of the words in the English dictionary

 

[Margaret33]

ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG, Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
“It seems as though men are forever trying to prove or disprove the value of Latin as part of a liberal education. The importance of Latin, in my estimation, cannot be too strongly emphasized; calling it a “dead” language is a great misnomer… Latin has its value as well in helping us to understand our own language, for, with Greek, it forms the roots of the English tongue. Finally, Latin has a profound value in the link which it forms with the past…has been invaluable and essential in my professional life as lawyer and judge.”

W. WILLARD WIRTZ, Former Secretary of Labor.
“Latin is more of an immortal language than a dead one. It lives on with the modern Western languages, for many words have Latin derivatives. The study of Latin is an invaluable help in de*veloping a feeling for the written and spoken word…”

J. EDGAR HOOVER, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
“…Every American should take pride in learning how to express himself more effectively in his own native tongue, both orally and through writing, and the study of Latin is one of the best ways to accomplish this aim. In my opinion, the study of Latin is not antiquated but holds great value for all who would like to learn.”

JOHN MCCORMACK, Speaker, United States House of Representatives.
“… We may attribute this decline, at least in part, to the fact that many students and some educators do not recognize the fundamental importance of Latin.
Probably no other skill is as useful to Americans in general as the ability to use the English; language. The study of Latin gives us a better. knowledge of English. Approximately half of our English words are derived from Latin… In some of the professions, notably law and medicine, much of the terminology is of Latin origin…”

I rest my case.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Then tell me that Latin is trivial.

It’s not.

I wish we could seperate the two out. I firmly believe that Latin is not trivial. I have to teach my children Greek and Latin roots in school. I think it’s terribly interesting. I just happen to believe that it can be VERY beneficial to the faithful for the Mass to be in the language in which they think and reason. You made the point yourself, Brotherhrolf, about local liturgies vs. international ones. That’s all I’ve ever heard said about the “Latin vs. Vernacular” debate.

Nobody’s saying it’s trivial.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Why can’t we just be Catholics?:getholy:

A la Benedict XV’s “Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname?” (Beattisimus Apostolorum…I probably mispelled that). That’s the way it SHOULD be.

 

[Margaret33]

I just happen to believe that it can be VERY beneficial to the faithful for the Mass to be in the language in which they think and reason.

I understand where the thought comes from, and it’s a popular one, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s 100% correct. The Church has become so much more concerned with inclusion at all costs, and appealing to the masses, for the sake of growing in number. I’m not just talking about the loss of Latin mind you, that is but one single example of many along the way. A symptom of the disease which eats away at the church.

But what not everyone stops to think about is this… even if we manage to increase or even maintain the Church’s membership by letting go of time honored tradition and being more ‘user friendly’ as has become so politically correct to promote… that doesn’t necessarily mean we will be any stronger. It will only serve to make us a more diluted, homogenized version of our former Church.

This may be what many people want, clearly the majority have spoken… but that does not mean the majority is correct. And it doesn’t mean the end result after all is said and done will be anything like we anticipated, or even resemble what we were meant, by God, to create…

You can dilute the core of something only so much before eventually it just falls apart from within.

One of the reasons why it used to be something sacred to be a Catholic is this… it required work. Not everything was easy, we had to make sacrifices and follow rules and traditions that inconvenienced us from time to time, but in the end, we earned our faith… and loved our religion and what it stood for, because of it. We worked for it. And it was more blessed because we did. But instead of honoring that truth, we as a whole have somewhere along the way, subtly and slowly decided, we need to change. We need to make the religion easier. So that those who don’t want to do the work and follow traditions which have been held for hundreds of years don’t have to bother.

 

[edmonb1]

Ride the bus on Ash Wednesday and see the number of people with ashes on their foreheads.

I woud love to see that today, I went to the supermarket after Ash Wed Mass and people looked at me like I was from Mars.

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.

I was born in 1968 but would have been proud to be a part of all that your all talking about.

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 would love to learn Latin. Im really sad that even some of these posters are against the Latin Mass. You can tell by they’re post that they are attacking you for even mentioning these great things that “were” the true way of being Catholic

 

[jonk]

Traditionalists are just Catholics…it is sad we have to use the adjective before the noun…but it seems of late, that it is necessary, because the true Catholic faith is being hijacked by modernists and liberals who are trying to protestantize it…so it is important to make that distinction…

It’s strange how Catholicism has already protestantised - it’s almost like we have denominations now.

A: “I’m a Catholic”
B: “Oh, are you? Are you cultural, orthodox, traditionalist, SSPX or liberal?”

By the way, I think I’d fall into the “orthodox” category. That is not to say that many traditionalists aren’t orthodox - I generally agree with them, though traditionalist issues are of lesser relative importance to me.

 

[maurin]

The Church has become so much more concerned with inclusion at all costs, and appealing to the masses, for the sake of growing in number. I’m not just talking about the loss of Latin mind you, that is but one single example of many along the way. A symptom of the disease which eats away at the church.

.

This conclusion that the “Church has become so much more concerned with inclusion at all costs, and appealing to the masses, for the sake of growing in number,” is a new one for me. I thought the business of the Church was leading the souls of men to Christ and to Salvation.

I find the path to Christ and to Salvation much easier in the Traditional Mass, much clearer, more meaningful, in a way which we, the people of God, have more of an opportunity for participation in the Mass itself.

I am ‘making a god of’ (to borrow from St. Paul) myself if I presume that the Novos Ordo cannot be the same for others. And until or unless Peter binds or loosens otherwise (Peter permits both Orders of the Mass), I think I put my own soul in jeopardy if I were to be as presumptuous.

Personal musings…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I understand where the thought comes from, and it’s a popular one, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s 100% correct. The Church has become so much more concerned with inclusion at all costs, and appealing to the masses, for the sake of growing in number. I’m not just talking about the loss of Latin mind you, that is but one single example of many along the way. A symptom of the disease which eats away at the church.

But what not everyone stops to think about is this… even if we manage to increase or even maintain the Church’s membership by letting go of time honored tradition and being more ‘user friendly’ as has become so politically correct to promote… that doesn’t necessarily mean we will be any stronger. It will only serve to make us a more diluted, homogenized version of our former Church.

This may be what many people want, clearly the majority have spoken… but that does not mean the majority is correct. And it doesn’t mean the end result after all is said and done will be anything like we anticipated, or even resemble what we were meant, by God, to create…

You can dilute the core of something only so much before eventually it just falls apart from within.

One of the reasons why it used to be something sacred to be a Catholic is this… it required work. Not everything was easy, we had to make sacrifices and follow rules and traditions that inconvenienced us from time to time, but in the end, we earned our faith… and loved our religion and what it stood for, because of it. We worked for it. And it was more blessed because we did. But instead of honoring that truth, we as a whole have somewhere along the way, subtly and slowly decided, we need to change. We need to make the religion easier. So that those who don’t want to do the work and follow traditions which have been held for hundreds of years don’t have to bother.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but only to the extent that if we soften DOCTRINE or PRAXIS do we loose something precious. You can still have firm doctrine and firm praxis and use the language of the people (I’ve found myself wondering many times if the whole mess couldn’t have been avoided with a faithful translation into a “high” vernacular, possessed at least by English, of the Tridentine Mass). In the mixed bag of blessings and disasters that has afflicted the Church in the last fourty years (and I deny that those are the fault of the Council, the popes, or the Mass), the vernacular Mass has been a blessing. It’s what wooed me into the Church (I disagree that the sacrificial nature is ontologically downplayed by the NO, but I don’t think you have to keep repeating yourself to make a point, either, ie, “less is more.”). What if we had both masses in a parish on a regular basis? Then the traditionalists would be satisfied and people like me might well still be evangelized, wooed as it were, by the beauty of a mass they understand. You say we’re guilty of inclusion. I do see that in some very inappropriate ways, dangerous ways, you’re correct. But as regards the vernacular mass, I say the fisherman have just spread and lowered their nets in broader waters. I’m a Catholic today because I first understood the Mass nearly 20 years ago (and I’ve attended the TLM since, which frankly leaves me cold). Would it be worth MY soul or the souls of others who might be wooed to the truth to rigidly insist on an all-Latin liturgy? Latin isn’t an essential. Doctrine and dogma ARE (which is where we need to be even more careful “watch dogs”).

 

[Margaret33]

I thought the business of the Church was leading the souls of men to Christ and to Salvation.

So did I.

I find the path to Christ and to Salvation much easier in the Traditional Mass, much clearer, more meaningful, in a way which we, the people of God, have more of an opportunity for participation in the Mass itself.

I am not completely denying the need for a vernacular mass so much as I am saying that to completely nullify the need, desire and tradition of a Latin one is counterproductive to those who found their way to Christ in it’s presence.

 

[BobP123]

Why can’t we just be Catholics?:getholy:

Maybe it’s all semantics, but if the definition of “Catholic” is “Universal” then those that insist on everything being in English, the Mass especially, cannot be Catholics by definition.

They don’t call the American “Catholic” Church AMCHURCH for nothing.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Maybe it’s all semantics, but if the definition of “Catholic” is “Universal” then those that insist on everything being in English, the Mass especially, cannot be Catholics by definition.

They don’t call the American “Catholic” Church AMCHURCH for nothing.

You’re famous for writing “think about it.” It might be helpful if you did, at least before you posted. No one has insisted on an English Mass (hardly helpful outside the English speaking world) and no one is insisting on ONLY the vernacular (there are times when Latin is the ONLY answer, ie, papal masses, international gatherings etc.) or even on ONLY the vernacular exclusively (at my parish, the common “sung” parts of the Mass are in Latin, at least for the Mass I attend). And anyway, IF one were to absolutely and pig-headedly insist on an all vernacular Mass all the time, that would enable the “universal” body of believers to always be able to understand the Mass they assisted at, which being “universal” would be “catholic” in its nature. Think about it.

 

[Margaret33]

In the mixed bag of blessings and disasters that has afflicted the Church in the last fourty years (and I deny that those are the fault of the Council, the popes, or the Mass), the vernacular Mass has been a blessing. It’s what wooed me into the Church

While I cannot say I hold the Council, Popes or the Mass uniquely responsible for the many things which have caused me discontent over the years, I cannot help but feel that leadership has definitely placated the outside influences to such an extent as to let many intrinsic components of the our religion be changed beyond recognition.

What if we had both masses in a parish on a regular basis? Then the traditionalists would be satisfied and people like me might well still be evangelized, wooed as it were, by the beauty of a mass they understand.

There is absolutely no reason why this cannot be the case, and it would be beneficial to many, yes, my problem as it were is more with the complete loss of Latin being stated as a necessity by many, and that being a symptom of the whole in terms of changing the religion’s foundations completely.

Latin isn’t an essential.

And this is where we differ. No, perhaps not essential to every mass, I am conceding that there is value in having both a Latin and Vernacular, but to completely eradicate one and deny it’s value altogether is to leave behind an entire generation of followers who faithfully adhered to the Church during the time of it’s use - and would like to be able to continue appreciating it’s value in the history of our Church and own coming to Christ within it.

 

[Margaret33]

It’s strange how Catholicism has already protestantised - it’s almost like we have denominations now.

A: “I’m a Catholic”
B: “Oh, are you? Are you cultural, orthodox, traditionalist, SSPX or liberal?”

Last night I expressed sentiment along the same lines in post #21 of:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=135568

Margaret

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And this is where we differ. No, perhaps not essential to every mass, I am conceding that there is value in having both a Latin and Vernacular, but to completely eradicate one and deny it’s value altogether is to leave behind an entire generation of followers who faithfully adhered to the Church during the time of it’s use - and would like to be able to continue appreciating it’s value in the history of our Church and own coming to Christ within it.

I doubt we differ by much! I’ll go to the 6:30 AM vernacular Mass, you go to the TLM at 8:00 and we’ll meet for breakfast at 9:15.

I suppose what I’m saying is this: Latin is a terribly important part of our Church, our history and our culture as the Church. So is Greek and Hebrew. We would be poor scholars and we would be encouraging others toward ignorance if we were to say otherwise. The Church’s reason for existance, however, is not the preservation of Latin, but the salvation of souls. We don’t save souls by lying to them (wrong dogma and wrong praxis), but we may win souls by expressing the undiluted truth in a language they can understand and can themselves worship in. And there is no more undiluted Truth than the Sacrifice of Calvary made present at each and every Mass throughout the world.

 

[Margaret33]

I doubt we differ by much! I’ll go to the 6:30 AM vernacular Mass, you go to the TLM at 8:00 and we’ll meet for breakfast at 9:15.

lol… sounds like a plan

And I would love to say we are are closer than we think. But…

IF one were to absolutely and pig-headedly insist on an all vernacular Mass all the time, that would enable the “universal” body of believers to always be able to understand the Mass they assisted at, which being “universal” would be “catholic” in its nature. Think about it.

I think on this, we’ll just have to ‘agree to disagree’.