Is Latin superior than other languages?

[InquisitorMax]

. Most monasteries and friaries either had a rite of their own or had the Roman Rite in a much simpler form. Many had CITH, no kneelers, no Gregorian chant, unless you were a monastic order, and other things that we see in the Ordinary Form. Many of these older orders never adopted the Tridentine Mass. They kept doing what they had always done.

So, because monasteries and friaries didn’t have these things, that was carte blanche to take them away from almost every other church in Roman Catholic Christendom? And Nota Bene, don’t religious orders now say the O.F. almost exclusively?

What has happened is an extraordinary kind of deprivation, touted as ‘noble simplicity’.

 

[Cristiano]

I didn’t call you a liar. However you are misrepresenting the Ordinary Form. The abuses you mentioned (for those things that actually are abuses) are not as widespread as you think. I have talked to several friends of mine (which represent dioceses all across the country) and they haven’t seen them either. It is time for you to admit that this is an isolated problem , and not an issue with the OF in itself.

Just because a priest sits during the distribution of communion, that does not mean that is is an abuse. More then once I have seen a priest sitting during the distribution but I know that in that case is not an abuse; however, a casual observer or an overzealous visitor would be up in arms ready to write to the Bishop.

 

[InquisitorMax]

Really? And what then if you failed the quiz; no more Mass for You???

My mom and dad grew up with the Latin Mass. They NEVER mentioned being quizzed by the priest or bishop.

Also, what did people do in the centuries before your penny Cathecism. You know, in those days when most people were illiterate?

Your first remark is sarcastic, so I’ll ignore it.

Because your mother and father never mentioned something to you, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I distinctly recall that we, as children, were told to learn the Cathechism as we might be quizzed by the priest or bishop.

I guess people in the distant past learned as best they could. The difference, then, is that any kind of education was considered precious. [sarcasm]Not like now, it seems, when learning a bit of Latin is Simply Too Much For Poor People.[/sarcasm]

 

[StTommyMore]

Just because a priest sits during the distribution of communion, that does not mean that is is an abuse. More then once I have seen a priest sitting during the distribution but I know that in that case is not an abuse; however, a casual observer or an overzealous visitor would be up in arms ready to write to the Bishop.

I know this. My own priest sat down twice at masses I have been two. The first is because he twisted his knee the day before and could barely stand during consecration. The other is because an elderly woman had an episode and he had to administer Anointing of the Sick while communion was being distributed to the rest of the congregation.

 

[InquisitorMax]

So you are saying that other people history and feelings do not concern you but then we should be concerned with your history and what you want. Do I understand correctly?

No, I regret that you do not.

 

[StTommyMore]

So, because monasteries and friaries didn’t have these things, that was carte blanche to take them away from almost every other church in Roman Catholic Christendom? And Nota Bene, don’t religious orders now say the O.F. almost exclusively?

What has happened is an extraordinary kind of deprivation, touted as ‘noble simplicity’.

It would really be nice if you would desist with the angry pontificating and derision of all who do not share your views.

 

[InquisitorMax]

Rote memorization has limited value without understanding what it means. Example: I was in a production of Twelfth Night by Shakespeare. We all had lines to memorize, but the show would not have been a success without our dramaturge exolaing to us what our lines meant. In fact we had exercises where we had to paraphrase our lines into our own words, while preserving meaning. The same is true with Catechesis, focus on meaning and true understanding, rather than rote memorization. That approach led to the craziness of the '70s. After all, the clergy and liturgists back then all learned by memorizing their Baltimore Catechism.

I think the 300(?) small sections of the Cathecism are an easier proposition. It’s hardly Shakespearean English.

**

 

[StTommyMore]

I think the 300(?) small sections of the Cathecism are an easier proposition. It’s hardly Shakespearean English.

**

You completely missed the point. If you simply memorize, without understanding what the answer means, you have learned nothing. For example:

Q. How many Persons are there in God?
A. In God there are three Divine Persons, really distinct, and equal in all things-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

You cannot approach understanding this deceptively simple answer without having an understanding of the theology of persons. Most people today, even when affirming the Trinity, cannot explain what this means to be three persons in a single God.

 

[InquisitorMax]

If you can’t remember something, or were never taught it, then whether you can understand it or not, is moot.

 

[Timothysis]

Because your mother and father never mentioned something to you, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Your posts have become so obnoxious that it is impossible to have a conversation with you. You may refute my personal experiences but Brother JR is far more knowledgeable about the history and ways of the Church than you and I ever will be. I can forgive your obnoxious tone with me but not with him.

 

[StTommyMore]

If you can’t remember something, or were never taught it, then whether you can understand it or not, is moot.

So are you saying it is better to recite a memorized articulation than to show that you understand what is being conveyed, even if it cannot be recited word for word?

 

[JReducation]

The religious orders have the right to govern themselves as they want. I have the right to critique what they’re doing, on this forum. As a laymen, their internal history and personal feelings don’t concern me.

Let’s slow down here. This is not about internal government. The thread is about Latin.

You raised some questions about changes in the liturgy, which go beyond Latin.

I’m trying to help you see that one of the reasons for these changes is the fact we had many parishes run by religious orders. They had a problem with the uniformity that was expected of them. Some of these orders have their own rites and they have the right to use it even in a parish. Most of them follow the Roman Rite, but they have customs that are uniquely their own and they have a right to use them in a parish.

From the late 1800s to the 1960s, the religious orders celebrated mass the same way as the diocesan priests. This gave the fase impression to the faithful that the mass was celebrated the same way through the entire Latin Church. It was a false impression.

Today, the Church is telling the religious that they must return to their roots. To do this, they will have to bring their liturgical customs to the places they serve.

This is why I ask the question. Are people willing to tell Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Norbertines, Augustinians and others that they cannot introduce their customs into the mass at your parish and that they must celebrate the mass exactly the way that the Diocesan clergy does? For some of these communities, Latin is not part of their tradition or it may be mixed with the vernacular, such as some parts in Latin and some in the vernacular. For example, Franciscan use both during the mass. It’s either Latin and [insert language] or all vernacular. Even the Extraordinary Form they do the readings in the vernacular and the hymns in the vernacular. They are not bound to do everything in Latin, even in the EF. They can do it, but they don’t have to do it. Maybe the Transalpine Redemptorists have to everything in Latin, because it’s part of their charism.

I believe that most Catholics will agree that a parish run by a religious order should have the customs of that order. In fact, most people who belong to the few parishes in the USA run by religious orders say that they actually like the charism and its liturgy in their parish.

So . . .

Franciscans don’t build churches with rails,
Dominicans can make use of their rite instead of the Roman Rite
Capuchins don’t use Gregorian Chant
Benedictines have the tabernacle in a chapel or a side alta
and other have their customs.

These are not new to Catholicism. They have always done this. It’s just that we had a period of about 80 or 90 years when everyone celebrated mass from the Roman Missal. You could not tell the difference between mass celebrated by an Augustinian and a Franciscan.

But now, the Church is telling them that they need to return to their charism.

If the faithful and their bishop invite one of these communities to help out by taking over a parish, then these things come with the different charisms. They are no less holy today than they were when these communties were founded, nor will they take away from the faithful, IF the charisnm is properly explained.

The problem is the poor education, not the customs.

I want The Roman Catholic Rite to persist. If the current rate of change is not arrested, it’ll be unrecognizable in another 40 years.

All of the rites and customs of the ancient religious orders are very Roman Catholic. Some of them predate the Tridentine form. They have some differences in externals, no differences in the essential.

As a shortcut to a solemn, quiet Mass, which can be glorious if participants have the will make it so, I recommend to readers the Traditional Latin Mass. The Low Mass is hard to mess about with and a sung one can duplicate Heaven on Earth.

You can also have a very solemn mass in the Ordinary Form. Watch EWTN, the mass celebrated by the Holy Father. Visit some parishes. You may have had a bad experience in some places, but they are not universal. There are many and that is unfortunate. Fortunately, many is not the norm. It is not now, nor was it ever allowed. Most Sunday mass in the Ordinary Form are rather unremarkable, meaning that nothing out of the ordinary happens. The mass proceeds as directed in the GIRM. The GIRM does give you options. As long as you’re using the options that are legal, you’re OK. The GIRM and the Vatican do not expect a 100% approval rating. They expect people to accept what is allowed and to stay within the rules. That’s all. We are all uncomfortable with violations of the rules. However, I’m getting the impression that you are uncomfortable with what is allowed. You may be working up a sweat over something that you and I cannot change. We cannot change the rules.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

don’t religious orders now say the O.F. almost exclusively?

.

Absolutely not. Summorum Pontificum was not written for religious. It was written for secular priests who belong to a diocese, not even all secular priests. Observe in SP where it says that priests who are religious (under 30% of the priests in the Catholic Church and under 60% of male religiious) must have permission from the superior to celebrate the EF. The supeiro can grant that permission if the community allos him to grant it. He must obey the wishes of the communiity. The community writes and votes on constitutions. Those constitutions define what the superior can authorize and cannot.

In most constitutions the superiors are free to give this permission, with with parameters. For example, the Francisans of the Immaculate have the EF more frequently than other Franciscan obediences. However, they may not exclude the Ordinary Form. The Franciscans of the Eternal Word have it the other way around. They have the Ordinary Form every day, but they may use the Extraordinary Form on special occasions. It’s pretty much the same accross the board for all religious.

Some religious have their own rite. They don’t have to use the Roman form at all. The question of the EF and OF is a moot question for them. Their question is to use the Roman Rite or their rite. I undestand that the Carmelites gave their rite back to the Holy See. They currently use the Roman Rite in the Ordinary Form with some friars celebrating the EF on occasions. The Dominicans have their rite. They can use either that or the Roman rite. The Carthusians have their rite, but Pope Paul VI asked them to make some changes to it and they did, but it’s still very Carthusian.

Keeping us on track here. The question is about Latin. These rites and customs all have different degrees to which they use Latin. They are unapologetic for it, because it’s their tradition. When they come to your parish, they bring that with them.

The faithful have choices:

1. Welcome the tradition
2. Move to another parish
3. As the bishop not to invite these religious to take over their parish.

Option #3 may mean closing down a parish, if the bishop cannot find someone else who wants to take it.

Seriuosly, I believe that people are not afraid of the diversity within the Roman Church. They simply want the GIRM to be followed. I can certainly agree with that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Does that answer your question?

 

[ProVobis]

Even the Extraordinary Form they do the readings in the vernacular and the hymns in the vernacular. They are not bound to do everything in Latin, even in the EF.

JR, to some extent this is true. But even here they have to watch as not to violate copyrights of the vernacular writers and songwriters. My pastor has now decided to remove even the Epistle and Gospel vernacular readings in favor of handouts which have all propers listed in both Latin and English so that those without handmissals can follow the Latin chants and readings. These handouts are given with permission from one of the handmissal publishers and so noted.

As far as the OF goes, Paul VI issued Latin Jubilate Deo for every parish to use freely so copyright infringement shouldn’t be a issue in using them.

 

[InquisitorMax]

In brief:

I have seen a presiding priest sit down while laypeople distributed communion. I have heard of one other instance, from an acquaintance. I have seen the most novelties at Masses said by religious priests (Augustinian and Franciscan). I go to the TLM now or a diocesan N.O. if I can’t get to a TLM.

Is mine an unusual experience? I like to think so, but …
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/04/iron-liturgy-cagematch-showdown/

It seems to me that the great changes ushered in with the O.F. give people the idea that a few little changes here and there are no big thing. After 40 years, however, they add up.

I’m not disagreeing that religious can do what they want. I arguing why should they do these things.

To return to the discussion:

There are multiple good reasons for having Latin in mass. They outweigh the only argument for the vernacular: that the laity can understand it more easily.

 

[StTommyMore]

In brief:

I have seen a presiding priest sit down while laypeople distributed communion. I have heard of one other instance, from an acquaintance. I have seen the most novelties at Masses said by religious priests (Augustinian and Franciscan). I go to the TLM now or a diocesan N.O. if I can’t get to a TLM.

Is mine an unusual experience? I like to think so, but …
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/04/iron-liturgy-cagematch-showdown/

It seems to me that the great changes ushered in with the O.F. give people the idea that a few little changes here and there are no big thing. After 40 years, however, they add up.

I’m not disagreeing that religious can do what they want. I arguing why should they do these things.

To return to the discussion:

There are multiple good reasons for having Latin in mass. They outweigh the only argument for the vernacular: that the laity can understand it more easily.

Why do you refuse to answer questions directed to you? We ask expecting a response. Stop dodging and answer the questions.

 

[JReducation]

JR, to some extent this is true. But even here they have to watch as not to violate copyrights of the vernacular writers and songwriters. My pastor has now decided to remove even the Epistle and Gospel vernacular readings in favor of handouts which have all propers listed in both Latin and English so that those without handmissals can follow the Latin chants and readings. These handouts are given with permission from one of the handmissal publishers and so noted.

As far as the OF goes, Paul VI issued Latin Jubilate Deo for every parish to use freely so copyright infringement shouldn’t be a issue in using them.

Thank you for you usual kind response. I was not even thinking of copyright laws, since these seem to be a little different from one country to another with many overlaps.

I was just trying to point out that every religious order and every religious congregation does not celebrate the EF to the exclusion of the OF. In fact, the celebration of the EF in religious houses is very limited. That was my point in response to Inquisitor’s statement.

I’m trying to stay on the subject of Latin, so as not to get into trouble for going wayyyyy off topic. While it is true that many religious orders do use Latin, it is not true that they use it because it’s superior or because they have no choice. They use it because it’s part of their tradition and they use it in a manner consistent with their tradition.

That’s where I was going with the use of the EF. I gave the two branches of the Franciscans as an example. At last count there are four Franciscan Orders founded by St. Francis and each of them has many branches. This means that they follow the rule of the order to which they belong. But when there is a missing piece in the rule, each branch can fill-in the blanks by attaching a constitution to the rule that addresses what Francis may not have addressed. That’s how you end up with so many branches. The question may the be same, but the answer varies from one group to another. At last count those four Franciscan Orders have a sum total of about 114 branches, each with one of the four rules and its own constitutions.

Since Francis did not address the issue of Latin in his rules, it has to be addressed by the Franciscans (all of them). The answers are very diverse. The Major Superior, who is the canonical successor of St. Francis, has the moral obligation of implementing the rule and the constitution for his or her sons or daughters.

What we know from praxis is that Francis did not allow the use of Gregorian Chant. The rule makes a fleeting reference to the recitation of the office and the mass. In other documents we find that the friars did not use Gregorian Chant. We also find that Francis wrote hymns known as “Laudas” and that he wrote them in Italian. These were used in mass and LOTH. We also know that the readings were done in the local language or in Latin. Francis was more interested in the comprehension than in the Latin itself. In his time, Latin was not The Official Language of the Church. It was the common language of the Empire, but local languages were being born. Italian was one of them. In fact, he went down in history books as the first Italian Poet, because of his Canticle of the Creatures, which was really a theological treatise, written in verse to be sung, too complicated to explain here.

Given the fact that the Franciscan family has over one million members today, in more than 125 countries, has religious and secular brothers and sisters, and is 800-years old as of April 2009, it is a very good reference to demonstrate that the argument for Latin, AS IT IS BEING MADE ON THESE THREADS, is inaccurate. By association, the same goes for other arguments about the tabernacle, CITH, COTT, communion rails, statues in Church, the position of the altar, etc.

When we consider that one family alone has over one million men and women during a time when the Church is going through a shortage of vocations, its size and history has to be taken seriously when we make absolute statements. One million, today alone, not counting the previous 800-years, is not a small number to dismiss. If you take all of those generations, you have enough people to start a country or another church.

 

[JReducation]

The Franciscan family is not alone in its customs and practices that are different from what people want to see. There are other very large families that have their own customs or even their own rites.

It was exactly because of the dismissive attitude that some bishops and many lay people had that these customs and rites were relegated to a dusty shelf for almost 90 years from the late 1800s to the early 1970s.

Believe it or not, when Vatican II told these men to go back to their roots, they had never experienced their roots. Any religious living in the 1970s had only read about the roots of his or her religious family, but had not lived them. The religious families had made so many concessions to bishops and laity that at some point, they all looked alike. As one of my General Ministers once told us in a General Chapter, “I look out there and I don’t see religious brothers. I see Diocesan priests dressed in habits.” He asked the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, for permission to hold a special general chapter to rewrite the constitutions according to the mind of the 13th century. That’s when all hell broke loose.

Friars were told that the ordained that they were not entitled to special treatment, because they are ordained. They were to live and work as religious brothers just as the non-ordained, because Francis was a religious brother and did not start an order for priests. They could not dictate the the community how to celebrate the mass or how to pray the LOTH, but the mass and the LOTH would be celebrated according to the mind of St. Francis as approved by the Church. They could no longer over-flood the order with priests, but they had to go back to recruiting for the religious life and the priesthood is to be a vocation within a vocation for those who the superior approves. Finally, anyone who was assigned to a parish had to live, work and pray as a brother, not as a diocesan priest. Other Franciscan General Ministers called for the same return to the roots.

The interesting part is that the bishops were not opposed. They agreed to allow Franciscans to run their dioceses and many of their ministries, including parishes. There are Franciscans who are bishops, pastors, theologians, educators, gardeners, doctors, and more. The bring to their parish their flavor of Catholic life. Very few people complain about it. In fact, most people in Franciscan run parishes and institutions love the spirit and the liturgy, even with its slight differences from the Roman Missal. To make it all very legal, a Roman-Franciscan Missal was issued to replace the old Seraphic Missal. This actually allows the ordained friars to celebrate mass using the Roman Rite while including Franciscan traditions.

As I said, this is just one huge religious family. But there are other religious families just as large and just as Catholic who also have their differences. Dominicans and Carthusians have their own rite. The Carmelites had their own rite, but they surrendered it to the Holy See. I don’t know if they want to ask for it again. I’m not a Carmelite. I do know that they use the Roman Rite, but they have some customs that are very Carmelite.

The way that some people seem to want this to go down is to have the exact same mass, language and externals across the board. That’s not going to happen. Either we let the religious go back to their roots or we don’t. We either recognize that we may not know as much as we think we knew about the Roman Rite or we become frustrated because things don’t go our way.

In closing this very long post, I would say that we must learn to be gentle with ourselves. This kind of rehashing this over and over again can distract us from our life of prayer. It can make us feel less charitable toward others. It can trigger spiritual pride in us. Worse of all, it can lead us to doubt our Church. Neither Christ nor his Church wants this for us. Maybe that’s why St. Romuald told his monks that they needed to leave their thoughts, ideas, questions and worries at the door before entering. I think he understood that God whispers in the silence of the soul. If you have too much debating and rehashing things that you cannot change or that the Church does not want you to change, you will be a nosy gong. This can easily happen when we stand at the extremes on any question. God loves us. He wants us to be people of faith. He also wants us to do things right. Doing things right begins with our own soul. We must search for inner silence. St. Ignatius of Loyola was a master at this. He could take on the whole Church and every heretic and not think about it more than once. In one of his letters he tells the Jesuits that if he’s wrong, he will gladly step down, because he prefers to have inner silence than to be right. In other words, he was not interested in debates. I guess that’s why Franciscans love him. He’s so Franciscan in his mindset.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Timothysis]

Thank you Brother JR for all the knowledge that you share with us.

A priest once said to me that “the Church is only as small as we try to make it.” Luckily for your post, we see that the Church is much bigger than any of us!

 

[InquisitorMax]

So are you saying it is better to recite a memorized articulation than to show that you understand what is being conveyed, even if it cannot be recited word for word?

So are you deliberately exaggerating my position, so as to make my claims seem outrageous*, or would you like to debate what I actually said?

*A tactic I’ve noticed a fair bit on this forum]

The idea that memorization excludes understanding is false. When I was in school, I learned that the simplest way to learn something was to reduce it to its bare essentials and memorise it. This was a good way to pass exams.

Or you could just read and discuss it and write about it and read it over and over and come exam time, well …

Now, does the Catholic church have a document that reduces the Faith to its essentials?

---