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

[chevalier]

Just about how many Catholics know Latin? Even among priests? Let alone have teaching skills… If someone goes to a Latin mass habitually, he’s supposed to understand the responses and be able to say them. The Church is supposed to preserve the Latin language, that’s about it.

I know Latin and would always go to a Latin mass before a vernacular one, but what’s wrong with not knowing even those Latin responses if one doesn’t ever go to Latin mass?

Eh, we had a Pope who didn’t know Latin back in middle ages where Latin was the norm (formally it’s still the norm and vernacular languages are an exception per Vaticanum II documents) - Coelestinus V.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

“The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

Constitution on the Liturgy, Art. 36:1

The question, then, could just as easily be asked: Are bishops and priests who don’t use Latin in their celebration of Mass schismatic?

My answer is, clearly no. For whatever reason, the majority of the Church decided to move away from the use of Latin in the mid 60’s. Even the first draft of the Catechism was written in French because most of the bishops today aren’t familiar enough with the Latin language.

There is a small, but very passionate, group of people in the Church who want to preserve Latin as a liturgical language in both the traditional and new Mass. Even our Holy Father has expressed a desire for some Latin to be used in the Mass. But, like most pronouncements from the Pope, this was ignored.

Personally, I’d rather see a Mass celebrated with dignity and reverence in English by a good priest, than see some bishop try his hand at a Latin Mass just because it’s the latest chic thing promoted by a questionable “liturgist.” :nope:

 

[chevalier]

It takes a reverent priest to make “this is My Body” sound like “hoc est enim corpus meum”.

Call me blase, but I so love it when the priest raises the host and the cup high and speaks the words in a loud resounding voice without needing a microphone or any artificial help for that.

Actually, “meum corpus” sounds better (even if “corpus meum” looks more proper in Latin), but I rarely see or hear this version.

 

[Kielbasi]

Just about how many Catholics know Latin? Even among priests? Let alone have teaching skills… QUOTE]

Very, very few. The vast majority of Catholics, or noncatholics for that matter, have enough latin to read the motto on a pack of cigarettes.

If someone goes to a Latin mass habitually, he’s supposed to understand the responses and be able to say them.

That’s not true, unless you’re talking about the priest or altar servers. The faithful traditionally remain silent and pray during the latin mass.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

chevalier:

It takes a reverent priest to make “this is My Body” sound like “hoc est enim corpus meum”.

Call me blase, but I so love it when the priest raises the host and the cup high and speaks the words in a loud resounding voice without needing a microphone or any artificial help for that.

Actually, “meum corpus” sounds better (even if “corpus meum” looks more proper in Latin), but I rarely see or hear this version.

I assume you’re talking about the new Mass in Latin? At every traditional Latin Mass I’ve attended, the words of consecration are always spoken inaudably. The priest could be saying, “You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around.” for all I know.

 

[Mysty101]

chevalier:

It takes a reverent priest to make “this is My Body” sound like “hoc est enim corpus meum”.

Call me blase, but I so love it when the priest raises the host and the cup high and speaks the words in a loud resounding voice without needing a microphone or any artificial help for that.

Actually, “meum corpus” sounds better (even if “corpus meum” looks more proper in Latin), but I rarely see or hear this version.

You know Latin, and think Meum Corpus looks better than Corpus Meum? I only had 3 years HighSchool Latin, but to me, Meum Corpus, sounds like someone trying to translate word for word, without knowledge of Latin.

 

[SFH]

rcn:

Well, it looks like the extended downtime hasn’t done anything to boost the sanity level here.

What a ridiculous question.

That is an ad hominem attack not an argument or a defense of your position.

Vatican II used the permissive when it referred to the introduction of the vernacular, but it used the imperative when it talked about retaining the Latin language (e.g., “Provideatur tamen ut christifideles etiam lingua latina partes Ordinarii Missae quae ad ipsos spectant possint simul dicere vel cantare”).

Plus, the passages on retention of Latin are not directed solely to the clergy. It seems to me that in the absence of bishops or priests willing to implement the directives of Vatican II, parents and godparents have an affirmative obligation to seek Catholic Churches or instructors who can teach their children the parts of the Mass in Latin.

Just because many Catholic clergy and laity ignored the directives of Vatican II, does not make the current liturgical situation in the Catholic Church acceptable or conformable to Vatican II. In the same way, the widespread rejection of the Nicene Creed after the council of Nicea by the eastern Catholic Churches did not make Arianism acceptable or conformable to the council of Nicea.

So my question remains … If you as a Catholic know you have an obligation to learn your parts of the Mass in Latin and make sure your children are taught the parts of the Mass in Latin (and you certainly know after this post), have you committed the sin of disobedience if you do not learn or at least try to learn your parts of the Mass in Latin and see that your children learn their parts of the Mass in Latin? And if you know Vatican II directed that Latin be retained but you insist that it didn’t and try to purge all Latin from the Mass, have you denied the authority of an ecumenical council (i.e., committed a heresy) and in the process separated yourself from the unity of the Catholic Church (i.e., excommunication or schism where valid sacraments are still maintained)?

 

[Brendan]

The point here is not that the latin language be taught, but the faithful’s proper responses be taught,

My 6 year old and my 4 year old both know that we the priest says

“omnia saecula saeculorum”

They say “Amen”

or when the priest says “Dominus vobiscum”

They say the Pope’s phone number “Eight two spiri two two oh”

And they know enought of the “Pater Noster” to echo the last line " Sed Libera Nos a Malo"

And they know what they are saying.

Now if 2 small children can be taught that, why not any of the faithful

(and do attend a NO Mass, the kids have been to a Latin Mass all of once in their lives)

 

[Brendan]

Mysty101:

I do not agree. If we look at the language of other documents, the word “must” is used when there is no choice.

Vatican documents are definitive in the Latin only. The Latin is in the imperative tense. There it is an instruction.

And do you have an opinion on the Bible quotes I provided, are they recommendations only?

 

[Tim_Faremouth]

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.”

Can you pls provide examples ??

Shalom, Tim

 

[SFH]

Tim Faremouth:

Can you pls provide examples ??

Shalom, Tim

Examples of the parts of the Mass the laity should know in Latin include:

(1) the response, “Et cum spiritu tuo”;
(2) the Confiteor;
(3) the Gloria;
(4) the responses “Deo gratias,” “Gloria tibi Domine,” and “Laus tibi Christe” to the Readings
(5) the response to the Prayers of the Faithful “Supplices te rogamus”;
(6) the Credo;
(7) the responses “Suscipiat Dominus …”; “Habemus ad Dominum”; and “Dignum et justum est”;
(8) the three Mysterium fidei responses;
(9) the Pater Noster and response “quia tuum est regnum et potestas et gloria in saecula”;
(10) the Agnus Dei;
(11) the prayer “Domine non sum dignus …”; and
(12) the concluding “Et cum spiritu tuo” and “Deo gratias”

Because these parts of the Mass are the same every time, it seems that the Council Fathers had these passages in mind when they legislated that Catholics were to be taught their parts of the Mass in Latin.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

for some reason this thread refuses to die. taken literally, this question distresses me more than it confuses me. there’s something wrong when such extremism is used. it is like “death for parking violations.”

that being said, i’d like to clear up some info in a previous post:

In the official Latin, it is a directive. The verb is in the imperative

Quote:
Provideatur tamen ut christifideles etiam lingua latina partes Ordinarii Missae quae ad ipsos spectant possint simul dicere vel cantare.

In either case, the English word ‘should’ does not necessarly imply a choice.

The main verb here provideo, providere is not in the imperative. that is the present passive subjunctive. because it is in the subjunctive, translation cannot help but be somewhat interpretive. the subjunctive is always informed by the context.

the verb means ‘provide for, make provision’ in the context of ‘to foresee’ since there is no subjuct or object of the verb, this is the impersonal passive, as in “it is…” the subjunctive gives these options as to meaning: optative–“it is wished or desired that…” or deliberative–“should it be that…” or command–“let it be that…” “it shall be that…” this sentence is not deliberative.

thus if it is taken as a mere recommendation from the Council, they are saying ‘it is desired that provisions be made so that the laity (Christian faithful) may (might) be able…’ (possint is also subjunctive.) anyone who reads this and then does otherwise is basically saying ‘too bad, they want ice water in hell too.’ IMO for the Council, a wish and a command are the same. so this really says 'let provisions be made…" or ‘provisions shall be made…’

those provisions could be slight or overt, but certainly there is no risk of hell and damnation. for centuries, people have barely been able to correctly ask for a glass of water in latin. let’s not expect too much.

 

[kmktexas]

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?

I am not at home and don’t have access to my copy of the docs of VII but if memory serves me correctly the directive to make sure that the faithful is able to say and sing parts of the Mass is a directive to Bishops. If the Bishop is not doing this and the parents and/or priests step in, that is very nobel. Not doing so would not be disobedient, though, since it is not an obligation that was placed on parents or pastors. For the Bishop, if he were not encouraging and/or teaching at least the minimum of Mass prayers in Latin, he would be acting disobediently and depending on the other conditions for mortal sin possibly in need of Confession and ammendment.

The only way a priest of parent could be disobedient to this specific directive would be if they went against a Bishop who was obediently implementing it. For example, if a pastor refused to obey a Bishop’s instruction to include Latin regularly at Mass or if a parent picked Masses for the express purpose of avoiding exposing their children to the Latin prayers, they would be acting in a disobedient fasion.

As for schism, it takes more than that to put someone in schism.

 

[SFH]

JustSomeGuy:

for some reason this thread refuses to die. taken literally, this question distresses me more than it confuses me. there’s something wrong when such extremism is used. it is like “death for parking violations.”

Obviously, the question is not meant to be taken literally. Rather, the point about Latin is given as a concrete example of a much broader principle – the willy-nilly rejection of the decrees of an ecumenical council to suit one’s own tastes. If the Traditionalists have placed themselves in a state of schism by denying the validity of Vatican II, then it seems a fair question whether the Liberals who have rejected the decrees of that same council aren’t also in a state of schism.

Schism is the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i. e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.