Hostility towards Latin

[JReducation]

I’ve been following this thread since its creation and I’m wondering if the word “hostility” is not being over used. I know people who don’t want their mass in Latin or their prayers in Latin. I would not define them as hostile.

I help out at a parish where the Life Teen kids asked if they could learn the parts of the mass in Latin. They didn’t ask for the EF, just the part of the OF in Latin. The pastor said that they could certainly have them and he worked out a plan wtih them so that they could actually sing certain parts of the mass in Latin. They worked at it slowly. First the Sanctus, later the Pater, etc, etc. You get the picture.

There were folks, most of them between the ages of 60 and 100 who did not like the prayers in Latin. They said so. They were very serious and very sincere in their reasons for not liking them. But I did not get the feel that they were hostile. They were simply upset because they felt that something was being imposed on them.

It was clarified to them that they had other choices, since the parish has seven masses on weekends. It’s not the response that they wanted, but it took the winds out of their sails.

To me, hositility is when you go out of your way to do irreparable harm to something that you don’t want or that you refuse to accept. I have honestly never seen that in seven diocese and four countries where I have been stationed. I have seen resistance, not hostility.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Why is it hostility if you don’t want your Mass said in Latin?

If you want absolutely no part of Latin in the Mass, what difference does it make whether you or we call it hostility or contempt against the official language of the Church?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

If you want absolutely no part of Latin in the Mass, what difference does it make whether you or we call it hostility or contempt against the official language of the Church?

Maybe you should go back and read my other posts…in all fairnesss.

Where did I ever say I didn’t want any part of Latin in the Mass? I think people put on blinders sometimes when they read things. How many times have I said I didn’t think it would be a bad thing to have some parts in Latin…here and there.

Just because you don’t want your whole Mass said in Latin is neither hostility or comtempt against the “official language of the Church”. Jeez! Maybe your reactions is why you get so much hostility. It seems like it’s an all or nothing with you guys. It’s either all Latin and EF or we are labeled “hostile” or “cafeteria” Catholics. That is not fair!

 

[JReducation]

If you want absolutely no part of Latin in the Mass, what difference does it make whether you or we call it hostility or contempt against the official language of the Church?

The words “hostility” and “contempt” imply culpability for doing something wrong. Not everyone that dislikes the Latin is doing something wrong. We cannot judge our brothers and sisters that way. We have to see their reasons and their feelings as valid as our own. When we tell another person that what they feel is hostility or contempt, we are applying a qualitative judgment to their feelings. Their feelings may have nothing to do with either of those words. Allow me to give you an example from St. Francis.

St. Francis forbade the use of Gregorian Chant by his friars. The Liturgy of the Hours was to be recited, not chanted. The mass was to use plain chant, whenever chant was required. When possible, the hymns were to be in the local language. It was not until hundreds years after his death that the Church granted an indult for the friars to use Gregorian chant and that had to be approved by the local superior. Would you then accuse him of having contempt or being hostile or would you try to understand his reasons?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Maybe you should go back and read my other posts…in all fairnesss.

Where did I ever say I didn’t want any part of Latin in the Mass? I think people put on blinders sometimes when they read things. How many times have I said I didn’t think it would be a bad thing to have some parts in Latin…here and there.

Just because you don’t want your whole Mass said in Latin is neither hostility or comtempt against the “official language of the Church”. Jeez! Maybe your reactions is why you get so much hostility. It seems like it’s an all or nothing with you guys. It’s either all Latin and EF or we are labeled “hostile” or “cafeteria” Catholics. That is not fair!

I always tell our folks in formation that they have to be faithful without falling into the dangers of Fundamentalism. Fidelity unites. Fundamentalism divides. We have enough divisions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Acolythus_sum]

…uhmmm…so…what could his reasons have been? It seems strange, to say the least…

 

[ProVobis]

or we are labeled “hostile” or “cafeteria” Catholics.

Wouldn’t bother me. I take very little English seriously.

 

[Ockham]

Latin is the official language of the Church…but the Church does not say that ALL Masses must be in Latin…and that’s a FACT.

When did I say ALL Masses must be in Latin?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

When did I say ALL Masses must be in Latin?

You already asked this…are you trying to pick a fight? It just seems like people think that because the official language is Latin that Masses should all be in Latin. Jeez…

 

[ProVobis]

You already asked this…are you trying to pick a fight? It just seems like people think that because the official language is Latin that Masses should all be in Latin. Jeez…

Can we meet halfway at least?

Remember, we throw out Latin altogether and we might as well throw out over 50% of the English vocabulary too.

 

[roadsend]

You already asked this…are you trying to pick a fight? It just seems like people think that because the official language is Latin that Masses should all be in Latin. Jeez…

I think it would be more accurate to say that many of us would think that because our official language is Latin that Masses in Latin should be available to all of us who want them.
The Holy Father has said pretty much the same thing.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Wouldn’t bother me. I take very little English seriously.

Same

 

[Ockham]

You already asked this…are you trying to pick a fight? It just seems like people think that because the official language is Latin that Masses should all be in Latin. Jeez…

I had to ask it a second time because you failed to answer it the first time. Actually, you didn’t answer it this time either. Can you back up your accusation that people seem to think all Masses should be in Latin? Jeez…

At least you are staying on topic with your hostility towards the official language of the Church.

If anyone is trying to pick a fight it is wise to look interior before making accusations towards others.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Can we meet halfway at least?

Remember, we throw out Latin altogether and we might as well throw out over 50% of the English vocabulary too.

I never said we should throw out Latin altogether! Why?

I think we are already at halfway…some people just don’t notice…

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I had to ask it a second time because you failed to answer it the first time. Actually, you didn’t answer it this time either. Can you back up your accusation that people seem to think all Masses should be in Latin? Jeez…

At least you are staying on topic with your hostility towards the official language of the Church.

If anyone is trying to pick a fight it is wise to look interior before making accusations towards others.

Hmmm… Why do I say that? Because I have offered suggestions for intermingling Latin in. But there are many posts that started on …well it’s just an excuse…you are lazy if you don’t learn Latin. Latin is the only way to go. My point was that the Church doesn’t say that ALL Masses don’t have to be in Latin. I never said that you said that.

I didn’t respond to you the first time because you seem to be sarcastic and hardlined…and I wasn’t in the mood for a fight with you.

I still stand by my statement that is is not necessarily hostility towards Latin if you don’t want your Mass in Latin. I don’t want it in Polish either…doesn’t mean I’m hostile to the polish language.

 

[Ockham]

I didn’t respond to you the first time because you seem to be sarcastic and hardlined…and I wasn’t in the mood for a fight with you.

Did you insinuate that I stated all Masses should be in Latin?

 

[JReducation]

…uhmmm…so…what could his reasons have been? It seems strange, to say the least…

Sorry I’m late in responding. We have trouble with Internet around here.

The reason was quite logical. Gregorian Chant at mass and in the Liturgy of the Hours was a monastic custom. The revelation that St. Francis received from Christ was to found a brotherood that was mendicant. There were several things that had to be abandoned.

In monasteries they had two kinds of monks: choir monks and lay brothers. The choir monks chanted their mass and the LOTH. The Friars were not to have two kinds of brothers. The choir was never incoroporated into the tradition. There were never priests and brothers. Every friar is a brother because that’s what he promises to be until death, whether he is ordained or not.

The monastic life made a distinction between priests and lay brothers. The Friars were to avoid all forms of distinctions between what would be called the ordained brothers and the non-ordained brothers. The rule is so strict on this that even when there are several ordained men in a house, only one can celebrate mass. The other ordained are to attend mass along with the rest of the community. Unless there is a legitimate reason for a brother-priest to celebrate mass, he may not do so. There are many legitimate reasons under which this can be done. To be legitimate, the reason has to be legal at two levels: canonical and according to the constitutions.

In the Franciscan family, the term lay is a canonical term that means those who are not clerics, not the same as the lay faithful. The family was founded as canonically, lay, meaning that it is not an order of clerics, though brothers may be clerics they have no rank resulting from their clerical state. Their clerical state is sacramental and their ministry is to administer the sacraments as servants to their brothers and to those whom the Church calls them to serve, but always as brothers. Therefore, the monastic tradition of the choir monks is in conflict with this mission and vision. Choir monks are clergy and they distinguish themselves from their confreres in the manner that they worship. At the time, I don’t know today, only the choir monks chanted. Which meant that only priests chanted. If this had been included in the order, then there would have been a distinction between the ordained and the non-ordained.

In many monastic communities, the ability to chant, is part of the criteria of admission to the order as a choir monk. Francis’ vision that Christ showed him was that his brotherhood was to be open to men of all walks of life and the criteria for admission was: 1) that they be Catholic, 2) that they be obedient to him (Francis), 3) that they be penitent, 4) that they be poor, 5) that they be contemplatives, and 5) that they possess a spirit of brotherhood.

For this reason, the Gregorian Chant was not allowed as were other monastic practices such as communion rails in the chapel, kneelers and any other features that set the priest apart from the brotherhood.

Because the brotherhood was mendicant, it did not own churches. Often, the celebration of the mass and the Liturgy of the Hours took place in random places including the outdoors. Francis taught the friars to improvise with the music. They sang hymns that were familiar to them, many of which he wrote himself in either Italian or French. Only those parts of the mass that had to be sung, by law, were chanted in a form that we call Plain Chant, which is much more monotone (in the good sense) than Gregorian Chant.

Obedience, required that he organize his community as it was revealed. Pope Innocent III approved the rule in 1209 and Pope Honorius confirmed that revelatioin to be true and it has been upheld to this day by every pope since 1223.

Pope John Paul II clarified this again in 1995 at the General Chapter.

In looking at the historical development of consecrated life in the Church, a significant fact is clear: the members of the first religious communities were called “brothers” without distinction, and the great majority of them did not receive priestly ordination because they did not have a vocation to the ministry. A priest could join these communities but could not claim privileges because of Holy Orders. The ideal of a consecrated life without the priesthood lives on in St. Francis of Assisi.

Francis of Assisi restored the religious life to its ancient form, a consecrated life without the priesthood, but one that priests could join and disappear by blending among those who are not priests. To this day, anything that distinguishes the ordained from the non ordained is to be reduced to what is absolutely necessary for the celebration of the sacraments to preserve the ideal of consecrated life as lived by St. Francis.

As you can see, there is nothing here that one can call hostility or contempt. The abandonment of Gregorian Chant is aboiut living the spiritual life in according to the mind of Francis and obedience to him.

We must be slow to label a person’s objections or resistance to something, Latin or other, as hostile or contempt without knowing the heart and soul of the person. Otherwise, we run the risk of missing some very important points that have validity and that enrich the person’s spiritual life. We must always listen to the reasons.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

We must be slow to label a person’s objections or resistance to something, Latin or other, as hostile or contempt without knowing the heart and soul of the person.

This would be true if there were only one person responsible for the suppression of Latin in the Liturgy, Divine Office, rosary, etc. This was not the case. This was a trend which started in high schools and then carried over into seminaries and universities in favor of other languages and other liberal art subjects in the 60’s and has carried forth to this day. Catholics just simply followed this and other trends. The anti-Latin attitude (or anti-math or anti-religion, for that matter) is learned and peer or parental pressure or encouragement, I suppose, has a lot to do with it. It seems as if our whole education system has deteriorated to the point where even English grammar has been deemphasized. Anything to pass them out of school, forget the flying colors.

On the other hand, you have to admire the person who refuses to follow the crowd and actually picks up a Bible or a Church document or physics book on his own and studies it. It doesn’t make him or her a saint but it does show that our civilization hasn’t been completely put out to pasture.

 

[JReducation]

This would be true if there were only one person responsible for the suppression of Latin in the Liturgy, Divine Office, rosary, etc. This was not the case. This was a trend which started in high schools and then carried over into seminaries and universities in favor of other languages and other liberal art subjects in the 60’s and has carried forth to this day. Catholics just simply followed this and other trends. The anti-Latin attitude (or anti-math or anti-religion, for that matter) is learned and peer or parental pressure or encouragement, I suppose, has a lot to do with it. It seems as if our whole education system has deteriorated to the point where even English grammar has been deemphasized. Anything to pass them out of school, forget the flying colors.

On the other hand, you have to admire the person who refuses to follow the crowd and actually picks up a Bible or a Church document or physics book on his own and studies it. It doesn’t make him or her a saint but it does show that our civilization hasn’t been completely put out to pasture.

I think that you’re talking about the preservation of the classic. I for one have no objection to that at all. In fact, I’m a big promoter of that which is classic, be it Latin, Gregorian Chant, higher math and etc. I was simply trying to respond to the application of words such as “contempt” and “hostility”. Not all resistence is a form of contempt or hostitility. That’s why I gave Acolythus sum the example of Francis banning Gregorian Chant from our masses and LOTH. There was no contempt or hostility at all; but for an outsider who knows nothing about this man’s mind and about the birth of the fraternal orders, this can appear as a negative. My position is that some things are not as clear as they seem. We really need to engage others in dialogue and find out why they feel strongly about some thing.

I’ll give you an example. I was once assigned to a parish as the superior. I’m not a priest. But I was assigned as the superior because of other reasons. I was the only brother in the house who was not a priest. There were three others who were brother-priests. The pastor was transferred and another brother-priest was brought in as the Parrochial Vicar, the reason being that you cannot have two men of equal rank in one house. In other words, you cannot have two bosses. Normally, the superior is the pastor as well.

There were some people who were very uspet not having a pastor. But what they were saying was that they were upset having a non-clerical brother running their parish, after three-years of having a cleric. On the surfface, it sounded like hostility toward me and toward the idea of a non-ordained brother as “the boss”.

I sat with these people and heard them out. I soon found that they were not hostile toward me at all. They were not even hostile toward the idea of a non-clerical brother being the superior. They were confused as to why they had to call the priests Brother and call me Father. They thought their parish had somehow been demoted, because it no longer had a canonical pastor. What appeared as hostility was really anxiety. We eventually made it clear that the Parrochial Vicar was still running the parish and that the role of the Father Superior was to govern the Vicar and the other brothers, not the parish. People feel anxiety and resentment about changes that they do not understand and are never explained to them. However, anxiety is not always hostility. Though, I have seen become express it inappropriately.

The point is that just as some people feel anxiety about losing Latin others feel anxiety about having it reintroduced. Neither side is necessarily hostile, even when they use the wrong language to communicate. Both sides are being very human and it takes a very patient mind to find out what the fears are and to allay them. Instead of arguing the merits or demerits of Latin, we may want to try to discuss the feelings behind the arguments and put these fears to rest.

I’m now the superior of my community and I require that all of our student-friars study Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Spanish. The candidates who come to inquire are frightened when they hear this. Once we explain the benefits to them and once we hear their anxiety, there is no longer a conflict or discomfort. People plow along as best they can and really try hard to learn as much as they can. Some become quite fluent and others never become fluent. They just don’t have a gift for languages. Those that never become fluent muddle along decoding, not really doing any kind of encoding and that’s OK. We must find peaceful resolutions to human situations. Life presents enough conflicts. We have no need to create more.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Acolythus_sum]

@JReducation: Plainchant is actually the prototype of Gregorian chant, what was used in St. Gregory’s day. Polyphony is a later addition…the addition of other voices to form polyphony (through various successive adjustments) was first done at Notre Dame in the 12th century by a man named Leonin.

I can see how the elimination of chant would make sense for St. Francis. However, I must disagree with the statement that “[St.] Francis of Assisi restored the religious life to its ancient form”. While this may be true for the makeup of the order, the development from Anchorite to Semi-Eremitic to Cenobite would, seemingly, by necessity include some of these innovations and separations between the choir and lay monk. Also, the mendicant friar, from what I have seen, was a new innovation which was attributed to him [St. Francis].