Fast-Spoken Latin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alcuin18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
That’s quite a sweeping statement. The fact of using Latin teaches a tremendous amount about the faith.
 
Really? I think of it more as a ‘both-and’. When you teach about the Faith you certainly can be, and should be ‘teaching the Faith’. I truly don’t think it is constructive to imply that that there are ‘factions’ where people ONLY teach ‘about’ the Faith but don’t live it. In fact, can you give me an example of the reverse then, where people ‘teach the faith ‘but do not ‘teach about it?” It seems impossible.
 
Maximian 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...
That’s quite a sweeping statement. The fact of using Latin teaches a tremendous amount about the faith.
Click to expand...
It does indeed — if you know Latin.

Most people don’t, and the “simple faithful” of times past didn’t either.

Either the OF or the EF/TLM contain a wealth of teaching, but you have to understand first what is being said.
 
Montrose said:
242297_2.png
HomeschoolDad:
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.
Click to expand...
In the sense that the term “Church teaching” is commonly understood, that is true.

But then I would have to ask whether what the Council of Trent said, constituted true, immutable Catholic teaching, or whether it was merely a directive suited for those times and cultures — whether discipline, recommendation, prudent and well-founded opinion, or what is called in the contemporary business world “best practices”.

I would like to see a more precise definition of the term “Church teaching” — not to suggest that you were imprecise, I’d just like to see what kind of “things the Church says” constitute teaching, what kinds do not, and what kinds are immutable doctrine, moral teaching, or dogma.
 
That’s not true. I don’t speak Latin (I’m learning now) but when I went to the Holy Sacrifice, despite not understanding the words, I understood what was happening and knew what it was.

I did not get the same understanding from all my time in the NO parish.

You just have to pay attention.
[/quote]

I had in mind the didactic function of “understanding the prayers and understanding what they mean”, then learning that way. I don’t imagine for a moment that a devoted soul would have any problem at all “understanding what is happening”. My Spanish is very spotty, however, I am able to assist at the Spanish OF with no problem, precisely for that reason, and I typically don’t use a missal because I find it hinders my devotion more than it helps.

The sermon, I’m totally lost. Can’t be helped.
 
All I can say is that the great missionary endeavours in the continents outside Europe were conducted by priests saying the Latin Mass.

No one is talking about sermons in Latin, we are talking about the liturgy.

By contrast, a collapse in confidence in and comprehension of the faith has coincided with the arrival of the vernacular Mass. I accept that there are other forces at play (Zeitgeist, militant secularism, the permissive society etc) but it is not unfair to say that the contribution of the vernacular to stemming the draining of the faith has been zero.

However, all is not lost: now that we are allowed the old Mass again, it is attracting above all people who (a) are young and (b) guess what? Don’t know any Latin.

Go figure.
 
Last edited:
The Latin-English missals seem sufficient to understand the Mass, and through catechesis the prayers can be learned even without Latin fluency. Perhaps this need for effort and sacrifice contributed to Catholics in past ages being generally more orthodox than modern Catholics, for whom the Mass is felt to cater to and depend on them. However, even in vernacular, the Tridentine Mass, like the Eastern liturgies, seem theologically richer, whereas to me the NO feels more ‘stripped-down’. As a convert, the NO’s similarity to traditional Protestant services seems to contribute to Catholic misunderstandings about the Mass today.

Also, one of the best arguments I have heard for the use of Latin is its universality. Whereas the NO necessitates Masses for each language and thus segregates people, Latin can be used by all in one voice. My intention with this thread wasn’t to argue against the Latin Mass but to help prepare for whenever I finally have the chance to attend one.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
It does indeed — if you know Latin.
Click to expand...
No. You have missed my point altogether. It is the FACT of Latin being used which I am talking about, regardless of the level of comprehension of the people who happen to be there.

Here are some lessons that the use itself teaches:
  • that the church is universal and has its own language
  • that the church on earth is united with the faithful departed who worshipped in the same language
  • that the meaning of the Mass is objective and not subject to personal preference
  • that the church is founded on tradition
  • that it is for the faithful to approach the Mass, not for the Mass to approach the faithful.
  • that the faithful must not be ghettoised according to their mother tongue
 
Maximian said:
Er… did you not see my post immediately above yours?
Click to expand...
Believe or not I didn’t but now had a look.

The Church has different languages. Latin is the official language of the Latin Church and not the other 23 Churches that make up the Catholic Church.
I also don’t agree with your second point. Millions of faithful departed have never even been to a Latin Mass.
As for point three we do in fact have the personal choice to attend a Latin Mass or not.
Don’t even understand what you are trying to say in point five about the Mass not approaching the faithful.
The faithful are NOT “ghettoised according to their mother tongue.”
 
Last edited:
Montrose said:
The faithful are NOT “ghettoised according to their mother tongue.”
Click to expand...
Have you never been in a city where, in a single diocese, there is one Mass for the English speakers, another for Spanish speakers, a third for Chinese, another for Poles, another for Italians?
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
Have you never been in a city where, in a single diocese, there is one church for the English speakers, another for Soanish speakers, a third for Chinese, another for Poles, another for Italians?
Click to expand...
Why would that be a problem. It’s the same as if they were back in their home countries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top