Advice : Restoration of The Latin Mass

[ProVobis]

doesn’t mean that I knew what these responses meant tho.

I would attribute that “problem” to the educational system and process, not the Latin Mass itself. 2000 years ago parents taught their kids Latin. I’m sure they understood most of it.

That said, I don’t see English doing that well these days either.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I would attribute that “problem” to the educational system and process, not the Latin Mass itself. 2000 years ago parents taught their kids Latin. I’m sure they understood most of it.

That said, I don’t see English doing that well these days either.

As long as I can hear it, I understand the English quite well.

I don’t know when the Latin Mass started but I would say that Latin was not the original “Traditional” Mass.

The Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist which Jesus instituted at what we call the Last Supper and I would imagine that this was in the vernacular.

 

[Hypnotoad]

As long as I can hear it, I understand the English quite well.

Yes this is because you spent time around it and used it frequently. Funny thing is if you did the same thing with Latin you would be able to understand it as well. Sure you may have to put effort into learning something but is that really a bad thing? Also are children not participating in the Liturgy simply because they do not understand what is being said? I believe Saint Augustine said all one has to do to be participating in Mass is to know that what is being done is being done for the glory of God. Plus the Mass is a Mystery, one I doubt any of us can truly say we understand.

I don’t know when the Latin Mass started but I would say that Latin was not the original “Traditional” Mass.

Why? Did Romans not exist back then? Was the sign above Christ’s Cross which said “King of the Jews” written in Aramaic or was it Hebrew, Greek, and Latin? Fun trivia. Which three languages are in the Tridentine Mass? One clue. They were all on the Cross. Maybe this is why they are used in the Liturgy?

The Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist which Jesus instituted at what we call the Last Supper and I would imagine that this was in the vernacular.

Who’s vernacular you don’t know.

Ps. The Mass points us to the Cross and the True Sacrifice. This is the very same thing the Last Super pointed too because it was the first Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t know when the Latin Mass started but I would say that Latin was not the original “Traditional” Mass.

There’s plenty of evidence that the Roman Canon, the heart of the EF and EP1 in the OF, was WRITTEN in Latin, and I’ll bet much of it is in its original wording.

 

[otjm]

I’ve always thought that it was strange that those who ask for the TLM to be restored to a Diocese are supposedly expected to pay for all the items needed. I pose the questions…who took them in the first place? Were they sold…who got the money for them? Are many of these items stored somewhere? Who should know…the bishop? Obviously, the people did not take away the TLM and all that surrounded it. Who should be held accountable and who should pay for the restoration? I think the answer is obvious!!!

Probably the most expensive items were the chasubles; I have no idea what happened to then, but 40 years later, they are not around. Were they sold? Most likely not as there was little or no market for them. And they were replaced with the new vestments, which the parishes all paid for,. So if you think that you are going to get a parish which is primarily OF to pay for a small subset which wants fiddle back chasubles, you might possibly find some parishes that will do so; most likely most will not. More likely, you will be invited to either pay for them yourselves, or attend the OF, or use the OF chasubles. An article on Rorate Caeli called into question just how traditional fiddle backs are in any event; so it might be worth looking into.

As to chalices, every priest I have known has their own.

*** to the sacramentary - see the answer above. When one is superseded, most likely it is not retained. No one is to blame for that; it is normal change.

So, you may feel the answer is obvious; but if you are implying that the parish owes this, you are barking up the wrong tree.

It is clear, according to B16, that the of was not abrogated; but the vast majority of the Church operated as if it was; and you cannot fix blame on them. Paul 6tth appeared to think so; JP 2 definitely did, so from the top down, that was pretty much the assumption. So no, the parishes were not in the wrong responding to the change the Vatican put in place. It came from the top, down.

 

[tawny]

The Gospel and Epistle were not said in Latin and neither was the Sermon.

I remember hearing the Gospel and Epistle being in English during the Latin Masses back then.

I was an altar boy and I had the “responses down pat”, doesn’t mean that I knew what these responses meant tho.

If you think that everyone had their “St. Joseph’s missal” and were following along, you have a nostalgia for something that was not quite as you think it might have been.

In my church the Gospel & Epistle were said in Latin & then in English. Our altar servers were not only versed in the Latin but they were also instructed in the meaning of not only the responses but the Mass itself. My brother was an altar server who was given instruction not only for responses but to understand the Latin Mass. He served every Sunday for Bishop Sheen’s Sunday Mass. One of our elementry schools is currently instructing students in the Latin Mass with the full understanding of the Mass so they may become altar servers. I guess every parish was different back then. Not so much different today.
Pax et Bonum:bible1:

 

[tawny]

There’s plenty of evidence that the Roman Canon, the heart of the EF and EP1 in the OF, was WRITTEN in Latin, and I’ll bet much of it is in its original wording.

I agree. You obviously know the history of the EF & EP1.
Pax et Bonum:bible1:

 

[otjm]

Yes this is because you spent time around it and used it frequently. Funny thing is if you did the same thing with Latin you would be able to understand it as well. Sure you may have to put effort into learning something but is that really a bad thing?

Learning is not a bad thing. However, before Vatican 2, Latin was taught primarily as a translated language, rather than as a spoken language. And predominately the translation was in one direction - Latin to English. There was a new method being introduced in the very early 1960’s to teach Latin as a spoken language; but Latin was already fading from popularity (and that is not confined to Catholics - it was taught in a lot of public schools as well). Out of all Latin students, there were precious few who could speak it; even among my class in college seminary (two years of college Latin).

So to begin with, unless one has access to a course of Latin being taught as a spoken language, your point is theoretically possible, and practically not.

Why? Did Romans not exist back then? Was the sign above Christ’s Cross which said “King of the Jews” written in Aramaic or was it Hebrew, Greek, and Latin? Fun trivia. Which three languages are in the Tridentine Mass? One clue. They were all on the Cross. Maybe this is why they are used in the Liturgy?

Latin may have been used in some areas; in others, Aramaic; in others, Arabic or Slavonic. Latin was gradually adopted over several centuries as the official language of the Western Church, as it was a language that had been iontroduced to a number of countries as the Romans went out and conquered them and became the ruling status quo. Had Germany won the war and in the process, invaded the US and conquered us, most people living under German rulers would know German, and not just those who took it in high school or college.

Who’s vernacular you don’t know.

No, but it is still used in the Maronite rite, along with Arabic.

What I still find hilarious is those who have learned to parrot parts of the EF and tell me they know Latin; I simply disprove it by digging back into my ancient history, revising a word or two and asking them what it now says. Not a clue in the least. They may know that this phrase in Latin means that phrase in English; that is not knowing Latin.

If people want to attend a Mass in Latin, that is perfectly fine; they do not need to know how to speak Latin. But they will need to use a missal with the translation, or they are not going to be able to tell what the pries just said.

 

[ProVobis]

There was a new method being introduced in the very early 1960’s to teach Latin as a spoken language;

That would have killed it, for sure.

Either that or new Romance languages would be developing now.

Learn it or don’t learn it, but the Latin in the Mass is perfect the way it is.

 

[JamesTheJust]

As long as I can hear it, I understand the English quite well.

I don’t know when the Latin Mass started but I would say that Latin was not the original “Traditional” Mass.

The Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist which Jesus instituted at what we call the Last Supper and I would imagine that this was in the vernacular.

So the Gentile Christians, which rapidly became the largest, if not sole, demographic of Christian there was between the Apostolic Age and the Council of Nicaea, didn’t celebrate Mass? Because if they did, they would have done it in Latin, the language of the Empire by which they had been conquered.

True, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper in Aramaic, but the first Missals were undoubtedly Latin.

 

[Mike30]

In my church the Gospel & Epistle were said in Latin & then in English. Our altar servers were not only versed in the Latin but they were also instructed in the meaning of not only the responses but the Mass itself. My brother was an altar server who was given instruction not only for responses but to understand the Latin Mass. He served every Sunday for Bishop Sheen’s Sunday Mass. One of our elementry schools is currently instructing students in the Latin Mass with the full understanding of the Mass so they may become altar servers. I guess every parish was different back then. Not so much different today.
Pax et Bonum:bible1:

It was the same when I served. We had to know what was going on and were even quizzed on it.

We used to have bi annual meetings of the Altar Guild Society and as I remember every Parish in the Archdiocese was essentially the same.

 

[tawny]

It was the same when I served. We had to know what was going on and were even quizzed on it.

We used to have bi annual meetings of the Altar Guild Society and as I remember every Parish in the Archdiocese was essentially the same.

You’re right. I forgot about the Altar Guild Society meetings.:bible1:

 

[Joannm]

So the Gentile Christians, which rapidly became the largest, if not sole, demographic of Christian there was between the Apostolic Age and the Council of Nicaea, didn’t celebrate Mass? Because if they did, they would have done it in Latin, the language of the Empire by which they had been conquered.

True, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper in Aramaic, but the first Missals were undoubtedly Latin.

They actually would have celebrated it in Greek. Latin liturgy only became common in the fourth century in of all places, North Africa, not Rome.

 

[GangGreen]

They actually would have celebrated it in Greek. Latin liturgy only became common in the fourth century in of all places, North Africa, not Rome.

Let’s not forget that Christians were persecuted by the Romans until that time. As a result there wasn’t as much organization in the Church. There’s a reason why the first ecumenical council wasn’t until the fourth century.

 

[JamesTheJust]

They actually would have celebrated it in Greek. Latin liturgy only became common in the fourth century in of all places, North Africa, not Rome.

Yes, as I said. What I meant was that, by the Council of Nicaea, almost all Christians were Gentiles. Thus, after the ending of the Empire-sponsored persecutions with the Edict of Milan, when the Church would have begun to be organized, the first Missals were almost certainly in Latin.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If people want to attend a Mass in Latin, that is perfectly fine; they do not need to know how to speak Latin. But they will need to use a missal with the translation, or they are not going to be able to tell what the pries just said.

One of our elementary schools is currently instructing students in the Latin Mass with the full understanding of the Mass so they may become altar servers.

Learning is not a bad thing.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Learning is not a bad thing. However, before Vatican 2, Latin was taught primarily as a translated language, rather than as a spoken language. And predominately the translation was in one direction - Latin to English. There was a new method being introduced in the very early 1960’s to teach Latin as a spoken language; but Latin was already fading from popularity (and that is not confined to Catholics - it was taught in a lot of public schools as well). Out of all Latin students, there were precious few who could speak it; even among my class in college seminary (two years of college Latin).

So to begin with, unless one has access to a course of Latin being taught as a spoken language, your point is theoretically possible, and practically not.

This would be the case if I was advocating Catholics know Latin as a spoken language. Obviously its not impractical for Catholics to easily follow along in a Missal and in some areas memorize what the English translations are for the Latin responses that never change.

Latin may have been used in some areas; in others, Aramaic; in others, Arabic or Slavonic. Latin was gradually adopted over several centuries as the official language of the Western Church, as it was a language that had been iontroduced to a number of countries as the Romans went out and conquered them and became the ruling status quo. Had Germany won the war and in the process, invaded the US and conquered us, most people living under German rulers would know German, and not just those who took it in high school or college.

Glad to hear you agree that Latin could have been used in the Liturgy even back then.

No, but it is still used in the Maronite rite, along with Arabic.

What I still find hilarious is those who have learned to parrot parts of the EF and tell me they know Latin; I simply disprove it by digging back into my ancient history, revising a word or two and asking them what it now says. Not a clue in the least. They may know that this phrase in Latin means that phrase in English; that is not knowing Latin.

I find that hilarious too. What I find funnier is how people make such a big deal out of how hard it is to attend a Tridentine Mass or an OF Mass in Latin because they don’t know Latin, when the reality is they don’t need to know Latin in order to be able to attend. In fact all they need to do is muster up enough effort to read the English translations to the Latin responses. And if they want to go even further, maybe memorize them. Its so easy even a parrot can do it.

If people want to attend a Mass in Latin, that is perfectly fine; they do not need to know how to speak Latin. But they will need to use a missal with the translation, or they are not going to be able to tell what the pries just said.

Oh I know this but it seems a lot of the people who attend a Mass in the vernacular advocate they do so because they incorrectly think they have to know Latin in order to participate in a Tridentine Mass or an OF Latin Mass, when the reality its just as easy as opening your missal, looking at the Latin response, and then moving your eyes just a little bit to the right to see the English translation.

So now that the myth that one has to know Latin in order to participate in a Tridentine Mass (or an OF Mass in Latin) has been resolved then what else could be used as a reason to advocate Mass in the vernacular? Maybe the hatred of lugging around a Missal?

 

[otjm]

So the Gentile Christians, which rapidly became the largest, if not sole, demographic of Christian there was between the Apostolic Age and the Council of Nicaea, didn’t celebrate Mass? Because if they did, they would have done it in Latin, the language of the Empire by which they had been conquered.

True, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper in Aramaic, but the first Missals were undoubtedly Latin.

As usual, there seems to be amnesia when it comes to the Church. The church spread rapidly; it was not confined to Western Europe as we know it today; and the languages (plural) used were those of the indigenous people being catechized. The Eastern rites developed along side the Roman rite, with similarities and dissimilarities. So the first Missals were written in the languages of the peoples using them.

And thus, Aramaic is still used in the Church; specifically in the Maronite Rite.

 

[otjm]

Oh I know this but it seems a lot of the people who attend a Mass in the vernacular advocate they do so because they incorrectly think they have to know Latin in order to participate in a Tridentine Mass or an OF Latin Mass, when the reality its just as easy as opening your missal, looking at the Latin response, and then moving your eyes just a little bit to the right to see the English translation.

So now that the myth that one has to know Latin in order to participate in a Tridentine Mass (or an OF Mass in Latin) has been resolved then what else could be used as a reason to advocate Mass in the vernacular? Maybe the hatred of lugging around a Missal?

I would disagree with you that people do not want to go to the Latin Mass (EF or OF) because they think they would need to know Latin; it is my experience in talking with people that they want to hear the Mass and pariticipate in the Mass in their neative language. And that point is made more clear where there are Massess offered in Spanish and where they are offered in Vietnamese. The really clear attendance by speakers of those languages, particularly when Mass in English may be offered at a much more convenient time, proves the point.

There are two main attractants with some people; some want the Mass in Latin (EF or OF); others are attracted to the rubrics of the EF, which are more complex. Neither attraction is bad in any way, shape or form. But the vast majority of people gravitate to Mass in their native language when native language is the option.

 

[GangGreen]

But the vast majority of people gravitate to Mass in their native language when native language is the option.

I’d say that the vast majority of people go to the Mass that’s most convenient for them or the one they’re most comfortable with. In the same way people tend to compare every little feature about the Mass in their church vs. one that they may be visiting. They’re used to the priests at their church and how the music is done and whatever else. People aren’t big at stepping out of their comfort zones.

Maybe some people don’t go to a Latin Mass because it’s out of their comfort zone. Probably 99% of Catholics have never been exposed to it. Also, put someone who’s never gone to an EF Mass in a Low Mass for the first time and they’re probably completely lost. Put them in a Missa Cantata or High Mass and it may be a different experience.

Also, there’s something to say about the fact that Latin Masses are typically not very well known/advertised and in many cases they also tend to be at strange times. The two local (within 30 minutes) EF masses where I live are at 3 pm. I know of another local church where they’re trying to work toward having an EF mass as well, so I look forward to that.

Also, I think that a big demand for the EF comes from younger Catholics. I think when you find younger people (teens, 20s, 30s, 40s) who are serious about their faith and they discover the EF it’s like unlocking a treasure that they never knew about. It’s where I see a lot of the future growth of the EF coming from.