With this constant undermining of and attacking on the Latin language, how can we have any kind of intelligent discussion on Catholic theology and Mass, which is Latin-based? Doesn’t being the official language of the Catholic Church, which claims over 1.3 billion members, have any meaning? That’s more people than speak Mandarin. Well over 2 billion claim to be Christians and how many read or hear even a little Christian Latin, (or even Greek), which goes all the way back to Christ? Compared with other major religions of the world and how many worship in a non-vernacular, something’s not right here.
Of course, people prefer a language (Duh!) which they are taught at a young age. So why aren’t we ALSO teaching our Catholic kids Latin at such an age, instead of complaining that we don’t understand Latin? Did the Reformers set the rules for the rest of us?
youtube.com/watch?v=HZHRCuEjpbA&feature=related
And that’s all I’m going to say on this thread.
Not having read the entire thread, I can’t say whether anyone here has undermined or attacked Latin let alone undermining and attacking it. I don’t have a dog in the fight - I am a “boomer” and I grew up in a Church that said the Mass in Latin. Having become an altar boy at the age of 11 and having learned to parrot the proper phrases at the proper time, I can attest that at that point I did not learn Latin. I simply was capable of parroting phrases somewhat close to what should be said, just as the rest of my classmates did. And back then, I don’t recall anyone teaching their children Latin; so why they are not doing so now is probably the same reason no one then taught kids at 6 months, a year, three years old, kindergarten, or grade school children Latin - except for teachers, precious few people actually knew Latin as aspoken language. In the 50’s and into the early 60’s Latin was still being taught in secular high schools as well as Catholic high schools, but the vast majority of it was taught as a translated language, not a spoken one - as I found out when I transferred from one Catholic high school to another. I was flat out lost when joining a high school that taught by what was called the “Sweet” method (after the professor who put the spoken language program together) and as a result, I didn’t go back to Latin until college (two more years of it - again, as translated rather than spoken). However, I finished high school reading and translating Homeric Greek, with a bit of koinae thrown in. And in that I was in an extreme minority.
Several years ago I had access to statistics as to how many Masses were said world wide in Latin, and it was miniscual. the flat out reality is that it has not caught on to any large degree; assuming, for example, that Chicago archdiocese ( which two years ago had 12 parishes with Latin Masses) has doubled since then, that means that 94% of the parishes do not have a Latin Mass. And it needs to be acknowledged that a) they have encouraged it and b) there is still a lack of priests who know enough of the Latin and the rubrics to do it correctly, and so even where encouraged it has not made much headway. Again, that’s assuming they now have 24 parishes with it, and I have no factual knowledge of such.
Even the Pope, when he resolved the issue that the Mass could be said as the Extraordinary Form, noted in his letter that he did not expect it to be widespread. It will make some headway, it will increase over time, and it will be more available. Factually, the great majority of people are either completely ignorant of the EF, or simply have little or no interest; something that makes proponents of it upset.
We have two Eastern rite churches in our area; one Ruthinian and one Maronite. And I would far prefer to go to the Maronite Holy Mysteries; the pastor there is a hermit, a scholar, and an awesome liturgist as he is wholly present to the Holy Mysteries; while the bi-ritual priest who presides at the Ruthinian service seems to take it on as a duty; he is a bit rushed, and has little sense of liturgical presence. Perhaps another way of saying it: one seems to say the service; the other seems to pray it.
And that perhaps goes farther to the heart of the issue than much else; a priest that prays the Mass, whether it is in Latin or the vernacular is going to provide something far different in worship than one who simply says the Mass. The issue is simply not about Latin, as the Eastern Churches in union don’t use Latin. The issue is far more complex than that. I suffered through a priest, for years, who “said” the Mass - sometimes drunk, sometimes sober, and there were times he prayed the Mass, There were far more times he said it; and both were in Latin. I have had the same experience in English, and had it also in the Ruthinian rite (said) and the Maronite rite (prayed).
Are there theological differences in the prayers and the rubrics between the EF and the OF? only someone ignorant of both, or of theology would say there is no difference. However, we have had three popes ( and granted one was for days only) who have said the OF and continue to say the OF, and I don’t consider the two who lasted longer than a month to be fools or idiots when it comes to theology. Have both said that the OF needs work? Yep. And yet they keep saying it, day in, week out, month over and year after.
so perhaps the issues are not as great as some would make them to be (which is not to minimalize them, but perhaps to give a bit of perspective).
Am I anti-EF? Absolutely not; I wish it were available to every person attending. The whole issue would sort itself out quickly, rather than going on ad infinitum via the internet.
Which is why/ how the romance languages developed, they thought they were speaking Latin generally (particularly between 500 - 800 AD).
