Can the Latin mass speak to all?

[ProVobis]

there is no reason for ignorance about the Mass, whether it is in Latin or the local language.

It’s not a one or the other thing. But certainly some of those present should know that when the Pope says declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae…renuntiare, he means that he is officially renouncing the Papacy, don’t you think? Over 1.2 billion Catholics all looking at one another wondering what the Pope just said sounds to me like a serious problem.

 

[Esrb99]

Here’s my take on it: Vatican II allowed for the vernacular. However, it also said that the faithful should know the parts proper to them in latin for the mass. Ergo, if a priest was celebrating the mass, and said, “Dominus Vobiscum,” would the majority of lay faithful know how to respond?

Also, the mass as a standard should be sun. Is the principal mass of each holy day celebrated with the mass sung? This is the standard.

If a certain parish is not following these directives, it could be argued that they are explicitly not following Vatican II.

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s my take on it: Vatican II allowed for the vernacular. However, it also said that the faithful should know the parts proper to them in latin for the mass. Ergo, if a priest was celebrating the mass, and said, “Dominus Vobiscum,” would the majority of lay faithful know how to respond?

Also, the mass as a standard should be sun. Is the principal mass of each holy day celebrated with the mass sung? This is the standard.

If a certain parish is not following these directives, it could be argued that they are explicitly not following Vatican II.

They are not following the requests of Paul VI either when he issued Jubilate Deo.

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

 

[otjm]

It’s not a one or the other thing. But certainly some of those present should know that when the Pope says declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae…renuntiare, he means that he is officially renouncing the Papacy, don’t you think? Over 1.2 billion Catholics all looking at one another wondering what the Pope just said sounds to me like a serious problem.

+Well, for starters, two years of Latin forty or fifty years later may or may not be enough to translate what he said. And I am fairly sure that the great majority of the 1.2 billion Catholics did not take any Latin. So no, no surprise there. and within the group of news reporters who were covering it, the odds are even worse.

I am not surprised he spoke in Latin, as it is the official language and this was an official pronouncement. Nor do I suggest he should have done otherwise.

Nor am I surprised at the initial lack of understanding.

 

[Nesrad]

If a certain parish is not following these directives, it could be argued that they are explicitly not following Vatican II.

Liberals pick and choose what they like from Vatican II. Most choose to overlook “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved” and bluntly assert that Vatican II did away with Latin. They have done the same thing with the Mass. The Council advocated cautious reform of the Mass, stating: “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC 23). But what happened after the Council was something else entirely: “In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger).

 

[october_baby]

Liberals pick and choose what they like from Vatican II. Most choose to overlook “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved” and bluntly assert that Vatican II did away with Latin. They have done the same thing with the Mass. The Council advocated cautious reform of the Mass, stating: “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC 23). But what happened after the Council was something else entirely: “In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger).

That’s what I was getting at in a earlier post, but no one bothered to respond.

 

[Mike30]

It managed to do it for hundreds and hundreds of years. I don’t see why it still cannot do so.

 

[triumphguy]

I could translate “natura” by “ice cream sandwich” and that wouldn’t make it so.

It does state that Latin is “full of majesty,” and if you consider other languages to be just as majestic insofar as Veterum Sapientia is concerned, you’re turning the document into a farce.

What you’re saying is: “Yes, Latin is majestic, but no more than any other language, so any language can be used instead of Latin.” That turns the encyclical into a useless document. What’s the point in saying a language is majestic if all languages are majestic?

Latin is also full of vulgarity and foul language.

Just read some Catullus.

Latin is no more majestic and no more foul than any other language.

It is a dead language. It has ceased to be. It has shuffled of its mortal coil and popped its clogs. And that’s why, as Baelor says, it was such a useful language.

What is true, is that Latin was used to compose some wonderful prayers and hymns. And it would be sad to lose that heritage, that tradition.

But Latin as a language is not intrinsically more transcendent than any other.

 

[mburn16]

Liberals pick and choose what they like from Vatican II.

…as do many Conservatives.

 

[Nesrad]

Latin is no more majestic and no more foul than any other language.

Why did John XXIII say that Latin is “majestic” in Veterum Sapientia? Couldn’t he have written that Latin is no more majestic than any other language?

 

[Nesrad]

…as do many Conservatives.

Undoubtedly, but it would be nice if you gave an example.

 

[Portrait]

Liberals pick and choose what they like from Vatican II. Most choose to overlook “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved” and bluntly assert that Vatican II did away with Latin. They have done the same thing with the Mass. The Council advocated cautious reform of the Mass, stating: “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC 23). But what happened after the Council was something else entirely: “In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger).

Dear Nesrad,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said and my sentiments entirely.

What deeply saddens me is that today we seem to have lost the sense of the numinous in divine worship, which has resulted in worldly informality and even irreverence. Holy Mass in some places resembles more a Protestant Pentecostal style service, complete with hand clapping and swaying in the pews. This free and easy approach favoured by so many contemporary Catholics, especially the youth, is a most undignified affair - truly, “a banal on-the-spot product” which makes one inwardly shiver.

The faithful, dear friend, need to remember that the Mass is not a sermon but a Sacrifice. Thus it should never be said that the use of Latin in the services of the Church is an impediment to participation and worship, as some modern Catholics are wont to argue. Indeed, if it were such an impediment, then there would be no obligation to attend Holy Mass in foreign parts, unless one knew the local language or the language of the liturgy.

Moreover, dear friend, Latin expresses the inherently ‘traditional’ (that is to say, handed-on) nature of the sacred liturgy, and commands the deepest respect and adherence of the faithful. The Latin Rite is beyond partiality, trivialisation and vulgarity and rises above the ceasless changes in living languages, thus rendering it apt to express those eternal verities upon which the liturgy depends. Moreover, its mysterious and venerable character aids in transporting men’s minds beyond the limit of the present moment to the contemplation of the divine and invisible. Surely this is really what both young and old require amidst the frivolity and shallowness of the present age. It is verily a ‘majestic language’.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

Why did John XXIII say that Latin is “majestic” in Veterum Sapientia? Couldn’t he have written that Latin is no more majestic than any other language?

Nesrad, you are being insidious by not responding to my posts and then trying to ensnare others in the same traps, easily dismantled, with which you tried to ensnare me. You will not succeed.

I addressed this ridiculous charge earlier. Below is my response:

Me:

Because the author felt that it was majestic. The fact that Latin is immutable does not mean that no other language is immutable. The fact that Latin is non-vernacular does not mean that no other language is non-vernacular. The fact that Latin is universal does not mean that no other language is, was, or will be universal.

You did not reply. I think that we all know why.

Furthermore, your request is even more absurd than it appears: the reference to the majesty of Latin is actually a quotation from another document, making your question even more irrelevant.

It is manifest – manifestum est, if you prefer – that you are simply wrong. You have no argument at all. Your position is simply untenable. “Sapientia Veterum” did not claim that Latin was the most majestic language; it did not imply that Latin was the most majestic language. To suggest otherwise is either willfully naive or malevolent.

 

[Portrait]

Latin is also full of vulgarity and foul language.

Just read some Catullus.

Latin is no more majestic and no more foul than any other language.

It is a dead language. It has ceased to be. It has shuffled of its mortal coil and popped its clogs. And that’s why, as Baelor says, it was such a useful language.

What is true, is that Latin was used to compose some wonderful prayers and hymns. And it would be sad to lose that heritage, that tradition.

But Latin as a language is not intrinsically more transcendent than any other.

Dear triumphguy,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

It is precisely because it is a dead language that we ought to cling on to it.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Nesrad]

Nesrad, you are being insidious by not responding to my posts and then trying to ensnare others in the same traps, easily dismantled, with which you tried to ensnare me. You will not succeed.

I addressed this ridiculous charge earlier. Below is my response:

You did not reply. I think that we all know why.

Furthermore, your request is even more absurd than it appears: the reference to the majesty of Latin is actually a quotation from another document, making your question even more irrelevant.

It is manifest – manifestum est, if you prefer – that you are simply wrong. You have no argument at all. Your position is simply untenable. “Sapientia Veterum” did not claim that Latin was the most majestic language; it did not imply that Latin was the most majestic language. To suggest otherwise is either willfully naive or malevolent.

Dir sir,

Would you be so kind as to refrain from insulting me by calling me insidious, naive or malevolent.

Thank you and good-bye.

 

[ProVobis]

“the use of the Latin language is to be preserved”

FWIW, here is what Michael Davies adds to that:

Another aspect of Article 36 which upholds the continued use of Latin has been pointed out by Professor Louis Salleron. Not only does Article 36 state specifically that Latin “is to be retained in the Latin rites” (in ritibus latinis servetur: the jussive subjunctive servetur denotes a command), but it can also be said to denote this in a negative manner. For had the three paragraphs which have been cited intended that the vernacular should become the norm, writes Professor Salleron, “the construction of the text would have been reversed. We would have read something like this: 'The use of vernacular languages will be introduced into the Latin rite . . . ’ and any exceptions or reservations in favor of the Latin language would then have been listed.” [Salleron, pp. 19-20.]

This observation is reinforced by the instruction in Article 36.3 stating that the competent territorial authority can decide whether and to what extent the vernacular is to be used, in accordance with the norms laid down. The use of the word “whether” makes it quite clear that the vernacular need never be used at all. Similarly, Article 116 states:

  The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as proper to  the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. Other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Article 30.

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/v2-bombs10.htm

 

[Baelor]

Dir sir,

Would you be so kind as to refrain from insulting me by calling me insidious, naive or malevolent.

Thank you and good-bye.

And yet you fail to answer any of the reasonable questions posed to you, or even rebut the charges that are demonstrably correct? I will pray for you.

 

[Nesrad]

And yet you fail to answer any of the reasonable questions posed to you, or even rebut the charges that are demonstrably correct? I will pray for you.

I would consider answering if you asked in a civilized manner and if your questions were worth answering. As it stands, neither condition is met.

 

[CMatt25]

Do you love the Church enough to learn her language?

Did Christ and His disciples love the Church? Yet I did a search and was just reading an old thread on CAF. Sounded like He and they more likely spoke Aramaic and Greek. So I’m confident Jesus is fine with the vernacular.

 

[ProVobis]

Did Christ and His disciples love the Church? Yet I did a search and was just reading an old thread on CAF. Sounded like He and they more likely spoke Aramaic and Greek. So I’m confident Jesus is fine with the vernacular.

Yet Christ Himself worshipped in a non-vernacular.