Fast-Spoken Latin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alcuin18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alcuin18

Guest
Hello. This has probably been asked before, but are the Latin prayers and responses in the Extraordinary Form always spoken fast? Unfortunately there are no EF parishes near me, but after watching them on Youtube they seem to be faster than the vernacular in the OF. Is this the common EF practice?
 
How’s your Latin? If you don’t have an ear for it, it will naturally sound fast for you. Just like how Spanish speakers sound fast to English speakers who aren’t bilingual, or vice versa.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Good point. I am currently studying Latin but I’m certainly not fluent yet.
 
I have noticed that it depends a lot on how the Priest talks naturally, some will speak in English quite fast and others not so. It marries up with them speaking in Latin, some are fast and others not so.
 
alcuin18 said:
Hello. This has probably been asked before, but are the Latin prayers and responses in the Extraordinary Form always spoken fast? Unfortunately there are no EF parishes near me, but after watching them on Youtube they seem to be faster than the vernacular in the OF. Is this the common EF practice?
Click to expand...
Watch the new tv series Romulus. It’s in Latin.
 
Have you tried praying the rosary in Latin? At first one recites much more slowly and distincly than one would in one’s own language. But the more familiar it gets, the faster it goes.
 
I chant the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin. I’ve been known to step on the gas if I’m in a hurry to get somewhere, but liturgy, properly done whether in Latin or the Vernacular, should be at a measured pace, not rushed, nor artificially slowed down (except for the Carthusians who r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w d-o-w-n the doxology: G–l–o–r–I–a P–a–t–r–i… etc).
 
I’ve noticed this too.

The “vibe” I’ve always gotten, is that in the Traditional Latin Mass, there’s just an “understanding” that the language is directed towards Almighty God, and that it may therefore be spoken more rapidly, rather than “lingered over” in an attempt to sound dignified, as would happen in the vernacular. In other words, offering the Sacrifice is the priority, not being understood word-for-word even if the person assisting at Holy Mass does know Latin. Or seen from another angle, the priest is not trying to “impress” anyone (that doesn’t come out quite right, but I hope you see what I mean), nor use the Mass as a “teachable moment”. The best argument I’ve ever seen for a vernacular Mass, is that it serves as a tool to teach the Faith — Latin doesn’t.

I’ve heard it expressed before, that even the most rapidly-spoken liturgical Latin needs to be only so fast and no faster, as when it approaches “warp speed”, there can be a question as to reverence. I tend to be a very “mindful” person (to borrow a concept from Buddhism), I speak more slowly than the average contemporary American, and if I were a priest, I have to think I would speak the Latin as slowly as I speak English. My Masses might not be over in a hurry!
 
As a rural southerner, I tend to speak slower too. To me, in the liturgy, it should be slower not for dramatic effect or even intelligibility but for reverence and solemnity, as you said. I think the EF can be even more instructive than the OF (in its current modified form) because it is theologically richer. This can be communicated through the symbolism, and if the lay participants pray with the missal during Mass, as Pope Pius XII advised. Even though the emphasis is rightly on God and the Sacrifice rather than the audience, it seems to me that more deliberate recitation could accomplish this even more.

Also, praying the rosary and the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin is great advice to aid my comprehension, thank you!
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
“warp speed”
Click to expand...
I remember watching Greek Orthodox Christmas livestreams, and a deaconess was reading a part of the service. Her kyrie eleison was more-or-less at warp speed, and it sounded more like ‘klison’ five times a second.
 
I suspect this has nothing to do with the fact the Mass is being celebrated in Latin or that it could be the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I suspect it simply is the fact it is in a language in which you are not fluent. I remember having this explained to me by a professor when I was an undergraduate student. People in class were complaining that the French speak too fast. He explained the French make the same complaint about the English. In fact you can say that the [insert any language of your choice] think that the [insert another language of your choice] speak too fast.

Think about when you are in a large group of people, say at a party, you can probably listen into several conversations at once. We can do this because to get the gist of what is being said we don’t have to explicitly hear every single word. However, when you are listening to another language you try to listen to every word and your brain then analyses it. By the time you have understood something the speaker has moved on and you fell left behind. It is then natural to assume they speak too fast. They probably speak no faster than you but it is too fast for someone who isn’t fluent in the language.

I’ve noticed that if I listen to the liturgy in Latin I soon get lost and I’m not sure where the priest is up to unless I get some clue from his actions. However, if I follow along with the text in front of me I don’t think the priest is going to fast.
 
TomH1 said:
I suspect this has nothing to do with the fact the Mass is being celebrated in Latin or that it could be the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
Click to expand...
I have found that in the OF Latin Mass, especially when it is celebrated versus populum, the Latin tends to be as clearly enunciated as the English would be, and forgive me for saying so, but it is kind of like “trying to fit a square peg in a round hole”. It just doesn’t “feel quite right”.

I assisted at the OF Latin Mass whenever I could (then, as now with the TLM, a two-hour drive), and thought nothing of it at the time — I didn’t go to the TLM until 1987 — but after 33 years of having been immersed in the TLM, vernacular-paced Latin with the priest facing the people (which has nothing to do with language), pronouncing each word aloud… it just seems kind of weird.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
The best argument I’ve ever seen for a vernacular Mass, is that it serves as a tool to teach the Faith — Latin doesn’t.
Click to expand...
FWIW, the Council of Trent taught that the Mass shouldn’t be in the vernacular but should be explained in the vernacular. Sounds like a long Mass but that’s what it says.
 
When I saw the title of this, I thought to myself
“fast spoken Latin is called Italian”.
 
I attended a Greek Orthodox baptism a few years ago. The priest chanted the (long) baptism rite in a combination of Greek and English - switching back and forth. In both cases his chant speed was RAPID. So rapid that my ESL wife, and a friend who is a native English speaker but not religious and not used to chant, honestly didn’t know he used English at all. (I was able to follow it - it was clear - but rapid, and following chant isn’t always easy for those not used to it).
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
242297_2.png
HomeschoolDad:
The best argument I’ve ever seen for a vernacular Mass, is that it serves as a tool to teach the Faith — Latin doesn’t.
Click to expand...
FWIW, the Council of Trent taught that the Mass shouldn’t be in the vernacular but should be explained in the vernacular. Sounds like a long Mass but that’s what it says.
Click to expand...
It’s a quibble, for sure, but I have to wonder about using the word “taught”. My shorthand way of referring to “Church teachings” (which is probably wrong or at least too simplistic) has as its corollary “Church teachings can never change”. It’s probably better to consider “is it intrinsically evil to celebrate the Eucharistic liturgy in the vernacular?”. Clearly it is not, if it were, there could never have been such a thing as vernacular Eastern liturgies. So there is no question of a solemnly defined teaching.

What I am getting at, is that to speak of “Church teaching” in an instance such as this, is to say “Church teachings may indeed change, and that is acceptable”. All well and good, but this gives hope to dissidents that difficult or not-easily-received “teachings”, such as those on contraception, indissolubility of consummated, sacramental Christian marriage, women priests, homosexual acts, homosexual marriage, and so on, may some day be changed.

In short, we might be able to say that “not all ‘Church teaching’ is doctrinal, dogmatic, or rooted in the perennial, constant, unanimous (or nearly enough so) voice of the magisterium”. Again, I just don’t want to give false hope — or encouragement of the proposition that “we dissidents are right and the Church will eventually change to see it our way” — to those who disagree with Catholic doctrine or morality.

I have never been one to “use one word where ten will do” — I like to pick ideas apart and consider them from all angles (even the unsatisfying ones) — but the quick-and-dirty way to sum it up might be "what do we mean when we say ‘Catholic teaching’? ".
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
What I am getting at, is that to speak of “Church teaching” in an instance such as this, is to say “Church teachings may indeed change, and that is acceptable”. All well and good, but this gives hope to dissidents that difficult or not-easily-received “teachings”, such as those on contraception, indissolubility of consummated, sacramental Christian marriage, women priests, homosexual acts, homosexual marriage, and so on, may some day be changed.
Click to expand...
Church teachings have NEVER changed and can NEVER change.
 
Montrose said:
Church teachings have NEVER changed and can NEVER change.
Click to expand...
You mean, like in doctrine? That’s exactly what the Council of Trent states as the title of Session 22, among some of the other sessions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top