Is Latin superior than other languages?

[malphono]

Really? I could easily name you some parishes which would otherwise been closed had not the Latin Mass been restored.

Not to mention that a 30-minute drive is a hardship for many people. So, too, for people who are dependent on public transportation. Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone has a car, nor do they necessarily have access to someone who can drive them.

Locally here, for example, there is precisely one EF in the entire borough, and it’s not easily accessible. It’s about 2 miles away, (a bit far for me to walk), and can take an hour one-way by public transit (especially on a Sunday with reduced schedules), and involves at least one transfer (subway-to-bus or bus-to-bus). Someone living at the other end of the borough could well face 2-3 hours each way, and can involve multiple transfers. By car it would be 15 minutes max, but then the problem of where to park.

 

[otjm]

Oh sure, just give them what they’re used to and the matter will resolve itself.

Why is it when I say something you have to play cute with it and misquote it? I didn’t say anything at all about giving anyone “what they are used to”, and you know it.

I said that I wish the Latin Mass were available to everyone everywhere, and if it were, then those who wanted it and those who didn’t would quickly sort itself out. That has nothing to do with “giving them what they are used to” and everything to do with making something available to people which they are not used to.

It is a simple suggestion - perhaps so simple that it escapes you. But having the Latin Mass available to everyone would stop the growth of the vineyards on both sides of the issue - the whine from the Traditionalists who say that everyone would love it if they could just go to it, and the whine from the Liberals who say no one wants it and why are we wasting time and resources on what no one wants.

 

[otjm]

This may be the nub of it.

The proposal is that the many benefits of Latin do not outweigh the wish for (some of) the congregation to understand the texts of the mass.

This, despite the vernacular encouraging local invention.

You may be positing that the vernacular “encouraged local invention”, but other than making a statement that the two occurred at the same time and therefore one must have caused the other, you have not made your case.

The excesses and the violations we have seen over the last 40 years or so of the rubrics are particular to Western Europe and North America primarily.

However, we while we find the use of the vernacular in areas such as Viet Nam, Sri Lanka, India, South Korea, Various areas of Africa and South and Cental America, we don’t see the intensity of violations of the rubrics. If the violations of the rubrics were rooted in the use of the vernacular, then they should be universally experienced.

However, they are not.

Your hypothesis leaks a tad.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So how do you explain why Catholics were leaving in droves when they started removing the solemnity of the Latin from the Mass in the 60’s? I believe many had already started leaving when they heard about possible forthcoming changes.

As has been pointed out in these fora ad infinitum, correlation does not prove causation. There is no demonstrable proof that the switch to the vernacular in ANY way caused any mass dissertion from the Church. Indeed, if it did, it would indicate that there had been as poor a catechesis going on in the immediately pre-conciliar Church as we had seen in the post-Conciliar Church, if droves of the “faithful” abandoned their faith over a discipline, failing to distinguish between that and eternal, immutable truth. And I’ve never met, in person, any Catholics who did not like the change to the vernacular.

 

[laszlo]

That’s not exactly accurate. True, the principal Mass in a parish was normally either Solemn or Sung, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that same was limited to one time per week.

Between 1949 and 1956 (when I went to the Seminary) I attended alternately two churches. One had 20 masses each day, the other 14. In each was one Solemn Mass (except teh funeral Masses) each week. Not for necessity, not by force, but by the free choice of those involved. As a matter of fact the Solemn Masses had the lower attendance than the majority of the Low Masses (there was no Mass at the side altar during the solemn Mass) The majority of the people did not required the solemnity. You must understand that the attendance was 60+% of the population, not the 0.5% as now for the Traditional Masses.

It wasn’t “optional” before 1965, but starting then, and certainly with the Novus Ordo, that’s technically true. In current practice, however, it most definitely is not. The Novus Ordo in its “reform of the reform” mode (in Latin, ad orientem, etc) is at least as rare as the EF.

Optional means that pastor has freedom to chose.

The OF what I attend is vernacular, toward the Tabernacle, with Gregorian chant. Imho this is the reform of the reform, and this masses attract more people that the Latin Traditional Mass in the same church by the same priests.

The choice of Vernacular does not attracts the traditionalists, but more attractive to the on that area about 40% of the population. The difference between the reverent English and also reverent TLM is so small that I believe that the difference in the attendance is attributable to the convenience of the time ( 8.00 and 9:30 AM vs 12:15PM) instead to the quality of the rites; but still the TLM has no special power over the reverent English Mass.

There is just one Jesus Christ, and One Mass of all Ages, independently from the rite or form.

 

[otjm]

So how do you explain why Catholics were leaving in droves when they started removing the solemnity of the Latin from the Mass in the 60’s? I believe many had already started leaving when they heard about possible forthcoming changes.

First off, let’s get some definitions here.

What do you mean by “droves”? Large numbers of people? Large percentages?

If you mean large numbers, then yes, it might be possible to say that large numbers of people left the Church in the 1960’s.

If, however, you mean a large percentage of people left in the 1960’s, then you are incorrect.

The actual loss of people, on a percentage basis, did not start in the 1960’s; it actually started noticeably during the end of Pius 12th’s reign, and did not accelerate from there, but continued a gradual decline for about the next 40 years. There was never any “Catholics leaving in droves” during the 1960’s as the Mass was changed (or for that matter, in the 1970’s) . They started leaving in the 1950’s and continued to leave in a slow, downward trickle. We are not talking about losing 5% per year; more like 1% per year (with some interesting ticks upward at times).

Furthermore, your tying the “droves of Catholics leaving” to the changes in the Mass don’t explain why, at about the same time, the main-line Protestant Churches, which didn’t have the Mass, saw the same decline in attendance during the same period.

You are trotting out the same post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument made by those who don’t like the changes in the Mass, with nothing more than urban legend to support your comments.

And interestingly, those same Catholics Who attended Mass prior to the changes and know both forms are attending in about a 2 to 1 to about a 2.5 to one ratio tot hose who never knew the older form. Same issue: why are the older people attending in far greater percentages than the young? I thought they all left in droves (Not!).

As usual, situations with multiple causes are assigned to one cause simply because it supports one’s pet peeve.

 

[otjm]

As has been pointed out in these fora ad infinitum, correlation does not prove causation. There is no demonstrable proof that the switch to the vernacular in ANY way caused any mass dissertion from the Church. Indeed, if it did, it would indicate that there had been as poor a catechesis going on in the immediately pre-conciliar Church as we had seen in the post-Conciliar Church, if droves of the “faithful” abandoned their faith over a discipline, failing to distinguish between that and eternal, immutable truth. And I’ve never met, in person, any Catholics who did not like the change to the vernacular.

You are right on. Not only is there no demonstrable proof, there was factually no demonstrable desertion. It was a trickle, starting in the late 50’s from about 70% attendance, at about 1% per year, with occasional upticks, down to the 25% to 30% range.

Urban legends have a life of their own, approaching eternal life.

 

[ProVobis]

That the laity must participate outwardly more or that they couldn’t understand a Latin mass are wrong propositions. The first is a mistake about what lay participation means, and its limits, and the second is a slur on the intelligence of the average Roman Catholic.

Good way of putting it.

 

[ProVobis]

By car it would be 15 minutes max, but then the problem of where to park.

Good point. Now you have to pay for inner-city parking in Chicago even on Sundays.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, St Thomas More clearly stated that he didn’t like the Bible in a language that the common people could understand for then every Tom, Dick and Harry would be giving their interpretation of scripture . . .

Alex

Seeing that there are well over 20,000 Christian denominations today, I would say STM was dead-on right.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So how do you explain why Catholics were leaving in droves when they started removing the solemnity of the Latin from the Mass in the 60’s? I believe many had already started leaving when they heard about possible forthcoming changes.

I find many parishes still full today. I find that many who never heard a single word of Latin in Mass still leave because they don’t agree with Church teaching, or were poorly catechized and have been captivated by the more charismatic and engaging Evangelical preacher.

In fact, most of the people whom I still find in Church today were the ones who were alive when the Mass was in Latin prior to the 60s. Most who’ve left aren’t the ones who went to a Latin Mass. Surely they didn’t leave because the Latin was taken away, because they never had it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because Catholics have no idea about what that Mass is. The instruction was going out of the schools when I was a teenager and it’s well gone now.
Because Mass is a social as much as a religious obligation for a lot of Catholics; it’s a brave priest who changes a mass time. Never mind uprooting yourself and going to a Mass 30 minutes away with a different ‘crowd’.
Because it requires a bit of effort to get into.
Because religion is not now seen as an urgent matter by many Catholics.

Also: Who is promoting this Mass and how are they doing it? It’s easy enough to promote a specialist Mass for animals or teenagers, in the new rite. That has novelty value. Promoting the old rite with its depersonalising of participants and the quietness of it is trickier.

I guess the people and priests involved will just have to see to their own sanctification and then others seeking sanctification will be drawn to them. I’m beginning to think that’s how it works.

I hate to call you out here, but you’re already making one excuse after another. Besides, I have spoken to a few people about it and they know about the Latin Mass and have been to one, and still prefer a Mass in their own language. Fact is most people want their Liturgy in a language they can understand. Lets be totally honest here, people would want to go to a Mass that they can understand. Even people like myself who have spent a considerable amount of time learning about the faith still prefer that. Do you think I would be going to a Byzantine Rite parish today if it weren’t in English? The Chaldean Liturgy I’ve been to was beautiful as well, but its in Aramaic. I don’t think I’d want to frequent that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Really? I could easily name you some parishes which would otherwise been closed had not the Latin Mass been restored.

The parish the FSSP occupied was also closing down. But some parishes in its immediate vicinity are growing rapidly. The reason was it was an ethnic German parish before the FSSP moved in. Add that one to your list. But it still doesn’t mean the other surrounding parishes were dying out.

 

[ProVobis]

So my take on it? What little I understand of it, Latin is a beautiful language, and much English derives from Latin as well as the Germanic languages of the barbarians. But it is a really tough language to master.

But no one has to. What percentage of English-speakers master English? And with declining interest in grammar and politicians butchering it, what are the odds there will be an increase (percentagewise) of masters in English? Nowadays you have to be somewhat proficient in Latin grammar to understand English grammar.

I’d say we need perhaps two years to follow the scripture and perhaps three years to follow the common Latin prayers. Probably a little more to be able to get the gist of the canon law and other Church documents. Three to four years should at least be enough to see that the translations aren’t always exact and sometimes debatable. Well worth the effort in my book.

 

[InquisitorMax]

I hate to call you out here, but you’re already making one excuse after another. Besides, I have spoken to a few people about it and they know about the Latin Mass and have been to one, and still prefer a Mass in their own language. Fact is most people want their Liturgy in a language they can understand. Lets be totally honest here, people would want to go to a Mass that they can understand.

Sure, those are excuses. And good ones.

Here’s another one: How does a mass become popular from a standing start, if it’s not part of a church’s normal schedule e.g. 10am on Sunday morning vs. 6.30pm on a Sunday evening? And has to move about, like an orphan child?

So, traditionalists have a number of problems:

People don’t know this Mass;
It’s not being taught in schools;
In parishes where it exists, it can be marginalised.

And yet, in the few years since the Motu Proprio and with very little hierarchial enthusiasm and indeed some opposition, it seems to be growing.

I wonder what would happen if a major Catholic newspaper simply printed a side-by-side translation of the new, newer and old rites?

 

[ProVobis]

Fact is most people want their Liturgy in a language they can understand.

This is an old argument of the Reformers.

Cardinal Arinze paints the true picture here.

"It is a remarkable phenomenon that many religions of the world, or major branches of them, hold on to a language as dear to them. We cannot think of the Jewish religion without Hebrew. Islam holds Arabic as sacred to the Qur’an. Classical Hinduism considers Sanskrit its official language. Buddhism has its sacred texts in Pali.

It would be superficial to dismiss this tendency as esoteric, or strange, or outmoded, old or medieval. That would be to ignore a fine element of human psychology. In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth."

 

[ProVobis]

I wonder what would happen if a major Catholic newspaper simply printed a side-by-side translation of the new, newer and old rites?

IM, much as I agree with you, I’d be careful of this. It has recently caught my attention that translations, whether by ICEL or anyone else, are copyrightable. Therefore the material shouldn’t be used without author (or translators) permissions, especially in publications or instances where they may collect money. But I don’t know if it’s the best way to compare the originals as they are also highly subjective.

 

[ProVobis]

Fr. Z posts and comments on an article from the UK Spectator today.

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/04/parents-of-children-love-them-and-let-them-learn-latin/

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is an old argument of the Reformers.

Cardinal Arinze paints the true picture here.

Cardinal Arinze has also publicly said that the vernacular Mass would not be going away (he laughed at the assertion).

 

[otjm]

Sure, those are excuses. And good ones.

Here’s another one: How does a mass become popular from a standing start, if it’s not part of a church’s normal schedule e.g. 10am on Sunday morning vs. 6.30pm on a Sunday evening? And has to move about, like an orphan child?

So, traditionalists have a number of problems:

People don’t know this Mass;
It’s not being taught in schools;
In parishes where it exists, it can be marginalised.

And yet, in the few years since the Motu Proprio and with very little hierarchial enthusiasm and indeed some opposition, it seems to be growing.

I wonder what would happen if a major Catholic newspaper simply printed a side-by-side translation of the new, newer and old rites?

Chicago is a diocese (archdiocese) which has worked to implement the EF. Last time I checked, there were 12 parishes offering it - not exactly something hidden under a basket.

And that seems like a lot. Until one realizes there are about 360 parishes in the archdiocese.

So yes, the EF is growing. By last count, participation out of all Masses said was about 3% worldwide where statistics are available.

Undoubtedly there are a number of reasons it has not spread further; some of it recalcitrant bishops, some of due to few priests trained; some of it to people having no clue about it. It might be worthy to note that even B16 presumed it would not be widespread - read his accompanying letter. Great demand simply has not materialized. Over time it will grow; but rapidly? Most likely not.