Are Catholics who don't teach their children Latin schismatics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SFH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SFH

Guest
The Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy s. 54 states: “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

This directive has never been repealed by the Vatican.

Do priests and parents who don’t teach their children their parts of the Mass in Latin as required by this section need to go to confession to confess the sin of disobedience? Or are such priests and parents schismatics because they reject the authority of Vatican II by refusing to obey its directives?
 
How do you interprete “steps should be taken” to mean “You must teach?”

Latin responses are not common, and fairly simple to learn. Most are in the Missallette, and would be learned at Mass, or in Religious education.

I do not think this would be interpreted as an instruction for parents to teach their children latin.
 
I’ve read that before, and have made sure my children know the proper responses in a Latin Mass. (and common prayers in Latin)

It is very much a teaching of Vatican II and is sadly neglected in most Religious Education programs.
40.png
Mysty101:
I do not think this would be interpreted as an instruction for parents to teach their children latin.
Click to expand...
How would children be able to respond in Latin, as Vatican II requires, if they are not taught the responses in Latin?
Now this is different from teaching them the Latin Language, per se, but children should be taught the correct responses and the meanings of the responses.
 
40.png
SFH:
The Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy s. 54 states: “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

This directive has never been repealed by the Vatican.

Do priests and parents who don’t teach their children their parts of the Mass in Latin as required by this section need to go to confession to confess the sin of disobedience? Or are such priests and parents schismatics because they reject the authority of Vatican II by refusing to obey its directives?
Click to expand...
It says “steps should be taken,” not “steps must be taken.” It’s more of a recommendation. I agree, though, that steps should be taken, but I don’t think someone is sinning for not taking those steps.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
It says “steps should be taken,” not “steps must be taken.” It’s more of a recommendation. I agree, though, that steps should be taken, but I don’t think someone is sinning for not taking those steps.
Click to expand...
The sin isn’t on the parents, but it IS a directive to the Bishops.

(and it IS very much a directive, NOT a recommendation)
 
40.png
Brendan:
The sin isn’t on the parents, but it IS a directive to the Bishops.

(and it IS very much a directive, NOT a recommendation)
Click to expand...
I agree with you; I wish it were. But why would they use the word “should” instead of “must” or “shall.”?
 
During lent, we are kneeling at the beginning of mass for the penitential part, and after the priest says stuff we are being led by a cantor, and singing the Kyrie. (Yeah, I know, Greek, don’t jump on me). I’m sure stuff like this is ensuring that the kids in the congregation know those responses.

Anyway, I seriously doubt the directive is aimed at parents, given the context. Here is some of it:
  1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
Click to expand...
And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.
Click to expand...
Are we sure that second paragraph isn’t talking about having it be okay or allowable to have the responses by the people to be in latin? That is completely different from a directive to teach latin responses.

I think the requirement to teach kids to speak a latin repsonse would be likely inferred simply by kids needing to be taught how to participate in the mass, since sometimes that participation has a latin response. It is just common sense. Post vat2 documents like Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery include instructions on teaching kids and preparing them for first communion (see numbers 14 and 15).
 
Well, after all, Latin is still the official language
of the Roman Catholic Church. Here in the US
we use an English translation of the official
Latin . But nowhere does it say we all must
be fluent in Latin— either before or after V2.
It is part of our heritage and we can benefit
from knowing some—as well as Greek and
Hebrew.

Amen
 
40.png
Brendan:
I’ve read that before, and have made sure my children know the proper responses in a Latin Mass. (and common prayers in Latin)

It is very much a teaching of Vatican II and is sadly neglected in most Religious Education programs.

How would children be able to respond in Latin, as Vatican II requires, if they are not taught the responses in Latin?
Now this is different from teaching them the Latin Language, per se, but children should be taught the correct responses and the meanings of the responses.
Click to expand...
Then the sin is on the Religious Ed programs, or perhaps the instructions should be given at Mass.

Are parents expected to teach their children the hymns at Mass? I don’t think so.
 
Kind of a weird question. And the Latin isn’t hard at all, so in a short time period a kid could learn the Latin. My pap says all his boys knew how to serve tridentine mass back in the days when they were 7 years old. I’ve been able to respond in latin (yes in a novus ordo mass) since I was a kid.
 
What a odd question. Schism is only determined by Rome, not by discussion or consensus. If the Pope does not declare one in schism, they are not.

Nor would the Pope ever declare someone in schism for a neglect such as this. It’s not like, say… going off and making your own bishops.
 
Do priests and parents who don’t teach their children their parts of the Mass in Latin as required by this section need to go to confession to confess the sin of disobedience? Or are such priests and parents schismatics because they reject the authority of Vatican II by refusing to obey its directives?
Click to expand...
Heck, no. First of all, none of the mass is in Latin, so there aren’t any parts to be learned by children.

Secondly, the faithful aren’t required to read the documents of the Vatican council, or to interpret them. That’s up to the bishops and priests to do, and to give instructions to the faithful as how to implement this directive if necessary.

Third, I don’t think that labeling people willy nilly as “schismatics” or “heretics” or “cafeteria” or whatever, really serves any useful purpose. Its seems like everyone wants to unceremoniously chuck everyone else with a slightly different opinion or idea out of the church. I really don’t think that this is very traditional or helps the church in her mission.
 
40.png
SFH:
Do priests and parents who don’t teach their children their parts of the Mass in Latin as required by this section need to go to confession to confess the sin of disobedience? Or are such priests and parents schismatics because they reject the authority of Vatican II by refusing to obey its directives?
Click to expand...
Well, it looks like the extended downtime hasn’t done anything to boost the sanity level here.

What a ridiculous question.
 
I don’t have a liberal bone in my body, and I too think it a bit silly to be mired in tradition that has in and of itself evolved throughout the ages. After all, the Eucharistic Celebrations (Masses) of the early Church (pre-Constantine) were held in Greek, not Latin. It is only after Latin became the predominant language of the Western Roman Empire that the “Mass” began to be celebrated in Latin. So as things change, the Church adapts to the needs of the Faithful. Mass in the venacular is fine with me as long as Reverence abounds throughout the Celebration, which unfortunately, is often not the case. Reverence is the key, not language.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
I agree with you; I wish it were. But why would they use the word “should” instead of “must” or “shall.”?
Click to expand...
In the official Latin, it is a directive. The verb is in the imperative
Provideatur tamen ut christifideles etiam lingua latina partes Ordinarii Missae quae ad ipsos spectant possint simul dicere vel cantare.
Click to expand...
In either case, the English word ‘should’ does not necessarly imply a choice.

Take a look at Luke 3

7John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? …

10“What should we do then?” the crowd asked.

11John answered, “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.”

Is John saying this a just a recommendation, or is it a commandment necessary for salvation?

Or Luke 12
11“When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”
Click to expand...
Is the Holy Spirit giving recommendations here? Or are they closer to commands.
 
40.png
Kendall:
I don’t have a liberal bone in my body, and I too think it a bit silly to be mired in tradition that has in and of itself evolved throughout the ages. After all, the Eucharistic Celebrations (Masses) of the early Church (pre-Constantine) were held in Greek, not Latin. It is only after Latin became the predominant language of the Western Roman Empire that the “Mass” began to be celebrated in Latin. So as things change, the Church adapts to the needs of the Faithful. Mass in the venacular is fine with me as long as Reverence abounds throughout the Celebration, which unfortunately, is often not the case. Reverence is the key, not language.
Click to expand...
This is a sensible response to the question. Without a doubt it is not up to parents to teach their children Latin. Since we have moved to the vernacular Mass it is not necessary to know Latin.

I do agree that the real issue should not be language but should be reverence.

MaggieOH
 
My pastor is in trouble. He does not know any Latin. I guess I could help him if we got a directive to mix in a little Latin. I still remember some of mine.

Deacon Tony
 
Are you kidding-making the parents responsible for not teaching Latin-have you seen what is actually taught in the seminaries, or most of them for that matter-or the RCIA instruction for catechism teachers? Our Bishop here , Mansion Murphy got a write up in Newday for not even knowing Latin and flubbing some basic verbiage of the mass as I guess he was trying to inject a bit of tradition into the rather liberal Novus Ordo Mass that takes place each and evey week in our diocese.
40.png
SFH:
The Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy s. 54 states: “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

This directive has never been repealed by the Vatican.

Do priests and parents who don’t teach their children their parts of the Mass in Latin as required by this section need to go to confession to confess the sin of disobedience? Or are such priests and parents schismatics because they reject the authority of Vatican II by refusing to obey its directives?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Brendan:
In either case, the English word ‘should’ does not necessarly imply a choice.
.
Click to expand...
I do not agree. If we look at the language of other documents, the word “must” is used when there is no choice.
RS104. The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top