Francis to Abolish Summorum Pontificorum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I grew up with the Latin Mass and was an altar server for it. I also had to take Latin for two semesters in Catholic high school. The lower track kids took typing instead. Boy, were they way ahead of me years later when computers came in! I admit I got a wave of nostalgia when I attended a Mass in Italian at the Vatican. The Italian sounded close enough to the Latin that I could almost follow it. At least it had the same feel.

But I never thought the Latin Mass was a good idea. Why have a church service in a languages the congregation does not speak? It was native Latin speakers who nailed Jesus to the Cross. Native Latin speakers struck terror into the hearts of people like the Apostles. The only reason Latin became the language of the Church was just so The Emperor Constantine could convert Rome. There was no liturgical reason for it.

If we are going to have Mass in a dead language, I recommend Aramaic, like the Lebanese Catholics use for Mass. It’s the language Jesus actually spoke. What could be more appropriate?

But I think people should understand the Mass, not have to read along with a translation.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the Mass was officially changed to Latin across the board in the Latin Church during the Council of Trent to combat Protestantism. They thought that with the fragmentation that was occurring it would somehow be halted with a Mass that was uniform throughout Europe. Unlike Protestantism at the time.

But a Mass in Aramaic would be cool. If I had to guess, I would say there is some Eastern Catholic Churches who do it that way. Hmmm…
 
I have to consider that it has been five years and this hasn’t been on the radar. I would bet no one can quote the Holy Father where this is something he wants. I really do not know, but it sounds unlikely.
 
But the thing was, back in the day, people did know Latin, pretty much all academic works were released in Latin, etc. So it wasn’t a language not understood.
And as ecclesiastical latin was a little different from other Latin forms, it could be said to be holy, the language of the Church not taken in by the crudeness of common language.

Go anywhere today and odds are you’ll find much swearing if the language allows for it.
 
Last edited:
There are many variants of Latin language, but one of the biggest divisions is Classical Latin vs Vulgar Latin. The Church used a form of Classical Latin that has become known as Liturgical Latin. That dialect has not changed much since The Church started using it. Vulgar Latin is what the common people spoke. It is the language that eventually evolved into Italian. So even when and where a lot of people spoke Latin, The Church was using a dialect that was continually diverging from what people spoke. It would be like the Mass being done in Old English. Yeah, it’s English, but most of us couldn’t understand it.

Then there are the issues of social class and geography. Education was not common back in the day. The elite probably knew Latin, but not everyday folk. Also, common use of Latin was centered around Rome. As you got farther from Rome, the less Latin was used. So what you have is that as history moved forward from The Church adopting Classical Latin, it increasingly favored the elite, educated classes. Similarly, as you moved away from Rome, it became even more so.

My take on Jesus’ example was that He did not intend The Church to be for the elites.
 
Last edited:
I mean they studied Latin in schools.

One of the things about the Protestant revolution is that the priests barely understood Latin, and were not as well educated (this is fixed in the counter reformation).

But, the Mass is fairly ritualistic, and the only Latin one needed to know to understand the Mass isn’t too much.
 
Kei said:
One of the things about the Protestant revolution is that the priests barely understood Latin, and were not as well educated (this is fixed in the counter reformation).

But, the Mass is fairly ritualistic, and the only Latin one needed to know to understand the Mass isn’t too much.
Click to expand...
The propers of the mass are different for every day on the calendar. I think you are underestimating the amount of Latin used.

I can agree that Latin was a lot more widely known among educated people not so long ago. And not just Catholics, but educated people of all faiths. Most of your state mottos are Latin, as well as the mottos for different brands of cigarettes, “in hoc signo vinces” is used by one cigarette maker.
 
Yes, and before then, pretty much all educated persons knew Latin.

I do not know how well the lay people knew it but I imagine they at least knew the prayers in Latin
 
jfz178 said:
But why do it? Just because it sounds cool?
Click to expand...
I’m a Latin teacher, and no that is not the only reason to learn Latin. The vulgate is in Latin, Church documents are in Latin, 50% of English is based on Latin as are most European languages, Latin is the language of science and law, and some exorcisms are in Latin.

Latin language knowledge allows you to understand many Latin languages Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Romanian. It also helps you build up your knowledge of grammar.
 
jfz178 said:
But why do it? Just because it sounds cool?
Click to expand...
Latin is a stable language, unlike English or other vernacular tongues. The meanings and usage of the words don’t change in Latin.

An English translation is constantly in need of revision.
 
Because almost all of academia was in Latin, and Church documents were in Latin, and it doesn’t change as much as its a dead language.
For instance, Newtons papers are in Latin.

Not to mention, knowing Latin is the base for the romance languages, and so would help with understanding so much of languages.
 
Seems to me there’s a lot of utilitarianism here.

I recommend to you all a book I just finished, “Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: Why the Modern Age needs the Mass of Ages” by Peter Kwasniewski.

It will open your eyes, even if you disagree with some, most, or all of it, at least you’ll see that there IS ‘another side to the story’.
 
Entwhistler said:
Actually, the Mass was officially changed to Latin across the board in the Latin Church during the Council of Trent to combat Protestantism. They thought that with the fragmentation that was occurring it would somehow be halted with a Mass that was uniform throughout Europe. Unlike Protestantism at the time.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is accurate. Trent changed all of the Latin Church to the Roman Rite (except where the local Rite was already a few hundred years old). But I believe all those local rites were still in Latin.

After all, the whole West was called the Latin Church. All of the local rites in the West were part of the Latin Liturgical Family, and Trent simply required use of the Roman Rite and suppressed all newer local Latin Rites and Uses.

God Bless
 
Hmmm. I’m pretty sure there were some local churches saying Mass in the vernacular. I think in response to the Hussites in Bohemia, the Church there was allowed to say Mass in the vernacular. I don’t know how common that was though throughout Europe.
 
The Roman Canon was written in Latin a long time before Trent. A missal of 850 AD, for example, would probably be easily recognizable for the most part to today’s Latin Mass goer.
 
Indeed. A physics major with some Latin background may find Newton a delight to read. It’s available online now.

Galileo, Kepler, Sir Thomas More, and a host of Catholic missionaries also wrote their important works in Latin.
 
Entwhistler said:
Hmmm. I’m pretty sure there were some local churches saying Mass in the vernacular. I think in response to the Hussites in Bohemia, the Church there was allowed to say Mass in the vernacular. I don’t know how common that was though throughout Europe.
Click to expand...
OK… I guess I can see of situations in the very early Church in areas that were not part of the Roman Empire where a local mass was allowed in the vernacular when those areas were first evangelized. After all, we did have Uses of the Roman Rite in Native American languages after Trent but before Vatican II.

But as time went passed, Latin became the language of the educated for ALL of Western Europe, even the areas that were never part of the Roman Empire. So the reason for such an exception would become less.
 
Last edited:
The main corpus of Gregorian chant, in Latin, was written around the 10th century, which predates Trent by several hundred years.

Older chant forms such as Beneventan, Old Roman, Gallican, Sarum, Mozarabic and Ambrosian were also written in Latin.
 
Last edited:
Regardless whether this story is true or not, it is both sad and tragic that people in the hierarchy in the Church would, and indeed have tried to, suppress, or attempt to limit, the EF. The EF is a priceless treasure and a special gift the Church has given to herself. The EF has been in the Church for over 1,000 years. There are very few things in this world that are so loved and revered for that long—and continue to be so into the future. Most declared saints in the Church experienced it, and benefited from it.

If one does not like the EF, fine then attend the OF. If the EF is as horrible and reprehensible as many have claimed, then in time the EF would disappear/fail on its own deceits. In the meantime, please just leave the EF and those who love it alone…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top